The NSA-(Just because we REALLY should discuss this)

[napfirst]

I'll keep that in mind when I hear John Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel, and what's-his-name's jokes repeated here.

It doesn't work that way Fired, you know liberals are always the smartest people in the room...if you listen to them, they'll tell you how smart they are, how many degrees they have or tell us about their peer reviews...so conservatives have to be told what to think and when to think it by people like Rush, Hannity and Levin..but it's not the same when they quote these clowns...

[RangerM]

I don't listen to Rush that often, but if he's said "Mooshelle", I would have thought I'd heard it. I've heard him say "Michelle, my bell" (like the Beatles' song).

[the_spaniard]

I have heard many conservatives quote Rush here verbatim, and that is pretty sad because they are being told what to think by an entertainer (I often compare Rush to Bono from U2) and they actually do it. I used to watch Rush on occasion for purely entertainment value after the number one clown Beck got his walking papers. I miss his crying most of all. Someone point me to a ridiculous blubbering liberal idiot like that on CNN/MSNBC and I'll be glad to watch for the entertainment value.

 

If liberals are quoting Kimmel or Stewart, that is pretty sad, too. I don't watch them, and I'm not a liberal. So I wouldn't know.

 

At the end of the day you should question where the information is coming from, look for motives and agendas, and bias. Critical thinking 101. When you take Fox News or CNN/MSNBC as unbiased news, your arguments don't hold water. When one of these talking heads says something ridiculous and controversial they do it for ratings..period. While they "have the most viewers" they are masters of misinformation, and have been proven as such time and time again. It costs them nothing to lie...in truth they get paid for it.

 

When it comes to science I get my information from those in the trenches, with a horse in the race. Publishing scientists just can't lie easily. Their work is too easily scrutinized, funding for it is a matter of public record, and they have to go through hell to even get it published. These people just can't say anything - their professional reputation in their field is completely dependent on what they say and how they back it up. The data usually does not lie, it's the interpretation of it that is often misleading. It's also ridiculously easy to discredit talking heads (see David Rose from the Daily Mail on climate science) because they have no professional incentive to be truthful.

 

If people are lazy enough to believe that Rush, Hannity, Levin, Moore, Stewart, or Kimmel represent an unbiased view then so be it. They certainly have the freedom to be misinformed. Hell here in America, that isn't a freedom, it's a way of life. In our country reading has declined so significantly... it's no wonder people turn to television and online media to get their views and opinions...all the while proclaiming how "free" they really are. Funny, but tragic.

 

It's not about trying to look smart. It is about getting your information from as neutral a source as possible and then formulating an educated view of your own.

Edited February 14, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

I don't listen to Rush that often, but if he's said "Mooshelle", I would have thought I'd heard it. I've heard him say "Michelle, my bell" (like the Beatles' song).

 

One of many examples straight from the transcripts of his own show, on his own site. It was one of the first cues to me here that some conservatives here were parroting him word for word.

[FiredMotorCompany]

I have heard many conservatives quote Rush here verbatim, and that is pretty sad because they are being told what to think by an entertainer (I often compare Rush to Bono from U2) and they actually do it. I used to watch Rush on occasion for purely entertainment value after the number one clown Beck got his walking papers. I miss his crying most of all. Someone point me to a ridiculous bluebbering liberal idiot like that on CNN/MSNBC and I'll be glad to watch for the entertainment value.

 

If liberals are quoting Kimmel or Stewart, that is pretty sad, too. I don't watch them, and I'm not a liberal. So I wouldn't know.

 

At the end of the day you should question where the information is coming from, look for motives and agendas, and bias. Critical thinking 101. When you take Fox News or CNN/MSNBC as unbiased news, your arguments don't hold water. When one of these talking heads says something ridiculous and controversial they do it for ratings..period. While they "have the most viewers" they are masters of misinformation, and have been proven as such time and time again. It costs them nothing to lie...in truth they get paid for it.

 

When it comes to science I get my information from those in the trenches, with a horse in the race. Publishing scientists just can't lie easily. Their work is too easily scrutinized, funding for it is a matter of public record, and they have to go through hell to even get it published. These people just can't say anything - their professional reputation in their field is completely dependent on what they say and how they back it up. The data usually does not lie, it's the interpretation of it that is often misleading. It's also ridiculously easy to discredit talking heads (see David Rose from the Daily Mail on climate science) because they have no professional incentive to be truthful.

 

If people are lazy enough to believe that Rush, Hannity, Levin, Moore, Stewart, or Kimmel represent an unbiased view then so be it. They certainly have the freedom to be misinformed. Hell here in America, that isn't a freedom, it's a way of life. In our country reading has declined so significantly... it's no wonder people turn to television and online media to get their views and opinions...all the while proclaiming how "free" they really are. Funny, but tragic.

 

It's not about trying to look smart. It is about getting your information from as neutral a source as possible and then formulating an educated view of your own.

Mooshelle is supposed to be "information"?

 

It is/was a joke made at the expense of a public figure, no different than the caricatures of Bush having monkey ears, Sarah Palin watching the Olympics from her back yard.......

 

And if I hear a good joke or funny line, I might repeat it, especially as long as the left feels it's ok to do so to Bush, et al. when they had the chance.

Just as the other side does. I know the difference in parody and propaganda, humor and fact, opinion and information.

[cal50]

 

When it comes to science I get my information from those in the trenches, with a horse in the race. Publishing scientists just can't lie easily. Their work is too easily scrutinized, funding for it is a matter of public record, and they have to go through hell to even get it published. These people just can't say anything - their professional reputation in their field is completely dependent on what they say and how they back it up.

 

 

Meh, fraud is alive & well AND gets published.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/01/09/a-barrage-of-legal-threats-shuts-down-whistleblower-site-science-fraud/

[the_spaniard]

 

 

Meh, fraud is alive & well AND gets published.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/01/09/a-barrage-of-legal-threats-shuts-down-whistleblower-site-science-fraud/

 

Yes it does happen, but not often. That doesn't remotely compare to the sheer amount of misinformation being pumped out by our "news" outlets.

[the_spaniard]

Mooshelle is supposed to be "information"?

 

It is/was a joke made at the expense of a public figure, no different than the caricatures of Bush having monkey ears, Sarah Palin watching the Olympics from her back yard.......

 

And if I hear a good joke or funny line, I might repeat it, especially as long as the left feels it's ok to do so to Bush, et al. when they had the chance.

Just as the other side does. I know the difference in parody and propaganda, humor and fact, opinion and information.

 

That's just one example. So you agree that Fox (just like MSNBC) pumps out massive amounts of rhetoric and propaganda on a regular basis then?

[Langston Hughes]

I don't listen to Rush that often, but if he's said "Mooshelle", I would have thought I'd heard it. I've heard him say "Michelle, my bell" (like the Beatles' song).

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/08/10/obama_tells_you_to_sacrifice_while_moochelle_vacations_in_spain

 

Is this his real site?

 

Obama Tells You to Sacrifice, While Moochelle Vacations in Spain

 

RUSH: That's Obama telling you to sacrifice, to give it up for America while his wife is in Spain. Now, the woman in question here. Her gynecologist's father had died, and so she had to spend some time with Michelle. Her gynecologist's father died. Now, are woman really that...? I wouldn't know, have to ask. Are women really that close to their gynecologists that when your gynecologist's father dies, you need a vacation in Spain? Her friend, who is the wife of the head of Obama's campaign fund and the gynecologist who delivered Michelle's daughter, her father died early in July. And she was depressed and distressed, and so she had to go to Spain with 40 other people in 60 rooms because her gynecologist's father passed away -- the gynecologist who delivered Michelle's daughter. Now, you compare... We have a name for Michelle: "Moochelle." Mooch, mooch, Moochelle Obama. That will tick 'em off, won't it, Snerdley?

Moochelle Obama. You compare her with the hated Sarah Palin. Moochelle Obama keeps a personal staff of 24. Now we know why: To administer to gynecologist friends whose fathers pass away. Her personal staff includes a makeup artist and a hairstylist, a total annual government salary of more than $1.6 million for the personal staff of Moochelle Obama, plus their travel expenses. Her Secret Service for security is extra on these trips.

 

So he didn't refer to her as Moose, but mooch. However he does go off on her weight.

 

"The problem is, and dare I say this, it doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice...I'm trying to say that our First Lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue or of a woman Alex Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you."

 

 

And he then called her "Uppity" for going to a Nascar race.

[Langston Hughes]

 

 

Meh, fraud is alive & well AND gets published.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/01/09/a-barrage-of-legal-threats-shuts-down-whistleblower-site-science-fraud/

 

 

 

Yes it does happen, but not often. That doesn't remotely compare to the sheer amount of misinformation being pumped out by our "news" outlets.

 

Don't worry about it. He's just trying to change the subject after his bullshit attack on the First lady's ass.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

That's just one example. So you agree that Fox (just like MSNBC) pumps out massive amounts of rhetoric and propaganda on a regular basis then?

You DO understand "Fox and Friends" is commentary more than reporting, ala, Good Morning America?

[napfirst]

I have heard many conservatives quote Rush here verbatim, and that is pretty sad because they are being told what to think by an entertainer (I often compare Rush to Bono from U2) and they actually do it. I used to watch Rush on occasion for purely entertainment value after the number one clown Beck got his walking papers. I miss his crying most of all. Someone point me to a ridiculous blubbering liberal idiot like that on CNN/MSNBC and I'll be glad to watch for the entertainment value.

 

If liberals are quoting Kimmel or Stewart, that is pretty sad, too. I don't watch them, and I'm not a liberal. So I wouldn't know.

 

At the end of the day you should question where the information is coming from, look for motives and agendas, and bias. Critical thinking 101. When you take Fox News or CNN/MSNBC as unbiased news, your arguments don't hold water. When one of these talking heads says something ridiculous and controversial they do it for ratings..period. While they "have the most viewers" they are masters of misinformation, and have been proven as such time and time again. It costs them nothing to lie...in truth they get paid for it.

 

When it comes to science I get my information from those in the trenches, with a horse in the race. Publishing scientists just can't lie easily. Their work is too easily scrutinized, funding for it is a matter of public record, and they have to go through hell to even get it published. These people just can't say anything - their professional reputation in their field is completely dependent on what they say and how they back it up. The data usually does not lie, it's the interpretation of it that is often misleading. It's also ridiculously easy to discredit talking heads (see David Rose from the Daily Mail on climate science) because they have no professional incentive to be truthful.

 

If people are lazy enough to believe that Rush, Hannity, Levin, Moore, Stewart, or Kimmel represent an unbiased view then so be it. They certainly have the freedom to be misinformed. Hell here in America, that isn't a freedom, it's a way of life. In our country reading has declined so significantly... it's no wonder people turn to television and online media to get their views and opinions...all the while proclaiming how "free" they really are. Funny, but tragic.

 

It's not about trying to look smart. It is about getting your information from as neutral a source as possible and then formulating an educated view of your own.

Let me guess...you get your news from NPR......funny!...I'm proud of you, you wrote several paragraphs a didn't mention how many degrees you have...but you lose points for your science references...sorry...

Edited February 14, 2014 by napfirst

[NickF1011]

 

 

It would never happen, so I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

Honestly a lot of people seem to think the average gun-owning citizen is Rambo. If some force wanted to impose their will on American citizens, they would control infrastructure - namely food and water - and most of the people in this country would give up really quickly. God forbid the average overweight American not get a big mac, cable TV, or the internet. As a people, we Americans aren't exactly known for our discipline (spending, personal responsibility, diet, government, you get the idea).

 

Our forefathers were revolutionaries. Us? Not so much now.

 

I give you exhibit A:

 

 

A revolt doesn't have to defeat all of the government forces trying to quell it though. It just needs to be a big enough pain in the ass for a long enough period to where the government gets tired of fighting them and agrees to come to the negotiating table.

[xr7g428]

The thing about guns is that they make every one that has one lethal. Ask any Afghanistan vet how lethal a 10 year old with an AK47 can be. Those fat guys in the picture can shoot you just as dead as a guy in uniform.

[the_spaniard]

Let me guess...you get your news from NPR......funny!...I'm proud of you, you wrote several paragraphs a didn't mention how many degrees you have...but you lose points for your science references...sorry...

 

Awww Nap, are we reduced to personal insults? It's ok, buddy. Say it with me: Ad hominem.

 

Good. Now come here ya big lug. Group hug. Let's turn that frown upside down!

 

:grouphug:

[the_spaniard]

 

A revolt doesn't have to defeat all of the government forces trying to quell it though. It just needs to be a big enough pain in the ass for a long enough period to where the government gets tired of fighting them and agrees to come to the negotiating table.

 

Oh I agree, but I don't believe that the average American is capable of being a rebel fighter. Times have changed. The two Angels in the middle now represent 35% of the population in this country.

Edited February 14, 2014 by the_spaniard

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

A revolt doesn't have to defeat all of the government forces trying to quell it though. It just needs to be a big enough pain in the ass for a long enough period to where the government gets tired of fighting them and agrees to come to the negotiating table.

Ask the Afghanis who took on USSR.

[the_spaniard]

Ask the Afghanis who took on USSR.

 

Yep. It's exactly the same situation. Oh wait, no it isn't. US citizens are not used to living in one of the most conflict-ridden regions in the world.

 

09/11 was a single event that killed almost 3000 Americans in one shot, and the DOW dropped 600+ points in 24-hours, the worst drop since the Great Depression and we are still feeling its effects.

 

10-well placed, coordinated suicide bombings here in the States would likely cripple the US economy.

 

Afghanistan was founded in 1747, but it's history of conflict dates before the times of Alexander the Great (330BCE). And remember this isn't just war by a select military at some far-away land, much of the conflict happens right at home. Its people are very used to war.

 

Americans are simply not used to that level of repeated conflict on their own soil.

Edited February 14, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

You DO understand "Fox and Friends" is commentary more than reporting, ala, Good Morning America?

 

I understand the whole network is commentary. That is my point.

 

The scary part is some people actually think it is news.

[the_spaniard]

The thing about guns is that they make every one that has one lethal. Ask any Afghanistan vet how lethal a 10 year old with an AK47 can be. Those fat guys in the picture can shoot you just as dead as a guy in uniform.

 

Again, huge difference between the people of Afghanistan and the average American. Any idiot can spray-n-pray an AK-47 at paper targets. Killing a human being in a combat situation is a completely different matter. Yes, children in Afghanistan can do it...and there are armies full of AK-toting children in the DRC....but those places and their people are very, very, different than the US.

[napfirst]

 

Yep. It's exactly the same situation. Oh wait, no it isn't. US citizens are not used to living in one of the most conflict-ridden regions in the world.

 

09/11 was a single event that killed almost 3000 Americans in one shot, and the DOW dropped 600+ points in 24-hours, the worst drop since the Great Depression and we are still feeling its effects.

 

10-well placed, coordinated suicide bombings here in the States would likely cripple the US economy.

 

Afghanistan was founded in 1747, but it's history of conflict dates before the times of Alexander the Great (330BCE). And remember this isn't just war by a select military at some far-away land, much of the conflict happens right at home. Its people are very used to war.

 

Americans are simply not used to that level of repeated conflict on their own soil.

You might want to check your market facts.....

[rn4]

Here is the facts for you I don't think the spaniard is that far off.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/how-september-11-affected-the-u.s.-stock-market.aspx

 

On the first day of NYSE trading after 9/11, the market fell 684 points, a 7.1% decline, setting a record for the biggest loss in exchange history for one trading day. At the close of trading that Friday, ending a week that saw the biggest losses in NYSE history, the Dow Jones was down almost 1,370 points, representing a loss of over 14%. The Standard and Poor's (S&P) index lost 11.6%. An estimated $1.4 trillion in value was lost in those five days of trading.

[napfirst]

Here is the facts for you I don't think the spaniard is that far off.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/how-september-11-affected-the-u.s.-stock-market.aspx

 

On the first day of NYSE trading after 9/11, the market fell 684 points, a 7.1% decline, setting a record for the biggest loss in exchange history for one trading day. At the close of trading that Friday, ending a week that saw the biggest losses in NYSE history, the Dow Jones was down almost 1,370 points, representing a loss of over 14%. The Standard and Poor's (S&P) index lost 11.6%. An estimated $1.4 trillion in value was lost in those five days of trading.

That's not what he said.....and he probably doesn't need your help.....

[the_spaniard]

Here is the facts for you I don't think the spaniard is that far off.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/how-september-11-affected-the-u.s.-stock-market.aspx

 

On the first day of NYSE trading after 9/11, the market fell 684 points, a 7.1% decline, setting a record for the biggest loss in exchange history for one trading day. At the close of trading that Friday, ending a week that saw the biggest losses in NYSE history, the Dow Jones was down almost 1,370 points, representing a loss of over 14%. The Standard and Poor's (S&P) index lost 11.6%. An estimated $1.4 trillion in value was lost in those five days of trading.

 

Thanks RN, I thought it was in around 600. Turns out it was a little worse.

 

That's not what he said.....and he probably doesn't need your help.....

 

 

Because somehow RNs facts are not quite....facts? Yeah, as you can see I underestimated the effects. Any point to your response, Nap, aside from griping because you were wrong?

 

Or were you just helping me with my argument as well? I always appreciate any help.

Edited February 14, 2014 by the_spaniard

[napfirst]

 

Thanks RN, I thought it was in around 600. Turns out it was a little worse.

 

 

Because somehow RNs facts are not quite....facts? Yeah, as you can see I underestimated the effects. Any point to your response, Nap, aside from griping because you were wrong?

 

Or were you just helping me with my argument as well? I always appreciate any help.

I was not wrong...did you check your facts?