PDA

View Full Version : Obama For those out of work who voted for Obama, just wanted to recap....


Chiefshrink
08-24-2011, 11:18 PM
the Obama family much needed vacations these past 3yrs and especially Michelle this past year and how Obama is doing everything he can to provide for a robust economy while he vacates and you barely make ends meet if even that and still plays that class warfare card soooooo hypocritically and arrogantly:rolleyes:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html#ixzz1VyJAJZom

Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five-star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations
By Tamara Abraham

Last updated at 8:28 PM on 24th August 2011

The Obamas' summer break on Martha's Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.

But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.
White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers' money on vacations alone in the past year.

Expensive taste: Michelle Obama, pictured yesterday in Massachusetts, has been accused of spending $10m of public money on vacations
Branding her 'disgusting' and 'a vacation junkie', they say the 47-year-old mother-of-two has been indulging in five-star hotels, where she splashes out on expensive massages and alcohol.

The 'top source' told the National Enquirer: 'It's disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position while the most hardworking Americans can barely afford a week or two off work.
'When it's all added up, she's spent more than $10million in taxpayers' money on her vacations.'

His and her jets: The President and his wife, who are spending nine days on Martha's Vineyard, have come under fire for travelling on separate planes
The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.

And the first family's nine-day stay in Martha's Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.

The source continued: 'Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

'The vacations are totally Michelle's idea. She's like a junkie. She can't schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next - all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.'

Travelling in style: Mrs Obama during her $375,000 trip to Spain last year.

High security: Bodyguards surround the First Lady and youngest daughter Sasha as they take a stroll on the Costa del Sol
While the President and his wife do pay for some of their personal expenses from their own pocket, the website whitehousedossier.com says that the amount paid by the couple is 'dwarfed by the overall cost to the public'.

The magazine also reported that Mrs Obama, whose fashion choices are widely followed, had been going on 'wild shopping sprees', much to the distress of her husband, who, its sources reveal, is 'absolutely furious' at his wife's 'out-of-control spending'.

The President has already come under fire this week over his decision to take a family vacation while millions of Americans are out of work and countless more are financially strapped.

Luxury break: The President and his family, pictured in December, splashed out more than $1.5million on a Christmas holiday in Hawaii
'Winter White House': The property in Kailua cost $38,000 to rent
But the situation sparked further anger after he and his wife elected to fly separately to the Massachusetts retreat - despite travelling on the same day.

Mr Obama left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One - along with First Dog Bo.
After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey.

His wife and daughters, who arrived just four hours earlier, were also travelling from Washington, but took a specially designed military aircraft.
They would also have had their own motorcade from the airport to the vacation residence.

FIRST LADY OF LUXURY TRAVEL: HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OBAMAS' LAVISH GETAWAYS OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS
GIRLS' TRIP TO SPAIN: AUGUST 2010

The exact cost is unclear as Mrs Obama and her 40 friends footed many personal expenses, such as hotels and meals themselves.
But the U.S. taxpayer would have paid for the First Lady's 68-strong security detail, personal staff, and use of presidential jet Air Force Two.
Per diems for the secret service team runs at around $281 each - nearly $98,000 for the length of the summer break.

Use of Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a 757, comes in at $149,900 for the round trip. This does not include time on the ground.

Mrs Obama's personal staff, of which there are an unknown amount and might cost considerably more per day, should also be taken into account.

CHRISTMAS BREAK IN HAWAII: DECEMBER 2010

According to the Hawaii Reporter, the bill for the $1.5m trip included:

$63,000 on an early flight bringing Mrs Obama and the children to Hawaii ahead of the President.
$1,000,000 on Mr Obama’s return trip from Washington on Air Force One.
$38,000 for the ‘Winter White House’ beach property rental.
$16,000 to rent nearby homes for Secret Service and Navy Seals.
$134,000 for 24 White House staff to stay at the Moana Hotel.
$251,000 in police overtime.
$10,000 for an ambulance to be on hand at all times

SKI TRIP TO VAIL: FEBRUARY 2011

Mrs Obama and her daughters stayed at the Sebastian hotel on Vail Mountain, where rooms cost more than $2,400 for multi-bedroom suites.
The family appear to have flown there on Air Force Two.
They were escorted to the resort by a motorcade of about a dozen vehicles, including 15 state and local law enforcement officers
SUMMER HOLIDAY ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD: AUGUST 2011

The Blue Heron Farm estate, where the Obama family are currently staying, rents for about $50,000 a week.
According to U.S. News and World Report, the Coast Guard is required to keep ships floating near the property, the presidential helicopter and jet remain at the ready and security agents will be on 24-hour duty.

fan4ever
08-24-2011, 11:31 PM
Yeah, but the country knows how hard her husband is working, so she's taking vacations for him too.

orange
08-25-2011, 01:27 AM
National Enquirer

orange
08-25-2011, 01:30 AM
BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS
Published on: September 21, 2005
By JENNIFER LUCE and DON GENTILE

Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit the bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura privately warned her husband against "falling off the wagon" and vowed to travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources add.

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one insider. "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop George!"

"Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.' She doesn't want to replay that nightmare — especially now when it's such tough going for her husband."

Bush is under the worst pressure of his two terms in office and his popularity is near an all-time low. The handling of the Katrina crisis and troop losses in Iraq have fueled public discontent and pushed Bush back to drink.

A Washington source said: "The sad fact is that he has been sneaking drinks for weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him — but the word is his drinking has been going on for a while in the capital. He's been in a pressure cooker for months.

"The war in Iraq, the loss of American lives, has deeply affected him. He takes every soldier's life personally. It has left him emotionally drained.

The result is he's taking drinks here and there, likely in private, to cope. "And now with the worst domestic crisis in his administration over Katrina, you pray his drinking doesn't go out of control."

Another source said: "I'm only surprised to hear that he hadn't taken a shot sooner. Before Katrina, he was at his wit's end. I've known him for years. He's been a good ol' Texas boy forever. George had a drinking problem for years that most professionals would say needed therapy. He doesn't believe in it [therapy], he never got it. He drank his way through his youth, through college and well into his thirties. Everyone's drinking around him."

Another source said: "A family member told me they fear George is 'falling apart.' The First Lady has been assigned the job of gatekeeper." Bush's history of drinking dates back to his youth. Speaking of his time as a young man in the National Guard, he has said: "One thing I remember, and I'm most proud of, is my drinking and partying. Those were the days my friends. Those were the good old days!"

Age 26 in 1972, he reportedly rounded off a night's boozing with his 16-year-old brother Marvin by challenging his father to a fight.

On November 1, 2000, on the eve of his first presidential election, Bush acknowledged that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Maine. Age 30 at the time, Bush pleaded guilty and paid a $150 fine. His driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

"I'm not proud of that," he said. "I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." In another interview around that time, he said: "Well, I don't think I had an addiction. You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted... and they required hitting bottom (to start) going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

During his 2000 presidential campaign, there were also persistent questions about past cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine after 1992, then quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974, when he was 28.

Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

"I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."

blaise
08-25-2011, 06:16 AM
I just had an image of Michelle saying, "Um, just give me a Natural Ice, please."

ROYC75
08-25-2011, 07:16 AM
Orange is doing the liberal spin, anything she can to deflect negative coverage of Obama.

Brainiac
08-25-2011, 07:22 AM
National Enquirer
Didn't the National Enquirer break the story about John Edwards' infidelity long before any other media source reported it?

Saying "Well, it's just the National Enquirer" is not a winning argument.

Brainiac
08-25-2011, 07:24 AM
By the way, I'm less concerned about Michelle Obama wasting millions of dollars than I am about her husband wasting trillions of dollars.

mlyonsd
08-25-2011, 07:56 AM
The source continued: 'Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

I've never even heard of that kind of wine so it must be expensive.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 08:04 AM
BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS
Published on: September 21, 2005
By JENNIFER LUCE and DON GENTILE


But...but...Bush was worse!!! You lefties have moved past comical with this automatic defense. For a while it made some sense, it then became comical to see the desperate attempts to blame everthing on Bush, and now it has just become pathetic~

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 08:06 AM
I've never even heard of that kind of wine so it must be expensive.

Her favorite wine is "You never take me anywhere, you never buy me anything" (rim shot)~

Earthling
08-25-2011, 08:11 AM
Obama must surely hold the record for number of vacation days spent at this juncture of his Presidency...:hmmm:

Chiefshrink
08-25-2011, 08:24 AM
Didn't the National Enquirer break the story about John Edwards' infidelity long before any other media source reported it?

Saying "Well, it's just the National Enquirer" is not a winning argument.

Precisely:thumb:

It was the OJ trial that the NE finally got it's sh** together and gained rep by beating the MSM to the punch on many facets of that trial. I believe there was a change of management prior or soon after the trial started in which the NE decided to go after the truth and report it.

Since the OJ trial the NE has been very legit. Who would have thunk it?:shrug:

Chiefshrink
08-25-2011, 08:25 AM
Obama must surely hold the record for number of vacation days spent at this juncture of his Presidency...:hmmm:

No sh**!!!:eek:

Earthling
08-25-2011, 08:27 AM
Since the OJ trial the NE has been very legit. Who would have thunk it?:shrug:

Me and my two headed sister are very happy about that too!

mlyonsd
08-25-2011, 08:29 AM
I don't really care about vacations but is it true they took different planes? WTF? Does AF-1 smell like dog pee or something?

Chiefshrink
08-25-2011, 08:31 AM
Hey if this was a "conservative first lady and a conservative POTUS" spending millions on all these extravagant vacations with our economy in the sh**ter with millions out of work do you think this story would be reported in our Mainstream Marxist Media????????

Why do we only see this story coming from across the pond??

Chiefshrink
08-25-2011, 08:51 AM
I don't really care about vacations but is it true they took different planes? WTF? Does AF-1 smell like dog pee or something?

It's called Limousine Marxists with double standards who feel extremely entitled and also feel they are going to "MILK" the WH and the "We The People" for all "WE" are worth. Why??

Because, in O'Marxist and Moochelle's worldview of "black liberation theology" they are thinking,

"F"em we gonna take back at least for the next 4yrs what was rightfully ours that was taken by the oppressive imperialist 'white cracker ass Tea Party racists'. We deserve this little "slice of the pie" for the last 400 yrs of white oppression that still goes on to this day!!!

This is not an overstatement, this is how they really see caucasians and more importantly America. There has just been waaaaaay too much information from books, public statement gaffes, legislative policy etc.... that show this First couple's colors(pardon the pun:D

Bottom line: They are the true haters:rolleyes:

SNR
08-25-2011, 08:52 AM
I've never even heard of that kind of wine so it must be expensive.It's all very shocking

orange
08-25-2011, 09:33 AM
But...but...Bush was worse!!! You lefties have moved past comical with this automatic defense. For a while it made some sense, it then became comical to see the desperate attempts to blame everthing on Bush, and now it has just become pathetic~

You're beyond comical. That is an indication of National Enquirer's lack of credibility - a point everyone else here seemed to get. Your kneejerk defense of Bush from a NON-EXISTANT "attack" is not only hilarious but precious! LMAO

orange
08-25-2011, 09:35 AM
Didn't the National Enquirer break the story about John Edwards' infidelity long before any other media source reported it?

Saying "Well, it's just the National Enquirer" is not a winning argument.

They've been around about 40 years. Surely you must have another example.

Chiefshrink
08-25-2011, 09:45 AM
They've been around about 40 years. Surely you must have another example.

From the OJ trial going forward please give me a littany list of political news stories that have been false since that time coming from the NE:shrug:

Der Flöprer
08-25-2011, 09:50 AM
National Enquirer

Didn't the National Enquirer break the story about John Edwards' infidelity long before any other media source reported it?

Saying "Well, it's just the National Enquirer" is not a winning argument.

Yeah. It is. When another source confirms this, you know, a REAL one. I'll share in the outrage.

orange
08-25-2011, 09:51 AM
From the OJ trial going forward please give me a littany list of political news stories that have been false since that time coming from the NE:shrug:

In other words, you can't think of anything they got right. What about that story I posted on page one? Has Bush been back on the bottle since 2005?

What do you think the sentiment HERE was at the time? From the conservative posters?

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 09:57 AM
You're beyond comical. That is an indication of National Enquirer's lack of credibility - a point everyone else here seemed to get. Your kneejerk defense of Bush from a NON-EXISTANT "attack" is not only hilarious but precious! LMAO

The fact you think I am defending Bush is hilarious~

Der Flöprer
08-25-2011, 10:00 AM
Orange is doing the liberal spin, anything she can to deflect negative coverage of Obama.

Did you read that letter from Cheney to Bush? UNBELIEVABLE...

orange
08-25-2011, 10:02 AM
The fact you think I am defending Bush is hilarious~

- Is Bush a drunk or not?
- Does the National Enquirer article I posted show that "Bush was worse" - YOUR WORDS - or not?

But...but...Bush was worse!!! You lefties ...


Enquiring minds want to know.

blaise
08-25-2011, 10:12 AM
Well, I don't think we need anyone to confirm that she's spent money travelling. I think that it's obvious she's traveled, and I'm sure the price tag for it isn't cheap. It's just whether it's a big deal. She basically an American diplomat to the world. She travels, she needs security, it costs money.
Most of the quotes about it being, "disgusting" are just people's opinion. I don't think the fact that it's an Enquirer story has a lot to do with anything.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 10:36 AM
- Is Bush a drunk or not?
- Does the National Enquirer article I posted show that "Bush was worse" - YOUR WORDS - or not?




Enquiring minds want to know.

The fact you are driven to bring up Bush every time something is posted about Barry is pathetic. As far as Bush being a drunk I could care less. It is a well known fact he was not a good president. It is also clear to most that Barry is a terrible president and he cannot blame that on Bush no matter how hard he and his fans try to~

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 10:38 AM
Precisely:thumb:

It was the OJ trial that the NE finally got it's sh** together and gained rep by beating the MSM to the punch on many facets of that trial. I believe there was a change of management prior or soon after the trial started in which the NE decided to go after the truth and report it.

Since the OJ trial the NE has been very legit. Who would have thunk it?:shrug:

You. You would have thunk it. And that doesn't surprise anyone.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 10:40 AM
It's called Limousine Marxists with double standards who feel extremely entitled and also feel they are going to "MILK" the WH and the "We The People" for all "WE" are worth. Why??

Because, in O'Marxist and Moochelle's worldview of "black liberation theology" they are thinking,

"F"em we gonna take back at least for the next 4yrs what was rightfully ours that was taken by the oppressive imperialist 'white cracker ass Tea Party racists'. We deserve this little "slice of the pie" for the last 400 yrs of white oppression that still goes on to this day!!!

This is not an overstatement, this is how they really see caucasians and more importantly America. There has just been waaaaaay too much information from books, public statement gaffes, legislative policy etc.... that show this First couple's colors(pardon the pun:D

Bottom line: They are the true haters:rolleyes:

Not even a tad overstated?

orange
08-25-2011, 10:48 AM
The fact you are driven to bring up Bush every time something is posted about Barry is pathetic. As far as Bush being a drunk I could care less. It is a well known fact he was not a good president. It is also clear to most that Barry is a terrible president and he cannot blame that on Bush no matter how hard he and his fans try to~

And you're still claiming I attacked Bush. LMAO

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 10:54 AM
What struck me most about the National Enquirer breaking the Edwards story was that the liberal media would never go there, even if they knew about Edwards' situation, they would be much less likely to go there (the National Enquirer has resources/reporters that other news agencies don't?) and expose "one of their own".

Two headed sisters and "Bat Boy" aside, the National Enquirer is actually gaining ground in the credibility department while other national media have been losing it for years.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 10:55 AM
And you're still claiming I attacked Bush. LMAO

I am saying that every single time there is something critical is posted about Obama people like you immediately scramble to post something about Bush. Go ahead and play you little game Orange, tow that company line :rolleyes:

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 10:58 AM
What struck me most about the National Enquirer breaking the Edwards story was that the liberal media would never go there, even if they knew about Edwards' situation, they would be much less likely to go there (the National Enquirer has resources/reporters that other news agencies don't?) and expose "one of their own".

Two headed sisters and "Bat Boy" aside, the National Enquirer is actually gaining ground in the credibility department while other national media have been losing it for years.

The National Enquirer's primary goal is to sell copies, not provide high-quality, in-depth, or ground-breaking news. It happens that the Edwards affair was ground-breaking because it coincided with selling copies. And that's an outlier.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 10:59 AM
I am saying that every single time there is something critical is posted about Obama people like you immediately scramble to post something about Bush. Go ahead and play you little game Orange, tow that company line :rolleyes:

What Orange did makes complete sense. He's pointing out hypocrisy and partisanship, and the best way to do that in this context (politics) is to show what he showed.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 11:05 AM
What Orange did makes complete sense. He's pointing out hypocrisy and partisanship, and the best way to do that in this context (politics) is to show what he showed.

And he or she could have made the same point without bringing up a Bush related article. I pointed out a very clear tendency of this poster constantly reverting to Bush on any subject relating to Obama~

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 11:07 AM
The National Enquirer's primary goal is to sell copies, not provide high-quality, in-depth, or ground-breaking news. It happens that the Edwards affair was ground-breaking because it coincided with selling copies. And that's an outlier.

I know full well what the Enquirer is about; question is, do others realize what rags like the New York Times is really about?

vailpass
08-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Uppity bitch.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 11:09 AM
Uppity bitch.

Racist~

vailpass
08-25-2011, 11:09 AM
Racist~

:D What's wrong with racing? I like to watch the sprint cars myself.

orange
08-25-2011, 11:11 AM
I am saying that every single time there is something critical is posted about Obama people like you immediately scramble to post something about Bush. Go ahead and play you little game Orange, tow that company line :rolleyes:

No game here at all. A simple yes/no question:

But...but...Bush was worse!!! You lefties have moved past comical with this automatic defense. For a while it made some sense, it then became comical to see the desperate attempts to blame everthing on Bush, and now it has just become pathetic~

Did leftie orange say "Bush was worse!!!"
?

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:19 AM
And he or she could have made the same point without bringing up a Bush related article.

How? And is it easier?

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:19 AM
I know full well what the Enquirer is about; question is, do others realize what rags like the New York Times is really about?

No, what's wrong with the New York Times?

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 11:23 AM
No, what's wrong with the New York Times?

From your perspective, absolutely nothing.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 11:23 AM
No game here at all. A simple yes/no question:



Did leftie orange say "Bush was worse!!!"
?

No you did not say those words...this time. Simple yes/no question:

Did lefty Orange scramble to post a Bush article?

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:23 AM
From your perspective, absolutely nothing.

What about from your perspective?

vailpass
08-25-2011, 11:24 AM
No, what's wrong with the New York Times?

There is nothing right about it.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 11:25 AM
:D What's wrong with racing? I like to watch the sprint cars myself.

Why I am a racing fan myself...does that mean I am a....

blaise
08-25-2011, 11:27 AM
What Orange did makes complete sense. He's pointing out hypocrisy and partisanship, and the best way to do that in this context (politics) is to show what he showed.

Yes, and fortunately we have people like orange around to point out the partisanship of others.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:27 AM
There is nothing right about it.

It's no secret they are Democratic-supporting, at least in their editorial board. But . . . from the point of journalistic standards and reporting, what's wrong with the Times?

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:28 AM
Yes, and fortunately we have people like orange around to point out the partisanship of others.

Or the thread starter? Or would that be too bipartisan for you to admit?

vailpass
08-25-2011, 11:30 AM
It's no secret they are Democratic-supporting, at least in their editorial board. But . . . from the point of journalistic standards and reporting, what's wrong with the Times?

Maybe I should have typed "there is nothing Right about it."
IMHO the problem with the Times and just about any print, broadcast or digital news outlet you can name is that they are all now openly slanted left or right to the point where their reporting as a whole is influenced by their politics.
Maybe I just didn't pay attention, maybe it was there all along, but it seems to me that the news media today isn't as concerned with presenting me with the facts as they are about telling me how I should feel about them.

alpha_omega
08-25-2011, 11:33 AM
So....WTF, is this true or not? Enquiring (misspelled on purpose) minds want to know.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:35 AM
Maybe I should have typed "there is nothing Right about it."
IMHO the problem with the Times and just about any print, broadcast or digital news outlet you can name is that they are all now openly slanted left or right to the point where their reporting as a whole is influenced by their politics.
Maybe I just didn't pay attention, maybe it was there all along, but it seems to me that the news media today isn't as concerned with presenting me with the facts as they are about telling me how I should feel about them.

1. Yes, it's been there all along, and in many cases, it was worse.
2. The NY Times openly endorses candidates, so they acknowledge their overwhelmingly Democratic editorial-partisanship.
3. It still doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is flawed. In order to show that, you have to be aware of the articles the New York Times publishes. And I don't think (though I could be wrong) that you or fan4ever actually read the New York Times. I suspect that instead, you are just recycling usual claims.

orange
08-25-2011, 11:35 AM
No you did not say those words...this time. Simple yes/no question:

Did lefty Orange scramble to post a Bush article?

I see your 5 and I raise you.

NO.

I looked at sportsshrink's thread, saw "National Enquirer," did a quick search for a political article that you righties would endorse as false, and Bush came up. Internet only goes back through Bush and a little bit of Clinton years; you're not going to find a story about Reagan (or Bush I) that went viral.

If I'd have put up the Sarah Palin Cheating Scandal story, you would be whining about "you lefties always got to drag Palin into everything."

Bush and Palin, et al. So, so sorry but you righties are stuck with them.

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/eusa_boohoo.gif

blaise
08-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Or the thread starter? Or would that be too bipartisan for you to admit?

Yes, he's incredibly partisan.

Just like orange.

blaise
08-25-2011, 11:39 AM
1. Yes, it's been there all along, and in many cases, it was worse.
2. The NY Times openly endorses candidates, so they acknowledge their overwhelmingly Democratic editorial-partisanship.
3. It still doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is flawed. In order to show that, you have to be aware of the articles the New York Times publishes. And I don't think (though I could be wrong) that you or fan4ever actually read the New York Times. I suspect that instead, you are just recycling usual claims.

Do you think it's possible that they're overwhelmingly Democtatic editorial-partisan and yet don't allow that partisanship to affect where they place stories in the paper, or what language to use in headlines, or whether or not they use flattering or unflattering photographs?

vailpass
08-25-2011, 11:39 AM
So....WTF, is this true or not? Enquiring (misspelled on purpose) minds want to know.

Orange will be along soon to show you a Huffpo article that not only disproves this story but proves that the First Sasquatch has had a positive impact on the economy by creating jobs for hundreds of back-shavers, farriers, and ass seismologists..

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:39 AM
Yes, he's incredibly partisan.

Just like orange.

How about yourself?

vailpass
08-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Do you think it's possible that they're overwhelmingly Democtatic editorial-partisan and yet don't allow that partisanship to affect where they place stories in the paper, or what language to use in headlines, or whether or not they use flattering or unflattering photographs?

Possible? Yes. But I don't believe that is always the practice. I believe this is equally true of right-leaning news outlets.

blaise
08-25-2011, 11:40 AM
How about yourself?

I would say I'm less partisan that orange, but partisan.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Do you think it's possible that they're overwhelmingly Democtatic editorial-partisan and yet don't allow that partisanship to affect where they place stories in the paper, or what language to use in headlines, or whether or not they use flattering or unflattering photographs?

It will of course affect it. The question is, to what degree. I would argue that the degree for the New York Times is very minimal.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 11:43 AM
I see your 5 and I raise you.

NO.

I looked at sportsshrink's thread, saw "National Enquirer," did a quick search for a political article that you righties would endorse as false, and Bush came up. Internet only goes back through Bush and a little bit of Clinton years; you're not going to find a story about Reagan (or Bush I) that went viral.

If I'd have put up the Sarah Palin Cheating Scandal story, you would be whining about "you lefties always got to drag Palin into everything."

Bush and Palin, et al. So, so sorry but you righties are stuck with them.

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/eusa_boohoo.gif
Alright the size raise made me chuckle. Also I am not a righty, and rather you wish to admit it or not "Bush" is a reflex reaction for you and many from the left~

Jaric
08-25-2011, 11:53 AM
The National Enquirer's primary goal is to sell copies, not provide high-quality, in-depth, or ground-breaking news. It happens that the Edwards affair was ground-breaking because it coincided with selling copies. And that's an outlier.

I could say that about every news source, and certainly any mainstream one.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 11:58 AM
I could say that about every news source, and certainly any mainstream one.

You could, but a lot of them, even FoxNews and MSNBC like places, also have a primary goal of wanting to inform the public and provide solid, relevant commentary. That's not NE's goal.

Jaric
08-25-2011, 12:02 PM
You could, but a lot of them, even FoxNews and MSNBC like places, also have a primary goal of wanting to inform the public and provide solid, relevant commentary. That's not NE's goal.Fox News and MSNBC do many things.

Informing and providing solid relevant commentary do not make that list.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 12:05 PM
Fox News and MSNBC do many things.

Informing and providing solid relevant commentary do not make that list.

Don't you think it's one of their primary goals?

whoman69
08-25-2011, 12:08 PM
It must be nice to be right wing. You get to have such short memories and hypocracy is not a real word. It seems like every time a Democrat is voted into the White House a call is put in to take the country back despite the fact it was already fugged up when the Democrat took over. The Tea Party was organized less than 30 days after Obama took office.

Republican have to be real proud of their winning strategy. Spread dissention and make sure there is nothing done that can fix the problems they left in our laps. Republicans used the fillibuster to block 80% of all legislation in the first two years on everything, not just healthcare. I don't think the fillibuster was meant to require that a supermajority be needed to pass anything. The rules of fillibuster have been changed so that a real fillibuster doesn't even need to happen now, just an intent to fillibuster. What is that? Then we fill the air with catchy slogans like Obamacare, Death Panels and communist rhetoric.

Just what sort of alternative are Republicans giving us. We get their best line-up of Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. Mitt Romney is probably the closest to the center of those but he denies it daily. I don't even think he can tell the difference between a lie and the truth anymore. Michelle Bachman...do I really need to go into details on someone who is worried the Soviet Union is going to take over? Then we have Rick Perry who applauds the courts striking down "Obamacare" but if they are making a decision on Terry Schiavo or gay marriage then they're activist judges. In case all those options fail we still have Sarah Palin to fall back on. Debate amongst yourselves if you think that Ron Paul is a serious contender.

The strategy seems to be working. The American people had a real short memory in 2010. If the Republicans manage to win the White House back and have a majority in the Senate (which they really don't need), should the Democrats have a similar strategy to make sure everything stays in the crapper until they too can have a chance to take the country back in 2016?

blaise
08-25-2011, 12:10 PM
Yes, whoman69, at least the Democratic party is empty of hypocrisy and passing the buck, or we'd really be in trouble.

Jaric
08-25-2011, 12:17 PM
Don't you think it's one of their primary goals?

No. I think they shill for either the GOP/DNC, tell their audience what they want to hear so they keep watching, and sell ads.

Jaric
08-25-2011, 12:19 PM
Yes, whoman69, at least the Democratic party is empty of hypocrisy and passing the buck, or we'd really be in trouble.

Thank God for this.

Der Flöprer
08-25-2011, 12:20 PM
Alright the size raise made me chuckle. Also I am not a righty, and rather you wish to admit it or not "Bush" is a reflex reaction for you and many from the left~

I'm going to back RNR up here. See, there's Republican, Democrat, and Patriot. RNR is a Patriot.

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 12:24 PM
It's no secret they are Democratic-supporting, at least in their editorial board. But . . . from the point of journalistic standards and reporting, what's wrong with the Times?

New York is 75% Democrat. Journalists are 85% Democrat (according to an internal survey done a couple of years back).

You mentioned in a post a ways back that the Enquirer is in the business of selling their paper/tabliod. I'm sure the New York Times is above trying pandering to their demographics for a profit, aside from being very slanted to begin with, editorial or not.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 12:26 PM
No. I think they shill for either the GOP/DNC, tell their audience what they want to hear so they keep watching, and sell ads.

You are a little more cynical than I am. But only slightly.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 12:27 PM
New York is 75% Democrat. Journalists are 85% Democrat (according to an internal survey done a couple of years back).

You mentioned in a post a ways back that the Enquirer is in the business of selling their paper/tabliod. I'm sure the New York Times is above trying pandering to their demographics for a profit, aside from being very slanted to begin with, editorial or not.

Their demographic is educated, independent thinkers. I think they sincerely want Pulitzers and respect and a long-lasting legacy of journalistic integrity.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 12:30 PM
I'm going to back RNR up here. See, there's Republican, Democrat, and Patriot. RNR is a Patriot.

Thank you good sir~

Brainiac
08-25-2011, 12:48 PM
Me and my two headed sister are very happy about that too!
So if you read a story about a two-headed girl in the National Enquirer, you immediately assume that it's just a bunch of made-up bullshit?

Tell that to Abby and Brittany Hensel, the two-headed girl who currently goes to college in St. Paul, Minnesota. Then go apologize to the National Enquirer.

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=8706880357624199406&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 01:43 PM
Their demographic is educated, independent thinkers. I think they sincerely want Pulitzers and respect and a long-lasting legacy of journalistic integrity.

Do you read the NY Times?

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 01:48 PM
Do you read the NY Times?

Everyday of the work week.

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 01:48 PM
Everyday of the work week.

Well at least you fit half of the demographic.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 01:52 PM
Well at least you fit half of the demographic.

Careful, I'm not saying I'm part of their demographic.

vailpass
08-25-2011, 01:54 PM
Everyday of the work week.

Are you old enough to know which days are in the work week?

fan4ever
08-25-2011, 02:01 PM
Careful, I'm not saying I'm part of their demographic.

I understand you're educated at least. U of I? Maybe that's a stretch then.












JUST KIDDING!

blaise
08-25-2011, 02:08 PM
Their demographic is educated, independent thinkers. I think they sincerely want Pulitzers and respect and a long-lasting legacy of journalistic integrity.

Their NY demographic, I would guess, is also mostly Democrat.

RedNeckRaider
08-25-2011, 02:59 PM
Their demographic is educated, independent thinkers. I think they sincerely want Pulitzers and respect and a long-lasting legacy of journalistic integrity.

Now that is funny~

BucEyedPea
08-25-2011, 04:41 PM
It must be nice to be right wing. You get to have such short memories and hypocracy is not a real word.

Is this a new form of govt?:D

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Are you old enough to know which days are in the work week?

Yes, I call them school days.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 09:00 PM
By the way, who read the critical editorial piece on Obama administration today from the NY Times?

Why Is That a Secret?
Published: August 24, 2011

A former top official in charge of ensuring that real secrets are kept secret has delivered a stunning repudiation of the Obama administration’s decision to use the Espionage Act against a whistle-blower attempting to expose government waste and abuse.
Related in News

Complaint Seeks Punishment for Classification of Documents (August 2, 2011)
J. William Leonard, who directed the Information Security Oversight Office during the George W. Bush administration, filed a formal complaint about the prosecution with the Justice Department and the National Security Agency, and urged punishment of officials who needlessly classify documents that contain no actual secrets.

In the case in question, Thomas Drake, an N.S.A. employee, faced 35 years in prison for espionage after he leaked information to a reporter about a potential billion-dollar computer boondoggle. The case collapsed last month with Mr. Drake walking away after a token misdemeanor plea to providing information to an unauthorized person. The government was deservedly berated by Judge Richard Bennett of Federal District Court in Maryland for an “unconscionable” pursuit of the accused across “four years of hell.”

Prosecutors dropped the felony charges at the 11th hour after Judge Bennett ordered them to show allegedly classified material to the jury. But Mr. Leonard said he was willing to testify for Mr. Drake that there were no secrets at issue and that he had never seen “a more deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document.”

The Obama administration has misguidedly used the Espionage Act in five such cases of news media disclosures; previously there were no more than four in all of White House history. This comes as officials classified nearly 77 million documents last year — a one-year jump of 40 percent. The government claim that this was because of improved reporting is not reassuring.

Two years ago, President Obama ordered all agencies to review secret material by June 2012 with a goal of promoting more declassification. Unfortunately, the administration’s emphasis since then has all been in the opposite direction. Treating potentially embarrassing information as a state secret is the antithesis of healthy government.

Jaric
08-25-2011, 09:54 PM
Is this a new form of govt?:D

No, not new.

whoman69
08-25-2011, 09:58 PM
Yes, whoman69, at least the Democratic party is empty of hypocrisy and passing the buck, or we'd really be in trouble.

Never claimed they were perfect, oh especially the current leadership (ugh). When, though, did they stop 80% of legislation from going through, voting as a 40-0 block on everything, essentially shutting the process down? The Republicans are playing a game with the public keeping the economy in the crapper and hoping their failed policies brought it to the brink. They've had no desire to compromise or act in a bipartisan faction. Really Republicans, you can't drop the $850 billion tax break for the top five% wage earners? You won't budge on drill, baby, drill or offer any ideas on how we can get away from oil? You want to just return to the same healthcare system and ignore all the uninsured Americans because it might upset the drug and insurance companies? It doesn't matter what Obama's policies are if they are not enacted.

Republicans and tea baggers complain the left relies too much on government. Is it any better to give so much trust to corporations whose final decisions come down to the bottom line? We gave them free trade which they just used as a flood gate to ship jobs overseas and set up tax havens. How is that working out now that their best customers are out of work?

I'll ask the question again since nobody responded to it. If Republicans take back the white house and senate in 2012, should the Democrats play a similar game and hope the country can stay in the crapper until its their turn to take the country back?

Jaric
08-25-2011, 10:02 PM
When, though, did they stop 80% of legislation from going through

Do you know what's in any of that legislation?

orange
08-25-2011, 10:09 PM
"The government was deservedly berated by Judge Richard Bennett of Federal District Court in Maryland for an “unconscionable” pursuit of the accused across “four years of hell.”"

Neat trick, B.O.

ROYC75
08-25-2011, 10:21 PM
I'll ask the question again since nobody responded to it. If Republicans take back the white house and senate in 2012, should the Democrats play a similar game and hope the country can stay in the crapper until its their turn to take the country back?

It appears we do have different beliefs on the direction of this administration and the parties.

But the answer to your question, I will say NO, if the country making progress after 4 years and a good plan is implemented to keep the country making progress in the deficit and jobs are still being produced in the private sector.

If things are not going right, then a change could very well be in place, as it is right now. Spending your way to prosperity has never happened that I know of.

Jenson71
08-25-2011, 10:25 PM
Neat trick, B.O.

That's a helluva catch. Had you heard of this case before?

orange
08-25-2011, 10:30 PM
That's a helluva catch.

I come to this forum with a jaded eye.


Had you heard of this case before?

No, but I've heard of it now. Thomas Drake has a Wiki page. I'm not sure how docs improperly classified in 2000-2002 has any bearing on whether the new directive is being followed. Seems like a hell of a stretch.

gonefishin53
08-26-2011, 11:17 AM
This thread is another fine example of why all federal elections should be non-partisan.

Given the unsustainable level of government power and spending authority enslaving future generations of Americans, you'd think we could stop fighting over the next election and focus on leaving a country worth saving for our powerless posterity. Everything from national defense to promoting the general welfare needs to be put on a sustainable path.

The corporate media elites are more interested in making money from bitter partisanship than protecting America's powerless posterity. We need non-partisan citizen legislators and non-partisan citizen journalists working on behalf of America's powerless posterity to put the ship of state on a sustainable course.

Dave Lane
08-26-2011, 11:27 AM
Obama must surely hold the record for number of vacation days spent at this juncture of his Presidency...:hmmm:

Yeah thats the ticket :rolleyes:

Iowanian
08-26-2011, 11:46 AM
If Republicans take back the white house and senate in 2012, should the Democrats play a similar game and hope the country can stay in the crapper until its their turn to take the country back?


OH.....you mean exactly like you did the previous 8 years?

Chief Henry
08-26-2011, 11:46 AM
Never claimed they were perfect, oh especially the current leadership (ugh). When, though, did they stop 80% of legislation from going through, voting as a 40-0 block on everything, essentially shutting the process down? The Republicans are playing a game with the public keeping the economy in the crapper and hoping their failed policies brought it to the brink. They've had no desire to compromise or act in a bipartisan faction. Really Republicans, you can't drop the $850 billion tax break for the top five% wage earners? You won't budge on drill, baby, drill or offer any ideas on how we can get away from oil? You want to just return to the same healthcare system and ignore all the uninsured Americans because it might upset the drug and insurance companies? It doesn't matter what Obama's policies are if they are not enacted.

Republicans and tea baggers complain the left relies too much on government. Is it any better to give so much trust to corporations whose final decisions come down to the bottom line? We gave them free trade which they just used as a flood gate to ship jobs overseas and set up tax havens. How is that working out now that their best customers are out of work?

I'll ask the question again since nobody responded to it. If Republicans take back the white house and senate in 2012, should the Democrats play a similar game and hope the country can stay in the crapper until its their turn to take the country back?

We are only four vote shy of killing Obamacare in the US Senate.

vailpass
08-26-2011, 11:52 AM
We are only four vote shy of killing Obamacare in the US Senate.

It's an abortion that can never see the light of day. The rush to pass something that was neither well-thought out nor possible to fund doomed this feeble attempt from the start.
It is a project that doesn't satisfy those that didn't want it from the start and those that never wanted it . The very definition of failure.

whoman69
08-26-2011, 02:25 PM
OH.....you mean exactly like you did the previous 8 years?

You want to explain that statement? Democrats allowed most Bush legislation to go through. He didn't even have to use a veto in his first term. Please enlighten us.

whoman69
08-26-2011, 02:31 PM
Do you know what's in any of that legislation?

Do you? Think about this statement. Republicans opposed 80% of all legislation with an 'intention to fillibuster' which is all that is required these days to have a fillibuster. To me that's obstructionism when you only let one in five bills through without requiring a supermajority. How much of the 20% remaining were let through because Republicans knew it didn't have support to pass even a simple majority.

vailpass
08-26-2011, 02:59 PM
Do you? Think about this statement. Republicans opposed 80% of all legislation with an 'intention to fillibuster' which is all that is required these days to have a fillibuster. To me that's obstructionism when you only let one in five bills through without requiring a supermajority. How much of the 20% remaining were let through because Republicans knew it didn't have support to pass even a simple majority.

You need to take a break and run up to 7th avenue and grab me a couple maid rites and some onion strings. Better throw in a tenderloin too, I can't get those here either.

If you see Chief Doughtery tell him I remember when he was a street cop that sat in his patrol car at the Thomas Park swimming pool eyeballing the hot young girls in swim suits.

Jaric
08-26-2011, 03:24 PM
Do you?

No, I don't. But then, I'm not complaining about it not passing.

So tell me why should I take your outrage seriously when you don't even know what you're outraged about. What if it was bad legislation?

BigRock
08-26-2011, 06:16 PM
From the OJ trial going forward please give me a littany list of political news stories that have been false since that time coming from the NE:shrug:

Obama caught having an affair.

Sarah Palin caught having an affair.

Sarah Palin's husband caught having an affair.

Sarah Palin's husband caught with hookers.

Sarah Palin's husband caught in love child scandal.

The Palins getting divorced.

These are just in the last 2-3 years. You really want to go all the way back to OJ?

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 06:18 PM
LMAO