Speakeasy forum: Obama drones digging for dirt on "Round Boy" ?

you and I are in agreement about both Christie and Cain. I suspect that, exactly as he keeps saying, Christie feels he can do more for the State of New Jersey right now as Governor than he could individually help NJ as president....however, if he keeps up the great track record he has going for himself, he will probably be a contender next go-round (no pun intended). I, also, have been very impressed by Cain....not just for the same race card issue that couldn't be used, but because he is soooooo very conservative that not only does he have the Dems highly concerned, but some of the Rep runners right now as well since many of them carry so much baggage that probably couldn't even be explained away. I like Newt, because as Speaker, he was a force to be reckoned with and accomplished much even with Clinton as president, but I fear his personal past will bite him. Romney has the 'good looks' appeal, but he, as Governor, passed that RomneyCare health 'insurance' that he just can't seem to accept is a total failure. He keeps trying to compare the two 'Care' packages, when he should actually be telling the voters he wants to attract that it was a horrible mistake...that he tried it out as an experiment and enough time has gone by that even HE realizes it was the wrong thing to do. And both of the "Paul's" are a little too forceful, even if they might have a few good ideas, for the voters to accept and get behind them. Santoro, Pawlenty, and a few others actually HAVE to get a little more forceful in order to be taken seriously. I would love to see Paul Ryan enter...and am seriously disappointed in Scott Brown AGAIN voting against the Republicans in the Senate regarding Ryan's budget that passed in the House. He was such a hopeful and has turned out to be an "I'll say anything to get elected and then do what I want" candidate like so many others before him.

roots still attached. It'd be perfect, and leave a nice little mound for the plaque too .

Rob

Both on TV and the Internet. With the news "on" constantly, news outlets have to push the boundaries of what constitutes news further and further in order to fill all that time. Often that results in the networks creating their own "news" rather than just reporting it.

Blood is in the political waters and they are circling Obama.

"news" item as a true and accurate source on this issue? Why should they be? Their entire existence is based on distortion and fabrication, and the Iron Editorial Fist of Roger Ailes, that well known proponent of free speech (if only from one side). And how do you know that they're Obama's people? "Hi, I work for President Obama, and I was wondering if you knew any dirt about Chris Christie? No? Okay, and if anybody asks, just tell them we were here trying to dig up dirt on the Governor."

Is there any reason or rationality on the Right, or do you just believe whatever you're told?

Rob

I suppose you believe that all of the liberal news programs, such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. aren't 'unfairly biased' and therefore are all legitimate news channels? Even though there are mostly liberal news programs/channels across the USA, and BO considers Fox News to not even be a legitimate news source (at one time he actually blacklisted them and attempted to block their ability to take the front row vacant seat after that fat broad was kicked out after years because of her slurred statements regarding Israel and ALL of the news correspondents rallied behind Fox and got them that seat), FoxNews on cable has a higher consistent rating and audience than ALL of those other liberal news channels COMBINED. How can you possibly consider that FoxNews is an unfairly biased news source when they have liberals on their payroll in order to bring a balanced source for both sides of any debate......NONE of the other news channels even ALLOW conservatives to have a voice in their programs. What you have on those other channels is literally a round-robin table with ONLY people who totally agree with each other...there is never a debate covering both sides of an issue. IMO, FoxNews is the ONLY legitimate news source available to anyone who wants ALL of the information so that we can make good decisions for ourselves and aren't forcefed liberal one-sided garbage anymore.

Commentaries by their very nature are biased at least somewhat. Fox reports the facts very fairly. People confuse editorializing with "news."

MSNBC is far more slanted. but no one watches them.

Evidence?

Seems to me they were dead on. The jerk compared the GOP to Nazis. Maybe you intended another link? It's not true just because Job Stewart says it is.

Maybe they were "exaggerating for effect." At best that was ONE lie (not really a lie) by one person once. Hardly lying on a daily basis like you said.

Do try to follow.

and very credible, for one example

The DAILY SHOW???? Are you serious about suggesting that Stewart is a 'news' source and not the entertainer, like Jay Leno David Letterman Conan O' Brien Craig Kilbourne Bill Maher all are. They're freaking talk show hosts for crying out loud....are you going to call up Oprah now as another news source, considering she not only endorsed BO, but campaigned for me.

Are you also one of those ones that during a live newsfeed during the tea party protest or the union protests in Wisconsin held up signs saying "Fox Lies" and can't give one credible instance of it when asked for that information? Happens all the time to liberals....but conservatives can give instance after instance right off the top of their heads when asked regarding any of the liberal news stations. Maybe it's because conservatives actually understand when any newscasters speak, can distinguish between trash talk and the facts, and aren't parroting garbage untruths that liberal newscasters would have you believe.

When conservatives turn the channel to a liberal news station, most will tell you that our heads start spinning faster than Linda Blair's did in the Exorcist just trying to sort out how rational people come to the 'facts' that get spewed out by those newscasters and how other rational thinking people could actually believe any of it. As Chris Matthews so eloquently put it....BO gives them a thrill up their leg just listening to him speak....obviously, it doesn't seem to matter WHAT he's saying, just that he is SPEAKING. I'm going to go throw up now...

very few of their 'news sources' are actually news channels, (mostly are entertainers), and the 'news sources' that are actually 'journalistic' types that are SUPPOSED to report actual news, only report their 'panic' side without getting all the facts. Liberal news sources don't have 'investigative' reporters...if they actually got off their duffs long enough to actual INVESTIGATE the news before reporting it, they might have some credibility with a wider audience. As it stands, the reason FoxNews has a total audience that is larger than ALL of the liberal news channels COMBINED is because they actually investigate and verify before reporting anything. If something is 'mentioned' rather than actually being 'reported', they actually say that they are checking into it and will report more once they do...and they follow up with either the nod or the thumbs down. When UBL was killed, for example, all the news channels including FoxNews cable ran the story for days on end....but the big difference was that the liberal news channels were high-fiving BO for a job well done, even tho all the policies that brought UBL down were put into place by Bush and ONLY Gates gave credit to Bush during his acceptance speech for the appointment BO offered him, FoxNews actually was giving credit to the SEALs who came up with the plan, practiced it for months, including building a replica of the entire compound, and pulled it off...and SEALs were being interviewed constantly in order to get more factual information about what 'probably' went down during that raid. As stated by someone else in this thread, the news is on 24/7 now so something has to fill in the 'dead' spots....liberal channels filled it in by making caustic remarks about something the Republicans were 'probably' doing, praising BO, etc. Fox filled it in with really information interviews that actually benefited military families whose sons or daughters are SEALs and usually have very little information about what their jobs are about since none of them talk much about what they do.

Yesterday, on the Ed Show, which is MSNBC, former RNC chairman Steele was on to comment on the 26th district Republican loss. I don't think you spend too much time watching other news casts since you seem biased, but if you think Fox isn't biased, in any way shape or form, you have been drinking there kool-aid for way too long.

Instead of consistanty pounding what media is constantly saying, every single day, what always gets lost is the issues this country faces, but I digress, when folks are always driven by idiologies instead of what really matters and it always the demogoging-fear-factoring that is spewed out by every media outlet in America.

By your own self admission your political affiliations have changed. In your own mind (opinion) you feel FN is where its at, for what ever reason, you "re-booted" to believe the retoric that is the Rush, GB, Hannity garbage.

BTW, FN ratings have come down. Do you think that people are starting to wake up?

Like, Ryan's budget for instance. Seniors know that this type of "right-wing engineering" if I can coin from Gingrich, is effectively ending Medicare, in lieu of a voucher system. Romney flip-flopping on his health care philosophies for the country when he said it was good for Massachussettes. This is just a couple of recent examples of what is really wrong with conservatives.

I don't believe everything the progressive liberals are always saying, but you have to agree that you certainly know when you are being BS'ed, and know the difference between right and wrong

Fist time I heard that the original intent was only for service dependents. And if you're going to say that Medicare time is pass and phase it out, how young do you have to be to be phased out? while they're paying Medicare taxes to pay for you and I? at least I hope to live long enough to qualify. I just hope I can keep working past 65 honestly, physically that is, since I'm sure even those under 65-70 now will see benefits curtailed as they age into SS and Medicare.

But regarding the 1935 Social Security Act..................


The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]PREAMBLEAn act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes........................

For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to aged needy individuals,..........

From the sums appropriated therefor, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to each State which has an approved plan for old-age assistance, for each quarter, beginning with the quarter commencing July 1, 1935,(1) an amount, which shall be used exclusively as old-age assistance, equal to one-half of the total of the sums expended during such quarter as old-age assistance under the State plan with respect to each individual who at the time of such expenditure is sixty-five years of age or older and is not an inmate of a public institution, not counting so much of such expenditure with respect to any individual for any month as exceeds $30, and .....................

a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:........

(c) The term qualified individual means any individual with respect to whom it appears to the satisfaction of the Board that-
(1) He is at least sixty-five years of age; and
(2) The total amount of wages paid to him, with respect to employment after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, was not less than $2,000; and
(3) Wages were paid to him, with respect to employment on some five days after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, each day being in a different calendar year.


SECTION 301. For the purpose of assisting the States in the administration of their unemployment compensation laws, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $4,000,000, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $49,000,000, to be used as hereinafter provided.............

For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy dependent children, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $24,750,000, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title...............

SECTION 501. For the purpose of enabling each State to extend and improve, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, services for promoting the health of mothers and children, especially in rural areas and in areas suffering from severe economic distress, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $3,800,000.............



More people covered by benefits by the 1935 act at site, cripple children, etc.