• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of the Union Address

wow. An outlet that calls itself a news media calling Obama's State of the Union address, "rhetoric."

They don't even bother to conceal their bias anymore, huh? No wonder righties love Fox News like they do. It feeds them what they want to hear.

You are right, but FOX News is not much different than Obama feeding Democrats what THEY want to hear. And that's the plan. As long as the politicians, Democrats and Republicans, can keep the American people divided and fighting each other, they get to play ping pong with our balls.
 
Yes, the Dems are drinking the Kool-Aid, but so are you. No spin? HA!!. There is just as much spin in Bill O'Reilly as there is in Obama, which gives me an idea. Bill O'Reilly for President. He can be just as irrelevant as Obama.

And what specific results listed in that response is wrong?
 
"No Spin" for O'Reilly is when one of his guests calls Obama something like a serial killer and pedophile and O'Reilly is like "wait a minute...now we don't know he's a seriel killer or pedophile, there's not proof on that yet..." like shooting down ridiculous **** improves his "no spin" credentials.

Same question, what facts presented in that memo are false? Debt? Unemployment? I could add labor force, misery indext, employment numbers as well. All are worse than when he took office.
 
I think we've gone over this at length before. You can't draw conclusions from the small price increase between '98 and '00. There have been many such rises over the years. The huge escalation was driven by the massive increase subprime and Alt-A loans handed out primarily by private lenders and funded primarily outside of F&F.

So you repeat the same nonsense and it is somehow more credible ? Sure there were many more subprimes handed out. That is what started, and then accelerated, the bubble. Government mandated it in the beginning, and used FF to underwrite them, therefore shifting risk, and creating the moral hazard that became loans for anybody.

What libs refuse to admit is that in a normal capitalist market, banks won't make loans willy-nilly, as the market quickly disposes of such excess risk. But bring in Government, a nine-fold increase in the size of FF in 15 years, to where by 2002 FF held 50% of the entire mortgage market, then saw it decrease to 40% as other lenders rushed to get a bigger slice of the bubble, then to see FF (government, and do not doubt it) also make their loans even more reckless so that they could get back over 50% of the market, which they did.

Government is behind over half of all loans, and instead of going "WTF", libs say "move along".
 
wow. An outlet that calls itself a news media calling Obama's State of the Union address, "rhetoric."
They don't even bother to conceal their bias anymore, huh? No wonder righties love Fox News like they do. It feeds them what they want to hear.

I'm no fan of Fox News, but that's precisely what it is.
 
So you repeat the same nonsense and it is somehow more credible ? Sure there were many more subprimes handed out. That is what started, and then accelerated, the bubble. Government mandated it in the beginning, and used FF to underwrite them, therefore shifting risk, and creating the moral hazard that became loans for anybody.

What libs refuse to admit is that in a normal capitalist market, banks won't make loans willy-nilly, as the market quickly disposes of such excess risk. But bring in Government, a nine-fold increase in the size of FF in 15 years, to where by 2002 FF held 50% of the entire mortgage market, then saw it decrease to 40% as other lenders rushed to get a bigger slice of the bubble, then to see FF (government, and do not doubt it) also make their loans even more reckless so that they could get back over 50% of the market, which they did.

Government is behind over half of all loans, and instead of going "WTF", libs say "move along".

Wrong thread. Start another one if you want to rehash this.
 
Republicans ALWAYS **** up the country when they are in charge......

Well, how did the US get where it is at all then? I mean, since the majority of Presidents have been Republicans since there were Republicans.
 
You are right, but FOX News is not much different than Obama feeding Democrats what THEY want to hear. And that's the plan. As long as the politicians, Democrats and Republicans, can keep the American people divided and fighting each other, they get to play ping pong with our balls.

Obama was calling for unity ... How is that divisive?
 
I think liberals hate Fox for having hate audacity of not being liberal like the rest of the news.

I suppose the fact that they have higher viewership than the other channels supports argument that they are more in sync with the views of the average American.
 
Obama was calling for unity ... How is that divisive?

Obama was calling for unity while throwing logs on his class-warfare bonfire. As all the fact-checks are showing this AM, while lying through his friggin teeth about the "state of the Union".
 
Obama was calling for unity ... How is that divisive?

Because, in calling for unity, Obama was also causing divisiveness. Look, I don't like Republicans any more than you do, but guess what? I recognize that Democrats are just as bad. I can see it. Until the American people wake up and realize that we are being had, we will continue to be had.
 
I think liberals hate Fox for having hate audacity of not being liberal like the rest of the news.

I suppose the fact that they have higher viewership than the other channels supports argument that they are more in sync with the views of the average American.

Liberals hate Fox because they are blatantly biased while maintaining that they are "Fair and Balanced"™.
 
Well, how did the US get where it is at all then? I mean, since the majority of Presidents have been Republicans since there were Republicans.

Starting with the first Republican President, Lincoln, there have been 19 Republican Presidents and 11 Democrats Presidents.
 
No deal. :rofl -- And you're parting shot off the bow that I was wrong isn't right either. You're batting zero.

BTW, do you know what percentage Warren Buffett pays on his income? That answer would be, "No." Do you know what percentage the secretary pays on her income? That answer would also be, "No."

Anyhow, I thought we had a sure contribution to DP on your behalf. But you weaseled... ;)

I just have to ask, if we accept what you agree is true and what you say isn't true, isn't it still a problem? Something few will see as fair?
 
Starting with the first Republican President, Lincoln, there have been 19 Republican Presidents and 11 Democrats Presidents.

You also have to keep in mind that the Republican Party is very different today than it was in the days of Lincoln through TR.
 
I say again....

"Thank God for the unbiased news of MSNBC/NBC, ABC and CNN."

MSNBC is clearly liberal. I don't think they suggest that they aren't. That's the difference. CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN are somewhere in the middle.
 
I say again....

"Thank God for the unbiased news of MSNBC/NBC, ABC and CNN."

The actual news for all is essentially the same. The political entertainers, of which Fox and MSNBC have the most, shall we say BIASED, are paid to have a point of view and spew opinions, the more radical and outrageous the better. They work to serve their audiences the affirmation they desire. God bless 'em!

:coffeepap
 
I think liberals hate Fox for having hate audacity of not being liberal like the rest of the news.

I suppose the fact that they have higher viewership than the other channels supports argument that they are more in sync with the views of the average American.

Not necessarily. Being popular does not necessarily equate to being mainstream. The most watched television program in America these days is American Idol. You think the average American tunes into that **** every week?

FWIW I think most broadcast news is BS, but that's just me. Also cable news is the armpit of American journalism.
 
Not necessarily. Being popular does not necessarily equate to being mainstream. The most watched television program in America these days is American Idol. You think the average American tunes into that **** every week?

FWIW I think most broadcast news is BS, but that's just me. Also cable news is the armpit of American journalism.

In addition, the viewership of the network news shows dwarfs the viewership of the cable news shows, including Fox's.
 
Still campaigning against Bush? I'll let you in on a little secret....Bush is not in the White House anymore....and he's not running for president this year.

I let you in on a secret too. We will never forget what Bush did to this country. It is going to be alot of years before ANY Republican Pres. sets foot in the Whitehouse again. We don't want to be attacked again or spend trillions on personal vendettas like the iraq invasion either.
 
I let you in on a secret too. We will never forget what Bush did to this country. It is going to be alot of years before ANY Republican Pres. sets foot in the Whitehouse again. We don't want to be attacked again or spend trillions on personal vendettas like the iraq invasion either.

I think it is very sad to have so much invested in ignorance and media spin. the actual results show a different picture but like far too many you have so much invested in hatred of Bush based upon misinformation that you are blinded by that false information. I suggest going to bls.gov, bea.gov, and U.S. Treasury for the right information.
 
Back
Top Bottom