idrankwhat

Serious question for those who watch both. Do the hosts on the MSNBC shows let their guests fully answer the questions that they are asked, or do the hosts constantly interrupt them and talk over their answers?

That's not true, unless we were to nationalize our oil supply. Remember what happened last year when the US suddenly cut back on fuel consumption by about 5%? We had a surplus of oil. As a result many oil companies chose to store the oil offshore in container ships and wait for the demand, and their price, to improve. It's not the greenies who are keeping oil prices elevated. It's the market.

Easy guys, I didn't like it either. I thought the OP's rant was a bit over the top and thought I'd take a poke at it. The video was made by the creator of Blackadder and some other British comedies. They screwed up and overshot their mark on this one and have since issued an apology. http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry Now, back to that free speech thread

1) FOX turned news reporting into a train wreck (they're the "lupus of news",). People love the carnage so they tune in and it sells. 2) MSNBC (and all the other networks) want to make money so they stoop to FOX's level of journalistic integrity and try to make a buck. They're looking for a profitable niche. 3) This is what you get with market based news journalism. If PBS were to hire really hot news reporters, dress them in beach wear, lock them up in a studio together for months on end, have them shoot guns, crash cars and wrestle in jello while reporting the day's stories, their ratings would go through the roof. 4) I think FOX and MSNBC suck so I dont' watch either. The "new media" just make people stupid. It's not about providing good information. It's about making money.

British humor isn't for everyone apparently.

That's because Congress leaving the funding of the country to the last minute right before the winter break is a pretty common occurrence.

If you really belive their reporting is a close to unbiased as it gets You need the kool aid rehab too Bias towards factual reporting and keeping opinion in the editorial content? Sure. If you're concerned about the "news" that they don't cover then you may have a point. I don't recall NPR or PBS covering "Boo-gate" I can live with that bias

Nerd

Hi Jeanne. I hope you're doing well.

I'm not denying anything. You're rationalizing war crimes because of war crimes. Israel is collectively punishing a population (war crime) because it doesn't like the outcome of a democratic election. You're justifying the use of white phosphorous as a weapon (war crime) because militants in gaza launched some rockets into Israel (war crime). Do you similarly justify Israel's use of human shields because Hamas has used human shields? Both parties are war criminals which should be dealt with equally. That's my problem with the situation. We don't do that. It's sort of like waterboarding. We call it "enhanced interrogation" until someone does it to us. That's the epitome of hypocrisy and one of the reasons our defense budget is out of control.

"Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation. Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces. "

I know that issues in this forum can stir up some deep emotions. Unfortunately for some, they don't realize that if you post an extremely valid point then follow it up with vitriolic noise that you'll get response to the noise and your point is lost. Best to leave the noise to the professionals like our modern news media and its living, breathing emoticons.

Thanks I needed that Any time you see a problem with their news reporting, let me know. Remember, it's "news" not entertainment in a news format. And it's a dying breed

They do. NPR's pretty much the only objective domestic news around any more.

The latter.

That spending would have happened regardless of who was President. The deficit came out pretty much right on to what the OMB predicted before #44's inauguration. Ron Paul would have been saddled with it. Of course he probably would have tried to save some money by leaving our two wars as quickly as possible and he probably would not have made any deals with the pharmaceutical companies to pass legislation but I could be wrong.

Your last statement I agree with except for the nothing left part. Would not matter is the gov coffers had been full Not the right thing to do anythime The government has to intervene if it's going to protect the country from failure. A pure, free market approach means that a successful business will thrive. And if it has to sacrifice a country to do it then that's part of the game. They just change the letterhead to a different country. I'm not willing to be that pure of a capitalist, especially when my tax dollars involved.

I expected this from a couple players, not you. I didn't think that there was any debate that our economy was in the shitter when #44 was elected. It's now stabilized (somewhat) but barely growing. That's not "killing" it. People just disagree on how they want to grow it.

The base is a "blink box" (don't know if he has any more). And the shoe cord came from China for $13.30, shipping included. Seems to work fine. I'll let you check it out next time I make it to the DZ. Good to see you Sunday! Matt edited to add attachments

You mean letting the banks, GM and Chrysler fail? That's the true free market approach but I think we'd be MUCH worse off if we had done that. As for HC, it was the right idea but it was too compromised to be as effective as it could be. It's also pretty much embraced in "the pledge", it's just that the Republicans want to claim it as their own. True, times like this recession and the depression are times when the government is allowed to spend like a drunken sailor. The problem was that we had already done that and there was nothing left.

There's considerable bias in our media, however it's not in favor of the Palestinians. CAMERA and AIPAC see to that. In our mainstream media we NEVER (might be too strong a word but I'm sticking with it) see the plight of the Gaza and West Bank residents. We do hear about, and occasionally see pictures of the rocket attacks. And when we do hear about an Israeli offensive it's usually because it's a pretty heavy handed operation. If the coverage of the entire conflict were to be thorough and unbiased I have a feeling that things would be different now.

Whether or not you think it makes sense, it happened, and it looks "efficient" to me. Google "white phosphorous gaza

Not necessarily. Israel considered considered things like macaroni and lentils to be a "luxury" and not necessities. Yet since the end of the war in January, according to non-government organisations, five truckloads of school notebooks were turned back at the crossing at Kerem Shalom where goods are subject to a $1,000 (£700) per truck "handling fee". Paper to print new textbooks for Palestinian schools was stopped, as were freezer appliances, generators and water pumps, cooking gas and chickpeas. And the French government was incensed when an entire water purification system was denied entry. Christopher Gunness, the spokesman for the UN agency UNRWA responsible for Palestinian refugees, said: "One of the big problems is that the 'banned list' is a moving target so we discover things are banned on a 'case by case', 'day by day' basis."

I disagree - It's mostly empty rhetoric to appeal to everyone that's dissatisfied with both big spending parties that don't do what they say they'll do. but especially: 1 - appeals to the general public that's totally dismayed with the last two administrations lack of control in spending 2 - appeals to the general public that sees the current administration killing the economy 3 - and as you note - appeals to fiscal conservative republicans that will ditch the current reps for the newer breed problem is - this brought to us by the same neo-republican crowd that doesn't walk their own talk note that recently a lot of dems are also trying to state they are against the current spending/bailout/irresponsible policies even though they walked lock step with the current admin in the feeding frenzy of the last two years - again, more lies from professionals at it I love elections - it's where the critically insincere really put out the bull. I agree with both of you, except for the "current administration killing the economy". The economy was almost dead and killing other economies. It's not now, it's on life support. The decision to be made is "where do we go from here?" One of the reasons I voted for Obama, and still support him, is that I agree with the notion of rebuilding our economy through bottom up investment in infrastructure, education, and innovation, especially in the arena of alternative energy and conservation. We need a new economy, not the old one of which 70% depends on us buying things (many of which we don't need). I see the "pledge" as yearning for the old economy which is unsustainable. I want new thinking in Washington and I'm willing to vote for that. Unfortunately "K" street crowd and the occupants of those huge buildings around the beltway have lots of "free $peech" at their disposal and they like things the way they are. It will be tough going for any candidate who wishes to contest them.

Looks like Israel caught some more anti-Semitic martyr wannabes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11425408