Maybe Obama ain't all that bad!!!

Roy

Moderator
Messages
7,446
Hey RUS - looks like your boy Barack is ruffling some liberal feathers! Things may not be as bad as the doomsdayers predicted back on 11/5!

Like all things - we will have to wait and see how things turn out - but so far I like the looks of things. Still some MAJOR issues to confront!


Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they're on the lookout for backsliding. “There's a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America's Future.

Obama insists he hasn't abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left's bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won't enact the tax.

Obama's pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he's struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he'll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama's post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama's says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC's “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left's criticism is direct – don't bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone' approach in the transition team.”

This isn't the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.



Now it's Obama's Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It's not just that he's picked Clinton and Gates. It's that liberal Democrats say they're hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama's team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don't think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That's a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it's just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there's really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America's Future blogs commented on Obama's decision not to tax oil companies' windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America's Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I've heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here's how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies' windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don't.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he's only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he's just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn't ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn't had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it's not as important as who's there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren't out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don't like what they're seeing so far and aren't waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama's economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy's “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama's Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn't Quite the Change We Envisioned.”
UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
I am hoping that Obama is smart enough to be flexible and make the best choices for America. Sometimes that might mean crossing party lines.

Hopefull,

Beanman
 
The far right is only woried he will be too much to the center, how can you keep the hate going if he's not the left wing radical you portray him as. I hope he does what's best, if that upsets the far left as well as the far right then he's probably doing a good job.
 
He's finding out that once on the inside, and the TRUTH is known, things aren't so easy. I believe Obama is having his "O-S**t" moments these days and having to rethink all of these changes he planned. Running a country isn't like being a community organizer.

Member: RMEF, SCI, and NRA
 
I could not agree more Spence. The left, the George Soros's, moveon.org, democraticunderground.com types got him elected and now he is crawfishing on everything he promised them. The left is coming unglued right now.

Obama is my President and I will stand by him. I am in wait and see mode.

The only thing that concerns me right now is his appointments of Clintonian has beens to every position in his cabenet. These are the SAME folks that got us attacked on 911 due to their incompetance and lack of fortitude to kill terrorist. We will see.

Change?????We are getting the Clinton admin again. Where's the Change?
 
I don't know Roy ... maybe just maybe we finally have a leader that is going to address our woes regardless of politics. I sure hope so.... we are in deep dark doodie. The guy seems to be trying to assemble a Lincoln type cabinet (mixture of friends and foes) we'll see I guess ... carry on!!!

You think they will serve collard greens & fried chicken at the inaugural dinner? Perhaps BBQ ummm ummm!

RUS
 
Nice hit-piece Roy...where'd you get it? These attempt at unity through divide and conquer measures is intriguing. The author leaves no question to bias by inferring Obama's vote continued warrantless wiretapping.

No mention of the Republicans that also voted on the bill or the attached amendment to strip immunity. The bill insured no more uni-lateral warrantless eaves-dropping on calls originating from U.S. soil.

So the party is now going to try and flush Bob Gates in typical Rove fashion...nice. It is an intellictual insult aligning Gates with Clinton and indirectly painting him as some sort of liberal sell-out.

Gates is a tell like it is, Bush Sr. appointed Ex-CIA Directing, Ex-President of Texas A&M Conservative, that has cleaned up George and Rummy's utter failings.

I personally think Sr. was embarrased by the mockery in Iraq and a personal favor asked Gates to help W. Gate already turned W down once for the job as Head of Homeland Security.

Predictable how neo-con propoganda always conduct a smear campaign on their very own picks once they leave ship..but Bob Gates c'mon!

I guess I would be head-shy and cynical too after 8 years of double-speak and failed policies.

Obama was joined by a multitude of Republicans in voting for the bill. An amendment to the bill to strip immunity clauses which Obama voted for did not pass. W may have declined to sign the bill without the immunity language attached, leaving wire-taps arbitrary and without oversight.

Roy do you really believe Bob Gates is any type of liberal? Do you really believe Obama signed a bill to further warrantless wire-taps on U.S. citizens? Or was it to end a secret Presidential Program of warrantless wire-tap abuse without legal oversight?
 
Sorry FTW - didn't realize the URL didn't get posted too - here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292;_ylt=Au9RPzrPY7vlPbLB3MdyAYgazJV4

Just got it from Yahoo yesterday. It caught my eye as interesting to say the least. And yes I can definitely read the bias in it, but any article today is biased. We are fools to think they are not. Objectivity in journalism died long ago.

No I don't think Gates is liberal at all - and I was very pleasantly surprised that Obama asked him to stick around. I think he is a good man - and I could care less about his political leanings because I think he makes choices based on experience and good conscience. He is the right man for the job for sure and I am glad he has the opportunity to continue the track he has set forth regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think it is just funny that even though the extreme left though they got their way they still aren't happy. Some of the comments on the blogs they quote are hilarious.


UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
202 who was president on 9/11 2001? no doubt you want to go back and blame Clinton for not starting a preemptive war to prevent it but don't forget Bush had 9 months to do so, Bush sr had the perfect chance. don't you think starting a war before we were attacked would have been a tough sale for Clinton? don't kid yourself if Bush could go back in time he wouldn't touch Iraq with a 10 foot pole, maybe Bush Sr and Clinton were just a whole lot smarter and thats nothing to hold against them.

I can't believe we're still talking about this, but we see proof people would rather have the Clintons back and an unknown dork like Obama than anymore Bush disaster. now if that doesn't tell you something I guess nothing will.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-08 AT 11:21AM (MST)[p]HD,

Just so we know the rules if something happens 9 months into an Obama administration you will hold Obama 100% accountable for that as well? I think we all know who the left will blame for anything that happens in the next 4 years and it won't be Obama.

FTW
Divisive politics comes from both sides and to try to say that this is a hit piece is missing the way the left is feeling left out of the Obama administration. He is appointing middle of the road and even hawkish people to his cabinent. Do you think the George Soros's of the world gave all that money to be ignored?

I hope Obama succeeds and we flourish as a nation but I have my grave doubts that Obama can lead from the center and that the left wing of the Democratic party wants to go along with the center. I think they feel that it is their time and that Obama owes them all the positions of influence and policy making.

Why are you even worried about what the Republicans do? They are virtually powerless other then being able to filibuster in the Senate. I think it is funny that the left is still worried about the right even after the recent @ss whopping in the polls. I don't get it.

Nemont
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-08
>AT 11:21?AM (MST)

>
>HD,
>
>Just so we know the rules
>if something happens 9 months
>into an Obama administration you
>will hold Obama 100% accountable
>for that as well?
>I think we all know
>who the left will blame
>for anything that happens in
>the next 4 years and
>it won't be Obama.
>
>FTW
> Divisive politics comes from both
>sides and to try to
>say that this is a
>hit piece is missing the
>way the left is feeling
>left out of the Obama
>administration. He is appointing
>middle of the road and
>even hawkish people to his
>cabinent. Do you think
>the George Soros's of the
>world gave all that money
>to be ignored?
>
>I hope Obama succeeds and we
>flourish as a nation but
>I have my grave doubts
>that Obama can lead from
>the center and that the
>left wing of the Democratic
>party wants to go along
>with the center. I
>think they feel that it
>is their time and that
>Obama owes them all the
>positions of influence and policy
>making.
>
>Why are you even worried about
>what the Republicans do? They
>are virtually powerless other then
>being able to filibuster in
>the Senate. I think
>it is funny that the
>left is still worried about
>the right even after the
>recent @ss whopping in the
>polls. I don't get
>it.
>
>Nemont


I don't get it either nemont.

Dude you know as well as I do that we were attacked repetedly durring Clinton's stretch and Clinton did absolutley nothing. Clinton was handed Binladen on a silver platter and he refused to do anything about it. Those are the facts. All that time Binladen was plotting his 911 attack. Since then Bush has put an utter and complete azz whoopin on terrorist. So much so we have not been attacked what so ever, due to his policies against terrorist. So yes I am unsure about the limp wristed Clintonites being appointed. They did NOTHING to keep us safe then, what makes you think they can now?
 
Wouldn't getting revenge on Bin Laden include getting Bin Laden?

Wouldn't putting an azz whooping on terrorist include reducing terrorist strongholds? what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan in your opinion? you seem to be one of the few who think they're whooped. oh and one more time , IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

This is all old news, americans saw it for what it is and the elections are proof, I need to learn how to let you have what's left of your fantasy and move on.

I take it all back, yes Bush cured terrorism with Iraq and showed Bin Laden and the other Saudis who's boss . there, now we can put this behind us and try to scratch out a future.
 
Saying that IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11 is like saying that liquor stores have nothing to do with drunk driving accidents. One feeds the other - and Saddam deserved to be taken down just for celebrating 9/11 like he did anyway. He was a despot who was raping and pillaging his own people. The deaths in Iraq due to his demise from that date until now can be laid directly on his conscience! To HIS charge! And don't worry, the US will get a return on its investment, hell many of us would say that no attacks on our own soil in seven years is enough ROI.

And Bin Laden has been living in a cave for seven years, not revenge enough, but many of his rowdy friends have sure been rowdied on down! Al Queda is fractured for sure.

But you are right dude - it is over. We need to move forward, repair and heal. But I think it is really just a sign of the times and I expect it to get worse before it gets better. If it is not Iraq it is somewhere else. There are just too many holes in the dike for the little dutch boy to plug - but that doesn't mean he lets the whole thing collapse! We need to work on one hole at a time!

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-08 AT 11:43PM (MST)[p]Nemont I have zero problems about those that have issues with Obama. If the story really is about disgruntled voters then by all means have at it. This one wreaks of creating doubt in hopes of fanning the flames of internal division from within. Like a chef the author adds 2 cups of fact, a tablespoon of lies, and just a dash of guilt by association.

The fact is there are only 2 games in town, the extremes on both sides have no choice but to fall in line.

Here's basically the same story from Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html

202 You're right! That no good Shinseki and Gates, they are total Clintonites. No doubt that limp-wristed Shinseki is a well-known idiot. You live by a base, should he visit you should shake his limp-wristed hand and question his integrity.

I've hated that Gates guy ever since she/he had that sexchange and left Microsoft. I can't believe he got away with embezzling millions and gave it all to the No on 8 campaign, then landed a Secretary Appointment with Bush, what a loser. Lying is fun!

Safe...do you mean safe like a blanket and a bippy-safe? Like duct-tape, wet towel, and today's terrorist color warning is orange safe? I find that term to be just plain odd. Not like a 50 year old guy drawing a picture of 2 dogs humping on his etch-sketch standing next to a fat woman and a one legged dwarf feeding a donkey odd, but odd none the less.

C'mon safe from who 202, terrorists, an ideology, safe from guys like Tim McVey?

Mumbai should be a lesson on just how much damage a group 10 well-armed, well-informed, motivated foreign or domestic individuals can cause. In no means do I wish to praise their action other than to point out their mass lethality.

Anybody with access and a misplaced bug can subject the civil masses to terror by their actions. In that vein, like a home invasion robbery you are never truly safe. So far we have been lucky, lucky for passengers that tackled the shoe-bomber, and lucky for catching those that were planning to attack one of our bases.

There is still division within our justice and intelligence departments despite Homeland Security. Our southern border is still unsecured and we have a record number of HVV1 visa holders in the country.

When the day comes that you cannot buy Afghani drugs mainly heroin and hashish in the U.S. then maybe as a nation we will be safer from foreign terror. Look up the stats on Afghani drugs trafficing and you realize that if they can get that in from around the world, you can get anything into the U.S. despite Homeland Security.
 
So Forenot please esplain to all of us why we have not been hit with a terror attack since 911????..............wait I know, they just hav'nt felt like it, right?
 
I'd like to quote my favorite black thug. "Can't we all just get along"


Ransom Deer Slayer of Van Buren Co.
 
FTW,

Please point out what is not factual in the article you posted? Why was it okay for the left to fan the flames of discord at every turn against Bush but Obama is immune? Don't you think this is a little of the left reaping what they sowed by villianizing Bush regardless of the issue? Do expect the game to change that dramatically just by the election of Obama?

The left of the democratic party is feeling left out and appear to be unhappy with Obama for not making more "bold" choices in regards to whom he surrounds himself with.

From my perspective he is putting together a very moderate cabinet with moderate goals in place. He is toning down his rhetoric and even moving to distance himself from many campaign promises.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-08 AT 11:10AM (MST)[p](typos edited out)

1.Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

2.This isn't the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue."

3.Now Obama's says that on his first day in office he will begin to design a plan for a responsible drawdown, as he told NBC's Meet the Press Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

4. This isn't the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.



Item #1 thru association places Gates as a stalwart of the left. Note how Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates are then later mentioned in the very same sentence. This statement would have also included Shinseki, however that appointment occurred the day after the article came out.

#2. As mentioned in my earlier thread to wire-tapping.

#3. Please show me Robert Gates official support for the war back in 2003. This is totally inferred without any noted facts to support such a statement. I stated my opinions on Gates in my earlier thread.

#4 This can be categorized as a half-truth, framed as some endorsement of Bush policy, In fact, that is not the case
and the bill does not allow for uni-lateral warrantless wiretaps on calls orignating from and received on U.S. soil anymore.



Now there are specific quotations in the article, everything else is inputed by the author, note all 3 paragraphs are directly from the author.

I agree and stated the majority of substance in the article itself, given the numerous quoatations. If there is real division, criticism, or complaints let the reporting of them rain from the skies.

I did find a certain irony in the paragraph shown below that was in the article.

"Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts."

Never saw that one coming!

Track the pre-election polls and the continued daily decline in gas prices. But that can be left for another post...
 
FTW,

I think questioning the press is good but it is a two way street. Reporting in general sucks and is often done without much in the way of supporting facts.

It is interesting that the left is just now concerned with bias and inaccuracies in the media. They helped propagate and assisted the media with both during the Bush administration. Nobody that was a democrat supporter worried about what was really true as long as it made Bush look bad. Now to be concerned about bias is kind of funny.

Nemont
 
I called it as I saw it, without name calling or personal attacks on Roy, you challenged my thread and I have now supported it. Now what?

Really now that's it Nemont...that's all you are going to give me is, "questioning the press is good"..really that's it?


I guess there will be no, "Ya FTW I can see your point" or "no you are still wrong, everthing stated in the article was unbiased fact and your observations are way off base."

Do you still believe that there are not mistated facts, inferences, and indirect associations or do you believe that Bob Gates is a "pro-war" advocate or that he is a democratic supporter or even member, let alone a democratic stalwart? And remember I stated the bulk of the article is substanial.

Y or N Nemont? Y or N

Apparently for my efforts to support my claims I am rewarded with 4 sentences that break down as: left now concerned with bias, propagate and assisted during Bush, democratic supporter Bush look bad, and now concernced about bias.

If you want to bestow a not-so-subtle inferrenced title of Liberal Democratic Defender-Man or The Left on me...that's fine. As if my take on the article somehow represents some across-the-board democratic epiphany of media bias. Me, a well-known ultra neo non-partisan that believes the entire system is flawed!

When have I ever posted any criticism of Bush or his Administration that I could not support with multiple sources? I preface my opinions which at times maybe over-the-top, but I always check facts from multiple shared sources. Good thing I have no soul Nemont or I would almost be offended. :)

202, you had a great Rummy flashback moment. You asked and answered your own question in a single breath. So in reality did you really ask a question or was that just some strange statement.

By strange I don't mean some guy packing a suitcase full of jars of peanut butter, a rubber fist, a map of Texas, a duck call, a bowling pin, and latex sheets before leaving on his honeymoon. I just meant strange because it was so Rummyesque.
 
back the bus up and reread my post. I didn't infer anything on you. All I said is that to be worried about bias now is funny

Do I think Gates was pro war, no. He has stated that he considers himself a Republican but didn't register because he viewed his job a non partisan.

A little touchy aren't we? Again why are you shocked that a reporter may be biased? Have you not read the bias in nearly all so called news?

Anyway if your feathers are ruffled I guess they are ruffled. It is still funny that reporting on the left wing should be pure as the driven snow but reporting on the right wing should be open season for bias. I find that thought process interesting.

I don't believe that this single article is going to tear down the good will Obama has built. I am a little concerned that both ends of the political spectrum, even the Saintly left, will be more interested in tearing down rather then building up if things get uglier.

So sorry for not just agreeing and saying yes there is bias in this article even though there is growing discontent in the George Soros wing of the democratic party.

Nemont
 
Nemont, did I attempt to disuade or rationalize any questions of Obama or comments about democratic discontent or division?

In thread 16 you asked me what in the article is not fact. I have now stated it...twice.

So no need to worry about my pin-feathers they are all mighty fine...mighty fine indeed good sir. C'mon now let us not engage in such sublimal endeavors, let us call a spade, a spade Nemont.

This article has no relationship to your topic of democratic complaints of bias in the media. So it only serves as a bullet to bring me down and hurt my feelings, filling my eyes with watery cyber-tears.

My calling it a hit-piece is the sole basis of your
focal point of newly found left-wing accusations of bias. Is the entire article full of blatant lies..no..and I said that. Do I think the media is some fairyland of unbiased, uncensored, or unmaniputlated information...Please.

It's not bias Nemont, it's just facts. When a claim that Obama has filled his cabinet with Democratic Stalwarts is incorrect considering Gates. Indirectly inferring that because he is a Republican that he is pro-war is ridiculous assumption.

Here is the Irony Nemont, here I am defending Bob Gates and yet you want to focus on me as a hyper-senstive lefty.

Now that is almost as funny as your claims of not inferring anything when it comes to me. If not, then what is the purpose of your threads and why are you addressing me or the topic of media bias to me?

I'm really hurt Nemont, this may take years of psycho-tropic drugs and counseling for me to get over. I thought we were friends...how are your feathers?
 
What fun would this site be if I can't irritate people by arguing the opposite of whatever is posted? I get bored sometimes with my work or just want to kill time.

I will quit asking you questions or infering things about you.

Happy holidays.


Nemont
 
How true, I argue about things I don't even care about. if we didn't it would be as dull as Mr Roger's around here.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-08 AT 00:26AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-08 AT 00:23?AM (MST)

Well that's just great but I really don't need these distraction right now as I am in training. You see boyz I'm chasin a dream to be a world famous Professional Chicken Wrestler.

I've been training a lot with a couple of 4-5 lbs. whole fryers and tomorrow I actually have my first live match. I gotta tell ya I'm having a hard time getting psyched-up. Have you ever squared off and looked into the beady eyes of an angry chicken? Exactly my point...

I had KFC in Boise sponsor our first sanctioned league event in the back parking lot. Now I know what your thinking, whole fryers aren't the same as live chickens, a live chicken will fight back. True, but I think I'm prepared, I've been watching hundreds of hours of chicken videos.

If this chicken thing catches on..who knows where this could go. Professional Turkey Wrestling, or no wait, wait, what about combining the 2 leagues into the one World Poultry Wrestling Federation. Yep the dollars ought to be rolling in after tomorrows bout big time.
 
I think I would have stuck with the array of used refrigeraters making ice to help curb global warming. Chickens are pretty scary critters.


Ransom
 
That's kind of a sore subject Ransom, I can't get to the ranch due to all the damn snow. You can't believe the electricity bill on 1,000 refridgeraters. I may switch over to ovens in the spring, there's has been a lot of talk about global cooling.

But enough about my business endeavors this is more about chasing your dreams. Feeling the roar of crowd, the relentless chicken boos filling the back parking lot as I enter the squared Coup of Death tonight, and yes it's a double elimination cage match.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom