John Stossel for President

In reply to aircooled:

Wrong thread dude.

I'm not asking you to watch hannity. Afaik, he's never been on fbn, and is a d-bag. Debates (which are on msnbcwtf?) are on. Lemme get back to wanting to foot-punch baaaaahkman's retarded face.

poopshovel wrote: I'm not asking you to watch hannity. Afaik, he's never been on fbn, and is a d-bag. Debates (which are on msnbcwtf?) are on. Lemme get back to wanting to foot-punch baaaaahkman's retarded face.

They really hate Ron Raul, don't they? Great that the presenters are so unbiased...

I dunno. The mofo needs some ritalin or some E36 M3e. His little "The border fences are keeping us IN maaaaan!" thing is why a lot of people won't vote for him. I would put 13 million people on school busses on weekends and send them back to whatever corrupt 3rd world E36 M3hole they came from, btw.

Rick puhrry hayts naaaahtrus ock-saaaahd!!!

Is the US really going to elect another cowboy from TX?

Ugh.

z31maniac wrote: Is the US really going to elect another cowboy from TX? Ugh.

Haha that was my first thought as well!

Anything is better than Bachmann/Palin, there folksy idiocy is beyond wearing thin.

T.J. wrote: In reply to poopshovel: Here's just 3 things: 1. January 6, 2008 – Milford, New Hampshire 2. Frank Luntz 3. Sean Hannity

Curious, I googled #1 and got nothing. Please explain. I kind of like Frank Luntz, though he really needs someone to dress him and do some makeup before he goes on camera. Sean Hannity, yeah, I'm with you on that guy. Can't stand him (and I lean a bit conservative).

ddavidv wrote:

T.J. wrote: In reply to poopshovel: Here's just 3 things: 1. January 6, 2008 – Milford, New Hampshire 2. Frank Luntz 3. Sean Hannity

Curious, I googled #1 and got nothing. Please explain. I kind of like Frank Luntz, though he really needs someone to dress him and do some makeup before he goes on camera. Sean Hannity, yeah, I'm with you on that guy. Can't stand him (and I lean a bit conservative).

Number (1) is the date of a Republican debate televised by Fox. The network did not invite Ron Paul to the event, thusly infuriating the Paulistas. The unbridled rabidity of his fans is more disturbing than any network's decision to limit his appearance(s).

Luntz hosts some interesting group discussions but his main problem is a close association with Hannity.

Hannity is a tool; an unwieldy, heavy hammer with no pretense to be anything other than a one-theme shill. There is always something more informative or entertaining on to watch (or do) during his time slot.

Luntz is on there to show us what the focus groups think, but he admits that it is all BS. The people are picked and then jedi mind tricked by Luntz to get the answer he wants. According to Luntz, the purpose of a poll is not to figure out what the people think, but to tell them what to think. It is all scripted BS.

"We Report, You decide" is also total BS. The goal is not to report the news, but to shape opinions and distort the truth to control small-brained lemmings' minds.

If you like it, fine. I don't. I'm not even sure if I have Fox Business News...is that the channel that Stossel is on?

Oldsaw, I am a Ron Paul fan, but I wouldn't say I'm a Paulista (whatever that means) and I wouldn't describe myself as rabid.

z31maniac wrote: Is the US really going to elect another cowboy from TX? Ugh.

Rick Perry?

The Republican candidates are like a Scottish menu. Not much on it and nothing I want (I might vote for Ron Paul though because he might do something other then politics as usual).

I'm not even sure if I have Fox Business News...is that the channel that Stossel is on?

YES!

93EXCivic wrote: The Republican candidates are like a Scottish menu. Not much on it and nothing I want (I might vote for Ron Paul though because he might do something other then politics as usual).

There is little to no difference whether we re-elect Obama or elect Romney or Perry as far as I can tell. Just like there is little to no difference between Obama's and Bush's policies.

T.J. wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: The Republican candidates are like a Scottish menu. Not much on it and nothing I want (I might vote for Ron Paul though because he might do something other then politics as usual).

There is little to no difference whether we re-elect Obama or elect Romney or Perry as far as I can tell. Just like there is little to no difference between Obama's and Bush's policies.

Trying to stay civil, but I think you've lost your berkeleying mind. Still spending hundreds of billions on multiple wars? Check. Still printing and spending like there's no tomorrow? Check. Pushing amnesty for illegals? Check. But a Republican president, I don't care which one, would not have pushed for, and then signed, a universal healthcare bill in the middle of an economic crisis, and while Bush started the bailouts, I don't think he or any other Republican president would've gone for this "If we just spend $1,000,000,000,000 on roads, bridges, and turtle tunnels, everyone will have a job" retardedness. And apparently, here comes round 2.

poopshovel wrote:

T.J. wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: The Republican candidates are like a Scottish menu. Not much on it and nothing I want (I might vote for Ron Paul though because he might do something other then politics as usual).

There is little to no difference whether we re-elect Obama or elect Romney or Perry as far as I can tell. Just like there is little to no difference between Obama's and Bush's policies.

Trying to stay civil, but I think you've lost your berkeleying mind. Still spending hundreds of billions on multiple wars? Check. Still printing and spending like there's no tomorrow? Check. Pushing amnesty for illegals? Check. But a Republican president, I don't care which one, would not have pushed for, and then signed, a universal healthcare bill in the middle of an economic crisis, and while Bush started the bailouts, I don't think he or any other Republican president would've gone for this "If we just spend $1,000,000,000,000 on roads, bridges, and turtle tunnels, everyone will have a job" retardedness. And apparently, here comes round 2.

But they probably would have cut taxes just as much and we would still be heading down the same direction. Just on a slightly different path.

Whoever wins this next election will be faced with even worse challenges than Obama when it comes to the economy. Unless there is drastic action taken to really transform our monetary system, it won't matter who is in charge of the government, the economy will continue to get worse and worse. Borrowing more and more money is the only solution to try to keep the system propped up and maintain the status quo.

T.J. wrote: In reply to aircooled: Wrong thread dude.

DOHH! I was wondering where that post went!!

Oh well, that room failed anyway.

T.J. wrote: Whoever wins this next election will be faced with even worse challenges than Obama when it comes to the economy. Unless there is drastic action taken to really transform our monetary system, it won't matter who is in charge of the government, the economy will continue to get worse and worse. Borrowing more and more money is the only solution to try to keep the system propped up and maintain the status quo.

Agreed. But there's a difference between "borrowing (printing) and spending as usual," and Government takeover of an industry that makes up 16% of the economy, while also putting politicians even more in charge of my life.

poopshovel wrote: Really dude? Mind to enlighten me a little more as to the reasons for/terms of said embargo?

I would like to answer this also (probably why I ended up posting in the wrong thread):

I don't necessarily embargo Fox news, but I do tend to avoid it. I don't actually watch much news in general, whatever the network. I have watched Fox news (the actual news you know, sans the opinion crap) and it is reasonable news, much like any other news.

The move to Fox does add a taint to Stossel though. Even more interesting is that you note that he is on Fox Business News (which I didn't even realize). I suspect FBN is somewhat reasonable (never really looked into it) but the standard Fox News is such a OpinioTainment hack fest that the stink of it bleeds over to FBN just by name association alone.

On 20/20 he took interesting angles on topics and seemed to treat them fairly (although, in retrospect, it does make me wonder if his reports could be considered partially opinion based ?) . Honestly, in the years of watching him (probably my favorite part of 20/20) I never even considered his reports as being politically based. On Fox, there is just an assumption that he is towing the Fox party line, even if he isn't. I should watch it now and see if I notice a difference.

Like I said. I don't know if it was his call at all, but if he wants to get his perspective on the world out there, it would be FAR more effectively done on 20/20. As long as he makes fair assessment of a situation and considers all sides of the argument he will be way ahead of many of the other hacks on Fox.

P.S. I agree Hannity is a HUGE tool, and sadly, seemingly very popular. I consider him a very big part about what is wrong in the country (more specifically the political discourse).

aircooled wrote: On 20/20 he took interesting angles on topics and seemed to treat them fairly (although, in retrospect, it does make me wonder if his reports could be considered partially opinion based ?) . Honestly, in the years of watching him (probably my favorite part of 20/20) I never even considered his reports as being politically based. On Fox, there is just an assumption that he is towing the Fox party line, even if he isn't. I should watch it now and see if I notice a difference.

Stossel has always presented only one side of an argument and it drives me nuts. I have a script here for one of his 20/20 segments: "Here's a misrepresentation and oversimplification of the liberal side of a debate. Now here, look how this poor person is suffering under this policy. Now I'm going to cite some statistics taken out of context. Now I'm going to interview an expert from a libertarian think tank. Now we cut back to our suffering single mom/old couple/out of work father. Now I'm interviewing an expert on the other side of the debate, catching them off guard with an aggressive interrogation and using careful editing to make them appear stupid. Here are more bad statistics. More anecdotes. Wrapup.. . . GIVE ME A BREAK!"

The problem is he makes it seem like he's presenting both sides when really he isn't. Like all smart ideologues (socialist or libertarian) he's really convincing when you let him control the forum. People buy his E36 M3 without questioning it because they want to believe that established thinking must be wrong. Everyone loves a contrarian!

In reply to ppddppdd:

As a contrarian, I'll suggest one can substitute Stossel's name with most any MSM journalist and your observation still rings true.

Just because one doesn't see bias, doesn't mean its' absent.

ppddppdd wrote: ...The problem is he makes it seem like he's presenting both sides when really he isn't...

It's interesting, in thinking about it (although I haven't seen one of his reports in a while), I can see how what you are saying is true. Maybe I was just assuming it wasn't a slanted view and saw it as such. Still an interesting angle, but I can see how he may have been avoiding a full perspective.

One report that I do remember, on teacher unions and the ridiculous process required to fire a teacher. He was good at showing how silly the process is, but I do seem to remember he ignored covering the reasons why those controls might be in place (overbearing as they may be)

The strange part about it is, being on 20/20 (despite what Fox will tell you) you tend to assume a pretty neutral view of things, but being on Fox, the slant might be more obvious.

So, I may not be as enthused about seeing his show now, but I should still check it out with a new perspective and see what I think.

z31maniac wrote: Is the US really going to elect another cowboy from TX?

Another? The last one was from Connecticut. He just made everyone forget that and think he was a Texan. Brilliant move on his part.

I'll preface what I'm about to say with this: I've got nothing against religion, or religious people. The Michelle Bachmans of the world need to stop trying to use government to push their flavor of religion on everyone else. Rick Perry seems to be the same, but just a little less.

The Michelle Bachmans of the world need to stop trying to use government to push their flavor of religion on everyone else.

BIG +1. Funny you should say that here. Napolitano had an awesome rant to that effect earlier this week.