Biden Vice President - Page 4

Prunepicker · #76 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 10:48 PM

Oh GAWD the Smell! · #77 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 11:24 PM

So? You can take anybody's statements and do that.

Case in point.

Luke · #78 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 11:26 PM

They're all the same...

Edmond_Outsider · #79 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 11:29 PM

Prune, did I hurt your feelings because I responded to you with the same respect you did to me?

Allow me to help you finish your first sentence:

I think I've got no clue about what I'm talking.

And, blah blah blah.

ECO, perhaps I surrender to your brilliant tail chasing tale.

Let me see if I understand your reasoning:
The American dream is that with hard work and determination we have a better than average chance of falling as we do in rising.

That is quite an ideal and a great description of the social mobility myth. I don't expect you to understand why, you've made it clear in your repeated posts about the virtuous you and the lazy bums the people who are no you are.

There are more types of people than the rising virtuous and the towel throwing in trailer park folks.

But, if you insist upon defining the world in those rigid categories, I can see how it might be easy to rest on simplistic perspectives.

I'll cut this short and declare you the victor of this discussion to save you from repeating yourself again or possibly running into an apoplexy inducing challenge to your view point.

Good night.

One last thing, prune, if you're trying to make a point with your video posting, try Romney's numerous statements during the primary about how McCain can't win because people don't want more of Bush's failures.

Luke · #80 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

One last thing, prune, if you're trying to make a point with your video posting, try Romney's numerous statements during the primary about how McCain can't win because people don't want more of Bush's failures.

That's the crazy thing... I would think with all the who-wants-more-of-Bush sentiment that Obama would be several points ahead. But they're neck and neck. Crazy!

fire121 · #81 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 11:58 PM

Edmond Outsider, What is your remedy for the "inequities" you see in society? Specifically, who needs to be punished?

Prunepicker · #82 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oh GAWD the Smell!

So? You can take anybody's statements and do that.

Case in point.

No kidding! That was good, but toward the end they should have continued
with the point/counterpoint instead of all the tricky editing.

I liked Tim Russert.

Oh GAWD the Smell! · #83 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

No kidding! That was good, but toward the end they should have continued
with the point/counterpoint instead of all the tricky editing.

I liked Tim Russert.

Go watch Part I. It's just as good.

The "related" one on the side is pretty good too. They mash up his speaking with that beauty contestant that had the worst brain fart ever on national TV.

Edmond_Outsider · #84 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 10:28 AM

Remedies? I can't claim to have definitive answers.

However, a revised tax code would be a good start. It will hurt me personally, but I'm not sure I can complain considering that I'm doing well enough to be in the tax bracket likely to have to pay more.

Corporate regulation would be a good thing as well. I didn't say "reform" because I don't think we regulate how corporations work much if at all in an effective sense.

As a stock holder, it burns me up that we pay executives as much as we do.

Executive pay comes out of the pockets of share holders and does not seem related to anything in reality--especially performance.

I think we should convert all the golden parachutes from aviation to naval devises and allow them all to sink to the bottom of their corporate oceans with them.

We have allowed corporate management to create a royal class for itself then crown themselves king (s).

For all the whining about the feelings of "entitlement" among the poor, nobody feels more entitled than corporate execs.

I'm not sure how you do this. Cap salaries? Maybe. It would be nice if the market was a self-regulating as it is rumored to be. However, I don't think dogs get off the gut wagon by choice, ever.

The argument that it will hurt business is lame. Let's say we cap public corporate salaries at 1 million. All those 100 million dollar folks will do what? Outsource themselves to china? Go into private business? That would be OK. Might even be good. They might actually have to be productive executives once they get off the corporate gravy train.

Wow, that sounds like how people talk about welfare reform....make the lazy bastards get a job....

Prunepicker · #85 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oh GAWD the Smell!

Go watch Part I. It's just as good.

The "related" one on the side is pretty good too. They mash up his speaking with that beauty contestant that had the worst brain fart ever on national TV.

Lot's of laughs.

Prunepicker · #86 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

Remedies? As a stock holder, it burns me up that we pay
executives as much as we do.

Wife and I, too, are stock holders. We also have several mutual
funds in our IRA portfolio.

The object of a business is to make money for the owners. If the
executives can make decisions to increase the amount of money
we make it shouldn’t make any difference how much they get paid.
We want the corporation to hire the best person for the job. If
paying, what some believe to be, an unreasonable salary with all
the perks, then we’re all for it. Make us money so we don't have to
rely upon socialistic insecurity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

Executive pay comes out of the
pockets of share holders and does not seem related to anything in
reality--especially performance.

Not true. It doesn't come out of our pockets. It comes out of the
profits, that haven't yet reached the stock holders. The profits are
the results of their performance. If they don't make money making
decisions then they don't get to stay. The Mutual Funds do the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

I'm not sure how you do this.
Cap salaries?

Capping salaries will cap performance. The Carter administration
proved that with unreasonable taxation. It works the same way in
the business world. Why would anyone agree to do more work, i.e.
find the best places to put our money, for less? It doesn't make sense
and it doesn't work. Never has and it never will.

I'm a moderate. I look at all sides of the issues and make a reasonable decision.

dismayed · #87 (**permalink**) 08-30-2008, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

Don't ever hate to disagree with me.

Virtually everything on NPR is commentary, they just don't say so. Look at the front page of NPR's website. That's not reporting. It's a glowing commentary for the left. Search for McCain and it's luke warm at best. I can't find anything about McCain taking the lead in the polls. And if you search "polls" you get nothing but democrat or liberal results.

Have you listened to todays hourly news? How about yesterday?

How about todays "Liberal Edition"? Do you think they'll give the Republicans that much positive time?

Do you remember their 9/11 reporting (read commentaries)? They virtually wrote Michael Moore's script for him.

How about their Katrina reporting (again read commentary)?

It doesn't matter who supports them. NPR is liberal. Period. But that's beside the point. The government has no business funding political radio. Imagine if Sean Hannity or Jerry Doyle received any amount of CPB or Public university money.

I went to the business section of KGOU and found that closer to 20% comes directly from CPB and 39% from the University itself. See page 5 of the pdf. That's quite a bit more than the 10% you mentioned. Again, this is from KGOU's website.

I'll cede your point on the funding but I disagree with the original assumption on the context of what that means. The university is a large contributor to KGOU because its School of Journalism is using the radio station to train its writing students and on-air personalities as opposed to just propping the station up for some political purpose.

I don't remember the 9/11 coverage specifically but I do remember being impressed at the time that a large amount of what they reported can be found in the 9/11 Commission Report, which is setting on my bookshelf.

I did listen to NPR yesterday and the day before. The story I remember most clearly was the one where they criticized CNN pretty harshly for having Democratic party operatives on their reporting staff as paid consultants. In the story they pointed out and played audio of these consultants side-stepping any critical question posed to them about the Democrats and questioned what news value they were actually adding to CNN. It was actually a pretty hard rebuke. I don't think they would air a story like that if they were strictly partisan.

As for all the Democratic coverage, that is kind of expected considering this is the Dem's week isn't it? Let's see what they do next week with the Republicans.

As for the glowing reviews... did you watch any of this week's extravaganza? I am not a hard-core Democrat but holy crap 1. that was almost as big a spectacle as the Olympics, and 2. Obama's speech was pretty much a political masterpiece. The guy can definitely turn a phrase.

RabidRed · #88 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Loudenback

I try, most of the time, to avoid politics since by not restraining will detract or diminish what I'm purposefully trying to do on the web -- promote my city's history, and yours, the new great city of the 21st century, regardless of political persuasion.

But, just having heard Joe Biden and watched events unfold tonight, I am unwilling to impose self-restraint. Joe Biden (I mention him 1st with respect to this thread's subject) + Barach Obama = a great team ... OBAMA + BIDEN = a changed America, and one we will be proud to have and have our children and grandchildren be a part of and grow up in as us older folk fade away and die, as is our destiny. But, that fading away makes me proud that the times have changed as much as they have. It does appear that in my time that the phrase, "All men are created equal" (notwithstanding the "men" part), has come to match words with reality.

These are historic and heady times for the US of A. I am well aware that many here and in Oklahoma will see these things 180 degrees differently than I do. But, hang around for a couple of years, keep an open mind, and maybe you'll come to agree ... not with me ... but with the dramatic progression of Americana that has emerged in the year 2008, and that the change is all to the good.

Goug, for a person who wants to stay out of political discussion, you seem to be reading and responding a lot.

I hope you will be happy when you don't have to work and just take home a gift from Washington each month.

Prunepicker · #89 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dismayed

The university is a large contributor to
KGOU because its School of Journalism is using the radio station
to train its writing students and on-air personalities as opposed
to just propping the station up for some political purpose.

So why not have non-biased radio programs?

BTW I had an uncle was the station manager for a while in
the late 80's. That's when it was virtually a news-less station.

I was at KCSC from 1978 until 1983. It was part of the
communications college. It was the most successful public
radio station when it came to fund raising.

The station never provided news the 1990's. I got chastised
by the station manager for reporting Israel retaliating against
the non provoked attack by the Palestinians. I was reading
the AP ticker and thought the world needed to know. Never
did it again.

Edmond_Outsider · #90 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 03:23 PM

It's funny how any station which is not an official branch of the GOP propaganda effort is viewed by Prune and other "moderates" as leftist, commie, etc.

I suppose KGOU would be better to be like Fox.

For example, I see CNN, and Fox side by side every day from 4:30 to 5:30 at the gym. Last week, CNN was covering the convention in a pretty traditional way. I saw Pat Buchanan, Wolf Blitzer, and Anderson Cooper--a pretty even distribution of perspectives--discussing the events in a respectful way regardless of the politics of the person speaking.

Fox, on the other hand made featured one ridiculing comedy sketch after another.

First was a story Brit Hume led about the designer of the Stadium set which led off with, DNC hired Brittany Spears stage designer...While that might be interesting, I doubt the designer was Brittany's personal employee but the message was clear--the Democrats are on the level of coochy bareing drugged out celebutards.

This brief review of the staging was followed by some other idiot's drawings of suggested stage attire for Obama and others, all of which were Roman Togas, Gladiator costumes, etc.

The next part of their coverage was an odds maker's high-larious predictions on "Most Likely Cliches" Among those mentioned were the 250 to 1 pick, "where's the beef."

After that was a story about the latest Gallup poll which showed every demographic Obama had shown a decrease in.

Oddly enough, they never mentioned that the over all poll showed Obama UP 6 points over McCain.

Fair, no. Balanced? On opposite day only.

I don't care about media bias. I'm smart enough and read enough newspapers, magazines, and think tank white papers to figure out something that seems like a reasonable facsimile of what is close to true. But I can't imagine how Fox could be considered anything close to reliable.

Next week, CNN and NPR will cover the GOP convention in a similar manner to the Democratic one, but I doubt Fox will be putting on the comedy show designed to belittle and ridicule the GOP like they did with the Democrats.

I have a feeling FOX with portray the GOP convention as the historic second coming of Jesus, John Wayne, and Richard Nixon presided over by none other than Barry Goldwater and Ronald H. Reagan.

RabidRed · #91 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

It's funny how any station which is not an official branch of the GOP propraganda effort is viewed by Prune and other "moderates" as leftist, commie, etc.

I suppose KGOU would be better to be like Fox.

For example, I see CNN, and Fox side by side every day from 4:30 to 5:30 at the gym. Last week, CNN was covering the convention in a pretty traditional way. I saw Pat Buchanon, Wolf Blitzer, and Anderson Cooper--a pretty even distribution of persepectives--discussing the events in a respectful way regardless of the politics of the person speaking.

Fox, on the other hand made featured one ridiculing comedy scetch after another.

First was a story Brit Hume led about the designer of the Stadium set which led off with, DNC hired Brittany Spears stage designer...While that might be interesting, I doubt the designer was Brittany's personal employee but the message was clear--the Democrats are on the level of coochy bareing drugged out celebutards.

This brief review of the staging was followed by some other idiot's drawings of suggested stage attire for Obama and others, all of which were Roman Togas, Gladiator costumes, etc.

The next part of their coverage was an odds maker's high-larious predictions on "Most Likely Cliches" Among those mentioned were the 250 to 1 pick, "where's the beef."

After that was a story about the latest gallup poll which showed every demographic Obama had shown a decrease in.

Oddly enough, they never mentioned that the over all poll showed Obama UP 6 points over McCain.

Fair, no. Balanced? On opposite day only.

I don't care about media bias. I'm smart enough and read enough newspapers, magazines, and think tank white papers to figure out something that seems like a reasonable facimile of what is close to true. But I can't imagine how Fox could be considered anything close to reliable.

Next week, CNN and NPR will cover the GOP convention in a similar manner to the Democratic one, but I doubt Fox will be putting on the comedy show designed to belittle and ridicule the GOP like they did with the Democrats.

I have a feeling FOX with portray the GOP convention as the historic second coming of Jesus, John Wayne, and Richard Nixon precided over by none other than Barry Goldwater and Ronald H. Reagan.

standard convention The standard f

I take it you are a lib. Be sure Washington has your address also.l

Edmond_Outsider · #92 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RabidRed

I take it you are a lib. Be sure Washington has your address also.l

I take it from your response which added nothing to the conversation but made it clear you have nothing to offer but insults, that you' re a con.

Or maybe you're a repo?

Or, perhaps just an idiot who allows others to do their thinking for them and can't help but parrot fat drug addicts who bloviate daily on am radio.

God bless you.

If I'm supposed to be scared that "Washington" has my address, you'll have to do better than that.

However, I'm quite impressed by your delusion that you hold the power of the government in your hands to mete out to all "libs" and others who have the temerity to disagree with you.

I'm very impressed by your threats.

I've packed my bags and am prepared to be water boarded or whatever you trying to imply you are able to aggrieve me with.

Shudders.

Or, perhaps you were just concerned that my buddies in Washington, Oklahoma still know how to reach me? Don't worry, they all know my name, number, and everything else they need to.

East Coast Okie · #93 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 09:45 PM

Aren't we supposed to be avoiding name calling? Seriously, can't we keep this to a civil, intelligent discussion? If you can't avoid name calling, how about just not posting for awhile until you gather your thoughts. It is not like you're winning at that point, anyway. No offense.

Prunepicker · #94 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Aren't we supposed to be avoiding name calling?

From reading the posts on the political forums one can't help
but notice that those who can't defend their side of an issue
resort to name calling, derision, bumptious diatribe and completely
avoid discussing an issue with compelling facts or civility.

What's hardest to understand is why someone believes that
if you don't agree with them that you must be stupid, incapable
of reason or understanding. These actions do nothing to further
the discourse.

There are a few who are capable of sharing their opinions in
a cordial and respectful manner. Doug immediately comes to mind.

fire121 · #95 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 11:12 PM

I am most likely on the opposite end of the political spectrum of Edmond Outsider. However, I can see his frustration with someone just throwing zingers around without presenting at least just an abbreviated argument for or against a topic. I usually have many more thoughts in my head than the time available to present it here. That being said, Rush Limbaugh has to be one of the most hated, reviled and despised human beings by the left in his country. It is amusing to read the absolute vicious attacks from the tolerant, progressive cowd.

RabidRed · #96 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

I take it from your response which added nothing to the conversation but made it clear you have nothing to offer but insults, that you' re a con.

Or maybe you're a repo?

Or, perhaps just an idiot who allows others to do their thinking for them and can't help but parrot fat drug addicts who bloviate daily on am radio.

God bless you.

If I'm supposed to be scared that "Washington" has my address, you'll have to do better than that.

However, I'm quite impressed by your delusion that you hold the power of the government in your hands to mete out to all "libs" and others who have the temerity to disagree with you.

I'm very impressed by your threats.

I've packed my bags and am prepared to be water boarded or whatever you trying to imply you are able to aggrieve me with.

Shudders.

Or, perhaps you were just concerned that my buddies in Washington, Oklahoma still know how to reach me? Don't worry, they all know my name, number, and everything else they need to.

My concern is that liberals tend to expect Washington to solve everything and provide for everyone. Thus I would think you would want to be duly noted of where you live. Especially if you don't pay taxes. If you do then you may not want them to know. I once heard a Russian cabbie say "why should I worry about providing good service? The government is going to provide for me one way or another". I worry about that attitude permeating our society if liberalism becomes more entrenched. Obama appears that he wants everyone in the world taken care of from cradle to the grave by the government.

Any way, God bless you.

Toadrax · #97 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 12:22 AM

That might have been true in the 80s..

These days, some of us will be voting for Obama because we want the government doing less.

Remember when it used to be a core value of the republican party to get rid of the department of education? I do and I am not even 30 yet :P A lot has changed real fast. Not everyone voting democrat wants free hand outs, and the fact that you keep saying that is insulting.

bornhere · #98 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 03:53 AM

Prunepicker said:

Quote:

From reading the posts on the political forums one can't help
but notice that those who can't defend their side of an issue
resort to name calling, derision, bumptious diatribe and completely
avoid discussing an issue with compelling facts or civility.

Prunepicker also said:

Quote:

From that WBFO pays a substantial amount to NPR for "All Liberal Things Considered" and "Liberal Edition".

Quote:

How about Katie Couric on See BS (I digress, forgive me).

Quote:

Okay, B. Hussein beat Helliary.

Quote:

BO certainly describes his political agenda to a T. Oh Ford! Did I say that?

Edmond_Outsider · #99 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 07:44 AM

Yes, ECO, you are correct and I shouldn't respond in kind. Threats and name calling are not worthy of response to and I appologise to all.

I promise not to call out people for thier idiocy if you will stop calling people you disagree with "liberal."

I think you know you don't mean "liberal" as a context free discription. You certainly do not mean it as a compliment. For decades, the word liberal, just like the word "conservative" describes nothing other than "person who disagrees with me with whom I intend to insult or otherwise discredit."

Back on topic, sort of, it is interesting to me how virtually every ideological group beleaves the media is biased towards the other side.

I tend to think that media outlets tend to favor the perspectives of their owners--Fox=Rupert Murdock for example.

If you want freedom of the press, you better own one.

oknacreous · #**100** (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 07:59 AM

If you just treat everything you hear with skepticism, be it from Fox News, NPR, CNN. AP, talk radio, blogs,....and take the time to find out whether the "facts" and "analysis" you are being fed have any basis in reality, you'll find that spin and smear come from every part of the political spectrum, from far left to far right and everything in between. I have a hard time not laughing when some of the people who complain the loudest about the bias in the "liberal" media turn around and parrot lies and smears about Obama they heard on talk radio or read on the internet.