Republicans love earmarks?!?! SAY IT AINT SO!

[heliochrome85]

truth. the enemy of fox news.http://www.usnews.com/blogs/jo....html

[audtatious]

They have never been accused of being Conservatives. Damn shame the Republican Party is full of RINO's.

[heliochrome85]

i actually agree. The way politics play recently seems like its more about your party affiliation than your actual views. I wonder how many people get elected because of the party line vote on election day? In indiana, you can press a button and vote for all the republicans or all the democrats on the ballot. saves time, but ultimately ends up not reflecting the way an election should be run.

voting should not be done by the staples easy button.

[Cold_Zero]

Isn't it the job of Congress to pass a Federal Budget (which is just a set of earmarks in the first place?) If they didn't earmark items in the budget, the money could be spent God knows where. Now you have to admit there is a difference between an earmark and pork barrel spending. I think the two terms get confused by the Republicans.

So when Congress approved the Nimitz Class Super Carrier program they earmarked the money to go to building the ships. Was this Pork Barrel spending? No, because we need carriers as a part of a strong Navy to protect shipping, US interests abroad and to project our power.

[Cold_Zero]

In indiana, you can press a button and vote for all the republicans or all the democrats on the ballot.

I like being able to pull a straight ticket and then select the other politicians I want from the other parties. I think they call it split ticketing? But with our machines I dont have to go through and select all the Republicans.

[intermilanrox]

Too bad you're wrong. Fox News already covered this. Both Glenn Beck and Haniity already brought this up. 60% of the "earmarks" were from the Democrats the other 40% were from the right. They brought this up and discussed it in detail, how these Republicans shouldn't be following the Democrats and should be fighting against this wasteful spending instead of adding to it.

So unlike MSNBC, and CNN, Fox takes in all the facts and admits when BOTH sides are wrong, although most ignorant Liberals tend to disagree. If you ever listened to Fox, they are hard on both parties, not just the left.

[480sx]

The funny thing about you Intermilan is this. In another thread, you were all like 'You have to get a subscription to the WSJ, because thats where the facts are' or something with that basic idea. Now your defending fox news. You know what? They are owned by the same fvking person. One of the most powerful men in the world, who happens to be a conservative republican.

Who is... Rupert Murdoch!

So basically, all the information you trust so dearly and are spoon feed daily is all a product of a man with an agenda.

There are no fair and unbiased news sources in the United States. If you want the closest thing to real news your gona get, stick with the BBC. They are MUCH better than any stateside media conglomerate.

So, its just hilarious your 'Smack down' of this thread that precedes your citation of 'Fox News' as your fountain of truth. Without a real citation i might add.

Then you go on to bash CNN and MSNBC, who are much more respected world wide than Fox news.

[heliochrome85]

Too bad you're wrong. Fox News already covered this. Both Glenn Beck and Haniity already brought this up. 60% of the "earmarks" were from the Democrats the other 40% were from the right. They brought this up and discussed it in detail, how these Republicans shouldn't be following the Democrats and should be fighting against this wasteful spending instead of adding to it.

So unlike MSNBC, and CNN, Fox takes in all the facts and admits when BOTH sides are wrong, although most ignorant Liberals tend to disagree. If you ever listened to Fox, they are hard on both parties, not just the left.

big talk from a guy who isnt old enough to drive on his own yet, if drive at all. see, the problem with your arguement is that you rely on fox news for your info. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are both incredibly conservative, so naturally, it doesnt help their "cut the taxes cut the fat" position when this sort of info is published.

FOX takes in all the facts and admits when both sides are wrong? WAT? WAT? WAT? yeah. wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

Intermilanrox, What color is the sky in your world? Cause it sure as hell aint blue.

[480sx]

EDIT - Lol i actually confused this guy with another right winger who recently joined, but the s***s still funny regardless.

[heliochrome85]

its funny, the number of double majors in economics, who use the word ROX in their screenname. funny.

[Cold_Zero]

The funny thing about you Intermilan is this. In another thread, you were all like 'You have to get a subscription to the WSJ, because thats where the facts are' or something with that basic idea. Now your defending fox news. You know what? They are owned by the same fvking person. One of the most powerful men in the world, who happens to be a conservative republican.

Who is... Rupert Murdoch!

So basically, all the information you trust so dearly and are spoon feed daily is all a product of a man with an agenda.

There are no fair and unbiased news sources in the United States. If you want the closest thing to real news your gona get, stick with the BBC. They are MUCH better than any stateside media conglomerate.

So, its just hilarious your 'Smack down' of this thread that precedes your citation of 'Fox News' as your fountain of truth. Without a real citation i might add.

Then you go on to bash CNN and MSNBC, who are much more respected world wide than Fox news.

So you are calling into question the WSJ? Give me a break dude. Have you even read the WSJ? It is by no means a stool pigeon for the GOP. So because the WSJ is owned by News Corp, you shouldn't read it, eh? Well I will put the WSJ up against any of the blogs (which have no Journalistic standards what so ever) that you all post up in this sub forum. And no offense T, but everyone needs to stop quoting Wikipedia as a 'source.' Talk about journalistic standards and quality, I update Wiki articles from time to time. Yeah, scary isn't it?

I listen to the BBC world service. While it doesnt give me heartburn, they are the biggest bunch of smug reporters I have ever heard. Half the time I need to turn off the broadcast, because it is just too much. When they are talking about the Squalor in Zimbabwe with thousands of people dying, they end the interview with some smug, well that is too bad kind of attitude. Give me a break.

Keep spewing this 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' garbage. bud

[heliochrome85]

hate to break it to you bud, but the WSJ WAS leftist before the merger in 2007. Since then, it has come under fire on several occasions for its conservative shift. You want liberal, you look at the New York Times. WSJ is less biased than say Fox News, but pretty much everything is if you use FN as a marker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_street_journal

mainly the sections about the editorial board.

[Cold_Zero]

Give me a break T. You know I know that I read Liberal magazines. Try France24. You have to be able to disseminate information from what ever source it is coming from. I just wish that Foxnews.com should stop running shock and hollywood articles.

Btw T, the sky in my part of the country was black, due to thunderstorms. It aint always blue. Sometimes its green, purple, red and black, but you know that.

[heliochrome85]

ill tell you whats on my book mark list.Vanity FairSlate.ComSalon.comThe New Yorker538.comPolitico.comAtlantic MonthlyThe Wall Street JournalThe BBCThe EconomistThe New York TimesForeign Policy Magazineand The Christian Science Monitor

try some of those on for size.

-t

[liquid_cool]

allmost all news is from the AP anyways..they run the major ticker on the wire...as for the discussion...i understand earmarks are for spending under normal economys...but rite now to lift the burden of taxation off of the backs of american's they should cut spending ..and tax's..the republicans should have led the charge on this..but of course we are infested with rino's and moderates who dont have any onion's!..damn spinless twits!

[Cold_Zero]

Well, apparently since this is a pissing contest.Be assured, my favorites contain.

NPR.orgFrance24SwissinfoDeutsche WelleDer SpiegelBBCCBCFox NewsGlobal SecurityNavy TimesRIA Novosti

I also read President Medvedev's blog. Yeah it's a vice.

I have more at work so i am missing Greek and the Russian news services.bud

[heliochrome85]

well sir, here is a screenshot.

yes, i actually am that awesome.

[Cold_Zero]

Somehow I think that Helio presses the 'I'm Felling Lucky' button all the time. He is that good!

[480sx]

So you are calling into question the WSJ? Give me a break dude. Have you even read the WSJ? It is by no means a stool pigeon for the GOP. So because the WSJ is owned by News Corp, you shouldn't read it, eh?

Never said that. I just didnt want it being viewed as the pinnacle of truth that this guy seems to think it is.

Keep spewing this 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' garbage. bud

Right wing? Since when have i singled out the right wing only? The whole government is full of s***. Its obnoxious to be labeled a democrat or a liberal when i dont believe in any of the current political institutions, at all. I have no faith in them at all(siding with main stream america on this one ), and believe it should be destroyed.

[Cold_Zero]

Never said that. I just didnt want it being viewed as the pinnacle of truth that this guy seems to think it is.

Well then I stand corrected. The WSJ is the standard periodicals in American business. And they do financial/business coverage very well.

Quote »Right wing? Since when have i singled out the right wing only? The whole government is full of s***. Its obnoxious to be labeled a democrat or a liberal when i dont believe in any of the current political institutions, at all. I have no faith in them at all(siding with main stream america on this one ), and believe it should be destroyed.[/quote]I guess I didnt realize that I labled you as a lib or a democrat. I just noticed that in your hatred for Fox News you were re-hashing, almost divining the spirit of the old Vast Right Wing Conspiracy defense that Hillary used in the 1990's.

[heliochrome85]

Well then I stand corrected. The WSJ is the standard periodicals in American business. And they do financial/business coverage very well.

exactly. Financial papers tend to skew right for obvious reasons.

[audtatious]

Does not necessarily mean they are wrong in their observations. That's like me saying the NYTimes is always wrong as they lean left. That's not the case.

[heliochrome85]

wow, we agree on two things in a thread. wow.

yeah, i totally agree. I stopped reading the NYT because of their unabashed love for Obama. If i wanted to read a fan paper, id read the huffington post (which i do on occasion).

[Cold_Zero]

I think we all agree. Obviously the WSJ is going to be geared more towards business and finance and their outlook or view will be geared toward such. That does not intrinsically mean that their journalistic standards are compromised or negate their mission. This is why I said, 'you have to be able to disseminate information from what ever source it is coming from.' Which is something that as my daughter gets older; I can teach her to do. Not only in a political, philosophical or social sense but also in a historical sense as well. I think the last is so sorely missing in our society today

[audtatious]

wow, we agree on two things in a thread. wow.

See, I really am a moderate-conservative

[intermilanrox]

Hey, you got ONE thing right. I am only 15, not even a permit till Decmber. But, I never said Fox News is the best. I merely stated that Fox already adressed this issue, and that they are not afraid to speak bad about the right. If you watch Fox anytime, they do tend to critcize the right too. I've seen them on multiple occasions critcize the Bush administration, mainly after the bailout. So what I guess I was trying to say is, Fox News doesn't just spew right wing C**P constantly. They do criticize the right when they need to, but you can't hate Fox for leaning right.

I clearly also stated that BBC is the best source for news.

I have a question for you how many states are there in the U.S. Because apparently the left's "Messiah" is unaware? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

480sx:I was about to say that I never mentioned that, but I say you corrected yourself. Also, if you do want to talk about Murdoch, let's talk about the puppet master on the left: George Soros.

[heliochrome85]

oh to be young and blissfully ignorant again...

[Cold_Zero]

oh to be young and blissfully ignorant again...

What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?You are still a pup.

And the BBC? Give me a break.

[heliochrome85]

What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?You are still a pup.

And the BBC? Give me a break.

yeah but son, ive forgotten more about politics and history, in my 24 years, than most people will learn in their lifetime.

[Cold_Zero]

yeah but son,

You called me 'Son.' Awww thanks dad.. can I get my allowance now?