stevenash

  You are correct about me not reading the links.  Therefore, I am unable to challenge somebody on the accuracy of said article.( I usually only read them carefully if they pertain to the economy)  If I see something that suggests that Mr. Obama deals in untruths, I usually accept the theory and move on because I believe that general contention, for the most part, is accurate even if it isnt in that particular case.   I do not recall getting out my pom poms and promoting something (posted by someone else) that I dont think is true.  My original question on this issue was simply asking that if something is "cut and pasted" is it automatically erroneous simply because it was "cut and pasted"?  Furthermore, if we all get real honest and truthful about things, everyone has, to some small degree, an agenda they want to support/promote.  In my opinion, there is really no such thing as "without bias". 

[Hidden Content]

I didn't realize that I had a duty or responsibility to question anything that Smitty posts. I will try to be more vigilant in the future.  If I see a post made by someone that has a cut and pasted article that says or infers  (as an example) that Mr. Obama lied about something, I wont make the effort to consult with Snopes about the validity of the argument.  If you ask why not, my answer will be that I am fully convinced that Mr. Obama is frequently "lacking in veracity" when he speaks and I am therefore not surprised when another allegation arises.  However, my "inaction" regarding researching the article, in my opinion, is considerably less than a criminal act.  It would be a similar situation if somebody posted something critical about Sara Palin, I tried to debunk that particular cut and paste article, and then voiced a concern to you that you did not call the poster out .

You are probably right.  I wish you would have felt that strongly about " I can see Alaska from my backyard"

The Government has entered into a contract with a real estate firm to sell 56 buildings that currently house U.S. Post offices.  The sale of these properties should bring about 19 billion dollars.   A regular real estate commission will be paid to the company that was given the exclusive listing for handling the sales.   That company is CRI and it belongs to Richard Blum , who just happens to be the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein.( the use of different last names, of course, is purely coincidental)   The "Blums" are likely to make between 950 million and 1.1 billion from these transactions.  All of the properties being sold are fully paid for- by U.S. taxpayer dollars.   Most of the proceeds of this sale will go back to the USPS, an inefficient, unaccountable agency that has managed to lose 117 billion over the last 10 years and also defaulted on its debt last fall.  What a great investment to allow this agency to "manage" all of these dollars coming in.   How does a Senator from San Francisco organize and lobby such a great deal?   These are the folks who claim to be compassionate and watching out for the interests of the little guy.  This is the government that is supposed to be the most transparent administration in history.  These are the folks who like to criticize and vilify the "rich" because they are greedy and have no concern for the less fortunate.   Anyone out there think this is a business transaction that is on the up and up with no conflict of interest?    

If a subject is copied and pasted, is it somehow less worthy of being discussed than original gems such as "is the sky blue"?

Why do you think Mr. Carson is on the "far right"?  What is extreme about him?

BRAVO

My guess is that the supervisors were suspect of your real motives in making that post.

Big Girl- If someone has gastric bypass surgery in order to lose weight, is it hypocritical for them to support moderate eating habits and getting plenty of exercise?

No article- was on the television business news (CNBC)

I would interpret that article as pertaining to the deaths of the four individuals.  I don't think it was intended to speak to the issue of using the video excuse in order to help at election time.

Big Girl- The treasury just announced its intent to borrow 192 billion dollars in the third quarter to keep the government operating.  The projection now is that the country will be 20 trillion in debt by the time Mr. Obamas term is done.  Too late to blame Bush.  Can't blame the Tsunami or a video.  Guess who gets credit?  You got it- the same guy who "killed Bin Laden"

Smitty- Its the same reason she doesn't care for Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas.

I am assuming that the one with the associate degree likely had considerably more experience than any of those with the bachelors degree or she likely wouldn't have the position.  People skills and managerial skills are more a product of experience than college degrees.  Did the lack of respect have anything to do with race?

Is he still saying that there will  never be another team like Ozen and another coach like Boutte?

I am not talking about your debt.  I am talking about the debt of the country.  Furthermore, I suspect that when you bought your car, you didn't already owe 108% of what you earn annually.

Its about time for Big Girl to weigh in on this.

Once you have the majority depending on the government ( and we are very close to being there), like it or not, the majority is going to vote for the guy who promises the most in terms of "free stuff" ( which sadly, is not free at all and has a very high price but most are unwilling to try to understand that and are also unwilling to give up any portion of what has already been given to them)

My guess is that, if he runs, the left will find something in his past.  Perhaps a patient who may have died on the operating table ( who had little hope of surviving anyway).  Dr. Carson will be "painted" as somehow incompetent and without compassion.  This scenario would only come to pass if the left can't find a woman who , for a "small sum", is willing to contend that she was groped by Dr. Carson and was subjected to "suggestive" remarks.

Good indication of that superior intellect.

You suggest this board lacks intellect and you describe it as FUBAR.  And yet, here you are, posting on a board that you say is unworthy of your brilliance.  Why?

" You're a joke" certainly is a good way to encourage others to have conversations.  Can't you find a way to exchange thoughts/ideas without the personal insults?  It really doesn't do any good. And, by the way, I don't belong to the tea party but you constantly infer that I do.

I just want you to realize that you are no better/smarter because you believe in Al Jazeera than someone else here who is a Fox fan.  I think what troubles you about Fox is that, until they came along, the left had their own way with nearly every media outlet.  Fox is the first one that the left has been unable to silence or bully when they hear things they don't want to hear.  If it hadn't been for Fox, we would not have known about things like Benghazi, the IRS situation, or Solyndra.  The founding fathers wanted a press to keep the government honest and that is not possible if all of the press is politically oriented in one direction.  There is a reason Fox is the number one news network, like it or not.  There is not much use in stating that you no longer want to discuss on here because most everyone is a conservative or everyone watches Fox and are therefore, unworthy of your time/conversation.  I still believe that you are much more of a lefty than you are portraying yourself and a lot of that comes from your prior visits to this board before you became ECO.

Yes, it was a dumb question.  Here is another dumb question.  Why single out Fox for your criticism when you agree that all of the other networks are biased also?  Or, could it be, that you find bias acceptable just as long as it is biased "in the proper direction"?  If what you say about all being biased is accurate, why is your leaning toward Al Jazeera any better than my leaning toward Fox?