Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Only pointing out that the corporations that run this country couldn't care less about "justice" and "liberty" and all that.<<< A problem to be solved, no doubt. >>>You'd have to start thinking first.<<< >>.How about them Florida Republicans, nominating a crook for governor. Insurance fraud, if you're keeping score. Chalk up another victory for U.S. honor!<<< Ugh...Don't remind, me please. I HATE (Ok, bad word, strongly dislike Rick Scott. The only thing he has going for him, is his stance on Senate Bill 6, which was designed to take tenure from teachers. He's against that. Dad's 29 years in the system are safe...for now... C'mon, Leo...We were doing pretty good before that. Don't derail the conversation with pettiness. We are better than that. >>>
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>How about them Florida Republicans, nominating a crook for governor. Insurance fraud, if you're keeping score. Chalk up another victory for U.S. honor!<<< Ugh, don't remind me. I despise Rick Scott. Pray he doesn't win. The only thing he has going for him is his stance on Senate Bill 6....a bill designed to take all tenure away from teachers. At least, with him, Dad's 29 years in the public school system are safe.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> He lies about the current president on a daily basis. Evidence of this abounds. Here is but one example. there are many, many more. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/resear...02020014" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/resear...02020014</a> Here's another, where he misleads viewers into believing that "doors" were repaired for millions of dollars in federal funds. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/resear...07210005" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/resear...07210005</a> It goes on and on like that. His whole schtick is entertaining the incurious with phony truthiness. Of course, when he is help accountable for what he says, he scrambles to say "Hey, I'm just an entertainer!" << Media Matters, I might have known. The far left web site funded by George Soros. I will start investigating the statments today. But let me address them just a little now, before I start researching. If he did take a link from the Drudge report without fully investigating it, that was an error in judgement by his staff, which he should have caught, and retracted. It does seem the door only cost 200+ Thousand, rather than the 1.4 Million that he stated. Certainly not the Millions that you stated. Let me give you your quote. " Here's another, where he misleads viewers into believing that "doors" were repaired for millions of dollars in federal funds. " Let's address this from the Web site. >> During the segment, Beck -- again echoing the Drudge Report -- also stated that the government "spent $1.1 million on 2-pound frozen ham," and "more than $1.5 million ... for some mozzarella cheese." However, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a statement on July 20 stating that the "references to '2 pound frozen ham sliced' are to the sizes of the packaging. Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.191 million to buy '2 pounds of ham' are wrong." Vilsack added: "In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound." << I strongly suggest you go back, and listen to the video of Glenn Beck where he clearly states that they purchused 760,000 pounds of ham at $1.50 per pound. That his staff checked at the grocery store, and it was 80 cents per pound. Great deal Government. It would seem media matters overlooked that fact. I would suggest everyone go to recovery.gov, and check out what the stimulious money is going for, and judge for yourself. The acronym B.A.R.F. standing for Bad Asset Repository Fund, statement will require a little more research. So you think that Beck just made this up with nothing to back it up. Is that what you are saying? That nobody actually propsed the name to be Bad Asset Repository Fund. Also that Neil Cavuto is his accomplice in this devious plan? I also love the headlines " After mocking a bill he doesn't understand, Glenn Beck now ridicules acronym that doesn't exist ". How does media matters know what Glenn Beck understands about the Bill. Neil Cavutio clearly states that he doesn't think people would like what the bill contains, and Beck continues on putting in safe guards to improve this bill. Once again I suggest you listen to the video. Shouldn't you really be a little more concerned with what the bill contains, rather than the dispute over the acronym that would be used to label the bill? Just a thought. Anyway I will investigate, and get back with you. Just one more thing. You stated, and I quote. >> He lies about the current president on a daily basis. Evidence of this abounds. << Could you please tell me the lies he told about the President this week. How about the lie he will be telling about the president tonight. We'll both watch the program tonight, and dissect it right here tomorrow. I just hope it doesn't interfer with a rebroadcast of a NFL preseason game. Oh, and just one other thing. Show me one example where he tries to dodge anything he has said by saying he is only an entertainer. That statment can only be used if someone calls you out for bias in reporting something under the guise of being a journalist. However I'm sure you can give me hundreds of examples where he dodges what he has said.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> So you are advocating an isolationist position for the United States of America Leo? << >> Only pointing out that the corporations that run this country couldn't care less about "justice" and "liberty" and all that. << Maybe I misunderstood what you said then. I'll go back, and reread it.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I do believe genuine, as in Ms. Sarah's case, have liberties taken with it. She's not alone, in that, I << I'm curious now. Could you please be a little more specific? >> How so? I just don't like her personality. I don't think that has to do with her politics, it simply has to do how she conducts her self, and how much of that persona is actually her, or her attempting to aline herself with her voting base. << So you are saying she doesn't really believe in what she's saying?
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Please quit trying to guess what I might be thinking. << >> You'd have to start thinking first. << Honestly Leo, I never thought thinking was required when having a debate with you.
Originally Posted By MPierce >>>Then tell me what's in it.<<< >> At the basis of it, it's going to bring affordable, albeit government run, healthcare to those that can't afford it. Private healthcare still will exist. << Exactly which page is that on EE? Do you actually know what all is in this bill that you wanted past? Did any of the members of the House or Senate know what all was in this bill? Should we just kind of blindly close our eyes to bills that are going into law in the hopes they will do more good than harm? Let me quote your Speaker of the House. " We need to pass the bill to know what is in it." I'll find a link to that statment in a minute. >> What more do you want to probe me for? ;-) << Just a question. When you become a lawyer will you blindly except someone's word that something is in a contract or would you actually read it before signing it? Just a thought.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> How about them Florida Republicans, nominating a crook for governor. Insurance fraud, if you're keeping score. Chalk up another victory for U.S. honor! The businesspersons are just as bad as the politicians, and on the whole quite possibly worse. << I would be careful of those stones you are throwing Leo. Some might bounce back, and shatter your house. I wouldn't be concerned though Leo. He won't be able to serve in office while he's behind bars for insurance fraud, now will he? Are you looking to get down in the mud, and roll around with me Leo? This is a board about WDW, but if you want to turn it into a trash each others party affiliation I'm more than willing to go at it until I am banned from this site. I never bring up politics, but I have always stated I will not permit any person to come into this forum, and make statmenst about politics without it being challenged. You make the call Leo, it's your choice.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> None of us were born bigots or racists, it's something that comes with time and experience. << Sadly life's harsh lessons.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I'm curious now. Could you please be a little more specific?<<< >>>So you are saying she doesn't really believe in what she's saying? <<< No, I'd say she's not really acting how she would normally act. I think the "folksy charm" is a bit of a put on.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Exactly which page is that on EE? Do you actually know what all is in this bill that you wanted past? Did any of the members of the House or Senate know what all was in this bill? Should we just kind of blindly close our eyes to bills that are going into law in the hopes they will do more good than harm?<<< Have I read it thoroughly? No. (As a student, I don;t have the time) But I have read it's key issues and the clauses that come under fire. It does provide for these things. I believe that yes, they did read it. (Mrs. Palin might not have, however, with her mention of Death Panels...) And to your last question...No. Of course not. But I do have my trust and my beliefs that say that congress did read the bill. What says that they didn't? >>>Just a question. When you become a lawyer will you blindly except someone's word that something is in a contract or would you actually read it before signing it? Just a thought.<<< Pierce, you are talking to someone who reads fine print for fun...What to you think? ;-)
Originally Posted By MPierce Here you go EE. The entire tanscript of the speech the Speaker made. This is taken from her web site. Note that it is not a snippet that can be taken out of context. <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576" target="_blank">http://www.speaker.gov/newsroo...?id=1576</a>
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Here you go EE. The entire tanscript of the speech the Speaker made. This is taken from her web site. Note that it is not a snippet that can be taken out of context.<<< Although she has my support, she certainly does say some stupid things. Like Palin. Like Biden. Like Bush. The list goes on.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> No, I'd say she's not really acting how she would normally act. I think the "folksy charm" is a bit of a put on. << You can't say that unless you know her EE. You are letting your political views get in the way. You are only speculating. Do you think the people that know her are lying about how she is? You don't think people addressed her by her name when she was Governor? You don't think she goes hunting, and fishing, and rides on snowmobiles? What is she faking? That's what I want to know.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I strongly suggest you go back, and listen to the video of Glenn Beck where he clearly states that they purchused 760,000 pounds of ham at $1.50 per pound. That his staff checked at the grocery store, and it was 80 cents per pound. Great deal Government. It would seem media matters overlooked that fact.<< That video was debunked LONG ago, by Media Matters and others. First of all, he got the facts wrong, regardless of what he may have scrawled across his chalkboard. The government purchased 2-lb. packages, so his math is off by 50%. That makes that "$1.5o per pound" price actually 75ยข/lb. -- a nickel cheaper than what Beck and Co. claimed to have found at their local grocery store. Ooops! It goes on and on like that, day after day. Truthiness over truth and yet he has his fans to defend him.
Originally Posted By MPierce Have I read it thoroughly? No. (As a student, I don;t have the time) But I have read it's key issues and the clauses that come under fire. It does provide for these things. I believe that yes, they did read it. (Mrs. Palin might not have, however, with her mention of Death Panels. << There you go singleing out Palin when she is not even elected official You know as well as anyone that the death panels refer to the rationing of health care to people that are elderly. Start your research now into how that is going to be determined by a board that review each case individually about the need, and expense involved. Point me to the link please that says it will improve my health care. That's all I'm asking. Then would you explain to me how we are going to pay for this bill. We are going broke as a nation. How are we going to pay for it. Is God going to miracle the money for us.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There you go singleing out Palin when she is not even elected official<< Well, she was one, until she quit halfway through her term to pursue fame and fortune. But EE is correctly holding her accountable for her own words (or 'tweets'). She wants to have a voice in the national dialogue, then proceeds to make a bunch of ridiculous statements about "death panels", purely to make her followers fearful. Guess what? For-profit insurance companies, by her logic, already have "death panels" when they deny coverage or opt for less expensive medical care for their customers. But she doesn't seem to have a problem with that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Start your research now into how that is going to be determined by a board that review each case individually about the need, and expense involved.<< Since there is no government run health care, nor even a government "option" and people will be covered only by for-profit providers, those boards are already in place at places like Cigna, Blue Cross, Kaiser Permanente, etc., etc., etc. It's a tactic designed to gin up fear and confusion by politicians in the pocket of big pharma. Start your research there.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Do you think the people that know her are lying about how she is? You don't think people addressed her by her name when she was Governor?<<< I don't know, it just seems contrived to me. She might do all those things, just for the politics of it. How is this related to her politics, though? This is totally on personality.
