A Changing World: Barack Obama, 2013-2017. Also Femnazis are serious business guys.

[ccangelopearl1362]

Daily Caller: Jeff Poor: joins MSNBC, NBC News
Daily Caller: Alex Pappas: Courier-Journal defends editorial page after conservative columnist resigns over liberal bias

Hmm… Judging from the activity across this country, it’s journalists themselves who may be openly covering for, not just covering, President Barack Obama, thereby inverting and devaluing the First Amendment without any intervention from either him or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Former campaign advisor David Axelrod and former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have signed up to join the National Broadcasting Company, and other publications across the country could already be getting filters about any policy initiatives to be undertaken in the coming months and years. John Dyche questioned the apparent bias of his own newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, but Pam Platt, in charge of the editorials, insisted that it already did, even though it had kept that columnist for about a decade. Between the information and energy revolutions, Europe, Russia, and Islam’s implosions, and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic’s emergence, these publications might not even need much more time to continue their decline. They certainly don’t even need ownership by a ruling family to attack said family’s pet causes or projects, unlike Al-Jazeera.:

Spiegel: Alexander Kuhn, Christoph Reuter, and Gregor Schmitz: After the Arab Spring: Al-Jazeera Losing Battle for Independence

Aktham Suliman, once a journalist working for that media group, reset his watch from indicating the time in Doha to indicating the time in Berlin approximately 18 months ago, expressing disenchantment with the treatment of the disintegrations throughout North Africa and the Middle East. His story reverberates with former journalists in London, Paris, Moscow, and Cairo, who’ve complained about decisions to fawn over ascendant Muslim Brotherhood figures, such as Nahda Movement founder and leader Rashid Ghannushi or Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi. A member of the House of Thani now leads Al-Jazeera, issuing guidelines put together by Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani or his closest advisors. He funneled money to the Free Syrian Army, which had a journalist inserted by Al-Jazeera… only to get himself gunned down by soldiers working for Syrian Alawite leader Bashar Assad. Established media organizations might typically have safety provisions for their journalists, such as bulletproof vests, but not Al-Jazeera, which deleted the video of that particular incident from its website. A different incident involving a cameraman’s death by soldiers working for Muammar Gaddafi had a similarly mute response, and no comment is available about any of this criticism. The media market throughout Islam’s territories has been generating increased competition from outside sources, and many are expressing mounting skepticism about Al-Jazeera’s capability for media neutrality. Those journalists might not even need to guess how stunned they’d be at certain media attacks out of a country with at least as many people combined as Islam itself.:

Mandiant M-unition: Dan McWhorter: Mandiant Exposes APT1 – One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units and Releases 3,000 Indicators

The report about those recent cyberattacks out of China has enough information to silence my breath. The team of hackers, identified by Mandiant as Unit 61398, is based in Shanghai, and it requires proficiency in computer security, computer networks, and English. The attacks started as early as 2006, ranging from energy to global organizations, from public administration to transportation. Naturally, America has the biggest number of victims of Unit 61398’s informational thievery, at 115, but entities in Canada, Great Britain, France, Norway, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, India, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan have also been hit. China Telecom provided the array of fiber optic cables enabling Unit 61398 to carry out its operations. If it’s any help, Mandiant’s experts caution that the People’s Liberation Army will be certain to find new avenues for cyberwarfare now that these methods are in public discussion. The green light for the hacking operations came from the General Staff Department, and they’ve been able to call upon resources for major state-owned enterprises. The hackers conducted reconnaissance for any weak points and established their footholds there before moving in to pore through any information they steal and repeating the process until they complete whatever mission they’ve been assigned at any moment. They had backdoor steps set up to move the stolen information into specialized archives for temporary storage before the relocation to military analysts headquartered in Beijing or elsewhere. These operations picked up speed in 2009, and the hackers used certain Internet systems as waypoints to disperse their connections from Shanghai as often as possible. While some raced to Seattle and Chicago, others moved toward Dallas, until they started converging on Washington, D.C.. Taken together, these factoids tell me that incoming President Xi Jinping, outgoing President Hu Jintao, and their respective cliques either don’t know or – more likely, I’d think – don’t care about the orientations of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, the Cable News Network, or Fox News Channel, so the First Amendment stands ready to get added into this broader technological transition. The friction between those cliques may already be on its way to spilling out of Beijing, whether south or west, east or directly southwest.:

Jamestown Foundation: Willy Lam: All the General Secretary’s Men: Xi Jinping’s Inner Circle Revealed
Jamestown Foundation: Paul Goble: US, Chinese Plans for Rail Links with Central Asia Triggering ‘Railroad War’ and Reducing Russia’s Influence

I can hear various puns involving Xi Jinping going off in my head, but Nursultan Nazarbayev could be happier with his nuclear modernization initiatives. There are several cadres within the Chinese Communist Party, but the incoming President of China has chosen to emphasize connections with military, police, and intelligence officials. General Zhang Youxia, in charge of production of PLA equipment, is the military commander closest to Xi, while Admiral Wu Shengli, China’s top naval commander, is descended from a bloodline dating back to the original CCP takeovers. That said, the CCP’s hierarchy remains unreceptive to this new faction because party elders tend to occupy higher-ranking positions. I could trust these military commanders to branch further into Central Asia, where they’d encroach on Vladimir Putin and Kirill I’s conversion campaign. Interestingly enough, we have a project to build railroads right out of Afghanistan to link with the railroad systems of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank are among the main contributors, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may still find some new avenues into which it can expand. I would chuckle if Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, American President Barack Obama, new Secretary of State John Kerry, Mandiant founder and chief executive officer Kevin Mandia, and General Keith Alexander each decided to head there on separate occasions to test any new cybersecurity systems for us, and we might have some entries for criminal activity out of Russia itself.:

Reuters: Russia central banker slams vast criminal cash export

With Chinese hackers on the other side of Eurasia, a Shiite-Sunni split directly to the east, a Muslim Brotherhood implosion to the south, and reemergent Marxists near the Eastern Orthodox Church’s headquarters to the north, it looks like some of Russia’s criminal networks are going shopping for a last-minute refuge… in Cyprus. Sergei Ignatyev, the soon-to-be-retired chairman of the Bank of Russia, has a warning that at least $49 billion, 2.5% of Russia’s national income, was “illegally siphoned” outside the country last year, much of it under the control of Kremlin cronies. Ignatiev now wants law enforcement concentrating on the culprits, whether they were engaged in kickbacks, large-scale purchases, or tax avoidances. Hermitage Capital Management suffered a $230 million tax fraud incident which one Sergei Magnitsky uncovered, and there, the culprits used Cyprus as their main planning area for the theft back in 2007-2008. I imagine that the oligarchs pouring money back into Russia from Cyprus will have a direct line of sight to the energy fields that Israel’s exploring, and they could very well find that island targeted by the Salafis and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party on different fronts. Global Financial Integrity has estimates of $62 billion from corruption and human and weapons trafficking from and to Russia “since the start of 2004”, which could accelerate the ensuing capital flight over time. As Russian businesspersons evacuate to the safest, read least corrupt, financial havens they can find, more nationalistically-minded people and factions could emerge. Asset confiscations and travel bans would keep us as clean as possible, leaving Orthodox and Islamic supremacists to fight each other from the Caucasus Mountains down to the Levant – and American President Barack Obama, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio to jockey over the course of the American voting public.

[Kazekage]

Well lutz beat me too it, but this is egregiously wrong. If anything its getting worse.

Well lutz beat me too it, but this is egregiously wrong. If anything its getting worse.

No it's not, the deficit went from 1.1 trillion in 2012 to 800 billion in 2013, thats a 300 billion dollar decrease in spending. If we could increase taxation these deficits would continue to decrease. But of course Republicans have made it clear that they're unwilling to do so, it would make Obama's presidency look like a success and thats all they care about.

Problem is Obama did not give the person a trial, which sets a dangerous precedent

But he repeatedly gave him the opportunity for trial, and the precedent was set by Lincoln in the civil war. This is the same thing.

Actually there is some worry that people will not continue to buy our debt, in 2009 for example there was significantly weak demand to the point that they had to raise interest in 30 year treasuries.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/0...d-no-one-came/

This stems from people not believing in America's financial security, which stems from (no surprise) the insanity that's going on in congress. With that said, there's still demand for treasuries, and the Debt to GDP ratio will not hit the critical point at this rate, so we have a LONG time to fix that problem.

Might want to read that again, the Obama Administration posted a budget surplus for a MONTH in April

The total accumulation in 2012 came out as a budget debt of $1,275,901,078,828.74

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt...ths-beats-2011

Clinton was able to get a budget surplus for all 12 months, Obama is 11 months short

My mistake, my point on spending winding down still stands however.

[BigLutz]

No it's not, the deficit went from 1.1 trillion in 2012 to 800 billion in 2013, thats a 300 billion dollar decrease in spending. If we could increase taxation these deficits would continue to decrease. But of course Republicans have made it clear that they're unwilling to do so, it would make Obama's presidency look like a success and thats all they care about.

You do realize that increasing taxation to that point not only would seriously damage the economy. But more than likely would increase the fleeing of the rich to avoid such high taxes. Take the fleeing from France or California as a example of what high taxes can do.

But he repeatedly gave him the opportunity for trial, and the precedent was set by Lincoln in the civil war. This is the same thing.

Problem is that many of the things Lincoln did during the Civil War would probably get him not only impeached but thrown in jail. Not to mention that giving a person a opportunity for a trial does not automatically give the President the ability to revoke his rights. Trials can still happen even with out that person there, but Obama refuses to do that.

This stems from people not believing in America's financial security, which stems from (no surprise) the insanity that's going on in congress. With that said, there's still demand for treasuries, and the Debt to GDP ratio will not hit the critical point at this rate, so we have a LONG time to fix that problem.

You need to preference this with "I hope" there are already countries that are having trouble selling off their debt in auctions. Germany for example had a problem with it in 2011, which shook the markets. Having a high spending plan such as what you are advocating, especially with the cliff we are about to go off with Social Security and Medicare

My mistake, my point on spending winding down still stands however.

Which means very little considering where we were in terms of debt spending before the Democrats took over in 2007. But even then, Obama was dragged kicking and screaming to spending cuts, and we still are woefully unprepared for the upcoming Social Program cliff.

[7 tyranitars]

You do realize that increasing taxation to that point not only would seriously damage the economy. But more than likely would increase the fleeing of the rich to avoid such high taxes. Take the fleeing from France or California as a example of what high taxes can do.
.

There is a big difference between raising the taxes to an appropriate level, and raising the taxes for the rich to 75% Which is something that even I find to be insane.

[BigLutz]

There is a big difference between raising the taxes to an appropriate level, and raising the taxes for the rich to 75% Which is something that even I find to be insane.

Problem is that in the U.S. you do not just have to pay federal tax, but you have to also pay state and local taxes. As such in California already the tax level for the rich is approaching something around 60%. Add in the tax level that he suggests and it would easily go higher.

[7 tyranitars]

Problem is that in the U.S. you do not just have to pay federal tax, but you have to also pay state and local taxes. As such in California already the tax level for the rich is approaching something around 60%. Add in the tax level that he suggests and it would easily go higher.

Oh I did not know that, I figured people only pay federal taxes there.

[WizardTrubbish]

You do realize that increasing taxation to that point not only would seriously damage the economy.

Because the economy was really struggling during the fifties when the top marginal income tax rate was 90%

[BigLutz]

Because the economy was really struggling during the fifties when the top marginal income tax rate was 90%

No one except three people were really paying that rate in the 1950s.

"Real tax rates were a lot lower. Even Levine concedes that “not many people paid that much. Only three baseball players — Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays — got there.” Indeed, the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%. But those 1950s tax rates actually generated less tax revenue than subsequent periods of lower rates. From 1950 to 1963, income tax revenue averaged 7.5 percent of GDP; that’s less than in the Reagan years when rates were being slashed."

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why...50s-tax-rates/

[miles0624]

Oh I did not know that, I figured people only pay federal taxes there.

No, they pay all the taxes mentioned. However, I think he was joking about the 75 percent comment. It is more of around 55 percent. I know they did a story on Phil Mickleson when he made the comment about paying 65 percent of his income in taxes. (He lives in california and gets double taxed as professional athletes are charged as a small business.) Then he came under fire because he payed 51 percent in all his taxes before tax breaks. He is in the top bracket (40 million in 2012) so he adquately represents what they are paying. Still 51 percent is a lot to tax someone when others pay less than 10 percent. California does have one of the highest highest rates along with New York.

[7 tyranitars]

No, they pay all the taxes mentioned. However, I think he was joking about the 75 percent comment. It is more of around 55 percent. I know they did a story on Phil Mickleson when he made the comment about paying 65 percent of his income in taxes. (He lives in california and gets double taxed as professional athletes are charged as a small business.) Then he came under fire because he payed 51 percent in all his taxes before tax breaks. He is in the top bracket (40 million in 2012) so he adquately represents what they are paying. Still 51 percent is a lot to tax someone when others pay less than 10 percent. California does have one of the highest highest rates along with New York.

Oh I see, well the French president proposed a 75% tax for the very rich. I did remember that.

To be honest a in the 90's the tax rates here where insanly high. they where over 70% for certain groups. Now they are at 51 or 52% for the richest people. Either way thanks for explaining it.

[ccangelopearl1362]

Washington Post: Chinese cyberspies have hacked most Washington institutions, experts say

Call it World Web War One, and mark the Chinese Communist Party as the first major belligerent. The American Center for Law and Justice, the Cato Institute, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Islamic Society of North America, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the United States Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Committee to Protect Journalists, International Christian Concern— I’m increasingly certain that I’ll need a timeline to keep track of these Internet incursions. If it’s any consolation, even the hackers themselves don’t appear to have enough analytical resources at their fingertips to figure out just who’s running what just yet. The Chinese officials authorizing or even requesting these hacking operations truly believe that these diverse groups are coordinating with officials inside the White House or Congress in an apparatus sprawling across Washington, D.C., so they must determine just how these or those Obama administration officials approach this or that issue. Thus far, they’ve leapt ahead of Russia’s cyberwarfare teams, and even measures taken by private sector entities don’t always work out. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had dozens of reports about breaches against companies and other private institutions “every week”, and the stories alarmed ChinaAid founder Bob Fu and other dissidents, who’ve asked for help protecting their most sensitive information, all of which tells me that World War Three has begun in cyberspace. President Barack Obama, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, French President Francois Hollande, incoming South Korean President Park Geun-Hye, Estonian President Toomas Ilves, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, and Burmese President Thein Sein can’t act rapidly and instinctively enough to secure this emerging global system against any fragmentation and collapse, and Al-Nusra Front leader Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, and Egyptian Defense Minister Abdul-Fatah Al-Sisi could be further along that path than even we know right now.:

Voice of America: Jamie Dettmer: Jihadists and Islamists Clash in Syria
Ahram: Egypt’s SCAF holding meetings in president’s absence: Military sources

Thaer Al-Waqqas, a commander for a different group of Islamists fighting Syrian Alawite leader Bashar Al-Assad, was barking orders to his fighters when a group of gunmen arrived and shot him. His group, known as the Al-Farouq Brigade, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, has “no doubt” that the Al-Nusra Front was behind the assassination. Whereas before, they were united against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and the Syrian Air Force, nowadays, they’re becoming more likely to turn their weapons against each other at least as often. For the Guidance Office’s part, its distrust of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is apparently even stronger now that those military commanders are warning of a complete and total collapse for Egypt, which that Organization for Islamic Cooperation summit earlier this month didn’t do much to help. Lieutenant General Sedki Sobhi reiterates that he doesn’t want intervention against the current turbulence, which might be just as well for any other Muslim Brotherhood operatives scattered across North Africa, if not for other countries around that region.:

Gatestone Institute: Soeren Kern: The Islamization of Spanish Jurisprudence

The drain from this train wreck rests mainly on Moroccan Justice Minister Mustafa Ramid’s campaign, and what more brutal and vicious inroad to devaluing as much of Spain’s legal framework as possible? He had a demand to monitor children adopted by Spanish couples to prevent them from converting to Christianity, assisted by his associates from the Muslim Brotherhood branch there last year. There’s a Sharia provision preventing non-Muslims from formal custody over the child in question while leaving the protection and education up to the person(s) involved. Spanish Justice Minister Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon is trying to include that provision, but the activists in Morocco are demanding extensions to cover annual travel plans by adoptive parents. One suspects that a northwestward flood of refugees from Mali, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt will make this issue that much more meaningless, so that Islam will aim to take down as much of Europe with it as it can reach. A different incursion against it – and us – could likely take shape just a bit further to the northeast.:

Houston Chronicle Texas on the Potomac: Joanna Raines: Toddler’s death puts Texas in the middle of a Russian political drama
Christian Post: Stoyan Zaimov: Interfaith Ten Commandments Party to Lead ‘Moral Revolution’ in Russia

If the rest of you have any ideas about motives for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Central Electoral Commission chairman Vladimir Churov, and Chechen Head Ramzan Kadyrov, then I’ll welcome the opportunity to examine them. Russia’s recent adoption ban had thousands protesting against it, with many publications accusing the adoptive parents in question of actively injuring the toddler. Perhaps logically enough, my home state’s energy reserves have caught the attention of certain energy companies out of Russia, so Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill I and Ten Commandments Party leader Sergey Mezentsev needn’t worry too much. I’ve no idea how the latter interprets the former’s conversion campaigns, given the stated concerns about “militant secularism”, but at the rate that these corruption clashes are erupting among the Putinists, they could run out of time to even register and thereby start participating in future elections. Certain factions could accuse them of accepting financial and moral support from entities outside Russia, and they wouldn’t stand a chance. As it happens, we might not have to wait much longer, either.:


Pew Research Center: Michael Dimock, Carroll Doherty, and Jocelyn Kiley: As Sequester Deadline Looms, Little Support for Cutting Most Programs

It looks like global development projects will be first to get tossed, and the voting public might already have an inkling of the trends involved. Some here might express more surprise at how constant these numbers have been, but if at least some segments of the voting public have gotten the idea that the “needy” are really seeking to taking themselves and many around them as possible out of existence by aiming for redistribution, then what’s to prevent those voters from wanting to preempt the likely measures and policies to be approved to that end? I’ll welcome any ideas about the likely importance of this poll for 2014, assuming that World Web War One doesn’t overwhelm the United States first.

[miles0624]

Washington Post: Chinese cyberspies have hacked most Washington institutions, experts say

Call it World Web War One, and mark the Chinese Communist Party as the first major belligerent. The American Center for Law and Justice, the Cato Institute, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Islamic Society of North America, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the United States Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Committee to Protect Journalists, International Christian Concern— I’m increasingly certain that I’ll need a timeline to keep track of these Internet incursions. If it’s any consolation, even the hackers themselves don’t appear to have enough analytical resources at their fingertips to figure out just who’s running what just yet. The Chinese officials authorizing or even requesting these hacking operations truly believe that these diverse groups are coordinating with officials inside the White House or Congress in an apparatus sprawling across Washington, D.C., so they must determine just how these or those Obama administration officials approach this or that issue. Thus far, they’ve leapt ahead of Russia’s cyberwarfare teams, and even measures taken by private sector entities don’t always work out. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had dozens of reports about breaches against companies and other private institutions “every week”, and the stories alarmed ChinaAid founder Bob Fu and other dissidents, who’ve asked for help protecting their most sensitive information, all of which tells me that World War Three has begun in cyberspace. President Barack Obama, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, French President Francois Hollande, incoming South Korean President Park Geun-Hye, Estonian President Toomas Ilves, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, and Burmese President Thein Sein can’t act rapidly and instinctively enough to secure this emerging global system against any fragmentation and collapse, and Al-Nusra Front leader Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, and Egyptian Defense Minister Abdul-Fatah Al-Sisi could be further along that path than even we know right now.:

Voice of America: Jamie Dettmer: Jihadists and Islamists Clash in Syria
Ahram: Egypt’s SCAF holding meetings in president’s absence: Military sources

Thaer Al-Waqqas, a commander for a different group of Islamists fighting Syrian Alawite leader Bashar Al-Assad, was barking orders to his fighters when a group of gunmen arrived and shot him. His group, known as the Al-Farouq Brigade, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, has “no doubt” that the Al-Nusra Front was behind the assassination. Whereas before, they were united against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and the Syrian Air Force, nowadays, they’re becoming more likely to turn their weapons against each other at least as often. For the Guidance Office’s part, its distrust of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is apparently even stronger now that those military commanders are warning of a complete and total collapse for Egypt, which that Organization for Islamic Cooperation summit earlier this month didn’t do much to help. Lieutenant General Sedki Sobhi reiterates that he doesn’t want intervention against the current turbulence, which might be just as well for any other Muslim Brotherhood operatives scattered across North Africa, if not for other countries around that region.:

Gatestone Institute: Soeren Kern: The Islamization of Spanish Jurisprudence

The drain from this train wreck rests mainly on Moroccan Justice Minister Mustafa Ramid’s campaign, and what more brutal and vicious inroad to devaluing as much of Spain’s legal framework as possible? He had a demand to monitor children adopted by Spanish couples to prevent them from converting to Christianity, assisted by his associates from the Muslim Brotherhood branch there last year. There’s a Sharia provision preventing non-Muslims from formal custody over the child in question while leaving the protection and education up to the person(s) involved. Spanish Justice Minister Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon is trying to include that provision, but the activists in Morocco are demanding extensions to cover annual travel plans by adoptive parents. One suspects that a northwestward flood of refugees from Mali, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt will make this issue that much more meaningless, so that Islam will aim to take down as much of Europe with it as it can reach. A different incursion against it – and us – could likely take shape just a bit further to the northeast.:

Houston Chronicle Texas on the Potomac: Joanna Raines: Toddler’s death puts Texas in the middle of a Russian political drama
Christian Post: Stoyan Zaimov: Interfaith Ten Commandments Party to Lead ‘Moral Revolution’ in Russia

If the rest of you have any ideas about motives for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Central Electoral Commission chairman Vladimir Churov, and Chechen Head Ramzan Kadyrov, then I’ll welcome the opportunity to examine them. Russia’s recent adoption ban had thousands protesting against it, with many publications accusing the adoptive parents in question of actively injuring the toddler. Perhaps logically enough, my home state’s energy reserves have caught the attention of certain energy companies out of Russia, so Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill I and Ten Commandments Party leader Sergey Mezentsev needn’t worry too much. I’ve no idea how the latter interprets the former’s conversion campaigns, given the stated concerns about “militant secularism”, but at the rate that these corruption clashes are erupting among the Putinists, they could run out of time to even register and thereby start participating in future elections. Certain factions could accuse them of accepting financial and moral support from entities outside Russia, and they wouldn’t stand a chance. As it happens, we might not have to wait much longer, either.:


Pew Research Center: Michael Dimock, Carroll Doherty, and Jocelyn Kiley: As Sequester Deadline Looms, Little Support for Cutting Most Programs

It looks like global development projects will be first to get tossed, and the voting public might already have an inkling of the trends involved. Some here might express more surprise at how constant these numbers have been, but if at least some segments of the voting public have gotten the idea that the “needy” are really seeking to taking themselves and many around them as possible out of existence by aiming for redistribution, then what’s to prevent those voters from wanting to preempt the likely measures and policies to be approved to that end? I’ll welcome any ideas about the likely importance of this poll for 2014, assuming that World Web War One doesn’t overwhelm the United States first.

Personally, I want to thank you for posting all this information for us.

[TheFightingPikachu]

israel is predominantly jewish (like, 75%+ jewish) and they only have capital punishment for war crimes so i am not really sure what you are going for here.

that said, i have no idea what marioguy is talking about either, so

You know, marioguy is strongly pro-gay, but Israel today doesn't stone gays while a number of Muslim nations are the ones to do so? That was about it.

You are either failing to understand my words or are purposefully being disonest. Maybe my contentions went over your head, being why it is so difficult for you to understand.

So let's see how you debate:
(1) Insulting opener. You have positively no grounds for so blatantly accusing me of such ignorance or dishonesty.

I said that O' Reilly reserves his hardball interviews almost exclusively for liberal or Democratic guests and pitches softball to guests whose views he shares.
Next, you clearly misunderstood what I meant by "not interested in actual responces". He doesn't care about the points being made, as long as he can spin them to his benefit. Even nonsensical things, like the tides going up and down, are target to scrutiny.

(2) Continue with a completely unreasonable expectation. In what world can you expect a conservative commentator to routinely give the highest level scrutiny to other conservatives? Do you hold the same expectation for liberal commentators?

Lolwut? I'm sorry, but the recounting of the previous interview didn't advance your point, unless you are trying to say that O'Reilly exposed a bit of an odd stance made by a NOW executive. No, O'Reilly primarily uses loaded questions, interrupting, and speaking loudly to get his point across. Just because he is right every once in a while doesn't change this.

(3) Attempts to negate the evidence presented by not looking at it squarely, virtually conceding the point while claiming TheFightingPikachu is incorrect. I mean, "a bit of an odd stance"? Did you just say that? Many of the pro-choice people debating here have told me that view doesn't exist in the pro-choice camp. And you would have made better headway against my argument by pointing out that it is anecdotal (which it clearly is since I have watched so little of his program). O'Reilly didn't have to debate someone from some obscure organization that can be dismissed as extremists; he debated someone from NOW. And he didn't have to yell or use loaded questions.

Did they claim to be a valid national news agency which claims political tax exemption by "not taking sides"? Of course not. If you are seriously suggesting a purportedly valid news network's legitimacy and the revolutinary figures of the past have any tie in to this conversation at all, then talking would only result in a "nuh uh, uh huh" deadlock.

(4) Concludes by missing the obvious. Organized opposition to the government is not the frothing-at-the-mouth sort of thing you seem to be making it. Especially if all you're talking about is some sort of march. It's like you haven't read about the civil rights movement, or the pro-gay movement. Oh, that's right. They do parades.

Every network is bound to have its huge issue that will be brought up again and again. My argument is that the consistency of the failings of Fox lends credence to my claim that they are the least valid network currently on the air. Any source who is so consistently dishonest and clearly biased towards conservative efforts doesn't deserve to be tax exempt.

First, since it's the second time you brought that up, I'd really like to see a source showing that news outlets get tax exemption. I've never heard that before.

Second, and more importantly, you say here that Fox is "consistently dishonest." Show your proof.

An interview that I can't be bothered to look for with Jeremy afterwards revealed that he was instructed to leave the building before O' Reilly hurt him. Believe me or not, because sifting through thousands of videos isn't my favored way to spend my time.

So a source you don't care to cite quotes the person who was interviewed making the claim that Bill O'Reilly threatened him with violence (presumably beyond a call for the building's security). And you believed it?

Fox airtime is Fox sponsorship. He recieves a Fox salary for representing Fox's view of positive political punditry. Your turn to "try again".

What would that say about interviews with Obama? I'd suggest it is your turn to try again.

They didn't call for the rally, they simply reported it. I'm sure some didn't report it in a positive light, but that pales in comparison to primetime advocation for a rally against the government. They have all the right in the world to do it, but if a news agency backs them, they forfeit their title "Fair and Balanced" as well as their status as a legitimate source. In part, at least, because it sets them apart.

You seem to be suggesting that Fox itself actually held the rally. Do you have proof of this?

I can take being called dumb or wrong or both, but don't imply that I have lied. Implication like that trigger my spidey-sense that perhaps the discussion isn't going to go any further, productively.

Then this means you have a rather large dose of a double standard, given the way you chose to begin your response to me.

Not to mention...

Yeah, looks like this is bound not to get anywhere. Anyone who is content with ignoring the evidence provided by another party isn't worth talking to, anyway. Ignore my posts on overall bias. Ignore my links showing this to be true. Ignore the fact that I have entirely refuted your argument on "polls show MSNBC more biased than Fox". People ready to ignore evidence and scew arguments made by the other side don't need to be on the debate thread. Ettiquite insists that in future endevours you take note of arguments made against you.
If you come back later and insist that you're claims hold precedence over mine, know only that you are only able to claim such due to a pure dishonesty on your part.

...the way you left the debate. You don't want people implying you are being dishonest, yet you do so yourself.

[The Federation]

So let's see how you debate:
(1) Insulting opener. You have positively no grounds for so blatantly accusing me of such ignorance or dishonesty.

I can't help that your responce didn't match up with what was said. If you want an apology for being a little judgmental, I'm just going to suggest you toughen up a bit.

(2) Continue with a completely unreasonable expectation. In what world can you expect a conservative commentator to routinely give the highest level scrutiny to other conservatives? Do you hold the same expectation for liberal commentators?

I don't expect any such thing. This was a general establishment of the inherent bias of pundits, with later evidence solidifying that the positions taken by O'Reilly are backed by a conservative network structure.

(3) Attempts to negate the evidence presented by not looking at it squarely, virtually conceding the point while claiming TheFightingPikachu is incorrect. I mean, "a bit of an odd stance"? Did you just say that? Many of the pro-choice people debating here have told me that view doesn't exist in the pro-choice camp.

Ok, and? Like I said before, just because O'Reilly can take out an absurd argument without screaming doesn't make him better off.

And you would have made better headway against my argument by pointing out that it is anecdotal (which it clearly is since I have watched so little of his program). O'Reilly didn't have to debate someone from some obscure organization that can be dismissed as extremists; he debated someone from NOW. And he didn't have to yell or use loaded questions.

So he isn't entirely stupid. Glad you established that.

(4) Concludes by missing the obvious. Organized opposition to the government is not the frothing-at-the-mouth sort of thing you seem to be making it. Especially if all you're talking about is some sort of march. It's like you haven't read about the civil rights movement, or the pro-gay movement. Oh, that's right. They do parades.

*facepalm
You missed my point, again. I don't care what homosexuals do. I don't care what the NRA does. I don't care if aliens marched Washington for better laser pistols. My point was that there are no othe news organizations that would so quickly allow any one of their hosts of pre-recorded shows to advocate for any kind of protest. The intrinsic partisan spin in events that pundits would organize isn't fit for an organization that says it produces "news". Also, don't accuse me of being too harsh on you then follow with lines of your own dialogue like " It's like you haven't read about the civil rights movement". It only serves to amuse.

First, since it's the second time you brought that up, I'd really like to see a source showing that news outlets get tax exemption. I've never heard that before.
Second, and more importantly, you say here that Fox is "consistently dishonest." Show your proof.

I guess the saying about assumptions made more sense here than ever. Put my foot in my mouth, didn't I? I guess I just convinced myself in the moment that mass media outlets had some kind of limitation on the lobbying activities, with the repercussions being a revocation of some kind of tax exemption. I could have sworn I read that somewhere, but obviously not.
On proof, I'll generically defer to my other evidences provided earlier. That ones that offered insight on Fox's news coverage, showing us that memos were often sent to hosts to encourage them to make one point or another in order to help smooth an issue out. If I get around to it, I'll look for a few tinyurl links to sent you, but they are almost all in commentary videos from the youtuber I mentioned quite a bit earlier.

So a source you don't care to cite quotes the person who was interviewed making the claim that Bill O'Reilly threatened him with violence (presumably beyond a call for the building's security). And you believed it?

Of course I did. He said it himself. But you're nitpicking now, because I said that it didn't need to be weighed due to my own lack of evidence/ability to find it.

What would that say about interviews with Obama? I'd suggest it is your turn to try again.

It would say that he was actually fair with one of the people he interviewed. Scary, isn't it? Here, Fox decided to allow O'Reilly to take the position of a moderate. Not even that, really, because you can't honestly scrap an interview in a section offered the day before called "interview with Obama" or something along those lines. It would be silly.

You seem to be suggesting that Fox itself actually held the rally. Do you have proof of this?

If you think that, you don't understand me. They didn't hold the rally, and I don't think I even tried to insinuate that they did.

Then this means you have a rather large dose of a double standard, given the way you chose to begin your response to me.

Talk about hypocricy. You didn't give a second thought to many of your comments, either.

Not to mention...
...the way you left the debate. You don't want people implying you are being dishonest, yet you do so yourself.

I don't understand your point. No one wants to be called dishonest, even those who are truly dishonest. I wasn't intentionally dishonest at all through this dialogue, while Lutz decided to ignore every bit of the evidence I provided, shrugging it off while I responded to all of his polls and all of his news articles. Maybe he was overwhled by the magnitude of evidence. Maybe he was overwhelmed by his own cognitive dissonance. Either way, I provided evidence that was tacitly labeled wothless and thrown aside without a moment's consideration. I don't debate with people wo are willing to even consider doing such a thing. If it's crap, take the time to show it's crap. That way, both sides can learn, one can admit his/her mistake, and the world will be that much smarter.

[BigLutz]

I don't understand your point. No one wants to be called dishonest, even those who are truly dishonest. I wasn't intentionally dishonest at all through this dialogue, while Lutz decided to ignore every bit of the evidence I provided, shrugging it off while I responded to all of his polls and all of his news articles. Maybe he was overwhled by the magnitude of evidence. Maybe he was overwhelmed by his own cognitive dissonance. Either way, I provided evidence that was tacitly labeled wothless and thrown aside without a moment's consideration. I don't debate with people wo are willing to even consider doing such a thing. If it's crap, take the time to show it's crap. That way, both sides can learn, one can admit his/her mistake, and the world will be that much smarter.

Alright I will make it easy for you, not a single shred of your evidence provided a compare or contrast of other networks, you want to provide links that slam Fox News from biased sources, that is fine. But do not try to pass it off as evidence that Fox is somehow more biased than other networks as you tried. It IS dishonest. I had asked repeatedly for you to provide evidence to back up your statements, you did not. Providing links that only address Fox News and not Fox News vs MSNBC or any other network does not provide a accurate picture of how one network is more biased than another. Provide something that shows Fox News is more biased than another network and I will address it, provide a red harring and I will call it garbage.

I am not going to get down into a link pissing contest that has nothing to do with the actual topic, which is if Fox News is any more biased than any other network. It is a waste of my time to do so, just so you can avoid the point.

[The Federation]

Alright I will make it easy for you, not a single shred of your evidence provided a compare or contrast of other networks, you want to provide links that slam Fox News from biased sources, that is fine. But do not try to pass it off as evidence that Fox is somehow more biased than other networks as you tried. It IS dishonest. I had asked repeatedly for you to provide evidence to back up your statements, you did not. Providing links that only address Fox News and not Fox News vs MSNBC or any other network does not provide a accurate picture of how one network is more biased than another. Provide something that shows Fox News is more biased than another network and I will address it, provide a red harring and I will call it garbage.

I am not going to get down into a link pissing contest that has nothing to do with the actual topic, which is if Fox News is any more biased than any other network. It is a waste of my time to do so, just so you can avoid the point.

Only comparitive evidence is passable? If you want a one sided, nearly impossible debate for me, then sure. Otherwise, you have to weigh evidence vs evidence which, while it might take a while, is the only fair way for us to discuss this topic. This is why people tend to disengage when media bias is brough up as a topic.

[BigLutz]

Only comparitive evidence is passable? If you want a one sided, nearly impossible debate for me, then sure. Otherwise, you have to weigh evidence vs evidence which, while it might take a while, is the only fair way for us to discuss this topic. This is why people tend to disengage when media bias is brough up as a topic.

I can go to Newsbusters or any other conservative website that shows the massive depth of bias at MSNBC and engage in a link pissing contest as I said, infact I could probably spend a hour and provide 100+ links just from the last month in articles on their bias. But I will remind you I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE! I provided you the Pew poll. If you cannot find a compare/contrast in bias between Fox News and MSNBC or anyone else then you should not argue that Fox News is the most bias as you have nothing to prove it with.

[The Federation]

I can go to Newsbusters or any other conservative website that shows the massive depth of bias at MSNBC and engage in a link pissing contest as I said, infact I could probably spend a hour and provide 100+ links just from the last month in articles on their bias. But I will remind you I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE! I provided you the Pew poll. If you cannot find a compare/contrast in bias between Fox News and MSNBC or anyone else then you should not argue that Fox News is the most bias as you have nothing to prove it with.

And I have already shown over and over why that evidence doesn't make any difference at all on our discussion. Once every four years, it might make a difference, but not now.
It isn't quantity that needs to be weighed, but quality of evidence. The two main things that make Fox different are
1. Top down distortion. Memos to staff to make a certain point isn't news, it's intentional spin.
2. The fact that Roger Ailes, PRESIDENT of Fox, secretly offered Patreaus a free manager for his presidential bid. News agencies simply don't do that.

[BigLutz]

And I have already shown over and over why that evidence doesn't make any difference at all on our discussion. Once every four years, it might make a difference, but not now.

Of which you have not provided any proof to back up your statement. I mean I could poke holes in it, such as the idea that any station is going to be LESS bias during major political events, but I would rather see you back up your assertion first, or retract it. Because right now I have provided proof that MSNBC is more biased, you have provided... nothing.

It isn't quantity that needs to be weighed, but quality of evidence. The two main things that make Fox different are
1. Top down distortion. Memos to staff to make a certain point isn't news, it's intentional spin.
2. The fact that Roger Ailes, PRESIDENT of Fox, secretly offered Patreaus a free manager for his presidential bid. News agencies simply don't do that.

The problem with that is again I could go through the things that MSNBC does, or that that the memos are a epic non story for this debate ( They are from 2004, and many of them are simple instructions any news organization would say ), but they do nothing for the argument which is that Fox News is more biased than anyone else.

[Sogeking]

Alright, it's getting annoying with the "he said, she said" thing going on the past page or so. If someone posts a link in this thread instead of passing it off as a biased source actively say why it's wrong, otherwise we're getting nowhere outside of "Well you can't use that use better evidence without me posting my own". Any other posts like that will infracted as spam from now on.

[WizardTrubbish]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...urdle/1947437/
The Senate voted to end debate on Hagel''s nomination. The final confirmation vote is scheduled for 4:30 tonight.
UPDATE: Yep, Hagel's been approved

[Silver Soul]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...urdle/1947437/
The Senate voted to end debate on Hagel''s nomination. The final confirmation vote is scheduled for 4:30 tonight.
UPDATE: Yep, Hagel's been approved

It was very expected that would happen. So basically, John McCain and Lindsey Graham pretty much wasted everyone's time.

Also, Rush Limbaugh says that he's now ashamed of his country for the "first time in his life". Why? It's because the Left won he says.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/limba...has-beaten-us/

“Anyway, my point with all this is that for 25 years, folks, we’ve been dealing with the same premise: “Unless we spend another dime, the country is going to cease to exist,” and for 25 years I have responded to each premise on what I call an intellectual, point-by-point basis refuting every claim. The purpose of this program has been to create as large a body of informed voting citizens as possible. While we’ve been largely and profoundly successful at that, the left has beaten us.

They have created far more low-information, unaware, uneducated people than we’ve been able to keep up with. We’ve had a profound impact in improving, increasing that universe of people — citizens — who are in the arena of ideas now, who are informed and educated. I’ve always had a Civics 101 view of the country: People get what they want, they vote what they want, and they get the way they vote.

And if a majority of people are educated and informed and know what’s going on, liberalism — and these powerful forces that have ill intent to the country — can be defeated. Yet despite overwhelming success in creating more and more people who are informed and active and involved, the left has control of the education system — control of the pop culture, movies, TVs, books, music. We’ve just been outnumbered.”

[WizardTrubbish]

So basically, John McCain and Lindsey Graham pretty much wasted everyone's time.

Isn't that the purpose of a filibuster?

[BigLutz]

It was very expected that would happen. So basically, John McCain and Lindsey Graham pretty much wasted everyone's time.

I wouldn't say that, it caused Obama to spend a bunch of political capital on a very bad nominee, and in the end made Hagel even more weak in his future dealings with Congress.

[7 tyranitars]

I wouldn't say that, it caused Obama to spend a bunch of political capital on a very bad nominee, and in the end made Hagel even more weak in his future dealings with Congress.

May I ask you which person you rather had as a secretary of defence? And why?