Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Maddermax wrote:
it's those other people don't ya know.

A few days before the shutdown (when it was pretty clear there would be one), I got a postcard from Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that, you know... wasn't about anything special, buddy. Just seeing how you're doing, and remind you about all the really... really kickass stuff Chuck is doing. (I don't believe I've ever gotten anything like this from him outside of an election).

I admired the foresight, but nonetheless award no points.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
It won't fall below 85%

I agree, but I was trying to be generous.

Usually. However, waves occur.

 sebster wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Well, ok then. This just reinforces my dislike for both sides. However, two wrongs don't make a right. So now, the Democrats feel the need to save face by not negotiating at all?

That is incredible. You have an actual plan, written up for everyone to see, in which the Republicans say that will create a financial crisis in order to extort a de-funding of Obamacare... and you read that and conclude 'both sides'.

Incredible.

Considering his usual stance of right wingers, I'm pretty impressed he can concede that it might atually be both sides fault and not just the "liberals" dirty dealings.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
It won't fall below 85%

I agree, but I was trying to be generous.

Usually. However, waves occur.

85% is a wave. Usually it's 90-95%. 85% is as bad as it's ever been in the last 50 years. Barring a major collapse of one party, that isn't going to change.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Except the vets got to be there, and under the exact same rules and decision anothe group was allowed to be there as well.

NO
The vets basically kicked their way in there and refused to leave.

The illegal immigrant suporters were permitted to set up, including porta potties etc.

So you are saying our vets are criminals and illegal immigrants are law abiding visitors? Why do you hate our troops?

Supporters of illegal immigrants are not illegal immigrants. Most of them are probably US citizens. OTOH if the veterans broke the criminal law in their actions, then once convicted of such, they will be criminals.

Remember, folks, you can't actually elect someone other than an incumbent in most areas unless someone in his own party runs against him. The rules for who can and cannot run are so tilted in favor of incumbents it's not funny. You'd have to arrange a massive write in campaign, because of districts and the requirements to get on the ballot in most areas.

Not to mention that incumbents benefit from a well oiled campaign funding machine.

So you are saying our vets are criminals and illegal immigrants are law abiding visitors? Why do you hate our troops?

Their access to reliable flamethrowers...DUH!!!

Supporters of illegal immigrants are not illegal immigrants.

You have no proof whatsoever of that statement in regards to this protest. In most of the protests in the SW, the majority have indeed been illegal aliens, many times sporting their home country flags. Thou knowest not what thoust speaketh.

And while we're on the subject, we Elizabethan English really just a bunch of Daffy Duck fans?

 agnosto wrote:
Not to mention that incumbents benefit from a well oiled campaign funding machine.

Yeah, but even if they do, you can';t actually run against them. In theory you can, but the regulations on who can run and why make it so that no one but the incumbent can actually get on the ballot unless his own party throws him out.

The History of the Debt Ceiling, in Libby Libtastic Liberal Cartoon Form.

"Am I being punk'd?"

"Okay now I'm totally being punk'd."

But hey, the good news is that apparently a 6 week extension up to Nov 22nd is gaining some traction.

There's no way that doing this all over again a week before the busiest consumer shopping weekend in the US and a month before Christmas could possibly go wrong!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Not to mention that incumbents benefit from a well oiled campaign funding machine.

Yeah, but even if they do, you can';t actually run against them. In theory you can, but the regulations on who can run and why make it so that no one but the incumbent can actually get on the ballot unless his own party throws him out.

What? You're saying no one runs against inbumbents? You don't live in Colorado do you? Smoking the good stuff again.

 Frazzled wrote:

What? You're saying no one runs against inbumbents? You don't live in Colorado do you? Smoking the good stuff again.

Try it in any eastern state. Only way to do it is go independent and spend you own cash. Each district is locked up either democrat or republican, and the rules in PA in particular keep it that way. If you are a democrat, you literally cannot get your name on the ballot, because there are not enough registered members of your party.

SO how would they win?

 Forar wrote:
The History of the Debt Ceiling, in Libby Libtastic Liberal Cartoon Form.

"Am I being punk'd?"

"Okay now I'm totally being punk'd."

But hey, the good news is that apparently a 6 week extension up to Nov 22nd is gaining some traction.

There's no way that doing this all over again a week before the busiest consumer shopping weekend in the US and a month before Christmas could possibly go wrong!

Nice cartoon. Can we just bring back the Gephart rule? Oh wait, then we woudl still hav eto pass a budget. Woops!

 Frazzled wrote:

So you are saying our vets are criminals and illegal immigrants are law abiding visitors? Why do you hate our troops?

Their access to reliable flamethrowers...DUH!!!

Supporters of illegal immigrants are not illegal immigrants.

You have no proof whatsoever of that statement in regards to this protest. ...

Bang goes innocent until proved guilty.

Were you committing a crime? Fly over to Houston so we can make an arrest. Don't take United though, they suck like fahrfergnugen.

 agnosto wrote:
Fox is hard right, CNN is middle left. You might have left and right a bit confused there.

I think they're all horrible news services, too much nonsense in them so left or right here means little to me as I don't like any of them. Left and right really only refers to fiscal policy these days as major parties everywhere follow a broadly socialist bent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


What? You're saying no one runs against inbumbents? You don't live in Colorado do you?

What are these 'in bum bents' you have in Colorado? Are you saying that bents in bums are common there or something?

cadbren wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Fox is hard right, CNN is middle left. You might have left and right a bit confused there.

I think they're all horrible news services, too much nonsense in them so left or right here means little to me as I don't like any of them.

But they have graphs and polls and stuff to let us know what is REALLY happening!

 Forar wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I asked for a less biased source regarding the "immigration rally" that purportedly happened on/in/at (?) the national mall.

Variations googling for said info brought plenty of outrage from Beck, Limbaugh, Fox and others, but nothing from the Associated Press, or Reuters, or CNN, etc.

It seems to be "an issue" purely for right wing blog sites and Fox, but surely something this sizable would be worth others reporting on it...

CNN et al did report it but it was only conservative types who saw fit to discuss it, the "left" no longer cares about national identity, patriotism or any of that stuff outside of election time. The left afterall is increasingly reliant on unskilled immigration to bulk up its voter base. Note all the democrats present at the rally with 8 of them being arrested, they are supporting this stuff. Could someone tell me why they were arrested though?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Fox is hard right, CNN is middle left. You might have left and right a bit confused there.

I think they're all horrible news services, too much nonsense in them so left or right here means little to me as I don't like any of them.

But they have graphs and polls and stuff to let us know what is REALLY happening!

Yeah, and Fox has "friends" <shudders>.

cadbren wrote:
Left and right really only refers to fiscal policy these days as major parties everywhere follow a broadly socialist bent.

*blink*

So, no differences between the two parties other than fiscal policy?

None at all?

You're sure about that? Any chance you might want to, oh, I dunno, walk it back a little bit?

cadbren wrote:
the "left" no longer cares about national identity, patriotism or any of that stuff outside of election time. The left afterall is increasingly reliant on unskilled immigration to bulk up its voter base.

That... sure is an opinion alright.

Personally I'd say the party playing brinksmanship with the US (and through them, the global) economy are the ones who have forgotten about "patriotism". Putting personal gain and power ahead of governance seems awfully unpatriotic. Maybe that's just me.

Quite a few of you all need to read a bit more into the vets and the WWII monument. They were informed the park was closed. They went in anyway. The Park LEO's were not going to enforce the shutdown policy being they are vets themselves.

 Jihadin wrote:
Quite a few of you all need to read a bit more into the vets and the WWII monument. They were informed the park was closed. They went in anyway. The Park LEO's were not going to enforce the shutdown policy being they are vets themselves.

And yet the parks were open for the illegal immigrant rally. Selectively opening and closing parks to hurt the general public is a pretty cynical way to conduct politics.

Its "Double Standards". Everyone hates "Double Standards" but yet one/either side feels free to invoke it. Just another way to ensure power play. Its something everyone going to forget comes around election times for Reps and Senators. I've a feeling more Tea Party Reps are going to get either re-elected or elected into positions at Congress.

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling more Tea Party Reps are going to get either re-elected or elected into positions at Congress.

Now the real question is whether that increase in tea party members will come at the cost of overall republican numbers in congress. Tea party candidates are great at winning primaries, but bad at winning the elections that count. Their poll numbers on the shutdown are awful, and that's on top of their habit of saying things like "legitimate rape" and turning safe republican seats blue. And of course outside of safe republican districts they're completely unelectable. So it's easy to imagine a situation where the tea party gains more seats, but the democrats gain a majority in the house.

The Tea Party managed to turn an easy win for the GOP presidential candidate in 2012 into a victory for Obama and Democratic gains in both houses.

 sebster wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Of course not.

But there is a spectrum of bias. Some, like the BBC, manage to keep pretty well reigned in.

Or more to the point, bias doesn't matter but accuracy and honesty do.

I don't care if you have a personal opinion on the subject, I just care if what you're typing is accurate, and an honest representation of the event.

There are, believe it or not, some pretty decent news sources around the world that have political convictions at least as strong as FOX, but remain excellent services... because they make their argument honestly and with accurate information.

Similarly CNN wanders around the centre and centre left in its bias, but remain utterly useless as a news service because its journalistic standards are next to zero, as it happily lies and misrepresents to make stories sound as exciting as possible.

Is there any news sources (specifically big ones) in the US that are decent?

Far as I know? No.

There are individuals who share views that suit me just fine and at least seem to make an effort to present hard hitting facts and fact check their material (Rachel Maddow), individuals and shows that should be more for entertainment than anything but manage to provide more information and hard hitting journalism than entire networks (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report), and a bunch of 24 hour news channels leaping over each other in an effort to be terrible.

I hold a measure of respect for organizations like Reuters and the Associated Press, but that's mostly due to not hearing anything particularly scandalous about them lately (oh, I'm sure it's out there) and the combined awful of MSNBC (trying way too hard), CNN (utterly incompetant, but lets check in with you on Twitter first) and Fox (OMG WAR ON CHRISTMAS PERSECUTION BY LIBERAL PIN HEADS GOLD GOLD GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!).

The BBC and Al-Jazeera have impressed me over the years, and that's all off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.

We're all grown ups here....if your scared...just say your scared....

 Forar wrote:
The BBC and Al-Jazeera have impressed me over the years, and that's all off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.

I've also been quote surprised at how decent Al-Jazeera's reporting has been, at least comparatively. I mean, presumably they have some tiny fraction of the resources CNN does, and yet CNN manages to crap the bed, day in and day out.

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
The BBC and Al-Jazeera have impressed me over the years, and that's all off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.

I've also been quote surprised at how decent Al-Jazeera's reporting has been, at least comparatively. I mean, presumably they have some tiny fraction of the resources CNN does, and yet CNN manages to crap the bed, day in and day out.

But Al-Jazeera is the Muslim islama-news infiltrating the US!