G'bye!

[Raven]

what was he thinking....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence

From the "Occupy" post...

#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& said this:

"What exactly are they protesting again?"

And here was your reply...

"How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy."

Spence, do yourself a favor. When dealing with me, assume you're not dealing with a moron, OK?

Now, back to my question. Clearly, you think that when "corporations" make political contributions, it rigs the system in their favor. And I'm sure you're right about that.

Here is my question. Spence, why aren't you JUST AS CONCERNED that when public unions make political capmaign contributions, that they are likewise rigging the system in their favor?

GOOD LUCK.

And Spence, what unions do is worse for everyone else, and here's why. For the most part (there are some exceptions), corporations can buy all the influence they want, but in the end, they can't force me to buy their product. But when public labor unions buy influence, that gets forced on all of us in the form of property taxes, which I have no choice but to pay.

When companies buy influence, it has nowhere near the detrimental impact on folks, as when public labor unions run amuck.

Have fun responding to that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

B/C you appear to support the liberal, or at least non-R agenda, so you are required to be pro-killing babies and pro-union

Rockhound, as you can see from my post above, I didn't "assume" that Spence made that assertion. He explicitly made that assertion, and then when I used it (quite cleverly in my opinion) to back him into an inescapable corner, he denied it.

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do. In this case, Spence decried the unfairness of corporations buying influence. When I asked him why he's OK with labor unions doing the same thing, he denied ever saying it in the first place.

That's the liberal agenda. Impossible to defend from a common sense standpoint, so all Spence can do, is deny saying something that he obviously just said. And here's what I don't get. If his position is SO WEAK that he cannot defend it, if his position is so inane that all he can do is deny what he just said, then why does he believe what he believes?

That's the key question.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do.

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

"You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see"

Thanks for pointing that out, because your comment was 100% wrong. You shjould have been glad I ignored it. Here is what you said...

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

Those 2 approaches are QUITE different, and very few people would say O'Reilly was on the wrong side, but I guess you would?

Good day.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

I was referring to this comment:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.

So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story?

As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.

So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?

If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I was referring to this comment:



So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story b/c the liberals want to keep a woman/minority republican down?

As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.

So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?

If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?

"the 'Major Networks' sat on the story b/c the liberals want to keep a woman/minority republican down? "

I don't know what you're saying. In the Edwards case, the major networks kept it quiet as long as they could, until they were all embarassed by the National Enquirer, of all things. In the Cain situation, as soon as the first accusation was made, the networks couldn't get it out fast enough.

"There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment."

Not until long after the major networks were gleefully reporting the story. For the first several days, the networks ran with a story from POLITICO, which only cited an anonymous source making a vague accusation. But since the acused was a black conservative, that was good enough for them.

I agree with you, talking about the settlement is absolutely fair, and I'll do you one better, the networks have a responsibility to report that.