Republican politicians now admit that Fox News is inaccurate

[Uncarollo2]

In other words they lie and mislead their conservative viewers about things like climate change. Fox News viewers are less informed than people who watch other news shows and even people who don't watch any news:

Fox News is hurting the Republican Party, according to a study conducted by a top official in the first Bush administration.

The study, authored by Bruce Bartlett, who worked in the Treasury Department under George H. W. Bush and was also a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, found that Fox viewers tended to be less informed about current affairs than people who watch mainstream news -- and even people who don't watch the news at all.

"Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting outside the narrow party base," Bartlett said.

Citing a host of other studies, Bartlett found that Fox News viewers tended to have misguided beliefs about the Iraq War, the Affordable Care Act, climate change and other major issues. He also noted that Fox's audience tended to hold a bias against Muslims.

"It appears that right-wing bias, including inaccurate reporting, became commonplace on Fox," Bartlett said.

This is especially problematic, he said, because "many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth."

The Daily Show recently put together a compilation of some of the network's most egregious inaccuracies. Among them: NASA scientists fabricated data to prove climate change exists, Obama sent more forces to fight Ebola than ISIS, and the Affordable Care Act will eventually lead to single-payer health care.

Many within the Republican Party have expressed concern with Fox News in recent years.

In 2012, then-presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said that he found other networks to be less partial. "I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through," Gingrich said. "In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact."

Then-Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said last year that some Fox shows are "totally not fair and totally not balanced." Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who often appears on the network, has said that its immigration coverage "makes it harder for me to get people on my side."

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

<edit>

ugharollo, you seem to know quite a bit about Fox News. Watch it much? (I don't.)

[Uncarollo2]

I just know what thoughtful Republican leaders say: "Fox News is hurting the Republican Party, according to a study conducted by a top official in the first Bush administration."

[Bert]

In news:1aeb2849-5698-40b5...@googlegroups.com Uncarollo2
<chri...@aol.com> wrote:

> In other words

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and of course MSNBC.

Who are you shilling for anyway?

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[lal_truckee]

On 5/20/15 10:32 AM, Bert wrote:
> In news:1aeb2849-5698-40b5...@googlegroups.com Uncarollo2
> <chri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words
>
> ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and of course MSNBC.

Don't forget BBC, Al Jazeera, and The Economist.

Lot's of places to get news closer to reality in English.

[Uncarollo2]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-5, Bert wrote:
> In news:1aeb2849-5698-40b5...@googlegroups.com Uncarollo2

> wrote:
>
> > In other words
>
> ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and of course MSNBC.
>
> Who are you shilling for anyway?
>
> --
> be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

I would leave out MSNBC. Neither they or Fox News is worth a bucket of warm spit.

[Uncarollo2]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 1:24:18 PM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 5/20/15 10:32 AM, Bert wrote:
> > In news:1aeb2849-5698-40b5...@googlegroups.com Uncarollo2

> >> wrote:
> >
> >> In other words
> >
> > ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and of course MSNBC.
>
> Don't forget BBC, Al Jazeera, and The Economist.
>
> Lot's of places to get news closer to reality in English.

I get my news primarily from BBC. Don't have time for any of the others.

[Bert]

In news:bceb4b85-47bd-4a48...@googlegroups.com Uncarollo2

<chri...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-5, Bert wrote:
>> In news:1aeb2849-5698-40b5...@googlegroups.com
>> Uncarollo2
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In other words
>>
>> ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and of course MSNBC.
>>
>> Who are you shilling for anyway?
>

> I would leave out MSNBC. Neither they or Fox News is worth a bucket of
> warm spit.

Neither are ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN.

Was I too subtle, or are you too credulous?

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 5:57:30 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> >
> > <edit>
> >
> > ugharollo, you seem to know quite a bit about Fox News. Watch it much? (I don't.)
>
> I just know what thoughtful Republican leaders say: "Fox News is hurting the >Republican Party, according to a study conducted by a top official in the >first Bush administration."

"Republican" is not exactly synonymous with conservative, a subtle point that obviously eludes you.

There are probably about 100 million conservatives of voting age in the US, most of whom do not watch Fox news in any case, so the article in your link is irrelevant.

The lamestream media is heavily biased toward the "left" and tends to ignore important news and developments unless absolutely necessary.

[Uncarollo2]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 8:55:28 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 5:57:30 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > >
> > > <edit>
> > >
> > > ugharollo, you seem to know quite a bit about Fox News. Watch it much? (I don't.)
> >
> > I just know what thoughtful Republican leaders say: "Fox News is hurting the >Republican Party, according to a study conducted by a top official in the >first Bush administration."
>
> "Republican" is not exactly synonymous with conservative, a subtle point that obviously eludes you.
>
> There are probably about 100 million conservatives of voting age in the US, most of whom do not watch Fox news in any case, so the article in your link is irrelevant.

Oh-Kay. 100 million conservatives is about right, and I'm one of them, a proud capitalist who built a multi-million dollar company from scratch with help from other capitalists and our friendly local banker. That does not mean that I buy into the Bircher philosophy, rather I'm more of a teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower conservative, both of who warned against unbridled corporate power which would destroy capitalism. I think my link is relevant since thoughtful conservatives are beginning to see problems with the screetching right wing echo chamber that is Fox. Lies told on Fox will come back to haunt them.

>
> The lamestream media is heavily biased toward the "left" and tends to ignore important news and developments unless absolutely necessary.

Mainstream media is owned by real capitalists who have several goals, one to present the news, second one to stay in business by making a profit. They're doing well enough. They are not in business to please the likes of you, so that makes them liberal in your mind. I'm not sure what "news" they may be ignoring, perhaps you can find it in the supermarket rags like the Inquirer?

By the way, liberal democracy is what we wished for decades would occur in China, but alas they will continue their right wing dictatorship probably for the forseeable future. They do intend to become the dominant nation state in the world and fully expect to eclipse the USA, which is really unfortunate.

But enough of trying to educate you. Time to go home and enjoy an evening sip while watching Stewart. Toodle-oo, don't let the bedbugs bite!

[RichA]

Curious, but WTF has this to do with amateur astronomy? You stupid leftist-greenie KOOK!

[Mike Collins]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Curious, but WTF has this to do with amateur astronomy? You stupid leftist-greenie KOOK!

But on the subjects of astronomy and spaceflight have you contributed to
the crowdfunding of the light-sail project yet?

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:21:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 8:55:28 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 5:57:30 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <edit>
> > > >
> > > > ugharollo, you seem to know quite a bit about Fox News. Watch it much? (I don't.)
> > >
> > > I just know what thoughtful Republican leaders say: "Fox News is hurting the >Republican Party, according to a study conducted by a top official in the >first Bush administration."
> >
> > "Republican" is not exactly synonymous with conservative, a subtle point that obviously eludes you.
> >
> > There are probably about 100 million conservatives of voting age in the US, most of whom do not watch Fox news in any case, so the article in your link is irrelevant.
>
>
> Oh-Kay. 100 million conservatives is about right, and I'm one of them, a >proud capitalist who built a multi-million dollar company from scratch with >help from other capitalists and our friendly local banker.
>That does not mean
>that I buy into the Bircher philosophy, rather I'm more of a teddy Roosevelt >and Eisenhower conservative, both of who warned against unbridled corporate >power which would destroy capitalism.

Being a "capitalist" doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative. Your business is likely flying under the radar and so avoids the controversies that liberals like to stir up wrt capitalism.

>I think my link is relevant since thoughtful conservatives are beginning to >see problems with the screetching right wing echo chamber that is Fox. Lies >told on Fox will come back to haunt them.

Your link isn't relevant, because it assumes that Fox News is actually having much effect.

> > The lamestream media is heavily biased toward the "left" and tends to ignore important news and developments unless absolutely necessary.
>
> Mainstream media is owned by real capitalists who have several goals, one to >present the news, second one to stay in business by making a profit. They're >doing well enough.

Irrelevant.

>They are not in business to please the likes of you, so that makes them >liberal in your mind.

They seem to be primarily for entertainment, while not being particularly entertaining.

>I'm not sure what "news" they may be ignoring, perhaps you can find it in the >supermarket rags like the Inquirer?

Ha. Ha. As far as objectivity and accuracy goes the Inquirer probably isn't much worse than the lamestream media.

> By the way, liberal democracy is what we wished for decades would occur in >China, but alas they will continue their right wing dictatorship probably for >the forseeable future.

It would be better if China were to respect human rights and freedom, things which neither "liberal democracies" nor dictatorships do very well.

>They do intend to become the dominant nation state in the world and fully >expect to eclipse the USA, which is really unfortunate.

If that happens, you can blame liberals in the US for it.

> But enough of trying to educate you.

You might trying educating yourself, before presuming to think you should educate anyone else.

[Uncarollo2]

Create something of value that employs people instead of hot air and useless opinions. Accomplish what real capitalists do every day and then maybe you will understand the world and what a real conservative is.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:15:54 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

> Create something of value that employs people instead of hot air and useless >opinions. Accomplish what real capitalists do every day and then maybe you >will understand the world and what a real conservative is.

As was pointed out earlier to you: Being a capitalist doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative.

Why are those facts so difficult for you to grasp?

[Uncarollo2]

Sorry, I don't accept your definition, and you don't get to define anyone else's life. I know many many business owners who are conservative, so I am quite familiar with their way of thinking.

You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world, unless you want to rule over the rest of us, is that your aim?

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:46:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:20:49 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:15:54 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> >
> > > Create something of value that employs people instead of hot air and useless >opinions. Accomplish what real capitalists do every day and then maybe you >will understand the world and what a real conservative is.
> >
> > As was pointed out earlier to you: Being a capitalist doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative.
> >
> > Why are those facts so difficult for you to grasp?
>
> Sorry, I don't accept your definition,

I did not present a definition.

> and you don't get to define anyone else's life.

It's a free country, or at least it was until you liberals got a hold of it.

>I know many many business owners who are conservative, so I am quite familiar >with their way of thinking.

That's not the issue, the issue is whether you are a liberal or not.

> You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world,

At no time did I suggest I should. However, it might be nice if you liberals would allow us conservatives to manage our own affairs.

>unless you want to rule over the rest of us, is that your aim?

I would suggest that, as a first step, you liberals practice what you preach, if you insist on preaching.

[Mike Collins]

He seems decent and civilised which is the main criterion for being s
liberal but the views he expresses are conservative.

[Uncarollo2]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:38:16 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:46:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:20:49 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:15:54 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Create something of value that employs people instead of hot air and useless >opinions. Accomplish what real capitalists do every day and then maybe you >will understand the world and what a real conservative is.
> > >
> > > As was pointed out earlier to you: Being a capitalist doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative.
> > >
> > > Why are those facts so difficult for you to grasp?

Probably because those are not facts, they are simply your opinion?

> >
> > Sorry, I don't accept your definition,
>
> I did not present a definition.
>
> > and you don't get to define anyone else's life.
>
> It's a free country, or at least it was until you liberals got a hold of it.

Liberals are not taking away any of your freedoms. Only in the strange world of conspiracy bozos.

>
> >I know many many business owners who are conservative, so I am quite familiar >with their way of thinking.
>
> That's not the issue, the issue is whether you are a liberal or not.

That is the issue. My conservative friends are business associates, most are owners of small business (manufacturing, retail, restaurant, healthcare, financial services). All are successful in their own right, as hard working as they come. They are to a person intelligent, kind, thoughtful, non-judgemental, pragmatic. I have never heard any one of them screech about the country being destroyed by those "librulz". We all don't wear our conservatism on our sleeve, rather we practice it as a lifestyle. There is none among us that acts or opinionates as you do, or is as consistently negative and angry as you seem to be. Therefore I have to conclude that either you are not a conservative, or that all these successful people are really liberals.

In fact, the only people like yourself that we have had the misfortune to meet are the Tea Party types that have shown up from time to time at our Chamber of Commerce meetings and disrupt things with their outlandish conspiracy theories.

>
> > You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world,
>
> At no time did I suggest I should. However, it might be nice if you liberals would allow us conservatives to manage our own affairs.

Fair enough, I'll try not to manage your affairs. If you find me trying to manage you, please tell me to stop and I certainly will.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:50:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
> <wsnell01> wrote:

...

> > I would suggest that, as a first step, you liberals practice what you
> > preach, if you insist on preaching.
>
> He seems decent and civilised which is the main criterion for being s
> liberal but the views he expresses are conservative.

He is "decent and civilized" if you agree with him, but perhaps ONLY if you agree with him, as is often true of liberals.

He has expressed no views that would definitely label him as conservative and quite a few that put him squarely in the liberal group.

In real life I note that when liberals start in with their rhetoric, the conservatives just stay silent and smile. But if a conservative speaks his mind, he will be treated less well and in extreme cases be "shouted down" by liberals.

https://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/trashing-america-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street/

I also doubt that any of the Ferguson rioters/protestors can be classified as conservative either.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

wsnell01 wrote:

> > > > As was pointed out earlier to you: Being a capitalist doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative.
> > > >
> > > > Why are those facts so difficult for you to grasp?
>
> Probably because those are not facts, they are simply your opinion?

There are plenty of left-leaning capitalists, that's a fact.

You seem to support 0bama, something which conservatives do not do.

[lal_truckee]

On 5/22/15 3:36 PM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

> You seem to support 0bama, something which conservatives do not do.

Why do you say that? Obama is dead center conservative.

There can be no exchange of political discourse if you persist in
re-defining terms to fit your minority position, and than seek to
exclude adherents to the former definition.

If that's your intention you might as well cease to attempt presentation
of your bizarre minority political ideas, since you have deliberately
deleted the common vocabulary required for meaningful discourse.

[Uncarollo2]

In any other country Obama would be classified as center-right or conservative. Certainly in Canada, our closest neighbor and probably in Britain. Definitely in Germany. He is certainly to the right of Eisenhower and Teddy R, who by far is my favorite president of all.

Personally I always supported and voted for our local Republican representative for US Congress, a decent fellow who was chairman of the small business committee (that's him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Manzullo). However, this last go-around in 2012 he was "primaried" because he was not rabid enough for our local Tea groups and lost to a tea party ideologue. I now have no representation basically, until the Tea groups burn themselves out. Personally it does not affect me one way or other who gets to rule in Congress or the White House. But others not so well off are hurt by the slash&burn techniques of the rabid right.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

You appear to have voted for 0bama, who signed 0bamacare, which dictates to the insurance companies what type of health insurance policy they may sell to the insured and then fines the insured if they decide not to buy a policy that is not what they want.

That sounds like "managing" to me.

Then there's gun control, IRS abuses, laws about eyeglass prescriptions, trash recycling, soft drink portions, etc.

[Uncarollo2]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 5:36:49 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
>
>
> wsnell01 wrote:
>
> > > > > As was pointed out earlier to you: Being a capitalist doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are those facts so difficult for you to grasp?
> >
> > Probably because those are not facts, they are simply your opinion?
>
> There are plenty of left-leaning capitalists, that's a fact.

Well then it seems that all the business owners in this area must be left leaning, 'cause they just don't think like you do.

[Uncarollo2]

Well, that's stretching things a bit, isn't it? I appear to have done something of which you do not approve, so then that makes me responsible for all kinds of other things of which you do not approve like trash recycling of all things. Do you have any proof that this is what I did?
(by the way I do recycle our trash at home and at work, it's the decent thing to do. I also have a compost bin in the yard, works real well for getting black soil for my tomatoes).

P.S. Restricting softdrink portions was a Republican mayor of NY city's idea.

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NY: the NYC Board of Health approved Bloomberg's proposal to ban the sale of many sweetened drinks more than 16 ounces (473 ml.) in volume. The limit would have applied to businesses such as restaurants and movie theaters, but did not apply to grocery stores, including 7-Eleven. Diet varieties of sweetened drinks were unaffected.[105] On March 12, 2013, hours before the ban was scheduled to take effect, State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling struck it down, ruling that the Board of Health lacked the jurisdiction to enforce it and that the rule was "arbitrary and capricious". The city appealed the decision.[106] On July 30, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's ruling, stating the Board of Health, "failed to act within the bounds of its lawfully delegated authority" and the ban was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, which reserves legislative power to the legislature and does not allow the board to "exercise sweeping power to create whatever rule they deem necessary". Bloomberg announced that the city would appeal the decision.

[Uncarollo2]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:38:16 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:46:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
>
> > > > You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world,
> > >
> > > At no time did I suggest I should. However, it might be nice if you liberals would allow us conservatives to manage our own affairs.
> >
> > Fair enough, I'll try not to manage your affairs. If you find me trying to
> >manage you, please tell me to stop and I certainly will.
>
> You appear to have voted for 0bama, who signed 0bamacare, which dictates to the insurance companies what type of health insurance policy they may sell to the insured and then fines the insured if they decide not to buy a policy that is not what they want.
>
> That sounds like "managing" to me.

I think you have a strange idea what "managing" means.

> Then there's gun control, IRS abuses, laws about eyeglass prescriptions, trash recycling, soft drink portions, etc.

Gun control? Obama hasn't made any moves to deprive me of my gun rights or taken away anybody's gun. Has he done taken away your firearms? The constitution is still intact, being preserved by the Supreme Court, love 'em or not. Still one person one vote and Obama goes away after next year, to be replaced by whoever the good people of the USA feel should occupy the White House. God bless 'em all.

In the 7 years of Obama's presidency we have come back from a fiscal disaster, the various markets are up, and basically I have done quite well with my various investments. Same with my business associates and friends. What's not to like?

[Uncarollo2]

Hey Snell, while we're at it, how about this: I believe that educating Americans is the best thing we can do for our economy and that allowing students to go broke while trying to get the knowledge they need to appropriately participate in the economy is not acceptable. Now, does that make me a liberal or a smart conservative?

Hint: when we enacted the GI bill, every dollar spent eventually returned 4 in the economy as these students joined the workforce. Not a bad investment. How long would it take to get 4 for 1 in the stock market? Can you do the math?

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 7:00:29 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

> In any other country Obama would be classified as center-right or conservative.

That's due to the socialist tendencies of most of the rest of the world, and the outright socialism of much of it.

To anyone who believes in the Constitution and limited government he is quite liberal (ie, socialist.)

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

Your statement is asinine and totally illogical.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:38:16 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:46:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> >
> > > > > You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world,
> > > >
> > > > At no time did I suggest I should. However, it might be nice if you liberals would allow us conservatives to manage our own affairs.
> > >
> > > Fair enough, I'll try not to manage your affairs. If you find me trying to
> > >manage you, please tell me to stop and I certainly will.
> >
> > You appear to have voted for 0bama, who signed 0bamacare, which dictates to the insurance companies what type of health insurance policy they may sell to the insured and then fines the insured if they decide not to buy a policy that is not what they want.
> >
> > That sounds like "managing" to me.
> >
> > Then there's gun control, IRS abuses, laws about eyeglass prescriptions, trash recycling, soft drink portions, etc.
>
> Well, that's stretching things a bit, isn't it? I appear to have done >something of which you do not approve,

I will assume that you voted for 0bama because of your support for 0bamacare.

>so then that makes me responsible for all kinds of other things of which you >do not approve like trash recycling of all things.

Funded by 0bama's stimulus package:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-green-police

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/09/07/trash-police-invade-thanks-government-stimulus/

You can't make this stuff up!

>
> P.S. Restricting softdrink portions was a Republican mayor of NY city's idea.
>
> Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NY:

First of all, Bloomberg is a RINO, not a conservative. Learn the difference.

It was struck down and then -appealed- (and struck down again) !!! You would figure that the Mayor and the Board of Health would have come to their senses after it was struck down the first time.

The scary thing is that a government would think that the size of a soft drink was any of its business in the first place.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 7:45:59 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:38:16 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:46:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> >
> > > > > You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world,
> > > >
> > > > At no time did I suggest I should. However, it might be nice if you liberals would allow us conservatives to manage our own affairs.
> > >
> > > Fair enough, I'll try not to manage your affairs. If you find me trying to
> > >manage you, please tell me to stop and I certainly will.
> >
> > You appear to have voted for 0bama, who signed 0bamacare, which dictates to the insurance companies what type of health insurance policy they may sell to the insured and then fines the insured if they decide not to buy a policy that is not what they want.
> >
> > That sounds like "managing" to me.
>
> I think you have a strange idea what "managing" means.

I think you are strange, period.

[Lord Vath]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 16:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
<chri...@aol.com> wrote this crap:

>On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 5:36:49 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
>>
>>
>In any other country Obama would be classified
> as center-right or conservative.

Only in socialist countries.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 10:20:40 PM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015 16:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2

> >In any other country Obama would be classified
> > as center-right or conservative.
>
> Only in socialist countries.

Ugharollo2 thinks socialism is just peachy.

[lal_truckee]

What's wrong with socialism? My neighborhood grocery store is owned by
its employees, which makes it a socialist operation. It's much better
than the local corporate chains.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 8:08:53 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

> while we're at it, how about this: I believe that educating Americans is the >best thing we can do for our economy and that allowing students to go broke >while trying to get the knowledge they need to appropriately participate in >the economy is not acceptable. Now, does that make me a liberal or a smart >conservative?

You certainly aren't a smart conservative, so you must be a stupid, clueless liberal.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

Maybe they should study this interactive chart

http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/stem/stem-html/

before deciding on a major.

> Hint: when we enacted the GI bill, every dollar spent eventually returned 4 >in the economy as these students joined the workforce. Not a bad investment.

Europe was in shambles for a time, half of it under communist control, there was pent up demand from the depression, New Deal was over, less government involvement in the economy, etc. GI Bill only increased college attendance slightly, ie not much of a factor. In fact, high school completion increase was larger. Great for the vets who went to college though.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:14:46 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:

If it's voluntary socialism, knock yourself out. Government inflicted & subsidized socialism is another story...it's NOT voluntary.

Does your local store fall into this category? :

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/employee-ownership-a-rapidly-growing-threat-to-a-free-market

[Lord Vath]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:14:43 -0700, lal_truckee
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote this crap:

>On 5/22/15 7:34 PM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 10:20:40 PM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 May 2015 16:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
>>
>>>> In any other country Obama would be classified
>>>> as center-right or conservative.
>>>
>>> Only in socialist countries.
>>
>> Ugharollo2 thinks socialism is just peachy.
>
>What's wrong with socialism?

A question asked by only the truly ignorant.

[Uncarollo2]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:19:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:38:16 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:46:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > You don't get to make the rules for the rest of the world,
> > > > >
> > > > > At no time did I suggest I should. However, it might be nice if you liberals would allow us conservatives to manage our own affairs.
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough, I'll try not to manage your affairs. If you find me trying to
> > > >manage you, please tell me to stop and I certainly will.
> > >
> > > You appear to have voted for 0bama, who signed 0bamacare, which dictates to the insurance companies what type of health insurance policy they may sell to the insured and then fines the insured if they decide not to buy a policy that is not what they want.
> > >
> > > That sounds like "managing" to me.
> > >
> > > Then there's gun control, IRS abuses, laws about eyeglass prescriptions, trash recycling, soft drink portions, etc.
> >
> > Well, that's stretching things a bit, isn't it? I appear to have done >something of which you do not approve,
>
> I will assume that you voted for 0bama because of your support for 0bamacare.

Ah yes, Obamacare, the exact legislation first promoted by the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative organization. Thanks for proving my point that Obama is a rightist conservative.

>
> >so then that makes me responsible for all kinds of other things of which you >do not approve like trash recycling of all things.
>
> Funded by 0bama's stimulus package:
>
> http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-green-police
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/09/07/trash-police-invade-thanks-government-stimulus/

Fox News? Faux News! Ha, I thought you were NOT a Fox news junkie. Now we know that you really are.

> > P.S. Restricting softdrink portions was a Republican mayor of NY city's idea.
> >
> > Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NY:
>
> First of all, Bloomberg is a RINO, not a conservative. Learn the difference.
>
> It was struck down and then -appealed- (and struck down again) !!! You would figure that the Mayor and the Board of Health would have come to their senses after it was struck down the first time.
>
> The scary thing is that a government would think that the size of a soft drink was any of its business in the first place.

Bloomberg is certainly not Obama, who you blamed for trying to limit softdrink sizes and take away your freedom to become morbidly obese. I love the way you twist yourself into a pretzel so that you don't ever have to say that you might have been wrong. In any case, I couldn't care less about Bloomberg or Obama. Obama will be gone by end of next year, and Bloomberg? Who is he anyhow. He's done far as I know. Don't care if he is a Rino or Crock.

Toodle-oo, gotta go plant some tomatoes.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 10:58:35 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:


> Ah yes, Obamacare, the exact legislation first promoted by the Heritage >Foundation, a very conservative organization.

Incorrect.

>Thanks for proving my point that >Obama is a rightist conservative.

Incorrect.

wsnell01 wrote:

> > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/09/07/trash-police-invade-thanks-government-stimulus/
>
> Fox News? Faux News! Ha, I thought you were NOT a Fox news junkie. Now we >know that you really are.

I don't watch Fox News, but you apparently do, since you seem to be so opinionated about it.

Did you read the part about (liberal) Cleveland's use of RFID tags on recycle bins?

> Bloomberg is certainly not Obama, who you blamed for trying to limit >softdrink sizes

I never specifically blamed 0bama for the soft drink fiasco, but it certainly fits the pattern of liberal (and RINO) meddling in people's business.

> Toodle-oo, gotta go plant some tomatoes.

While you are at it, go stick your head in some sand, sheeple.

[Mike Collins]

Are you putting up that link as serious information? It's all opinion.