It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chris Wallace: Democrats Are 'Fools' for Shunning Fox News

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 



Originally posted by The Walking Fox

Originally posted by jsobecky
Name 3 important pieces of legislation they've passed since they assumed the majority.

They have truly earned the nickname of "The Do Nothing Congress".


$2.10 increase in minimum wage

They were always good at spending money. Not that this current crop of Republicans have lived up to their reputation for fiscal economy, I'll give you that.

And there are disadvantages to a minimum wage, also. That could be a thread unto itself.



Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Institution of the security recommendations of the 9/11 commission

Very debatable, esp. regarding border security. It took a public uprising to stop their plan to grant amnesty to illegals.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Passed SCHIP - vetoed, but it passed Congress

Another example of their penchant for spending money. BTW, SCHIP originated in the late '90's, I believe, so this crop of Dems can't take credit.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And what about Howard Dean? Please do elaborate. I'm going to presume you're going off something beyond the "yeargh,"

The guy is radioactive. His comments on corruption, for example are the mark of an unstable mind.

He is one of the most divisive politicians around, not exactly what our country needs.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
seeing as how you support a guy who's life was nearly snuffed out by a Rold Gold. Not much room to talk about embarrassing moments in a political career, y'know?


You're not serious, are you? Trying to make some type of connection between competence and and being the victim of an accident? Totally bizarre.:shk:



Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Ah, the ol' "socialist" spook. Can you elaborate on this one as well? And why, precisely, such a move would be bad? Myself, I figure a balance of capitalist venture and socialist protections is what gave us the economic golden era that conservatives idealize so.

National health care. Higher taxes. Cradle to grave entitlements designed to keep a segment of the population in poverty and dependent upon the gov't, which will of course, grow in size.

Socialism requires victims. The same as altruism. Cultures of entropy and, ultimately, death.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by HHH Is King
 


You lost all credibility with me when you posted that absurdly false thread entitled "More Republican Rapists".

And you have no idea of my political leanings, so don't assume that you know more than you do.


You mean the topic about how the GOP protected Halliburton after Halliburton GANG RAPED A WOMAN, IMPRISONED HER ILLEGALLY, AND THREATENED HER IF SHE TOLD ANYONE!

Yeah, I lost credibility, not the guy who supports gang raping women...

[edit on 17-12-2007 by HHH Is King]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Now if the democratic candidates went on fox news for interviews do you think they would be treated as good as they treat the republican candidates?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 



Originally posted by HHH Is King
Yeah, I lost credibility, not the guy who supports gang raping women...

And who might that be? Please elaborate.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by UScitizen
 



Originally posted by UScitizen
Now if the democratic candidates went on fox news for interviews do you think they would be treated as good as they treat the republican candidates?

I believe they would be. Fox always applaudsguests with the courage to come on and defend unpopular positions.

Besides, Fox is the largest, fastest-growing, most-watched cable network on TV. To isolate yourself from that large an audience isn't a smart move.

Look at it this way: if the average Fox viewer wasn't going to vote for you before you appeared on Fox, what have you got to lose? You can only win, by possibly picking up votes in your favor.


[edit on 18-12-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Name 3 important pieces of legislation they've passed since they assumed the majority.

They have truly earned the nickname of "The Do Nothing Congress".


...so because bush vetoes things, they aren't doing anything?
i'm sorry, but the problem isn't with the democrats here. in the face of a veto with the ferocity of a spited infant a slight majority doesn't cut it.



Of course you don't want to hear the truth. Just look at their chairman of the DNC - Howard Dean.


yes, let's look at these vague and baseless accusations...



They are toning down their plans to make the US a socialistic society, at least until the election is over.


good, i'd love to be a nation that's more like norway or sweden...
wouldn't you?




Their entire platform for the past seven years has been to Blame Bush for everything.


rhetoric much?
have you listened to obama or kucinich talk? especially kucinich.



They campaigned to eliminate the Washington "Culture of Corruption" when they have been the most corrupt group in history.


evidence? i mean, with all these recent scandals about republicans hiding their elicit activities, how are you going to back this one up?



Their ranks are riddled with alcoholics and drug addicts.


alrighty.. any evidence or are you just going to shirk that responsibility away and continue to ad hom?

also... status as a drug addict or alcoholic may not necessarily inhibit one from properly performing duties. it would make it a lot harder and require a sheer amount of willpower, but isn't that kind of willpower something we want in a leader?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by jsobecky
Name 3 important pieces of legislation they've passed since they assumed the majority.

They have truly earned the nickname of "The Do Nothing Congress".


...so because bush vetoes things, they aren't doing anything?
i'm sorry, but the problem isn't with the democrats here. in the face of a veto with the ferocity of a spited infant a slight majority doesn't cut it.

Hillary Clinton, giving standing applause to Bush's announcement that Social Security reform was at a stalemate because Dem's refused to even sit down and discuss it.

Harry Reid, standing in front of cameras and saying "We killed the Patriot Act".

Two of the most memorable, and embarassing moments of this congress.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
good, i'd love to be a nation that's more like norway or sweden...
wouldn't you?

No. But there's nothing preventing you from moving there...


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
rhetoric much?
have you listened to obama or kucinich talk? especially kucinich.

Rhetoric? Kucinich the Moonbat? The guy so looney that even his own party ignores him?




They campaigned to eliminate the Washington "Culture of Corruption" when they have been the most corrupt group in history.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

evidence? i mean, with all these recent scandals about republicans hiding their elicit activities, how are you going to back this one up?

McKinney. Jefferson. Reid. Ted Kennedy. Patches Kennedy. Pelosi. Clinton. Murtha.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


You asked for three things. I gave you three things. You know, it's funny, but most pieces of legislation require spending. Especially good legislation. I know it's hard to believe for those who grew up with the 12 year republican congress, but Congress actually has responsibilities to the American people beyond pretending to cut their taxes while voting for congressional pay hikes.

Killed the Patriot Act? Oh how I wish... Has there ever been a more corrupt, unconstitutional piece of legislation ever passed? I think maybe Wilson's Espionage and Sedition acts light come close.

Hillary applauding because the Democrats had stifled Republican attempts to kill social security for anyone not on their top donors list? Wow. Really? I might have to give her a second look, if that's so. I figured she would have been sitting there looking sour like Liarberman did.

Nice and vague on Howard Dean, by the way. Would you be referring to the comments of his stating that the Republican party endorses a culture of corruption? Well, have you paid much attention to the Grand Ol' Party lately? These people have been shirking their responsibility to the American people in favor of personal profit and partisan solidarity. They sold false intelligence (knowingly or no, it was false) to the American people for a war, and they gave no-bid contracts to Republican-owned corporations, who's employees have no US oversight and are immune to Iraqi and Afghan law. The Republican congress has continually rubber-stamped everything, EVERYTHING until '06 rolled around, and they now serve partisan interests rather than American interests after that election. How about futile emergency legislation costing taxpayers millions, involving a single woman, against her noted wishes, in order to handjob the 700 clubbers among the Republican base? Shall we go into the massive sex scandals and the GOP coverups thereof? 'Cause we can.

He's divisive, sure. Look who he's divisive against, though, and ask yourself if that's really a bad thing. I, personally oppose "meeting in the middle" if one side are corrupt extremists.

Going "yeeargh!" at a rally and choking on a pretzel are both embarrassing, but ultimately irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Since most Howard Dean critics focus on his rabid lemur scream over, you know, positions, I figured I'd make mention.

National health care? Oh, the horror.
Higher taxes? Not for you - just like lower taxes aren't for you, either.
Enforced poverty? Wait. I know what the problem is... I said "Democrats", and you must have read "Republicans"

And so far the only "moonbat" from Kucinich is his support for that psycho freak Ron Paul... Yeah, he saw a UFO, but Reagan gave a "what if" speech about alien invasion before the UN security council. ...Granted I wouldn't exactly call Reagan all there at the time, but hey, fair is fair.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Hillary Clinton, giving standing applause to Bush's announcement that Social Security reform was at a stalemate because Dem's refused to even sit down and discuss it.

Harry Reid, standing in front of cameras and saying "We killed the Patriot Act".

Two of the most memorable, and embarassing moments of this congress.


and one of the proudest was the recent filibuster



No. But there's nothing preventing you from moving there...


so you DON'T want to raise the standard of living in america?
see, i want americans to have what the norweigens and swedes have, that whole "best place in the world" thing would be nice.



Rhetoric? Kucinich the Moonbat? The guy so looney that even his own party ignores him?


again, more unsupported rhetoric. where is your evidence that he's "looney"



McKinney. Jefferson. Reid. Ted Kennedy. Patches Kennedy. Pelosi. Clinton. Murtha.


a list of names without anything added to them isn't evidence. i'm asking for EVIDENCE, where you get sources, cite them, and compare the two sides to see which one is more corrupt.

you seem incapable of real argument here...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you seem incapable of real argument here...

Nah...you're just too slow, if I have to spell out every little thing for you.

Besides, you're taking this discussion way off track.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


In other words, you make claims and when others ask you to provide backup for it, you'll call them "slow." Further when they respond to these claims of yours, they're the ones taking the discussion off track?

Kinda lame there, jso.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Um, isn't that an insult, calling him slow? And yet no warning...

Anyways, no evidence, like no evidence of WMDs, or attacks from Iran, or... Anything else from the Bushies.

Geesh, so sad, Kucinich is a moonbat for supporting RP and for claiming he saw a UFO, just like millions of others, including our brave men and women in the army and air force. I guess our brave men and women in uniform are moonbats to, thanks for supporting them.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 



Originally posted by HHH Is King
Geesh, so sad, Kucinich is a moonbat for supporting RP and for claiming he saw a UFO, just like millions of others, including our brave men and women in the army and air force. I guess our brave men and women in uniform are moonbats to, thanks for supporting them.

Who said Kucinich is a moonbat for supporting RP and for claiming he saw a UFO? You did, HHH. Not me. *I* think he's a moonbat for dozens of other reasons.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 



Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


In other words, you make claims and when others ask you to provide backup for it, you'll call them "slow." Further when they respond to these claims of yours, they're the ones taking the discussion off track?

Kinda lame there, jso.

If he isn't aware of current events enough to understand why I listed those particular names, then, yes.

Iow, he wants me to do his homework for him. He wants me to school him. I don't have the time or the desire to do that.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No - he wants you to back up your claims with evidence.

Mitt Romney is a pedophile. George Bush beats Laura. Mike Huckabee is a space alien. Don't believe me and my lack of evidence? You must be slow! I'm not going to do your homework for you!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No - he wants you to back up your claims with evidence.

Mitt Romney is a pedophile. George Bush beats Laura. Mike Huckabee is a space alien. Don't believe me and my lack of evidence? You must be slow! I'm not going to do your homework for you!


Neocons don't have proof. No proof of WMDs so they make it up. No proof of Iran nuclear program and what do they do? Make it up. Hell even when there is proof of something, like the child sex ring in Texas that was protected by Gonzales, what do they do? Make stuff up.

They have no proof because there is no proof.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


no, i've actually just demonstrated why fox news is a horrid place for a debate for the democrats.

like yourself, fox news doesn't rely on facts, they rely on random inferences that they cannot support and then accuse people of being slow for not being able to immediately latch on to baseless accusations.

thank you for making my argument for me.

edit to add some post script:
if you knew me, the last thing you'd call me is slow, just ask people more familiar with my posts.

[edit on 12/19/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I have to agree with the Democrats here. The likes of Oriley and those other hicks sitting in the News Corp building is terrible. If you've ever see the Oriley show, you know that he just talks and talks himself never letting people complete what they wanted to say. It comes off as uncultured, boorish and downright bad interviewing skills. You cant just wait to hear what you want and then butt in when the persons talking.

Fox news is sloppy at interviewing people who have opposite positions to the anchors and the journalists there. They employ a passive-aggressive approach combined with a dose of mock and ridicule. Instead of employing a system where the candidate tells their position and the viewers make up their own mind without any coaching by the damn journalist/anchor on what to make of it all.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I have to agree with the Democrats here. The likes of Oriley and those other hicks sitting in the News Corp building is terrible. If you've ever see the Oriley show, you know that he just talks and talks himself never letting people complete what they wanted to say. It comes off as uncultured, boorish and downright bad interviewing skills. You cant just wait to hear what you want and then butt in when the persons talking.

Fox news is sloppy at interviewing people who have opposite positions to the anchors and the journalists there. They employ a passive-aggressive approach combined with a dose of mock and ridicule. Instead of employing a system where the candidate tells their position and the viewers make up their own mind without any coaching by the damn journalist/anchor on what to make of it all.


You mean like telling a NY Firefighter he is Anti American for reporting the sounds of explosions at the WTC buildings and cutting his mike?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 



Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No - he wants you to back up your claims with evidence.

Mitt Romney is a pedophile. George Bush beats Laura. Mike Huckabee is a space alien. Don't believe me and my lack of evidence? You must be slow! I'm not going to do your homework for you!

The difference between you and I is that I have evidence to back up my claims, while you're making up baseless claims because you think it sounds cute.

The misdeeds of the people I listed have been well publicized in the media, and debated here on ATS over the past year. Obviously, you guys don't stay abreast of current affairs, or you have poor memories, or else you wouldn't need me to explain every little detail.

Here's a clue: put down the video games, turn off the Cartoon channel, Comedy Central and MTV. Stay abreast of the world. Study some history. And try to sharpen your debating skills to the point where they consist of more than what you think are witty and cutesy remarks with no substance. Address the issue being discussed instead of attacking the person you are debating. Broaden your horizons so that you outgrow the narrow-minded attitude that all X are Y.

Or, go back to your video games. Makes no difference to me - I'm done with ya.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join