Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

bostonangler

Members
  • Content Count

    9,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. Buffett Renews Attack on Health Bill as `Relief for Rich Act' Noah Buhayar BloombergJune 27, 2017 Billionaire investor Warren Buffett renewed his attack on the Republican effort to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, saying that it would be a handout to wealthy people like him. In an interview with PBS NewsHour that aired Tuesday, Buffett said that the version of the legislation passed by the House of Representatives would have cut his most-recent tax bill more than 17 percent, or $679,999. The biggest beneficiaries would be couples with annual income of more than a quarter-million dollars, he said in an interview taped last week. “You could entitle this, you know, ‘Relief for the Rich Act,”’ Buffett said. “I have got friends where it would have saved them as much as -- it gets into the $10-million-and-up figure.” Republican leaders in Congress have had a difficult time advancing their legislation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan to pass a bill this week fell apart on Tuesday as a vote was postponed amid opposition from both the conservative and moderate wings of his party. Buffett, 86, criticized the Republican plan last month at the annual meeting of his conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. At the time, he said that health costs -- which have risen faster in the U.S. than in other developed nations -- are a “tapeworm” hurting competitiveness.
  2. I don't judge, I bring news articles for everyone to enjoy. I started this thread to show CNN announced their mistake and give Fox and friends something to read. Sorry if this upsets folks.. I thought it was refreshing for a national media outlet to put their error on the frontline... Wouldn't it be nice if all the media did the same... B/A
  3. Nope, I've made many mistakes and have learned from them, but I haven't made a career out of judging people, berating people or pretending that I'm holier than thou. He reminds me of Dr. Phil. A guy who is cashing in by tearing others down, while forgetting their personal mistakes. In the nineties I loved to listen to Rush. He was funny and entertaining, but he became an angry blowhard. And don't forget, most of his comments for years were delivered under the influence. I don't know if you ever have been high on opioids, but if you have you would understand your ability to keep facts straight is quite blurred and distorted. B/A
  4. I'm not sure of your meaning... I worked for this company, management ordered reporters to do fake news stories and they were fined by the FCC. They are a sleazy company run by a couple of brothers who pretend to be god fearing Christians, but pick up hookers... If that is your idea of a good news source more power to you. You should buy their stock and help keep them in business going. B/A
  5. Hey Rush, got any Quaaludes you can spare? Dope head, zero credibility... B/A
  6. Talk about fake news??? that's a Sinclair program. I used to work for Sinclair Broadcasting... They made our news department actually do fake stories and they were fined for it by the FCC. The President David Smith was busted for picking up prostitutes in Baltimore... Look it up. B/A
  7. they should be arrested right here for their little stunt on 911... B/A
  8. I have no agenda as you have stated. It seems paranoia runs deep.... I simply pointed out that Don Easterbrook is paid by the fossil fuel companies. Perhaps he is the one with an agenda... I have stated several times, man or no man, the climate does change and it is changing right now... Ice is melting, seas are rising and those are facts. The cause can be attributed to many things. The earth is not in a perfect orbit around the sun, and therefore it may be closer or farther away over history. The only constant in life is change. B/A
  9. President Trump resumed beating his “fake news!” drum Tuesday, going off on CNN after the network retracted a story about alleged ties between Trump's allies and Russia. Three CNN journalists who had been involved in the story resigned after the retraction. Trump, whose presidency has been hindered by persistent allegations of his campaign's inappropriate ties to the Russian government, lashed out at CNN in a series of tweets early Tuesday morning, insinuating that there were other stories that merited retracting. “What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!” he wrote About two hours later, Trump continued, tweeting without evidence that CNN was “looking at big management changes” in the wake of the retraction and that its ratings were “way down!” A CNN Twitter account disputed the latter in a reply to the president. A representative for the network did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday morning. Trump also called out several other television networks — except for Fox News — as well as the New York Times and The Washington Post, and wondered when they, too, would be “caught.” Trump has long had a contentious relationship with the media. Throughout his campaign, he regularly lashed out at the press, singling out news outlets as being “dishonest” and at one point barring The Washington Post from covering his events. Since his election, he has accused, without providing evidence or deeper arguments, certain media outlets of publishing “fake news.” Earlier this year, Trump dubbed the media “the enemy of the American People!” and broke with recent presidential tradition in skipping the White House correspondents' dinner. Instead, he held a Pennsylvania rally that same day — where he railed against the media. The Post's Fact Checker recently compiled a timeline of every Russia story Trump alleged was a hoax by Democrats and found that, many times, Trump contradicted his own past statements or statements from members of his administration. CNN has been a frequent target in Trump's tweets, which have described the network as everything from “unwatchable” to “the worst.” The CNN story in question was removed from CNN.com last week and replaced with an editor's note that explained: “On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund. That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.” Over the weekend, Scaramucci tweeted that he accepted CNN's apology and would be moving on. Despite that, the network accepted the resignations Monday of reporter Thomas Frank and “CNN Investigates” editors Eric Lichtblau and Lex Haris. The story — which cited a single anonymous source and stated a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials” was under investigation by Congress — did not follow some standard editorial processes during its preparation, according to CNN's Brian Stelter: These types of stories are typically reviewed by several departments within CNN — including fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers — before publication. This breakdown in editorial workflow disturbed the CNN executives who learned about it. In a staff meeting Monday afternoon, investigative unit members were told that the retraction did not mean the facts of the story were necessarily wrong. Rather, it meant that “the story wasn't solid enough to publish as-is,” one of the people briefed on the investigation said.
  10. He's a paid shrill... You guys believe big oil and coal, I'm sure they are looking out for you. Easterbrook is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change. The Heartland Institute and its conference sponsors have collectively received millions of dollars in funding from the fossil fuel industry. Fox News touts Don Easterbrook‘s talk at Heartland’s Conference: “Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. But Gareth Renowden has been looking at Easterbrook’s slides and finds evidence of fraud Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case. … Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today. That’s not all. On slide 28 he states: IPCC models predicted 1°F warming from 2000 to 2010 He offers this graph to prove that the IPCC was wrong and the globe is cooling. That trend line looked very wrong to me. Too much of the data is above the green line. So I grabbed the RSS MSU data and plotted the same subset with the OLS trend. It looks like this: Note that Easterbrook’s fake trend exaggerates the decrease. More importantly, despite talking about what the IPCC models predict for 2000-2010, he has only shown cherry picked temperature data for 2002-early 2009. Look at what happens if you use the data for 2000-2010: The world is warming, not cooling as Easterbrook claims. And notice how much it has warmed since the previous Heartland conference in March 2009, where Easterbrook predicted: Beginning this year, global cooling will cause crop failures and food shortages. Anybody notice the global cooling induced crop failures in 2009?
  11. Easy to see how the system works. Do what we tell you, or we give our money to your opponent... It's the same old story. These big boys pay to play, and voters are too blind to see who is pulling the strings... B/A
  12. All I said was Trump called it fake news... Not real... Now he says it is real and it is Obama's fault and it probably is. I guess Trump is learning fast how to be a politician. He is now mastering "The Blame Game" something all politicians need to know. He is becoming one of them very quickly. B/A
  13. This makes me think we all need to look in the mirror... If you think this only applies to one side you are sadly mistaken... Even you have to admit, in the past you've been unrighteous. Is there anyone who is not guilty? For a guy who constantly quotes scripture, you sure miss the message about forgiveness. Has no one ever forgiven you? Why spend your time studying the word, and then spend your time throwing muses? B/A
  14. Wait... Didn't President Trump say Russia hacking our elections was fake news? I know I've read where many people called those hacking stories fake news. Now they are real news? How can it be both? Someone's got some "splaining" to do... B/A
  15. Bingo.... Great post! Much like the problem with American families, the problem with American politics starts at home... Vote all these criminals out and see what happens. And there in lies the problem. People keep voting for the same people. Pelosi, McConnell, and so on.... The Democrats were on television yesterday saying Pelosi needs to go, and her reply was bring it on... These old *other*uckers need to go home and be good grand-parents. B/A
  16. Not my party, I don't vote Democrat or Republican blindly like most people do.... I think I've mentioned this 10,000 times. The Tea Party, was just more Repubilicans.... Ahhh Sarah Palin, one of the most embarrassing public officials ever! Really???? Did I miss where he dropped his affiliation? My bad. B/A
  17. No doubt the Democratic party is in a shambles and can't on how to fix it, while the Republicans can't agree on lunch. B/A
  18. I'm not saying his is towing a party line. I'm saying he is one of them, left or right. He is a liar.... Two things I don't tolerate. Thieves and liars. B/A
  19. Explainer: How Democrats and Republicans ‘switched sides’ on civil rights In Politics by Robyn Pennacchia / April 30, 2013 I just about lost my damn mind this morning after coming across this piece from the National Review about how Barry Goldwater totally wasn’t all that racist or anything. As a history nerd, this weird thing the Republicans are doing now where they are trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the civil rights movement is starting to drive me up the wall. Like, f’reals, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King would not freaking be conservative Republicans today. For that matter, neither would Susan B. Anthony. It’s absolutely absurd. It doesn’t even sort of make sense because at all times throughout all history, all civil rights issues are progressive issues regardless of party alignment. The fact of the matter is, both parties have undergone major changes throughout the past 150 years or so. Hell, within the last 40 years. In certain aspects, Richard Nixon would be way the hell to the left of today’s Democratic Party. You can’t really look at the history of American politics through the lens of the Republican Party meaning one immutable thing and the Democratic Party meaning another. Because also, like, 100 years ago, both parties had conservative and progressive wings, which is no longer the case. It would also be difficult to place most people from 100 years ago into either of today’s parties. It makes more sense to look at it through the lens of North and South, conservative and progressive. Take, for instance, William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner. Dude was a Democrat and super far to the left on most issues in his day. He was opposed to the Gold Standard, in favor of civil rights and labor rights, anti-war … but then was also in favor of prohibition and notoriously opposed to Darwin and teaching evolution. Where would he fit today? Pretty much nowhere. Then, you know, you had the crazy-ass southern Democrats who were super conservative on social issues and more progressive economically, because they benefited from farm subsidies. It was the same with the Republicans, many of whom were more socially liberal and economically conservative. Here’s the thing: the Republicans were the “Party of Lincoln,” — who, by the way, wasn’t exactly like, not racist– in 1860. But basically from 1860 on, they were pretty concerned with backing away from the whole “rights for black people” thing because they didn’t want to “alienate” racist white people. Basically, during the last half of the 1800s, everyone was racist and no one was the party of civil rights. However, by and large, black people tended to vote Republican, because Lincoln. The first major thing that happened after the Civil War as far as the division of parties goes, is TEDDY ROOSEVELT. TR was President William McKinley’s veep, and a progressive Republican. Like, super progressive. Can you even imagine a Republican today establishing National Parks and breaking up trusts? Hell no. After McKinley was assassinated, establishment Republicans were super-pissed because they hated his guts. Still, he was pretty popular with the people, so he won a second term. After leaving office, he promoted his buddy, the more conservative Taft as the Republican Presidential nominee, and he won. Now, Roosevelt had vowed not to run again, but when he saw what Taft was doing with the place (with trusts and things, not just with the bathtub), he was like “AW HELL NO” and decided he’d run for another term in 1912. However, he couldn’t secure the nomination from the Republican Party, so he started his own party, “The Progressive Party” a.k.a. “The Bull Moose Party” and ran against Taft, Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Socialist Eugene V. Debs. Now, Woodrow Wilson kicked everyone’s ass, and what ended up happening is that the progressive Republicans start inching on over to the Democratic Party. THEN COMES HERBERT HOOVER. Ok, so we all know about Nixon’s Southern Strategy, right? Well, he was not the first to pull that trick. Herbie was really the OG Southern Strategist. See, he happened to be running against a northern Democratic Catholic in 1928. You know who old timey Southerners hated almost as much as they hated black people? Catholics. So, Hoover woos himself some KKK members and they get everyone in the South freaked out about the possibility of a Catholic in the oval office. He then ends up being the first Republican to win Texas and also ended up winning some other ex-Confederate states. Although people usually site Goldwater’s rejection of the Civil Rights Act as the point where Republicans began losing black voters, this is really where everything started. Because after this, most of the civil rights leaders of the day ended up switching over. ESPECIALLY ONCE FDR TOOK OFFICE. Because FDR was pretty liberal on everything, and by this time most black people were voting Democrat because of Hoover’s ****. He ends up pushing through Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which was like, the most important thing as far as Civil Rights went in between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act. Pretty much the only thing. Plus you also had the fact that Eleanor was all kinds of bad ass as far as that **** went. Not to say that dude wasn’t gross about Japanese-Americans and internment, because he was. OK SO GOLDWATER. Back to where we started! So, at this point, Southern Democrats were super pissed at their Northern counterpoints, and were way the hell not cool with dudes like Kennedy and Johnson. Goldwater, being way more conservative than Rockefeller (who was a progressive, pro-civil rights Republican), started catching their eye. They became especially enamored with him when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Strom Thurmond even switched parties. However, black Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans were pretty grossed out by this and went Democratic. And have not turned back since. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party took on all the pro-civil rights folks, and most of the progressive wing of the Republican Party. NIXON CONTINUES THE SEDUCTION. With the infamous Southern Strategy. Basically, he used the fear of hippies and commies and radical black people to woo the southern states again. He uses dog-whistle terms like “bussing” and “states rights” to surreptitiously convince racist southern whites that he is down for the cause. It wasn’t too hard, because they were already grumpy about Johnson being too progressive. REAGAN SEALS THE DEAL. Now, here’s the thing. At the point when Reagan was elected, the Deep South was still kind of a Democratic stronghold. Because of tradition, and also because left-leaning economic policies benefited Southern farmers and workers and poor whites. So, one thing Reagan did to woo them was to embrace the Religious Right, which worked for them because they loved Jesus. Then, he busts out all that crap about supposed “Welfare Queens”– another dog-whistle term– who turned out to be entirely made up. So then they love Reagan and hate black people and poor people, even though like, a lot of them also happen to be poor people. And it just continues to this day. Republicans who had previously backed some progressive causes here and there (i.e. George Bush Sr. had been pro-choice, Bob Dole was pro-food stamps) switched it all around and went entirely conservative on all of the things. Which is why, as desperately as they may want to ally themselves with progressive causes of the past, they really can’t. The way things stand now? Well, of course not all Republicans are racist. However, if you do happen to be a super crazy racist, you’re probably not voting Democrat these days.
  20. My point exactly.... The other site is a .net. I'm not saying the new site going around is fake, but we have seen other times when there were non-official sites. B/A
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.