The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread
- Thread starter Strell
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We'd have so many workers wandering around, aimless, unemployed, and not sure what to do with their tools and knowledge, if it weren't for bosses. Right Knoell?
[quote name='Knoell'].....I said ONE business to incentivise you to go talk to someone. Just the way you are talking shows that you lack any understanding of how businesses work, and why they have owners.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...right, that's why I named several different types of businesses with different needs, levels of involvement, types of employees, and differences in how wages are calculated. Again, I'm the one thats ignorant and have no
ing clue how a business operates. There you go not using your brain again.
LOLZ...right, that's why I named several different types of businesses with different needs, levels of involvement, types of employees, and differences in how wages are calculated. Again, I'm the one thats ignorant and have no
ing clue how a business operates. There you go not using your brain again.dohdough:
before I answer I need to make a clarification with you. You've now used equity in two different ways and I'm not sure what you mean anymore (I'm in finance so it has a VERY specific meaning to me). In the "original 5 employees of cafe" example, you used equity like you meant a stake in the outcome of the business, which is what it means to me.
Then "Sure they do, but I'm talking about equity in compensation to their..." which I think you meant equality because equity, as you used it the first time, doesn't mean the same thing.
I'm all for fair pay for a fair day's work, but sandwich dude should get paid less than surgeon or CEO. Why? Because sandwich dude is a stepping stone to surgeon or CEO. I'm trying to think of a video game based analogy but all I can come up with is something silly along the lines of wielding giant swords in JRPGs or something...
Maybe you should watch Undercover Boss a time or two to see that these people aren't all greedy assholes. YES, some of them are but just as you tell me I can't paint the picture of blacks as only poor and lazy, you're not allowed to paint all people of one type either. I'm playing by your rules, please play by them as well.
Why does that person deserve more than minimum wage? And how do you gauge how much more they should be paid?
This is a two way street. There are certian market factors that say that this job gets that pay, it isn't someone lording over other people saying that you will get this much and like it. Another experiment, go apply at Quizno's to be sandwich dude, ask for two applications, fill out the other one for Chief Executive Officer. For which one do you think you might get the interview?
Myke:
that's kind of taking it to a silly extreme. However, without people creating businesses and such, then yeah, there would indeed be unemployed people because they don't have anywhere to work.
before I answer I need to make a clarification with you. You've now used equity in two different ways and I'm not sure what you mean anymore (I'm in finance so it has a VERY specific meaning to me). In the "original 5 employees of cafe" example, you used equity like you meant a stake in the outcome of the business, which is what it means to me.
Then "Sure they do, but I'm talking about equity in compensation to their..." which I think you meant equality because equity, as you used it the first time, doesn't mean the same thing.
I'm all for fair pay for a fair day's work, but sandwich dude should get paid less than surgeon or CEO. Why? Because sandwich dude is a stepping stone to surgeon or CEO. I'm trying to think of a video game based analogy but all I can come up with is something silly along the lines of wielding giant swords in JRPGs or something...
Maybe you should watch Undercover Boss a time or two to see that these people aren't all greedy assholes. YES, some of them are but just as you tell me I can't paint the picture of blacks as only poor and lazy, you're not allowed to paint all people of one type either. I'm playing by your rules, please play by them as well.
Why does that person deserve more than minimum wage? And how do you gauge how much more they should be paid?
This is a two way street. There are certian market factors that say that this job gets that pay, it isn't someone lording over other people saying that you will get this much and like it. Another experiment, go apply at Quizno's to be sandwich dude, ask for two applications, fill out the other one for Chief Executive Officer. For which one do you think you might get the interview?
Myke:
that's kind of taking it to a silly extreme. However, without people creating businesses and such, then yeah, there would indeed be unemployed people because they don't have anywhere to work.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']They should commit crimes in their desperation and end up getting their housing and food paid for by the govt through the prison system.[/QUOTE]
Are there no prisons?
Are there no prisons?
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I would say that talking to a business owner or even running your own business doesnt mean you're going to have the right insight into this issue.
There are lots of business owners out there that honestly believe that if his income tax was lowered, he would hire more people, which means that either:
a) Theres currently a demand out there that he is voluntarily not hiring workers to fill, because he doesnt like what his post tax cut of that transaction will be, or
b) The demand for new hires isnt there, and he will legitimately hire people to do things that are not needed.
In either case, he is a fool of the highest order.
There are lots of business owners out there that honestly believe that if his income tax was lowered, he would hire more people, which means that either:
a) Theres currently a demand out there that he is voluntarily not hiring workers to fill, because he doesnt like what his post tax cut of that transaction will be, or
b) The demand for new hires isnt there, and he will legitimately hire people to do things that are not needed.
In either case, he is a fool of the highest order.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Working to verify certain standards are nice, but no one wants to spend money on it.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we can pay people to verify that people are actively seeking for jobs instead of paying them unemployment.
[quote name='cindersphere']But you still didn't answer the main question, what ends are you willing to sacrifice?[/QUOTE]
Again, as I said, I am not an expert on the military and am not qualified to give you a line-by-line detail of what I'd cut in the military. But when we spend over ten times the #2 spender and more than the top 15 spenders (that aren't us) combined, there's obviously a lot of room to cut.
Maybe we can pay people to verify that people are actively seeking for jobs instead of paying them unemployment.
[quote name='cindersphere']But you still didn't answer the main question, what ends are you willing to sacrifice?[/QUOTE]
Again, as I said, I am not an expert on the military and am not qualified to give you a line-by-line detail of what I'd cut in the military. But when we spend over ten times the #2 spender and more than the top 15 spenders (that aren't us) combined, there's obviously a lot of room to cut.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, as I said, I am not an expert on the military and am not qualified to give you a line-by-line detail of what I'd cut in the military. But when we spend over ten times the #2 spender and more than the top 15 spenders (that aren't us) combined, there's obviously a lot of room to cut.[/QUOTE]
Okay fine, at least you admitted your stance on the issue in uninformed and based upon false images of the military and their abilities.
Okay fine, at least you admitted your stance on the issue in uninformed and based upon false images of the military and their abilities.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I would say that talking to a business owner or even running your own business doesnt mean you're going to have the right insight into this issue.
There are lots of business owners out there that honestly believe that if his income tax was lowered, he would hire more people, which means that either:
a) Theres currently a demand out there that he is voluntarily not hiring workers to fill, because he doesnt like what his post tax cut of that transaction will be, or
b) The demand for new hires isnt there, and he will legitimately hire people to do things that are not needed.
In either case, he is a fool of the highest order.[/QUOTE]
Are you disputing that lowering taxes for small businesses will stimulate employment, and saying that if it does the business is making a foolhardy decision to hire?
I don't know what to say.....Even Obama thinks lowering taxes on small businesses is a good idea, come on now.
There are lots of business owners out there that honestly believe that if his income tax was lowered, he would hire more people, which means that either:
a) Theres currently a demand out there that he is voluntarily not hiring workers to fill, because he doesnt like what his post tax cut of that transaction will be, or
b) The demand for new hires isnt there, and he will legitimately hire people to do things that are not needed.
In either case, he is a fool of the highest order.[/QUOTE]
Are you disputing that lowering taxes for small businesses will stimulate employment, and saying that if it does the business is making a foolhardy decision to hire?
I don't know what to say.....Even Obama thinks lowering taxes on small businesses is a good idea, come on now.
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...right, that's why I named several different types of businesses with different needs, levels of involvement, types of employees, and differences in how wages are calculated. Again, I'm the one thats ignorant and have no ing clue how a business operates. There you go not using your brain again.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ is right.
ing clue how a business operates. There you go not using your brain again.[/QUOTE]LOLZ is right.
[quote name='cindersphere']Okay fine, at least you admitted your stance on the issue in uninformed and based upon false images of the military and their abilities.[/QUOTE]
Similar to the "Rabble rabble the US spends more on Health Care than any other country - so we need a massive government takeover!" rhetoric.
Expect that we spend, what - 25-30% more than number two? Whereas our military spending is about 900% more than number 2?
Similar to the "Rabble rabble the US spends more on Health Care than any other country - so we need a massive government takeover!" rhetoric.
Expect that we spend, what - 25-30% more than number two? Whereas our military spending is about 900% more than number 2?
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Similar to the "Rabble rabble the US spends more on Health Care than any other country - so we need a massive government takeover!" rhetoric.
Expect that we spend, what - 25-30% more than number two? Whereas our military spending is about 900% more than number 2?[/QUOTE]
I am sorry, your point is? And how does this relate to what we were talking about.
Expect that we spend, what - 25-30% more than number two? Whereas our military spending is about 900% more than number 2?[/QUOTE]
I am sorry, your point is? And how does this relate to what we were talking about.
[quote name='cindersphere']I am sorry, your point is? And how does this relate to what we were talking about.[/QUOTE]
What exactly is your point?
Are you suggesting that the US could not successfully survive with massive cuts in military spending?
If that's not what you're saying, what is your line-by-line proposal for cutting military-related spending?
What exactly is your point?
Are you suggesting that the US could not successfully survive with massive cuts in military spending?
If that's not what you're saying, what is your line-by-line proposal for cutting military-related spending?
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I am still waiting for what the point of that comment was.
Your second point is not something I am willing to answer because it is simply deflecting, nowhere have I said anything close to that and you are frankly reaching.
Thirdly, I never asked you for a line by line proposal, I was asking you for what military aims you are willing to sacrifice in the name of budget cuts. You only said stop the war, which is only an action and not a defense aim. Do you dislike the war, how long it is taking, international relations, or do you just hate the military? Do you want to pull out at the cost of destabilizing the area, do you want to forsake the health of our returning volunteer army?
I am not asking for specific budget cuts, but what you believe we can lose at the cost of cutting the military budget. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you want to ease cyber security, then you can cut U.S. Cyber Command budget, Reconnaissance then cut the NRO, VA cuts for soldiers, CIA for psychological defense aims, FBI and DHS if you feel we have too much domestic security, Army operations in other countries if you believe supporting international order is bad. However considering the budget for overseas operation, which account for 180-200 billion dollars of the defense budget will be inconsequential in a few year while the 580 billion general defense fund is an area that needs at the very least, to see budget optimization.
I don't expect a list by list budget, I was trying to ask you (though I think it got mixed up in translation) what defense aims do you think can be forgotten.
Personally, most of the budget proposed for FY 2010 and 2011, are decent in my opinion. I agree that the army should slowly draw down its presence in Iraq/afghanistan. Spending on soldiers health should be increased in my opinion, which is pegged at 80 billion, no pay raise for the current military (which I believe is a hard choice considering some military families will be hit hard by this), ground force growth is something I am ambivalent on but I also don't know what dominant indicators the military is using to come up with their assessment in this area. As for the force itself, I believe the push for umv's is in order and only hope the military uses the funds effectively, air force seems in check and is not ordering any more c-17s so that is okay. Mostly my feelings on cuts to the actual force is more towards budget optimization rather than outright cut. This years budget, though large, is mostly aimed at changing the focus of the military towards a non-war future, which is decent in my opinion. Beyond this I don't know much about the cyber budget, for obvious reasons, and am not prepared to say anything about that.
Your second point is not something I am willing to answer because it is simply deflecting, nowhere have I said anything close to that and you are frankly reaching.
Thirdly, I never asked you for a line by line proposal, I was asking you for what military aims you are willing to sacrifice in the name of budget cuts. You only said stop the war, which is only an action and not a defense aim. Do you dislike the war, how long it is taking, international relations, or do you just hate the military? Do you want to pull out at the cost of destabilizing the area, do you want to forsake the health of our returning volunteer army?
I am not asking for specific budget cuts, but what you believe we can lose at the cost of cutting the military budget. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you want to ease cyber security, then you can cut U.S. Cyber Command budget, Reconnaissance then cut the NRO, VA cuts for soldiers, CIA for psychological defense aims, FBI and DHS if you feel we have too much domestic security, Army operations in other countries if you believe supporting international order is bad. However considering the budget for overseas operation, which account for 180-200 billion dollars of the defense budget will be inconsequential in a few year while the 580 billion general defense fund is an area that needs at the very least, to see budget optimization.
I don't expect a list by list budget, I was trying to ask you (though I think it got mixed up in translation) what defense aims do you think can be forgotten.
Personally, most of the budget proposed for FY 2010 and 2011, are decent in my opinion. I agree that the army should slowly draw down its presence in Iraq/afghanistan. Spending on soldiers health should be increased in my opinion, which is pegged at 80 billion, no pay raise for the current military (which I believe is a hard choice considering some military families will be hit hard by this), ground force growth is something I am ambivalent on but I also don't know what dominant indicators the military is using to come up with their assessment in this area. As for the force itself, I believe the push for umv's is in order and only hope the military uses the funds effectively, air force seems in check and is not ordering any more c-17s so that is okay. Mostly my feelings on cuts to the actual force is more towards budget optimization rather than outright cut. This years budget, though large, is mostly aimed at changing the focus of the military towards a non-war future, which is decent in my opinion. Beyond this I don't know much about the cyber budget, for obvious reasons, and am not prepared to say anything about that.
Last edited by a moderator:
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...founder_its_a_wise_idea_to_only_l.php?ref=fpb
Tea Party Nation Founder: 'A Wise Idea' To Only Let Property Owners Vote
Judson Phillips, the founder of the group Tea Party Nation, has defended his comments that the Founding Fathers' original plan to only allow property owners to vote "makes a lot of sense" because "property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
Tea Party Nation Founder: 'A Wise Idea' To Only Let Property Owners Vote
Judson Phillips, the founder of the group Tea Party Nation, has defended his comments that the Founding Fathers' original plan to only allow property owners to vote "makes a lot of sense" because "property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
That idea made sense when there was no income tax and little way to identify citizens, but since property tax isn't the vehicle that drives government anymore, that's an extremely misguided position to hold.
I'm loving all the authoritarian positions Tea Party groups are taking. The WikiLeaks episode, especially.
I'm loving all the authoritarian positions Tea Party groups are taking. The WikiLeaks episode, especially.
[quote name='cindersphere']Stuff.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm no expert, but as I said earlier (where I don't believe I specifically said "end the wars"), I favor pulling virtually all of our troops back to the US. Aside from those protecting our embassies, strategic bases set up for US defense and those providing (real) humanitarian aid.
It may be harsh, but, frankly, I'm not too concerned about "destabilization" in the middle east. We've been there for how long now? It isn't "stabilized" yet... If they need diplomatic assistance, then we can look into that.
I do not agree with cutting the military's budget for health care.
I do agree with cutting the budget for R&D. Also, I favor curbing production on high end projects (like the aforementioned "gold plated bombers") while make sure our troops have the necessities.
As for the FBI and the CIA - yes, I agree there needs to be some consolidation there. Which, of course, was what Bush's legacy of the "Department of Homeland Security" was supposed to accomplish. Instead, now we have the FBI, the CIA and the DHS. Ugh.
Again, I'm no expert, but as I said earlier (where I don't believe I specifically said "end the wars"), I favor pulling virtually all of our troops back to the US. Aside from those protecting our embassies, strategic bases set up for US defense and those providing (real) humanitarian aid.
It may be harsh, but, frankly, I'm not too concerned about "destabilization" in the middle east. We've been there for how long now? It isn't "stabilized" yet... If they need diplomatic assistance, then we can look into that.
I do not agree with cutting the military's budget for health care.
I do agree with cutting the budget for R&D. Also, I favor curbing production on high end projects (like the aforementioned "gold plated bombers") while make sure our troops have the necessities.
As for the FBI and the CIA - yes, I agree there needs to be some consolidation there. Which, of course, was what Bush's legacy of the "Department of Homeland Security" was supposed to accomplish. Instead, now we have the FBI, the CIA and the DHS. Ugh.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
The FBI, CIA, ATF, DIA, and NSA all have completely different jobs. Even with a bigger bureaucratic agency to consolidate information, you couldn't get much done. Security clearances rarely overlap and not many people get the whole picture of what's going on.
That being said, the Director of Central Intelligence (not to be confused with the Director of the CIA even though they're often the same person) does have the oversight of many different agencies. The problem is that bureaucratic yes-men give him all his information.
That being said, the Director of Central Intelligence (not to be confused with the Director of the CIA even though they're often the same person) does have the oversight of many different agencies. The problem is that bureaucratic yes-men give him all his information.
[quote name='depascal22']The FBI, CIA, ATF, DIA, and NSA all have completely different jobs. Even with a bigger bureaucratic agency to consolidate information, you couldn't get much done. Security clearances rarely overlap and not many people get the whole picture of what's going on.
That being said, the Director of Central Intelligence (not to be confused with the Director of the CIA even though they're often the same person) does have the oversight of many different agencies. The problem is that bureaucratic yes-men give him all his information.[/QUOTE]
Which means we learned nothing from the 9/11 Commission.
The entire problem was that each group had a piece of the puzzle, but no one put it together. Instead of an alphabet soup of agencies, we need one, strong, unified force. Sadly, when they attempted this with the DHS, there was the big ol' power struggle and we just ended up with more letters in the soup.
That being said, the Director of Central Intelligence (not to be confused with the Director of the CIA even though they're often the same person) does have the oversight of many different agencies. The problem is that bureaucratic yes-men give him all his information.[/QUOTE]
Which means we learned nothing from the 9/11 Commission.
The entire problem was that each group had a piece of the puzzle, but no one put it together. Instead of an alphabet soup of agencies, we need one, strong, unified force. Sadly, when they attempted this with the DHS, there was the big ol' power struggle and we just ended up with more letters in the soup.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, I'm no expert, but as I said earlier (where I don't believe I specifically said "end the wars"), I favor pulling virtually all of our troops back to the US. Aside from those protecting our embassies, strategic bases set up for US defense and those providing (real) humanitarian aid.
It may be harsh, but, frankly, I'm not too concerned about "destabilization" in the middle east. We've been there for how long now? It isn't "stabilized" yet... If they need diplomatic assistance, then we can look into that.
I do not agree with cutting the military's budget for health care.
I do agree with cutting the budget for R&D. Also, I favor curbing production on high end projects (like the aforementioned "gold plated bombers") while make sure our troops have the necessities.
As for the FBI and the CIA - yes, I agree there needs to be some consolidation there. Which, of course, was what Bush's legacy of the "Department of Homeland Security" was supposed to accomplish. Instead, now we have the FBI, the CIA and the DHS. Ugh.[/QUOTE]
Actually the DHS was a badly written and thought about idea that added to the gridlock of the upper departments. It's only in the past year or two that the the departments have found the niche DHS has and who it works in the bigger picture.
Secondly, R&D has never been as big as it was during the cold war. Last and this years R&D budget has seen a decrease of defense funds for R&D, however R&D funds for the the NSF and Department of Energy has grown in the past few years.
Thirdly, most of the war right now is shifting towards arming and stabilizing the Iraqi and Afghanistan forces. Iraq has been easier and in Afghanistan I believe they are training the national army and local villagers, so as to have even the smallest villages keep terrorists out of the area. Hopefully in the next few years we can bring back the lions share of our troops abroad.
[quote name='UncleBob']Which means we learned nothing from the 9/11 Commission.
The entire problem was that each group had a piece of the puzzle, but no one put it together. Instead of an alphabet soup of agencies, we need one, strong, unified force. Sadly, when they attempted this with the DHS, there was the big ol' power struggle and we just ended up with more letters in the soup.[/QUOTE]
That is not what really happened. DHS was a poorly written agency that did a massive power grab from the CIA, FBI, and many other agencies. It wasn't as much a power grab as every one relearning where the lines were drawn. There was prick waving, but not as much as you would expect. However, as depascal hinted to, the office of the DCI actually grew and he now has some power (although I thought for the past few years the DCI director has not been from the CIA I must recheck to see if my inclination is wrong). But overall inter agency cooperation has gone up since 2001.
Edit- Iran is now nuclear self sufficient. I wonder if they will make an atomic bomb.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/05/report-iran-now-able-to-process-its-own-raw-uranium/?hpt=T1
It may be harsh, but, frankly, I'm not too concerned about "destabilization" in the middle east. We've been there for how long now? It isn't "stabilized" yet... If they need diplomatic assistance, then we can look into that.
I do not agree with cutting the military's budget for health care.
I do agree with cutting the budget for R&D. Also, I favor curbing production on high end projects (like the aforementioned "gold plated bombers") while make sure our troops have the necessities.
As for the FBI and the CIA - yes, I agree there needs to be some consolidation there. Which, of course, was what Bush's legacy of the "Department of Homeland Security" was supposed to accomplish. Instead, now we have the FBI, the CIA and the DHS. Ugh.[/QUOTE]
Actually the DHS was a badly written and thought about idea that added to the gridlock of the upper departments. It's only in the past year or two that the the departments have found the niche DHS has and who it works in the bigger picture.
Secondly, R&D has never been as big as it was during the cold war. Last and this years R&D budget has seen a decrease of defense funds for R&D, however R&D funds for the the NSF and Department of Energy has grown in the past few years.
Thirdly, most of the war right now is shifting towards arming and stabilizing the Iraqi and Afghanistan forces. Iraq has been easier and in Afghanistan I believe they are training the national army and local villagers, so as to have even the smallest villages keep terrorists out of the area. Hopefully in the next few years we can bring back the lions share of our troops abroad.
[quote name='UncleBob']Which means we learned nothing from the 9/11 Commission.
The entire problem was that each group had a piece of the puzzle, but no one put it together. Instead of an alphabet soup of agencies, we need one, strong, unified force. Sadly, when they attempted this with the DHS, there was the big ol' power struggle and we just ended up with more letters in the soup.[/QUOTE]
That is not what really happened. DHS was a poorly written agency that did a massive power grab from the CIA, FBI, and many other agencies. It wasn't as much a power grab as every one relearning where the lines were drawn. There was prick waving, but not as much as you would expect. However, as depascal hinted to, the office of the DCI actually grew and he now has some power (although I thought for the past few years the DCI director has not been from the CIA I must recheck to see if my inclination is wrong). But overall inter agency cooperation has gone up since 2001.
Edit- Iran is now nuclear self sufficient. I wonder if they will make an atomic bomb.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/05/report-iran-now-able-to-process-its-own-raw-uranium/?hpt=T1
Last edited by a moderator:
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
For as long as sodomizers and fornicators are kept out of service.
From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"
1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.
2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."
3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."
4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"
1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.
2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."
3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."
4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.
From: Clemente, Michael
To: Sammon, Bill; 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Sent: Tue Oct 27 08:45:29 2009
Subject: RE: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"
Thank you Bill
#3 on your list is the preferred way to say it, write it, use it.
Michael Clemente
SVP-News
212.XXX.XXXX
To: Sammon, Bill; 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Sent: Tue Oct 27 08:45:29 2009
Subject: RE: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"
Thank you Bill
#3 on your list is the preferred way to say it, write it, use it.
Michael Clemente
SVP-News
212.XXX.XXXX
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Strell']Yep. Straight people don't do those things.[/QUOTE]
But the Bible says...
(
But the Bible says...
(
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
People seek out comfortable messages, though. Discrediting them doesn't do any good to someone who already believes what Fox has to say.
It's like that classic research that shows the people most likely to read/view ads for particular car models are the people who *just bought* that make and model. They seek affirmation, not information. Same goes for Fox viewers. Us lefties just get Amy Goodman, and man, can she be droll at times.
It's like that classic research that shows the people most likely to read/view ads for particular car models are the people who *just bought* that make and model. They seek affirmation, not information. Same goes for Fox viewers. Us lefties just get Amy Goodman, and man, can she be droll at times.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ&feature=player_embedded
It would have been pretty sweet to have Ron Paul and Grayson tag teaming Bernanke from two committees. Stay classy, Alan.
It would have been pretty sweet to have Ron Paul and Grayson tag teaming Bernanke from two committees. Stay classy, Alan.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Grayson shows what happens when you actually try to stand up to the power elite: you get an opponent so stuffed with PAC cash, you get so many PAC campaign ads against you, that the dunderheads go to the polls and vote you out.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with Grayson's own campaign...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu3DAlwD5oc
I'm sure that got him a lot of votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu3DAlwD5oc
I'm sure that got him a lot of votes.
[quote name='Sporadic']http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025008-503544.html
Stay paid, Tea Party[/QUOTE]
Oh Christine O'Donnell, if only all of us could make a career out of merely running for office like you have done. BTW, could one argue that the salary her and her mother receive from her campaign are unemployment benefits? I 'unno, just sayin'...
Stay paid, Tea Party[/QUOTE]
Oh Christine O'Donnell, if only all of us could make a career out of merely running for office like you have done. BTW, could one argue that the salary her and her mother receive from her campaign are unemployment benefits? I 'unno, just sayin'...
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Oh Christine O'Donnell, if only all of us could make a career out of merely running for office like you have done. BTW, could one argue that the salary her and her mother receive from her campaign are unemployment benefits? I 'unno, just sayin'...[/QUOTE]
Looks like there's something on which we can finally agree. Although you could argue that most politicians (on both sides of the aisle) make a career out of running for office.
Looks like there's something on which we can finally agree. Although you could argue that most politicians (on both sides of the aisle) make a career out of running for office.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Yeah, I'm with UB. Grayson sunk himself. He was a target, but had he kept the Taliban Dan ad on the cutting room floor he would have been competitive.
Anywho, I went to the Aquarium of the Pacific today. The sponsor of the sea lion/otter exhibit?
BP.
Stay classy, corporate America.
Anywho, I went to the Aquarium of the Pacific today. The sponsor of the sea lion/otter exhibit?
BP.
Stay classy, corporate America.
speedracer
Banned
Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama and new Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee:
Lovely.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
When I read things like that, I just want to give up and say " it. we're ed. I'm going to the bar, who's coming with me?"
it. we're ed. I'm going to the bar, who's coming with me?"
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I should stop saving and working and just become a hobo now so I'm better equipped for my senior years, or dead so I don't have to worry.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I don't think Republicans even know what the word conserve means.
bread's done