View Full Version : Sean Hannity's ignorance of the budget reconciliation process
Jagger
03-23-2009, 09:12 AM
Sean Hannity's Ignorance Of The Budget Reconciliation Process
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903210004
Hannity is a hoot. He's totally clueless.
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 09:18 AM
"Hannity's Heaping Helping of Horseshit" is chock-full of ignorance. But what can you expect from a man whose brain is little more than ingrown hair?
PostmodernProphet
03-23-2009, 09:21 AM
as I recall, the stimulus bill was reconciled by a committee that had no Republican input.....it would seem Hannity is more aware of the process than you are......
DannyR
03-23-2009, 10:28 AM
as I recall, the stimulus bill was reconciled by a committee that had no Republican input.....it would seem Hannity is more aware of the process than you are......I don't believe this is what he's talking about, as thats how things have been done with most bills lately. Such Congressional committees usually (going back to Republican rule) only have the majority party in them. If that's what Hannity was referring, then he's even more uninformed than you give him credit for, because he's implying its something new the dems are doing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/washington/26memo.html
When they took over in January, Democrats in the House and Senate promised to return to a more open conference committee process after asserting that they had been badly mistreated by Republicans, who often locked Democrats out of conference committee meetings if they bothered to tell them where the meeting was being held.It is however a broken promise if Dems are keeping with the way Republicans did things.
And FYI, the Reconciliation process doesn't refer to the conference committee that aligns the bills between House/Senate. Rather, Reconciliation procedure forces limited debate (no filibusters) and prevents additional amendments to a bill. Republicans thus would no longer be able to change anything, and the bill would be passed on an up/down vote, which given Republican minority, means its as good as passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(U.S._Congress)
Abbey Marie
03-23-2009, 10:46 AM
Hannity is a hoot. He's totally clueless.
This whole "Conservatives are dumb" routine is really getting played out. Especially when Mr. Affirmative Action can't compose a clear sentence, unless it is written for him and he can read it off a teleprompter.
DannyR
03-23-2009, 10:48 AM
This whole "Conservatives are dumb" routine is really getting played out. Especially when Mr. Affirmative Action can't compose a clear sentence, unless it is written for him and he can read it off a teleprompter.Most politicians are dumb. Its a bipartisan trait.
Abbey Marie
03-23-2009, 11:01 AM
Most politicians are dumb. Its a bipartisan trait.
I wouldn't go that far, but there certainly are the Cynthia McKinneys out there.
Anyway, Sean Hannity is a radio/TV personality. as far as I know, he's not been elected.
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 11:47 AM
I don't believe this is what he's talking about, as thats how things have been done with most bills lately. Such Congressional committees usually (going back to Republican rule) only have the majority party in them. If that's what Hannity was referring, then he's even more uninformed than you give him credit for, because he's implying its something new the dems are doing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/washington/26memo.html
It is however a broken promise if Dems are keeping with the way Republicans did things.
And FYI, the Reconciliation process doesn't refer to the conference committee that aligns the bills between House/Senate. Rather, Reconciliation procedure forces limited debate (no filibusters) and prevents additional amendments to a bill. Republicans thus would no longer be able to change anything, and the bill would be passed on an up/down vote, which given Republican minority, means its as good as passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(U.S._Congress)
If I recall correctly, when the Republicans were in the majority, they were all about the up/down vote issue.
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 11:49 AM
This whole "Conservatives are dumb" routine is really getting played out. Especially when Mr. Affirmative Action can't compose a clear sentence, unless it is written for him and he can read it off a teleprompter.
Not all conservative are dumb...Bill Buckley was no slouch, George Will is pretty sharp too. But Sean Hannity...? He's not really a conservative. He's little more than a mouthpiece with a ready made audience of FOX viewers.
hjmick
03-23-2009, 12:40 PM
This whole "Conservatives are dumb" routine is really getting played out. Especially when Mr. Affirmative Action can't compose a clear sentence, unless it is written for him and he can read it off a teleprompter.
Jagger is a one trick pony.
stephanie
03-23-2009, 01:25 PM
maybe we should call Keith Olberman, I bet he can explain it to us dummies.
Abbey Marie
03-23-2009, 01:45 PM
Not all conservative are dumb...Bill Buckley was no slouch, George Will is pretty sharp too. But Sean Hannity...? He's not really a conservative. He's little more than a mouthpiece with a ready made audience of FOX viewers.
Which policies espoused by Hannity do you consider non-Conservative?
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 01:53 PM
Which policies espoused by Hannity do you consider non-Conservative?
All of them, as what currently passes as conservatism in America today has nothing to do with the conservatism described by William F. Buckley, Barry
Goldwater and the other founding father's of the American conservative movement.
Abbey Marie
03-23-2009, 01:59 PM
All of them, as what currently passes as conservatism in America today has nothing to do with the conservatism described by William F. Buckley, Barry
Goldwater and the other founding father's of the American conservative movement.
One could say the same for Kennedy Democrats.
If you feel Hannity is not "C"onservative, tell it to Jagger. He's the one who seems hell-bent on characterizing him as yet another in his repetitive string of so-called dumb Conservatives.
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 02:39 PM
One could say the same for Kennedy Democrats.
If you feel Hannity is not "C"onservative, tell it to Jagger. He's the one who seems hell-bent on characterizing him as yet another in his repetitive string of so-called dumb Conservatives.
The Democratic party's current platform has more in common with that of the Kennedy era than not. The current crop of so-called conservatives is, by and large, not dumb...simply ignorant, whether through naivete or willfully, with the most strident falling into the latter category.
Jagger
03-23-2009, 02:48 PM
Sean Hannity is a right wing talking point machine that misquotes and lies about everything. Here's a recent example:
Sean Hannity falsely claimed, "Every single Senate Democrat voted for those [AIG] bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903190030
Here's another example:
During the March 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News aired a promotion for that evening's broadcast of Hannity that falsely claimed: "[President] Obama pushes a plan that could force vets to pay through the roof for health coverage."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903190022?f=s_search
Jagger
03-23-2009, 02:58 PM
This whole "Conservatives are dumb" routine is really getting played out. Sean Hannity isn't dumb. He's a liar. His audience doesn't care about the truth, so he doesn't either.
stephanie
03-23-2009, 02:59 PM
I care about what Sean Hannity has to say, about as much as I do Chrissy (tingles) Matthews and media matters...0
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 03:36 PM
I care about what Sean Hannity has to say, about as much as I do Chrissy (tingles) Matthews and media matters...0
Doesn't really matter if its Hannity or not as you so cheerfully parrot the talking points he, and the other RWN talking heads vomit forth on a daily basis.
actsnoblemartin
03-23-2009, 03:38 PM
im sure you parrot things you agree with, or dont you loearn from others?
the media could just as easily be considered left wing nuts
so careful where u throw the nuts
Doesn't really matter if its Hannity or not as you so cheerfully parrot the talking points he, and the other RWN talking heads vomit forth on a daily basis.
stephanie
03-23-2009, 03:42 PM
Doesn't really matter if its Hannity or not as you so cheerfully parrot the talking points he, and the other RWN talking heads vomit forth on a daily basis.
as you parrot the Dnc talking points..do they send you a talking points memo like they do all the lamestream media? you all seem to say the same thing on all channels..talk about PARROTS....Bully wanna cracker...:laugh2:
theHawk
03-23-2009, 03:56 PM
Sean Hannity is a right wing talking point machine that misquotes and lies about everything. Here's a recent example:
Sean Hannity falsely claimed, "Every single Senate Democrat voted for those [AIG] bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903190030
Actually no Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, because it was total pork. All but 11 dems did. Dems were the ones that put the loophole in that allowed the bonuses, not Republicans. Nice try at that spin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html
Here's another example:
During the March 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News aired a promotion for that evening's broadcast of Hannity that falsely claimed: "[President] Obama pushes a plan that could force vets to pay through the roof for health coverage."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903190022?f=s_search
Actually his plan would had forced vets to pay through their private insurance companies for their health coverage. Which is exactly why everyone raised hell about it, and exactly why Obama dropped it.
Don't take my word for it, take Ms. Pelosi's:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/20/obama-medical-plan-for-vets-dropped-amid-outcry/
The Obama administration dropped a proposal to require some disabled veterans to pay for medical treatments through their private insurance companies, heeding a chorus of outrage from veterans groups and Capitol Hill that the idea was immoral, unconscionable and un-American.
The decision to drop the proposal was announced Wednesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, at a meeting with veterans groups at the Capitol.
"Based on the respect that President Obama has for our nation's veterans and the principled concerns expressed by veterans' leaders, the president has made the decision that the combat-wounded veterans should not be billed through their insurance policies for combat-related injuries," Mrs. Pelosi told the veterans-group representatives, who greeted the news with a standing ovation.
Don't let the truth hit you on your ass on the way out. :poke:
theHawk
03-23-2009, 04:01 PM
Sean Hannity isn't dumb. He's a liar. His audience doesn't care about the truth, so he doesn't either.
If he is a liar then do you care to explain how Ms. Pelosi on March 20th directly contradicts your claims (or mediamatters.com claims) of March 19th that Hannity was lying?
If it was dropped by the President because of outrage, then obviously Hannity was telling the truth...
Little-Acorn
03-23-2009, 04:19 PM
Come, come, now.
You guys are blowing little jagger's agenda. Is that a very nice thing to do?
Little jagger is taking one mistake by Hannity, and trying desperately to tell us that it means that EVERYTHING Hannity says is, not just a mistake, but a LIE. And then he announces that Hannity "lies about everything", though how he gets that from one instance isn't clear.
Have you any idea how difficult that is? Little jagger is working harder than he ever has here, trying fabricate a total liar out of whole cloth, as it were. If he could actually point to, say, the last twenty things Hannity has said, and cite evidence of how each one was a lie in turn, then his job would be a lot easier. But he can't do that about most things Hannity says, so his job gets that much harder. He must try to convince people that everything Hannity says is false, when in fact only a tiny part (if that much) of it is.
Give the guy a break. Poor little jagger is tying himself in knots, trying to forward his own agenda here. You people who keep on asking him for evidence, or who show him he's wrong etc., are ruining his day, and making an already-difficult job, even harder.
Shame on you.
Jagger
03-23-2009, 05:37 PM
The economic recovery act did not require AIG to pay bonuse. It restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to award bonuses in the future.
It has been well established that is no pork in the stimulus bill.
Hannity lied because the White House had already dropped the Veterans Insurance proposal.
Jagger
03-23-2009, 05:39 PM
If he is a liar then do you care to explain how Ms. Pelosi on March 20th directly contradicts your claims (or mediamatters.com claims) of March 19th that Hannity was lying?
If it was dropped by the President because of outrage, then obviously Hannity was telling the truth... The White House dropped the proposal on the 18th. Hannity lied the next day.
Kathianne
03-23-2009, 05:42 PM
The White House dropped the proposal on the 18th. Hannity lied the next day.
So, Pelosi lied on the 20th?
Jagger
03-23-2009, 05:44 PM
one mistake by Hannity
It's well established that Hannity lies about everything.
Jagger
03-23-2009, 05:45 PM
So, Pelosi lied on the 20th?
Beats me, dude. What did she say on the 20th?
All I know is that the White House issued a press release on the 18th, which said as follows:
In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans; however, the President listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families’ ability to access health care. Therefore, the President has instructed that its consideration be dropped. The President wants to continue a constructive partnership with the VSOs and MSOs and is grateful to those VSOs and MSOs who have worked in good faith with him on the budget proposal.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-on-the-Presidents-Strong-Commitment-to-Americas-Veterans/
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 05:52 PM
as you parrot the Dnc talking points..do they send you a talking points memo like they do all the lamestream media? you all seem to say the same thing on all channels..talk about PARROTS....Bully wanna cracker...:laugh2:
No, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. It just drives you nuts that reality has a liberal bias. :laugh2:
Silver
03-23-2009, 06:03 PM
the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.
Since Democrats control both the House and the Senate, they control the process, they control the Committees, they can and do ignore any and all input from the opposition and voting within the Committee is irrelevant having only a minority count ..
Republicans have no say in what will end up in a piece of Legislation...
In final passage they will surely have a vote on whenever the Democrats have written into any bill, but obviously the bills can be passed and signed into law without any support from Republicans because of their minority status, and no input what is written into any bill.....
So we know what Hannity meant, though he mis-stated the issue.
avatar4321
03-23-2009, 06:19 PM
Seriously, who cares?
Why should I give a damn if Hannity doesnt understand the process? He isnt an elected official. He isn't running for office. His knowledge or ignorance doesnt affect me in anyway.
I am much more concerned with the ignorance of the Constitution demonstrated by the President, Vice-President, the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. Not to mention state governments.
stephanie
03-23-2009, 06:21 PM
Seriously, who cares?
Why should I give a damn if Hannity doesnt understand the process? He isnt an elected official. He isn't running for office. His knowledge or ignorance doesnt affect me in anyway.
I am much more concerned with the ignorance of the Constitution demonstrated by the President, Vice-President, the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. Not to mention state governments.
:clap:
bullypulpit
03-23-2009, 06:23 PM
the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.
Since Democrats control both the House and the Senate, they control the process, they control the Committees, they can and do ignore any and all input from the opposition and voting within the Committee is irrelevant having only a minority count ..
Republicans have no say in what will end up in a piece of Legislation...
In final passage they will surely have a vote on whenever the Democrats have written into any bill, but obviously the bills can be passed and signed into law without any support from Republicans because of their minority status, and no input what is written into any bill.....
So we know what Hannity meant, though he mis-stated the issue.
And that's the way the process works. It favors the majority party. Or did you completely forget all those years that the GOP held the majority in Congress completely shutting out the Democrats? But then, congressional Republicans made it clear from the gitgo that they had no interest in co-operating with the Obama on anything. IMHO, screw 'em. They can go play in their little GOP sand-box and continue to slide into irrelevance while the grown-ups get the work done.
Silver
03-23-2009, 07:31 PM
And that's the way the process works. It favors the majority party. Or did you completely forget all those years that the GOP held the majority in Congress completely shutting out the Democrats? But then, congressional Republicans made it clear from the gitgo that they had no interest in co-operating with the Obama on anything. IMHO, screw 'em. They can go play in their little GOP sand-box and continue to slide into irrelevance while the grown-ups get the work done.
You're absolutely right..thats the way the process works, and thats the way it wil continue to work in the next Republican administration....
At least Huckabee explained it so even Dem could get the real point Hannity screwed up....
HUCKABEE
It's horribly dangerous because it really does bypass the entire system of the American government, where we're supposed to have an honest debate. It also breaks a very important promise that Barack Obama made to the American people. He promised transparency, he promised bipartisanship, he promised a new way of doing things in Washington. This is a violation of all of those promises, and I think he's gonna have an increased credibility problem, along with his Treasury secretary and the Senate Banking Committee chairman, if he continues to have campaigned on one platform and govern on --
-- a completely different one.
Jagger
03-23-2009, 07:49 PM
Hannity falsely claimed McCain had "been against the AIG bailout from the very beginning" http://mediamatters.org/items/200903180027?f=s_search
Hannity misrepresents source of editorial to claim that "liberal media" outlet claimed Obama has "embarrassed America" http://mediamatters.org/items/200903110031?f=s_search
Confronted with the truth, Hannity refused to back down from debunked mouse, LA-Vegas rail falsehoods http://mediamatters.org/items/200902250006?f=s_search
Hannity falsely claimed CBO "say[s]" economic recovery plan is "not a stimulus bill" http://mediamatters.org/items/200902030012?f=s_search
stephanie
03-23-2009, 08:05 PM
Someone has a hardon for Sean Hannity..or is it love and jealousy?:coffee:
avatar4321
03-23-2009, 08:09 PM
Hannity falsely claimed McCain had "been against the AIG bailout from the very beginning" http://mediamatters.org/items/200903180027?f=s_search
Hannity misrepresents source of editorial to claim that "liberal media" outlet claimed Obama has "embarrassed America" http://mediamatters.org/items/200903110031?f=s_search
Confronted with the truth, Hannity refused to back down from debunked mouse, LA-Vegas rail falsehoods http://mediamatters.org/items/200902250006?f=s_search
Hannity falsely claimed CBO "say[s]" economic recovery plan is "not a stimulus bill" http://mediamatters.org/items/200902030012?f=s_search
Again, who the hell cares?
PostmodernProphet
03-23-2009, 08:34 PM
It has been well established that is no pork in the stimulus bill.
actually, I think you are the only one left who still thinks that......that hardly makes it "well established"......
stephanie
03-23-2009, 08:38 PM
I think it's been proven there is no STIMILUS in the pork package..
there, fixed it..
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 08:16 AM
Hannity is a hoot. He's totally clueless.
Just like a liberal. Media Matter in the desire to make Hannity look like an idiot and prove to people that is highly-rated show on Fox is nothing more than hate, posts an article inferring that Mr Hannity didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the reconciliation process in the US Congress.
Well, with just a little research, a quick trip to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(U.S._Congress)), and now we see that it was Media Matters that didn't have a clue what they were talking about. However, you were so quick to jump on their bandwagon, that you failed to think for yourself. You took their bait, hook, line and sinker.
So tell me, who is clueless now? You start a thread calling Hannity a liar, based upon facts that are not true. So tell me Jagger, are you the liar? Is it Media Matters? Perhaps in the future, instead of drinking the Kool-Aid and jumping without looking you will take a moment or two to think for yourself. I know that is asking a lot of you, since you are so indoctrinated into believing everything you hear about the right, but in the end it will prevent you from looking the fool.
dmk
Jagger
03-24-2009, 09:19 AM
More lies by Sean Hannity:
He [Saddam Hussain] had weapons of mass destruction.
--Sean Hannity on 4/13/04
Hannity's assertion was made more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified on October 2, 2003 that his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35638-2003Oct2?language=printer
Little-Acorn
03-24-2009, 09:56 AM
See what I mean about liberal desperation? Little jagger has to go back five years to find even one thing Hannity said that he can object to. And of course he immediately terms it a "lie" despite the fact that the vast majority of evidence and testimony supported it at the time, and had for years. Including testimony from every President and exPres, secretary of state, etc., on both sides of the aisle.
Oops, now there *I* go, making little jagger's job of convincing people the liberal agenda is viable, harder.
Shame on me!
Little-Acorn
03-24-2009, 09:59 AM
actually, I think you are the only one left who still thinks that......that hardly makes it "well established"......
Look up "A legend in his own mind" in the dictionary, and you'll find little jagger's picture there.
If he believes it, then of course it's "well established". Because no one matters except him.
:lol:
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 10:32 AM
Sean Hannity is a right wing talking point machine that misquotes and lies about everything. Here's a recent example:
So, it would seem that once again in this thread you cite Media Matters, and once again they are wrong. We now know that thanks to Sen Dodd, included in the Stimulus Bill was a provision to protect bonuses agreed upon prior to the passage of the bill. In the House every Republican (http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43521) voted against the bill with 7 Democrats also voting against it. And in the Senate only 3 Republicans voted for the bill. (http://observationalism.com/2009/02/13/the-democrats-who-voted-against-the-stimulus-bill-in-the-house-part-ii-once-more-round-the-bend/) So it would seem that once again Hannity was right, Media Matters wrong, and you fell for Media Matters hook, line and sinker. Proving again the need to think for yourself.
Here's another example:
And then yet another time not only in the same thread but in the same post you cite Media Matters and once again they are totally wrong. Even the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/dems-fuming-over-white-ho_n_176006.html)agrees that Obama was seeking to have vets use private insurance to pay for treatment for their wounds. Three tries with Media Matters and three times they have been shown to lie to further their agenda, and three times you use them, either showing that you have no mind of your own and only can rely on the work of others, or the simple fact that you are just another liar who will use whatever to further your own agenda.
Come on Jagger you love to call Conservatives, dumb, and stupid, liars, thiefs, corrupt and every other name. Yet you have failed to prove one. The only thing you have proven is that you lie, you don't think for yourself, and intellectually you are lazy. Sorry to inform you but if the definition of a Conservative in your mind is stupid, a liar, a thief and corrupt, well you seem to be defining yourself.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 10:34 AM
Doesn't really matter if its Hannity or not as you so cheerfully parrot the talking points he, and the other RWN talking heads vomit forth on a daily basis.
And thus far everything pointed out in this thread as the so-called lies have been proven to be true. So if they vomit it out every day, so what. It seems that you continue to blindly follow the lies without ever challenge them yourself. Tell me, how does it feel to be a robot?
dmk
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Come, come, now.
You guys are blowing little jagger's agenda. Is that a very nice thing to do?
Little jagger is taking one mistake by Hannity, and trying desperately to tell us that it means that EVERYTHING Hannity says is, not just a mistake, but a LIE. And then he announces that Hannity "lies about everything", though how he gets that from one instance isn't clear.
Have you any idea how difficult that is? Little jagger is working harder than he ever has here, trying fabricate a total liar out of whole cloth, as it were. If he could actually point to, say, the last twenty things Hannity has said, and cite evidence of how each one was a lie in turn, then his job would be a lot easier. But he can't do that about most things Hannity says, so his job gets that much harder. He must try to convince people that everything Hannity says is false, when in fact only a tiny part (if that much) of it is.
Give the guy a break. Poor little jagger is tying himself in knots, trying to forward his own agenda here. You people who keep on asking him for evidence, or who show him he's wrong etc., are ruining his day, and making an already-difficult job, even harder.
Shame on you.
But he is not working hard at all. Media Matters is doing all his thinking for him. All he has to do is cut and paste and not have to even worry about thinking.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 10:40 AM
The economic recovery act did not require AIG to pay bonuse. It restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to award bonuses in the future.
It has been well established that is no pork in the stimulus bill.
Hannity lied because the White House had already dropped the Veterans Insurance proposal.
So because they dropped it, it was a lie. Nice try. It was something the White House wanted to do, and the reason he dropped it was because of the backlash he was getting. Like it or not, it is news, that the administration wanted to do this, and despite what you may think, not that you ever do, it is important that the American People are informed.
This from a man that want nationalized health care for the nation, but yet refuses to want to provide it to those whom truly deserve it. What a joke. It goes to show just how much honor the man has, NONE!!.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 10:41 AM
It's well established that Hannity lies about everything.
And now we see that it is well established that so do you.
dmk
stephanie
03-24-2009, 10:42 AM
I think he is a paid troll for media matters..their mission is to destroy anyone who voices an opinion against the Communist party of the United States.
Little-Acorn
03-24-2009, 10:47 AM
So, it would seem that once again in this thread you cite Media Matters, and once again they are wrong.
As I recall, by little jagger's standards, anyone who gets anything wrong, even once, is "well established" to "lie all the time".
I guess that takes care of Media Matters.
sgtdmski
03-24-2009, 11:00 AM
And that's the way the process works. It favors the majority party. Or did you completely forget all those years that the GOP held the majority in Congress completely shutting out the Democrats? But then, congressional Republicans made it clear from the gitgo that they had no interest in co-operating with the Obama on anything. IMHO, screw 'em. They can go play in their little GOP sand-box and continue to slide into irrelevance while the grown-ups get the work done.
And in the 2010 elections we will see what that work accomplishes. Since no Republicans in the House voted for the Bill if it works, Republicans will probably lose more seats, however, if it fails, the Democrats will probably lose the seats.
Remember that it was brave and noble for the Democrats to use the filibuster when they were in the minority. The Republicans were evil when they began talk of the nuclear option. Now the roles are reverse. THerefore according to media coverage it is the Republicans who are brave and noble for wanting to filibuster legislation, giving a voice to the minority, and it is the Democrats who are evil for wanting to subvert the legislative process.
Damn, isn't the MSM wonderful.
dmk
Jagger
03-24-2009, 03:49 PM
HANNITY: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (9/19/03)
FACT: "Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world." (Colin Powell, 9/19/03)
Jagger
03-24-2009, 03:50 PM
HANNITY: "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)
FACT: David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free." (Boston Globe, 6/16/04)
stephanie
03-24-2009, 03:57 PM
:lol:
they must of got tired of going after RUSH..
media matters, matters to no one except their own cult followers..
MM is a propaganda arm for the Democrat party...
HANNITY: "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)
FACT: David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free." (Boston Globe, 6/16/04)
thats not proof of anything...just this week or last the kurds blamed AQ for a massive bombing in northern iraq...only an idiot would think iraq is free of AQ
further, it is well established that you are a liar as you claim EVERYTHING hannity says is a lie...that is simply not true, thus you are a liar
Jagger
03-24-2009, 05:29 PM
HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)
TRUTH: Bush Opposed the creation of a special commission to probe the causes of 9/11 for over a year. On 5/23/02 CBS News Reported "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." Bush didn't relent to pressure to create a commission, mostly from those Hannity would consider "liberal" until September 2002. (CBS News, 5/23/02)
Kathianne
03-24-2009, 05:31 PM
In effect Jagger, you are printing a complete article, piecemeal. Cease & desist now.
avatar4321
03-24-2009, 06:27 PM
HANNITY: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (9/19/03)
FACT: "Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world." (Colin Powell, 9/19/03)
First, there isnt a contradiction there. There can be serious problems and still have a situation where things couldnt have been better because things could have been alot worse. It's really not that difficult to understand.
Second, once again who the hell cares? Why wont you answer this?
Jagger
03-24-2009, 09:54 PM
James Madison, Sean Hannity & the Question of Congressional Chaplains. http://classicliberal.tripod.com/misc/hannity.html
avatar4321
03-25-2009, 12:46 AM
James Madison, Sean Hannity & the Question of Congressional Chaplains. http://classicliberal.tripod.com/misc/hannity.html
What does this matter? Who cares? Answer the question.
sgtdmski
03-25-2009, 09:31 AM
As I recall, by little jagger's standards, anyone who gets anything wrong, even once, is "well established" to "lie all the time".
I guess that takes care of Media Matters.
:clap:
Jagger
03-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Here's more proof that Sean Hannity lies about everything:
On September 18, 2003 Sean Hannity lied that he never questioned anyone's patriotism. However, it is well documented that on March 30, 2003, Hannity asked an attorney, "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?"
PostmodernProphet
03-25-2009, 09:57 AM
Here's more proof that Sean Hannity lies about everything:
On September 18, 2003 Sean Hannity lied that he never questioned anyone's patriotism. However, it is well documented that on March 30, 2003, Hannity asked an attorney, "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?"
Jagger, why do you hate Debate Policy?......
Jagger
03-26-2009, 10:16 AM
Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich spewed falsehoods concerning Democratic economic proposals and policies to bolster Gingrich's claim that Democrats are moving the country "towards a political dictatorship."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903260004?f=h_top
actsnoblemartin
03-26-2009, 11:20 AM
I trust media matters like I trust the new york times
:coffee:
Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich spewed falsehoods concerning Democratic economic proposals and policies to bolster Gingrich's claim that Democrats are moving the country "towards a political dictatorship."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903260004?f=h_top
Jagger
03-26-2009, 02:17 PM
Sean Hannity lied that , "They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has made it clear that they were talking only about "financial institutions that are receiving government assistance." Robert Gibbs has explicitly rejected the claim that the administration sought to "put a cap" on executive salaries at firms not receiving bailout funds, stating: "There are not plans to do something broad like that."
avatar4321
03-26-2009, 05:10 PM
Sean Hannity lied that , "They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has made it clear that they were talking only about "financial institutions that are receiving government assistance." Robert Gibbs has explicitly rejected the claim that the administration sought to "put a cap" on executive salaries at firms not receiving bailout funds, stating: "There are not plans to do something broad like that."
They were talking about capping pay for everyone. Dont you realize that they are using incrementalism?
However, that's besides the point. The question youve been ignoring the entire thread is the point: Who the hell cares????
Jagger
03-27-2009, 10:00 AM
They were talking about capping pay for everyone. So what? You're talking about it now. You're obviously a socialist who wants to cap pay for everyone.
Jagger
03-27-2009, 10:08 AM
The budget blueprint proposed by House Republicans proposes a policy to address insolvent institutions that allows the government to seize insolvent ones, proving that Republicans are every bit as Communistic as Democrats.
stephanie
03-27-2009, 10:09 AM
I know what I would like to put a cap, IN.:laugh2:
Jagger
03-27-2009, 12:25 PM
I know what I would like to put a cap, IN.:laugh2:
Feel free to try it, dude.
stephanie
03-27-2009, 12:36 PM
Feel free to try it, dude.
open wide..insert sock, dudette
Jagger
03-27-2009, 08:12 PM
Sean Hannity lied that President Obama has proposed "nationalized health care," similar to programs in Great Britain and Canada. Earlier that day, Obama explicitly rejected scrapping the U.S. health-care system in favor of the British or Canadian model.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903270006?f=h_latest
sgtdmski
03-28-2009, 04:44 AM
Sean Hannity lied that , "They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has made it clear that they were talking only about "financial institutions that are receiving government assistance." Robert Gibbs has explicitly rejected the claim that the administration sought to "put a cap" on executive salaries at firms not receiving bailout funds, stating: "There are not plans to do something broad like that."
Well it would seem that once again, not surprisingly, you and media matters is wrong. You are lying for the admin (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html)did just what Hannity claimed.
Come now Jagger, don't you get tired of being proven wrong all the time.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-28-2009, 04:50 AM
Sean Hannity lied that President Obama has proposed "nationalized health care," similar to programs in Great Britain and Canada. Earlier that day, Obama explicitly rejected scrapping the U.S. health-care system in favor of the British or Canadian model.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903270006?f=h_latest
But he has proposed Nationalized Health Care. That is the point. Hannity used examples of UK and Canada, and then had someone from UK talk about what has happened under their system.
Again, a lie, harping, what a load of crap. Do you even read and comprehend what you are reading, or does it go to waste????
dmk
Jagger
03-28-2009, 07:48 PM
The Republicans are Socialists who want to give the Federal Government authority to take over financial institutions. The Republicans propose to place financial institutions into federal receivership, restructure firms and appoint new management. See "The Republican Road to Recovery"; Page 16.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final.pdf#page=160
avatar4321
03-28-2009, 08:11 PM
The Republicans are Socialists who want to give the Federal Government authority to take over financial institutions. The Republicans propose to place financial institutions into federal receivership, restructure firms and appoint new management. See "The Republican Road to Recovery"; Page 16.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final.pdf#page=160
Alright, whatever.
Kathianne
03-28-2009, 08:27 PM
The Republicans are Socialists who want to give the Federal Government authority to take over financial institutions. The Republicans propose to place financial institutions into federal receivership, restructure firms and appoint new management. See "The Republican Road to Recovery"; Page 16.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final.pdf#page=160
Page 16:
various federal arms of government to shore up the
economy.
These bailouts are not just costly to the taxpayers. The
federal government has now become an owner in
numerous private businesses, and a majority owner in a
few, with government officials privy to boardroom
discussions, business strategies, and pay package
decisions. This is not a free-market approach to
managing our economy. Instead, it looks more like a
command-and-control regime that rewards failure,
socializes losses and privatizes gains. It runs counter to
the reasons our Founders demanded their independence:
respecting the sanctity of private property and the pursuit
of liberty.
It is evident that no one wants to say “no” to a rescue plan
when there is so much at stake. But the reality is that
actions like federal bailouts taken to delay short-term
financial pain often end up producing long-term damage
to our entire economy. Already, the Chinese Central Bank
has proposed replacing the U.S. dollar as the
international reserve currency—a clear sign that China,
the largest holder of U.S. dollar financial assets, fears that
the massive outlays required by the American bailouts
will result in inflation. And one need only look to Japan
and the banking crisis that led to its “Lost Decade” of
recession and stagnant economic growth from which it
has still failed to recover. The International Monetary
Fund has called those economic problems “a failure to
deal proactively with the impact of the collapse in asset
prices” that has led to real GDP growth only averaging 1
percent a year over the past decade.
In sum, the message with bailouts of this magnitude is
that your profits will be private but your losses socialized.
But the system often does not work that way, at least not
for long. If losses are socialized, it is likely that profits will
soon be as well, meaning Americans will no longer be
free, not just to fail, but to succeed.
republicans’ solution
Instead of continuing to bail out Wall Street and
nationalizing the financial system, Republicans want to
ensure that this crisis never occurs again, protect
taxpayers and provide a transparent recovery process
that does not favor those that have made unsound
business decisions.
Republicans believe the best antidote for market turmoil
is certainty and economic growth. We oppose the trend
toward national ownership and control of financial
institutions. The government’s interventions to date have
generated market uncertainty and an aversion to private
lending and investment. The government’s strategy needs
to minimize government interference in the management
of companies and provide a clear exit strategy.
The Republican budget ends this failed bailout strategy
by refusing to assume additional spending for bailouts. In
addition, our plan supports a process to address insolvent
institutions that stops throwing good money after bad
into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into
temporary receivership. Our plan would first perform a
thorough stress test to determine whether a financial
institution is healthy, troubled, or insolvent. For troubled
firms, some portion of the firm’s toxic assets would be
insured, but such insurance would be self-financed by the
industry itself in the form of premiums. For insolvent
firms, either the FDIC or a Resolution Trust
Corporation-type entity would restructure these firms in
receivership by selling off their assets and liabilities,
reappointing private management, while protecting
depositors—a process that builds off of Washington
Mutual’s arranged sale last year.
Please bold what you are referring to.
The Republicans are Socialists who want to give the Federal Government authority to take over financial institutions. The Republicans propose to place financial institutions into federal receivership, restructure firms and appoint new management. See "The Republican Road to Recovery"; Page 16.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final.pdf#page=160
why do enjoy lying? from your link and page no.
Republicans believe the best antidote for market turmoil
is certainty and economic growth. We oppose the trend
toward national ownership and control of financial
institutions. The government’s interventions to date have
generated market uncertainty and an aversion to private
lending and investment. The government’s strategy needs
to minimize government interference in the management
of companies and provide a clear exit strategy.
are you bored with life? do you enjoy the argument? i don't care, just curious.....
Jagger
03-29-2009, 11:32 AM
The Republican plan places insolvent institutions into temporary receivership.
That is the same thing the Treasury Secretary has proposed. Hannity said it was socialism.
Jagger
03-29-2009, 11:38 AM
For troubled firms, some portion of the firm’s toxic assets would be insured, but such insurance would be self-financed by the industry itself in the form of premiums.
Republicans want to force firms to buy insurance. That's Socialism.
Jagger
03-29-2009, 11:45 AM
For insolvent firms, either the FDIC or a Resolution Trust corporation-type entity would restructure these firms
The Republicans want the government to restructure financial firms. That's Socialism.
by selling off their assets and liabilities Seizing the assets of firms is what socialists do.
reappointing private management That's socialism.
protecting depositors Picking winners is socialism.
Jagger
03-29-2009, 11:50 AM
We oppose the trend toward national ownership and control of financial
institutions.
That's a lie, dude. They want to put all financial institutions under federal regulation which allows the government to seize their assets and replace their management.
That's a lie, dude. They want to put all financial institutions under federal regulation which allows the government to seize their assets and replace their management.
moron, that is from your own link and post :poke:
that is from what you claimed proved your point and it obviously doesn't, so you now call your own source a lie :laugh2:
Jagger
03-29-2009, 08:52 PM
moron, that is from your own link and post :poke:
It's sill a lie and the Republicans still want to regulate financial institutions like the White House does. It will be interesting to see if the media, which reported ad nauseam on the charge that Geithner and the White House were engaging in a "power grab" by asking Congress for authority to regulate financial institutions, will report ad nauseam that the House Republicans have now proposed giving the federal government similar authority. Hypocrisy, anyone?
PS: If the While House was making a power grab, why would it ask Congress for the power, instead of just assuming the power?
sgtdmski
03-30-2009, 06:26 AM
The Republicans are Socialists who want to give the Federal Government authority to take over financial institutions. The Republicans propose to place financial institutions into federal receivership, restructure firms and appoint new management. See "The Republican Road to Recovery"; Page 16.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final.pdf#page=160
Thanks again for proving that you do not comprehend what you read. Receivership occurs when a company files for bankruptcy, something which is part of the natural market. Restructuring again occurs to troubled business, another natural market phenomena. And so does new management.
You do not see Republicans trying to cap pay, nor take over the businesses, no, you see them wanting to let the market do what it is suppose to do.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-30-2009, 06:27 AM
It's sill a lie and the Republicans still want to regulate financial institutions like the White House does. It will be interesting to see if the media, which reported ad nauseam on the charge that Geithner and the White House were engaging in a "power grab" by asking Congress for authority to regulate financial institutions, will report ad nauseam that the House Republicans have now proposed giving the federal government similar authority. Hypocrisy, anyone?
PS: If the While House was making a power grab, why would it ask Congress for the power, instead of just assuming the power?
Lying again!!!!! When will you ever learn? Trying understanding what it is you are reading the next time around, it keeps you from looking like the fool.
dmk
Jagger
03-30-2009, 09:25 AM
Lying again!!!!! When will you ever learn? Trying understanding what it is you are reading the next time around, it keeps you from looking like the fool.
dmk
In reports on the budget blueprint offered by House Republicans, CNN did not note that the plan includes a proposal to give the federal government authority to take over failing nonbank financial institutions -- a proposal similar to one presented by Tim Geithner, for which he was sharply criticized by those same House Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903270022?f=h_top
Jagger
03-31-2009, 11:27 AM
Fox apologizes for lying about reconciliation. http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903300042?f=cf_clips
Jagger
03-31-2009, 12:18 PM
Hannity lies about plans to release enemy combatants on American soil http://mediamatters.org/items/200903300028?f=h_latest
avatar4321
03-31-2009, 02:31 PM
Hannity lies about plans to release enemy combatants on American soil http://mediamatters.org/items/200903300028?f=h_latest
I know you probably dont understand a word im saying but Ill try to talk loudly, figuratively speaking
Why on earth does this matter? Who Cares??????
Jagger
04-04-2009, 07:38 PM
Sean Hannity aired a clip of President Obama's speech in France and claimed Obama was "blam[ing] America first." However, at no point during the show did Hannity note that immediately after the part he aired, Obama criticized "anti-Americanism" in Europe as well as Europeans who "choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904040003?f=h_top
Why does Sean Hannity lie about everything?
Kathianne
04-04-2009, 07:41 PM
With x number of media matters posts to show jaggers point in this thread, we call time, if you don't get it by now, you won't. So any more by Jagger to media matters, he's done.
Jagger
04-06-2009, 02:28 PM
With x number of media matters posts to show jaggers point in this thread, we call time, if you don't get it by now, you won't. So any more by Jagger to media matters, he's done.
Why are you so fond of tyranny over the mind?
avatar4321
04-06-2009, 04:54 PM
Why are you so fond of tyranny over the mind?
Who said anything about tyranny? We want expansion of the mind. we want learning. not rote unthinking spam.
actsnoblemartin
04-06-2009, 05:06 PM
Who said anything about tyranny? We want expansion of the mind. we want learning. not rote unthinking spam.
you mean like obama's telepromter? :coffee:
avatar4321
04-06-2009, 07:00 PM
you mean like obama's telepromter? :coffee:
Exactly! So logically... If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made out of wood. And therefore... A witch!
Kathianne
04-06-2009, 08:00 PM
Why are you so fond of tyranny over the mind?
My dear, I should have made it more clear, that was on your spamming for media matters day. Once in awhile not a problem. Spamming though, is a problem.
PostmodernProphet
04-06-2009, 08:19 PM
Why are you so fond of tyranny over the mind?
in this instance it would be tyranny over the lack of one.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.