Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ivan Inkling who wrote (133616)	4/26/2013 3:16:42 PM
From: JeffA	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Of course I can. Give me time for the chapter, verse, footnotes, context that you undoubtedly require before accepting anything possibly untrue being uttered by those idiots.

To: Ivan Inkling who wrote (133616)	4/26/2013 5:04:41 PM
From: ChinuSFO	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

No Ivan, I. Would not like an opportunity to respond. I got better things to do. He is on my Ignore list.

To: Ivan Inkling who wrote (133616)	4/29/2013 6:37:37 AM
From: JeffA	1 Recommendation Respond to of 149317

Ed Schultz ED SCHULTZ (10 January 2013): Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there's guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn't view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I'm just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense. You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that. I mean, but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? And so I'm just, is it nec-, haven't we had enough school shootings where this is necessary? We've never had a civilian stop a shooting. Think about that. This is a lie. It is documented in sources too numerous to mention how a single armed citizen has stopped a shooting. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= SCHULTZ: EVERY TIME! Republicans just love that saying: “Every time we’ve cut revenues, we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up.” I doubt it. But when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, revenues went down. Even taking into account the impact of 9/11, there was no reason to believe the Bush tax cuts helped the to raise revenue. Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Notice that the source of information for that graph was supposedly the Office of Management and Budget: I'm not sure who did this research for Schultz, but here are the numbers directly from OMB: Above is a screencap from page 22 of OMB's "Historical Tables: Budget of the United States." The column on the left represents total unified tax receipts, the center is total unified expenditures, and the right is the associated surplus or deficit. The first Bush tax cuts happened in 2001 when we brought in $1.991 trillion in receipts. This declined for two years, then started increasing, and by 2005 not only were receipts higher than in 2001, they were also higher than the previous record set in 2000. "Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect." Not even close. Revenues in 2008 were $2.523 trillion, $532 billion or 27 percent higher than 2001. Where Schultz got his information is beyond me - and likely beyond him. So much for Democrats having "simple math on their side." Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/19/ed-schultz-lies-about-tax-revenues-under-bush-seconds-after-saying-re#ixzz2Rqa80TiF +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saying Rick Perry is racist and only apologizing after getting caught and called out by his own peeps. theblaze.com

To: Ivan Inkling who wrote (133616)	4/29/2013 6:46:26 AM
From: JeffA	1 Recommendation Respond to of 149317

Maddow lying about fast and furious americanpowerblog.blogspot.com Maddow lying about the Warren/Brown debates dailyhowler.blogspot.com Maddow lying about Stockman and the OKC bombing On Monday night, Rachel Maddow apparently made the following rather shocking claim: MADDOW: Yes, this has happened to a smaller degree before. In 1994, in the first mid-term election after the last Democratic president was elected, we got a slate of candidates that included Helen Chenoweth of Idaho and Steve Stockman of Texas. These two were so close to the militia movement in this country that Mr. Stockman actually received advance notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen. As Mr. Coleman amply demonstrates, this pabulum has debunked on the public record for 15 years: Telephone toll records indicate that the fax was sent about 10:50 a.m. EDT, about 50 minutes after the bombing, a federal official said. It’s pretty reckless to make such a claim on national television when a few minutes with Google would prove it false. It gets worse. Maddow seems to have known the claim was false when she said it Monday: March 25, 2010 Maddow: Back in 1995 on the morning of the Oklahoma City bombing, just after the explosion a member of Congress named Steve Stockman (R-TX) was sent a fax touting the bombing. He was sent that fax by somebody in the militia movement. Mr. Stockman later turned that fax over to the FBI. He was never implicated in any way in the bombing itself. But there is a reason that the militia movement trusted a member of Congress enough to go to him with that. [Emphasis added

To: Ivan Inkling who wrote (133616)	4/29/2013 6:49:33 AM
From: JeffA	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I posted a few. So, in hindsight are they that important? Probably not. Does MSNBC lie, shade the truth, edit to make people look bad. Hell yeah. So, rather than being 100% any fact that they lie, maybe the conversation should contain the acknowledgement that all TV people lie. Even Brokaw did and it ended his career. Rightly so, I might add. The problem is people like Koan exist and think everything these talking heads, who consider themselves to be the newsworthy topic, is true. What they say is not always true. To say otherwise, shows one as being naive.