Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 1 January 2012

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 1 January 2012 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Fishtalk]

Morning AB, All

Let me start with the obvious...Happy New Year to All.

As always, special wishes to you AB for doing this thread. Here’s hoping you continue thru 2012.

I have two NY resolutions. One is to get confirmed in my Catholic faith. When I was a young Catholic girl, my parents got divorced and I was always being moved back and forth to schools. I always seemed to miss the Bishop by one year.

Second, I will, for the first time in my life, purchase and learn how to use a gun.

Those are my concrete resolutions. On a more abstract trend, I plan to improve my cooking skills, to cull all the frou-frou from my life to a simple, but happy life, and, as always, to be a better person.

Read an interesting article that I will excerpt and comment on later in the thread. For now the endless analyses of the year just passed.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Michelle Bachmann up now.

[norwaypinesavage]

"How weak is the GOP field?"

Where do you come up with this nonsense? The GOP field is stronger than anything the dRats have come up with in the last decade, at least. Stop listening to the "has beens" in the beltway cocoon.

[jpsb]

Yeah Chris Wallace did nothing but got ya questions with Paul now softballs to MB.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Howdy Pat, Happy New Year.

Bachmann hasn’t run any TV ads in Iowa since August, campaign running on fumes. She’s dead last.

Michelle never hesitates for a second on answering any question.

Wallace berating her on earmarks.

[Diogenesis]

Chris Wallace, Mitt Romney's FOX Pimp,
begins his wide-field attacks
for his beloved RINO, the ineligible Romney.

Romney's Wallace begins by ignoring every poll against Romney
and EVEN THEN the Romney pimp 'sauces' the results.

FOX begins its propaganda on the GOP candidates
"Confident", FOX New's Wallace declares, is Romney.
"Well respected", FOX New's Wallace declares, is Romney

Only backed by "religious conservatives" is Santorum.

"Planning for his comback" is Gingrich.

"Near the top" is Paul.
"Dangerous" is Paul

Ron Paul "Interview":
Psychotic Paul purports he gets widespread "foreign policy support".

Will Wallace discuss this? or "nuclear Iran"?
Absolutely NOT
With all the foreign policy idiocy, Wallace focuses ... on homophobia of Paul (to ingratiate to Romney ).

Ms. Bachmann "Interview":
Wallace then begins another of his "interviews" discussing
the ONLY poll that ever showed Romney ahead, over and over.
Every question Wallace gives appears to refer ONLY
to THAT poll so that Wallace can purport
RINO Romney is "in the lead", over and over.

Hyperbiased Wallace appears to again only focus on questions given him by Team Romney.

FOX News.
Biased from the start. SO BIASED they must purport they are not.

[skinkinthegrass]

Hmmm.. (practically) Everyone; but Newt, on the BOOB tube
w/ (the Establishment) chattering class today. :-\

[altura]

Thanks for the thread. Back after coffee.

[Alas Babylon!]

Gingrich's dive began right after he said he'd bring federal judges before Congress in order for them to explain their decisions. I have no problem with this, except when I imagine the Congress being democrat controlled and the judge being a conservative who made a conservative decision. We all too often aplaud such things when a Republican does them but forget what happens when the democrats get back in power...

Take for example the Patriot Act enforcement under George Bush, as opposed to it now being under Obama and Janet Napolitano (SHUDDER).

Newt has a political tin ear, in my opinion. Stuff like this happened in the 90’s as well. He makes a statement like this, and (you know it will happen) the driveby’s and the democrats go ballistic, taking it all out of context and coming up with headlines that seem to make Newt look like a lunatic, as below:

“Gingrich's attack on the courts takes on the Constitution, too “

“Gingrich's assault on divided powers”

“Congress should direct US Marshals to apprehend judges”

“Gingrich threatens the judges”

Now you and I might very well understand what Newt is saying here, and even agree with it, but to the average wishy-washy voter out there, it sound like he's off his rocker.

So I don't know what to say about Newt. I could be happy to have him as president, but he really, really needs someone who is media astute to bounce his utterings off of before he makes them.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Perry up now, Wallace asking him to drop out.

Wallace pounding him about weak campaign, earmarks. Perry looked kinda like he had to pee, couldn’t sit still.

Maybe his back is feeling better.

Perry wants to debate Obama, say he will come early.

[skinkinthegrass]

But, Daddy is dead!?... Is voting Democrat still, even in he!!. :-\

[chiller]

Santorum hitting homer after homer on MTP. Schooling DNC Dave.

[TomGuy]

"How weak is the GOP field?"

Where do you come up with this nonsense? The GOP field is stronger than ...

Still standing:

• A former one-term 4-year governor on his 2nd try for the presidency
  
• A couple of multi-term representatives with no executive experience, one of whom has been called 'flakey' and the other has been called a 'nutcase'
  
• A resigned former speaker of the House who basically walked away from his last elective position over a decade ago
  
• A former senator who lost his last election by a landslide, half a decade ago

Yeah, that line up is a powerhouse.

The only one with any substantial executive experience is Perry, and he is challenging Gingrich for 5th place in IA.

[Happy Rain]

Man, DNC Dave is just hatin’ and lyin’ on Rick Santorum like he's a leper with bo.—he really sounds desperate.
Rick made him look like the biased tool he is is.

Come Jan 21st, RS has MY vote.

[skinkinthegrass]

LOL!....Food channel helps.. I even burn water. B-)

[Fishtalk]

Watched Ron Paul and goodness I'm no Ron Paul fan. But I totally agreed with him that homosexuals bring their fate too often upon themselves with their risky lifestyle.

Took courage to say that; kudos to Paul.

Then I listen to Chris Wallace follow up and I do some thinking. For Wallace asks Paul a question, a very loaded question: "Do you think that homosexuals should be denied health insurance?" he asked.

My first response, indignantly, was "HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!" Indeed Paul's first response was, duh, "I didn't say that."

Indeed Paul said nothing even remotely like that and I fumed. Wallace was being a dopey lamestream media type, insinuating himself into the story via loaded question.

So I wondered, well what would have been the proper way to couch that question without sounding accusatory? The way Wallace phrased that question made it sound like he was just re-formulating a question Paul had asked in the past.

He, and his allegedly impartial minions in the media, COULD have said, to the effect...."Since you allege that homosexual diseases might well be a result of their lifestyle, do you also take the position that they shouldn't be able to get health insurance.?"

The above is better phrased and makes it clear that such an assertion had never been made by the questionee.

It's how they form the news, those dishonest prideless journalists. Even Chris Wallace.

In the first question a casual listener, the sort who only listen to political discourse on sleepy Sundays, Meet the Press, that kind of thing, would walk away thinking that just damn.....that Ron Paul really is a kook, asserting homosexuals shouldn't get health insurance.

No matter what the dishonest media would have you believe, the vast majority of boobaloobs out here in America don't wish any harm to our homosexual breathren, but we're not all that keen on special programs to underwrite their risky behavior or allowing them to get married.

By this nefarious campaign the dishonest media undertakes for their own glory, they make candidates, especially Republicans, look like nut cases.

Sorry to get so long for my thoughts but....see below. ;)

[rodguy911]

Thanks for the thread AB and Happy New Year to everyone here especially those who post on this thread week after week.

....................................................

Don't know if I buy all of this since its going to be a while before the US is energy self sufficient if even in my lifetime. We will still be buying huge quantities of oil from someone and if the choice is the Saudis, Iran,Venezuela or Brazil, Brazil may wind up with a market share.Simply by being the best of the worst.

I do however realize the Soros /zero relationship as slave owner/ slave. Zero will do his bidding but if Keystone gets too pricey,politically,which is all that matters in the regime,if we do our job well enough, zero may try and say yes to the pipeline while sabotaging it under the table and hoping for the best.

Bray is right in one area Zero never gives into us no matter what the consequences. So far he has been able to spin his way out of every misdeed but that won't work forever.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

DON’T SHOW THE GUN TO THE BISHOP!

[CincyRichieRich]

Obama has to be defeated or the US will no longer exist. Simple as that. That’s why Soros is betting where his money is placed.

[rodguy911]

Newt’s lack of organizational skills in the campaign my be his achilles heel.That and the RNC destroying everyone in VA.