I thought Obama was supposed to be better: transparent, honest. At least that's how the package was sold.
Under Bush, the process for approval began according to the law. However, by the end of his riegn Energy and OMB had serious questions about Solyndra's application. Then Obama took over, backed by Solyndra investors, and approval was rushed through despite the lack of required due diligence. And then it got worse.
And three years into Obama's rule, when exactly does anything become his fault? At what point does he not get to blame Bush for everything he does wrong?
Simply they're all biased. It does help to remind those who think only Fox is biased. None of it is OK, it's just the way things are.
everyone else is biased! Therefore it's OK that Fox is REALLY REALLY BIASED
Well, there you go. I just showed where CBS coordinated a falsified attack story on Bush with the opposing Kerry campaign, directly attempting to influence a presidential election for the liberal candidate, and that's just "biased" to you. And that's what was labeled NEWS. It wasn't commentary or opinion.
One ABC news producer said about ABC, "The planning meetings have little political diversity. Everyone is left of center and at ease with their liberal ideals. The other viewpoint is rarely raised and never fully represented." I still find it funny that ABS's bio of their top (liberal, of course) journalist, Claire Shipman, fails to mention that her husband is Obama's press secretary. While Fox hires Dana Perino as a political commentator, Clinton insider George Stephanopoulos is portrayed by ABC as a straight journalist. This is just "biased" to you.
Yet Fox execs directing stories along their ideological lines is "REALLY REALLY BIASED". Political motivation on your part? Don't say!
In case you missed it, I can tell that you're politically motivated.
If you're talking about the CBS fiasco you pretend didn't happen, I was never a Bush supporter. In fact, I agree with the general theme of the faked CBS story, that Bush did his best to get out of service during Vietnam using family connections. His supposed business career was equally deplorable.
If the banker takes a risk and it pays off, why not give him a bonus? If there is no downside to losing a risk, that's the bank's fault.
The important thing here is that when the bank's internal policies fail, it is of the utmost importance to allow the bank to fail. This is called the free market. Bailouts are not free market.
If they get into the habit of bringing the clipboard up to the car they just pulled over, a natural reflex when confronted with a gun would likely be to shield themselves with whatever's in their hand -- the clipboard. So why not make it bulletproof?
I can see this saving a few lives. Why not, unless there are other avenues where the money could save even more lives?
On the other hand, did they test this against a standard backstop, or in a usage situation? If an officer is holding it at writing length and it's shot, will it just flip back in the officer's hand, letting the bullet continue on to hit him?
This isn't a company that sold out or moved manufacture. The company has gone bankrupt a couple of times, been bought and sold a couple of times, and has long since sold off all manufacturing. Now they mainly rent out the Polaroid name to other companies.
You say you're capable of seeing bias, but you won't admit other news organizations have it?
CBS defended itself and Rather over the Killian documents story, and even created news stories in its defense and had 60 minutes do a defense piece, until their attempted smear was too obvious for the public to ignore. Even worse, they had coordinated the story with the Kerry campaign prior to publication, and even then the most their "independent" review panel could admit to was the "appearance of a political bias."
Plus it doesn't do its torturous best to explain away irregularities in the statements of liberal politicians (candidate Obama's stance on gun rights for example), while requiring strict third-party verifiable truth in conservatives.
Sort of. It's called factcheck.org, and it has a liberal bias. Whoever the "professional abritrators" are will determine which facts are used and how the claims are interpreted to be true or false.
Maybe we could vote on it. Those who think they have the qualifications can put it out to the people, and let the people decide if they do. Then those representatives vote on the legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Where you get paid hundreds of dollars per month to have a kid, and many generous benefits are heaped on in addition.
I thought Obama was supposed to be better: transparent, honest. At least that's how the package was sold.
Under Bush, the process for approval began according to the law. However, by the end of his riegn Energy and OMB had serious questions about Solyndra's application. Then Obama took over, backed by Solyndra investors, and approval was rushed through despite the lack of required due diligence. And then it got worse.
And three years into Obama's rule, when exactly does anything become his fault? At what point does he not get to blame Bush for everything he does wrong?
The program under which Solyndra got funding had its merits. Solyndra's initial application was even handled under Bush, according to the law.
The way the Obama administration handled it after that was the scandal.
Simply they're all biased. It does help to remind those who think only Fox is biased. None of it is OK, it's just the way things are.
Well, there you go. I just showed where CBS coordinated a falsified attack story on Bush with the opposing Kerry campaign, directly attempting to influence a presidential election for the liberal candidate, and that's just "biased" to you. And that's what was labeled NEWS. It wasn't commentary or opinion.
One ABC news producer said about ABC, "The planning meetings have little political diversity. Everyone is left of center and at ease with their liberal ideals. The other viewpoint is rarely raised and never fully represented." I still find it funny that ABS's bio of their top (liberal, of course) journalist, Claire Shipman, fails to mention that her husband is Obama's press secretary. While Fox hires Dana Perino as a political commentator, Clinton insider George Stephanopoulos is portrayed by ABC as a straight journalist. This is just "biased" to you.
Yet Fox execs directing stories along their ideological lines is "REALLY REALLY BIASED". Political motivation on your part? Don't say!
If you're talking about the CBS fiasco you pretend didn't happen, I was never a Bush supporter. In fact, I agree with the general theme of the faked CBS story, that Bush did his best to get out of service during Vietnam using family connections. His supposed business career was equally deplorable.
If the banker takes a risk and it pays off, why not give him a bonus? If there is no downside to losing a risk, that's the bank's fault.
The important thing here is that when the bank's internal policies fail, it is of the utmost importance to allow the bank to fail. This is called the free market. Bailouts are not free market.
If they get into the habit of bringing the clipboard up to the car they just pulled over, a natural reflex when confronted with a gun would likely be to shield themselves with whatever's in their hand -- the clipboard. So why not make it bulletproof?
I can see this saving a few lives. Why not, unless there are other avenues where the money could save even more lives?
On the other hand, did they test this against a standard backstop, or in a usage situation? If an officer is holding it at writing length and it's shot, will it just flip back in the officer's hand, letting the bullet continue on to hit him?
Steve Jobs created tens of thousands of jobs.
But for only $250 more you can have a full-blown 11" MacBook Air with a desktop OS and a Core i5. It's even about the same size.
And I was talking about when Jews started coming back in large numbers.
Interesing you mention their economic influence though. Jews coming back into the region greatly increased its economic development.
This isn't a company that sold out or moved manufacture. The company has gone bankrupt a couple of times, been bought and sold a couple of times, and has long since sold off all manufacturing. Now they mainly rent out the Polaroid name to other companies.
It started in the late 1800s, not 1917.
Back when it was new and OS 9 was the most, used, OS X took a beating in public opinion.
I remember people who refused to move to Windows 95 because 3.1 was just perfect.
Hell, I remember when Photoshop 4 changed a bit of the UI over 3.5 and people were pissed.
We just get set in our ways. Of course, the OS 9 guys did have some valid, objective points.
You say you're capable of seeing bias, but you won't admit other news organizations have it?
CBS defended itself and Rather over the Killian documents story, and even created news stories in its defense and had 60 minutes do a defense piece, until their attempted smear was too obvious for the public to ignore. Even worse, they had coordinated the story with the Kerry campaign prior to publication, and even then the most their "independent" review panel could admit to was the "appearance of a political bias."
Do you have an equivalent that Fox has done?
Being in shape doesn't cure ugly.
If you wanted a hot first lady, we should have elected Fred Thompson.
Honestly, I thought that was his mother the first time I saw them together.
Most liberals still thought Rather was an unbiased source even after the Memogate scandal.
At least I admit Fox is biased. At least of what I see of it, which is rarely, since it's never turned on in my house.
More specifically, I don't want to hear Michelle during any - uh - marital affairs.
It could turn me off sex for years. I might need counseling. Oh no, just the thought right now is... ewwwww
Other news organizations conspire to hide what happened, Fox will delight in showing what happened.
Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?
Plus it doesn't do its torturous best to explain away irregularities in the statements of liberal politicians (candidate Obama's stance on gun rights for example), while requiring strict third-party verifiable truth in conservatives.
The question is whether you can get the stewardess to take it now.
And they could sell KY in-flight at $5 for a tiny single-use tube.
eBay!!
Sort of. It's called factcheck.org, and it has a liberal bias. Whoever the "professional abritrators" are will determine which facts are used and how the claims are interpreted to be true or false.
In the immortal words of the great Cartman, "Democrats piss me off!"
Maybe we could vote on it. Those who think they have the qualifications can put it out to the people, and let the people decide if they do. Then those representatives vote on the legislation.
People do vote very stupidly when swept up in the moment.
How else do you explain Obama?