The 2010 Election

[WinePusher]

Ok, so what's everybodies predications on the upcoming 2010 congressional elections?

I think republicans will take a sweeping majority in the House, and will get huge gains in the senate (but won't regain the majority).

Key races to look out for are:

California Senate: Carly Fiorina (R) vs. Barbara Boxer (D)
Delaware Senate: Christine O' Donnell (R) vs. Chris Coons (D)
Nevada Senate:Sharon Angle (R) vs. Harry Reid (D)
Florida Senate: Marco Rubio (R) vs. Chris Cristie (I)

I also predict republican victories in every single one of these races, even though they are very tight races.

I realize there's nothing religious about this, but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion in light of the upcoming elections. If moderators feel this is inappropriate they can delete it or lock it.

[Wyvern]

I don't remember the original source since I didn't really think the fact Obamacare will result in higher taxes was in question. I put up another validating article that was sourced, so what's your problem? Perhaps you can address Obama's lies about not raising taxes on those under $250K. Your quibling about the definition of tax is is about like Clinton and his definition of 'lie'.

Considering how your entire point here is to point out that Obama is increasing taxes which is counter to what he said it makes a big difference that you get it right what a tax is and especially in this case what a tax increase is. As I stated your new source disagrees with and is simply inaccurate on a number of points with your original document which unsurprisingly you can no longer find or even remember but have no problem using it all the same. Once you actually come up with an actual unbiased source that shows what you claim we might be able to talk about it. At the very least you need to come up with something that is much less biased than the obviously right wing source you used here. I understand that your conservative talkshow idols like to also play fast and loose with the facts to suit themselves but in this format it doesn't work since we can call you on it as you bring up unfounded claims.

[Grumpy]

WinePusher

I realize that you feel a need to condemn Fox News constantly, however, if you have a problem with newstations giving their opinions, would you also say that MSNBC has a liberal bias and is in the tank for Obama, or will you not answer because it will contradict your position?

The very first time you find me quoting MSNBC as a factual(as opposed to an opinionated)source you might have a point. That is the difference between getting all your "news" from a biased source and recognizing the bias and getting news from many, unbiased sources. Fox makes stuff up and call it news, msnbc doesn't(though they do give it a liberal spin). Hannity, OReily and Beck spout nonsense as fact and spin those falsities into the most sinister anti-liberal screeds imaginable, it's what Ruppert is known for, what used to be called Yellow Journalism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Do you think MSNBC is fair and balanced? Did you watch their election coverage? They had four liberals on the panel, without any objective journalists. Is that considered "fair" in your mind?

No, that's why I know better than to claim what is said on msnbc is "fair and balanced"as Fox claims to be. And I have never found Rachel Madow to be factually inaccurate, Chris Matthews is a very balanced interviewer and Olbermann doesn't make stuff up. None of that is true of anyone on Fox. If your opinions must have lies to support it, it is time you examined your opinions. Try thinking for yourself.

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

I don't remember the original source since I didn't really think the fact Obamacare will result in higher taxes was in question. I put up another validating article that was sourced, so what's your problem? Perhaps you can address Obama's lies about not raising taxes on those under $250K. Your quibling about the definition of tax is is about like Clinton and his definition of 'lie'.

Considering how your entire point here is to point out that Obama is increasing taxes which is counter to what he said it makes a big difference that you get it right what a tax is and especially in this case what a tax increase is. As I stated your new source disagrees with and is simply inaccurate on a number of points with your original document which unsurprisingly you can no longer find or even remember but have no problem using it all the same. Once you actually come up with an actual unbiased source that shows what you claim we might be able to talk about it. At the very least you need to come up with something that is much less biased than the obviously right wing source you used here. I understand that your conservative talkshow idols like to also play fast and loose with the facts to suit themselves but in this format it doesn't work since we can call you on it as you bring up unfounded claims.

Let's focus on the medical deductions going up from 7.5% to 10% - is that not a tax increase?

[Wyvern]

Let's focus on the medical deductions going up from 7.5% to 10% - is that not a tax increase?

Even according to the one biased source you were able to show us this is not a tax increase, it is a lessening of a tax deduction. If you want to call the two the same thing that is your business but just because it suits your needs for it to be so doesn't make it true.

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

Let's focus on the medical deductions going up from 7.5% to 10% - is that not a tax increase?

So? Are you laboring under the false impression that we can get out from under the debt without tax increases? It doesn't matter who is in charge where, if they are serious about it then they will have to raise taxes. There is not nearly enough cuts available in discretionary spending to do it. Our BEST course is to cut military spending, why do we continue to buy multi million dollar aircraft to fight with cave dwellers? It is the one place where real cuts can have an effect.

The corporations and billionaires are just going to have to step up and start shouldering their share of the load, starting with the irresposible Bush tax cuts expiring for those making over a quarter million a year. And why does a multimillionaire need Social Security checks? Means testing of these types of programs is a no brainer. Everyone being covered by health insurance will save BILLIONS in not having to pay Emergency Room bills for the uninsured, the most expensive, least effective method of care.

If the Reps have a lick of sense(so far, not so much)it will accept the debt commissions report and raise the taxes early(just like Dement is saying the debt ceiling must be raised despite that being the antithesis of the Tea Party), maybe their dupes will forget in two years.

Grumpy

[WinePusher]

That is the difference between getting all your "news" from a biased source and recognizing the bias and getting news from many, unbiased sources. Fox makes stuff up and call it news, msnbc doesn't(though they do give it a liberal spin).

What Fox has is opinion shows and news shows anchored by reputable journalists who don't give their opinion. What MSNBC has are opinion shows that mask themselves as news shows, which is deceptive. O' Reilly, Hannity and Beck admit that they are not objective news shows, their shows are similar to editorials. Did you see the election coverage on the networks? Fox and CNN had news anchors, not commentators, covering the results. MSNBC had their liberal lineup anchoring it, from Maddow to Matthews to Olbermann to O' Donnell.

Hannity, OReily and Beck spout nonsense as fact and spin those falsities into the most sinister anti-liberal screeds imaginable, it's what Ruppert is known for, what used to be called Yellow Journalism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

If this is true, then you would think that the market would have taken care of those shows. If what they spout off is spin and nonsense, their shows should have failed by now. The viewer has a choice of which stations to get their news from, and Fox is the primary choice for most Americans as they have very high ratings. MSNBC and CNN are failing, so maybe they're the ones spouting off factually incorrect news and spin.

And I have never found Rachel Madow to be factually inaccurate, Chris Matthews is a very balanced interviewer and Olbermann doesn't make stuff up.

Saw how Chris Matthews interviewed Michele Bachmann on tuesday night? Is that what you call a fair interview? It's funny how liberals care so much about conservative voices in the media to the point that they create institutions such as MediaMatters, is it your goal to silence opposing voices?

[Grumpy]

WinePusher

What Fox has is opinion shows and news shows anchored by reputable journalists who don't give their opinion.

Two words-Death Panels. So much for Fox News.

What MSNBC has are opinion shows that mask themselves as news shows, which is deceptive.

The news programs on msnbc are on between 9:00 and 6:00. None of the shows you mentioned call themselves news.

O' Reilly, Hannity and Beck admit that they are not objective news shows, their shows are similar to editorials.

Almost every "factoid" spouted in their editorials are lies, how can anyone speak in a coherent manner based on lies? I don't call it editorial, it is propaganda meant to support the right wing agenda. Again, if it takes lies to support your opinion, it is not the facts that need changing.

Did you see the election coverage on the networks? Fox and CNN had news anchors, not commentators, covering the results. MSNBC had their liberal lineup anchoring it, from Maddow to Matthews to Olbermann to O' Donnell.

So? I actually watched John Stewart, he makes more sense than the network wonks.

Hannity, OReily and Beck spout nonsense as fact and spin those falsities into the most sinister anti-liberal screeds imaginable, it's what Ruppert is known for, what used to be called Yellow Journalism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

If this is true, then you would think that the market would have taken care of those shows.

Like Rush Limbaugh? There is money to be made telling stupid people that what they believe is true, in telling them what they want to believe. Lying is usually more lucrative than telling uncomfortable truths. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is an age old technique.

If what they spout off is spin and nonsense, their shows should have failed by now.

Have you ever looked at the tabloids racked up by the checkout? Do you think Elvis actually had a Space Baby with a Clingon. Lies sell papers(ask Hearst), it works just as well on Fox. Especially when your audience wants their prejudices confirmed as valid.

Fox is the primary choice for most Americans as they have very high ratings.

They are far from the source for a majority of Americans, no matter if they do get a higher rating. This is total...barnyard fertilizer.

Saw how Chris Matthews interviewed Michele Bachmann on tuesday night?

Michele Bachman is a loon, the statements and ideas she espouses are borderline insane. Glad she's a Rep, you can have her. And, no, I did not watch msnbc tuesday night.

It's funny how liberals care so much about conservative voices in the media to the point that they create institutions such as MediaMatters, is it your goal to silence opposing voices?

It wouldn't be necessary if the Reps didn't lie so much that there must be a fact check. I don't want to silence anyone, but pointing and laughing at the stupidity is fun, it's just too bad that so many in our country don't even recognize the stupidity, they actually believe it.

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

Let's focus on the medical deductions going up from 7.5% to 10% - is that not a tax increase?

Even according to the one biased source you were able to show us this is not a tax increase, it is a lessening of a tax deduction. If you want to call the two the same thing that is your business but just because it suits your needs for it to be so doesn't make it true.

Will it result in taxes going up or down?

[East of Eden]

So? Are you laboring under the false impression that we can get out from under the debt without tax increases? It doesn't matter who is in charge where, if they are serious about it then they will have to raise taxes.

So why did tax receipts double when Reagan cut the top rate from 70% to 28%? Conversely, tax receipts often fall when rates are raised. It is either ignorance or blind ideology that prevents the libs from seeing this.

There is not nearly enough cuts available in discretionary spending to do it.

I suggest we emulate the UK, they are laying off 490,000 government employees. The ones we keep should make no more money than comparable private sector jobs. Outsourcing would help too, can we start with the Post Office?

Our BEST course is to cut military spending, why do we continue to buy multi million dollar aircraft to fight with cave dwellers? It is the one place where real cuts can have an effect.

There might be some merit to that, although we have killed plenty of cave dwellers with aircraft. How about we bring our troops home from Japan and Germany and put them on the border?

The corporations and billionaires are just going to have to step up and start shouldering their share of the load, starting with the irresposible Bush tax cuts expiring for those making over a quarter million a year.

Raising taxes on the job creators in a recession is a good idea, huh? Why should the job-creators be singled out for punishment, what did they do to create our mess?

[East of Eden]

Two words-Death Panels. So much for Fox News.

Socialized medicine results in health care rationing, and someone has to decide who gets the care.

O' Reilly, Hannity and Beck admit that they are not objective news shows, their shows are similar to editorials.

O'Reilly is a non-partisan moderate who leans right, which is pretty much where the country at large is.

So? I actually watched John Stewart, he makes more sense than the network wonks.

Jon is funny, although a political dunce.

Like Rush Limbaugh? There is money to be made telling stupid people that what they believe is true, in telling them what they want to believe. Lying is usually more lucrative than telling uncomfortable truths. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is an age old technique.

It can even get you to the White House.

Michele Bachman is a loon, the statements and ideas she espouses are borderline insane.

My feellings exactly on Obama.