|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 19, 2016 9:48:37 GMT -6
I recorded ABC news coverage of Rudy's speech. They talked over nearly the whole thing. Wonder why. I started watching convention coverage as early as I could. Flipped around from source to source and kept getting the same crap. 20% of seeing what was actually going on at the convention and 80% watching helmet haired dumbos and bimbos telling me what I saw and what it all means and what happened 4 years ago and whether this was real of fake or made up or spontaneous of pre-planned yada yada yada blah blah blah on and on. Meanwhile they've cut away from whatever was actually happening on stage to offer up all this really really really important information and opinion. And all I wanted to do was scream: "OK, folks. Here's is what I want you to do. I want you to get back to the convention stage, turn on the cameras, turn up the microphones, and one more thing... ...STFU!" Ultimately, and early on, I switched to C-SPAN for one main reason; whenever something was happening on stage C-SPAN showed it without side comment or other distraction from the action. ONLY when there was nothing, but nothing new going on did C-SPAN go to their on-air staff to discuss what had been presented and what would be coming up next. If you don't have a clue about anything political or any of the issues, or what to think about anything an you need someone to tell you what to think, then I recommend FoxNews or CNN or ABC or NBC or CBS or MSNBC or CNBC or any of the other news networks. But if you can understand standard American English and have, even a vague idea of who is on stage speaking at the moment, and you think you can process what you're seeing and hearing without requiring someone to hold your hand and fill your head with partisan mush, then I suggest you switch to C-SPAN and enjoy the spectacle.
|
|
Hagar
Contributor
Posts: 34
|
Post by Hagar on Jul 19, 2016 11:47:02 GMT -6
o Michelle Obama"s speech must have been a good on lol Ray I know cigs and evolution have little to do with your election but i gives you some incite into the people the mouth surrounds himself with speech writers that think people won't notice that you copy someone's stuff these are the people that you will be governed by for the next four years
ja
Jab Regan was nothing but a puppet aid what he was told to say or read the script he was give like any actor
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 19, 2016 12:07:40 GMT -6
...the mouth surrounds himself with speech writers that think people won't notice that you copy someone's stuff these are the people that you will be governed by for the next four years Ahhhh, so in the throes of a White House-inspired murderous nationwide war on law enforcement, with a White House-condoned and abetted invasion of America by illegal aliens along with criminal violation of federal security laws and rampant criminal political corruption bordering on treason by the presumptive Democrat candidate, the most important issue we should all be focusing on is whether or not the professional speechwriters who wrote Melania Trump's speech for her borrowed some stuff from what professional speech writers for Michele Obama wrote for her? I know I'm leaving out a BUNCH of stuff, like the times the current resident of the White House and his V.P. plagiarized the words of others, but do I pretty much have a handle on the situation or am I leaving out something truly important?
|
|
Hagar
Contributor
Posts: 34
|
Post by Hagar on Jul 20, 2016 13:22:33 GMT -6
Ray I know you are missing the point on purpose this guy is going to make you look like fools (like I have said before) he has no real plan of how he will do the things that pour from his mouth he has no knowledge of the world outside of his own little kingdom which he built by screwing other people out of the money he owes as the architect for the golf course he bought in scotland found out (I'm not paying what we agreed on to begin with; I will pay 30 cents on the dollar take it or leave it) took that guy two years to recover his business when all was said and done
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 20, 2016 15:19:02 GMT -6
Ray I know you are missing the point on purpose... Well, I just don't know. It could be I simply don't agree with the "points" you have brought up so far because I don't think they are - valid
- important
- factually accurate
- all of the above,
So since we seem to have a good discussion going on here, and you seem commendably sincere in your viewpoint, let me toss the ball back to you, Hagar, and ask: Knowing what we know, factually know about Hillary Clinton's public and private life, can you honestly say Hillary would make a better president for the Unites States than would Donald Trump?
|
|
Hagar
Contributor
Posts: 34
|
Post by Hagar on Jul 20, 2016 17:39:45 GMT -6
yes
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 21, 2016 11:17:46 GMT -6
|
|
Hagar
Contributor
Posts: 34
|
Post by Hagar on Jul 21, 2016 13:49:14 GMT -6
she has been there lets face it she ran bill until he got caught she understand how politics work doesn't run off at the mouth she will do what the rest of her party thinks is right she has grasp not world politics she doesn't have half of her party so embarassed of her that they don't want her to run for themshe doesn't have to trot a trophy wife to show how successful she is most of all she doesn't have the worst comb over in the world lol
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 21, 2016 16:09:03 GMT -6
Oh my goodness, Hagar. You certainly seem anxious to load up my plate. I could spend hours rebutting everything you've said but I won't for one major reason; I highly suspect you're being humorously sarcastic. You have to be. Half of what you said is patently untrue and the parts that are true are the reasons people like me totally despise Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party, and everything they stand for.
In short, Hillary Clinton represents Barack Obama's 3rd term. She's just as radical as he is. There are millions of Americans who aren't ready to see our country sink into the morass of an authoritarian, socialist tyranny. If Hillary Clinton is elected the end result will be the ultimate, final collapse of our republic. We're on a greased slope right now.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jul 21, 2016 16:41:30 GMT -6
Hagar HRC will bring on the second American civil war. She won't even be sworn in an Texas will have their brexit moment. I don't care for Trump and I do agree with some of your points about him, but he has my vote.
|
|
Hagar
Contributor
Posts: 34
|
Post by Hagar on Jul 22, 2016 17:28:49 GMT -6
I guess this is where our systems differ at least when I don't like the people that are offered up I can always vote for one of the fringe parties to voice my displeasure there is no way I could vote for the likes of trump or hillary for that matter (but she would be my choice in your system) how does trump think he is going to change the walmart or other cheap box stores or the off shore auto industry when they use cheap labor and such the public will revolt if they are forced to pay the prices that you would have to pay if the american worker was to produce this stuff I do hope he does away with the free trade deals that were brought in by our conservatives these did more to ruin our economy than any deal that was made in the past totally ruin our manufacturing industry turned us in a country that sold our resources cheap and bought expensive products in return
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jul 23, 2016 7:18:22 GMT -6
Yes the trade deals have hurt both of our countries. We do have a few other choices but a vote for one of them I think is a vote for HRC. My guess is Trump will try to increase tariffs on imports to force people to buy American made goods.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 23, 2016 10:04:39 GMT -6
I guess this is where our systems differ at least when I don't like the people that are offered up I can always vote for one of the fringe parties to voice my displeasure You and I always have that choice, either to vote for someone or against someone. I believe voting for someone is preferable, but I agree with Jab that this year it's damned tough for me to vote for anyone. I'd like to point out that, whereas Justin Trudeau is the Canadian PM, YOU didn't vote for him, or against him. He was chosen as the face of the government by the party controlling the most votes in the Canadian Parliament. Were our system the same as yours our head of government would be the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and if we had a "president" it would be a purely ceremonial post. how does trump think he is going to change the walmart or other cheap box stores or the off shore auto industry when they use cheap labor Indeed. I'm not sure what it is about Walmart that needs changing. They provide a service for millions of Americans that those Americans obviously want. And please don't start up with that "minimum wage" crap liberals are so fond of. NO Walmart store in the country pays only minimum wage. And as for the auto industry, maybe if we didn't have such gross over-regulation from Washington they wouldn't have to run to other countries to survive. I do hope he does away with the free trade deals that were brought in by our conservatives these did more to ruin our economy than any deal that was made in the past totally ruin our manufacturing industry turned us in a country that sold our resources cheap and bought expensive products in return Really? So explain why Canadian resources are priced so cheaply. Are Canadians not in charge of what prices to ask? And are Canadians forced to purchase expensive products? Don't you produce your own, and if not, why not? And if they are too expensive, why do you buy them? I'm confused. My guess is Trump will try to increase tariffs on imports to force people to buy American made goods. I don't see how forcing Americans to pay a high tax to the government for the privilege of buying stuff is such a benefit to us. As I said to Hagar it's not China or Japan or South Korea or lack of tariffs that is hurting our economy; it's the EPA and FTC and IRS and half a dozen over regulatory agencies that are strangling American business and manufacturing. If Donald Trump REALLY wants to ignite American business he should forget about slapping tariffs on imported goods and work with Congress to slap the poop out of the regulatory bureaucracy. Point: It is totally within the authority of Congress AND the President to dismantle the agencies.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jul 23, 2016 14:46:17 GMT -6
I agree Ray that they could eliminate a lot of agencies. Dept of energy should be the first one, next for me would be education. The problem is K Street and all the lobbiests there that's why things won't change in congress.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 23, 2016 15:36:49 GMT -6
I agree Ray that they could eliminate a lot of agencies. Dept of energy should be the first one, next for me would be education. ...and then there's the IRS and EPA and Labor Relations Board and FCC and ... oh hell, a bunch of agencies that could be completely eliminated or at least cut way back in their scope. Congress decides what agencies there are and what they are supposed to do. Let me give you an example I'm very familiar with: The Federal Communications Commission. Back in the early days of radio it hundreds and hundreds of entrepreneurs decided they wanted to get in on it, to the point where radios stations were blocking each other out with overlapping signals and power. It was a mess. Soooooo, Congress created the Federal Radio Commission in 1926 whose job it was to untangle the mess. They created rules and regulations regarding what call letters a station could use along with maximum transmitter power and frequencies. It was all designed to provide some necessary regulatory oversight allowing radio stations to share the limited airwaves without interfering with each other AND giving the public as much access to radio signals as they could reasonably get. The FRC started monitoring radio station signals because radio transmitters were still rather primitive and their frequencies and power ratings tended to wander around all over the scale requiring an on-site engineer to monitor and readjust the equipment. So far so good. But as with all agencies they tend to grow on their own. In 1934 the FCC was created to replace the FRC and include telephone and other forms of public communication under their purview. The FCC got into being the judges of community standards along with program content and language, and then into politics via the Fairness Doctrine (which see) and they now peridoical start talking about which political commentators should be allowed to express opinion and which should not. Flash forward to today, and radio transmitters can run for hours and hours and days and days and weeks and weeks without even the hint of a glitch. There are now ZILLIONS of media outlets available to the entire country and the "community" (at the state level) is perfectly capable of deciding for itself what they do and do not approve of. So the FCC could very well go back to their original purpose of keeping broadcasting entities from interfering with each other (since broadcast signals cross state lines) and let the states decide the rest for those entities confined to within the state boundaries. The problem is K Street and all the lobbiests there that's why things won't change in congress. Things won't change in Congress until there are enough representatives with balls enough to to the right thing, and a president willing to back them up. Not going to happen this year, but we can sure work in that direction.
|
|