Republican Mitt Romney will not run for president in '16

[Chicog]

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

Of really? It sounds like you know very little about Fox News, other that what you have heard on Media Matters. Maybe you should try watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace sometime and see if you can tell the difference then. What a great show.

Wallace is a registered democrat and has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Peabody Award, the Sol Taishoff Award for Broadcast Journalism - which was awarded to him by the National Press Foundation - and the 2013 Paul White Award for lifetime achievement and service to electronic journalism. Wallace has been characterized as an "equal opportunity inquisitor" by The Boston Globe, "an aggressive journalist," "sharp edged" and "solid" by The Washington Post and "an equal-opportunity ravager" by The Miami Herald.

There are a number of news programs on Fox that are similar to this, but IMO Fox News Sunday is the best one.

Mediate named him Best Sunday Show Moderator for 2014.

The only Sunday moderator who is reliable interrogator of those in power is Fox's Wallace. As we wrote earlier this year, we admire his ability to "devote 15 minutes to debating the actual policy implications of Obamacare with Ezekiel Emanuel one week while holding tea partiers feet to the fire over self-destructive electoral tactics the next." Slippery politicians and talking-points-slinging pundits beware of Wallace.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-awards-2014-we-pick-the-years-very-best-in-media/#5

No one should ever watch Fox News. "Chris Wallace" and "great show" in the same sentence? He is to journalism what a Chevy Vega is to automobiles, Rob Schneider is to acting. Try turning off Fox News occasionally. To actually praise Chris Wallace, a pathetic example of what journalism is about, is pathetic. Really, unplug the TV. Go for a walk.

The bloke I was thinking of on MSNBC was Chris Matthews, but I think UG should like him as well, based on this quote.

"I'll be brutal, the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit"

[NeverSure]

Fox News is the laughing stock of America. Even we dont like it

Maybe you're the outsider. Fox News is the second most watched cable network program of any type behind only ESPN which is a sports channel.

It beat the tar out of every other cable news program including in that most important demographic, the 24 - 54 year olds.

Maybe you are the one who's behind the curve?

"In primetime for the year, Fox News ranked second in total viewers (behind only ESPN) among all ad-supported basic cable networks."

"And among all cablers in total viewers, Fox News Channel was the most-watched network from 9 to 11 a.m. ET ("America's Newsroom"), 5-6 p.m. ET ("The Five"), 6-7 p.m. ET ("Special Report with Bret Baier") and 8-9 p.m. ET ("The O'Reilly Factor")."

This report is from the very liberal Huffington News (Huff Post) and was written by Reuters. LINK

[bendejo]

I think Chris Matthews is losing it in his old age. He started out working inside the sausage factory, on the side of the Dems, before doing what he does now. I think the vanity and egotism, of politicians and others in his present profession, has done a number on his head. You wouldn't know it from his TV persona but he's actually a pretty smart guy, he seems to be saving that side of himself for his books; amusing contrast to the Fox News droids who froth at the mouth on TV but really blow it out of their backsides in their books. His show now comes off like a sports show, with him predicting who will win the next Big Game, what certain players lack, etc. Even Obermann, who came from sports reporting, isn't as bad. But his picks are terrible! In 2012 he said Michelle Bachman would be the GOP candidate. He says Rand Paul will be the GOP pick for 2016.

For him to come out against Mrs C. like this tells me that he's already on the Clinton's sh_tlist (don't forget, there's 3 of them now), meaning he has nothing to lose. Or he may have to move to Canada before January 20, 2017. It also reminds how surprised I was in 2008 when I found out how despised the Clintons are within their own party -- when Obama started gaining ground most of her supporters turned on her as if she just suggested Auschwitz should be put back in operation. And oh yes, if elected she will remember every one of them! I think that sentiment is still there. If not her, who? At this point I think it'll be Biden, there is a lot of guile behind that iridescent smile!

One media personality you will NEVER hear say anything less than glowing about a Clinton is George Stephanopoulos.

[Donnie Brasco]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

[NeverSure]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

Just cleaning up quotes.

Edited January 31, 2015 by NeverSure

[2fishin2]

Fox News is the laughing stock of America. Even we dont like it

Maybe you're the outsider. Fox News is the second most watched cable network program of any type behind only ESPN which is a sports channel.

It beat the tar out of every other cable news program including in that most important demographic, the 24 - 54 year olds.

Maybe you are the one who's behind the curve?

"In primetime for the year, Fox News ranked second in total viewers (behind only ESPN) among all ad-supported basic cable networks."

"And among all cablers in total viewers, Fox News Channel was the most-watched network from 9 to 11 a.m. ET ("America's Newsroom"), 5-6 p.m. ET ("The Five"), 6-7 p.m. ET ("Special Report with Bret Baier") and 8-9 p.m. ET ("The O'Reilly Factor")."

This report is from the very liberal Huffington News (Huff Post) and was written by Reuters. LINK

Its entertainment lol. And your stats are "cable network". Thats the place any mom and pops wanna be tv network can go. Just because a lot of people watch it doesnt mean its correct news....its entertainment pure and simple.

[boomerangutang]

Bye bye Mitt. Enjoy fishing by the old Mill Creek.

[inbangkok]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

You can expect whatever you want from me, be in reality, I don't have anything to say to you anymore because you are continuing to ramble as if you are drunk. That sir, is the reality of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less........

[Donnie Brasco]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

You can expect whatever you want from me, be in reality, I don't have anything to say to you anymore because you are continuing to ramble as if you are drunk. That sir, is the reality of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less........

>> continue to ramble as if you are drunk <<

If your contribution here is to tweet insult after insult and then to scurry off to hide behind "I was joking" or "your (my) rant" or a smear that according to you I must be drunk (and then to declare it as "reality") and hide behind THAT, you've proven my point.

And . . . No, sorry to crash your cab here but . . . . . Nope.
Not much of a drinker.

By that I mean I can do it if I want but, no.

A little research on your part into the subject at hand would have gone a long way.

I'm done with you.

(Unless you respond with another gratuitous smear)

[Scott]

The personal snipes had better stop as should posts that make little to no sense.

[inbangkok]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.

Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.

CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.

Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.

BUT

Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".

As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)

Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)

I meant all that stuff, however.

I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

You can expect whatever you want from me, be in reality, I don't have anything to say to you anymore because you are continuing to ramble as if you are drunk. That sir, is the reality of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less........

>> continue to ramble as if you are drunk <<

If your contribution here is to tweet insult after insult and then to scurry off to hide behind "I was joking" or "your (my) rant" or a smear that according to you I must be drunk (and then to declare it as "reality") and hide behind THAT, you've proven my point.

And . . . No, sorry to crash your cab here but . . . . . Nope.

Not much of a drinker.

By that I mean I can do it if I want but, no.

A little research on your part into the subject at hand would have gone a long way.

I'm done with you.

(Unless you respond with another gratuitous smear)

You are done with me? Thank god.........

Your arrogance and attitude is seriously among the worst I have seen on Thaivisa, and that is saying a lot. There is truly no reason to behave the way in which you do. And I don't hide behind anything. My original post was indeed a joke and I think the vast majority of level headed people would have seen that (especially considering the smile emoji). And none of my responses were personal snipes or smears. You serious ramble in an aggressive and incoherent way. I don't even understand why people like you post on web boards, unless you are just trolling. Good luck working out your anger......

[Donnie Brasco]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field.......

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone and your intent when you poked into me with a) your characterization of my backatcha as a rant and then . . . . . and THEN took cover behind the claim that you were just kidding. (Hey, I have a sense of humour but I also know a poke when I see one. You poked.

You used an obtuse question involving inside to mock the notion that I just might have some information that you hadn't bothered to research. YouR QUESTION mocked what I had said.

My ANSWER dealt with your mockery and informed you that If you had honestly NOT contrived your question's obtuseness then you needed to do some research.

You obviously don't like being told stuff like that.

I am now expecting another answer from you along the lines of me "over-analyzing" or over-reacting or just being verbose.

In short, I am expecting a "tweetish" remark which you'll launch yet another appeal to anyone you can convince you know what you're talking about. In other words I contest your claim that you have informed yourself and I don't really think that your suggestion regarding what I may be becoming is very helpful.

Please do some research.

You can expect whatever you want from me, be in reality, I don't have anything to say to you anymore because you are continuing to ramble as if you are drunk. That sir, is the reality of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less........

>> continue to ramble as if you are drunk <<

If your contribution here is to tweet insult after insult and then to scurry off to hide behind "I was joking" or "your (my) rant" or a smear that according to you I must be drunk (and then to declare it as "reality") and hide behind THAT, you've proven my point.

And . . . No, sorry to crash your cab here but . . . . . Nope.
Not much of a drinker.

By that I mean I can do it if I want but, no.

A little research on your part into the subject at hand would have gone a long way.

I'm done with you.

(Unless you respond with another gratuitous smear)

You are done with me? Thank god.........

Your arrogance and attitude is seriously among the worst I have seen on Thaivisa, and that is saying a lot. There is truly no reason to behave the way in which you do. And I don't hide behind anything. My original post was indeed a joke and I think the vast majority of level headed people would have seen that (especially considering the smile emoji). And none of my responses were personal snipes or smears. You serious ramble in an aggressive and incoherent way. I don't even understand why people like you post on web boards, unless you are just trolling. Good luck working out your anger......

Your forthright admission that you do not understand my posts, your assumption about "level-headed people" and the eloquence of your emoticon and your bald-faced claim that my taking umbrage with your continuous insults is unnecessary because you were not really insulting me are quite simply false claims. (Back to CSUN)

I respond appropriately to mockery and insult.

If you honestly have difficulty comprehending complex sentences containing referential antecedents and sentences containing more than one clause then the problem is yours. I suggest a remedial reading program in addition to acquainting yourself with what a logical fallacy is.

As for "people like me" I suppose you are referring to posters who actually THINK.

Gawd. I (along with everyone else) sincerely hope we're done here.

[boomerangutang]

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Traveler19491

[ramrod45]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

[NeverSure]

Fox News is the laughing stock of America. Even we dont like it

Maybe you're the outsider. Fox News is the second most watched cable network program of any type behind only ESPN which is a sports channel.

It beat the tar out of every other cable news program including in that most important demographic, the 24 - 54 year olds.

Maybe you are the one who's behind the curve?

"In primetime for the year, Fox News ranked second in total viewers (behind only ESPN) among all ad-supported basic cable networks."

"And among all cablers in total viewers, Fox News Channel was the most-watched network from 9 to 11 a.m. ET ("America's Newsroom"), 5-6 p.m. ET ("The Five"), 6-7 p.m. ET ("Special Report with Bret Baier") and 8-9 p.m. ET ("The O'Reilly Factor")."

This report is from the very liberal Huffington News (Huff Post) and was written by Reuters. LINK

Its entertainment lol. And your stats are "cable network". Thats the place any mom and pops wanna be tv network can go. Just because a lot of people watch it doesnt mean its correct news....its entertainment pure and simple.

Wait a minute. You said it was the "laughingstock" of America. I just proved you wrong. You have your opinion but the vast majority of American viewers disagree.

You can hardly call the most-watched cable TV program in the prime time slots insignificant or a laughingstock except in your opinion.

You are obviously in the minority and can't speak for "America" and I was just pointing that out.

And BTW, most people do watch cable. I never see an antenna on a house anymore.

[Donnie Brasco]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

It seems to depend on how the books are done and who's doing them.

[grumpyoldman]

Anyone that would vote for someone with the last name of Bush either doesn't have a real good memory or just is a flat out moron.

[Chicog]

Fox News is the laughing stock of America. Even we dont like it

Maybe you're the outsider. Fox News is the second most watched cable network program of any type behind only ESPN which is a sports channel.

It beat the tar out of every other cable news program including in that most important demographic, the 24 - 54 year olds.

Being number one in a fragmented market when you are the only one that caters to christian conservative indignation isn't really much of an accolade.

[Chicog]

I think Chris Matthews is losing it in his old age.

Jon Oliver pointed out that he does seem to mention his working for Tip O'Neill a lot.

[Publicus]

Its entertainment lol. And your stats are "cable network". Thats the place any mom and pops wanna be tv network can go. Just because a lot of people watch it doesnt mean its correct news....its entertainment pure and simple.

Wait a minute. You said it was the "laughingstock" of America. I just proved you wrong. You have your opinion but the vast majority of American viewers disagree.

You can hardly call the most-watched cable TV program in the prime time slots insignificant or a laughingstock except in your opinion.

You are obviously in the minority and can't speak for "America" and I was just pointing that out.

And BTW, most people do watch cable. I never see an antenna on a house anymore.

In the media industry and in the advertising and consumer industries Fox News Network is known as a "retirement community." This is because half its audience is older than 68. In fact during 2013 alone the median age of the Fox viewer rose by two years.

In the cable news-entertainment industry Fox News is outstripped by the Colbert Report and by the Daily Show with Jon Stuart, whose median viewing age are the youngest of the 24 traditional or new news networks surveyed by the Pew Research Center. Both Colbert and Stuart have a viewing audience dominated by viewers younger than 30.

Which makes Fox News Channel the most watched at funeral parlors.

Fox News is losing younger viewers at an even faster rate than its competitors. With a median viewer age now at 68 according to Nielsen data through mid-January (compared with 60 for MSNBC and CNN, and 62 to 64 for the broadcast networks), Fox is in essence a retirement community ... If it is actuarially possible, its median viewer age will keep creeping upward. (It rose by two years over the course of 2013.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?cat=6

Mitt Romney was his own worst enemy but that also made him vulnerable to Rupert Murdoch. The big money people considered Romney to be a bungler, from his $10,000 "wanna bet" to his 47% and his self-deportation and so on and so on.....

Edited February 1, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

What part of..."Romney is not running for President"...are you having trouble understanding?

Give it a rest.

[ramrod45]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

It seems to depend on how the books are done and who's doing them.

Personally I have some difficulty believing any numbers China would post regarding their military. A country that tends to be reclusive I believe would certainly undervalue their military budget, but who is to know.

[ramrod45]

Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud. I would hazard a guess that, were we all sitting around a table and sharing a few beers, our discussions might become animated, perhaps even heated, but the level of juvenile behavior exhibited on here is amazing. Is it not possible to disagree about politics, or any other subject, without acting like a bunch of prepubescents at a Valentine's Day dance, arguing over some girl we both want to dance with? Good god. Whatever happened to civil debate? It is extremely unlikely that my liberal views are ever going to change the minds of the conservatives on here, or anywhere else for that matter. Likewise, the Tea Partyers haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of changing mine. So why not discuss things like adults, state our views, give our supporting evidence, and then debate. Not whine. Of course I'm probably just exercising my fingertips with this post.

So why post if you feel no one is going to change their minds? Debate without substance? Seems that would mean most of your posts are just fingertip exercising......

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

yes, and many more reasons. Reagan's Star Wars defense system, which every reasonable person knew wasn't needed. And veterans' payments. Most veterans deserve payment, but many don't. One of a million examples: my elder bro did a few months as a US soldier in S.Korea. He faked mental illness to get out (he said 'it was easy') and has been getting monthly payments, in the decades since. Americans are masters at faking medical ailments in order to get funny money. In some American towns (particularly SE states), over half of all residents get federal hand-out money. Most are very obese, also, and that's another part of the problem.

[Donnie Brasco]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

If you research a bit more ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm ) it appears China actually is close to 3/4's of what the US spends, based on PPP. One thing the US has that most other foreign governments do not is the location of military bases throughout the world. It is costly to maintain those bases, which is one reason our budget is so high.

It seems to depend on how the books are done and who's doing them.

Personally I have some difficulty believing any numbers China would post regarding their military. A country that tends to be reclusive I believe would certainly undervalue their military budget, but who is to know.

Sure.

As much as we are led to believe otherwise, the intelligence agencies have seldom been about cloak and dagger operations minicams and the dreaded (gasp) honeypot caper.
These days most concrete information is out there for the taking.

The public in the West has been conditioned to believe that anything that gets "picked up" by security and intelligence agencies, CCTV, eyes in the sky and all the myriad other intrusions into our lives has to actually exist.

The government's "media pets" . . . . . . NBCCBSABCCNNCBCetc are just poised waiting to spread this "news from nowhere".

That's the "war" at this point in time.

So whether you really CAN believe what you hear and what you read depends upon your critical faculties and your willingness to cross-reference and verify all this information.

I routinely access the mainstream media to determine just what the real owners of our country expect us to swallow so that they can further a rather obvious corporatista agenda. Then I cross reference it with alternate news and information media on the web, scientific journals, books and documentary treatments.
I don't give a toss about spectator sports and celebrity gossip ;-))

The final analysis that shakes out of a 360 degree analysis proves satisfactory in most cases.

The University of California (Berkeley) Semantics Professor S. I. Hiyakowa said it best when he cautioned Americans to be vigilant and skeptical with all incoming information.

He offered the following analytical paradigm:

When you are faced with a piece of new information, ask yourself WHO is saying WHAT to WHOM and exactly WHAT EFFECT is the speaker trying to achieve in the listener's or the audience's mind ? What is that speaker's objective ?

Without sharing the boring details in a public forum on Thai Visa, taking the time to run to filter new information this way has worked very well for me.

S. I. Hiyakowa was a right wing observer and commentator of the Berkeley Free Speech movement in the Sixties.

Personally, I prefer to be wingless.

[Smurkster]

good decision on his part...the front door to my house is about as interesting to talk and has about as much charisma as Mitt Romney....

[bendejo]

I think Chris Matthews is losing it in his old age.

Jon Oliver pointed out that he does seem to mention his working for Tip O'Neill a lot.

I think him working for Tip in the Reagan years was the height of his political career. Now he's like a former athlete turned sportscaster. Just about every anecdote you've ever heard about Tip probably came from Matthews.

I liked Oliver when he was on the Daily Show, but I don't like his present show. Stewart's been getting on my nerves, I think his own humor doesn't make it -- you can tell, he delivers his own stuff in a different tone of voice than the stuff from the writers. Wilmore's show is better than I expected it to be, but some of his peanut gallery crew is pretty vacant, IMO.