BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: UFO Fill on September 20, 2012, 05:22:18 PM
... I have no idea what, if anything, this means, but the difference is dramatic.

Could it mean the Obama cult of personality delusion is over? 

With all the clues like this out there, it's hard for me to believe Obama is only going to have a slight dropoff in percentage points and in people going to the polls.  The delicious part of that party depending on the people that refuse to work or educate themselves is that they often don't bother voting.

Quote from: Pragmier on September 20, 2012, 02:39:58 PM
This article at the Americans for Tax Reform site is critical of Dem Tim Kaine who's running for Senate in Virginia for suggesting everyone should pay something in income taxes. There appears to be a real conundrum here - doesn't "skin in the game" suggest a tax increase that most Reps have vowed to fight? And instituting a minimum tax, that only affects the poor, I don't see how that is politically feasible.

When there are only 2 parties, there are opinions all over the place in each one.  The thinking with this is that too many people don't pay any Federal income tax, and thus are a constant vote for ever more handouts.  The theory goes that if true, eventually we will have a tyranny of the dependent class over the productive class, and there can never be true budget reform until complete bankruptcy.  This is resonating with a lot of people.  I'm for whatever it takes to eliminate much of the spending, probably most of the spending - it's clearly way out of control.

Reagan is the one that eliminated a bunch of lower income earners from the income tax rolls entirely - with his Tax Reform Act of 1986.  It also got rid of abusive tax shelters and lowered the ordinary income and capital gains rates for everyone.  This freed up wealth to go from non-productive shelters to more productive investments, with the resulting income to be taxed at the new lower lower rates, instead of sheltered income not taxed at all. 

A lot of this freed up money found it's way into funding the rise of Silicon Valley...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1084181/index.htm

I don't know if that's who you were thinking of or not. 

I actually used to like the Raiders.  That was before the Seahawks came into the league and became my home state favorite.  When I moved to SF area the 49ers were winning Superbowls, it was hard to get Seahawk news, and very easy to switch over - I think it took about a week to jump on the bandwagon.  Go '9ers!

Quote from: Sardondi on September 20, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
This kind of came up over in Celebrity Deaths about Steve Sabol from NFL Films. Tim Rossovich came up, a crazy hippie linebacker for the Eagles and a couple of other teams in the late 60's early 70's. He was one of the first hippies in the NFL as I recall, although he definitely was not into love and peace. He was insane and spent his time trying to destroy himself jumping off buildings and eating light bulbs and stuff.

But I also recall a more traditional "peaceful" hippie NFLer that I think SI did a piece on around 1971. I believe his first name might have been Chip. I believe he was a linebacker for Oakland in the late 60's-early 70's, who, like Rossovich was one of the first hippie pro players. He was sort of underweight but fast, and he made a big deal out of his non-violence (I guess outside of football). He mediated, did a lot stretching and yoga instead of lifting weights, and drank a lot of fruit juice and ate vegetables instead of meat (but I don't think he was a hard vegetarian.

His Raider teammates hated him and gave him a hard time, certainly as a rookie, maybe afterward. They rode him, but he claimed they would also cheap-shot him in practice, wouldn't back him up in games and the like. Seems he gave up the NFL to hitch hike or go to an ashram or something. Anyone have any idea of who I'm talking about?

Chip Oliver?

Quote from: Sardondi on September 11, 2012, 03:07:23 AM
Since the election of 2008 it has been beyond dispute that the traditional media had and has a significant bias in favor of the Democrats in general and Obama in particular. We have yet to find the limit beyond which the media will not go in its willingness to put a finger on the scales of political news to help Obama or hurt is opponents. Because of this, skepticism is and should be the initial reaction to any political story coming from the traditional media.

This includes the polls, although the legitimate polls at least include enough sampling detail that an inherent bias can be detected if you work enough to find the anomaly. It is an old story on how polls can be manipulated so as to give a particular impression. The usual one is to sample more Democrats than Republicans. It doesn't even have to be intentional, it just works out that way for several different reasons (sampling taken from urban areas where voters tend to be Democrat; fewer Republicans at home during day; one theory is that a considerable number of Republicans/conservatives simply will not respond to pollsters [me for example]).

This is enough to skew polls past the point of reliability. Few polls can give an accurate picture of how the election will go until the last two days. Even then most polls miss the actual election results by a factor outside of their stated margin of error. If most of them can't get it right 48 hours before an election, why is anyone paying attention to them 60 days out? Meaningless.
[/m][/m][/m]

The polls are way off.  There is no chance the Phony Media is not doing everything they can to convince the weak and fickle that the winning side is going to be Obama, and that they are skewing the polls to do so.  After all who wants to vote with the losers.

I think Romney is ahead right now, probably the only thing keeping this from being a blowout is Obama's advantage in the Electoral College.  Well, that and Romney's 'playing-not-to-lose' campaign (and we know, or should know, how that usually turns out).

Add to that the return of the Bradley effect (which probably applies to all 'Progressive' candidates now), the advantage in funds, the energy (doorbell ringing, phone bank volunteering, driving people to the polls, talking to friends and relatives, being sure to vote) going into defeating Obama vs his sad sack supporters. 

The time to really look at the polls (other than for trends) is starting about 2 weeks out - the polls get much more honest as the pollsters need their reputations for the next time around.  No one looks back to the summer and fall months to determine the redibility of the pollsters, so they are free to lie.  For now.

Quote from: Sardondi on September 20, 2012, 06:21:24 AM
Wow. The two "security contractors" who were killed in the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi were not a part of Ambassador Stevens' security detail. They were private contractors engaged for intelligence and reconnaissance, but they volunteered to enter the fray, and knowingly sacrificed their lives in an effort to protect an American diplomat.

This is important first because it means the protective detail for Ambassador Stevens was tiny. Apparently NBC is reporting this as well, although I can't find the video, but I've seen a report that NBC quotes sources as saying the protection was "“woefully low â€" no security whatsoever"...





Tyrone Woods

Glen Doherty

Add to that the 3 day advance warning The White House apparently received from the Libyan government which went unheeded.

The deaths of these 2 Americans were very avoidable, not to mention the Ambassador and another American

It is long past time for Americans to bypass the Phony Protective Media, directly contfront the Presidident, and ask him how much of a threat he believes Radical Islam to be.  How much of his Muslim upbringing is influencing his poor decision making, and when is he going to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and start being a little more skeptical of their intentions.  Unless he sides with them - if so, we deserve to know that too. 

And by bypassing the media, I mean dogging him with these questions on every single campaign stop he makes and for Romeny and his surrogates to hammer away on this every day..

Quote from: stevesh on September 20, 2012, 03:38:33 AM
From an article about some Muslim scholar calling on the UN to restrict speech:

“The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that … we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don’t appreciate give a fat rat's ass, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world,” Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University’s School of Law in Orange, California, told the Associated Press.

Fixed that for him.

One would think someone named Rosenthal would be a bit less 'balanced' and 'nuanced' on issues of freedom and differences between the West and 'the rest of the world', especialy the Muslims.  Apparently Left-wing PC-ism trumps everything else.

This is the type of person encouraging our court system to look to other cultures and the laws of other countries when handing down rulings here.  Judicial appointments:  just one more reason to not vote for Obama.

[attachimg=1]

Quote from: NoMoreNoory on September 19, 2012, 09:12:07 PM
Last night contained another perfect example of the appalling way Noory treats his callers. I could only describe this as brutal in its rudeness and insensitivity. The call started with one of his cringeworthy introductions:
'OK, let's go to the area of Lake Jackson, Texas. It's, er, Melissandra (Strokemouth tried to give this something of a Latin flavor, so it came out as 'Mullusandrrrrrrrruh) with us on Coast To Coast. Hi, there, Mel. Go ahead.
She proceeded to tell a heartbreaking tale. Aged 26, she said she had been on 'psych meds' for 20 of those years. A stable, high energy child, she had had some psychological disturbances to the extent that her mother had had to give her up. Placed in Austin State Hospital, she had been put on Ritalin to stabilize her........
And that's as far as we got. The volume on her call dropped and the signal broke up slightly. Literally within a couple of seconds, Noory barked at her, in a horribly harsh voice, 'Where'd you go? where'd you go? Get back to your phone.' he allowed a couple more moments. She was still breaking up, although words were coming through. Noory curtly remarks 'OK. Yup. Can't understand you.'
When Breggin asked her 'Did you have a question.' Noory said, dismissively, 'She's gone, Peter. Go.'
I found this really distressing. Is it me, or does he reserve this kind of thing for his most vulnerable callers, invariably female? Here's a young woman with a life of rejection and abandonment, reaching out for help. And what does she get? Rejection and abandonment from Noory who suddenly drops the nice guy mask and becomes just plain nasty. I've found myself thinking about her through the day, wondering what the rest of her story was and what question she was asking. I bet George hasn't given her a second thought. Callous bastard.

Any other show the host would have known from the screener what the question was before they even took the call, and would have told the guest.  Either Tubby is the same kind od D-bad as George, or is a different brand of one for staying on all these years.

What say the poster the other day talking about George being a nice guy, just incompentent?

 
[attachimg=1]

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 19, 2012, 01:54:40 PM
...  any such foolhardy motley crew will have to go up against the invincible army of right-wing bunker-dwellers who have armed and provisioned themselves...

Got that right

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 19, 2012, 01:28:59 PM
Don't waste your time, Onan.
These self-labeled "Christian" folks...

The contradictions on the Right are never-ending.

Don't assume all 'right-wingers' are Christians or even religious - even if they stand up for the rights of people that are.  Don't assume people pointing out reasons Iran might get their facilities bombed favor the bombing.

I've heard a number thrown around a lot for a few years now - 47% of people don't pay taxes.  I't's usually brought up in response to the Ds talking about the rich not paying their fair share.  It's never brought up that they are talking about Federal Income Taxes only - and that these people DO pay sales tax, payroll tax, tax on gas, and all the other taxes we have

I am suspicious of statistics I see like that, so I have now idea if it's even true.  If it is true, does that include children?  College kids?  Stay at home moms?  Retired people that have money but not enough income to pay taxes?  People being paid under the table?

What I hear in the tape is Romney pointing out that 47% aren't interested in tax cuts (Federal Income Tax), and thus he can't attract them with just that, because they don't pay any.   Then he goes off on a tangent, mixing those people up and lumping all of them in with the freeloaders. 

The debates should be interesting with both these douches away from their handlers and tele-prompters.

[attachimg=1]

Quote from: onan on September 19, 2012, 06:10:05 AM
My answer... a lot. I am not sure how we got to a place where helping others is not considered the most important aspect of being human

Yes, we do.  The question is should it be forced upon us by a very powerful elite that is incredibly wasteful, careless, and tends to mostly reward their supporters and cronies, or left up to the individual to decide how much and to who?

Quote from: onan on September 19, 2012, 06:10:05 AM
It seems easier to vilify differing beliefs than to find a middle ground.

You do hear what he D's and Libs have to say about people that don't agree with them, right? 

Last time around candidate Obama was addressing his supporters at a 'private' fundraiser, and  was caught on tape dissing way more than 47% of the people in this country - people who were still 'clinging to their guns and religion'.  A lot of it depends on how the Phony Media reports it - if they even do, and whether they give the  story 'legs'.

Quote from: Art Bell on September 19, 2012, 01:17:21 AM
... I paid a hell of a lot into S.S. What a jerk! S.S. is not Welfare."...

Of course SS is welfare.  Art's generation made the decision to fund the previous generations retirement.  Thru a government Ponzi scheme.  Now they expect us to fund theirs.

Quote from: Scully on September 19, 2012, 01:17:21 AM
... Have we grown so weary of the words of our fallen idol that we fail to note his infrequent pearls? 

Art is a self proclaimed Libertarian.  He fell for Obamamania last time.  Now it's Romney he mad at?  I'm starting to wonder if the Libertarians know what it is they claim to belive in.

Quote from: NoMoreNoory on September 18, 2012, 11:41:47 PM
Oh my good giddy God! What a start tonight as Nooron introduces his first guest, Dr Peter Breggin, not once but twice, as a leader in 'emphatic therapy'. His first question to the good doctor is, understandably, 'What is emphatic therapy?' which draws the distinctly bewildered response 'Empathic. Empathic therapy.'

You couldn't make it up, could you'

In George's defense, 8 hous of daily show prep doesn't go as far as it used to.

[attach=1]

Quote from: onan on September 18, 2012, 07:33:16 PM
If anyone here is making class warfare it is Romney. He was the one saying he should just ignore the 47% because they won't vote for him.  Even though some of that 47% identify themselves as republican.

And it is laughable to suggest the rich don't get handouts. Those handouts cost us much more than welfare.

Yes, he didn't understand the statistic either, that the "49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit" didn't mean 47% or 49% directly received a check.  I understand his confusion, sometimes it sure seems like it.  We're so poorly educated in math and stats (along with everything else).

I don't thnk anyone should be getting a government check - tried that, it's a failure that's bankrupting us all.  The last generation decided to fund the previous generations retirement through Social Security, I don't see why our generation is bound to doing the same for them. 

The other handouts come with no strings.  Lets go back to people that fail to educate themselves, fail to work, fail to save for retirement fall back on their families or friends, and not the rest of us.  Charities can take care of the people falling thru the cracks.  One thing about charities and most families and friends - there are strings attached, and that's a good thing.

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on September 18, 2012, 06:44:23 PM
      Love the idea of people making 40 grand a year who think Romney is speaking for "them". DSM-V should have a section especially for them.

     

It's not about voting for someone that is going to give you something if you are poor, or voting for someone that will lower your taxes if you've finally made it to the point where you are doing well. 

But that's exactly precisely what the D's and their allies in the Phony Media want people to believe - Class Warfare, it's the only way they can get and keep power.


The dirty secret is, statistically speaking, there are very few permanent rich or permanent poor in this country.  People getting started out of school don't have the skills and experience to command a big salary, or if they are just starting a small business it takes time to build it up.  Over the next few decades, they are worth more and more to their employers, or their business begins to do well.  Their last working years they make the most - but they are also saving for retirement and paying for their kids education (and they are much wiser at spending their own money than any government is). 

We have a dynamic society, not static.  Most other countries are static with permanent rich and permanent poor.  That's one of the things that sets the United States apart, and the very thing Obama and the 'Progressives' are trying to destroy.

The D's don't get any of that and never will.  Their policies are making all of us poorer and will continue to do so.  Since understanding this is completely beyond them, they need to be defeated on every front at the ballot box, starting now.

Quote from: Pragmier on September 18, 2012, 05:23:32 PM
So there's this video going around ... and after reading comments from Romney supporters on various web sites the most common statement is similar to "about time someone tells the truth!"

Can someone prove he's correct? Seriously, according to Mitt 47% (maybe more) of Americans are Obama supporters, dependent on government, have a victim mentality, feel entitled to "you name it", take no responsibility for or care about their lives.

What is the definition of 'dependent'? Can it be true everyone that gets gov financial help is an Obama supporter? Is every poor person irresponsible? Are there no Republican voters on welfare, or receive unemployment, or anything at all from the government? Does every single Republican pay income taxes? What about wealthy Obama supporters?

If Mitt is correct, could someone help me out and point me to the data supporting his assertion?

Here is what the Wall St Journal had to say, the data is from the US Census Bureau Q2 2011:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/


I would point out that According to the Census Bureau quoted in this article, "49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit".

That is not the same as 49% of the population directly receiving benefits.  If a family of four has granny live with them and she gets Social Security, they are all included in that 49% as 'living in a household where at least one menmber...'  Or if a family of 4 has one parent getting unemployment, etc, etc.

Quote from: BigDave on September 18, 2012, 12:59:11 PM
I'd be happy with the Republicans controlling the House and Senate. Obama would get nothing passed what so ever

Except he's been issueing Executive Orders to get what he can't get passed by Congress.  Incredibly corrupt.  Excutive Order is not there for bypasing Congress when the Pres doesn't get his way.  This is what happens when we get someone that 1) has no executive experience working with a legislative body and 2) has distain for our Constitution.

And yes, that be an impeachable offense.

No, Obama's not a Marxist, the Progressives aren't fascists, they just use Marxist-Fascist tactics.

They know what food stamps and welfare checks look like

I'd like to have him asked about some inside Coast type stuff, like what are the higher-ups looking at for George Noory keep his job, or what has Art Bell said privately about GN, or what really was going on with Ian's drunk sounding phone in, but Knapp isn't going to address anyof that and may not even know.  Maybe you can slip in something along these lines somewhere just to see if he bites.

Quote from: MV on September 18, 2012, 05:26:12 AM

I'd rather do that (write in the dog's name) than vote for the candidates presented by the Republican party for the last several elections.

How is that different from not voting at all?

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on September 17, 2012, 10:27:15 PM

               Here 'Tis...Coyle hasn't been wrong since 2000. And technically, I wasn't.

             Barack Obama 347
             Mitt Romney    191

It will be interesting to see if there is a bounce either way after the debates.  For all the talk of Obama being 'the smartest person in the room' and all that, have you seen him when he gets off the teleprompter?  There are whole websites dedicated to his gaffes.  Sometimes he says what he really thinks - things that are usually kept carefully hidden from view - like 'you didn't build that' or 'the private sector is doing fine' and basically it's the state and local govts that are hurting. 

Remember Navy 'Corpse-man' for Corpsman? - that was Nooryesque.  I dare him to do that in a debate where the Phony Media can't filter it for their viewers and readers.

On the other hand, the chance of an establishment-type R like Romney to really go after his opponent and to come up with some reasons for people to vote for him just seem foreign to these people.  They think that's 'risky'.   Have to wait and see.  Sadly, the people that will determine the outcome - the 'undecideds - mostly don't even know who's running yet.

Quote from: WOTR on September 18, 2012, 03:04:50 AM
Am I the only one who some evenings feels a little sorry for George?  I do not care for him nor his style, but some days I feel a little pity.  Listening in tonight I realize that he was obviously tuned into Knapp yesterday and is making an honest attempt to ask the same questions and go in the same direction as Knapp (I keep hearing questions about surveillance, national security and a few references to intelligence.)  It is kind of sad to listen to him struggle after decades in broadcasting and he must realize that something in his style is lacking when he listens to Knapp and makes an attempt to imitate him...

I haven't listened in a long time but I'd say if he's just recently started trying to do better, it's probably too little too late.  From what you posted, it just sounds like he is still refusing to put in any show prep at all other than add a few new cue cards to be read randomly.

He knows he sucks and doesn't care.  He'd rather be lazy and be known as a failure than put in effort as long as he has enough people tuning in and the paychecks keep coming.  Maybe the ratings are so bad he realized whoever has been protecting him and keeping him on can't do it much longer.

The Libertarians are a philosophy club, not a political party.  May as well write in your dog's name for Pres.

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on September 18, 2012, 12:25:16 AM
...  Colorado isn't a frontier state anymore, they've got more "Easterners" by the year who bring their Dem leaning ways with them.

I've lived on the West Coast my whole life.  We used to be free out here - the Libs and the establishment R's were mostly in the Northeast, far far away.  It wasn't that long ago.

Little by little, the Easteners and everyone else came out here - tired of crime, taxes, lawyers, bad schools, too many of laws and rules, lousy weather, crowded dirty cities and suburbs, crummy factory jobs.  So people move here to get way from all that, yet just couldn't wait to try to change things to the way they were used to back home - high taxes, more govt programs, new laws (for our safety of course.  And the childern, the environment, the poor).  They told us businesses are bad and only unions and government are good.  Police are bad and criminals are good.  People that do well are bad and the poor are good.  People that go to church are bad and people that don't are good. 

First to states like Oregon, Washington, California.  When those states became high crime, high taxes, too crowded, lousy governments - just like back home, these same Libs moved on - New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Nevada.  Nevada!  That used to be such a great state.  They're still on the move, infecting Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, even Arizona.  It's sick and sad.

Maybe this should have gone to the What Annoys You thread.