Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:51 AM
There is no problem with "heat". As the emails suggest two people vigorously (even passionately) differing on a point of view was not the problem. The issue that Sperling was referring to was not a matter of opinion (in the same way the email can hardly be considered a threat). The fact that you all are changing the "threat" to a warning is yet another example of how you all must twist facts, or even disregard them, to fit your narrative. That is what Woodward has been doing.
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:40 AM
Nice rebuttal. Kudos.
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:37 AM
Because the right wing crazies are in full attack mode over a claim that is verifiably misleading at best by a journalist whom the Whitehouse claims is reporting on the sequester in a misleading way. Woodward doesn't even believe it was a threat in the sense that Conservatives are using it. His "reporting" on this reflects his state of mind about the reporting on the sequestration generally. He is reporting as fact something that is clearly shaped by his own unique perceptions on them (which happen to be far from universal).
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:21 AM
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MCv2n024
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:13 AM
No intelligent person would read this as a threat. The regret Sperling was referring to was the regret of reporting information that is misleading and inaccurate. Woodwards reaction to the email is evidence of Woodward's reporting information in a misleading way. Anyone who knows of Gene Sperling would not have honestly perceived this as a threat. Thank you Ms. Liebau for admitting this.
"Assuming the law is enforced as-is, the U.S. deficit will decline 1.5 percent as a share of the economy over the next 75 years, according to the GAO. Auditors attributed 1.2 percent of this improvement to the Affordable Care Act. Under a different set of assumptions, the law has the opposite effect over time, the GAO said — the deficit will increase by 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) if the law's cost-containment measures are phased out. Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/285009-gao-health-law-will-increase-deficit-if-cost-cutting-measures-"
In response to:

At Least Get the Big Lie Straight

bd-gslo Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 3:10 PM
"Only a true liberal would could come up with a plan to minimize the damage done to the economy by the expiration of $500 billion in tax cuts by raising taxes another $1.6 TRILLION, including $600 billion on ordinary, middle class Americans." Ransom There is no greater example of Ransom's ignorance than this quote. Ransom does not even grasp what the debate is about. http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/08/news/economy/fiscal-cliff/index.html
In response to:

Madison Avenue's Moral Madness

bd-gslo Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 1:20 AM
You really are like Archie Bunkers, sitting around bemoaning the loss of an era that never was. You can't stand the fact that you are not calling the shots and can't control the lives of others.
In response to:

Madison Avenue's Moral Madness

bd-gslo Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 9:51 PM
Yes, Mr. Bozell. There is no market for Christians in the world and Christian products and companies that seek to make a profit off Christian markets don't exist. That makes sense. Perhaps Mr. Bozell, as a Christian, can focus more time getting his house in order and less time fighting the non-Christian world? Who cares what Charlie Sheen, Snoop Dog, or any other non Christian celebrities do? They don't subscribe to your worldview. What should concern you is the Christians who are more likely to buy pistaschios from Snooki than they would from those who do subscribe to your worldview. Stop with the false sense of persecution already.
Which of the people you mention were "Socialists".
You guys really think that the President (or even political figures generally) sit around and determine the best means to provide security to consulates throughout the world? That's insane.
Previous 21 - 30 Next