The Usurper:I don't agree with your Fox analysis.  I've seen Bush's policies smacked around plenty.  O'Reilly routinely criticized his administration for the blunders in Iraq.

Artful Dodger: Actually, I must confess I wasn't following the argument to which your straw man was a reply. A bit befuddled & off-focus. I was mostly just teasing.....

About MSNBC....you are correct. Likewise, Fox News is the Bush channel.

Tuesday: According to Bon Scott, "hell ain't a bad place to be." (notice quotation marks...lol)

Tuesday: What if.. we are already in hell.. ???

The Usurper: WEll, duh. MSNBC is the Obama network.

Tuesday: They laugh because he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says no pork and then signs the bills containing billions in pork.

The Usurper: Clearly you know what a strawman is? If so, then you understand that there is no refutation required on my part. If someone refutes and argument I'm not making, all I need to do is point that out. If then, they insist that I am making that argument, I can ignore them. The onus is upon the other to show I have actually said what they say I've said. The smart thing of course, is to ask for clarification, instead of building a straw man and then blowing over.

If I say, "I'm against gun control."

and you say, "Oh. So you're in favor of criminals murdering innocent citizens then."

you get one of these:

Strawman  Your argument didn't address my own, but nice try.  


no refutation is needed as your argument speaks for itself

Artful Dodger: "Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is a GE company."

Further proof that our media, while "private," is not neutral. A half-dozen groups own ALL the major media in America. It is not possible, with such a consolidation of interests, that we can get the full picture by watching/reading it.

http://www.propublica.org/special/earmark-creep-in-the-stimulus-package-090202

I especially like 88 million to move an office,

Tuesday: I'm afraid he's not kidding us indeed, read this.

"$1.7 million for "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research" ...

Pedro Martínez:  I have to agree.. I think they would have been better off giving each person so much to where they could use it to pay off bills and make purchases they would like to buy.. it then goes back into the companies.. and leads to job security.. I heard the amount of money they spent could have given each family a pretty good lump.. enough to really stimulate things..

Artful Dodger: Now I'm doubly confused. I'm afraid you'll have to put the two pics side by side and explain more fully. Preferably you'll back up your explanation with evidence & links to the source. I still believe those are Wicker Men!

Just an aside....if the arguments are straw men, in what way are they so? Ought a picture really to be considered a thorough refutation? I mean, I know that works for O'Reilly & Hannity, but come on... :o)

Pedro Martínez: No, I'm not jesting at all.

Obama is getting a new fleet of new helicopters. Hmmmm, 11.2 Billion dollars. Yeah, like one isn't enough.

But the topper is when he said he "is proud that we passed a recovery plan that is free of earmarks."

Really? He's either lying or he's stupid. Neither choice is good.

There's language in this "recovery package" that requires the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers (more that three million of tax dollars). That's an earmark.

Three billion in extra transit money. Another earmark.

Fifty million for habitat restoration in the San Francisco Bay area. Another earmark.

1.2 million for products from these companies: General Electric, L-3 Communications and Reveal Imaging Technologies. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is a GE company.)

More Earmarks.

There's the 189 million provision for Filipino World War II vets, most of which don't live in the US. Another earmark.

This is supposed to be emergency legislation.


And then there's the 2 billion for battery research? Emergency legislation? Maybe Obama is just redefining earmarks. Kinda like Clinton did with "is."

There 800 million for carbon capture projects.

And yes, it's true. There are 200 thousand dollars for tattoo removal? Seriously.

Tuesday: I'm not blaming your son for taking the money, I'm sure he's a good person (he's your son after all ), I'm blaming the government for giving it to him.

Artful Dodger: Now it's you who's jesting, no doubt.

Tuesday: I think it's just wasted money. Too few and too scattered to be able to help the plants reopen or to help corporations in general, yet too much if you count it altogether. I can imagine a number of better ways how to stimulate the economy.

Bernice: I can agree with that. Wrong people, wrong reasons.

Pedro Martínez: Some of the stimulus money went for tattoo removal.

Pedro Martínez: if it was in the form of food stamps (excluding cigarettes/alcohol), clothes stamps, bus fares stamps, education (as in fees,books etc) stamps, it would be a good thing.

But as in Australia, they are giving it to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

Tuesday: Oh, I see. Not a good idea, if you asked me. :)

The Usurper: It's an awesome word. I had quite a blast when I first read it. :))

Pedro Martínez: It's not a good word. And you're welcome. lol (j/k)

ScarletRose: OK, that I get, but how is the extra money a "stimulus"? A stimulus stimulates you to do something. This seems to me to be nothing more than just a generous gift from the government.

Pedro Martínez: there is over 5 million out of work in the US right now due to the stupid decisions last year which ended up putting us into a recession.. it's not that they aren't trying to find jobs.. companies are folding left and right.

Tuesday: That sounds great.. I hope there is perhaps a stimulus plan for those with college school loans.. haha

The Usurper: That's fine. I have fixed the problem with a new pic and and explanation. Just so there's no more confusion.

Tuesday: I don't quite get the point of this stimulation. Will the extra 25 buckaroos (I love this word, thank you ) stimulate him to exercise more effort in finding a job?

Artful Dodger: I read your exchange below with (V) so wasn't really confused. But my response just seemed so appropriate...lol

Tuesday: Wow.. Did they extend unemployment?

The Usurper:Next time I'll use this



so there's less confusion.

Artful Dodger: I jest seriously. There's a difference. Just don't ask me to explain it.

The Usurper:Seriously you jest.

Artful Dodger: A wicker man? The original flick (1974) is really pretty good. :o)

Take your pick.  Most of your posts contain a




or two.