Couldn't believe the very Conservative Tribune printed the economic truth. Hilarious!

[francoHFW]

The Trib is conservative. Your part of the GOP is the wacky brainwashed part that left the barn, Rush/Glenn/Savage/Moonieman.

 

[Inthemiddle]

they are now rinos because they spoke the truth to the republican base.

No truth is allowed into the republican bases heads.

It wont fit in there as long as the historically failed ideas they have held onto for decades is in there rattling arround.

Lair !

You mean like where the Thundercats live?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Except it hasn't been conservative in a long time...

Conservative according to the Gospel of You, perhaps. Overall, the Tribune remains generally conservative.

 

[JoeB131]

Except it hasn't been conservative in a long time...

Conservative according to the Gospel of You, perhaps. Overall, the Tribune remains generally conservative.

You don't live in Chicago, you have no idea what you are talking about...

 

[Inthemiddle]

You don't live in Chicago, you have no idea what you are talking about...

Oh I don't? Okay, quick, the LA Times....

Oh wait, you don't live in LA so you can't possibly know what you're talking about.

In today's world, we don't have to live in one of these areas to have a familiarity with those papers' material. That aside, trying to appeal to secret authority is logically fallacious.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't live in Chicago, you have no idea what you are talking about...

Oh I don't? Okay, quick, the LA Times....

Oh wait, you don't live in LA so you can't possibly know what you're talking about.

In today's world, we don't have to live in one of these areas to have a familiarity with those papers' material. That aside, trying to appeal to secret authority is logically fallacious.

But I didn't make an assertation about the LA Times... that's the point. I freely admit that I don't know what its leanings are, nor do I care.

But I do see the Tribune, with it's liberal columnists, every day, because I live in this city.

In fact, let's look at today's opinion page..

Opinion - chicagotribune.com

So you have Clarance Page today writing about the end of the TEA Party.

You have Steve Frenchman bemoaning the fact the GOP is now supporting Newt...


You have the editorial board denouncing Newt's marriage, while trying to excuse philanderers in general. (They also opposed impeaching Clinton in 1998)

So....ummm looking for the "conservative" viewpoint here... and I really can't find it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But I didn't make an assertation about the LA Times... that's the point. I freely admit that I don't know what its leanings are, nor do I care.

Well here seems to be the problem. You live under a rock, apparently, and seem to think that others do as well. The L.A. Times is well known across the country to be a left leaning paper.

But I do see the Tribune, with it's liberal columnists, every day, because I live in this city.

All papers have both liberal and conservative columnists, many of whom are themselves nationally syndicated anyway. The local newspaper in my area is a conservative paper. But they publish Maureen Dowd right next to George Will.

In fact, let's look at today's opinion page..

Opinion - chicagotribune.com

So you have Clarance Page today writing about the end of the TEA Party.

Did you even read her article? She's proposing that the rise of Newt Gingrich to front runner status is evidence that the TEA party movement is imploding on itself. Her reasoning is that the TEA party is generally opposed to the "rank and file" of normal Washington politics, and that Newt represents that rank and file. She also goes on to cite moderate Romney being the other front runner as additional evidence of this. It's a logical inference. If you'd read the article you'd have known that she assumes the continued existence of the TEA party movement, and claims that Gingrich has qualities that the TEA party is willing to embrace right now, despite the fact that the represents other things they would otherwise oppose, because they are starting to realize that they need someone like him to lead the GOP. But suggests that ultimately, they are starting to abandon what brought them into existence and are assimilating into the background Washington static.

It's actually an intelligent and thought provoking article. There's nothing liberal at all about the article. Certainly no partisan criticism of any kind. At most, she laments the fact that the spirit of the TEA party is dying while the name remains. You should read the article before you complain about whatever bias it supposedly has.

You have Steve Frenchman bemoaning the fact the GOP is now supporting Newt...

Uh, you mean Steve Chapman. Who, by the way, is a conservative columnist. And let's be honest, he's not bemoaning the fact that the GOP is supporting Gingrich so much as bemoaning the fact that Gingrich is not a true/sufficient conservative in the author's eyes. It's amazing that you consider a columnist saying Gingrich isn't conservative enough as evidence of liberal bias. Chapman also wrote this article entitled "Why Obama looks so bad" in which he compares Obama to Carter and criticizes the President as having "a lack of competence that dooms him to failure."

Furthermore, there's alot of conservatives who would bemoan a Gingrich candidacy anyway. Many TEA party purists would bemoan a rank-and-file Washington insider leading the way. "Family values" conservatives might bemoan his marital history. Hell, the GOP establishment effectively pushed him out of Congress back in the 90s.

You have the editorial board denouncing Newt's marriage,

As many a conservative is inclined to do. This happened with Guiliani in 2008 as well. The frequent divorces don't sit well with some conservatives. Are you really trying to say that it's liberals who are going to object to a candidate based on marital history?

while trying to excuse philanderers in general.

Like?

(They also opposed impeaching Clinton in 1998)

There were several people in the GOP who didn't support trying to impeach Clinton. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're instantly liberal.

So....ummm looking for the "conservative" viewpoint here... and I really can't find it.

Like I said, you can't find the conservative viewpoint according to the Gospel of You. But you are not the metric of conservatism. Not by a long shot. You've even admitted this yourself. So I'm baffled why your only real measure of conservative view points is that which agrees with you.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, you are making Bizarre interpretations.

Chapmann is no conservative. He was ready to throw in the towel on Iraq every week. (Hence why I call him "Steve Frenchman". Never saw a problem he wasn't ready to give up on.)

And Clarance Page is a dude. I know that's hard to tell with liberal men sometimes, you are the new castrati.

Please, arguing that the Trib hasn't sold out a long time ago just shows you don't read it.

 

[Mr. H.]

I've read Chapman's columns and he seems to be all over the place. I do know he's got a conservative view on certain energy issues. We corresponded by email several times and I even tried to get him to address an industry group, but he begged off.
Clarance Page- ugh liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

I've read Chapman's columns and he seems to be all over the place. I do know he's got a conservative view on certain energy issues. We corresponded by email several times and I even tried to get him to address an industry group, but he begged off.
Clarance Page- ugh liberal.

My irritiation with Chapman is his defeatism.

He was ready to throw in the towel in Iraq in 2004.

When New Orleans was damaged, he wrote a column saying we should just abandon it.

His usual solution to any problem is to just give up. It's kind of the opposite of my life philosophy, which is to never give up.

 

[Mr. H.]

Chapman seems like quite the milktoast.

If I could, I'd read the Chi Trib every day but I'm downstate (read: south of Cook County). No home delivery. I tried the online edition which is a bargain, but a pain in the ass to read/navigate.
Kass of course is hilarious regardless of his politics.

 

[midcan5]

Please do not confuse republican ideologues with facts that contradict the brain washing they have received for forty years. When given the reins of government they fail and fail and fail.

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

 

[JoeB131]

Please do not confuse republican ideologues with facts that contradict the brain washing they have received for forty years. When given the reins of government they fail and fail and fail.

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

I'm still wondering what Obama or Clinton would have done with Katrina that would have been any different than what Bush did.

Oh, that's right. They'd have flown down and hugged more flood victims.

Of course, Katrina was just a disaster for New Orleans. Obama's been a disaster for the whole country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You think the Chicago Tribune is "conservative".

The Chicago Tribune powers its printing presses after they dug up Col. McCormack, wrapped a copper coil around him, and harvesting the energy produced when he rolled in his grave.

You must remember who you're dealing with, to rdean anything just the least bit right of center left is conservative to him. Any other place it's hard core left.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please do not confuse republican ideologues with facts that contradict the brain washing they have received for forty years. When given the reins of government they fail and fail and fail.

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

I'm still wondering what Obama or Clinton would have done with Katrina that would have been any different than what Bush did.

Oh, that's right. They'd have flown down and hugged more flood victims.

Of course, Katrina was just a disaster for New Orleans. Obama's been a disaster for the whole country.

The government ran the already approved plan no matter who was in office that plan was already set and the government followed it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please do not confuse republican ideologues with facts that contradict the brain washing they have received for forty years. When given the reins of government they fail and fail and fail.

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

Please do not confuse republican ideologues with facts that contradict the brain washing they have received for forty years.

 

[JoeB131]

Please do not confuse republican ideologues with facts that contradict the brain washing they have received for forty years. When given the reins of government they fail and fail and fail.

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

I'm still wondering what Obama or Clinton would have done with Katrina that would have been any different than what Bush did.

Oh, that's right. They'd have flown down and hugged more flood victims.

Of course, Katrina was just a disaster for New Orleans. Obama's been a disaster for the whole country.

The government ran the already approved plan no matter who was in office that plan was already set and the government followed it.

And that's a good point. The t hing is, Katrina was just off the scale for anything that the plan had ever called for. The Strength of the hurricane, the fact that local officials ignored the warnings and didn't evacuate, the widespread nature of the destruction, just overwealmed what had been set aside.

Fact is, Bush spent as much on the preparations as Clinton had. There was no huge slashing of budgets.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm still wondering what Obama or Clinton would have done with Katrina that would have been any different than what Bush did.

Oh, that's right. They'd have flown down and hugged more flood victims.

Of course, Katrina was just a disaster for New Orleans. Obama's been a disaster for the whole country.

The government ran the already approved plan no matter who was in office that plan was already set and the government followed it.

And that's a good point. The t hing is, Katrina was just off the scale for anything that the plan had ever called for. The Strength of the hurricane, the fact that local officials ignored the warnings and didn't evacuate, the widespread nature of the destruction, just overwealmed what had been set aside.

Fact is, Bush spent as much on the preparations as Clinton had. There was no huge slashing of budgets.

Local government city (New Orleans) State ( Baton Rouge) had as much to do with the failure if not more than the FEDERAL government.

 

[healthmyths]

The Chicago Tribune is one of the most conservative papers in the US.

They reverently print every work Kathleen Parker writes.

They endorsed Bush for a second term in the middle of Democratic Stronghold, Chicago.

Chicago Tribune Endorses Bush | Bryan Strawser

(funny, every reason they give for endorsing Bush turns out to be a failure)

They put a lot into this article on page 7 of Saturday's Tribune with lots of graphs and sources.

The same article has been picked up in papers across the US:

Politics | Despite uptick, GOP candidates slam jobs report | Seattle Times Newspaper

Republicans slam President Obama over new jobless figures

Candidates' plans would cut jobs | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper

What Romney and Bachmann ignored, as GOP candidates routinely do, is a pattern in the jobs numbers: The number of private-sector jobs has grown for 21 consecutive months, by a total of 2.9 million. The main job losses — 446,000 in the same period — have been in government, a decline that would accelerate under plans advanced by Republican candidates.

The trend held Friday, with the Labor Department reporting a gain of 140,000 private-sector jobs and a loss of 20,000 government jobs.

In addition to proposals for the future, the Republican candidates' positions would have heightened the most recent government job losses. Many layoffs of local and state government employees were delayed by Obama's 2009 stimulus package, which GOP White House hopefuls denounce.

And some newly jobless were teachers and others whose layoffs Obama tried to avert through $35 billion in federal aid to states. GOP candidates opposed that proposal, and fellow Republicans in Congress killed it.

And by ignoring the human cost, University of Washington political-science professor Mark A. Smith said, Republicans merely are following a maxim of politics: "When something works against you, you're better off not talking about it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To put it simply, what ammo will power their debate? Republicans say government has grown massively under Obama, but anyone who bothers to check will find it's shrunk by a half million. The government only employs a few million people. A half million (500,000) is a LOT of people.

One reason the unemployment figures are less than they could be is because a half million people who worked for the government are out of work. A half million. 500,000 people.

Over a hundred Republicans congressmen have taken stimulus money to create thousands of jobs. Will they still run on, "The stimulus didn't create a single job"?

Come on loony right wingers. What do you have to say? The truth is right there. What will they say during the debate.

Sidebar: Did anyone see Mitt during the debate with Anderson Cooper as moderator? Mitt whined in his most girlish voice, "Anderson, Rick won't let me talk". Can you imagine him in a debate with Obama? Seriously? The Obama who took down the entire Republican leadership at their own retreat?

I know this may be a hard concept to understand but do you know how those " 500,000 government people" get paid?
I mean the government is NON-profit.. pays NO taxes.
So where does the cash come from to pay those "government workers"?

FACTS:
The nation's 89,526 state and local governments employed
16.6 million full-time equivalent employees in 2009,
according to government employment data released by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Part-time employees numbered 4.7 million, not statistically different from 2008.

Total Federal Government full and part time employees in 2009 - 5,350,926
Total payroll in March 2009 $15,105,511,892...

AGAIN HOW do these people get paid.. I mean you realize that is is TAX dollars that pay for these employees???

 

[rdean]

who told you that Dean?.....Pat Robertson or the Texas Republican Party?......you have had countless numbers of "righties" in this forum tell you they dont follow the party line,and yet you keep saying they do.....i bet you have NEVER voted against anything the Democrats have proposed.....because if there is anyone here who tows the party line.....its YOU....you have been asked dozens of times to admit the Democrats have in the past and right now have fucked people over,yet you wont say they have......keep on towing that line Dean.....

Fucked people over? How? Make it good.

i love it when you prove me right.....thats why its so fun to ask you these Questions,because if you answer truthfully.....you will have to admit that your group is no better than the other group.....and holy shit if that should happen......keep towing the line Dean, your not fooling anybody.....well maybe Chris,Franco and Lakoota....but carry on, your doing whats expected of you.......your a good little soldier.....

When someone makes a charge and then someone else says, "Prove it", the first person doesn't dance with glee and say "see". That's not how it works. They are supposed to "prove it" unless they can't. Which you apparently can't.