Why do progressive liberals hate John Stossel?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Only cons take entertainers seriously.

If Stossel misrepresents the libertarian positions of our Founders please say exactly where or admit Stossel ( a Princeton grad) is very very accurate.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[American_Jihad]

Only cons take entertainers seriously.

So that's the reason msnbc/dnc keeps showing reruns of "Lockup" on weekends...

 

[American_Jihad]

If You Can Read This, You're Surviving the Sequester Cuts

The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren't even cuts.​

John Stossel | March 6, 2013

If you're reading this, you've survived the "sequester" cuts!

That may surprise you, since President Obama likened the sequester to taking a "meat cleaver" to government, causing FBI agents to be furloughed, prosecutors to let criminals escape and medical research to grind to a halt!

The media hyped it, too. The NBC Nightly News said, "The sequester could cripple air travel, force firefighter layoffs -- even kick preschoolers out of child care!"

The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren't even cuts. They were merely a small reduction in government's planned increase in spending. A very small reduction.

...

If You Can Read This, You're Surviving the Sequester Cuts - Reason.com

 

[Avorysuds]

Because he's white.

 

[eflatminor]

If You Can Read This, You're Surviving the Sequester Cuts

The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren't even cuts.​

John Stossel | March 6, 2013

If you're reading this, you've survived the "sequester" cuts!

That may surprise you, since President Obama likened the sequester to taking a "meat cleaver" to government, causing FBI agents to be furloughed, prosecutors to let criminals escape and medical research to grind to a halt!

The media hyped it, too. The NBC Nightly News said, "The sequester could cripple air travel, force firefighter layoffs -- even kick preschoolers out of child care!"

The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren't even cuts. They were merely a small reduction in government's planned increase in spending. A very small reduction.

...

If You Can Read This, You're Surviving the Sequester Cuts - Reason.com

The Queen liar herself continued with this bullshit line of "cuts" just yesterday:

Nancy Pelosi says Republican-led efforts to rein in government spending are pointless because there is nothing left to cut...

Read more: Rep. Nancy Pelosi: Nothing left to cut in budget ? 'the cupboard is bare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What a lying sack of shit! THERE ARE NO CUTS! Further, the idea that we just couldn't possibly cut spending is beyond ridiculous. Shame on all that think it reasonable to place the burden of our largess on those yet born.

 

[Rshermr]

Look, the premis of this thread is simply wrong. Progressives do not hate stossel. Hell, he is simply a well paid mouthpiece. Deserves no actual thought. And gets none. Pretty much like you, eflat. Except I suspect you do it for free.

Always tells you all you need to know when you see the sources used are far right wing bat shit crazy con sources, like the Washington Times and Reason.com. Just says to a rational person: NEXT.

Then, eflat, the con, suggests that the unborn are going to have to pay something back. Never, ever happened before, and he can not tell you whom they are going to pay back. Hell, he may even have enough brain activity to know he is simply repeating a lie. But that is eflat. As a con tool, it is his job to post con drivel.

 

[eflatminor]

Look, the premis of this thread is simply wrong. Progressives do not hate stossel. Hell, he is simply a well paid mouthpiece. Deserves no actual thought. And gets none. Pretty much like you, eflat. Except I suspect you do it for free.

Always tells you all you need to know when you see the sources used are far right wing bat shit crazy con sources, like the Washington Times and Reason.com. Just says to a rational person: NEXT.

Then, eflat, the con, suggests that the unborn are going to have to pay something back. Never, ever happened before, and he can not tell you whom they are going to pay back. Hell, he may even have enough brain activity to know he is simply repeating a lie. But that is eflat. As a con tool, it is his job to post con drivel.

^Thinks calling people a 'con' constitutes a rational argument.

 

[Rshermr]

Look, the premis of this thread is simply wrong. Progressives do not hate stossel. Hell, he is simply a well paid mouthpiece. Deserves no actual thought. And gets none. Pretty much like you, eflat. Except I suspect you do it for free.

Always tells you all you need to know when you see the sources used are far right wing bat shit crazy con sources, like the Washington Times and Reason.com. Just says to a rational person: NEXT.

Then, eflat, the con, suggests that the unborn are going to have to pay something back. Never, ever happened before, and he can not tell you whom they are going to pay back. Hell, he may even have enough brain activity to know he is simply repeating a lie. But that is eflat. As a con tool, it is his job to post con drivel.

^Thinks calling people a 'con' constitutes a rational argument.

That you are always in perfect alignment with the bat shit crazy con sites says something about you. Yes, indeed. That you use bat shit crazy con sites for your backing for your statements says something about you. Yes indeed.

Kind of like if I used moveon.org for a source. That I do not says something about me.

The concern is integrity. Try an impartial site some time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

LOLberals hate anyone who doesn't agree with them. it's that simple. Just take a look at the 11th tier poster Rshermr. Nothing but ad hom, logical fallacy and what generally comes off as arrogance in ignorance.

 

[eflatminor]

Look, the premis of this thread is simply wrong. Progressives do not hate stossel. Hell, he is simply a well paid mouthpiece. Deserves no actual thought. And gets none. Pretty much like you, eflat. Except I suspect you do it for free.

Always tells you all you need to know when you see the sources used are far right wing bat shit crazy con sources, like the Washington Times and Reason.com. Just says to a rational person: NEXT.

Then, eflat, the con, suggests that the unborn are going to have to pay something back. Never, ever happened before, and he can not tell you whom they are going to pay back. Hell, he may even have enough brain activity to know he is simply repeating a lie. But that is eflat. As a con tool, it is his job to post con drivel.

^Thinks calling people a 'con' constitutes a rational argument.

That you are always in perfect alignment with the bat shit crazy con sites says something about you.

Oh really? Let's look a few specifics as to what I stand for:

• I think anyone should be able marry anyone they like
• I believe the war on drugs should end and that there should be no laws against what a person chooses to put into their own body
• I marched in the streets of Chicago before the start of the Iraq war
• I stand against the level of our military interventionism
• I stand against all the corporate handouts, tax advantages and other favors granted to some companies
• I served in the Peace Corp in Bolivia
• I've been to nearly 100 Grateful Dead shows
• I never voted for Bush

Sound like a "conservative" to you???

Dumbass.

That you use bat shit crazy con sites for your backing for your statements says something about you.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

^Thinks calling people a 'con' constitutes a rational argument.

That you are always in perfect alignment with the bat shit crazy con sites says something about you.

Oh really? Let's look a few specifics as to what I stand for:

• I think anyone should be able marry anyone they like
• I believe the war on drugs should end and that there should be no laws against what a person chooses to put into their own body
• I marched in the streets of Chicago before the start of the Iraq war
• I stand against the level of our military interventionism
• I stand against all the corporate handouts, tax advantages and other favors granted to some companies
• I served in the Peace Corp in Bolivia
• I've been to nearly 100 Grateful Dead shows
• I never voted for Bush

Sound like a "conservative" to you???

Dumbass.

That you use bat shit crazy con sites for your backing for your statements says something about you.

Thanks for proving my point!

I knew there was a reason I liked you. Although, in that scene, being a true liberal isn't exactly welcomed.

 

[eflatminor]

That you are always in perfect alignment with the bat shit crazy con sites says something about you.

Oh really? Let's look a few specifics as to what I stand for:

• I think anyone should be able marry anyone they like
• I believe the war on drugs should end and that there should be no laws against what a person chooses to put into their own body
• I marched in the streets of Chicago before the start of the Iraq war
• I stand against the level of our military interventionism
• I stand against all the corporate handouts, tax advantages and other favors granted to some companies
• I served in the Peace Corp in Bolivia
• I've been to nearly 100 Grateful Dead shows
• I never voted for Bush

Sound like a "conservative" to you???

Dumbass.

That you use bat shit crazy con sites for your backing for your statements says something about you.

Thanks for proving my point!

I knew there was a reason I liked you. Although, in that scene, being a true liberal isn't exactly welcomed.

True, though I did come across a few. One in particular I met on a European tour ('90). We hung out for a few shows, pitched tents at the same campground. Years later, I saw him in the hallway at the home office of the company I was worked for. Turned out, he worked there all along. Small world!

 

[Rshermr]

^Thinks calling people a 'con' constitutes a rational argument.

That you are always in perfect alignment with the bat shit crazy con sites says something about you.

Oh really? Let's look a few specifics as to what I stand for:

• I think anyone should be able marry anyone they like
• I believe the war on drugs should end and that there should be no laws against what a person chooses to put into their own body
• I marched in the streets of Chicago before the start of the Iraq war
• I stand against the level of our military interventionism
• I stand against all the corporate handouts, tax advantages and other favors granted to some companies
• I served in the Peace Corp in Bolivia
• I've been to nearly 100 Grateful Dead shows
• I never voted for Bush

Sound like a "conservative" to you???

Dumbass.

That you use bat shit crazy con sites for your backing for your statements says something about you.

Thanks for proving my point!

Did you have a point, dumbass??

 

[eflatminor]

That you are always in perfect alignment with the bat shit crazy con sites says something about you.

Oh really? Let's look a few specifics as to what I stand for:

• I think anyone should be able marry anyone they like
• I believe the war on drugs should end and that there should be no laws against what a person chooses to put into their own body
• I marched in the streets of Chicago before the start of the Iraq war
• I stand against the level of our military interventionism
• I stand against all the corporate handouts, tax advantages and other favors granted to some companies
• I served in the Peace Corp in Bolivia
• I've been to nearly 100 Grateful Dead shows
• I never voted for Bush

Sound like a "conservative" to you???

Dumbass.

That you use bat shit crazy con sites for your backing for your statements says something about you.

Thanks for proving my point!

Did you have a point, dumbass??

Made it in post #65...you replied with ad hominem attacks, of course.

Adding to that point, you are dead wrong about me being a 'con'. Next time, try engaging with logic, reason and specificity.

 

[oldfart]

Made it in post #65...you replied with ad hominem attacks, of course.

Adding to that point, you are dead wrong about me being a 'con'. Next time, try engaging with logic, reason and specificity.

Here is the total content you wrote for post #65 in its entirety:

The Queen liar herself continued with this bullshit line of "cuts" just yesterday:

What a lying sack of shit! THERE ARE NO CUTS! Further, the idea that we just couldn't possibly cut spending is beyond ridiculous. Shame on all that think it reasonable to place the burden of our largess on those yet born.

As I count it both are ad hominems and neither exhibits any "logic, reason, and specificity".
If there is an argument there, could you state it?

BTW the CBO report has nominal (not inflation adjusted or per capita or as a percentage of GDP, but actual currant dollars) expenditures for the current fiscal year at $82 billion LESS than 2012. So there have been spending cuts, which makes you in your eloquent terms, the liar.

I'd like to hear the rationale for the "burden placed on the unborn". It doesn't exist in the sense you are using it, never has and never will. But the diminished productive capacity that you and your ilk will leave succeeding generations will be a permanent loss of standard of living for them.

 

[eflatminor]

Made it in post #65...you replied with ad hominem attacks, of course.

Adding to that point, you are dead wrong about me being a 'con'. Next time, try engaging with logic, reason and specificity.

Here is the total content you wrote for post #65 in its entirety:

The Queen liar herself continued with this bullshit line of "cuts" just yesterday:

What a lying sack of shit! THERE ARE NO CUTS! Further, the idea that we just couldn't possibly cut spending is beyond ridiculous. Shame on all that think it reasonable to place the burden of our largess on those yet born.

As I count it both are ad hominems and neither exhibits any "logic, reason, and specificity".
If there is an argument there, could you state it?

You don't count very well. And you need a dictionary. Further, look into "base line budgeting"...the government always spends more this year than last. Always. Pelosi, and you, are lying your assess off by saying that there have been actual cuts.

BTW the CBO report has nominal (not inflation adjusted or per capita or as a percentage of GDP, but actual currant dollars) expenditures for the current fiscal year at $82 billion LESS than 2012. So there have been spending cuts, which makes you in your eloquent terms, the liar.

Liar. The Federal government spent $3.7 trillion in FY 2013 and $3.5 trillion in FY 2012.

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts Tables History

My god you're full of shit.

I'd like to hear the rationale for the "burden placed on the unborn". It doesn't exist in the sense you are using it, never has and never will.

And who exactly to you expect will have to repay the $17 trillion of debt we've accumulated? You? Please.

But the diminished productive capacity that you and your ilk will leave succeeding generations will be a permanent loss of standard of living for them.

^ Thinks leaving government debt for the next generation is a good thing.

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

But I'm sure YOU know better...

 

[Rshermr]

So, eflat says:

You don't count very well. And you need a dictionary. Further, look into "base line budgeting"...the government always spends more this year than last. Always. Pelosi, and you, are lying your assess off by saying that there have been actual cuts.

Did you think this was a profound statement. The truth is, of course, that USUALLY the gov spends more each year. For a variety of reasons. But for the last full year, which would be 2012, spending dropped. You should forget about the insults, and try to learn to read the data from your own source.

So, here is an interesting graph of the changes in gov spending by president:



http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...-capita-government-spending-by-president.html

So, seems obvious that if you want to INCREASE gov spending, you should elect a republican president. And, if you want to lower gov spending, you would try to clone obama.

 

[eflatminor]

But for the last full year, which would be 2012, spending dropped.

Another lie.

Spending PER CAPITA is not the same thing as "spending". We spent more this year than we did last, as my link to the government's own website proved.

But go ahead, call me a 'con' again...that'll do the trick!

 

[Rshermr]

Now, lets be clear, eflat. I used your source. As in CLICKED ON YOUR LINK. And the following graph appeared on the page to which I was directed:



Now, try to pay attention to what I said:

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
But for the last full year, which would be 2012, spending dropped.

to which you said:

Another lie.

Spending PER CAPITA is not the same thing as "spending". We spent more this year than we did last, as my link to the government's own website proved.

Then look at the chart. And you will note that spending decreased, NOT BY CAPITA, NOT AS A PERCENT OF GDP, but simply decreased. Not even in inflation adjusted numbers. You could, of course, read the title of the chart. Or read the vertical axis label. And wonder how each person in the population spent TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

So, I will be waiting with baited breath for your apology. Really, me poor ignorant clown, you should stop calling people liars. Makes you look like what you are.

 

[eflatminor]

Now, lets be clear, eflat. I used your source. As in CLICKED ON YOUR LINK. And the following graph appeared on the page to which I was directed:

View attachment 27654

Now, try to pay attention to what I said:

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
But for the last full year, which would be 2012, spending dropped.

to which you said:

Another lie.

Spending PER CAPITA is not the same thing as "spending". We spent more this year than we did last, as my link to the government's own website proved.

Then look at the chart. And you will note that spending decreased, NOT BY CAPITA, NOT AS A PERCENT OF GDP, but simply decreased. Not even in inflation adjusted numbers. You could, of course, read the title of the chart. Or read the vertical axis label. And wonder how each person in the population spent TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

So, I will be waiting with baited breath for your apology. Really, me poor ignorant clown, you should stop calling people liars. Makes you look like what you are.

The current fiscal year ends in six days. We spent more this year than last, a lot more, and we're expecting to spend even more the following year.

Now tell us that there's no where to cut. Defend Pelosi's outrageous statement.