|
On January 19 2012 09:37 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:33 radiatoren wrote:On January 19 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like ABC has an interview with one of Newt's ex-wives that could end his campaign. The real question is: Why hasn't this happened earlier? What does the interview contain?
Few people knows, but it seems like it is serious:
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
...Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
|
On January 19 2012 09:55 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:37 darthfoley wrote:On January 19 2012 09:33 radiatoren wrote:On January 19 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like ABC has an interview with one of Newt's ex-wives that could end his campaign. The real question is: Why hasn't this happened earlier? What does the interview contain? Few people knows, but it seems like it is serious: Show nested quote +
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
...Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Oh dear, sounds serious...
|
bitches gonna bitch
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Well let's all be sure to scrutinize her motives and life choices and do our best to ignore the content of what she brings up.
|
On January 19 2012 09:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:13 allecto wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
acker, please stop using the question "have you taken ____ class?" as an insult. It's annoying and has no bearing when the question at hand ultimately has different answers depending upon what you view as ideal or moral. Milton Friedman had a nobel prize in economics and wrote pages upon pages of why he thought minimum wage laws were ultimately counterproductive. Would you give him the same "have you taken ____ class?" insult? I'm against minimum wages but I think that Milton Friedman would agree that minimum wage laws are effective in monopsonies for example. Anyway moving on. http://capitalismandfriedman.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/milton-friedman-on-minimum-wage-laws/
You do realize that nowhere on that page nor in the video does Friedman talk about minimum wage laws in monopsonies, which is what allecto was talking about? Did you even read his post?
|
On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality.
Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us. 
|
On January 19 2012 10:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality. Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us. Boy your single anecdote sure proved him wrong! If it works in that one specific scenario it must always work!
I'm also glad you remembered to insult his intelligence afterwards; that really bolstered your argument.
|
On January 19 2012 10:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality. Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us.
And just why do you think that BOA had to announce their new fees, making them transparent as they should always be, instead of miring them in a bunch of paperwork like before? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with free markets.
|
On January 19 2012 10:00 Haemonculus wrote:
Well let's all be sure to scrutinize her motives and life choices and do our best to ignore the content of what she brings up.
Typically people don't go out of their way to destroy someone in the media unless they have some scrutable motive behind it, right?
Let's all be sure to call her a courageous hero who is standing up for the truth and wants people to be informed!
Depending on our particular political orientation, of course.
|
On January 19 2012 09:55 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:37 darthfoley wrote:On January 19 2012 09:33 radiatoren wrote:On January 19 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like ABC has an interview with one of Newt's ex-wives that could end his campaign. The real question is: Why hasn't this happened earlier? What does the interview contain? Few people knows, but it seems like it is serious: Show nested quote +
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
...Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
"ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary"
It seems unethical for a political news agency not to run the interview, intentionally holding back information from the public because it might cost their favorite candidate some votes.
|
Canada11603 Posts
Just watch last night's Daily Show- Jon Stewart is really ripping into this whole SuperPac 'we're not coordinating, but please change your ads" thing
|
On January 19 2012 10:09 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality. Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us. Boy your single anecdote sure proved him wrong! If it works in that one specific scenario it must always work! I'm also glad you remembered to insult his intelligence afterwards; that really bolstered your argument.
I have more examples I can use but, people that doubt the free market are just as bad as creationist that believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Let nature takes its course I say. 
|
On January 19 2012 11:13 Malarkey817 wrote:
"ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary"
It seems unethical for a political news agency not to run the interview, intentionally holding back information from the public because it might cost their favorite candidate some votes.
Reminds me of the New York Times holding back their exposee on warrantless wiretapping in 2004 due to the presidential election.
I seriously doubt it's a favorite candidate thing. Probably more like a "bad for ratings" thing or a "lack of "neutrality"" thing.
|
It can also be relevant but something that's very hard to verify which just would mean a big backlash to the network if it harms a candidate. Real news usually hold themsleves to higher standards than tabloids.
|
On January 19 2012 18:36 nam nam wrote:
It can also be relevant but something that's very hard to verify which just would mean a big backlash to the network if it harms a candidate. Real news usually hold themsleves to higher standards than tabloids.
That's for the viewers to decide. It's the job of the news agency to report (and fact check if possible). I personally don't care at all about the personal lives of politicians (unless they're doing something illegal), but most Americans do. And this certainly sounds pertinent to the interests of most voters.
I didn't see a similar suppression of news concerning Herman Cain, either. I didn't follow that closely, either, so I might be wrong.
|
On January 19 2012 18:12 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:09 Tsagacity wrote:On January 19 2012 10:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality. Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us. Boy your single anecdote sure proved him wrong! If it works in that one specific scenario it must always work! I'm also glad you remembered to insult his intelligence afterwards; that really bolstered your argument. I have more examples I can use but, people that doubt the free market are just as bad as creationist that believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Let nature takes its course I say.
Nature also includes needless suffering and shortsightedness. It's ironic that you call people who doubt the free market creationists. As evolution itself demonstrates, local equilibria can be utterly fucking stupid at times. Look at trees, who build trunks literally out of the energy equivalent of dollar bills. That's the result of unplanned, unrestrained competition. The natural world is chock full of examples that make any rational designer facepalm, HARD. Free markets themselves have inefficiencies.
|
On January 19 2012 10:09 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality. Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us. Boy your single anecdote sure proved him wrong! If it works in that one specific scenario it must always work! I'm also glad you remembered to insult his intelligence afterwards; that really bolstered your argument.
You shouldn't assume everyone you communicate with on TL is male.
|
On January 19 2012 18:12 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:09 Tsagacity wrote:On January 19 2012 10:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!
This shit literally never happens in reality. Take the bank of America incident that charged people five dollars for using their debit card. That created a domino affect on people closing their BOA account and moving all their assets to credit unions. The Free Market concept is fine but, it's the uneducated that think it doesn't work. So, take a few econ classes then comeback to us. Boy your single anecdote sure proved him wrong! If it works in that one specific scenario it must always work! I'm also glad you remembered to insult his intelligence afterwards; that really bolstered your argument. I have more examples I can use but, people that doubt the free market are just as bad as creationist that believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago.
*facepalm*
|
On January 19 2012 18:40 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 18:36 nam nam wrote:
It can also be relevant but something that's very hard to verify which just would mean a big backlash to the network if it harms a candidate. Real news usually hold themsleves to higher standards than tabloids. That's for the viewers to decide. It's the job of the news agency to report (and fact check if possible). I personally don't care at all about the personal lives of politicians (unless they're doing something illegal), but most Americans do. And this certainly sounds pertinent to the interests of most voters. I didn't see a similar suppression of news concerning Herman Cain, either. I didn't follow that closely, either, so I might be wrong.
It depends on what exactly is said. You can't just present anything as news if you it's not credible enough or you don't have sufficient proof. You can't expect the viewers to judge everything fairly, which is something tabloid takes advantage of. All I'm saying it might be such an instance and there would not be anything wrong with that. I don't have any inside information so I don't have any clue one way or another, I'm just pointing out everything doesn't have to be some conspiracy.
I know a lot of peoples ex's that lie their pants of regarding their former partners out of spite.
|
On January 19 2012 19:15 nam nam wrote:
It depends on what exactly is said. You can't just present anything as news if you it's not credible enough or you don't have sufficient proof. You can't expect the viewers to judge everything fairly, which is something tabloid takes advantage of. All I'm saying it might be such an instance and there would not be anything wrong with that. I don't have any inside information so I don't have any clue one way or another, I'm just pointing out everything doesn't have to be some conspiracy.
I know a lot of peoples ex's that lie their pants of regarding their former partners out of spite.
True, but the same standards should apply regardless of the time to the primaries. If it isn't backed by evidence or credible sources, it shouldn't be released until it is. If it is backed credibly, it should be released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
