Jimmy and his political views

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » January 5, 2008 12:03 am

"I don't hava a lot of money and I'm not rich. I truly know what it means to be poor. If you ask anyone, they'll tell you I'd be a very poor president."

-Pat Paulsen

phinhead · Post by **phinhead** » January 5, 2008 12:07 am

popcornjack wrote:
Missing B'dos wrote:If you could only know how unimportant all this seems from outside the US. People are far more concerned about Kenya, the victims of the natural disasters in Asia, problems in Italy and France, drugs being run in from Venezuela, in short, most everything that is truly happening in other places than the American election which is still 10 months away, really. When the real election really comes, that is when to get excited. Y'all are suffering from post Christmas let down.

So, who do you think will be in the Super Bowl?
I'd like to say the Cowboys and the Patriots, just so the Boy's can avenge that loss, but the last couple of weeks I haven't been impressed.

Yeah!! Go Cowboys!! Come on T.O.... give the defense something to worry about!

Tequila Revenge · Post by **Tequila Revenge** » January 5, 2008 12:42 pm

green1 wrote:
Missing B'dos wrote:if you want to hear real news, listen to BBC World.
No thanks, another talking head, just with a funny accent. I will get my information as I always do. Read lots of different material, from lots of different sources.

Missing has a point here Greenie

I think most of us would understand that while we have a "free press," there is substantial costs associated with what is now considered news worthy and what is reported. If you want a news from,"...lots of different sources," give the BBC a chance. I'm able to listen to the report on our local NPR station. And then just for "fun" watch the network news report on the same thing. I think you'll be amazed.

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » January 5, 2008 1:07 pm

Tequila Revenge wrote:
green1 wrote:
Missing B'dos wrote:if you want to hear real news, listen to BBC World.
No thanks, another talking head, just with a funny accent. I will get my information as I always do. Read lots of different material, from lots of different sources.

Missing has a point here Greenie I think most of us would understand that while we have a "free press," there is substantial costs associated with what is now considered news worthy and what is reported. If you want a news from,"...lots of different sources," give the BBC a chance. I'm able to listen to the report on our local NPR station. And then just for "fun" watch the network news report on the same thing. I think you'll be amazed.

just got back from Salt Lake City last night...

Watching their local news is like watching an ad for Mitt Romney. ...amazing bias.
They (each local news affiliate) could not believe that a bunch of "christian evangelicals" could put Mike Huckabee into an early lead from Iowa (nice work there, Garry ,

).
Gee, I wonder how George W. was able to make it two-terms...hmmm???
...and, later, hardly a mention of the sweeping victory by Obama.. to them, it came off as an aberration.
I'm with TR, you've got to look around the dial for different sources for information, not just the one that sounds like your favorite tune.
Good to be back in SoCal (where it never rains... THIS HARD!!)...and good to be back arguing politics here

.... 'tis the season!

Tequila Revenge · Post by **Tequila Revenge** » January 5, 2008 1:13 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:
Tequila Revenge wrote:
green1 wrote:
Missing B'dos wrote:if you want to hear real news, listen to BBC World.
No thanks, another talking head, just with a funny accent. I will get my information as I always do. Read lots of different material, from lots of different sources.

Missing has a point here Greenie I think most of us would understand that while we have a "free press," there is substantial costs associated with what is now considered news worthy and what is reported. If you want a news from,"...lots of different sources," give the BBC a chance. I'm able to listen to the report on our local NPR station. And then just for "fun" watch the network news report on the same thing. I think you'll be amazed.
just got back from Salt Lake City last night...

Watching their local news is like watching an ad for Mitt Romney. ...amazing bias.
They (each local news affiliate) could not believe that a bunch of "christian evangelicals" could put Mike Huckabee into an early lead from Iowa (nice work there, Garry , ).
Gee, I wonder how George W. was able to make it two-terms...hmmm???
...and, later, hardly a mention of the sweeping victory by Obama.. to them, it came off as an aberration.
I'm with TR, you've got to look around the dial for different sources for information, not just the one that sounds like your favorite tune.
Good to be back in SoCal (where it never rains... THIS HARD!!)...and good to be back arguing politics here .... 'tis the season!

We've become a sound bite addicted society that does not have the willingness to TAKE THE TIME to THINK

We are soooooooooo fortunate to have *insert favorite actor, network news, singer, talking head radio star, etc.,* to tell us what to believe.

SchoonerWharf · Post by **SchoonerWharf** » January 6, 2008 8:28 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:

I'm with TR, you've got to look around the dial for different sources for information, not just the one that sounds like your favorite tune.

How humorous. Biggest change in political reporting in past 20 years is the liberal biased media and its swine like Dan Rather don't control all the information. Makes it harder to cover up all the lies that way.

Migration Michelle · Post by **Migration Michelle** » January 6, 2008 11:22 pm

Jimmy Buffett for President...

Put a REAL pirate in office.

(just like my favorite shirt says!!)

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » January 7, 2008 1:55 am

Lightning Bolt wrote:They (each local news affiliate) could not believe that a bunch of "christian evangelicals" could put Mike Huckabee into an early lead from Iowa (nice work there, Garry , ).

Don't tell ME nice work. Huckabee is my LAST choice on the Republican side.

moog · Post by **moog** » January 7, 2008 3:29 am

I'm voting for Ralph Wiggum.

phjrsaunt · Post by **phjrsaunt** » January 7, 2008 7:41 am

moog wrote:I'm voting for Ralph Wiggum.

You watched "The Simpsons" last night, too?

Lisa Simpson would be a good First Lady.

mjeischen · Post by **mjeischen** » January 7, 2008 9:37 am

Since we've turned this into a political thread with or without Jimmy's views I thought I would interject an observation from GMA today . . .

George Stephanapoulus(?) interviewed Hillary and she got on the jag of Obama flip/flopping the war issue. He voted against the war but then voted to fund it . . . .

Is it just me or do I view this as . . . He voted against the war. He lost. Realizing we are now in a war regardless of his initial thought we must now fund the war. If he doesn't fund the war we are now discussing why Obama wants to endanger our troops by not sending money for armor and all that other fun stuff.

I would be against the war too . . . once I realized we were in it regardless of how I felt it - I would feel responsible to do what I need to to protect our troops such as sending them needed monies.

It appears the press is missing that question or am I completely off base on that.

green1 · Post by **green1** » January 7, 2008 10:27 am

Tequila Revenge wrote:
green1 wrote:
Missing B'dos wrote:if you want to hear real news, listen to BBC World.
No thanks, another talking head, just with a funny accent. I will get my information as I always do. Read lots of different material, from lots of different sources.

Missing has a point here Greenie I think most of us would understand that while we have a "free press," there is substantial costs associated with what is now considered news worthy and what is reported. If you want a news from,"...lots of different sources," give the BBC a chance. I'm able to listen to the report on our local NPR station. And then just for "fun" watch the network news report on the same thing. I think you'll be amazed.

You missed the key point of my post. I READ a lot of different material from a lot of different sources. WHen you listen to, or watch, any news program, you get the headlines and maybe a paragraph or two of the story. When you read the story, multiple times from different sources you see the bias, and the pieces that are trying to be hidden from one source or another.

green1 · Post by **green1** » January 7, 2008 10:29 am

mjeischen wrote:Since we've turned this into a political thread with or without Jimmy's views I thought I would interject an observation from GMA today . . .

George Stephanapoulus(?) interviewed Hillary and she got on the jag of Obama flip/flopping the war issue. He voted against the war but then voted to fund it . . . .

Is it just me or do I view this as . . . He voted against the war. He lost. Realizing we are now in a war regardless of his initial thought we must now fund the war. If he doesn't fund the war we are now discussing why Obama wants to endanger our troops by not sending money for armor and all that other fun stuff.

I would be against the war too . . . once I realized we were in it regardless of how I felt it - I would feel responsible to do what I need to to protect our troops such as sending them needed monies.

It appears the press is missing that question or am I completely off base on that.

The press isn't missing the question. They are ignoring it.

mjeischen · Post by **mjeischen** » January 7, 2008 10:39 am

green1 wrote:
mjeischen wrote:Since we've turned this into a political thread with or without Jimmy's views I thought I would interject an observation from GMA today . . .

George Stephanapoulus(?) interviewed Hillary and she got on the jag of Obama flip/flopping the war issue. He voted against the war but then voted to fund it . . . .

Is it just me or do I view this as . . . He voted against the war. He lost. Realizing we are now in a war regardless of his initial thought we must now fund the war. If he doesn't fund the war we are now discussing why Obama wants to endanger our troops by not sending money for armor and all that other fun stuff.

I would be against the war too . . . once I realized we were in it regardless of how I felt it - I would feel responsible to do what I need to to protect our troops such as sending them needed monies.

It appears the press is missing that question or am I completely off base on that.
The press isn't missing the question. They are ignoring it.

Then I need to get myself to a Q&A with Hillary. I would love to see her answer to that.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » January 7, 2008 10:49 am

If you do, ask her about her so-called experience. Being married to the president isn't "experience." If it is, then maybe she'd be willing to let the pilot's spouse fly her campaign plane.

green1 · Post by **green1** » January 7, 2008 10:50 am

mjeischen wrote:
green1 wrote:
mjeischen wrote:Since we've turned this into a political thread with or without Jimmy's views I thought I would interject an observation from GMA today . . .

George Stephanapoulus(?) interviewed Hillary and she got on the jag of Obama flip/flopping the war issue. He voted against the war but then voted to fund it . . . .

Is it just me or do I view this as . . . He voted against the war. He lost. Realizing we are now in a war regardless of his initial thought we must now fund the war. If he doesn't fund the war we are now discussing why Obama wants to endanger our troops by not sending money for armor and all that other fun stuff.

I would be against the war too . . . once I realized we were in it regardless of how I felt it - I would feel responsible to do what I need to to protect our troops such as sending them needed monies.

It appears the press is missing that question or am I completely off base on that.
The press isn't missing the question. They are ignoring it.
Then I need to get myself to a Q&A with Hillary. I would love to see her answer to that.

So would I. But it will never happen. (Says the cynic in me)

mjeischen · Post by **mjeischen** » January 7, 2008 11:13 am

LIPH wrote:If you do, ask her about her so-called experience. Being married to the president isn't "experience." If it is, then maybe she'd be willing to let the pilot's spouse fly her campaign plane.

HA! Touche . . .

mjeischen · Post by **mjeischen** » January 7, 2008 11:15 am

LIPH wrote:If you do, ask her about her so-called experience. Being married to the president isn't "experience." If it is, then maybe she'd be willing to let the pilot's spouse fly her campaign plane.

Come to think of it being married to the President isn't experience and she must of sucked at that job too because he dabbled in screening some replacements throughout his political career.

Tequila Revenge · Post by **Tequila Revenge** » January 7, 2008 12:48 pm

green1 wrote:
mjeischen wrote:Since we've turned this into a political thread with or without Jimmy's views I thought I would interject an observation from GMA today . . .

George Stephanapoulus(?) interviewed Hillary and she got on the jag of Obama flip/flopping the war issue. He voted against the war but then voted to fund it . . . .

Is it just me or do I view this as . . . He voted against the war. He lost. Realizing we are now in a war regardless of his initial thought we must now fund the war. If he doesn't fund the war we are now discussing why Obama wants to endanger our troops by not sending money for armor and all that other fun stuff.

I would be against the war too . . . once I realized we were in it regardless of how I felt it - I would feel responsible to do what I need to to protect our troops such as sending them needed monies.

It appears the press is missing that question or am I completely off base on that.
The press isn't missing the question. They are ignoring it.

That's becasue we have a free press silly

moog · Post by **moog** » January 7, 2008 1:44 pm

phjrsaunt wrote:
moog wrote:I'm voting for Ralph Wiggum.
You watched "The Simpsons" last night, too? Lisa Simpson would be a good First Lady.

Some weakness in the script, but the writers still has a finger on the pulse of our culture.

I want to hear a candidate say how he or she plans to bring down the cost of food that is healthy. Why are the low fat and low sodium foods higher in price then the same brand loaded with the so called bad fat? How about adding a tax to the junk food? You did it with tobacco. Bag of chips could be 7.00 a bag.

Never mind what party Buffett endorses. It's just one big used car salesman convention.