"Change", the only thing left in your wallet after Obama leaves office

i’m not sure i can handle posting ridiculous pictures in more than one thread at once

I can. Just like i can post ridiculous pictures and “do work” at the same time.
Now back to the clitaurus. where are the nudes.

Well the economy is not physics. Europeans can drive a lot less BECAUSE THEY HAVE REAL FUCKING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. The countries are condensed into a much smaller physical area and to travel one does not have to go very far.

This is NOTHING like the US and if this guy seriously said what was printed then he doesnt possess the sensibility to make any kind of major decisions.

BTW this aside I think Obama is going to be an excellent president and he is doing everything in his power to do whats best for the people.

Sure and my post was too all the people that before you have even joined this site dismiss anything ever linked from Fox News most of them im sure don’t even read it. Not saying take it holy grail but shit you can’t just always disregard everything from sources just because they aren’t on your team. I think thats just ignorance at its finest. Btw im not some diehard conservative either i just can’t stand people being able to dismiss things opposing them, its a joke.

they have been doing it since day 1. This is NYSTUPID dickrider club.

Being that we have no true influence on what kind of cars are made and that we have to have a dependence on oil, how would an additional $4.00 tax help? We are not the automakers, so we can’t make alternative fuel vehicles to help “save” the enviroment. Raising the tax only seems like it will help the oil industry and goverment get fatter wallets and make us suffer the cost for lack of development and implementation by the auto industry for alternative fuels / cleaner fuel / higher mpg vehicles.

That’s almost like Burger King having to charge $3 tax on top of the cost of a Whopper to get them to make a healthier burger or to in the process get us off the habit of eating said Whopper.

If automakers give us the options of vehicles that run clean or alternative fuels, then we can lessen our dependence on big oil. But in the long run, why should the auto buying public suffer for lack of development?

I dismiss plenty of things that I oppose, we all do, usually without thinking. Like in religion: when’s the last time you gave any thought to your rejection of Australian Aboriginal gods? Same with me.

Now, back on topic, while Wikipedia is not the be-all-end-all of information, it’s a good start. And here’s what the Fox News Channel controversies says:

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The “content analysis” portion of their 2005 report also concluded that “Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air.”

While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content. McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news, but were issued to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.

That’s just scratching the surface of what’s in there, but my point is - what level of fabrication do you need to achieve before your broadcast moves from news to commentary, commentary to punditry, punditry to fiction?

Good question. If gas is cheap, people will drive SUVs, big V8s, and so not give much thought to fuel economy. When gas went from $1.50 to $4.50 over the past decade or so, we noticed that in the Prius frenzy, the dumping of SUVs on the market, the decrease in deprecation of Honda and Toyota four-bangers, and the beginnings of talk on alternative fuels.

The companies are going to build what people are going to buy. No, raising gas taxes won’t directly make the car companies make alternative fuel vehicles available. But it will increase demand for alternatives, which will affect the companies’ cost-benefit analysis. If it’s not profitable to make SUVs, but is profitable to make electric cars (Chevy Volt or Tesla Roadster, doesn’t matter), then they are more likely to do so. Then, the fuel taxes you just raised can be offered as funding to help do that research.

I’m not going to say that I agree 100% that the government SHOULD do this (though I’m not sure it would be a bad thing in the long run if it happened by itself), but that’s the thinking, and the logic behind it is solid enough.

Your analogy with the Whopper is perfect. If the Whopper’s $2, and the Whopper HEALTH doesn’t exist yet but will cost $3, putting a $1 tax on the Whopper and using the balance for Whopper HEALTH research will help it come around faster, and when it gets here, provide economic incentive for the individual to adopt a behavior that’s good for the group.

Not sharing the same belief or opinion and considering a differing opinion or belief wrong or false are not the same thing. Saying thats not my view is not the same as saying that view is wrong. Not practicing a certain religion is not the same as saying that religion is wrong. bro for real if fox news can’t be credible then no way can you bring wiki in here haha.

Wiki is reviewed and edited by professionals and academics (among others) who know what they’re talking about and have legitimate standards. It has less fact errors than Encyclopedia Britannica.

As for your mistaken belief that it’s good to never reject anything, if something that you disagree with is not rigorously researched, substantiated, and presented, then it’s not wrong to reject it. It’s the way that science works, and if it’s good enough for science, it’s good enough for me.

All i know is my school does not allow the use of wiki but it sure allows fox news haha. Whatever this is pointless i have paperwork to do and an essay i need to write.

Yeah, a lot of Professors mistrust Wikipedia, and for theoretically sound reasons. In practice, it’s very reliable. I know a lot of successful graduate students, in well-regarded degree programs, and every one uses Wikipedia as a study guide when beginning to outline something.

As for FoxNews, if you’re using internet news articles as sources, you’re not looking hard enough, unless you’re a Communications Major.

Oh I use the fuck out of wiki for the same i just leave it out of the resources. I have said it before and i will say it again i don’t typically watch fox News I am personally a CNN guy when I watch news. I have never even been to the Fox News site aside from being linked lol. My point was that their stuff although might not be the best is not 100% invalid to the point where people can just not feel it needs to be responded to or just ignored cause its "Fox News’ that is such an easy way out.

Not a communications major.

Alright, I think I should clarify something that would have saved us about 10 posts and 45 minutes of our time had I said it before

When we say “Fox News” (or “Faux News,” etc.), we’re not saying “If it is a Fox News story, it is inherently not worth considering.”

We’re saying, “This is one of those Fox News stories that’s given them a reputation for bias and it’s not worth considering.”

There’s a big difference - I’ve never said, and I don’t know anyone who’s said the former.

I guess but they kinda have to stay as biased as they are for the sake of their market. Not saying it makes for good news but thats just life.

Because the subject of the thread was obama and the point of that chart is Bush era’s massive spending deficits.

I love nyspeed politics.

50% misunderstanding
30% ignorance
20% inaccurate facts
10% worthwhile discussion
15% poorly analyzed statistics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Wednesday will order a crackdown on waste and cost overruns in U.S. government procurement that he estimates will save up to $40 billion (28.4 billion pound) a year, an administration official said.

My black Jebus turning water into wine yet again. :highfive:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE52324W20090304

:rofl:

if it actually works and he can do it, that is an awesome start. :tup: