• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Oldtimer Oldtimer Oldtimer

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
How many times have we read about how Oldtimer saw something on C Span and tried to make us believe he knew what he was talking about?

Well you are going to love this poll. :wink:

A new Suffolk University poll revealed that Fox News is the most trusted political news source among those surveyed.

FOX News - 28%
CNN - 18%
Undecided - 12%
And to add insult to injury, the rest, including the radical-left's favorite - MSNBC, ranked even lower than "undecided":
NBC - 10%
Other - 10%
MSNBC - 7%
ABC - 6%
CBS - 6%
C-SPAN - 3%

The least trusted news source in the US is the one Oldtimer relies on to get his info. They are even lower than the MSNBC with the News commentator with a tingle going up his leg at the sounds of Obama's voice. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

Oldtimer is always telling us how comical things are, seems this poll makes him worth laughing at. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Well, at least Obama kept his word and televised all the health care deliberations on C-Span.....of that we can be thankful.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- I've never watched C-SPAN news...Just watch the actual broadcasts of the House or Senate on C-SPAN 1 or 2.... (For your info- one covers the Senate and their hearings/votes/etc. and the other covers the House and their hearings/votes/etc)...

If its happening right in front of you (live) - and you are watching it- there isn't a lot to question or distrust as to what happened...... :roll:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
But by the time you filter it and post it, it is either diluted (if it does not fit YOUR agenda) OR blown out of proportion if it does :D :D
Most of us do not have the time to set around watching tv all day
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Well, at least Obama kept his word and televised all the health care deliberations on C-Span.....of that we can be thankful.

All?? No -- impossible as there is no way to follow 535 legislators 24 hours a day--BUT in the time period between Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 7 2010-- they did cover 794 hours of debate and discussion involving health care - including 68 hours of House Committee hearings, 131 hours of Senate Committee hearings, 15 hours of House debate and 223 hours of Senate debate....

And these are archived and available for watching if you get tired of watching Dancing with the Stars or Despot Housewives!! :p

And there is no doubt they would offer you the opportunity to learn something.....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Well, at least Obama kept his word and televised all the health care deliberations on C-Span.....of that we can be thankful.

All?? No -- impossible as there is no way to follow 535 legislators 24 hours a day--BUT in the time period between Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 7 2010-- they did cover 794 hours of debate and discussion involving health care - including 68 hours of House Committee hearings, 131 hours of Senate Committee hearings, 15 hours of House debate and 223 hours of Senate debate....

And these are archived and available for watching if you get tired of watching Dancing with the Stars or Despot Housewives!! :p

And there is no doubt they would offer you the opportunity to learn something.....


Hasn't worked that well for you :wink:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Here's what your Messiah said:

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va.

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process," Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Here's what actually took place:

....the two biggest deals so far — industry agreements to cut drug and hospital costs — were reached in secret.

"They were private, yes," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., a key participant in the process.

C-SPAN, the cable public-policy network, did carry a White House Forum on Health Reform in early March in which the president spoke and participants fanned into working groups.

That was a kickoff event, however, not a negotiation. C-SPAN spokesman John Cardarelli said that beyond that, "There hasn't been a collaborative effort of coordination of coverage of 'special events.' " The decisions about what to air are made independently on a case-by-case basis, he said.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's bill-writing sessions, which began about three weeks ago, have been open, and various committees and subcommittees have had dozens of public hearings.

The private sessions continue, however.


Lawmakers, health care interests and public policy experts acknowledge that Obama's campaign vision hasn't exactly come to pass.

"Sometimes for people to say what's really on their mind, it helps to do it outside the public eye," said Senate Finance Committee member Thomas Carper, D-Del. "Could the process be more transparent? I suppose it could be."



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/07/09/71584/obama-campaign-vow-of-public-debate.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam- I've never watched C-SPAN news...Just watch the actual broadcasts of the House or Senate on C-SPAN 1 or 2.... (For your info- one covers the Senate and their hearings/votes/etc. and the other covers the House and their hearings/votes/etc)...

If its happening right in front of you (live) - and you are watching it- there isn't a lot to question or distrust as to what happened...... :roll:

So you are telling me that all evidence given at a Government hearing is to be trusted and not questioned? Does that go for everyone or just for the DEMS out to bash Bush, like you? :?

How about the evidence given by Christian Adams? Do you believe his testimony and are you willing to admit Mr Adams a former DOJ Attorny was telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, when he testified that the Obama Administration's DOJ was dropping charges on the Black Panthers due to POLITICAL REASONS? Are you willing to admit the Obama DOJ was telling their attornies to take a four year coffee break from enforcing the Civil Rights Laws if a Black Guy is involved? Tells us MR LAWMAN, Should the DOJ be dropping charges and denying filing charges due to SKIN COLOR that happens to match the President's ? :?

Come to think of it, Pelosi said she didn't know about waterboarding BUT CIA documentation and live testimony was given to the contrary so who do you believe? If she was lieing at her press conference and the witnesses were telling the truth, then you should be calling for her to be tried for war crimes like you are BUSH, CHENEY AND RUMMY. But I don't see that happening as her name is not Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld and more importantly doesn't have a R behind it does it OLDTIMER?. :roll:

One more thing, didn't I see Obama on the TV signing papers to close GITMO right after he took office? YES the signing happened right in front of me (LIVE) on not just C SPAN but on EVERY CHANNEL. Am I to trust it closed and Not question the fact it is still open and they have restarted Military tribunals that Obama canceled so he could appease his Liberal base. Wasn't he going to bring the Detainees to the US and give them a speedy US trial? Well YES I believe he told us right there on TV (LIVE). :wink:

Looks like all his and Holders actions did was DELAY THE PROCESS EVEN FURTHER. But Hey I'm sure you would have said little to nothing if Bush had, after the detainees had already confessed to the charges, delayed the trials another two or three years to appease his Conservative base with promises he was no way going to beable to carry out, being the fair man you are. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam is everything you've ever said always been the truth and nothing but the truth ?????

The one thing about most of the hearings- are that they are done under oath- and the witness's are under the threat of being charged with perjury if they lie...Which to me is much more credible than Rush, or Beck, or O'Reilly spieling out anything someone told them might have happened...And that they don't have to and don't often corroborate- and/or stand behind a word they say...And they know with some of their radical followers that the more radical/shocking the spiel- the more it sells TV/Radio ads and makes them richer...

But as we know- even those under oath tend to alter the truth- which is shown by the continuing perjury indictments/convictions even tho they never get convicted of their alledged crime-- ala Martha Stewart/Bill Clinton......
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Why don't you stand behind what you say and explain to us why the "radical" right wouldn't support Herman Cain?
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,142
Reaction score
27
Location
Texas
Oldtimer said:
Which to me is much more credible than Rush, or Beck, or O'Reilly spieling out anything someone told them might have happened...And that they don't have to and don't often collaborate- and/or stand behind a word they say...And they know with some of their radical followers that the more radical/shocking the spiel- the more it sells TV/Radio ads and makes them richer...
If you meant to type, "don't often corroborate" then I would say that entire statement reminds us very much of you, Oldtimer. You just post a bunch of stuff for shock value and never back it up with any proof. Much like your allegations of "the 8 year coffee break" and President Bush having ties to drug money. Do I need to post links to remind you of those?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Which to me is much more credible than Rush, or Beck, or O'Reilly spieling out anything someone told them might have happened...And that they don't have to and don't often collaborate- and/or stand behind a word they say...And they know with some of their radical followers that the more radical/shocking the spiel- the more it sells TV/Radio ads and makes them richer...
If you meant to type, "don't often corroborate" then I would say that entire statement reminds us very much of you, Oldtimer. You just post a bunch of stuff for shock value and never back it up with any proof. Much like your allegations of "the 8 year coffee break" and President Bush having ties to drug money. Do I need to post links to remind you of those?

Please do. :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,142
Reaction score
27
Location
Texas
Whitewing said:
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Which to me is much more credible than Rush, or Beck, or O'Reilly spieling out anything someone told them might have happened...And that they don't have to and don't often collaborate- and/or stand behind a word they say...And they know with some of their radical followers that the more radical/shocking the spiel- the more it sells TV/Radio ads and makes them richer...
If you meant to type, "don't often corroborate" then I would say that entire statement reminds us very much of you, Oldtimer. You just post a bunch of stuff for shock value and never back it up with any proof. Much like your allegations of "the 8 year coffee break" and President Bush having ties to drug money. Do I need to post links to remind you of those?

Please do. :lol:
Well....okay....you twisted my arm. :lol:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=280245#280245

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=341980#341980
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam is everything you've ever said always been the truth and nothing but the truth ?????

The one thing about most of the hearings- are that they are done under oath- and the witness's are under the threat of being charged with perjury if they lie...Which to me is much more credible than Rush, or Beck, or O'Reilly spieling out anything someone told them might have happened...And that they don't have to and don't often collaborate- and/or stand behind a word they say...And they know with some of their radical followers that the more radical/shocking the spiel- the more it sells TV/Radio ads and makes them richer...

But as we know- even those under oath tend to alter the truth- which is shown by the continuing perjury indictments/convictions even tho they never get convicted of their alledged crime-- ala Martha Stewart/Bill Clinton......

This is not about me but for you information I try my hardest not to bold face lie like your hero's so quit distracting the attention away from what you believe MR LAWMAN . :wink:

First it's
If its happening right in front of you (live) - and you are watching it- there isn't a lot to question or distrust as to what happened......
IE you claiming the testimony given at the Congressional hearing that you heard (LIVE) on CSPAN was not to be questioned and now
But as we know- even those under oath tend to alter the truth-
[/b] IE you are admitting you know some alter the truth just not the Bush haters. :roll: Can you guarantee what you heard was the UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH or somebody altering the truth to fit their/your Bush bashing agenda that you are oh so willing to believe and pass around as gospel?

Was Adams, a former Attorney for the DOJ, purjuring himself when he testified under oath about the DOJ? If not why is Holder still the AG when Adam's testimony pointed out the dirty deals his office is involved in? If he did lie then why didn't Holder charge him? May guess is he didn't lie and Holder just wants to bury the whole nasty issue under a heavy dirt filled rug.

Was Pelosi's aid purjuring her/himself when he/she gave testimony to what and when Pelosi knew about waterboarding? Remember Oldtimer CIA Documents back the aid's version up not Pelosi's. So why not speak out about Pelosi being included in the War crimes charges you seek on the rest?

My guess is this is just another example of you being a Bush Hating Hypocrite that will look the other way as long it is not Bush doing the LIEING. :roll:

My hats off to you MR LAWMAN way to stick up for Justice for ALL. :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
5,914
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeast Kansas
Tam said:
How many times have we read about how Oldtimer saw something on C Span and tried to make us believe he knew what he was talking about?

Well you are going to love this poll. :wink:

A new Suffolk University poll revealed that Fox News is the most trusted political news source among those surveyed.

FOX News - 28%
CNN - 18%
Undecided - 12%
And to add insult to injury, the rest, including the radical-left's favorite - MSNBC, ranked even lower than "undecided":
NBC - 10%
Other - 10%
MSNBC - 7%
ABC - 6%
CBS - 6%
C-SPAN - 3%

The least trusted news source in the US is the one Oldtimer relies on to get his info. They are even lower than the MSNBC with the News commentator with a tingle going up his leg at the sounds of Obama's voice. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

Oldtimer is always telling us how comical things are, seems this poll makes him worth laughing at. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seeing how Oldtimer only comprehends about 2% of what he learns, and then lies about 50% of the things he says. That would Oldtimer at about 1% trust worthy! :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top