Sounds like something Joe would say. :)This video compliments the cartoon from a feminine perspective.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gPxCwoNUwUPG 13 folks.C.
Voters cannot believe anything said by either Biden or Obama.They keep authentic fact checkers very busy, as they roam the nation spouting errors everywhere they speak.
So the source for this alleged comment was Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze”??? a call in from the “father”?
Interesting that the family of the other “guard” killed, who’s an ex-SEAL, and a co-founder/contributor of Mickey Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told Mitt to STFU! about the whole Benghazi incident, and to stop trying to use their loved-one’s name in vain.
More relative to the fact Beck is a “s**mbag” than anything else, even if Joe did say it, I’ve heard the expression, and variants, used as extreme compliments. Maybe the dad should be ticked off at the contractor who hired his son.
As someone who sometimes misses nuances of speech, it seems like “to have balls the size of cue balls” was supposed to be a compliment. Biden is probably someone who has some trouble expressing things in the right words. I think “Balls of steel” or something might have sounded better. but I think it was a mistake to put his bravery in those terms, " as opposed to “brave as a bear”, or “brave as a wolverine”. To say “brave as a possum” wouldn’t even get the idea across.
Considering the source of this story, I have doubts of its veracity. Beck? Call in? The timing of this report? Something stinks.[]I just don’t believe that Biden would say something like that, even if he thought it was a compliment.
It’s funny how the left pounces on Romney when he says something like, “binder full of women”, but get all upset when the right picks on Biden for his gaffes. Both sides try to capitalize on slips of the tongue, and it’s really getting ignorant. It’s like being in grade school and watching kids snipe at each other.
ansonia; you have my sympathy that you actually listened to anything on Beck and poisoned your mind, obviously.
I’ve lost good friends in wars, and I know guys who’ve taken those jobs at $300,000 a year with contractors after leaving our military.
My son also spend 5 years with the teams, and is now retired with multiple disabilities as a result of his military service in dangerous places for over 13 years. I KNOW what it’s like to have a son at risk, and assure you, the concern waiting for word after that “first warning call” that something is wrong, NEVER LEAVES. When they come home, every time they go back, it is “fresh”.
If you’ve ever listened to 7 minutes of Limbaugh, or 2.1 minutes of Beck, you have no cause to call liberals “immature”, “Stupid”, liars, or guilty of “personal attacks”, as those are both men’s stock-in-trade, and you’ve bought a load of it.
^I listen to Rush on occasion, and yes, watch Fox news, in fact our local NBC affiliate is also Fox on another channel, same owners. The accuracy (if you can call it that) on the Fox broadcast is usually not as accurate, and re-written to reflect Fox bias in the stories, especially anything “political”.
Rush has said he never attacked Sandra Fluck, after three days of diatribes. He’s accused Obama of being Kenyan, for years. HIs “figures” on the economy are constantly wrong, if not blatantly false. He always proclaims he has no bias, but constantly plays his little “ditties” from “con records”, or distorted “recordings” of such as Sharpton, and others. HIs reports denouncing climate change are pitiful and childish B.S.. He was a junkie for decades, while at the very same time taking, and in possession of “commercial quantities” of OxyContin, yet only served “community service” instead of going to prison for life, as he for years insisted all junkies and dealers should. Speaking of hypocrisy.
I could go on, but didn’t listen that closely to him this morning as they played his “weeks best” on Saturday.
It’s also late, good night, and good luck, finding any truth in anything LImbaugh says.
Your link to the Forbes article by Dr. Henry I. Miller has given me good reason to re-think my previous post.[]Maybe Obama is using Biden as insurance against assassination?
“If you think FOX News is biased, I challenge you to watch FOX and find bias.”[]When I read your post I was reminded of something that I had previously read, so I did a search: “fox lawsuit right to lie” – asserting that Fox News won a judgment that they are not required by law to report the truth and that they have a First Amendment right to alter the news with bias that will appeal to their viewers.[]Although I am “Just Curious” (I don’t have a dog in this fight!) here are three sites that I think deserve your attention:1) http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
3) http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/06/court-fox-news-has-first-amendment.html[]The decision of the court concludes with the following:While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute. The portion of the whistle-blower’s statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[]Note that the defense of WTVT was that “… the intentional falsification of the news … does not qualify as the required ‘law, rule, or regulation’….” required under the whistle-blower’s statute.[]Interesting, to say the least.
The first thing I saw when I clicked on your link is Bill O’Reilly.-———————————-I provided FIVE links to help you understand that “Fox News” is biased, and you chose a PICTURE of Bill O’Reilly to which to respond. (http://www.examiner.com/article/study-shows-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news ) The story wasn’t even about O’Reilly. It’s apparent to me that you didn’t read it but became preoccupied with the picture. So – perhaps you are still choosing children’s fairy tale books and looking at pictures instead of reading? Jeez, get a clue!.Your response to my informational links is to present a barrage of rhetorical questions; but it is not up to me to answer those. If you have information that rebuts the FIVE links that I provided, it is YOUR responsibility to refute that information. Questions do NOT rebut studies from objective universities, and your assigning to an “.edu” site the label “liberal” merely exhibits your personal bias, an admission that you have no rationale to dispute the study..Likewise, a curt dismissal of “New Jersey voters” is evidence of your lack of impartiality. I don’t even know how you came to that conclusion! The second link in my second post referred to a national study! (http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/study-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news-at-all/ ) If you are able to provide a professional (or educational) analysis of this being a flawed study, then post the information here – not a bunch of questions that serve no legitimate purpose.
So a JURY dismissed the claims in the original lawsuit and Akre’s lawsuit on the basis of the whistle-blower act did not meet the constraints of the law.———————————And with that, you in effect prove the point that Fox News was ordering their newscasters to falsify the news – but the whistle-blower act did not cover that and because of a technicality the plaintiffs could not prevail. Sometimes the laws are flawed.
chazandru over 11 years ago
Sounds like something Joe would say. :)This video compliments the cartoon from a feminine perspective.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gPxCwoNUwUPG 13 folks.C.
disgustedtaxpayer over 11 years ago
Voters cannot believe anything said by either Biden or Obama.They keep authentic fact checkers very busy, as they roam the nation spouting errors everywhere they speak.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
So the source for this alleged comment was Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze”??? a call in from the “father”?
Interesting that the family of the other “guard” killed, who’s an ex-SEAL, and a co-founder/contributor of Mickey Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told Mitt to STFU! about the whole Benghazi incident, and to stop trying to use their loved-one’s name in vain.
More relative to the fact Beck is a “s**mbag” than anything else, even if Joe did say it, I’ve heard the expression, and variants, used as extreme compliments. Maybe the dad should be ticked off at the contractor who hired his son.
pam Miner over 11 years ago
As someone who sometimes misses nuances of speech, it seems like “to have balls the size of cue balls” was supposed to be a compliment. Biden is probably someone who has some trouble expressing things in the right words. I think “Balls of steel” or something might have sounded better. but I think it was a mistake to put his bravery in those terms, " as opposed to “brave as a bear”, or “brave as a wolverine”. To say “brave as a possum” wouldn’t even get the idea across.
dwilliams_72206 over 11 years ago
Considering the source of this story, I have doubts of its veracity. Beck? Call in? The timing of this report? Something stinks.[]I just don’t believe that Biden would say something like that, even if he thought it was a compliment.
joe vignone over 11 years ago
…and Bush had a brain the size of a pea!
ConserveGov over 11 years ago
Makes you wonder even more about Barry’s competence in choosing this clown as VP.
tryoung71 over 11 years ago
It’s funny how the left pounces on Romney when he says something like, “binder full of women”, but get all upset when the right picks on Biden for his gaffes. Both sides try to capitalize on slips of the tongue, and it’s really getting ignorant. It’s like being in grade school and watching kids snipe at each other.
neuturn over 11 years ago
You still don’t say it that way.
neuturn over 11 years ago
a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
ansonia; you have my sympathy that you actually listened to anything on Beck and poisoned your mind, obviously.
I’ve lost good friends in wars, and I know guys who’ve taken those jobs at $300,000 a year with contractors after leaving our military.
My son also spend 5 years with the teams, and is now retired with multiple disabilities as a result of his military service in dangerous places for over 13 years. I KNOW what it’s like to have a son at risk, and assure you, the concern waiting for word after that “first warning call” that something is wrong, NEVER LEAVES. When they come home, every time they go back, it is “fresh”.
If you’ve ever listened to 7 minutes of Limbaugh, or 2.1 minutes of Beck, you have no cause to call liberals “immature”, “Stupid”, liars, or guilty of “personal attacks”, as those are both men’s stock-in-trade, and you’ve bought a load of it.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
^I listen to Rush on occasion, and yes, watch Fox news, in fact our local NBC affiliate is also Fox on another channel, same owners. The accuracy (if you can call it that) on the Fox broadcast is usually not as accurate, and re-written to reflect Fox bias in the stories, especially anything “political”.
Rush has said he never attacked Sandra Fluck, after three days of diatribes. He’s accused Obama of being Kenyan, for years. HIs “figures” on the economy are constantly wrong, if not blatantly false. He always proclaims he has no bias, but constantly plays his little “ditties” from “con records”, or distorted “recordings” of such as Sharpton, and others. HIs reports denouncing climate change are pitiful and childish B.S.. He was a junkie for decades, while at the very same time taking, and in possession of “commercial quantities” of OxyContin, yet only served “community service” instead of going to prison for life, as he for years insisted all junkies and dealers should. Speaking of hypocrisy.
I could go on, but didn’t listen that closely to him this morning as they played his “weeks best” on Saturday.
It’s also late, good night, and good luck, finding any truth in anything LImbaugh says.
dwilliams_72206 over 11 years ago
Your link to the Forbes article by Dr. Henry I. Miller has given me good reason to re-think my previous post.[]Maybe Obama is using Biden as insurance against assassination?
dwilliams_72206 over 11 years ago
“If you think FOX News is biased, I challenge you to watch FOX and find bias.”[]When I read your post I was reminded of something that I had previously read, so I did a search: “fox lawsuit right to lie” – asserting that Fox News won a judgment that they are not required by law to report the truth and that they have a First Amendment right to alter the news with bias that will appeal to their viewers.[]Although I am “Just Curious” (I don’t have a dog in this fight!) here are three sites that I think deserve your attention:1) http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
2) http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2009/10/24/six-years-ago-fox-news-successfully-argued-in-court-that-it-had-a-constitutional-right-to-report-lies/
3) http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/06/court-fox-news-has-first-amendment.html[]The decision of the court concludes with the following:While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute. The portion of the whistle-blower’s statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[]Note that the defense of WTVT was that “… the intentional falsification of the news … does not qualify as the required ‘law, rule, or regulation’….” required under the whistle-blower’s statute.[]Interesting, to say the least.
dwilliams_72206 over 11 years ago
Looking further, I came up with these interesting articles:
1) http://www.examiner.com/article/study-shows-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news
2) http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/study-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news-at-all/
[]I apologize that a couple of the sites I’ve provided have references to “Faux News” that you find offensive or detracting – that isn’t my doing.
dwilliams_72206 over 11 years ago
The first thing I saw when I clicked on your link is Bill O’Reilly.-———————————-I provided FIVE links to help you understand that “Fox News” is biased, and you chose a PICTURE of Bill O’Reilly to which to respond. (http://www.examiner.com/article/study-shows-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news ) The story wasn’t even about O’Reilly. It’s apparent to me that you didn’t read it but became preoccupied with the picture. So – perhaps you are still choosing children’s fairy tale books and looking at pictures instead of reading? Jeez, get a clue!.Your response to my informational links is to present a barrage of rhetorical questions; but it is not up to me to answer those. If you have information that rebuts the FIVE links that I provided, it is YOUR responsibility to refute that information. Questions do NOT rebut studies from objective universities, and your assigning to an “.edu” site the label “liberal” merely exhibits your personal bias, an admission that you have no rationale to dispute the study..Likewise, a curt dismissal of “New Jersey voters” is evidence of your lack of impartiality. I don’t even know how you came to that conclusion! The second link in my second post referred to a national study! (http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/study-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news-at-all/ ) If you are able to provide a professional (or educational) analysis of this being a flawed study, then post the information here – not a bunch of questions that serve no legitimate purpose.
dwilliams_72206 over 11 years ago
So a JURY dismissed the claims in the original lawsuit and Akre’s lawsuit on the basis of the whistle-blower act did not meet the constraints of the law.———————————And with that, you in effect prove the point that Fox News was ordering their newscasters to falsify the news – but the whistle-blower act did not cover that and because of a technicality the plaintiffs could not prevail. Sometimes the laws are flawed.