BigRedBuster

Cut entitlements and we have money for these types of things that benefit us greatly.

Whose entitlements should we cut and in what amount?

I'm fine with cutting them across the board until we are to a point we can pay for it. Then, if one wants more money, we decide which one gets cut from there.

I am not against federally funded research. Just as an example, look at all the great things that have come out of the federally funded space program? But, when are we going to get serious about cutting our spending?

 

We can't spend the way we have been. And, raising taxes on the rich doesn't even come close to covering what we are spending?

 

That's all fine and dandy. Lets start with the defense budget.

Great...I have spelled out here how I would do that and it would cut it very deep.

Done..

But, that doesn't come anywhere close to balancing the budget. Cut entitlements and we have money for these types of things that benefit us greatly.

I know an older Italian man who grew up right down the street from John Gotti. He knew him very well growing up. I had heard the saying...."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but to hear him say it really meant something if you know what I mean.

Completely cutting off all communication from Iran (for an example) is the wrong approach. Not because you are going to change their mind but it allows you to at least get a feel for what they are doing even if they are trying to cover it up. Does that make sense?

We have to engage our foes. But, you're not going to change their attitude about us by sitting down and talking to them. They are still going to hate you and still want to kill you.

We can talk all we want with Iran and they still are going to hate us because we support Israel. When I say Iran hates us, I'm talking about the people in power. A large number of Iranians actually like us.

I guess from this article, you would have to decide what a precondition is.

http://abcnews.go.co...bamas-evolving/

When was it that he sat down with them? Bush administration was willing to sit down with them also.

BTW....Europe has pretty much always kept the channels of communication open with these countries. Has it helped them avoid terrorist attacks?

I am not against federally funded research. Just as an example, look at all the great things that have come out of the federally funded space program? But, when are we going to get serious about cutting our spending?

We can't spend the way we have been. And, raising taxes on the rich doesn't even come close to covering what we are spending?

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

Just like Bush's Iraq war was going to bring gas back down to $1 a gallon, right?

i think he is poking fun at the perceived notion that liberals thought obama was going to fix everything and make everything better everywhere. no liberals thought that, but i think it is fun for conservatives to think that they did.

I wasn't poking fun at liberals because I have absolutely no clue what anyone actually believes. I was poking fun at Obama.

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

 

Did you really think that?

 

When he created his administration in Dec 2008 / Jan 2009, he went total hawk in state & defense.

Heck no.

But, he sure campaigned on it. He claimed that Bush's policies were why the world hated us and that specifically with Iran, we just needed to sit down and talk with them. He said that on a number of occasions and at least once in debates.

He turned hawkish when he entered the office because then he was met with the real world. The real world doesn't give a crap about what he campaigned on or what he promised.

Over the last 10-20 years could our foreign policy been better? Heck yes. But, reality is, there are very bad people in the world and one region in particular has a lot of them. Sitting down and having tea with them isn't going to make us safer.

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

 

you really think it is as black and white as either all true or all false? you have to be able to decipher the truth in all information you consume.

The problem is, because he has been so untruthful in various movies, we as the public have no idea what is true in his other movies. How do you know? So, how can you base any opinion on anything that he puts in a movie?

AND, some people will sit here and say that they go to the movie but understand some or all of it isn't true. BUT, once you see something it affects your opinion of that idea or event.

It kind of goes with the old saying, "the more times you say it, the more true it becomes". The more times you tell a lie, the more people will believe it.

I'll flat out say I don't like their dishonestly and it concerns me. Will you say the same thing about the Obama and Uncle Joe?

 

Yes, and you can go through the archives here to confirn it. Good. I'm new here and don't know people's views yet.

 

I an mo fan of Obama/Biden/Hillary, but see them as less foul than McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan. We differ here but that's why we live in America.

 

We are talking about documentaries in this thread. You then point to what the rest of the world calls a documentary in "sicko" and claim it was pretty good. Documentaries are by definition supposed to be truthful and teach us something.

 

I clearly labelled Moore's films as "mocumentaries", with bias and with an agenda (see post #18).

 

Then I said that Moore did a triage on facts, and talked about lefty fiction (see post #20).Not sure what you mean by "triage on facts".

 

I am sorry if you were confused.

 

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

 

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mockumentary

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

 

According to Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured while the remainder, who are covered, are often victims of insurance company fraud and red tape. Interviews are conducted with people who thought they had adequate coverage but were denied care. Former employees of insurance companies describe cost-cutting initiatives that give bonuses to insurance company physicians and others to find reasons for the company to avoid meeting the cost of medically necessary treatments for policy holders, and thus increase company profitability.

I am not a fan of insurance companies. So, don't take this as a defense of them.

However, when you agree that a producer of documentaries/mocumentaries doesn't tell the truth, then how do you know those people in this movie aren't actors?

Man Knapp....

I can't believe we are agreeing this much.

Bill Maher is a piece of crap for all I care.

Really???? Are you sure???? On one hand you agree that in a documentary he completely was biased and put out a complete fraud of a "documentary". Then, on the other hand you act like another of his "documentaries" is truthful.

 

You used used the word "completely" twice, I did not use it at all.

 

You used used the word "fraud" once, I did not use it at all.

 

I never used the word "documentaries" to describe his films, as you said I did. I identified them as "mocumentaries".

 

Nor did I use the word "thruthful", or any form of it.

 

Please re-read what I wrote, then reply to that.

 

Thank you.

 

To me, this is about like if I caught my wife banging the entire team of Dallas Cowboys and then the next month she stayed in the same hotel as them and I'm supposed to believe she's being faithful.

 

Analogies only work if they are remotely proportional.

 

This one is not remotely proportional.

 

In the media, burn me once that bad and I have a really difficult time ever believing you again.

 

If dishonesty is fire, they you must really fear getting burned by Fox News. And Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as politicians.

I'll flat out say I don't like their dishonestly and it concerns me. Will you say the same thing about the Obama and Uncle Joe?

We are talking about documentaries in this thread. You then point to what the rest of the world calls a documentary in "sicko" and claim it was pretty good. Documentaries are by definition supposed to be truthful and teach us something.

From Dictionary.com

doc·u·men·ta·ry   [dok-yuh-men-tuh-ree, -tree] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural doc·u·men·ta·ries. adjective

1. Also, doc·u·men·tal  [dok-yuh-men-tl] Show IPA. pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France.

2. Movies, Television . based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi.

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

I LOVED taco burgers when I was a kid. It was the only thing that my parents could get me to eat when they wanted mexican food. It's basically a not-so-sloppy joe with taco seasoning and you can still put lettuce, tomatoes and cheese on it.

Well, they weren't a big hit when they were served here.

am proud to say I've never seen a Michale Moore film. I'd rather watch four uninterrupted hours of Dora the Explorer than his drivel. And you won't catch me watching this hatchet piece in the OP, either. I have too much self-respect to watch this kind of garbage.

 

I will say this... that the Moore film Sicko did do a service to this nation by highlighting the abuses by a very greedy industry. Sure, many facts were triaged for the movie.

 

"Lefty Fiction" will usually be more popular than "Righty Fiction", because it is more likely to poke fun at people in power.

 

Fox News tried to recreate a right wing version of the Daily Show, but it was a complete disaster.

 

.

 

Edit: I would watch Atlas Shrugged over Dora.

Really???? Are you sure???? On one hand you agree that in a documentary he completely was biased and put out a complete fraud of a "documentary". Then, on the other hand you act like another of his "documentaries" is truthful.

To me, this is about like if I caught my wife banging the entire team of Dallas Cowboys and then the next month she stayed in the same hotel as them and I'm supposed to believe she's being faithful.

In the media, burn me once that bad and I have a really difficult time ever believing you again.

[

"Slightly opposite" means, to me, that you're probably a Moderate like me, just a smidge on the other side of the spectrum. An issue here or there different, but largely the same. Yet we bicker about Republican This or Democrat That and draw lines.

 

I know "us vs. them" is a human trait, ingrained since the caveman days to protect precious resources like food and shelter, but it really gets in the way of progress today when we just want to move along from partisan BS.

 

And yes, I'm guilty of fueling the bickering, too. To some degree I'm entertained by it, but for the most part I'm utterly bored with it. I'd still rather talk to you about cooking. I think we have a ton of common ground there.

Oh...I think we have a ton of common ground. But, where we differ is which candidate do we want in office.

I have seen enough of Obama to do me for the rest of my life. I honestly want him out yesterday.

Now.....I did not start out supporting Romney. But, the one thing that does interest me with him is that he is a business man and a very successful business man and he has ran large organizations before. He has actually accomplished something. That is completely opposite of who we have now. And, for the record, I can't stand investment bankers. I've worked with them before and they are bastards. So, like I said, It's not like I am a huge fan of Romney.

This is where we see a huge difference between you and me. I want a business man in office because they understand what spending and taxes do and how they relate to the business world. And, THAT is where jobs will be created.

This looks really good. Going to have to try it.

I take politically based documentaries all the same way. There is an agenda behind them.

I think you are the first liberal leaning person I have read on a message board that openly condemns Moore.

 

I'm not liberal - never have been. I'm an almost dead-center moderate.

 

Ever taken the Political Compass test? This is where I fall on their compass:

 

 

Slightly more Socially Authoritarian, but Right-leaning economically. Overall, nearly smack dab in the middle.

Yes, I am slightly opposite of you. I am slightly libertarian socially and to the right economically. So, I guess from your graphic, I am a Libertarian Right.

I think you are the first liberal leaning person I have read on a message board that openly condemns Moore.

I didn't know that anyone took Michael Moore seriously.

Really??? Good Lord, the guy was a celebrity amongst many because he finally was uncovering the truth. Fahrenheit 911 is the highest grossing documentary of all time. That isn't because everyone thought it was a bunch of lies and didn't take it seriously.

My mother was/is an amazing cook but, like you, when I was young I didn't show any interest in cooking.

When I went off to college, I got really sick of Kraft Mac and Cheese. So, in my spare time I started trying to cook. Man, some of those early meals stunk.

But, this leads to another discussion we have had. When I was first married and we didn't have hardly any money to go out to eat, my wife and I started getting into cooking. We realized that we could cook good fresh meals at home and it was cheaper than buying the crap that is prepared and in a box that is high in fat and calories. Both of our mothers were gardeners also. So, when we bought a house, we started a garden and that only reinforced eating healthy and for less money.

Which goes back to the original topic. I honestly don't see why the government ran school lunch program needs to have really bad food. It makes no sense.

I'll give you an example. One of the meals that was fed to our kids this year was what was called a "taco burger". Really??? All it was was taco meat on a whole wheat hamburger bun. Nothing else.

Good friggen lord. Who in the hell wants that? Put the friggen taco meat in a taco shell and provide lettuce, tomatoes and cheese to go on top of it and it turns it from crap into something they will like. Heck, use whole wheat soft taco shells even.

Instead of recruiting q/b's to play w/r. Why don't we just recruit q/b's to play q/b. Won't be long before we are known as, the w/r grave yard for q/b recruits.

 

GBR!!!

 

Yes, this

Sooo...let me get this straight. A 4th string QB who wasn't ever going to see the playing field again at that position decided to switch positions and now we are the QB graveyard?

You just somewhat made my point in my first paragraph. Crossing routes or throws to the flats are quick routes and the QB doesn't need a lot of time in the pocket for the receiver to get open. You have to have people covering these players that prevent them from being open almost from the first step.

I'm a big fan of Anthony Bourdain. We watched his very early work, A Cook's Tour, last night. He stopped at a roadside rest area in Japan and got food out of a vending machine that was better than anything you're going to find at most American mall food courts.

 

That's just embarrassing to see as an American. We should be way better than that.

I like Bourdain also. I would love to go on vacation with him or Andrew Zimmern.

The reason why so much food in America sucks is because of two things.

a) The public doesn't give a crap.

b) The public doesn't care.

I also like Diners Drive Inns and Dives. It shows locally owned places with people who really care about the quality of food they serve. Not necessarily the healthiest but at least it tastes good.

This guy is a conservative Michael Moore. He claims, like Moore, to present only facts, yet what he does, like Moore, is present BS conjecture intended to spin his propaganda message to the masses. We should celebrate the fact that we're not falling for this crap anymore. We should celebrate the fact that Michael Moore isn't taken seriously anymore.

 

If this guy is crying that he isn't getting the respect Michael Moore got.... he can go cry somewhere else. Moore is and always was lambasted for his lunacy. That's not something a serious filmmaker should aspire to.

I don't like any of this kind of crap and it is a prime example of why I think the media is extremely dangerous in America right now. People actually believe this crap. I remember having discussions on message boards when Moore's movie came out about 9/11 and liberals actually believed that Bush knew about 9/11 and may have helped plan it.

I think you are the first liberal leaning person I have read on a message board that openly condemns Moore.

 

So, the takeaway is, we know some foods are bad for us, but we eat them anyway because they taste good. No willpower.

Oh...I completely 100% agree with this.

However, that doesn't mean the school lunches have to suck and not have enough food.

I do some catering and preparing food for large groups. I have fed groups up to 400-500 people with literally just me and maybe one other person. I also have one heck of a lot less equipment and facilities than the school lunch room and they have a staff of people who come in in the morning to help start preparing the food.

There is absolutely NO REASON WHY FOOD HAS TO SUCK. Someone said in this thread that the reason it sucks is because of nutritional guidelines they have to abide by.

That very well may be true. BUT, it doesn't have to be that way. Either the government is putting restrictions on it or the people preparing it don't give a crap.

If Maher doesn't miss and we don't go full retard in our own end zone, are we having these conversations??

Field position is an underrated area of consideration. Our field position last Sat cost us at least 11 points. Erstad's punting was a major factor in our 1st NC under TO.

T_O_B

G>B>R

Completely agree with this statement. Our field position absolutely stunk. The offense takes some of the blame. BUT, most of it comes down to defense and special teams. Our defense did not give our offense ANY form of good field position other than the one fumble they recovered.