Who are the "high ratings" liberal commentators?

[Darth Executor]

That's the trouble with current US campaign financing laws... nobody has a good idea where the money is coming from or where it is going to. Hillary Clinton could set up a "support Jeb Bush" PAC and get lots of money from conservative donors which in reality went to Hillary and not Jeb. Or China or North Korea could decide "we like candidate X" and set up a US-looking PAC and funnel money into it and affect US election outcomes. Scam PACs being able to hide who's giving them money and where that money is going is just asking for a disaster. The Democrats tried to fix the situation but the Republicans voted unanimously against it... apparently they like their scam PACs and they like foreign money able to influence US elections?!?

The democrats want to know who donated to what so they can harass people who don't donate to their candidates or causes, like they did with Brendan Eich or prop 8 donors in California. The truth is that no matter which way it goes democrats benefit. Make donations open and people like Starlight will bully people into voting and supporting their way (or at least withdraw support from their opponents). Hide them and democrats can funnel international donations into their coffers, which Obama made easy.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's the trouble with current US campaign financing laws... nobody has a good idea where the money is coming from or where it is going to. Hillary Clinton could set up a "support Jeb Bush" PAC and get lots of money from conservative donors which in reality went to Hillary and not Jeb. Or China or North Korea could decide "we like candidate X" and set up a US-looking PAC and funnel money into it and affect US election outcomes. Scam PACs being able to hide who's giving them money and where that money is going is just asking for a disaster. The Democrats tried to fix the situation but the Republicans voted unanimously against it... apparently they like their scam PACs and they like foreign money able to influence US elections?!?

So the democrats could than use that list to harass groups and people that give to republicans? Don't you remember back in 2012 where the IRS harassed conservative groups though the IRS or do you not remember that story because it makes your favorite group look bad and thus you ignore it?

[Paprika]

If I were in charge of the Chinese government, I'd funnel all the money to Democrats that I could.

It would likely be better to fund both sides to create deadlock (eg. President vs Congress). There's also something to be said for the long-term plan of funding neo-cons to be President so that they'll start more wars, bleeding the country.

[Starlight]

If I were in charge of the Chinese government, I'd funnel all the money to Democrats that I could.

You'd think the Republicans would be the first to want to pass laws tightening up on campaign financing then, wouldn't you? But they're the ones who have unanimously blocked such laws. So at the end of the day the Republican senators must believe that Republicans stand to gain more than Democrats from secretive campaign funding.

Hide them and democrats can funnel international donations into their coffers, which Obama made easy.

The Obama campaign was following the law. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find examples of other campaign PACs doing exactly the same thing. But yes, this is why the law as it stands is problematic: If individual foreign citizens can easily make anonymous donations to US political campaigns, think just how easy it would be for any foreign government to funnel money into US political campaigns via its spy agencies. A presidential election campaign costs about $1 billion US, which is small-change to any foreign government who would like to see their favored candidate win - they could make back that money in favorable trade deals / arms deals in no time. Countries like Israel who receive about $3 billion per year in US aid of various kinds are highly motivated to spend money to obtain a favorable outcome in US elections. Alternatively ISIS, or Iraq, or Iran, or China, or North Korea, or Russia all have various motivations for seeking particular outcomes in US elections. Making it easy for them to legally influence elections in the US without anyone's knowledge kinda seems like asking for trouble.

[Starlight]

Don't you remember back in 2012 where the IRS harassed conservative groups though the IRS or do you not remember that story because it makes your favorite group look bad and thus you ignore it?

I remember that it turned out to be conservatives within the IRS who had launched investigations and that it turned out they had investigated more liberal groups than they had conservative ones. In terms of conservative talking points, the 'IRS scandal' turned out to have zero merit, like 'Benghazi' and 'fast and furious' and the various other non-scandals that US conservatives got worked up into frenzies about.

[Paprika]

Making it easy for them to legally influence elections in the US without anyone's knowledge kinda seems like asking for trouble.

Turnabout is fair play.

[Juvenal]

Liberals, for the most part, aren't used to having everything challenged when they say it. They're used to reciting their talking points and having reporters nod and accept it. So when they went to talk radio they, for the most part, were fully unprepared to repeatedly have to defend their position which the callers would make them do and this causes few listeners to bother tuning them in.

As for Colmes being a comedian. Two words. Al Franken. No, now make that three words. Senator Al Franken. Although that's in many ways funnier than he ever was as a comedian.

I'd mention you clearly don't understand liberals — since when did liberals stop giving even the goofiest oddballs a hearing, but then I'd have to mention you clearly don't understand how call-in talk radio works — never heard of the mute button, but then I'd have to mention you clearly don't understand the difference between comedians and satirists — and we'd be at this all night, so let's just keep it short and sweet.

I'll take your political commentary seriously the day after you learn how to put arithmetic ahead of your ideology.

Which, judging from the years I've been nagging you to do so, ain't gonna be any time soon.

[lilpixieofterror]

I remember that it turned out to be conservatives within the IRS who had launched investigations and that it turned out they had investigated more liberal groups than they had conservative ones. In terms of conservative talking points, the 'IRS scandal' turned out to have zero merit, like 'Benghazi' and 'fast and furious' and the various other non-scandals that US conservatives got worked up into frenzies about.

Really? Here is what your favorite source says:

The investigation ultimately found the Cincinnati office used inappropriate criteria to single out certain cases. Over the course of two years, 298 total cases were sent to D.C. for greater scrutiny. According to the investigation, 72 of those groups had the name "tea party," 13 had "Patriot" and 11 had "9/12." The other 202 cases were listed as "other." In 160 of these cases, the application remained open between 206 and 1,138 days, while 108 were approved.

...

Brazile said the IRS was "looking at everybody" including liberal groups and progressive groups. Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities.

But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions. The list targeting tea party groups resulted in delayed processing that in some cases lasted almost three years and inquiries into their donors. Further, the inspector general found tea party groups were systematically singled out as part of an office-wide effort, while progressive groups were not.

Weighing all of this, we rate Brazile’s comments Half True.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...targeted-libe/

How embarrassing, to have your own sources tell you otherwise. Anymore embarrassing mistakes you'd care to make?

[Starlight]

Turnabout is fair play.

True.

But a lot of patriotic Americans don't see it that way. In their minds their country is allowed to intervene in other countries all over the world, overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with military dictators on a regular basis.

I think that US allies should get together and influence US elections for the benefit of the US and the world. But US patriots flip their lids at the thought of foreigners having any influence on US elections.


lilpixieofterror, as I mentioned last time I cited them, I don't like politifact's tendencies to give 'half true' or 'mostly true' ratings to liberals for making statements which I would rate as 'true'. They are far from my 'favorite source' as you put it.

[lilpixieofterror]

True.

But a lot of patriotic Americans don't see it that way. In their minds their country is allowed to intervene in other countries all over the world, overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with military dictators on a regular basis.

I think that US allies should get together and influence US elections for the benefit of the US and the world. But US patriots flip their lids at the thought of foreigners having any influence on US elections.

You mean like how the peace loving Obama bombed Libya and pretty much did the same thing that you two accuse republicans of doing? I guess what is good for one group to do; isn't good for another.

lilpixieofterror, as I mentioned last time I cited them, I don't like politifact's tendencies to give 'half true' or 'mostly true' ratings to liberals for making statements which I would rate as 'true'. They are far from my 'favorite source' as you put it.

Yep, got to love it... when you end up quoting them as an authority on topics, but just ignore them when they say things you don't like. Keep digging your own grave because anything is better than admitting that people you hate, might be right on something.

[Starlight]

You mean like how the peace loving Obama bombed Libya and pretty much did the same thing that you two accuse republicans of doing?

I don't particularly like Obama. He's far too war-hawish and corporatist and right-wing for my liking. He seems to want to drone-strike as much as possible, be the servant of big-business, and do any and every possible deal with Republicans to cut government budgets as much as possible and then more. While he's an order of magnitude better than Bush W., he's still an order of magnitude worse that I'd hoped he might be. Hillary suffers from many of the same problems. Most of the Democrat party is waaaay too Republican for my liking.

anything is better than admitting that people you hate, might be right on something.

"A stopped clock is right twice a day" as the saying goes. I've got no issue with admitting even the dumbest people are occasionally right about something.

[Darth Executor]

How embarrassing, to have your own sources tell you otherwise. Anymore embarrassing mistakes you'd care to make?

In this case it should have been a lie outright, not a "half truth" so gayblight's whining is even more bizarre.

[rogue06]

Good points. You came up with this yourself?

You find that difficult to believe?

[rogue06]

One thing I've noticed in my many years of listening to right-wing talk shows is that they are, almost invariably, centered around advertising — often for products and services one would normally consider unnecessary or outright junk. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck all have structured their segments in something like Morse code ... a long bit, followed by two or three short bits (often a back-from-commercial -> Single paragraph -> back-to-commercial spot) with lots of advertising in between. And that's because consumers of right-wing media tend to be older and tend to be more susceptible to this type of advertising (and scams but that's probably too far down the rabbit hole).

That must be a local thing because that does not reflect what sort of ads run here in Atlanta. Lots of ads from home improvement companies (Lowes, Home Depot...), jewelry stores, banks, high end auto dealerships (Mercedes, BMW...), home security companies, grocery stores, and various financial planners.

[rogue06]

I don't particularly like Obama. He's far too war-hawish and corporatist and right-wing for my liking. He seems to want to drone-strike as much as possible, be the servant of big-business, and do any and every possible deal with Republicans to cut government budgets as much as possible and then more. While he's an order of magnitude better than Bush W., he's still an order of magnitude worse that I'd hoped he might be. Hillary suffers from many of the same problems. Most of the Democrat party is waaaay too Republican for my liking.