Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Well, now this is what I REALLY HEAR when tuning into Faux News...sorry 'bout that...

Posted By: truthbetold on 2009-02-19
In Reply to: Every time I tune into Faux News I hear - truthbetold

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image; make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the Outer Limits.


LOL


 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Every time I tune into Faux News I hear
"there's nothing wrong with your TV set.  Do not attempt to adjust the picture.  We are now controlling the transmission."   
And what do you think Faux news is? Sm
ROFL.  Do you think Faux news tilts to the right a little?
Oh boy! Faux News? Really?
My goodness - I wonder who stirred this pot. Who organized these families? Hmm. I smell a conspiracy. Why didn't these families approach Bushbag? Strange doings, I must say. Not allowed back on the grounds? Wow! Says who?
watch Faux news they are all

about flags, lipstick, crosses in the sand -- all the symbolic distraction you could ever, ever hope for.


 


Faux news and Huff

The difference is essential.  Huff backs up what it says.  It is openly democrat-leaning.  It is okay to be biased, one must just admit to the fact and not try to disguise their bias like Faux does.  If Faux just came out and said we are repub-owned and controlled and we will say anything to defeat the dems, there would be problem with them  It's the coverup that gets em everytime.


 


Faux News viewers most misinformed -
Misperceptions, Media, and the Iraq War Please be warned it's a 23-page PDF file. Very interesting and not surprising to many of us.
Faux Noise? You mean Fox News? I have watched
nm
OBAMA WON!!! Despite Faux News attempts to thwart the success WE DID IT
very good news and what a relief
Did ya hear the news that the city

mayors are now looking for handouts? Where will it all end? They don't think the governors should get it because it will be used to pump up their balance sheet, but the city mayors think they should get it because they will use it to get jobs for the people. Are they now going to wave a magic wand and have jobs appear?


Like DH says, "We have nothing anymore. No production jobs at all. They're all overseas. When they left the steel industry go down the tubes, that was the beginning of the end."


I am really happy to hear this news.
especially for the various minority communities. It never hurts to have visible representation from counter-balancing points of view. Obama's decision to invite Gene Robinson is a good example of how he will be mitigating and diffusing divisive forces in our country. I just CAN'T WAIT until January 20th.
I did hear on the news this morning that Congress is ...sm
looking into who was at fault for the failure of Lehman Bros.
sorry 'bout that...this one should work
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml
sorry 'bout that GoUrdpainter!!! nm
.
How 'bout something a little newer......

September 18, 2008: Edge of Collapse




leadimage

02/11/09 Baltimore, Maryland When Bob Woodward slaps together his next instant-history book about the Panic of ‘08 (c’mon, you just know he’s going to), I imagine the book will open with the events of September 18-19, 2008.


Just using public sources, it’s now easy to glean that on those two days, a run on money-market funds brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, and Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.


The collapse revelation came a few days ago from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.


On Thursday [the 18th], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.


The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.


They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic and there. And that’s what actually happened.


If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.


Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.




Couple this with the remarks of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill went down in flames.  “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”


Careless bloggers have jumped to the conclusion this threat was delivered the same day there was a run on the money-market funds.  But by the recollection of Sen. James Inhofe — who confirmed to a Tulsa radio station it was Hank Paulson himself who delivered that threat — the discussion took place on Friday the 19th.


It’s possible Paulson resorted to such dire language because the Dow popped 400-plus points in the final hours of trading the day before on rumors that Treasury and the Fed were hatching one of their many rescue plans — a rally that continued into the first hours of trading Friday.  Ordinary scare language wouldn’t do under those circumstances.  Or it’s possible Inhofe’s memory is fuzzy and the threat came the same day that everything nearly melted down.


Well, I’m sure Bob Woodward can make a few phone calls and clear up any discrepancies on the time frame.  In the meantime, I’m more concerned about the potential for another Black Swan to show up before the month is out.


How 'bout something a little newer......

September 18, 2008: Edge of Collapse




leadimage

02/11/09 Baltimore, Maryland When Bob Woodward slaps together his next instant-history book about the Panic of ‘08 (c’mon, you just know he’s going to), I imagine the book will open with the events of September 18-19, 2008.


Just using public sources, it’s now easy to glean that on those two days, a run on money-market funds brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, and Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.


The collapse revelation came a few days ago from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.


On Thursday [the 18th], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.


The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.


They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic and there. And that’s what actually happened.


If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.


Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.




Couple this with the remarks of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill went down in flames.  “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”


Careless bloggers have jumped to the conclusion this threat was delivered the same day there was a run on the money-market funds.  But by the recollection of Sen. James Inhofe — who confirmed to a Tulsa radio station it was Hank Paulson himself who delivered that threat — the discussion took place on Friday the 19th.


It’s possible Paulson resorted to such dire language because the Dow popped 400-plus points in the final hours of trading the day before on rumors that Treasury and the Fed were hatching one of their many rescue plans — a rally that continued into the first hours of trading Friday.  Ordinary scare language wouldn’t do under those circumstances.  Or it’s possible Inhofe’s memory is fuzzy and the threat came the same day that everything nearly melted down.


Well, I’m sure Bob Woodward can make a few phone calls and clear up any discrepancies on the time frame.  In the meantime, I’m more concerned about the potential for another Black Swan to show up before the month is out.


How 'bout something a little newer......

September 18, 2008: Edge of Collapse




leadimage

02/11/09 Baltimore, Maryland When Bob Woodward slaps together his next instant-history book about the Panic of ‘08 (c’mon, you just know he’s going to), I imagine the book will open with the events of September 18-19, 2008.


Just using public sources, it’s now easy to glean that on those two days, a run on money-market funds brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, and Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.


The collapse revelation came a few days ago from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.


On Thursday [the 18th], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.


The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.


They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic and there. And that’s what actually happened.


If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.


Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.




Couple this with the remarks of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill went down in flames.  “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”


Careless bloggers have jumped to the conclusion this threat was delivered the same day there was a run on the money-market funds.  But by the recollection of Sen. James Inhofe — who confirmed to a Tulsa radio station it was Hank Paulson himself who delivered that threat — the discussion took place on Friday the 19th.


It’s possible Paulson resorted to such dire language because the Dow popped 400-plus points in the final hours of trading the day before on rumors that Treasury and the Fed were hatching one of their many rescue plans — a rally that continued into the first hours of trading Friday.  Ordinary scare language wouldn’t do under those circumstances.  Or it’s possible Inhofe’s memory is fuzzy and the threat came the same day that everything nearly melted down.


Well, I’m sure Bob Woodward can make a few phone calls and clear up any discrepancies on the time frame.  In the meantime, I’m more concerned about the potential for another Black Swan to show up before the month is out.


How 'bout something to back up your facts.
As far as I know, it happened under Clinton's watch. He didn't want to do anything but talk. Talk got us 911.
How 'bout the "luxury tax" on beer, wine and...sm.
soda since the govt has decided that these things are detrimental to our health. Wonder where the "taxes on" phase will end - in 2012????? One can hope.........
How 'bout taxing health care, too

Heard dribs and drabs about this about a month ago. He wants to tax the employers who provide health care to the employees. Does that sound like he wants all of us to abide by HIS healthcare plan?


More on this later.


Well, I say good for him! 'Bout time somebody grew
--
Okay, my friends, how 'bout a little Friday comic relief?
Probably already heard/read these, but here we go:

Only in America. Even though he stole 2.4 million he has agreed to pay back 1.8 million to make it right. So let that be a lesson to all you other congressmen out there. If you get caught stealing you may have to pay back a small fraction of what you took ... Don't you love how our system works? So if you're poor and you steal a loaf of bread it's a $200 fine, if you're a congressman who steals $2.4 million you get to keep a 25% bonus. --Jay Leno

Former head of FEMA Michael Brown has opened up his own private disaster agency. That's like Robert Blake opening up a marriage counselling facility. —David Letterman

A hunk of marble fell from the front of the Supreme Court building, a big hunk of marble. I believe it was the biggest thud at the Supreme Court since Harriet Miers —David Letterman

California Congressman Duke Cunningham resigned from office after admitting he broke the law by taking $2.4 million dollars in bribes. It's kind of ironic. The only time you can really be sure that a politician is telling the truth is when he's admitting that he's a crook. —Jay Leno

In his speech President Bush said we need to rebuild Iraq, provide the people with jobs, and give them hope. If it works there maybe we'll try it in New Orleans. —Jay Leno


From David Letterman:

Top 10 New President Bush Strategies For Victory in Iraq
10. Make an even larger 'Mission Accomplished' sign
9. Encourage Iraqis to settle their feud like Dave and Oprah
8. Put that go-getter Michael Brown in charge
7. Launch slogan, 'It's not Iraq, it's Weraq'
6. Just do whatever he did when he captured Osama
5. A little more vacation time at the ranch to clear his head
4. Pack on a quick 30 pounds and trade places with Jeb
3. Wait, you mean it ain't going well?
2. Boost morale by doing his hilarious 'Locked Door' gag
1. Place Saddam back in power and tell him, 'It's your problem now, dude'
Haha - how 'bout "rich peoples' fat wallets first?"

As usual, bringing up the past...how 'bout something original...
your inexperienced leader is already in over his head. It's okay sweetie, you'll get used to hearing your leader bashed and getting no respect. We had to endure that for 8 years now you will for the next 4.
faux talk.

nm


 


faux talk

don't read em


 


Faux will just have to counterpunch

by requiring forehead tattoos of the flag on all their regulars.


 


even your beloved Faux

has Obama up 6.


 


Pardon my faux pas........... sm
that belongs in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

But it makes my argument no less valid.
'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
N/M
Faux Snooze strikes again
...
Did you read the screen below him? On Faux Noise, no less.

nm


 


don;t bother to read -standard Faux creed

nm


 


Can you stop parroting Faux Noise long enough
The freeze is pending review of the Gitmo operations. You are just plain STUPID to think that Obama is going to flood the streets with the detainees. They will be transerred to different facilities (last I heard, they were considering re-opening Alcatraz, for example!), their charges and cases reviewed and heard in a legitimate court proceedings, but don't look for ALL cases to stand, especially the ones where the only evidence against the accused was gained by means of torture. Some of them may well end up walking. You will have your beloved shrub and Cheney to thank for that.
Wow, once again jumping to conclusions based on Faux Noise sm
inaccurate reporting by jumping on a story strictly for sensationalism.  Mr. Latham has since been reinstated his job.  It all turned out to be a misunderstanding by argumentative student that took something that Mr. Latham said, twisted it, and reported it to the principal.  Once the misunderstanding was cleared up after all parties told their stories, Mr. Latham has his job back.  Just another example of those ambulance chasers at Fox stirring the pot for their own hateful agenda.  Maybe those of you on here that take everything they say as gospel woulld be wise to wait before you report something as fact!!
Hear, hear! He is an exceptional person for an ....sm
exceptionable time. They say that God is watching us from a distance and I believe that is true. I think that Obama has a good pure heart, extraordinary intelligence, does truly want to improve our lives, and my prayers are with him. How about that he has Bobby Kennedy's desk (my hero).
Hear ye, hear ye. We don't want to be scared.
nm
FOX news IS the news. The only 1 that tells BOTH
nm
It's all over the news - and I mean ALL news stations.
not just the ones you don't like.

Do you hear yourself?
You drive even other Democrats off this board.  There hasn't been logical debate here in weeks.  You have no idea how you appear on the conservative board. Like a bunch of grade schoolers.  They have stayed away from the most part from here, but you have not afforded them the same courtesy.  And yet you think YOU have taken the higher ground.  It's just amazing your lack of insight into your own behavior.  Just as you were accused, so was I.  By one of YOU.  Unbelieveable.
My God, do you hear yourself? NM

You won't hear that in the MSM!
Thanks for posting the article!
So what I hear you saying is...

...that you're terribly proud of youself because when you beat up on people and they bite back at you that you don't whine about it?  And also that you beat up on the libs because of their feelings about the troops and the war.  Seems like you lash out indiscriminately on this board without really knowing what most folks believe. 


And you are deceitful in saying I saw someone on the conservative board being wished to die and burn in hell once.  ACtually I wrote the post you refer to and that is NOT what I wrote.  Do you recall the game folks play at parties where a story is whispered in the ear of one person after another and then the story is read as it started out and then read as it ended up?  And then everyone marvels over how much it changed?  Well, that's what has happened here.  So you are lying when you provide a quote of that post as the truth.


I did not hear this but it was probably said
in reference to global warming, not Bush, causing more numerous and more severe hurricanes. The water in the Gulf of Mexico is right now around 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The warmth of the water is what restrengthed the hurricane.
I hear ya.

Reading your post, I think you'd be shocked if you realized how close you came to describing MY life! 


 


Do you hear yourself?
Talk about talking points...you were firing them like crazy yesterday. And again...the moderator has said over and over and over again anyone who wants to post on either board can. I guess at least the moderator still believes in free speech, even if liberals do not. Liberals, who profess to be tolerant, are the most INtolerant group I have ever seen (at least most of the ones who come here). You ask a question, counter a point, ask them to defend a belief, and they go nuts. At least you finally put the truth into words...separate. I guess that is what liberals want. Well, my friend, I have news for you. This is America. COnservatives have just as much right to be here as liberals. If you are firm in your beliefs, you should have no problem debating. There is 1 who posts here who still believes that conservatives have the same rights liberals do, and is able to look past idealistic rhetoric to get to the real truth of things. Extremely refreshing. As to bothered...you do not bother me at all. You have every right to say what you want to say....but you should not expect it to go unchallenged.

That is another thing I do not understand about liberals...and why live and let live rings hollow. What you really mean is....we live over here on this board and we let you live over there on that board and don't you DARE to come over to this board because we don't want you to live over here.

That is the definition of intolerant...segregation.
I hear ya, DW....
but it does seem like the Republicans recognize those in their midst who claim to be Republican but their actions do not follow...and they call them out on it. RINOs. Obviously there are those on the liberal side as well. Makes sense there would be. It is just that I have never seen them separate themselves before...especially to the extent of a couple of posters who answered my question a couple of weeks ago. Very interesting. And actually very encouraging.
I hear what you are saying....
and I agree it would be difficult. You are right; the statistics I find say that 40% of the "convenience abortions" are not the first or even the second abortion for the woman. That being the case, I am not content to say because it would be hard to sort out, just go ahead and kill'em all anyway. So I will continue to vote for a man who will at least take a stab at trying to fix it.

And so myself and others with agree to disagree...and some of us will agree, at least, that abortion is wrong but fixing it won't be easy...

God bless!
Not that you want to hear from me, but...
actually I did watch it.  From a completely objective viewpoint, just looking at the performance and content per se, I agree with you.  Hillary, I thought, was much stronger and did not let the others run over her like before.  Again, objectively, I think Obama talked too much, meaning, took forever to get to his point and the way he delivers things might go over the heads of some people, or they stop listening waiting for the point.  Biden was strong, and he looks presidential, and to some people that is really important.  I know Hillary is not a tall person, and I know Obama is, but it was really striking in a couple of the shots...she really had the head back so she could look up at him and he had the head down ya-yaing at her.  Just an observation.  But I think she handled herself well.   As much flak as Hillary has gotten over the driver's licenses to illegals thing, I thought the way she answered the question if she was for it, was priceless...after Obama went on and on, she just said "No."  I think that was a bit of a coup DE grace for her, as an objective "observer."  lol
How sad to hear that....
This country was founded on a belief of being "free", allowing freedom from government involvement and corruption. Obama has stated he wants bigger government, more government to tell you how to act/feel/breath, all at your expense. Now, where is the freedom in that? Taxation, taxation, taxation.....it is sad to hear citizens of the US say they would rather be a socialist than fascist, when what one should be saying is I don't want government in my life at all...period!!!
No, what I am saying is if I want to hear anything about the ...
conservative side of things along with the liberal/Democrat side of things, Fox is the only alternative. Democrats/liberals are not the only people who tell the "Truth." So far I have not caught Fox in an outright lie, and they chose NOT to run that ad about Obama and Ayers that the guy in Texas made up, which I thought was fair, and if they were indeed as they are described here they would be running it every hour. Geez.
i hear ya

The unique thing about conservatives is that they form their own opinions.  Savage came out against Palin, and yesterday he was still against her.  I don't need anyone to decide or think for me.  But his stories are so worth the time.  This is one area where he's completely different from all of them.  That's why he wrote this current book and did every bit of it himself.  No editing, no publisher, just his words.  Gotta respect that, I say.  His dog (Teddy) has become a big star, too, and has his own section on his w/s.