PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on January 14, 2016, 08:01:13 PM
-
I'm really, really getting tired of Donald Trump.
Cruz has hit a couple of home runs tonight, including his well-thought out response to the birther BS.
-
Oh, and the Money Honey is not looking great tonight.
-
Oh, and the Money Honey is not looking great tonight.
She's getting old.
-
Who is the "Money Honey"?
-
Who is the "Money Honey"?
She was one of the moderators, and made her mark as the hot honey on CNBC before moving to Fox Business Network.
http://www.bartiromo.com
-
Who is the "Money Honey"?
She was one of the moderators, and made her mark as the hot honey on CNBC before moving to Fox Business Network.
http://www.bartiromo.com
I never cared too much for her face, but back in the day it was always interesting to check out her neckline.
-
I never cared too much for her face, but back in the day it was always interesting to check out her neckline.
She's still an attractive woman, but her heyday was the 90's, so a little while ago.
-
She's still an attractive woman, but her heyday was the 90's, so a little while ago.
That applies to a lot of us!
-
She's still an attractive woman, but her heyday was the 90's, so a little while ago.
That applies to a lot of us!
Speak for yourself, sir!!!! :D
And yea, you're right. :(
-
I never cared too much for her face, but back in the day it was always interesting to check out her neckline.
She's still an attractive woman, but her heyday was the 90's, so a little while ago.
Agreed. I dig that Italian/Mediterranean look.
-
Now getting back to the topic at hand - and not that I mind talking about the Money Honey, mind you - but did anyone else watch the debate?
I thought most did well, except Kasich. He needs to depart. (I want Jeb to depart desperately, but I think he did well enough that his handlers can lie to him at least through the Iowa caucuses.).
-
I didn't watch it but I've been watching the coverage and clips. I agree I think it is down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. All the others should go.
-
We watched all of it intently. It's like getting an IV of real leadership, which we have longed for so much it hurts. Cathartic! But then I start to fear the lemmings will march us all off the cliff again and swoon Hillary in for more of same. It's good to see them taking off the gloves and picking the low hanging fruit this administration leaves so stupidly there.
Also I fear that Cruz and Rubio will duke it out so harshly it will weaken any strengths we can accumulate.
But true that ANYONE on that stage would be leagues better than O or H.
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
-
I watched it long enough to get annoyed that the mods let Cruse and Trump beat each other up over his Citizenship status.
Then I fell asleep soon after that. Instead of the "Republican Debate", they should have called it the "Moderators and everyone else takes on Trump show".
I agree that Kasich needs to drop out.
I thought Bush did well, but I doubt he did enough to overcome the "Bush Dynasty" label. Although, I don't think type of thinking that will hurt Hillary any. But she may hurt herself.
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
The only one I trust not to be a "RINO" is Cruz. But even though don't like him (Cruz), I would certainly vote for him over any of the Dems.
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
The answer is "no", but I trust him to be a better Republican (I can't really use the term "conservative," sadly) than Trump. I sense Trump would turn progressive in a heartbeat if it benefitted him. And his birther shit is really breaking Reagan's 11th Commandment.
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
The answer is "no", but I trust him to be a better Republican (I can't really use the term "conservative," sadly) than Trump. I sense Trump would turn progressive in a heartbeat if it benefitted him. And his birther shit is really breaking Reagan's 11th Commandment.
I agree Stan. I think both Trump, and Christie would cave to advance their agenda du jour. I am leaning towards Cruz.
-
I'm beginning to think Trump is the DNC's Manchurian Candidate.
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
More than I'd trust Trump
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
More than I'd trust Trump
Now that is a question isn't it.
-
Does anybody trust Christie not to be a RINO if he were to win election?
More than I'd trust Trump
Now that is a question isn't it.
Anyone who says with a straight face that the government should have the right to take property for the purpose of selling same to a private developer is most certainly a progressive asshat.
-
Now the fun starts:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-gets-hit-birther-lawsuit
-
A ton of these were filed against Obama. They all went nowhere, and this one will too.
-
A ton of these were filed against Obama. They all went nowhere, and this one will too.
This is, honestly, not a question for the courts whatsoever.
It's a political question, and the political body that will make the decision is the Electoral College.
-
WRT the Cruz birther movement we simply have to accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a legitimate question that should have been answered for Obama, and it needs to be answered for Cruz as well. We can't feign outrage when the other team's guy refuses to provide the information and then get offended when a similar question is asked of a guy on our team with a similar issue.
I don't think it will amount to anything with Cruz, but it will be more of a story in the lamestream media than was Obama (meaning they will actually be interested in pursuing it instead of being forced to cover it, and will treat it as an important news story instead of some 'ridiculous witch hunt' from crazies on the right).
Cruz's issue is not his birth or citizenship status, it is his lack of charisma - he is simply not resonating with people - which is too bad, like Rubio he has a great back story and in any other universe with an even moderately unbiased media his candidacy (and Rubio's, and Carson's, and Fiorina's, and before them Cain's) would put the lie to Democrat manufactured caricature that the Republicans are the party of angry old white men. Cruz comes off as too condescending at times, basically because he really is the smartest guy in most rooms he walks in to. If he had charisma and chutzpah like Trump it would be OK, but sadly he does not have the 'it' factor.
I have not watched a debate since the first one - sounds like I missed out on this one in that there were some good exchanges.
Really looks like it is shaking down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio with Jeb, Christie and maybe Kasich hanging on into the first few primaries. All the folks polling single digits should drop out now for the good of the party - a contentious and damaging primary effort will only serve to hurt the Republican's eventual candidate, and provide more ammo for the MSM and eventual Democratic candidate to use.
Since I left the Republican party I now will only vote for candidates/positions that I can actually pull the handle FOR, the establishment Republican's no longer deserve my assumed vote FOR their guy, or AGAINST the other party. The only problem with this approach is that the current establishment elite have clearly demonstrated that they can not find the truth of recent losses so no lesson is being learned, they just keep getting worse at picking their candidate and then expecting the base to just follow along. We want strong, bold, Conservativism - not squishy middle of the road go-along-to-get-along RINO's like McCain or Romney (who I really like and respect as a person, just not a great candidate). And electoral history shows this is what the Nation typically wants as well - clear, understandable differences between parties and candidates.
'Gimp
-
WRT the Cruz birther movement we simply have to accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a legitimate question that should have been answered for Obama, and it needs to be answered for Cruz as well. We can't feign outrage when the other team's guy refuses to provide the information and then get offended when a similar question is asked of a guy on our team with a similar issue.
I note for the record that I thought Obama birtherism was a load of horse-shit, and I feel the same way about Cruz birtherism.
Since I left the Republican party I now will only vote for candidates/positions that I can actually pull the handle FOR, the establishment Republican's no longer deserve my assumed vote FOR their guy, or AGAINST the other party. The only problem with this approach is that the current establishment elite have clearly demonstrated that they can not find the truth of recent losses so no lesson is being learned, they just keep getting worse at picking their candidate and then expecting the base to just follow along. We want strong, bold, Conservativism - not squishy middle of the road go-along-to-get-along RINO's like McCain or Romney (who I really like and respect as a person, just not a great candidate). And electoral history shows this is what the Nation typically wants as well - clear, understandable differences between parties and candidates.
'Gimp
So, out of curiosity, is Trump someone you think you can pull the handle "FOR"?
-
WRT the Cruz birther movement we simply have to accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a legitimate question that should have been answered for Obama, and it needs to be answered for Cruz as well. We can't feign outrage when the other team's guy refuses to provide the information and then get offended when a similar question is asked of a guy on our team with a similar issue.
I agree that the question needs to be asked and answered, just like the question of Obama's birth needed to be asked and answered. But the questions are not the same.
The question of Obama was "where was he born".
We know where Cruz was born. The question is what defines a "natural born citizen".
-
WRT the Cruz birther movement we simply have to accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a legitimate question that should have been answered for Obama, and it needs to be answered for Cruz as well. We can't feign outrage when the other team's guy refuses to provide the information and then get offended when a similar question is asked of a guy on our team with a similar issue.
I note for the record that I thought Obama birtherism was a load of horse-shit, and I feel the same way about Cruz birtherism.
Since I left the Republican party I now will only vote for candidates/positions that I can actually pull the handle FOR, the establishment Republican's no longer deserve my assumed vote FOR their guy, or AGAINST the other party. The only problem with this approach is that the current establishment elite have clearly demonstrated that they can not find the truth of recent losses so no lesson is being learned, they just keep getting worse at picking their candidate and then expecting the base to just follow along. We want strong, bold, Conservativism - not squishy middle of the road go-along-to-get-along RINO's like McCain or Romney (who I really like and respect as a person, just not a great candidate). And electoral history shows this is what the Nation typically wants as well - clear, understandable differences between parties and candidates.
'Gimp
So, out of curiosity, is Trump someone you think you can pull the handle "FOR"?
At this point I could vote FOR Cruz, Trump or Carson from a big picture point of view, with Carly almost making the cut - Rubio's immigration stance is a total non-starter for me and the rest are just occupants in a clown car as far as I am concerned.
'Gimp
-
At this point I could vote FOR Cruz, Trump or Carson from a big picture point of view, with Carly almost making the cut - Rubio's immigration stance is a total non-starter for me and the rest are just occupants in a clown car as far as I am concerned.
'Gimp
Gimp,
Don't take this personally, because I always admire your posts, but the reference to the "clown car" really bothers me. It is a cliche that is purposely negative and passed on by various liberal media, most Democrat talking points and several of the biased liberals around here (or POA's former SZ).
I challenge anyone to paint any of the current Republican Candidates as more "clownish" than any of the Democrats, yet nobody refers to them as clowns. The term derives from the fact that we have so many (arguably) qualified candidates. I think it is much more laughable that the Democrats can only scratch up a lying has-been/never was and a socialist.
-
At this point I could vote FOR Cruz, Trump or Carson from a big picture point of view, with Carly almost making the cut - Rubio's immigration stance is a total non-starter for me and the rest are just occupants in a clown car as far as I am concerned.
'Gimp
Gimp,
Don't take this personally, because I always admire your posts, but the reference to the "clown car" really bothers me. It is a cliche that is purposely negative and passed on by various liberal media, most Democrat talking points and several of the biased liberals around here (or POA's former SZ).
I challenge anyone to paint any of the current Republican Candidates as more "clownish" than any of the Democrats, yet nobody refers to them as clowns. The term derives from the fact that we have so many (arguably) qualified candidates. I think it is much more laughable that the Democrats can only scratch up a lying has-been/never was and a socialist.
No worries John.
I know the Democrats and MSM use it, but I am not going to let their misappropriation keep me from using it as well. My point is there are too many candidates, spilling out on the debate stage like the proverbial clown car - it is an apt usage - most are polling in single digits with little to any chance of surviving past the first primaries.
Even if Trump implodes or walks away as folks continue to propose, it will not make Kasich or Santorum or Huckabee a top tier candidate. I like Huckabee and Santorum as guys and as politicians, and believe they, along with all the other candidates (except Bush, Kasich and Christie) would make far better CinC than Hillary or Bernie or O'Malley - the latter 3 being far too close to Dem-Lite to make any real difference, IMO.
The Dem field actually is quite laughable, someone with a higher than average likelihood of ending up arraigned on substantial corruption and or national security charges, an honest-to-God socialist, and some other guy I think, maybe. It is pathetic that the party of JFK has been reduced to Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife or an angry senile old fool from VT, or some other other guy I think, maybe.
'Gimp
-
WRT the Cruz birther movement we simply have to accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a legitimate question that should have been answered for Obama, and it needs to be answered for Cruz as well. We can't feign outrage when the other team's guy refuses to provide the information and then get offended when a similar question is asked of a guy on our team with a similar issue.
I don't think it will amount to anything with Cruz, but it will be more of a story in the lamestream media than was Obama (meaning they will actually be interested in pursuing it instead of being forced to cover it, and will treat it as an important news story instead of some 'ridiculous witch hunt' from crazies on the right).
Cruz's issue is not his birth or citizenship status, it is his lack of charisma - he is simply not resonating with people - which is too bad, like Rubio he has a great back story and in any other universe with an even moderately unbiased media his candidacy (and Rubio's, and Carson's, and Fiorina's, and before them Cain's) would put the lie to Democrat manufactured caricature that the Republicans are the party of angry old white men. Cruz comes off as too condescending at times, basically because he really is the smartest guy in most rooms he walks in to. If he had charisma and chutzpah like Trump it would be OK, but sadly he does not have the 'it' factor.
I have not watched a debate since the first one - sounds like I missed out on this one in that there were some good exchanges.
Really looks like it is shaking down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio with Jeb, Christie and maybe Kasich hanging on into the first few primaries. All the folks polling single digits should drop out now for the good of the party - a contentious and damaging primary effort will only serve to hurt the Republican's eventual candidate, and provide more ammo for the MSM and eventual Democratic candidate to use.
Since I left the Republican party I now will only vote for candidates/positions that I can actually pull the handle FOR, the establishment Republican's no longer deserve my assumed vote FOR their guy, or AGAINST the other party. The only problem with this approach is that the current establishment elite have clearly demonstrated that they can not find the truth of recent losses so no lesson is being learned, they just keep getting worse at picking their candidate and then expecting the base to just follow along. We want strong, bold, Conservativism - not squishy middle of the road go-along-to-get-along RINO's like McCain or Romney (who I really like and respect as a person, just not a great candidate). And electoral history shows this is what the Nation typically wants as well - clear, understandable differences between parties and candidates.
'Gimp
All excellent points, 'Gimp. Which is why I was so excited about the field that the GOP put forth this time. And which is why the single digit guys need to get out ASAP. Any further attacks against the leading candidates is self-defeating.
I don't think the GOP needs the mutual fellatio treatment that the Democrat candidates are doing to each other (yes, I know what I did there) but any future attacks need to be on policy, not the birther bullshit that Trump is pulling, or the misrepresentation of the defense votes that Rubio is pulling on Cruz.
I don't know if you caught Cruz when he stepped in on Frank Luntz's group after the debate, but I think he has a good deal of charisma. Though I do think that it's not covered (intentionally) by the MSM, and therefore he has some work to do to convince people that he is human.
-
WRT the Cruz birther movement we simply have to accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a legitimate question that should have been answered for Obama, and it needs to be answered for Cruz as well. We can't feign outrage when the other team's guy refuses to provide the information and then get offended when a similar question is asked of a guy on our team with a similar issue.
I agree that the question needs to be asked and answered, just like the question of Obama's birth needed to be asked and answered. But the questions are not the same.
The question of Obama was "where was he born".
We know where Cruz was born. The question is what defines a "natural born citizen".
Agreed. Obama was a question of fact. Cruz is a question of law.
Unfortunately, even alleged legal experts are missing the boat, in what I believe is intentional misrepresentation.
Ann Coulter does this.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Coulter is making a big deal that Cruz is not a natural born citizen. But he is a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. It irrelevant that what constitutes a "citizen" was defined by Congress. If the Constitution is silent on the topic, then Congress can define it, and has done so.
She is obviously a sycophant for Trump, for some reason.
-
At this point I could vote FOR Cruz, Trump or Carson from a big picture point of view, with Carly almost making the cut - Rubio's immigration stance is a total non-starter for me and the rest are just occupants in a clown car as far as I am concerned.
'Gimp
Gimp,
Don't take this personally, because I always admire your posts, but the reference to the "clown car" really bothers me. It is a cliche that is purposely negative and passed on by various liberal media, most Democrat talking points and several of the biased liberals around here (or POA's former SZ).
I challenge anyone to paint any of the current Republican Candidates as more "clownish" than any of the Democrats, yet nobody refers to them as clowns. The term derives from the fact that we have so many (arguably) qualified candidates. I think it is much more laughable that the Democrats can only scratch up a lying has-been/never was and a socialist.
I agree.
-
At this point I could vote FOR Cruz, Trump or Carson from a big picture point of view, with Carly almost making the cut - Rubio's immigration stance is a total non-starter for me and the rest are just occupants in a clown car as far as I am concerned.
'Gimp
I don't get how you think Rubio is a RINO but you're willing to vote for someone who despises the core bedrock of capitalism: private property.
Trump is the epitome of RINO who happily gives money to Hillary and Schumer. He's a crony capitalist, and has never been a conservative.
-
At this point I could vote FOR Cruz, Trump or Carson from a big picture point of view, with Carly almost making the cut - Rubio's immigration stance is a total non-starter for me and the rest are just occupants in a clown car as far as I am concerned.
'Gimp
I don't get how you think Rubio is a RINO but you're willing to vote for someone who despises the core bedrock of capitalism: private property.
Trump is the epitome of RINO who happily gives money to Hillary and Schumer. He's a crony capitalist, and has never been a conservative.
In a nutshell, the issue is that the 5th Amendment allows for Eminent Domain and recent SCOTUS decisions have expanded it. Trump is a businessman, benefits from existing laws - Rubio on the other hand has been in position to write them and vote on them - that is why I see them differently.
With respect to Trump's donation pattern, I buy his explanation - he has to play nice with the people who can negatively impact his business - he directly employs almost 25,000 people and as New Yorker his opportunity to influence local politics with his money is decidedly limited with respect to Republicans. I have no problem with him playing the field as a private citizen and businessman.
As President, neither will be able to write law but we have history for Rubio in terms of his decision making and his stance on immigration in particular is a non-starter for me, far too McCain-esque when 'reaching across the aisle'. That may not make sense for you but that's OK, it is only me and my vote that I am worried about.
'Gimp
-
Rubio's immigration stance also bothers me, although I do like him with regards to other issues. I also like Trump, but do not trust him to flip flop to make a deal, and advance his larger agenda. My fear is that he would use the 2A as a bargaining chip, meaning he would agree to sign more, and more restrictions on gun rights in order to gain something else from the Dems. I do not want any more compromise on the 2A.
-
As President, neither will be able to write law but we have history for Rubio in terms of his decision making and his stance on immigration in particular is a non-starter for me, far too McCain-esque when 'reaching across the aisle'. That may not make sense for you but that's OK, it is only me and my vote that I am worried about.
'Gimp
And that's just it. We have no history on Trump. His supporters just assume that he'll be just great, kick ass and whip congress into shape or something. They always point to "He's a successful businessman." I agree in that he has successfully made himself wealthy. The businesses he has run have not fared so well. He has never served in any government position and with his arrogant, abrasive attitude, it looks to me that it will be four years of stalemate, gridlock and likely get us involved in another war somewhere. When you piss off the entire left wing of congress and half of the right, I don't see how he intends to get anything done. Somebody has told him that he doesn't get to be king, right?
-
We keep electing and re-electing career politicians, how's that working for us?
-
We have no history on Trump.
That's flatly false, but his fanbois just don't want to recognize it.
He gives money to Hillary and Chucky Schumer. He has supported abortion, including partial-birth abortion. He believes that private property is to be taken by the government when it's convenient for developers. The only time he has ever espoused any "conservative" positions is when he's campaigning. In the normal world, when he's not trying to sucker conservatives to vote for him, he's a New York liberal crony capitalist, through-and-through.
But hey, Rubio has a different opinion on immigration...so he's the RINO.
-
As President, neither will be able to write law but we have history for Rubio in terms of his decision making and his stance on immigration in particular is a non-starter for me, far too McCain-esque when 'reaching across the aisle'. That may not make sense for you but that's OK, it is only me and my vote that I am worried about.
'Gimp
And that's just it. We have no history on Trump. His supporters just assume that he'll be just great, kick ass and whip congress into shape or something. They always point to "He's a successful businessman." I agree in that he has successfully made himself wealthy. The businesses he has run have not fared so well. He has never served in any government position and with his arrogant, abrasive attitude, it looks to me that it will be four years of stalemate, gridlock and likely get us involved in another war somewhere. When you piss off the entire left wing of congress and half of the right, I don't see how he intends to get anything done. Somebody has told him that he doesn't get to be king, right?
First off I don't want to come off as a Trump supporter, I like him and have followed his career, have read several of his books, even attended Trump University for a while. But I am not in or supporting his campaign, nor do I plan to. That said, if he makes it through the primaries I would probably vote for him.
We do actually have history for Trump and it shows a pragmatic but strength oriented approach to negotiations - something that has been lacking from the establishment elite for decades now not only for the Republican party but for our nation as well. I personally feel that this is actually Trump's greatest strength - he negotiates mutually beneficial deals and walks away from deals that aren't good - imagine what even 4 years of that could do for us a nation. And, if the butthurt establishment is unable to overcome the disappointment and work with him to craft an agenda for the nation, than better off that be made public knowledge, and that is the other thing I think a President Trump would do, use the bully pulpit in a way we haven't seen since Reagan.
'Gimp
-
We have no history on Trump.
That's flatly false, but his fanbois just don't want to recognize it.
He gives money to Hillary and Chucky Schumer. He has supported abortion, including partial-birth abortion. He believes that private property is to be taken by the government when it's convenient for developers. The only time he has ever espoused any "conservative" positions is when he's campaigning. In the normal world, when he's not trying to sucker conservatives to vote for him, he's a New York liberal crony capitalist, through-and-through.
But hey, Rubio has a different opinion on immigration...so he's the RINO.
How anyone can think that Trump is sincere in being pro-Second Amendment is beyond me when his hotels and golf courses are gun-free zones.
This from Think Progress no less: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/08/05/3688084/donald-trump-hotels-gun-free-zones/
-
That's flatly false, but his fanbois just don't want to recognize it.
He gives money to Hillary and Chucky Schumer. He has supported abortion, including partial-birth abortion. He believes that private property is to be taken by the government when it's convenient for developers. The only time he has ever espoused any "conservative" positions is when he's campaigning. In the normal world, when he's not trying to sucker conservatives to vote for him, he's a New York liberal crony capitalist, through-and-through.
This is all why I fear Trump also. He's a SALESMAN, and deal maker. He does have a history of supporting anti 2A candidates in the past when he needs something. I am afraid he would sacrifice the 2A or element of the 2A at some point when convenient. It is a HUGE bargaining chip. He does talk a good game though.
However, if it is between Trump and Hillary, I am NOT voting for Hillary.
-
Marco Rubio is a classic D.C. insider, pretending to be an outsider, playing an insider's game the whole time.
-
Marco Rubio is a classic D.C. insider, pretending to be an outsider, playing an insider's game the whole time.
He is the only candidate who is endorsing an Article V Convention of the States, however.
Trump probably thinks Article V is a section in the New York Times.
-
Marco Rubio is a classic D.C. insider, pretending to be an outsider, playing an insider's game the whole time.
Except for Trump. He has made his fortune off gaming the political system. He'd be a penniless loser if not for cronyism.
-
Marco Rubio is a classic D.C. insider, pretending to be an outsider, playing an insider's game the whole time.
He is the only candidate who is endorsing an Article V Convention of the States, however.
Trump probably thinks Article V is a section in the New York Times.
Or a tax loophole his accountants tell him about! ;D
-
Marco Rubio is a classic D.C. insider, pretending to be an outsider, playing an insider's game the whole time.
Except for Trump. He has made his fortune off gaming the political system. He'd be a penniless loser if not for cronyism.
Not wanting to pick a fight here Jeff but curious if you have anything specific to back this assertion up or clarify?
As a real estate developer (Trump, not me) I am not sure exactly how you would classify that in general, or in Trump's case only or in particular, as cronyism. Trump's actually been pretty beat up over the years by politicians who didn't like him/didn't want to play along, and if I recall correctly he has written about the level of graft and corruption in play with respect to how business is 'usually done' that he has had to overcome on some projects but still not sure that rises to the level of your assertion.
Really want to understand what you mean/meant.
'Gimp
-
>> She was one of the moderators, and made her mark as the hot honey on CNBC before moving to Fox Business Network.
Fox has that affect on people.
-
>> She was one of the moderators, and made her mark as the hot honey on CNBC before moving to Fox Business Network.
Fox has that affect on people.
Moderate my ass. Progressive Fox basher. Very original. Welcome! Who are you?
-
>> She was one of the moderators, and made her mark as the hot honey on CNBC before moving to Fox Business Network.
Fox has that affect on people.
It's "effect." And please tell us why you are down on Fox.