NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, when you have to resort to this kind of thing to attack a candidate, you're REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don't do yourself any favors when you try this kind of stunt.

Great praise coming from a bottom-scrapper of your magnitude.

I suppose you support the candidate of Change and Hope? May I suggest you support one who supports humor as well. Not to mention that this forum is full of people who note Bush's lack of public speaking ability. I reckon having travelled all 57 states Obama is just feeling tired. Right?

Great praise coming from a bottom-scrapper of your magnitude.

I suppose you support the candidate of Change and Hope? May I suggest you support one who supports humor as well. Not to mention that this forum is full of people who note Bush's lack of public speaking ability. I reckon having travelled all 57 states Obama is just feeling tired. Right?

There is a bit of a difference between '57 states' and "terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm America, and neither will we"

That's funny.

You set out the premise of 'idiots' screaming about the Fox conservative bias, and then admit that Fox has a conservative agenda...

At least you weren't trying to pretend it was objective.

Actually, idiot, I said they present a conservative POV. That is far different than having an agenda. What would you consider "fair and balanced"? Only presenting the liberal POV?

The problem with articles like this is the lack of distinction between negative and positive press.

"Obama was talked about more" doesn't necessarily equate to "They like Obama more."

Ann Coulter seems to talk about Obama more than McCain. This doesn't, of course, mean that she likes Obama.
What part? The part where the article talks about what people perceive as they watch the news?

Ordinary Americans tell pollsters that they can see the difference. A new Rasmussen Reports survey found that fully 50 per cent of independent voters see pro-Obama bias in their news.

You know, when you have to resort to this kind of thing to attack a candidate, you're REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don't do yourself any favors when you try this kind of stunt.

It's not exactly a sign of competent leadership when a candidate can't even answer a question clearly and decisively without relying on a teleprompter. Quite frankly, Obama sounds terrible when he's not giving a canned speech prepared in advance. In fact, it makes him look like little more than a carefully controlled mouthpiece for the people behind him. If you are trying to demonstrate the kind of leadership necessary to bring about "hope and change", you better be able to act decisively whenever it's needed. The world doesn't wait for canned speeches.

It's not exactly a sign of competent leadership when a candidate can't even answer a question clearly and decisively without relying on a teleprompter. Quite frankly, Obama sounds terrible when he's not giving a canned speech prepared in advance. In fact, it makes him look like little more than a carefully controlled mouthpiece for the people behind him.

I want to see town hall style debates. Plenty of questions from the floor. Screen out the wack-o questions about why Uncle Bob was audited, or who killed Vince Foster, but make them both answer extemporaneously.

What part?

A U.S. media watchdog called the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that since the day Obama clinched the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency, he's had an important role in 78 per cent of all campaign stories, while Republican candidate John McCain featured prominently in 51 per cent.

Actually, idiot,


Ah, an ad hominem fallacy.

I bow to your obvious superior wit. Rapier-like, it is.

This is the point where, if I were not the gentleman that I am, I'd be making some comment about how I'm not going to get involved in your 'battle of wits', because it's unfair to fight someone who is clearly unarmed.

But I am a gentleman, so I'll not say that.

I said they present a conservative POV. That is far different than having an agenda. What would you consider "fair and balanced"? Only presenting the liberal POV?

"Presenting a conservative POV", if it's a pattern for their programming, IS an 'agenda'.

I want to see town hall style debates. Plenty of questions from the floor. Screen out the wack-o questions about why Uncle Bob was audited, or who killed Vince Foster, but make them both answer extemporaneously.

He'd get ripped apart. When I was listening to him in France, he couldn't even handle the softball questions given to him by the reporters, let alone any kind of discussion where nothing would be prepared in advance.

What part? The part where the article talks about what people perceive as they watch the news?

Ordinary Americans tell pollsters that they can see the difference. A new Rasmussen Reports survey found that fully 50 per cent of independent voters see pro-Obama bias in their news.


Who did the Rasmussen Reports survey poll?

That kind of statistic isn't much help without a source.

It's not exactly a sign of competent leadership when a candidate can't even answer a question clearly and decisively without relying on a teleprompter. Quite frankly, Obama sounds terrible when he's not giving a canned speech prepared in advance. In fact, it makes him look like little more than a carefully controlled mouthpiece for the people behind him. If you are trying to demonstrate the kind of leadership necessary to bring about "hope and change", you better be able to act decisively whenever it's needed. The world doesn't wait for canned speeches.

I've listened to some of his town-hall style meetings and the impression I got was that he often gives too much information in his responses. He might say "um" a couple of times as he gets into the answer, but then he seems to talk forever. If anything, I'd say he might want to give slightly less in his answers, so that more questions could get asked.

It's not exactly a sign of competent leadership when a candidate can't even answer a question clearly and decisively without relying on a teleprompter. Quite frankly, Obama sounds terrible when he's not giving a canned speech prepared in advance. In fact, it makes him look like little more than a carefully controlled mouthpiece for the people behind him. If you are trying to demonstrate the kind of leadership necessary to bring about "hope and change", you better be able to act decisively whenever it's needed. The world doesn't wait for canned speeches.

I'm not getting this, to be honest.

A leader needs to be convincing, not clear. A leader needs to be inspiring, not decisive.

There's a difference between not being a shit-hot public-speaker, and being a mouthbreather who can barely string together a sentence.

At the moment, that difference is about 8 years.

There is a bit of a difference between '57 states' and "terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm America, and neither will we"

Really? What is it? Both of those statements are gaffs made by men who are in front of cameras constantly. The bit of difference here is that one was made by a Democrat and the other made by a Republican. I don't take either seriously but I am able to know when one is being protected from the media by the media.

I've listened to some of his town-hall style meetings and the impression I got was that he often gives too much information in his responses. He might say "um" a couple of times as he gets into the answer, but then he seems to talk forever. If anything, I'd say he might want to give slightly less in his answers, so that more questions could get asked.

I think it really depends on what the issue at hand is. If it's one of his strong points, he knows exactly what to say and can easily illustrate his views on the issue. If it isn't, he falls apart. Personally, I think he simply isn't experienced enough yet to be President; with more time to develop his positions and get a feel for his weaker issues, he'd be a great candidate given what I feel is a genuine desire to change this country as well as a willingness to work together with all sides to achieve real progress. That being said, I feel Obama in 2012 would have been a better shot than in 2008. Democratic momentum alone won't be enough to carry him barring a major strengthening of his positions, especially considering how well McCain is doing despite considerably less media attention and his own share of problems.

This is an election where both candidates have good points; personally, I feel either of them could be excellent presidents. I feel McCain would be better suited to this presidency because he would be stuck in a position where compromise would be necessary, producing the kind of happy medium that worked so well during the 1990's.

Really? What is it? Both of those statements are gaffs made by men who are in front of cameras constantly. The bit of difference here is that one was made by a Democrat and the other made by a Republican. I don't take either seriously but I am able to know when one is being protected from the media by the media.

I agree. If it wasn't for media protectionism, a comment that dumb would have had Bush practically impeached.

I assume that's what you were meaning...

Who did the Rasmussen Reports survey poll?

That kind of statistic isn't much help without a source.
I believe Rasmussen does their own surveys, don't they? It would seem logical that rasmussenreports.com would be where to find the details. Like these,

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

I think it really depends on what the issue at hand is. If it's one of his strongpoints, he knows exactly what to say and can easily illustrate his views on the issue. If it isn't, he falls apart. Personally, I think he simply isn't experienced enough yet to be President; with more time to develop his positions and get a feel for his weaker issues, he'd be a great candidate.


No one who hasn't been president has experience being president.

Obama was nowhere near the top of the list I would have picked a candidate from, if I were to pick a Democrat candidate... but this stuff about 'experience' is an excuse, not a reason.

I believe Rasmussen does their own surveys, don't they?


Connection?


It would seem logical that rasmussenreports.com would be where to find the details. Like these,


Ah - so, I should go googling YOUR sources for you?


As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.


Okay. Who were the 'unaffiliated voters'?

Hell - what was the 'media' they were reviewing?

I'm not getting this, to be honest.

A leader needs to be convincing, not clear. A leader needs to be inspiring, not decisive.

There's a difference between not being a shit-hot public-speaker, and being a mouthbreather who can barely string together a sentence.

At the moment, that difference is about 8 years.
So, this is a example of a well answered question? Or maybe it's inspiring and convincing?

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.

Connection?



Ah - so, I should go googling YOUR sources for you?



Okay. Who were the 'unaffiliated voters'?

Hell - what was the 'media' they were reviewing?
Okay, you don't like what you see, but it's there, anyway.

No one who hasn't been president has experience being president.

Obama was nowhere near the top of the list I would have picked a candidate from, if I were to pick a Democrat candidate... but this stuff about 'experience' is an excuse, not a reason.

Yes, but there's a big difference between someone who's been serving in Congress for an extended period of time and one who has served scarcely one term. He just hasn't been out there enough to get a feel for some aspects of the political process.

I definitely don't feel Obama's ideas are naive or somehow unworkable. Although I disagree with him on some of them, I feel others are spot on and are necessary to revitalize this country after eight years of the most brutal economic and diplomatic mangling, incompetence, and just plain mismanagement we've seen since the 19th century.

No one who hasn't been president has experience being president.

Obama was nowhere near the top of the list I would have picked a candidate from, if I were to pick a Democrat candidate... but this stuff about 'experience' is an excuse, not a reason.
No, if he had more experience, he might be knowledgeable and competent. Or he might not -- but we would have a basis on which to judge.

If there weren't media bias, there wouldn't only be two candidates. Let's talk to Bob Barr and Ralph Nader about media bias, shall we?

LG: 1, Everyone Else: 0.

Yes, but there's a big difference between someone who's been serving in Congress for an extended period of time and one who has served scarcely one term. He just hasn't been out there enough to get a feel for some aspects of the political process.


The Presidency has almost nothing whatsoever in common with Congress.

Sound almost like a oxymoron to me.

Astounding.

Ah, an ad hominem fallacy.

Not a fallacy. Mere truth.

But I am a gentleman

Your posting habits show otherwise.

"Presenting a conservative POV", if it's a pattern for their programming, IS an 'agenda'.

So your illusion goes. I am sure Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, and Stephanapalos (sp?) are your versions of neutrality. Yet Fox News, who actually sit Conservatives and Libertarians across from liberals (Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, David Corn) are pushing an "agenda".

So, this is a example of a well answered question? Or maybe it's inspiring and convincing?

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.


I think it's an answer dangerously close to getting someone elected Miss South Carolina, personally.

So?

My argument with Bush isn't that he says 'nu-ku-ler' instead of 'nu-clear', it's the fact that he's a fascist fuckhead.

Wow... you and I found something to agree on...

Kind of freaks you out when that happens, huh? I twice agreed with AP on something... it was really uncomfortable. :p

I agree. If it wasn't for media protectionism, a comment that dumb would have had Bush practically impeached.

I assume that's what you were meaning...

So now the media is protecting Bush? You have an excellent sense of humor and I am now convinced you are merely trolling for a fight. Good show. No one would believe this to be an impeachable offense. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe so.

Once again, excellent ploy and good show!

I am off to my weekend now. Keep up the good fight for Hope and Change in my absence!

Okay, you don't like what you see, but it's there, anyway.

I don't like what I see - but it's NOT there anyway, that's the point.

I studied Market Research at university - I even volunteered as a market researcher for a time. I'm well aware of the limitations of the medium.

What you've presented me with is incomplete - maybe that's not your fault, maybe the site isn't more forthcoming. Maybe they didn't even collect all the data I'm asking for. 'Grab sample' researchers often don't - since all you're looking for is a kind of 'guess'.

I don't know WHEN the research is supposed to have been conducted. I don't know who they polled, or what medium they polled through. I don't know whether they are specific about the medium of the message... what was the question they asked?

They claim 'unaffiliated', but I don't know what they mean by that, that could mean someone who considers themselves a centrist, someone who is non-partisan... it could even mean a swing-voter from one of the actual main parties. It could mean a die-hard voter for one party, who just isn't a 'party member'. See the problem?

The perception of partiality in the media doesn't bother me, or even surprise me.

What bothers me, is I don't know where the numbers are supposed to be coming from.

Great praise coming from a bottom-scrapper of your magnitude.

Kid...

I'm so beyond you in terms of arguing ability. I'm so superior to you. So much better.

Yet I find myself in a merciful, teaching mood, tonight. So, I'll teach you to provide evidence to your claims.

Do you have any?

Yes, but there's a big difference between someone who's been serving in Congress for an extended period of time and one who has served scarcely one term.


Usually, we would probably describe that difference in terms like 'how many favours you owe', right?


He just hasn't been out there enough to get a feel for some aspects of the political process.


And... that's a... bad thing?

I'd say that's one of his biggest strengths, actually.

No, if he had more experience, he might be knowledgeable and competent. Or he might not -- but we would have a basis on which to judge.

More 'experience'?

Like - if he had gay sex, or did a lot of drugs?

Kid... I'm so beyond you in terms of arguing ability. I'm so superior to you. So much better.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Uh... um... uhhhh... what were you saying?

She's a Democrat Party diehard and an Obamaphile.

That makes her credible on the Obama front.

So because she supports something, that makes her a credible source for that thing? By that logic, Warren Jeffs is credible source for everything to do with Mormonism. Strange that the vast majority of Mormons don't agree with his position.

Not a fallacy. Mere truth.


The two aren't exclusive, actually.

I'll let history be the judge of whether or not I'm an 'idiot', not some random internet wannabe - but that's not the point. The point is, your attack on me is a logical fallacy - specifically - ad hominem, and suggests a weakness of your argument.


Your posting habits show otherwise.


I disagree. You could probably find a couple of people that would agree with you.. and I could probably find a few that would say I'm the very spirit of conviviality.


So your illusion goes. I am sure Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, and Stephanapalos (sp?) are your versions of neutrality.


Since I have no idea who any of those names are, probably not.


Yet Fox News, who actually sit Conservatives and Libertarians across from liberals (Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, David Corn) are pushing an "agenda".

I similarly don't actually know any of those names, either. Well - I've heard the 'Fox' one, before.

Let me explain it for you slowly - if they "present a conservative POV" (which, I think, was YOUR claim) - that IS an agenda.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Uh... um... uhhhh... what were you saying?

This from the guy that thinks calling someone an idiot is a valid arguing tactic and going "it's the truth" is a good complement to it.

But if you feel the need to re-read my previous post in order to grasp it, by all means, do.

So your illusion goes. I am sure Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, and Stephanapalos (sp?) are your versions of neutrality. Yet Fox News, who actually sit Conservatives and Libertarians across from liberals (Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, David Corn) are pushing an "agenda".

If you are actually, honestly asserting that Fox News does not push an agenda, there's really nowhere further any conversation can go. It's like trying to have a conversation about physics while you fail to recognize gravity as a valid theory.

So now the media is protecting Bush?


No more than anyone else, I'm sure. The point was to highlight the silliness of the claim.


You have an excellent sense of humor and I am now convinced you are merely trolling for a fight.


Which is ironic, since it appears that - in this regard at least - we are evenly matched.

ahh Barack Obama, the socalled "rockstar".
Sure he is carismatic, but listen up folks, he is a part of the Illuminati!
They are a group of bankers, and influental men, they control all he major media corporations, and every president/presidential candidate, must profess their loyalty to them, or already be a member, to win the election, or not get assasinated!

THEY are the ones making our lives hell, they OWN U, they can fire u, burn u, kill u, kidnap u, torture u! Cause they made the laws, they can easily get passed them!

U work at their factories, and if you dont, your factory doesnt have influnence!

They hired Obama, so they can get a new face, to change their image after Bush screwed up!

BOYCOTT THE ELECTION, DONT VOTE MCCAIN OR OBAMA!!

ahh Barack Obama, the socalled "rockstar".
Sure he is carismatic, but listen up folks, he is a part of the Illuminati!
They are a group of bankers, and influental men, they control all he major media corporations, and every president/presidential candidate, must profess their loyalty to them, or already be a member, to win the election, or not get assasinated!

THEY are the ones making our lives hell, they OWN U, they can fire u, burn u, kill u, kidnap u, torture u! Cause they made the laws, they can easily get passed them!

U work at their factories, and if you dont, your factory doesnt have influnence!

They hired Obama, so they can get a new face, to change their image after Bush screwed up!

BOYCOTT THE ELECTION, DONT VOTE MCCAIN OR OBAMA!!

Who did what for how many cookies?

ahh Barack Obama, the socalled "rockstar".
Sure he is carismatic, but listen up folks, he is a part of the Illuminati!
They are a group of bankers, and influental men, they control all he major media corporations, and every president/presidential candidate, must profess their loyalty to them, or already be a member, to win the election, or not get assasinated!

THEY are the ones making our lives hell, they OWN U, they can fire u, burn u, kill u, kidnap u, torture u! Cause they made the laws, they can easily get passed them!

U work at their factories, and if you dont, your factory doesnt have influnence!

They hired Obama, so they can get a new face, to change their image after Bush screwed up!

BOYCOTT THE ELECTION, DONT VOTE MCCAIN OR OBAMA!!

you forgot the part where the illuminati--including the entire bush family, mccain family and obama family-- are shape-changing reptiloid space aliens.

BOYCOTT THE ELECTION, DONT VOTE MCCAIN OR OBAMA!!

Remember boys and girls, they boycotted the election in Venezuela too. Look what happened.

And if you think the American Political System at this point will allow a serious independent candidate, you well as might cast a vote for Dubya to stay in office for a third term.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I have to admit that mindless, obnoxious spam is a convincing and rational argument. Good work, good sir.

I have to admit that mindless, obnoxious spam is a convincing and rational argument. Good work, good sir.

That's been the whole foundation of FOXNews, you all ready knew that.

I similarly don't actually know any of those names, either. Well - I've heard the 'Fox' one, before.


Alan Colmes is a self-described moderate. I've never heard of the rest.

Alan Colmes is a self-described moderate. I've never heard of the rest.

He'd also be the kind who'd call himself a Real Man on Oprah or The View, just to give you an idea.

How so?

Should newspapers not print opinion pages now?

Not in my opinion, but I worked for a newspaper with conservative editors for two years in an extremely liberal city, so I'm biased. I'd say at least 2 of the protests against us could have been avoided if editors would stop printing their own stupid ideas.

He'd also be the kind who'd call himself a Real Man on Oprah or The View, just to give you an idea.

Ah... he's like a TV pundit, or something?

Ah... he's like a TV pundit, or something?

He basically sits opposite Hannity and agrees with everything he says.

He basically sits opposite Hannity and agrees with everything he says.

And Hannity is....

I think I get it, now. I'm supposed to recognise some bunch of celebrities, for the sake of some point in the argument.

Remember boys and girls, they boycotted the election in Venezuela too. Look what happened.

And if you think the American Political System at this point will allow a serious independent candidate, you well as might cast a vote for Dubya to stay in office for a third term.

What are u talking about? nobody boycotted the elections in Venezuela?
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected into office without cheating, compared to USA, where Bush's brother was in response of the VOTES!

Hugo Chavez, has done many great things 4 Venezuela!
Its free to go to hospitals now, they have a constitution that was made on townhall meetings nation wide, and the people love him!

The best leader since Nelson Mandela, that is what he is!

What are u talking about? nobody boycotted the elections in Venezuela?
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected into office without cheating, compared to USA, where Bush's brother was in response of the VOTES!

Hugo Chavez, has done many great things 4 Venezuela!
Its free to go to hospitals now, they have a constitution that was made on townhall meetings nation wide, and the people love him!

The best leader since Nelson Mandela, that is what he is!

Did the Andaras account get a suspension or something?

And Hannity is....

I think I get it, now. I'm supposed to recognise some bunch of celebrities, for the sake of some point in the argument.

Sean Hannity, a right-wing pundit on Fox News.

Sean Hannity, a right-wing pundit on Fox News.

I'm getting skinned in this thread... because I don't watch TV :(

If they were open and honest with it, that would be fine.

Take Limbaugh and Hannity, for instance. Both of these guys are Conservative commentators who don't have a shred of objectivity on their shows. The difference is that they don't pretend otherwise.

Really? That wasn't your position a few weeks ago.


Rush Limbaugh is was the first of the big Conservative Talk Radio personalities, and since he has a tendency to tell it like it is, people who like him, like him a LOT and people who don't, hate him.

After my objection to that characterization you went on to say that he "hits the bullseye more often than not."

Really? That wasn't your position a few weeks ago.

After my objection to that characterization you went on to say that he "hits the bullseye more often than not."

Ooooh, that looked painful.

;)

In my personal views, I don't give a rats ass whether someone is black, white, asian, a cucumber, or anything else. I'll vote or not vote for them based off of their political agenda, and whether I believe they would run this country the way it needs to be run.

QFT and sigged.

Usually, we would probably describe that difference in terms like 'how many favours you owe', right?

To a degree, yes. But favors make politics move, and it is impossible to achieve anything without them. You need the right friends and the right incentives to achieve what you want, or else you're going to get nothing done.

And... that's a... bad thing?

I'd say that's one of his biggest strengths, actually.

It's a bad thing because it can end up making it far harder to get anything done; if you don't know how to get people to support your policies and move legislation from empty words to actual policy.

Being free from the unsavory aspects of career politics is definitely a good thing, but the experience that comes with that process is pretty important.

It's a bad thing because it can end up making it far harder to get anything done; if you don't know how to get people to support your policies and move legislation from empty words to actual policy.


Bribe them. It doesn't talk long to learn that, just to learn the best way. And he's got advisers for that.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Strangely, I agree with Trostia. This may well be the most credible argument you've presented.

THEY are the ones making our lives hell, they OWN U, they can fire u, burn u, kill u, kidnap u, torture u! Cause they made the laws, they can easily get passed them!

BOYCOTT THE ELECTION, DONT VOTE MCCAIN OR OBAMA!!

They'll hang you for that.

To a degree, yes. But favors make politics move, and it is impossible to achieve anything without them. You need the right friends and the right incentives to achieve what you want, or else you're going to get nothing done.

It's a bad thing because it can end up making it far harder to get anything done; if you don't know how to get people to support your policies and move legislation from empty words to actual policy.

Being free from the unsavory aspects of career politics is definitely a good thing, but the experience that comes with that process is pretty important.

I'm not going to vote based on whether I think a candidate has had time to make the right friends.

It looks like he doesn't trust them.Or perhaps he grew really, really tired of "the media" making cowardly, infantile attacks on him over his middle name and how he was dressed in a picture once, or how some guy who WASN'T him was somehow responsible for HIS decisions and attitudes. Yeah, "the media" sure supported the fuck out of him for that petty arrangement.

And Hannity is.......a sawed off, belligerent, uninformed, loudmouth disgrace to the American public, who is quite keen on currying favour with people of the same ilk, portraying their every need and fantasy. Exactly the same as Limblob, only skinnier (but at least Limblob has the common courtesy to be seen in clothes that actually *fit* him)

This may well be the most credible argument you've presented.Perhaps there's a newsletter than can give a subscription to.
Something like ....
http://www.crestock.com/images/contest2007/4368-2-all_hail_hypnotoad.jpg

Well, if they're going to cover Obama's flatulence, they should cover McCain's too.
Ever see "The Bucket List"? Rule Number 3 applies here. And we all need to be more educated as a voting populace.

mccain had spent decades as the media darling who could do no wrongWell, other than for those of us who remember the 527 debacle and The Keating Five.

Bolded for truth


This is the funny thing to me. We keep hearing people screaming about the 'liberal media'. Then when liberals say something along the lines of the above bolded statement, they cover their ears and go "LALALALALA I can only hear you saying there is no media bias and not what you are actually saying".Even better when no one hears how often articles of impeachment are brought about by someone like, say, Dennis Kucinich ...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/impeach-bush.html
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/caltoday.html

Yeah, liberal media my ass.

I'll wait until McCain gets accused of offering a terrorist handshake tbh.http://www.padems.com/files/bush_mccain_handshake.jpg
http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/mcain-cheney.jpg

'nuff said.

Wha?!? :confused:Like they said, they HEARD ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080721/savage-autism/images/8f64bdb4-f69b-4a24-a027-eed44d192028.jpg
http://www.peteykins.com/images/FarkDec03/Hannity.jpg
http://politicsandfunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rush2.jpg (isn't just a cigar)
http://www.zenpickle.com/images/Coulter.gif
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/d/rove_arrested.jpg
...
..
.