why that was nice

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

hey dumb *** you didnt limit your original statement to cable news. You listed media outlets of all kinds.

FNC kicks *** in every time slot. You can whine all you want. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

lol you're not even smart enough to follow along.. let alone to troll me jkbeaumont1

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

She is right, who would want a pubic option? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

you cannot even follow your own illogical argument.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

FNC kicks *** in every time slot. You can whine all you want. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

devil's advocate. you can't use fox news as a representation of the american public, because it's on cable and the relative poor are by far the largest group in our population. it's news for rich white people with cable tv.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

i wondered if people who werent closely following the conversation between jkbeaumont1 and myself would misconstrue my statements.
Lets review:

You seem to be implying I misconstrued your logic just because you said "which I dont even agree with". So I guess you adding that in just before using said logic to further your agenda makes any counter-point impossible. You were mistaken.

Or maybe Im miscontruing your argument about having your argument miscontrued. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

She is right, who would want a pubic option? I sure as hell wouldn't.

if it was stipulated as a voluntary pubic option, i don't see a problem with it. i wouldn't want to be forced into some kind of men only pubic conglomerate.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

You seem to be implying I misconstrued your logic just because you said "which I dont even agree with". So I guess you adding that in just before using said logic to further your agenda makes any counter-point impossible. You were mistaken.
Or maybe Im miscontruing your argument about having your argument miscontrued. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

you mispelled construed you idiot, therefore your entire statement is now discredited and is illogical drivel coming from an uneducated white hate-monger racist who can't spell.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

All this is a cooked up scheme from the left to get Beck kicked off. The sponsors didn't leave fox they just moved time slots. Also I didn't know reading something from the bills and then giving an opinion on it was really racist...Republicans have been calling democrats marxists and socialists for over a century.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

And you are entitled to your opinion. Especially because Im too lazy to research a counter. If you want to believe Fox is the worst, and the liberal organizations who were manipulating us through the 'news' long before Fox news was even around are innocent in comparison, that's your choice. but dont expect to change too many minds here, or anywhere else, when you continue to show such a biased view of the situation.

I didnt claim this.

I just said Fox was the most effective. THey do it the best. They are very successful.. more so than the others. Thats all i said.

If "all" channels sensationalized it, I take it that includes Fox news as well? And when CNN did it, they of course only did it for the pure news aspect of it, right? And once it was found out the story revolved around a personal relationship that doesn't affect Sanford's ability to govern, CNN and the NY Times dropped the story.... right? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I used your word, sensationalized, as a substitute for covered, and so yes, Fox news is included.

Of course they continued to cover the story after it was made public it was a private matter. The same way all news media continued to cover the Clinton story.

That's the way things work.

On the one hand you claim he could still run for pres and see how the votes pan out (even after taking a pounding from the press about how he's no longer a 'viable candidate'), and on the other hand you claim he has 'lost support from his base' when no vote has be taken on the matter. You want to believe he's lost support without really knowing either way, or you chose to believe the mostly liberal press who tells us to think this way.

His ability to still run is a fact. I dont think anyone is claiming this isnt true.

My claim that he has lost his base was an opinion formed by examining the issues which appear to matter to his base. Namely family values and monogamy/fidelity. If my opinion is wrong it will be shown by his forthcoming victory.

The issues that matter to both parties base are different. Clinton's didnt care about a BJ and i posit that Sanford's does.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

All this is a cooked up scheme from the left to get Beck kicked off. The sponsors didn't leave fox they just moved time slots. Also I didn't know reading something from the bills and then giving an opinion on it was really racist...Republicans have been calling democrats marxists and socialists for over a century.

ever since woodrow wilson. the socialist candidate actually dropped off the ticket against FDR because, quote: "the democrat party has adopted his platform". so even socialists have been calling dems socialists for at least 75 years.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

liberals do it a different way than fox. lib news just leaves out pertinent facts and purposely takes people out of context to discredit anything they've every said. they also use verbal personal attacks. joe the plumber and sarah palin are prime examples of the liberal news succesfully using tactics straight from the rules for radicals. fox does it visually rather than using the spoken word, but they are both using alinsky political tactics.

yes, but fox does these things and more.

Proof being the pictures.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Credibility down the toilet there. Now youre telling me a landlord is going to pass the savings. YOU MAD FUNNY!Get your head off the computer screen and see what the streets look like, be gone with your ideological junk.

lol.

The competitive market system would pretty much force the savings, at least somewhat, on to the consumer. If landlord A doesn't pass along any savings, landlord B would realize he can pass along say half the savings, advertise the property for less money, and therefore have better chances of selling his property. A very basic principal of supply and demand. Unless an illegal monopoly network was set in place by all the landlords getting together. But we have laws to combat this aternative.

he probably still doesnt get it.

My point was, even with cheaper housing and products, if jobs become harder to find due to higher competition for these jobs from people accepting lower wages, the inevitable of less income and/or lost jobs will result. Its a catch-22 cycle that our economy has not solved yet, and there are no easy answers to.

Most people arent competing with Juan for jobs. Therefore most people will get a net gain from Juan.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

yes, but fox does these things and more.
Proof being the pictures.

i don't see it as a question of "more", and i'd have to look into it more to even really disagree with that point, however, i watch shepard smith once or twice per week, and he's not that bad. definately a little right, no doubt, but in no way as pathetic and blatant as the fact skewering NBC does for example. you'll have to compare yourself to get a guage for your own mental bias process. the news can be very subjective. we are comparing news right? you aren't trying to say glenn beck in any way purports to be news are you? commentary, news, and commentary hidden as news are 3 different forums.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You seem to be implying I misconstrued your logic just because you said "which I dont even agree with". So I guess you adding that in just before using said logic to further your agenda makes any counter-point impossible. You were mistaken.
Or maybe Im miscontruing your argument about having your argument miscontrued. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

My only argument was that i would work within the confines of his own logic to discredit his argument.

construe that any way you like.

:')