why that was nice

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Nope. I didnt claim this. I only said they were the most effective and successful. They take it a lot further than anyone else.
Their editing pictures to make people less attractive is a prime example of them trying to influence people in the basest and most subliminal ways possible.

I don't even understand what you're trying to convey.

If he has the support he will run and win.

If he doesn't its probably because he lost his base.

Clinton didnt lose his base.

Is every news agency supposed to run ads 24/7 trying to persuade Sanford's base to stick around because Clintons did?

If those pics are real, then I agree that's appalling. Im not defending Fox, Im stating they all do it, you keyiong in on Fox as the worst only shows YOUR bias here.
What Im trying to convey is you are suggesting that when CNN or the NY Times sensationalizes the Sanford story and pastes it as headline news, you refuse to see the agenda-serving implications it holds. Again you want to suggest Fox News manipulates for their own agenda, but refuse to admit that CNN does it when (over) covering a story like Sanford's. Again, your bias is showing, tuck that ish in. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I believe you are correct. But does this mean popular vote only means something when Al Gore loses the election, but not when it comes to handing out money to a non-Democrat?

It means if he had the popular vote in the primary he would have gotten more money.

People simply didnt vote for him so he didnt get any money.

If he had the popular vote in the primary he would have.

IIRC they gave the money out based on the popular vote in the primary election for that election cycle.

The popular vote in prior elections is irrelevant.

If we went by that standard George Washington should also get some money because he won the popular vote in the first election.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

that's exactly what it means, from both sides. politics is cut throat, just like business is. we need the media, but they have been corrupted with mixing politics with business. GOP is probably partly funding rupert murdoch (fox), if not directly, probably through shadow companies. jeff immelt is one of obamas advisors and he owns nbc. not to mention GE is in bed with obama. i wonder who the biggest energy company and health care company in the world is? when the fvck is someone important enough going to ask these questions?

Oh I agree completely, both sides wage the same war using the same tactics. Its the sheople who only see it coming from one side or the other. We have some fundamental problems with our system that wont be solved by electing yet another politician from the same political machine just because he campaigns on the platofrm of 'change' (democrats) or 'reform' (republicans). Two sides of the same coin. And the people who demonize one side, while turning a blind eye to the other, only serve to solidify this problem as acceptable and inevitable.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

inorite.


I might actually bother to quote the bill and point out why you're a complete idiot if i didn't think you were just a troll.

instead i'll just do this:

http://news.google.com/news/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=death+panel+

u = major fail.

he didnt read anything.

look into ezekial emmanual's ideas. he personally does have ideas on guaging the worth of someone's life. now getting that idea into a bill that gets signed by the president is a different debate, but some of these czars have some checkered pasts and some fringe ideas. i personally wouldn't let that discredit their ideas i agree with, if we could actually hear them. they answer only to the president, which brings me to an interseting, less serious point. the czars are named wrong. they should be commissars or narkoms. if we're going to use communist governmental terms, we should at least do it correctly. we look like idiots.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

I find it humerous how many on this forum are so anti-FoxNews when all you have to do is tune into ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, BBC, etc., etc., etc. so you can get the leftist view of the world. News is no longer "news", it's opinion. It's "journalists" giving you their slant on the world, which is typically liberal. If you don't like FoxNews, then simply don't tune in. But wonder of wonders, they kick *** in the ratings against all the other cable news shows. Gee, I wonder why?

Like I said, you can hate FoxNews all you want. Just don't tune in. Tune into one of those other channels I mentioned and you will be happy and ignorant. Afterall, ignorance is the one thing that most Americans have in abundance. But based on the ratings, I fear that you are in the minority when it comes to hating FoxNews. IMHO.

Have a nice day. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

It means if he had the popular vote in the primary he would have gotten more money.
People simply didnt vote for him so he didnt get any money.

If he had the popular vote in the primary he would have.

IIRC they gave the money out based on the popular vote in the primary election for that election cycle.

The popular vote in prior elections is irrelevant.

If we went by that standard George Washington should also get some money because he won the popular vote in the first election.

Which primary should he have received votes for? the Democratic primary, or the Republican primary? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif You can only vote in which ever primary you are registered to. So in other words, money is handed out based on percentages of votes in the primaries for the two ruling parties. Does this seem to lend itself to allowing for new blood in elections, or to keep the powers that be in place and secure?
George Washington was not running for president in the election cycle we are referring to, therefore your example is pointless and silly.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

That's because we are idiots.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

My right as citizen? Whoode****ingdoo. We don't have rights, we have what's given to us. I didn't vote because I knew we were ****ed either way. No one cares enough for this country because no one stands for the principals of freedom. Everything is policy and foreign policy. Money, money, money. The best part of the joke is that Human Life and prosperity is at the bottom of the *important shit list*. I don't have faith in a corrupt and failing country, why should I be apart of it? For what reasons? We have troops and people dying everyday so I can live here and type this? Hardly. We have troops dying so it can make someone richer or more powerful. I value human life, that's why I'm against the wars. I didn't give up my *rights*. I choose not to exploit them.

Dude, then fvcking move to another country. And if you don't vote, which you admit you don't, then STFU. You have nothing to complain about. You chose to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. You can believe all you want about our troops, but they do fight and die for our right to speak out. Move to China, Cuba, No. Korea or any number of other countries and try the same level of dissent you read on this forum and let me know how that works for you.

 

[mattf 5,000+ posts]

Fox News women > all others.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

I believe you are correct. But does this mean popular vote only means something when Al Gore loses the election, but not when it comes to handing out money to a non-Democrat?

OMG, you are STILL *****in' about 2000???? Get over it dude! Read up on the electoral college sometime. Geesh!!

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Fox News women > all others.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/word.gif.64b12e39f936af3b4fff38a1c0bd0244.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsupwink.gif.129404938effda6ad9cca39e7f4b58a3.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

If those pics are real, then I agree that's appalling.

Its true:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fox+news+photoshop&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1

Im not defending Fox, Im stating they all do it, you keyiong in on Fox as the worst only shows YOUR bias here.

In my opinion they are the best at what they do.

Can you show me even one example of a mainstream media outlet deliberately doing anything as nefarious as those photos?

What Im trying to convey is you are suggesting that when CNN or the NY Times sensationalizes the Sanford story and pastes it as headline news, you refuse to see the agenda-serving implications it holds. Again you want to suggest Fox News manipulates for their own agenda, but refuse to admit that CNN does it when (over) covering a story like Sanford's. Again, your bias is showing, tuck that ish in. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

All channels sensationalized that story. The governor went AWOL for Christs sake. They all began reporting long before they knew why he went AWOL.

All media sensationalized the Clinton bj too.

The main difference is that Clinton didnt lose any support from his base and Sanford did.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Dude, then fvcking move to another country. And if you don't vote, which you admit you don't, then STFU. You have nothing to complain about. You chose to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. You can believe all you want about our troops, but they do fight and die for our right to speak out. Move to China, Cuba, No. Korea or any number of other countries and try the same level of dissent you read on this forum and let me know how that works for you.

He is speaking out, I guess you missed that part. His decision that there was nobody worth voting for does not make him any less patriotic, reasonable, intelligent or worthy of discussion on the topics at hand. Why does a non-voter voicing his opinions upset so many people? Id rather someone who is unsure, uneducated or untrusting NOT vote than simply fall in line lock step and vote for whom he is told he is suppose to by the media or his peers.
Your choice to vote does not make you any more or less of an expert than does someone who choses not to. In the end, you are merely looking for an excuse to quiet someone with whom you disagree.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Well the markets just wouldnt recover with this looming threat of Obama Care and the trillions of dollars it would cost.. now that the protesters have shown Americans wont stand for this garbage the economy is getting back on track.
Thanks town hall protesters you're saving AMERICA!!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/word.gif.64b12e39f936af3b4fff38a1c0bd0244.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/2thumbs.gif.fdc3ba010dbb42b61704534b46d02fe4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

OMG, you are STILL *****in' about 2000???? Get over it dude! Read up on the electoral college sometime. Geesh!!

How you got that Im bitching about the 2000 election is beyond me. You appear to have no clue as to my view of the 2000 election. Dont tell me to read up on the elctoral college when you couldn't even correctly interpret the few lines of text I wrote on the subject.
edit: oh yeah... Geesh!!!111!!oneone!