why that was nice

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

he probably still doesnt get it.

so landlord B sells his Mexican pueblo low to sell quick, problem is landlord C takes it, Landlord B already got an offer from Buyer A but is much happier with cash up front from Landlord C. House hits the market a month later with 50-100 on top and the buyer still takes it up the *** because for the same money he could have had American made house from Landlord A. you might be schooled smart but a real world idiot.

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

Most people translates to middle class. As long as there is an unemployment rate Juan has competition. Because Juan has that job and theyre unemployed, theyre on government teet, which the middle class contributes. So how does the middle class, or most people, gain from Juan?

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

he's a crazy libertarian who cries on national tv

That's insulting to Libertarians.

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

not to mention the work ethic for young generations stinks because guess whos flipping burgers and mowing lawns now. Because of Juan your kid will be a lazy brat

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

If you mean they have used the same tactics as CNN etc, but become more popular, we agree. But its not that they do it 'better' necessarily, its that they are seen as the only major outlet for conservative viewers. The amazingly liberal biased press created the void that Fox filled. Rupert Murdoch did not make Fox News so popular, the liberal media which hates FNC is what made FNC so popular. I believe you are trying to portray FNC as more devious than the liberial biased stations/programs. If Im interpretting your words incorrectly, I apologize, but I dont think Im coming from left field here. *shrug*

You phrase it popular i say effective. Lets examine what popular implies, namely that more people watch them. What does this tell us? That more people are exposed and buy into their propaganda.

They're more effective.

Sure, he's 'able' to run for anything. But after the mostly liberal press has presented a case of him being 'unelectable' it simply makes his chances of winning that much smaller.

The electorate has a short memory and i highly doubt anyone will remember what any news outlet said this far away from the 2012 election. If he still has his base, those people who believe in him no matter what the ALL news outlets say, they will still support him and he will run.

However, as i have claimed from the beginning, i believe they have abandoned him because they value and want a family values candidate.

I think we all agree that the press, on both sides, sways political winds by presenting some people in a certain light, while others in an entirely different light. I remember CNN walking the streets taking polls of if people thought Clinton was no longer 'fit' to be president because of Monica Lewinski. The simple act of asking 'can Clinton still be a viable president after the Lewinski situation' presents the situation in a regard of 'can he still be president after a scandal that doesn't involve him governing the country', which or course loads the question to get expected answers. Where is CNN now with their polls of 'can Sanford still be an effective president after having been found to be in a extra marital relationship which does not affect his ability to govern'...? Again, a bias can be easily shown by what the news DOESNT report, not just what it DOES report.

How should they have asked the question?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Like I said...

Juan is here legally = he can stay

Juan is here illegally = deport his ***

Fixed.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

That's insulting to Libertarians.

not to libertarians. crazy libertarians. i like glenn beck. he calls himself that. nobody on the left was trying to discredit him when he was bashing bush on the border and spending. now that he's bashing their guy, it's personal. have some consistency. the guy comes out with a ton of facts and sources, none of the attacks have been an attack on his arguments. when you don't have an argument, attack them personally. he makes it extremely easy to do.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

They all strike me as loonies.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

you have not personally compared the 2. i'm confident that you are probably smarter than most on this forum, and if you actually looked at it with any kind of intellectual honesty, you'd find that they are all on an equal level of BS, and in the case of NBC by itself, it's news is pathetic and a big step down from everybody else, at least in terms of news coverage. for you to put fox on a pedestal of being "worse" than the news delivered by people with your same political idealogy is an obvious way to discredit fox more than the others, whom you happen to agree with. that is very convenient and seems like intellectual dishonesty to me. either that or you have just never actually done the comparison yourself, but rather trusted other left wing commentators to supply that information for you. you do not seem like an intellectually lazy person in the least.

The news/opinion line is purposely blurred. I said repeatedly they were more successful and effective. They are better able to control the agenda and that makes them a bigger threat.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

not to mention the work ethic for young generations stinks because guess whos flipping burgers and mowing lawns now. Because of Juan your kid will be a lazy brat

my dad forced me to mow the church's lawns every saturday for years. i got 2$ a week. what a nightmare that was. that is far worse than allowing the decline of american civilization through subtle changes in youth culture leading towards an entitlement mentality and a need for large structured government institutions. oh my god, we're becoming france!!!!!!

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You want your cake and eat it too. You surmise that the logic is flawed and invalid, yet still use it to bolster your own stance. Either way, this reply does not really address the topic at hand.

I didnt try to bolster my own stance and in fact took no stance with him at all.

I simply used his own logic to discredit his argument.

Perhaps you took my comments to him alone as relevant to the conversation between you and I, and that was your error.

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

my dad forced me to mow the church's lawns every saturday for years. i got 2$ a week.

I hope were talking 1956 or you might have got suckered my friend. Could put up a fight with the pops, **** $2 thats one pizza delivery!, but you cant deny the church so its understandable

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

The news/opinion line is purposely blurred. I said repeatedly they were more successful and effective. They are better able to control the agenda and that makes them a bigger threat.

but they aren't controlling the agenda better. the dems won in a landslide on the senatorial front, the congressional front, and the presidential front. the liberal media destroyed fox, talk radio, and internet based political coverage. we're not even into the big newspapers yet. if fox was so good at propoganda, they would have been able to prop up george bush better and save at least some seats congress. i object to you assertion that fox is better at it. the liberals have been planning this for years and they got their guy. the owner of NBC is in the presidents administration for gods sake!! come on man.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

the 2 largest hate groups in america are democrats and republicans. one doesn't even need a reason to hate the other.

I am an independent conservative. People do not get out of poverty being on welfare and living off the state, they get out of poverty with JOBS. People forget what the welfare reform did in the 90's. Democrats *****ed and moaned about it then tried to take credit for the good. If they actually meant to stand for work why are they for more welfare now? Over that time frame more minorities WORKED their way out of poverty than in any other time in our nations history, and they built their own livelihoods. Only reason it ever happened was from a republican congress strong arming Clinton.

Also we will see how big of ideologues we have in office now because if they ram this crap through between Cap and Trade and either Health Care bill the party control will flip by 2012. Obama and the democrats in charge now have the lowest rating of ANY president/congress combination within their first 8 months in the history of tracking. The left can not complain and blame FOX or the Republicans because it is actual democrats and independents leaving, it is the Democrats OWN policy making people give up support. When there are 15% more who strongly disapprove over strongly approve, just shows they are fighting a losing battle. So instead of realing back the Dems are attacking and they are actually doubling the rate of which they are losing the debate.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I may also point out if the laws for minorities were switched to "white" laws the ENTIRE left would be crying racism...Until you stop seeing PEOPLE as a color there will be racism and I will give you a prime example of how the left works. If you do not see the problem in this videoyou really have no clue of what racism actually is.

symbolic racism - while rejecting stereotypes and blatant discrimination, this form of racism involves opposition to any social policy that would enable minorities to escape their disadvantaged position in American society. Symbolic racism appears to be based on a belief, apparently learned in childhood socialization, that blacks are getting unfair advantages that violate basic American norms such as individualism and self-reliance. A key element of this form of prejudice appears to be a denial of the presence of racial inequality in society.

For whites, believing in the existence of equal opportunities provides a sense of diminished responsibility for racial inequality. Thus, whites can think of themselves as accepting, unprejudiced people without having to acknowledge that they live and benefit from a society where race makes a huge difference in opportunity. They do this by denying or being unaware of the great inequality in their society, which then they do not have to face. By doing so they can maintain a myth that society is color-blind, and that race not only should not matter, but doesn't matter. Instead of admitting the inequalities found in American society, they can blame any disadvantage they see minorities suffer on the minorities themselves.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I may also point out if the laws for minorities were switched to "white" laws the ENTIRE left would be crying racism...Until you stop seeing PEOPLE as a color there will be racism and I will give you a prime example of how the left works. If you do not see the problem in this videoyou really have no clue of what racism actually is.

Whites tend to see discrimination and racism as individual acts of deliberate discrimination, whereas people of color tend to see it as an institutionalized system of unequal opportunities.

If it really is a level playing field, why is it that one in three black or Mexican children live in poverty? Why is it that a black child's chances of dying before the age of one is twice as high as a white baby?

If it isn't unequal opportunities what is it?

Are people of color just naturally incapable being as civilized as whites? Do they turn down the help? Is that why they are statistically so much worse off than whites? They are given more opportunity than whites, yet do worse.. if thats true it must be because they are biologically inferior to whites... is that what your saying?

Minorities are statistically underrepresented in education, government, law, medicine, ect ect ect.. If you aren't racist, why is it bad to try to make up for that underrepresentation?

Oh yeah because its their own fault they are where they are... they must be inferior.. thats what you are really saying.