You mean like how you're being hand fed by WorldNetDaily?lowing wrote:
and the fact that the vast majority of TV media sources are lberal? Whats that tell ya? The vast majority of TV viewers want to be hand fed.AussieReaper wrote:
No no, the media doesn't cater to the public, it caters to it's target market audience. Hence MSNBC and FoxNews can present the same story in a very different light. They are only representing the people who catch the programs, because that's how they make money.lowing wrote:
Bullshit, the media caters to the public. The public, in their world of entitlement does not give a fuck about where it comes from, as long as they get it, and it does not affect the airing of American Idol.
This is what the public wants, so the media delivers.
The media hand out the shit because it rates well. If the audience really want an accurate report they have to sift through a number of independent sources on their own. The media can't be represented as a whole catering to the public because it accommodates different stances, sometimes opposing stances. That can't be considered catering the public.
No actually, I have a life, I do not worship celebrities in hopes that they will shower me with houses and free money. Like I siad before, you only trash the source because you can not trash the content when it is true. This did happen, the source means nothing.mikkel wrote:
You mean like how you're being hand fed by WorldNetDaily?lowing wrote:
and the fact that the vast majority of TV media sources are lberal? Whats that tell ya? The vast majority of TV viewers want to be hand fed.AussieReaper wrote:
No no, the media doesn't cater to the public, it caters to it's target market audience. Hence MSNBC and FoxNews can present the same story in a very different light. They are only representing the people who catch the programs, because that's how they make money.
The media hand out the shit because it rates well. If the audience really want an accurate report they have to sift through a number of independent sources on their own. The media can't be represented as a whole catering to the public because it accommodates different stances, sometimes opposing stances. That can't be considered catering the public.
I trash the source and the contents. You're the one short a rebuttal.lowing wrote:
No actually, I have a life, I do not worship celebrities in hopes that they will shower me with houses and free money. Like I siad before, you only trash the source because you can not trash the content when it is true. This did happen, the source means nothing.mikkel wrote:
You mean like how you're being hand fed by WorldNetDaily?lowing wrote:
and the fact that the vast majority of TV media sources are lberal? Whats that tell ya? The vast majority of TV viewers want to be hand fed.
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.mikkel wrote:
I trash the source and the contents. You're the one short a rebuttal.lowing wrote:
No actually, I have a life, I do not worship celebrities in hopes that they will shower me with houses and free money. Like I siad before, you only trash the source because you can not trash the content when it is true. This did happen, the source means nothing.mikkel wrote:
You mean like how you're being hand fed by WorldNetDaily?
My opinions about the dipshit you all worship is also valid. As far as being short of a rebuttal, this thread went 8 pages in 1 day. Apparently it is a little more than one sided.
Story is true (presumably). Thread title isn't. Since when is where a bookshop puts their books confirmation of anything.lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.mikkel wrote:
I trash the source and the contents. You're the one short a rebuttal.lowing wrote:
No actually, I have a life, I do not worship celebrities in hopes that they will shower me with houses and free money. Like I siad before, you only trash the source because you can not trash the content when it is true. This did happen, the source means nothing.
How do you expect people to actually take you seriously? I replied to your rebuttal, but you've yet to refute it. You just seem to drop things when they aren't going your way, and just return to first base and spout the same junk that you did before attempting to justify it.lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.mikkel wrote:
I trash the source and the contents. You're the one short a rebuttal.lowing wrote:
No actually, I have a life, I do not worship celebrities in hopes that they will shower me with houses and free money. Like I siad before, you only trash the source because you can not trash the content when it is true. This did happen, the source means nothing.
My opinions about the dipshit you all worship is also valid. As far as being short of a rebuttal, this thread went 8 pages in 1 day. Apparently it is a little more than one sided.
Check again, There are 8 pages of rebuttal.mikkel wrote:
How do you expect people to actually take you seriously? I replied to your rebuttal, but you've yet to refute it. You just seem to drop things when they aren't going your way, and just return to first base and spout the same junk that you did before attempting to justify it.lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.mikkel wrote:
I trash the source and the contents. You're the one short a rebuttal.
My opinions about the dipshit you all worship is also valid. As far as being short of a rebuttal, this thread went 8 pages in 1 day. Apparently it is a little more than one sided.
What is it that I failed to refute? THe fact that Obama is an inexperienced socialist hack? I think I've covered it.
Said before, this, taken with all of the other Obamamania bullshit celbrity worship by people who think Obama is gunna buy everyone a house. Yeah it fits into place.Bertster7 wrote:
Story is true (presumably). Thread title isn't. Since when is where a bookshop puts their books confirmation of anything.lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.mikkel wrote:
I trash the source and the contents. You're the one short a rebuttal.
Last edited by lowing (2009-02-20 09:10:15)
But none to the last post in the exchange between you and me. This is a perfect example of your incredibly narrow mind. It's you against "them". It's like you're fighting this political war inside your head, completely detached from reality, sanity, and observing the views and opinions of the individuals that constitute "them". You're spoon fed by conservative outlets, you argue by assumption and association, and you rarely base any of your claims in reality without warping it in strange ways first. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you start getting serious.lowing wrote:
Check again, There are 8 pages of rebuttal.mikkel wrote:
How do you expect people to actually take you seriously? I replied to your rebuttal, but you've yet to refute it. You just seem to drop things when they aren't going your way, and just return to first base and spout the same junk that you did before attempting to justify it.lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.
My opinions about the dipshit you all worship is also valid. As far as being short of a rebuttal, this thread went 8 pages in 1 day. Apparently it is a little more than one sided.
What is it that I failed to refute? THe fact that Obama is an inexperienced socialist hack? I think I've covered it.
Maybe it has been. It's right.lowing wrote:
Said before, this, taken with all of the other Obamamania bullshit celv=brity worship by people who think Obama is gunna buy everyone a house. Yeah it fits into place.Bertster7 wrote:
Story is true (presumably). Thread title isn't. Since when is where a bookshop puts their books confirmation of anything.lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm not really, the story is true. Sorry about that.
I'm certainly no fan of Obama for any of the reasons you've mentioned. The only thing I care about (as with most foreign leaders) is his foreign policy - which I quite like. Yes, he's very charismatic - and to be honest that's exactly what the US needs on the world stage right now. A friendly charismatic leader who plays by the rules and improves Americas image across the rest of the world. He is a PR man to clean up a nightmarish PR mess.
But that's just the people being stupid and irrational (kinda like you), not their leader.lowing wrote:
Said before, this, taken with all of the other Obamamania bullshit celv=brity worship by people who think Obama is gunna buy everyone a house. Yeah it fits into place.
I need around tree fiddy.
If you argued a point that failed to address, it is because I missed. I will stand toe to toe with you all day long on liberal bullshit. Or have I not shown that over the past coupla years?mikkel wrote:
But none to the last post in the exchange between you and me. This is a perfect example of your incredibly narrow mind. It's you against "them". It's like you're fighting this political war inside your head, completely detached from reality, sanity, and observing the views and opinions of the individuals that constitute "them". You're spoon fed by conservative outlets, you argue by assumption and association, and you rarely base any of your claims in reality without warping it in strange ways first. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you start getting serious.lowing wrote:
Check again, There are 8 pages of rebuttal.mikkel wrote:
How do you expect people to actually take you seriously? I replied to your rebuttal, but you've yet to refute it. You just seem to drop things when they aren't going your way, and just return to first base and spout the same junk that you did before attempting to justify it.
What is it that I failed to refute? THe fact that Obama is an inexperienced socialist hack? I think I've covered it.
It is me against them. I say this because I am not part of any team. When my bills are late, there is no "team" that is helping me. When I am laid-off, I do not recall any "TEAM"members rushing over to help me out.
I am on my own, me, and my family against a socialist president that is hell bent on taking what I work for and spreading it to the masses.
I am alone, and so is every other hard working individual. We are the victims in this, and why? Because I pay my fucing bills, and I pay them on time, so I get nothing except the previlage of helping out every other dipshit that can't or won't pay thiers. Fuck that.
I read all sorts of media outlets, but please forgive me if I side and argue those that I agree with. Feel free to do the same.
YOu said it, people being stupid and irrational. Yet they voted this dipshit into office.DonFck wrote:
But that's just the people being stupid and irrational (kinda like you), not their leader.lowing wrote:
Said before, this, taken with all of the other Obamamania bullshit celv=brity worship by people who think Obama is gunna buy everyone a house. Yeah it fits into place.
Obama is not stupid, he knows exactly what he is doing. Unfortunatly it hjas nothing to do with the well being of the people that pay taxes and contribute.
Yes yes, by lifting sanctions against the terrorist state Syria. what a fuckin heroBertster7 wrote:
Maybe it has been. It's right.lowing wrote:
Said before, this, taken with all of the other Obamamania bullshit celv=brity worship by people who think Obama is gunna buy everyone a house. Yeah it fits into place.Bertster7 wrote:
Story is true (presumably). Thread title isn't. Since when is where a bookshop puts their books confirmation of anything.
I'm certainly no fan of Obama for any of the reasons you've mentioned. The only thing I care about (as with most foreign leaders) is his foreign policy - which I quite like. Yes, he's very charismatic - and to be honest that's exactly what the US needs on the world stage right now. A friendly charismatic leader who plays by the rules and improves Americas image across the rest of the world. He is a PR man to clean up a nightmarish PR mess.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun … _02_09.asp
ya gotta google it, since it isn't covered very well, I wonder why.
Something much of the rest of the world are quite happy about. You're proving my point for me...lowing wrote:
Yes yes, by lifting sanctions against the terrorist state Syria. what a fuckin heroBertster7 wrote:
Maybe it has been. It's right.lowing wrote:
Said before, this, taken with all of the other Obamamania bullshit celv=brity worship by people who think Obama is gunna buy everyone a house. Yeah it fits into place.
I'm certainly no fan of Obama for any of the reasons you've mentioned. The only thing I care about (as with most foreign leaders) is his foreign policy - which I quite like. Yes, he's very charismatic - and to be honest that's exactly what the US needs on the world stage right now. A friendly charismatic leader who plays by the rules and improves Americas image across the rest of the world. He is a PR man to clean up a nightmarish PR mess.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun … _02_09.asp
ya gotta google it, since it isn't covered very well, I wonder why.
and how is that? Syria is a terrorist state and Obama is going bend over and kiss its ass. Yeah I guess I can see how the rest of the world would love that given their jealously of the US.Bertster7 wrote:
Something much of the rest of the world are quite happy about. You're proving my point for me...lowing wrote:
Yes yes, by lifting sanctions against the terrorist state Syria. what a fuckin heroBertster7 wrote:
Maybe it has been. It's right.
I'm certainly no fan of Obama for any of the reasons you've mentioned. The only thing I care about (as with most foreign leaders) is his foreign policy - which I quite like. Yes, he's very charismatic - and to be honest that's exactly what the US needs on the world stage right now. A friendly charismatic leader who plays by the rules and improves Americas image across the rest of the world. He is a PR man to clean up a nightmarish PR mess.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun … _02_09.asp
ya gotta google it, since it isn't covered very well, I wonder why.
So you posting his every single move, any news bit about him (however pointless) and taking every opportunity you can to rant about him isn't lunacy?lowing wrote:
lunacy? I am not the one who immortized this dipshit. I am one of countless vicitms of his crusade to punish achievment and reward failure through entitlement.FatherTed wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
Instead, you've ended up highlighting the lunacy some people express over Obama. Good job
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Fair enough, but WND is still full of it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Bullshit. It had ads for books by Ann Coulter and we all know she's a moderate.Turquoise wrote:
Let's see... World Net Daily is making an assessment about something being religious and fanatical.
That's kind of like The National Enquirer calling someone trashy.
Face it... WND is so slanted, it makes Fox News look liberal.
Dude that picture was sent in an email as either a joke, or to stir up shit. I highly doubt the bookstore did that on purpose.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … _Net_Daily
The burden of convincing others falls on the provider of the material. You're not going to convince many people that something is true when you use a source that has gotten in trouble for libel before. (See my sourcewatch link).lowing wrote:
Fact is, no source is credible on this forum if it is not agreed with.Turquoise wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I just had to point out that his source (like a lot of other posts he's made) isn't very credible.
The question is never the source, the question should always be, did it happen or is it true? People on here dismiss shit from any source they disagree with. It is a standard diversionary tactic. Trash the source so you do not have to defend against the story.
I post about his decisions that eventually cost me money. Money that I work for to provide for my family. Sorry if you feel it is pointless. I however do not.FatherTed wrote:
So you posting his every single move, any news bit about him (however pointless) and taking every opportunity you can to rant about him isn't lunacy?lowing wrote:
lunacy? I am not the one who immortized this dipshit. I am one of countless vicitms of his crusade to punish achievment and reward failure through entitlement.FatherTed wrote:
and no exposing his intentions is not pointless. Not any more pointless than the endless string of Bush threads that no one seemed to object.
I will stick with my orginal response to the attacks on sources in this forumTurquoise wrote:
The burden of convincing others falls on the provider of the material. You're not going to convince many people that something is true when you use a source that has gotten in trouble for libel before. (See my sourcewatch link).lowing wrote:
Fact is, no source is credible on this forum if it is not agreed with.Turquoise wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I just had to point out that his source (like a lot of other posts he's made) isn't very credible.
The question is never the source, the question should always be, did it happen or is it true? People on here dismiss shit from any source they disagree with. It is a standard diversionary tactic. Trash the source so you do not have to defend against the story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_ … ileage_tax
Here is the train of thought we are up against with this administration...
This jack off wants us to report to teh govt. our mileage to be taxed. No stone left unturned in order to gain access to our lives by this govt. I see.
Here is the train of thought we are up against with this administration...
This jack off wants us to report to teh govt. our mileage to be taxed. No stone left unturned in order to gain access to our lives by this govt. I see.
Fucking just read the shit you post, one time. Please.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/lahood_vehicle_mileage_tax
Here is the train of thought we are up against with this administration...
This jack off wants us to report to teh govt. our mileage to be taxed. No stone left unturned in order to gain access to our lives by this govt. I see.
He rejected the proposal. What the hell is wrong with you?WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday rejected his transportation secretary's suggestion that the administration consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy.
It is the proposal from his Transportation Secratary. The guy Obama decided is perfect for this job. SO my post stands, this train of thought is exactly what we are up against with this administration.AussieReaper wrote:
Fucking just read the shit you post, one time. Please.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/lahood_vehicle_mileage_tax
Here is the train of thought we are up against with this administration...
This jack off wants us to report to teh govt. our mileage to be taxed. No stone left unturned in order to gain access to our lives by this govt. I see.He rejected the proposal. What the hell is wrong with you?WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday rejected his transportation secretary's suggestion that the administration consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy.
Nothing is wrong with me. How are you doing?
Is his Transportation Secretary a Democrat, or Republican?lowing wrote:
It is the proposal from his Transportation Secratary. The guy Obama decided is perfect for this job. SO my post stands, this train of thought is exactly what we are up against with this administration.
Nothing is wrong with me. How are you doing?
It was a stupid proposal and has been rejected. That's the price you pay for bipartisanship. Crazy right-wing ideas of taxing your mileage.