|
Joe the Plumber (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sugar&ice |
| Why are you so harsh and jugemental? |
|
|
| JCIZZLE! |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
The hilarity with these Libtards knows no limits. We're a week past the election. They won. And yet you Libtards are still so angry. You have Libtard R!ch here who still has a hard-on for Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, both of whom are just days within their crawling back into obscurity. You have these other leftards complaining about Fox news. And here I thought now that your boy's soon for the office, everything should be merry!?!?! You see, it doesn't matter what really happens, you're still a Libtard.
Shouldn't R!ch be out there in SF protesting the multi-million dollar proposal to construct these massive elastic nets to save all the suicide jumpers from the Golden Gate Bridge? C'mon R!ch, tell all the proponing, SF leftarded bureaucrats and politicians that it's their "INALIENABLE RICHT" to do so! |
I don't think anyone is angry here, it's just way too much fun to watch just how ing stupid and out of touch with the rest of the world the republicans in this country are, what's terrifying is that it amounted to almost 50% of the voting population. Just look at were most of the right wind conservatives live, yes the good old confederate states.
Joe the plumber is our bitch, till the next Republican s up and gives SNL more useful material. :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| sugar&ice |
I'm registered Rebublican yet I voted for Obama.
I take defense.:confused: :confused: :confused: |
|
|
| R!CH |
| sugar&ice is a bad republican. no blind, fanatic loyalty whatsoever. you should be more ignorant, angry and judgmental like tasd. there's a guy who has a future in the grand old party! joe the pinhead won't stop showing the world how retarded he is so i'm helping him get the word out. |
|
|
| sugar&ice |
 |
|
|
| JCIZZLE! |
| quote: | Originally posted by sugar&ice
I'm registered Rebublican yet I voted for Obama.
I take defense.:confused: :confused: :confused: |
Don't take it to heart, it was my poor attempt at sarcasm towards the retard who seems to be upset that his party got their asses handed to them by a brother. It was an extreme left comment, am sure it doesn't apply to you or a lot of republicans in California who actually know what their party stands for although most have no clue why they are Republicans and just are cuz their mommy and daddy are, opps I did it again.
I just wanted to stir up cuz am bored. Don't take my comments to heart, I don't really hate anyone's party affiliation its just that if you watch tv The GOP is not looking to good nowadays. :haha: |
|
|
| sugar&ice |
As long as you are not racist.
My father, is black. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
I absolutely love you Fox News haters and your delusory media views that it leans rightward. Please tell me the media as a whole is not leftarded, err, CNN, NYT, MSNBC, NBC ad infinitum... |
The same childish label "haters" was levied against me in an email that ironically and hypocritically, contained death threats. So I looked up such threats on Google, specifically "liberals should be shot" verses "conservatives should be shot". Any half-aware person can guess who the biggest haters were - right-wing fanatics posting "liberal should be shot" outnumbered their liberal counterparts by more than almost 600 to 5.
Further study of the "right-wing" posts revealed that many of them were supporters of Fox "news" Ann Coulter and Limbaugh (as was the man who shot up a church of "liberals" in Tennessee a few weeks ago, murdering a happily married couple in the process - they found Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's books at his home). Even if we gave a generous 50% margin of error on the search results, it still comes out about a 100 to 1. Clearly, those who subscribe to conservative extremism are by far the more hateful - so much so they would shamelessly call for shooting people in public forums or stooping to ad hominems such as "libtards" simply because they don't agree with them. You can't get very much more UNAmerican than that.
In terms of "news" bias, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fallacy of "your another" and pointing the finger at other stations aas an excuse for Fox doesn't lesson their duplicity. Nevertheless, you were already "told" why Fox is by far the most biased, but you ignore the evidence, chief of which is that obvious right-wing partisans such as yourself defend Fox "news" so much. Further, even Rupert Murdoch himself stated that Fox has a right-wing bias - he should know, he OWNS it and hired Nixon's Roger Ailes to run it. DUH. Still further, the fact that Bush hired Fox's Tony Snow and Fox hired Bush's Karl Rove is more than enough evidence that Fox is unfair, imbalanced and unashamed. And if that's not enough lack of shame, their favorite guests week after week, year after year are: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Bill Bennett, ad naseum.
And then further still, for every lie you can cite in their own words from MSNBC, I can easily cite 3 to 5 from any ONE of the primary moderators at Fox - entire books have been written about the lies of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. - in THEIR OWN WORDS.
Who are Fox's Karl Rove, Huckabee, Roger Ailes and Oliver North equivalents at the so-called "liberal media"? MSNBC for example, gives conservatives Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson more air time the most air time, several hours per day, day after day, week after week. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by sugar&ice
Most are democrats. |
No they are not, most have not revealed their party affiliation, are not registered or are independents. I suggest you check Lexis/Nexis for your future facts, because you're repeating yet another Fox "news" lie.
Even Rupert Murdoch himself stated that Fox has a right-wing bias - he should know, he OWNS it and hired Nixon's Roger Ailes to run it. DUH. The fact that Bush hired Fox's Tony Snow and Fox hired Bush's Karl Rove is more than enough evidence that Fox is unfair, imbalanced and unashamed. And if that's not enough lack of shame, their favorite guests week after week, year after year are: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Bill Bennett, ad naseum.
Who are their equivalents at the so-called "liberal media"? MSNBC for one, gives conservatives Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson more air time than any of there other moderators, day after day, week after week. |
|
|
| sugar&ice |
| Is that Donny Brasco? |
|
|
| R!CH |
in a 2003 study conducted by the program on international policy attitudes by the university of maryland about misperceptions and the iraq war - including the perception that saddam has a working relationship with al qaeda, that we've found wmds in iraq, and that the world favors our war - the report found that fox news viewers had the highest percentage of misperceptions of all media outlets. in a separate poll conducted earlier that year, fox news viewers also thought saddam was directly involved in the planning of 9/11.
it's interesting to see how people who get their news from the libtarded pbs/npr and print media outlets have the fewest delusions about reality. two reasons:
first, pbs/npr is funded by a 3rd party fundraiser and isn't a corporate entity whose customer is THE ADVERTISER and whose product is YOU the viewer. without this conflict of interest, pbs/npr is free to report news factually while corporate news feels the need to dramatize and editorialize news so that they keep their viewer ratings up and their advertising rates high. investigative journalism is costly and time consuming and even though that is the key responsibility of media in a democracy, viewers are generally turned off by the bad news that investigative journalists and reporters often report, except when it's framed by dramatic editorial bias. so in place of true journalism, cable news employs pundits and fake experts to make the news soft and entertaining so you'll watch their advertisements and they'll report high quarterly profits.
second reason: print media's advertising dollars are checked and balanced by subscription dollars. subscription dollars are earned with journalistic integrity. journalists (not columnists) are hired, paid, promoted and tenured by their ability to report news without bias rather than how attractive they look in front of a camera and how loud and obnoxiously they can present an opinion. for this reason, print media editors are cautious of separating the bias of editorial columns from the news articles. often times the lack of bias is seen as liberal bias by the mass media conditioned public and the cultural fallacy of "liberal media". |
|
|
| R!CH |
there's also this funny tendency of republicans suddenly becoming democrats when they appear in the news for scandals...
and if pairing sean hannity with the scrawny, submissive alan colmes wasn't compelling enough of an image to portray liberals as weak, there's always photoshops of ny times reporters who criticize bush...
 |
|
|
|
|
