I'm voting republican!

BonoShed wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

FNC is one channel. On cable.

What's conservative - or balanced - about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe.....

Chrissy wrote:

NO Regret wrote: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a Republican anyway?

not a lot that's why i love these partisan videos -- people act as if what they think matters and that their vote matters or that there's any difference between the white guy in a suit or the black dude in a suit anyway.

Sorry I didn't get that from the beginning.

People always find the most radical person they can of the opposing party and then classify everyone under that umbrella.... which is hogwash, since a radical is by definition outside the stance of popular beliefs...

Politics can really make enemies out of friendly people.

Tex wrote:

BonoShed wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

FNC is one channel. On cable.

What's conservative - or balanced - about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe.....

Certainly not the multinational conglomerates who own them. The media are in a constant struggle between liberal reporters and conservative owners. (I could name a number of times that so-called "liberal" reporters caved in to corporate pressure and chose not to report on certain topics that could affect their company's bottom line.) When that balance is upset and both reporters and owners fall on the conservative side, you get Fox News.

and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

coney island baby wrote: and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

well considering almost all Congress (Reps and Dems) backed invading Iraq, its not that surprising

EdelBrock wrote:

coney island baby wrote: and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

well considering almost all Congress (Reps and Dems) backed invading Iraq, its not that surprising

Consider at the time that GW Bush had approval ratings of 80+% at that time and 70% of polls approved of force against Iraq, standing against W was career suicide.

fascinating now that W has approval ratings in the 20s

Let's not be changing history here. The Congress back the war, not because they were scared of loosing thier careers, but because they believed at the time it was the best course of action.

GW had good approvals then, because he reacted very well to the 9/11 attacks, remember he only had 50% of the vote to get into office... people were happy with his reation to the attack...

His approval rating now is down due to other issues, some he deserves the negative credit and some he does not fully.

Katrina is a good example. By past policies on disasters, cities are suppose to respond within 24 hours, the state within 2-3 days and the federal government within a week. The city of New Orleans dropped the ball, the state dropped the ball, and expected the federal governement to pick up all the pieces. Bush is partly to blame as he could have reacted faster, but somehow the city and state do not carry any burden of blame (though they share the majority of it).

Bush has been an easy target to stick all blame because he is so polarized. In that aspect he has failed as a president, as his leadership has not carried along public opinion... don't get me wrong, a president doesn't have to make policies that get huge approval ratings, but they have to make it up somewhere else... GW didn't do that...

In the same aspect, Obama is very polarized (in the opposite direction), and if he becomes the next president, watch and the same thing will happen to him... the one thing that Obama has going for him is that he is a better orator than GW... but the polarization will be Obama's downfall, as it was for GW.

BonoShed wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

coney island baby wrote: and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

well considering almost all Congress (Reps and Dems) backed invading Iraq, its not that surprising

Consider at the time that GW Bush had approval ratings of 80+% at that time and 70% of polls approved of force against Iraq, standing against W was career suicide.

fascinating now that W has approval ratings in the 20s

Yeah, and have you seen the approval rating for congress?

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Tex wrote:

BonoShed wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

FNC is one channel. On cable.

What's conservative - or balanced - about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe.....

Certainly not the multinational conglomerates who own them. The media are in a constant struggle between liberal reporters and conservative owners. (I could name a number of times that so-called "liberal" reporters caved in to corporate pressure and chose not to report on certain topics that could affect their company's bottom line.) When that balance is upset and both reporters and owners fall on the conservative side, you get Fox News.

The thing is though, most people who complain about FNC do so from the standpoint of their opinion driven programming - not the hard news segments. This is where I really believe that FNC is more "fair and balanced".

Here's an example of a big time CNN reporter who is not exactly objective: Christiane Amanpour http://usliberals.about.com/od/thepressandjournalist1/p/Amanpour.htm

Who here knew that she's also known as Mrs. Jamie Ruben, former Clinton aministration State Department spokesman?

Her job is to deliver the hard news. I think it would be nice if CNN divulged that sort of information so the viewer could at least be informed of possible bias.

If you read the Drudge Manifesto, he chronicles the extensive marriages and romantic relationships between govenment officials and liberal media members. (Also, let's remember that 80% of the Washington press corps votes Democrat). Even if you hate Drudge, it's not his opinion - it's fact.

you can go on and on. I'm bored .

I'm neither Democrat or Republican so fooked off.

NO Regret wrote: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a Republican anyway?

Democrat - Believe people are victims of circumstance and need help from society to solve thier problems.

Republican - Believe people are victims by thier own design and should pick themselves up with thier own bootstraps.

Granted this is a generalization, and no one fits exactly in either of these boxes. The fight is over the line at which people help themselves or when the governement steps in.

The other issue is that the country was founded on Lockean Liberalism, which falls under a Republican idealogy (thus the term conservative). The one problem with Lockean Liberalism is that it doesn't address issues like enviromentalism (the idea wasn't around at that time). Locke believed that if people owned and controled thier own land, then thier selfiness to succeed would benefit society. However, enviromentalism (and other similar ideas) encroches on property rights of Lockean Liberalism. So where exactly does the line between property ownership by individuals and control by the society is a very large fight between the two parties.

Yer probably more correct... my mascot craps bigger than yer mascot

bump!

For this video:

"John McCunt"

Lulz x 300