|
|
 |
|
#41
11-03-2006, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
asa hutchinson came back 'home' to run for gov here. looks like i'll be going straight dem on gov and lt gov here this time 'round. (they run separately, we could actually have a gov from one party, and a lt gov from the other!)....asa is ok, but beebe seems the better choice. and we just had a rep for 8 years, and i don't like huckabee one bit--looks like he's going to attempt a run in '08 for pres--we have term limits here, so he's out. the republican running for lt gov is an ultra-right wing religious zealot. he scares me!! 
|
|
#42
11-03-2006, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Come on now! Do you post things that fit your agenda? For your information...I AM a Christian. I worship the Prince of Peace. Your "trash talk" is getting old. I am also NOT a democrat. Ask Timm. I'm independent. Enough about me. I don't need to ask you to define yourself. You've already proven it.
|
|
#43
11-03-2006, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't talk to Mis Cleo, Rupert does. I don't think Dionne Warwick is running in anything, but if she is, I'd tell her to watch out for Pine Island. Ugly but fast. Cash a big one! Thanks for your congrats about my son. DTS
|
|
#44
11-03-2006, 07:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#45
11-03-2006, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thanks for the article. We ALL claimed to have learned much later. Just ask Dubbya. DTS
|
|
#48
11-03-2006, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
However, I am not like you guys when it comes to thinking that any article that knocks my guys must not be true, and any article that knocks your guys must be true, no matter what the source.
|
|
#49
11-03-2006, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I hope this post was more clear.
|
|
#50
11-03-2006, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I really did read the article you put up. Thanks for it. I'm not sure about how things will shake out in Iraq. I'll just say that in my humble opinion, it won't be solved militarily. Wars never have been before. It all comes down to those that sit down at a table and negotiate a "political" settlement. Sure, many lves are expended to getting to that point. It's sad for me to say that, but history has proven so time and again. That said, I don't think Iraq will be solved in an improving way unless and until Malili sits down with Sardr (sp), a Kurd, and a representative from (don't fall down) Iran. The US has to allow them to negotiate. While they talk, we have a way to redeploy our troops to a position away from the battlefield. There really is nothing more we can do to improve the situation. Our brave troops have certainly done their best. I don't think Great Britain wants any more involevment and they'll be going away sooner than later. Blair is being questioned. Leave out the UN. If you will allow a "poker" metaphor... When you hold cards, you have the luxury of betting big. If you don't, you can bluff for a while...until you're called and the bet is too big for you to continue with what you're holding. Then, you fold. Throw your cards on the table and let the others around the table to decide how the pot gets divided. It all happens around a table. There will be other hands dealt. I hope this makes sense to you. DTS
|
|
#51
11-03-2006, 08:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Last night he said he didn't know Mr. Jones.
Lie 1 Today he says the hotel referred him to Mr. Jones for a massage. Lie 2
|
|
#52
11-03-2006, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#53
11-03-2006, 09:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In the words of the Chisox announcer .........."HE GONE." It's the hypocrisy that makes these things interesting.Some guy buying drugs and sex is not all that interesting (unless he has preached against those activities himself.)That's what makes it a story. 30 million people thought he was totally against such activities.
|
|
#54
11-03-2006, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#55
11-03-2006, 09:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Damn it.Why can't they spell it hypocracy? Doesn't that seem like the way that should be spelled?
|
|
#56
11-04-2006, 09:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Look at all the fun stuff I miss when I spend an evening napping and watching "Battlestar Galactica...."
Rupert, can your posts be any more hyperbolic? To say that I, or anyone, would defend someone purely for being a moslem is absurd. Since you don't seem to know much about radical Islam, let me enlighten you-- Radical Islam has the same position on women and gays as radical Christianity-- that the former is inferior and the latter is evil. Why in the world would I defend a radical Moslem who openly attempts to influence elections against gays? For that matter, why would I defend a fundamentalist of any religion? Do you even READ any of my posts? Of course not, I'm not on the Drudge Report...  Because that is what the deal with Haggard is-- he actively campaigned to deny gays rights. That's why this little "massage" buddy came out, if you'll pardon the pun, against him. If the massage guy wanted to make money, he'd have blackmailed him, and those evangelist mega-churches have some serious coin, so I bet he would have gotten a lot of moola. But he didn't. He came forward because of Haggard's pushing for the gay marriage ban in... criminy, I can't remember which state. Which state? There are a lot of them being voted on lately... And that's why it's news. And frankly, the reason Dems are bringing this stuff up is because the Republicans seem to think they have a right to tell everyone what to do in their own bedrooms, and then again and again, prove that they also think those laws they push for don't apply to them. If the Republicans would STOP legislating morality, this wouldn't be news. If these damn mega-churches weren't lecturing about gay sex, they wouldn't be caught with, um, egg on their faces when their leaders turn out to not be as heterosexual as they claim people must be if they want to see Heaven. It's not the crime; it's the coverup. And the hypocrisy. The reason Dems don't care about what other Dems are doing in the bedroom is because the average Dem knows it's not his fracking business! But quite frankly, it's really good theater when the puffed-up moral crusader turns out to be just as human as the people he rails against. Rupert, the stuff you post is from Drudge and Fox and sources that are well-known Republican spin machines. That's why they're not being taken seriously. You can protest all you want that they are "unbiased" but that doesn't make them unbiased. You WANT them to be unbiased because they tell you what you want to hear. But they're not; they're spin machines. And reading them doesn't make you a conservative; it makes you a Republican. Small c- conservatives are livid at the way Bush has trashed the conservative legacy. You'll notice, I never post stuff from Daily Kos or Michael Moore or any of the sources I consider left-wing spin machines. Look, I enjoy Michael Moore's stuff-- it's entertaining and once in a while he makes a good point, as he did in "Bowling for Columbine" in fingering the media for encouraging a culture of fear in the US that contributes to gun violence (it's not the guns; it's the media!). But I'd never, ever use him as a source if I'm trying to prove a point. I can't count on the information to be completely factual, just as you cannot expect Fox and Drudge to be factual (Fox listed Foley as a Democrat, for God's sake, and then refused to correct it). If you really want to open your own horizons, take some time to see what's out there on the web-- I highly recommend andrewsullivan.com, http://www.balloon-juice.com/ (John Cole), slate.com and salon.com. Salon is a progressive-leaning site, but their news is usually fair (they posted articles denying Ohio was stolen, even though their readership would have preferred an article saying it was). And their Daou report will give you links to oceans of right- and left- leaning blogs. And in the end, Rupert, it's easy to slam the Republicans because quite frankly, they're doing a piss-poor job in every conceivable area of government right now-- Iraq is a mess, the deficit is ballooning, jobs are oozing overseas, and we are no more ready for a terrorist attack on our soil than we were in 2001. And they're the ones in charge-- the Dems are the minority party. Dems can yell and scream, but they can't force any changes in legislation-- and to read the Rolling Stones article I posted a while back, they're being kept out of legislation sessions entirely. Which isn't to excuse the Dems for being cowards when Bush and Rove first started the reprehensible "Democrats are soft on security" crap they began in '02. I wish the Dems had come out swinging, instead of sitting around and letting themselves get beaten up. But in the wake of 9/11, I think we were all willing to trust what our govenment told us-- I know I thought the Iraq intelligence seemed fishy, but I just couldn't believe my government would lie us into war, and I couldn't believe all of Congress would fall for it. I'm not that naive anymore, and I never will be again. I learned from trusting Bush once. Never, ever again. If the Dems were in charge right now, and this were going on, I'd be voting them out. I'm not a blind partisan; I think the Republicans are in bed with big business and that's not good for the average Joe. And I think single-party rule is bad. It was good for the country when the Dems lost in '94 and it will be good for the country if (please, God, please) the Republicans lose on Tuesday. But that's going to take people being willing to see beyond their "team" and honestly do what's good for their country. And indeed, their party. If you keep voting your party, no matter how corrupt, back into power, where is the motivation to clean up their act? All you're doing is enabling. Time for an intervention, Republicans! Take your damn party back by sticking them in the naughty corner for a few years. Dear God; I need to go handicap! Later, everyone!
|
|
#57
11-04-2006, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
With regard to the drudgereport, you can believe whatever you want. I think I know a little bit more about the site than you do, since I read it regularly and you do not. Are you denying that Drudge posts negative articles about republicans? Drudge will post any story that is major news or any story that is interesting for that matter. He probably is a republican and he probably is happier when he finds dirt on a democrat than a republican, but he will print dirt on either. I challenge you to go to the site and tell me how he has slanted any story. Go check to see the articles that he has posted on the Haggard scandal. Tell me how his coverage is slanted compared to other media outlets. You won't be able to do it. I can come up with more examples of major news outlets showing bias than Drudge. The Los Angeles Times is a perfect example. When a few of Gray Davis' female aids came forward with repots that he had abused them, the LA Times refused to print the story. When the same thing happened with Schwarzanegger(females accusing him of abuse), they immediately printed the story. Now that is slanted news. The same could be said with CBS. They had no problem running the story about Bush' National Guard Service, even though they coudn't verify that their sources were accurate. They normally never run a story if they can't verify that the sources were accurate. They would have never run that story if it was about a democrat. That is two examples that I have given you about liberal news sourses slanting their coverage. I bet you can't give me any examples of slanted coverage on the drudgereport. And you are sadly mistaken if you think that I don't use many different sources for my news. I have suscribed to the LA Times(a liberal paper) for 20 years. Going back to the drudgereport, you probably didn't know that many of his stories are from the New York Times and the Washington Post which are two liberal newspapers. Less than 5% of his stories are his own stories. His site is a site that carries headlines from all different newspapers. I bet you didn't even know that. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 11-04-2006 at 08:31 PM.
|
|
#58
11-04-2006, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Genuine Risk, The drudgereport has 5 articles posted right now about Haggard. That's probably more articles than any other site has about the case. How do you explain that?
|
|
#59
11-04-2006, 09:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Point is, so what if some of the media is liberal? That's true, but some of it is conservative as well (Wash Times, Fox, etc). With all the freaking media that's out there, people have to sift through it to get the real story and to form their own opinions. Most people are too lazy or don't care enough to do so and are happy to simply subscibe to liberal or conservative ideology because that's the easy thing to do. I happen to like Drudge a lot. And here's a prediction. I have never heard a bad word spoken regarding the the Military Times. I bet we will now see conservative media bashing this publication and Gannett. And I have a question for you. Do you think Bush's job approval rating is negatively effected by the totality of all media coverage? Personally, I dont think so, but rather believe it's a result of Americans disliking war coupled with him being a second term president.
|
|
#60
11-04-2006, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
With regard to Hannity and Colmes, the show is probably not quite as balanced as it should be beacuse Hannity is really the star of the show and he comes on much stronger than Colmes. I'm not a big fan of Hannity. He's a conservative hack. The guests on the show are usually alright. They usually have a good mix of both liberals and conservatives. With regard to your question about Bush, I do not think that his job approval has been hurt by media coverage. I think the media has been fair with him overall. I think the only thing that has really hurt him is the war. And the war would not have hurt him at all if it would have gone well. Americans are results oriented. If we would have won the war, everyone would be happy. I agree with you about the Drudgereport. I like it because it has a good mix of articles from both liberal and conservative papers. It has all the interesting headlines from all the big newpapers. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 11-04-2006 at 09:52 PM.
|
Linear Mode
