or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic. - Page 4

post #121 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

trumptman - you talk about "weights of the polls." Do you believe that pollsters pick how many Rs and Ds to survey? And that the polls are wrong because they're intentionally surveying too many Ds? And that this is part of the liberal media bias?

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, I feel bad for you guys if that's what you think - honestly, not even sarcastically (OK maybe a little sarcastically) - because many Ds convinced themselves of the same thing in 2004. I've been there, man. We have amazing defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from the truth.

 

They aren't wrong because they survey too many of one thing or another. However they can be wrong when they choose the wrong weights to apply to that poll to correct for what they declare to be under or over represented sub-groups. However if your sample consistently samples in a manner that tilts too far away from the known results in reality, shouldn't one question if they should adjust their methodology for obtaining the sample? In the other thread I noted that Silver had criticisms about the Rasmussen methodology. If your sample can't seem to find the group you are seeking the views of, you cant adjust the weights (which they are actually going in the wrong direction with and making it even more Democratic) but errors are going to be magnified as well.

 

This isn't about a defense mechanism.

 

All told, we see a statistically significant relationship between Obama's margin and the Democratic advantage in partisan identification. In other words, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of the polls. They are not converging around a single point. Instead, some (notably Rasmussen, Purple Strategies, Survey USA, and Mason-Dixon) see Obama ahead by just 1 to 3 points in the key swing states, while others (notably the Washington Post, Fox News, PPP, and NBC News/Marist) see an Obama lead that ranges between 4 and 8 points. And the difference looks to be built around how many Democrats are included in the polling samples.

 

I'm still unconvinced by the weighting argument when applied to party affiliation, since that is too closely related to the variable that the polls are trying to measure - voting intention. Weighting by independent demographic parameters that can be measured separately (age, gender, ethnicity, landline ownership etc.) is important when using relatively small samples that may not well represent the sampled set, but to weight results by party affiliation is to some degree begging the question in my opinion.  If public opinion were swinging towards Republicans, for example, then it would be expected that a increasing fraction of those polled would indicate an intention to vote Republican, and an increasing fraction would self-identify as Republicans. It would be statistically incorrect then to weight the results towards Democrats on the basis that they were inappropriately under-represented in the sample -  they would, in fact, be appropriately under-represented in the sample.  I'd expect a positive linear correlation between those two increases (intent to vote Republican and self-identified as Republican), though with a non-unity constant of proportionality. And that appears to be what many unweighted polls are showing - in this case in favor of the Democrats.

 

In terms of the broad range of polls out there, I could well imagine a bimodal distribution of results with unweighted polls grouping around one peak and weighted polls grouping around the other - if the weighted polls all used the same weighting methodology. However - you are quoting polls that span the range from 1% - 8% in favor of Obama, and, even though that's a small number of data points, I don't see much evidence of two peaks in that distribution.

post #122 of 207

I've started unskewing my BMI, and now I'm 6'2" and 180 lbs. 

 

Next I'm going to unskew my salary.

post #123 of 207
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #124 of 207
Quote:

 

Lame.

post #125 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Lame.

 

What is lame?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #126 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Lame.

 

What is lame?

 

The MSNBC interpretation of what happened. While the video of the event needed to be watched carefully to figure it out, that is no excuse for getting it wrong and then using it to belittle Romney on air.

post #127 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I've started unskewing my BMI, and now I'm 6'2" and 180 lbs. 

 

Next I'm going to unskew my salary.

 

I'd argue you are justified on BMI since it is a terrible and completely unscientific measure. It makes anyone with muscle look like a lard ass. I've had my body fat measured and according to BMI, I'd be nearly obese even with 0% body fat because of my frame and muscle mass.

 

As for your salary, I'd argue that you should indeed unskew it and account for things like inflation and debt interest and you'd see how much present and future earnings our president's policies are costing you.

 

It would be especially interesting to have the media unskew our president's current economic growth and realize that his stimulus is calculated to lower future growth from the already anemic rate we have now. We didn't get a free lunch via a multiplier effect. We stole from future growth and thus it is estimated that during his second term, our economy will grow even slower than it is right now.

 

Our entire society could use a little unskewing. Perhaps we might even luck out and ask Democrats how they can keep skewing their perspective of problems as being from Bush when Europe, Japan and China all are suffering from the same centrally planned problems.


Edited by trumptman - 10/1/12 at 11:28am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #128 of 207

I sure missed you trumptman!

post #129 of 207

For Krugy this should have fallen under "Too good to be true".

 

 

 

Death By PowerPoint, Continued

 

This isn't even MSNBC mind you but the NYT. Sad and pathetic.

post #130 of 207

Notice how he admitted when he was wrong?  There's a lesson to be learned there for some of you wingers.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #131 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Notice how he admitted when he was wrong?  There's a lesson to be learned there for some of you wingers.

 

Oh, the irony. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #132 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Notice how he admitted when he was wrong?  There's a lesson to be learned there for some of you wingers.

 

Is that what he did? Could you please quote for me where he said he was wrong?

 

Since you were wrong about him admitting he was wrong, will you admit you are wrong?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #133 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Notice how he admitted when he was wrong?  There's a lesson to be learned there for some of you wingers.

 

BR, however, is never wrong.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #134 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Notice how he admitted when he was wrong?  There's a lesson to be learned there for some of you wingers.

Notice how he was not only wrong in the first place but confirmed what we all knew anyway? That Krugman is a partisan tool and a fucking idiot blinded by politics.

post #135 of 207

Lesson not learned.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #136 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Lesson not learned.

 

I still have hope for you, BR.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #137 of 207

It's always mildly amusing to check out the front page of CNN during this silly season. What do we have today?

 

First:

 

  • CNN poll: Romney gains ground in Ohio

 

Bu then:

 

  • Polls are snapshots, but impact lasts

 

And then:

 

  • Poll of polls: Romney up 1 point | Track it

 

And finally:

 

  • Can we really trust the polls?
 
Interesting. I don't recall CNN having much interest in the question about the trustworthiness of the polls in the past few weeks, or reminding us that polls are just "snapshots" during that period. This newfound caution about polls is an admirable development for CNN.
 
And now today:
 
"Will Romney's debate bounce last?"
 
I don't recall anyone wondering if Obama's "convention bounce" would last. These guys are so transparent.

Edited by MJ1970 - 10/10/12 at 12:24pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 207
post #139 of 207

It's a good thing we have the UK media to cover the US election...

 

He actually thought he'd won. Think for a minute, about what that might actually mean about the current U.S. President.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #140 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

It's a good thing we have the UK media to cover the US election...

 

He actually thought he'd won. Think for a minute, about what that might actually mean about the current U.S. President.

I'm game for that. How about, In every negotiation with a foreign leader Obama always leaves thinking he won. When in fact he's just about lost every single one ... starting with the Olympics.

post #141 of 207
Thread Starter 

Gallup's altering their polling weights and methodology. Please don't pay attention to it at all.

 

Quote:
As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures. We increased the proportion of cell phones in our tracking to 50%, meaning that we now complete interviews with 50% cell phones and 50% landlines each night. This marks a shift from our Gallup Daily tracking, which has previously been 40% cell phones. This means that our weights to various phone targets in the sample can be smaller, given that the actual percentage of cell phones and cell-phone-only respondents in the sample is higher. We have instituted some slight changes in our weighting procedures, including a weight for the density of the population area in which the respondent lives. Although all Gallup surveys are weighted consistently to census targets on demographic parameters, we believe that these improvements provide a more consistent match with weight targets.

 

The polls have already had to unskew their weights a bit and bring Romney back into contention or in many cases, an outright lead. It is simply too large a lead to hide anymore. One has to wonder how impressive a win it will be on election day when reality has no skew.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #142 of 207

And now, NBC News moves to reassure the nation that Romney has only had a small bounce in key states and is probably "over performing" in national polls.

 

 

 
Once again, I don't recall and similar cautions when Obama "bounced" from his convention or that he might be "over performing" in the national polls.
 
I find the mainstream media's new found interest in the accuracy and certainty of the polls to be fascinating.
 
But I'm comforted at their new reassurances that Romney isn't really "up" or "leading" or "gaining"...or that if so, these changes are merely "snapshots" and probably "fleeting" or if not, they don't reflect the more important state-level polls.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 207
Thread Starter 

Nate Silver literally cannot resolve how strange the polls have become and shares some dirty polling secrets.

 

Quote:

For the time being, however, Mr. Romney continues to rocket forward in our projections. The forecast model now gives him about a one-in-three chance of winning the Electoral College (more specifically, a 32.1 percent chance), his highest figure since Aug. 22 and more than double his chances from before the debate. Mr. Romney may have increased his chances of becoming president by 15 or 20 percent based on one night in Denver.

The more troubling sign for Mr. Romney, however, is that although he’s made gains, he does not seem to have taken the lead in very many state polls. That trend, if anything, has become more entrenched. Of the half-dozen or so polls of battleground states published on Wednesday, none showed Mr. Romney ahead; the best result he managed was a 48-48 tie in a Rasmussen Reports poll of New Hampshire. (We ran the model on Wednesday before the latest polls from Marist College, The Philadelphia Inquirer, or The New York Times, Quinnipiac University and CBS News were published overnight, which were also suggestive of a narrow advantage for Mr. Obama in the majority of swing states.)

 

How to reconcile this against the fact that Mr. Romney is about tied — or perhaps even has a small lead — in the average of national polls right now?

From a forecasting standpoint, this is the question that the whole election may turn upon. There are basically four ways to explain the difference.

 

1) This is a statistical quirk that will work its way out of the system.
2) Mr. Obama has some pronounced advantage in the Electoral College relative to his position in the popular vote.
3) The state polls systematically overestimate Mr. Obama and underestimate Mr. Romney.
4) The national polls systematically overestimate Mr. Romney and underestimate Mr. Obama.

 

Basically that the polls some pretty radical disagreement. My intuition would be that the national polls are magically "unskewing" and that the state polls are still being weighed differently.

 

I haven't seen a poll breakdown where Romney doesn't have a larger percentage of Republican support compared to Democrats support. (Example Rep 95-5 for Romney/Dem 89-11 for Obama) I haven't read a poll breakdown where Independents do not favor Romney by a pretty decent percentage (+5 is the lowest I have seen). People have been noting the fact that the polls haven't matched reality for a while. How does someone lead a poll when the more energized part is providing a larger percentage of support and those in no party support him to a greater degree. The math doesn't add up there.

Quote:

What do I mean by “independence”? Here’s a dirty little secret: pollsters herd. Or to put it less politely: it’s probable that some polling firms, especially those that use less rigorous methodologies, cheat off the stronger ones — seeing what the consensus results are before weighing in on their own.

 

One piece of evidence for this comes from a paper by the political scientists Joshua Clinton and Steve Rogers, who analyzed polling in the Republican primaries this year. They found that when a low-quality pollster was the first one to poll a state, their results were quite poor. But they did as well as any others once there were high-quality polls already released in the state — possibly implying that the low-quality pollsters were tweaking their assumptions to match the better ones.

 

My own research is suggestive of a similar phenomenon. I’ve found that the more polls there are of a state, the narrower the spread between them — in a way that is inconsistent with normal statistical variance. Once there is a consensus established in a state, the pollsters may have an incentive to be in line with it. That may make the individual poll more accurate — but reduce the value of aggregating or averaging polls since the “wisdom of crowds” principle is strongest when individual members of the crowd are behaving independently. Otherwise, it becomes more likely that everyone will miss in the same direction.

 

Polls are supposed to be polls, but the weights being applied, the consensus on what the turn out is going to be, etc can be influenced and altered by a few strong voices in the room. Those "voices" are largely liberal media and their own biases that they fail to recognize. When real events puncture that self-reinforcing circle, adjustments are made quickly to try to get the numbers to match reality. Just my two cents there by the "consensus" of media in terms of conventional wisdom and exit polling has been pretty horrible for recent elections.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #144 of 207
Steve Jobs put it best. It is no longer about left or right. We are in a new age. Left and Right doesn't matter. It doesn't exist.

It is a simple choice. Can we as a human race get to the next stage of our evolution in a healthy way? Now that cheap oil is gone.

The time for fighting is over. Left-Right, Gay-Straight, Men-Women, White-Black.

Gone. One human race. One planet. One universe. One future.
post #145 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Steve Jobs put it best. It is no longer about left or right. We are in a new age. Left and Right doesn't matter. It doesn't exist.
It is a simple choice. Can we as a human race get to the next stage of our evolution in a healthy way? Now that cheap oil is gone.
The time for fighting is over. Left-Right, Gay-Straight, Men-Women, White-Black.
Gone. One human race. One planet. One universe. One future.

 

Oh boy.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh boy.  

Think about this. Outside of Scandinavia, Canada, Australia and parts of the USA and few parts of Europe, what kind of world is it going to be 2012-2025.

This is the time of the storm. What will happen after the storm, I don't know.

But 2012-2025 in the storm, left-right-up-down is meaningless.

Common sense is most important.

Obama is fighting himself now, and that is when a man does the most damage to his own purposes.

The storm, the transition, whatever you want to call it, is upon us now and will be with us for at least a decade.

You can feel it in you. An unease, that somehow only a fresh, objective, even spiritual (not religious) approach is needed.

Yesterday's world is no more, tomorrow's just a glimmer of the past.

For Obama to collapse so spectacularly after his initial years of such surging hope and positivity... You know something's afoot.
post #147 of 207
Even the "liberal-media" complex is shocked at what's going on. To see Obama collapse like this. It's truly disturbing on a global scale.

But these are now the times we live in.
post #148 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Even the "liberal-media" complex is shocked at what's going on. To see Obama collapse like this. It's truly disturbing on a global scale.
But these are now the times we live in.

 

If only that were true.  Yeah, he collapsed during the first debate but he has been fine in the other 2 debates.  I wouldn't say he has been exceptional, and most of the stuff that has Bergermeister and the likes foaming at the mouth is really only fuel for his base and I don't think it really does much for him with independents.  This election is going to be either really close or Romney is going to have a BIG win.  If undecides do indeed break for the challenger consistent with the historical data this could be a big Republican win.

post #149 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Even the "liberal-media" complex is shocked at what's going on. To see Obama collapse like this. It's truly disturbing on a global scale.
But these are now the times we live in.

 

If only that were true.  Yeah, he collapsed during the first debate but he has been fine in the other 2 debates.  I wouldn't say he has been exceptional, and most of the stuff that has Bergermeister and the likes foaming at the mouth is really only fuel for his base and I don't think it really does much for him with independents.  This election is going to be either really close or Romney is going to have a BIG win.  If undecides do indeed break for the challenger consistent with the historical data this could be a big Republican win.

 

Most of the polls that put Obama even close are +(6-9) Democratic (often to get a +(2-3) lead) and increasingly they are 55%+ female.

 

Reality is going to feel like a smack in the face for Democrats.

 

Rasmussen was the whipping boy last cycle because it showed the Tea Party/Republican surge that took the House. This time the whipping boy is Gallup because unlike the liberal media complex polls, they must try to save some credibility after the election.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #150 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Most of the polls that put Obama even close are +(6-9) Democratic (often to get a +(2-3) lead) and increasingly they are 55%+ female.

 

Reality is going to feel like a smack in the face for Democrats.

 

Rasmussen was the whipping boy last cycle because it showed the Tea Party/Republican surge that took the House. This time the whipping boy is Gallup because unlike the liberal media complex polls, they must try to save some credibility after the election.

 

Ah...  You are referring to Obama's poll numbers collapsing.  I assumed you were referring to his performance in the debates. 

 

I agree that his poll numbers have tanked impressively.  Hopefully this is still going to be underestimating of the actual outcome.  I see the outside chance that Romney could carry 40 states, and that would be really awesome.  It would be even more awesome if his win carries over to down-ballot races and flipped the Senate as well as retained the House.

post #151 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

 

Ah...  You are referring to Obama's poll numbers collapsing.  I assumed you were referring to his performance in the debates. 

 

I agree that his poll numbers have tanked impressively.  Hopefully this is still going to be underestimating of the actual outcome.  I see the outside chance that Romney could carry 40 states, and that would be really awesome.  It would be even more awesome if his win carries over to down-ballot races and flipped the Senate as well as retained the House.

 

That was a completely different poster but I'll be happy to chime in there.

 

Romney had to do two jobs during the debate. Obama had to do three.

 

Romney had to show he could be president with an agenda and demeanor.  and also show that Obama had failed. He did both of those quite well. The last debate covering foreign policy is harder to prove failure or success in because outside of a catastrophic failure, say a hostage crisis, there are plenty of points to discuss and most Americans have their eyes glaze over at it.

 

Obama had to defend his record, state what he would do for a second term and show Romney an unacceptable choice.

 

He failed on all three counts. His defense of his record was "it could be worse" and "it was worse than you remember or we thought." He never declared what he would do for his second term. He actually just repeated his plans for the first term like he wasn't the president. (We will generate green jobs and improve education and bring higher wages back.) The last part, proving Romney was an unacceptable choice, wasn't hit at all. Obama tossed out a few labels and tried to still blame it on Bush. That didn't do much.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #152 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He failed on all three counts. His defense of his record was "it could be worse" and "it was worse than you remember or we thought." He never declared what he would do for his second term. He actually just repeated his plans for the first term like he wasn't the president. (We will generate green jobs and improve education and bring higher wages back.) The last part, proving Romney was an unacceptable choice, wasn't hit at all. Obama tossed out a few labels and tried to still blame it on Bush. That didn't do much.

Bingo. This is the final take-home point and what will destroy Obama if he loses and/or if he doesn't change his tone in the next few weeks.

Romney and Ryan are just making sense. They're now on a tear and should be able to close the sale soon.

I've always learnt a lot from my parents. My dad was the "strict father" and my mom the "loving mother", though this would alternate at times (in fact always). Upon reflection now that I am in my 30s this actually worked quite well.

In our current US and global times, the "Left" is becoming no longer the "loving mother", but the totally insane mother. All of us should wake up and be loving to one another, but wake up and face facts and be strict and stern where we need to.

Love The Sinner, Punish The Sin.
post #153 of 207

I am sick of you dam Republicans constantly blaming the Liberals for everything they do.If Romney does win let us see how happy you will be under his flip flop thinking he is showing us now.Perhaps another war in Iran we will be in.
 

post #154 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I am sick of you dam Republicans constantly blaming the Liberals for everything they do.If Romney does win let us see how happy you will be under his flip flop thinking he is showing us now.Perhaps another war in Iran we will be in.
 

 

When liberal you become, talk as good you will not, hmmm?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #155 of 207
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
When liberal you become, talk as good you will not, hmmm?  

 

Okay, completely off-topic, have to be furious about it somewhere. 

 

Disney (who I don't like) bought Lucasfilm.

 

They're making Star Wars VII, VIII, and IX. 

 

The unbridled rage borne of a childhood love for the originals is just… and then the… 

 

I mean, it's difficult to imagine something being worse than Jar Jar (or the script of Episode II itself), but these could very well be worse than Jar Jar. 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #156 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Okay, completely off-topic, have to be furious about it somewhere. 

Disney (who I don't like) bought Lucasfilm.

They're making Star Wars VII, VIII, and IX. 

The unbridled rage borne of a childhood love for the originals is just… and then the… 

I mean, it's difficult to imagine something being worse than Jar Jar (or the script of Episode II itself), but these could very well be worse than Jar Jar. 
Honestly, with Disney having folks like Lasseter on staff now, I hold out hope that Disney might actually have a chance to do a good Star Wars movie. But I am somewhat concerned as well...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #157 of 207

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #158 of 207
Quote:

 

Saw that. Nifty.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Notice how he admitted when he was wrong?  There's a lesson to be learned there for some of you wingers.

Some of these guys are so far to the other end of the pool you know they never will. So as long as their party is full of guys like this they'll always have trouble with certain voting groups. Oh well.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #160 of 207
Quote:

Well you know Romney can meet with the leader of Israel all he wants but when it comes to the country being trouble who gets in there and helps? Even New Jersey's Governor said so. Sure the storm helped to show what kind of leader we have. Sorry about any sour grapes.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.