AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where Does the GOP Find These People?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where Does the GOP Find These People? - Page 11

post #401 of 518
6/16/09 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Besides ignoring what I said in the previous post " While Democrats aren't perfect " You also ignore what's been going on for the last few years. You really don't want me to post a comparative list do you? I mean we could talk about Rush criticizing illegal drug users on his show the day before we found out he was one of them.

I haven't been ignoring anything.

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 #402 of 518
6/16/09 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I haven't been ignoring anything.

Yeah right. Whatever you say.
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 #403 of 518
6/24/09 at 3:40pm
Looks like the Dems are getting into the act, huh? Where do the Dems find these people??


Wait....
Reply
Reply
post #404 of 518
6/24/09 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah right. Whatever you say.

NOW I'm ignoring you.

"This message is hidden because jimmac is on your ignore list. "

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 #405 of 518
6/24/09 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Looks like the Dems are getting into the act, huh? Where do the Dems find these people??


Wait....

How many times has Fixed News done this D for R switch-a-roo?

I've lost count.

I'd say you can't make this stuff up, but apparently Faux Noise does, 247.

The Gay Old Party is flushing itself down the toilet right quick.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #406 of 518
6/24/09 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

How many times has Fixed News done this D for R switch-a-roo?

I've lost count.

I'd say you can't make this stuff up, but apparently Faux Noise does, 247.

The Gay Old Party is flushing itself down the toilet right quick.

Because CNN is the pinnacle of jounalistic integrity.

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 #407 of 518
6/24/09 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Because CNN is the pinnacle of jounalistic integrity.


CNN? Never heard of them. Do they also do the D for R switch-a-roo?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #408 of 518
6/24/09 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

CNN? Never heard of them. Do they also do the D for R switch-a-roo?

On a very, very regular basis?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #409 of 518
6/24/09 at 4:58pm
They also go one better. When the problem child is a Democrat, they just don't identify the party at all. AP is infamous for that as well.

"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 #410 of 518
6/24/09 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Because CNN is the pinnacle of jounalistic integrity.


From that page :
Quote:
CNN has been accused of both a liberal and conservative bias.[1]

As you can see they don't play favorites. They're out for ratings pure and simple. Like any new organization.
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 #411 of 518
6/24/09 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

They also go one better. When the problem child is a Democrat, they just don't identify the party at all. AP is infamous for that as well.

Statistical database link?

Or are you just ... more ... out your ...

Gosh, how I ... the internets, because anyone anywhere anytime can just make stuff up.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #412 of 518
6/24/09 at 6:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Gosh, how I ... the internets, because anyone anywhere anytime can just make stuff up.

You should know.

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 #413 of 518
6/24/09 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Statistical database link?

Or are you just ... more ... out your ...

Gosh, how I ... the internets, because anyone anywhere anytime can just make stuff up.

Does it really matter the source? I mean why do the work for you to dismiss.

"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 #414 of 518
6/24/09 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Does it really matter the source? I mean why do the work for you to dismiss.

Exactly!

I've said this many times in reply to the conservatives on this board.
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 #415 of 518
6/25/09 at 2:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You should know.

But, but, but, ... I don't have my long form.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #416 of 518
6/25/09 at 2:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Does it really matter the source? I mean why do the work for you to dismiss.

I'll take that as a statement that no evidence exists to support your specious argument.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #417 of 518
6/25/09 at 4:38am
No matter as this is exactly what you say even after I've provided you a post with a dozen supporting links.

See Frank, we've done this before. I've linked to media bias studies and had you just dismiss all of them, so really, why would I do it again for you?


Perhaps you forgot but you went into this weird little convulsion where you were stuck arguing (with your own reasoning) that since you decided there was no hard definition of objectivity, and since no media source is perfectly objective, oh and finally since journalism isn't a hard science (let alone any type of science) that since these three things cannot be,(by your reasoning) there cannot be any type of bias in media ever.

You were thus right (by your own reasoning) since it never allows one to prove anything ever. Sure your definition would exclude all study of everything everywhere because all study and all science includes tools, rules and theorums that only approximate and are seldom comprehensive, but still, it is the Franksargent way.

I mean I love that reasoning. I'm flying up in the air because of it. See we have no universally agreed upon theory of gravitation. So since we don't it must not exist! Finally even if we did have consensus on it, there would always been competing theories about it somewhere and thus it isn't truly universal..oh and btw, did you poll the universe, seems you haven't and thus you would be wrong again.

Sorry Frank, such nonsense is not worth the time.

"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 #418 of 518
6/25/09 at 6:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No matter as this is exactly what you say even after I've provided you a post with a dozen supporting links.

See Frank, we've done this before. I've linked to media bias studies and had you just dismiss all of them, so really, why would I do it again for you?


Perhaps you forgot but you went into this weird little convulsion where you were stuck arguing (with your own reasoning) that since you decided there was no hard definition of objectivity, and since no media source is perfectly objective, oh and finally since journalism isn't a hard science (let alone any type of science) that since these three things cannot be,(by your reasoning) there cannot be any type of bias in media ever.

You were thus right (by your own reasoning) since it never allows one to prove anything ever. Sure your definition would exclude all study of everything everywhere because all study and all science includes tools, rules and theorums that only approximate and are seldom comprehensive, but still, it is the Franksargent way.

I mean I love that reasoning. I'm flying up in the air because of it. See we have no universally agreed upon theory of gravitation. So since we don't it must not exist! Finally even if we did have consensus on it, there would always been competing theories about it somewhere and thus it isn't truly universal..oh and btw, did you poll the universe, seems you haven't and thus you would be wrong again.

Sorry Frank, such nonsense is not worth the time.

Well that was a lot of smoke. What's behind it?
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 #419 of 518
6/25/09 at 6:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well that was a lot of smoke. What's behind it?

Go to the thread where I listed studies, not even reports on studies, but links to the actual papers themselves just to have Frank dismiss them.

"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 #420 of 518
6/25/09 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry Frank, such nonsense is not worth the time.

You should not post nonsense to begin with then.

I devoted a very small amount of time to shoot down your nonsense.

That's the amount of time all others here should spend on all your specious claims.

You made a very specific specious claim. You can't support it other than to point out a very much larger issue you apparently have with the MSM.

Gravity != reportage
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #421 of 518
6/25/09 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well that was a lot of smoke. What's behind it?

Mirrors.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #422 of 518
6/25/09 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You should not post nonsense to begin with then.

I devoted a very small amount of time to shoot down your nonsense.

That's the amount of time all others here should spend on all your specious claims.

You made a very specific specious claim. You can't support it other than to point out a very much larger issue you apparently have with the MSM.

Gravity != reportage

Skepticism != shooting down anything.

"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 #423 of 518
6/25/09 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No matter as this is exactly what you say even after I've provided you a post with a dozen supporting links.

See Frank, we've done this before. I've linked to media bias studies and had you just dismiss all of them, so really, why would I do it again for you?


Perhaps you forgot but you went into this weird little convulsion where you were stuck arguing (with your own reasoning) that since you decided there was no hard definition of objectivity, and since no media source is perfectly objective, oh and finally since journalism isn't a hard science (let alone any type of science) that since these three things cannot be,(by your reasoning) there cannot be any type of bias in media ever.

You were thus right (by your own reasoning) since it never allows one to prove anything ever. Sure your definition would exclude all study of everything everywhere because all study and all science includes tools, rules and theorums that only approximate and are seldom comprehensive, but still, it is the Franksargent way.

I mean I love that reasoning. I'm flying up in the air because of it. See we have no universally agreed upon theory of gravitation. So since we don't it must not exist! Finally even if we did have consensus on it, there would always been competing theories about it somewhere and thus it isn't truly universal..oh and btw, did you poll the universe, seems you haven't and thus you would be wrong again.

Sorry Frank, such nonsense is not worth the time.

Here's a good video to watch on bettering our understanding of gravity on Earth-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/vi...ce-gravity-esa

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #424 of 518
6/25/09 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's a good video to watch on bettering our understanding of gravity on Earth-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/vi...ce-gravity-esa

Here is something fun on the topic. I'll post it for you because you might actually read it whereas others might just dismiss it out of hand.

Newsbusters

Quote:
In a 2008 study of evening and morning network newscasts following the Spitzer scandal, NewsBusters Rich Noyes found that within the first week of news coverage Spitzer was only identified as a Democrat 20% of the time. However, within the first 24 hours of Sanfords confession to having an affair, he was identified as a Republican 100% of the time, during coverage on all the networks.

I look forward to the remaining six days of coverage where apparently the news media will never utter the party label to try to get that average down to 20%.

The message from a link within that article basically relates to the entire premise of this thread.

Quote:
The medias message: Republicans enmeshed in personal scandal are a moral stain on their entire party; Democrats in similar circumstances are just individuals, not Democrats and certainly not representatives of the liberal cause.

"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 #425 of 518
6/25/09 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Here is something fun on the topic. I'll post it for you because you might actually read it whereas others might just dismiss it out of hand.

Newsbusters



I look forward to the remaining six days of coverage where apparently the news media will never utter the party label to try to get that average down to 20%.

The message from a link within that article basically relates to the entire premise of this thread.

The Gay Old Party is not the party of family values.

The Gay Old Party is not the party of the baby Jebus.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #426 of 518
6/25/09 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Mirrors.



That's what I thought.
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 #427 of 518
6/25/09 at 7:50pm
Who cares?
Reply
Reply
post #428 of 518
6/26/09 at 5:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Here is something fun on the topic. I'll post it for you because you might actually read it whereas others might just dismiss it out of hand.

Newsbusters



I look forward to the remaining six days of coverage where apparently the news media will never utter the party label to try to get that average down to 20%.

The message from a link within that article basically relates to the entire premise of this thread.

It's highly likely that if you put more 'scandals' in the mix those numbers would even out, maybe even indicating the opposite. Until then, drawing too many conclusions, just looks like desperation to paint bias.


Here's another example of media bias in the opposite direction. Again drawing broad conclusions from it, in isolation, will probably give a skewed analysis.

"During daytime programming (9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC last week from May 4 to May 8, nine Republican members of Congress made guest appearances in segments during which the Supreme Court was either discussed or mentioned. By contrast, only two Democratic members of Congress -- and no members of the Obama administration -- appeared as guests in such segments over that time period."
~ http://mediamatters.org/research/200905110043

I thought I'd add in this to highlight that Republicans are involved in gay activities at a high rate, unlike their Democrat counterparts. There are also significantly more Republicans involved.- http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...4/1976721.aspx These are facts, not media bias.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #429 of 518
6/26/09 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's highly likely that if you put more 'scandals' in the mix those numbers would even out, maybe even indicating the opposite. Until then, drawing too many conclusions, just looks like desperation to paint bias.

More numbers? You think so? That site has hundreds of similar examples. I simply listed the most contemporary examples.

Quote:
Here's another example of media bias in the opposite direction. Again drawing broad conclusions from it, in isolation, will probably give a skewed analysis.

Actually viewing the material and noting what the appearances are for would probably give a good analysis.

Quote:
"During daytime programming (9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC last week from May 4 to May 8, nine Republican members of Congress made guest appearances in segments during which the Supreme Court was either discussed or mentioned. By contrast, only two Democratic members of Congress -- and no members of the Obama administration -- appeared as guests in such segments over that time period."
~ http://mediamatters.org/research/200905110043

This is because Democratic criticism comes from Republicans and Republican criticism comes from the media.

Take a look at this scandal involving Sanford. How many Democrats did the media need to call and bring on to discuss the implications. They don't need any because the media are willing to do it on behalf of the media.

The Republicans need to show up to call the Democrats socialists.
The media will call the Republicans extremists, link them with murders, all manner of claims and no Democratic official need come on because the claims will come right out of the mouths of the Democratic media themselves.

Quote:
I thought I'd add in this to highlight that Republicans are involved in gay activities at a high rate, unlike their Democrat counterparts. There are also significantly more Republicans involved.- http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...4/1976721.aspx These are facts, not media bias.

Two points, one that list is no where near comprehensive and second, I'm much more worried about people stealing from my family and ending the economy as opposed to who they touch sexual organ with.

"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 #430 of 518
6/26/09 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

These are facts, not media bias.

Paul Patton?
Bob Wise?
Neil Goldschmidt?
Roosevelt Dobbins?
Tim Mahoney?

All it took was just a quick couple of minutes to come up with names missing from your list... these are folks from the Governors office on up, in the last 10 years. Admittedly, I just looked for Democrats, but I was fact checking the list against your claims, not a comprehensive analysis of your claims. There are undoubtedly more, but I invested all the time I intend on investing just to add a contribution to this thread.

My personal opinion is, if someone shows such bad judgment that they'll risk their career and reputation for so little gain, I don't want them representing me. It's not a moral issue, just a character issue. These issues only bite when they are kept a secret. I don't care if they are sexual in nature, if they are political or involve such activities as Rod Blagojevich pursued... it's incredibly stupid and self centered, and they don't deserve my vote. I want to elect a public servant, not someone just out for themselves.

Hands Sandon, media bias is also present when facts are omitted... in fact, that's probably the best example of what media bias is.
Reply
Reply
post #431 of 518
6/26/09 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Paul Patton?
Bob Wise?
Neil Goldschmidt?
Roosevelt Dobbins?
Tim Mahoney?

All it took was just a quick couple of minutes to come up with names missing from your list... these are folks from the Governors office on up, in the last 10 years. Admittedly, I just looked for Democrats, but I was fact checking the list against your claims, not a comprehensive analysis of your claims. There are undoubtedly more, but I invested all the time I intend on investing just to add a contribution to this thread.

My personal opinion is, if someone shows such bad judgment that they'll risk their career and reputation for so little gain, I don't want them representing me. It's not a moral issue, just a character issue. These issues only bite when they are kept a secret. I don't care if they are sexual in nature, if they are political or involve such activities as Rod Blagojevich pursued... it's incredibly stupid and self centered, and they don't deserve my vote. I want to elect a public servant, not someone just out for themselves.

Hands Sandon, media bias is also present when facts are omitted... in fact, that's probably the best example of what media bias is.

Seems you're right. Oh well, never trust the USMM.

I don't want to stop a politician from doing their job if he/she is getting the results I want and I certainly wouldn't vote for a Repub because my guy had been hypocritically involved in an affair. The real issues are far more important to me than these personal relationship choices. Granted it can ruin a career, and is therefore irresponsible, but in my eyes it should only tarnish a career at worst. Shame that often, that's not the case.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #432 of 518
6/26/09 at 1:08pm
Any news on whether the guy will resign or not? He suggested strongly that Clinton should have resigned for the Monica events..

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #433 of 518
6/26/09 at 5:25pm
Well I guess those politicians just can't keep their pants on!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7930748&page=1

Quote:
Sanford Was One of Many Who Criticized Clinton

Quote:
In 1998, Sanford was a Republican congressman from South Carolina when he demanded "moral clarity" from Clinton and called on him to resign. "Very damaging stuff. This one's pretty cut and dried," Sanford told The Post and Courier in September 1998. "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]." So far, Sanford has not indicated that he has any plans to resign as governor.

There's more. An interesting read.
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 #434 of 518
6/27/09 at 7:32am
As is this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us...1&ref=politics

He likens himself to King David in the Bible, and feels he needs to continue as governor to show his sons how to recover from a fall.

At least now there can be a debate in the GOP about whether they should be sooooo focused on family values and forcing themselves on others.

Oh, and Rush blames Sanford's recent sexcapade on, drumroll, Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_220993.html

Forget comedy TV; these guys are hilarious! Ordering more popcorn!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #435 of 518
6/27/09 at 7:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

As is this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us...1&ref=politics

He likens himself to King David in the Bible, and feels he needs to continue as governor to show his sons how to recover from a fall.

At least now there can be a debate in the GOP about whether they should be sooooo focused on family values and forcing themselves on others.

Oh, and Rush blames Sanford's recent sexcapade on, drumroll, Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_220993.html

Forget comedy TV; these guys are hilarious! Ordering more popcorn!

Limbaugh :
Quote:
He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle and said "What the hell? The Federal government is taking over! I want to enjoy life!"

Yeah! Me too! You know you can always count on Rush to come up the most stupid ( and partisan ) rationals for things! What a guy!
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 #436 of 518
6/29/09 at 12:21am
Reply
Reply
post #437 of 518
6/29/09 at 3:29am
Do they allow guns and offer Bibles?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

If God were so powerful and so taken with the US, would they actually need guns?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #438 of 518
1/8/10 at 7:33am
Here' a doozy...

Rudy Giuliani: 'We Had No Domestic Attacks Under Bush; We've Had One Under Obama'

Is this a sign of early Alzheimers? I'm being serious.
Reply
Reply
post #439 of 518
1/12/10 at 6:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Here' a doozy...

Rudy Giuliani: 'We Had No Domestic Attacks Under Bush; We've Had One Under Obama'

Is this a sign of early Alzheimers? I'm being serious.

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 #440 of 518
1/15/10 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


Yeah, Rudy must be an idiot. It's not like he must have meant post 9/11. See, only Democrats can misspeak. Republicans are just idiots and liars. After misspeaking, they must be horribly mocked. Then they must apologize and resign in disgrace. IOKIYAD.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where Does the GOP Find These People?