Celebrate your 20% approval if you wish. Some of you live in a conservative bubble of Faux News, Drudge, Rush, Alex Jones and message boards with conservative bias and try to warp reality into your world view, reality be damned.

(08-05-2011 05:39 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Celebrate your 20% approval if you wish. Some of you live in a conservative bubble of Faux News, Drudge, Rush, Alex Jones and message boards with conservative bias and try to warp reality into your world view, reality be damned.

Was I celebrating? I was saying that the sources of your "Poll" are VERY liberal biased and the results would be different if the poll was taken by a source with a different base. By not acknowledging that you showcase your stupidity and your inability to accept REALITY. Why are you such a delusional moron?

(08-05-2011 05:39 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Celebrate your 20% approval if you wish. Some of you live in a conservative bubble of Faux News, Drudge, Rush, Alex Jones and message boards with conservative bias and try to warp reality into your world view, reality be damned.

The freshman congressmen/women that got the tea party votes, did exactly what they're constituents expected them to, save for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling.

What is it Robert likes to say? Elections have consequences? Damn that democracy.

I'm not the one with the problem sharing governance with people who don't share my worldview. John Kerry is.

(08-05-2011 03:27 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 02:11 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Who is this John Kerry person of which you speak?

Here is a more recent pic:

More like the back end of that horse. A despicable human being.

3 Purple Hearts means that little to you? My goodness what strange brand of conservatism we have these days.

(08-05-2011 07:14 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  3 Purple Hearts means that little to you? My goodness what strange brand of conservatism we have these days.

I respect an honor his purple hearts. The legit ones, anyway. He's still a pompous windbag of a US Senator.

(08-05-2011 07:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 07:14 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  3 Purple Hearts means that little to you? My goodness what strange brand of conservatism we have these days.

I respect an honor his purple hearts. The legit ones, anyway. He's still a pompous windbag of a US Senator.

...and on that we can all agree

(08-05-2011 02:54 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 02:40 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 02:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 02:24 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 02:11 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Who is this John Kerry person of which you speak?

A decorated war hero with 3 purple hearts?

Could be, or the sad-faced blowhard in the US Senate. Sad that he thinks only people who agree with him get to run the government.

According to the latest CBS/New York Times poll the TEA Partis approval rating is 20% so apparently about 80% of us agree with Senator Kerry

What would that same poll show if done on Fox News? Or any other non liberal news source...Its easy to get those results when you only poll your constituents.

The New York Times is THE paper of record and can not be compared to Faux News.

No it's not. It's just one of many biased news sources.

(08-06-2011 07:04 AM)Paul M Wrote:  No it's not. It's just one of many biased news sources.

Your brainwashing appears to be complete

I'm not the one sucking off Sulzberger.

(08-05-2011 05:19 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 03:27 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 02:11 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Who is this John Kerry person of which you speak?

You forgot

(08-05-2011 01:15 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  ...I'm paraphrasing a bit, but he is demanding the media not allow any Tea Party members media coverage. Why you ask? Simply for opposing the dim-wit-ocrats.

"Demanding the media not allow any Tea Party members media coverage" ? How could you possibly paraphrase his statement as that?

Here's what he said:
------
"And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."
"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...party.html
------

Just in case your misrepresentation of Kerry's statement wasn't intentional, let me clarify:
"... not give equal time" is _in no way_ equivalent to "not allow any ... media coverage"
Or to state differently, x<50% ≠> x=0

(08-06-2011 08:36 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 01:15 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  ...I'm paraphrasing a bit, but he is demanding the media not allow any Tea Party members media coverage. Why you ask? Simply for opposing the dim-wit-ocrats.

"Demanding the media not allow any Tea Party members media coverage" ? How could you possibly paraphrase his statement as that?

Here's what he said:
------
"And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."
"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...party.html
------

Just in case your misrepresentation of Kerry's statement wasn't intentional, let me clarify:
"... not give equal time" is _in no way_ equivalent to "not allow any ... media coverage"
Or to state differently, x<50% ≠> x=0

False equivalency is an old conservative standard.

(08-06-2011 08:36 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 01:15 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  ...I'm paraphrasing a bit, but he is demanding the media not allow any Tea Party members media coverage. Why you ask? Simply for opposing the dim-wit-ocrats.

"Demanding the media not allow any Tea Party members media coverage" ? How could you possibly paraphrase his statement as that?

Here's what he said:
------
"And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."
"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...party.html
------

Just in case your misrepresentation of Kerry's statement wasn't intentional, let me clarify:
"... not give equal time" is _in no way_ equivalent to "not allow any ... media coverage"
Or to state differently, x<50% ≠> x=0

Mr. Kerry said

Quote:"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"

When referring to Tea Party positions. Just because an intellectual midget from MA, doesn't like the Tea Party position doesn't mean Tea Party positions are not legitimate. You know who didn't like opposition party's... The Nazi's. I think John Kerry must be a Nazi.

What did Gomer Kerry mean by not giving equal coverage? Either you cover or you don't. There isn't much middle ground. I guess you could cover and wrap a negative spin around the coverage, maybe lead with the Tea Party "terrorists" or the Tea Party "Jihadists" since those are acceptable references used by the dim-wit-ocrats.

(08-06-2011 09:11 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  False equivalency is an old conservative standard.

Remind me again. Which side keeps repeating the absurd lie peaceful Christians=Muslim terrorists.

(08-06-2011 09:35 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 09:11 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  False equivalency is an old conservative anti-government and anti-corporate activism standard.

Remind me again. Which side keeps repeating the absurd lie peaceful Christians=Muslim terrorists.

FIFY

(08-06-2011 06:30 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 07:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 07:14 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  3 Purple Hearts means that little to you? My goodness what strange brand of conservatism we have these days.

I respect an honor his purple hearts. The legit ones, anyway. He's still a pompous windbag of a US Senator.

...and on that we can all agree

Also note that I'm not someone who harps on Obama's birth certificate. My focus is the guy in front of me, not the guy from 30 plus years ago, who I can't get at.

I thought the libs were the ones wanting a law mandating equal news coverage.