This guy wants to be president?

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2704966
Who said life in America is bad or hard? You're doing nothing but trying to paint those who don't share your view into a corner. Our country is great but we can make it better or do you think it's perfect the way it is?
Isn't that the idea? to prove you wrong...
Rylan, Kingsmith, who ever the guy is with his old porshe in his avitar, clemsonkid, Obama Pelosi, Harry Reid and others... Recession, harship and whine whine whine...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/2704964
Another intelligent comment, they cannt control my AC, sadly by the time you realize its not about enviromentalist or anti american sentiment and its about ignorantly being controlled and taking what the goverment tell you , gotta go work more to come
Before you insult my intellegence for the third time, google programmable communicating thermostat california actually proposed putting an FM transmitter on a thermostat so in times of "price or emergency events" like the "crisis" of global warming they would actually control your thermostat and in emergency event you wouldn't be able to override them!
Fortunately once it was made public, it was removed from the bill. However they, the liberal left, did try it, if you want to talk about "ignorantly being controlled and taking what the government tells you."
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Whether you consider Texas a part of the South is not particularly relevant. Texans fought (particularly well in fact)and died for the Confederacy just like every other Southern State.
Texas is part of the South.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2705019
Whether you consider Texas a part of the South is not particularly relevant. Texans fought (particularly well in fact)and died for the Confederacy just like every other Southern State.
Texas is part of the South.
I wouldn't consider virginia as part of the south. They are too close to DC
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2704961
Not wanting one religion to rule the land in no way makes the Democratic party anti-religion. You might prefer it if our nation was 100% Christain but there many people who wouldn't and in no way should you be able to push your beliefs down the throats of others.
I believe I called you a war profiteer, which was harsh and I appologize. That said, I think a statement that suggests all democrates are pro abortion to the extreme where they'd impose state sanctioned abortions is insulting.
I'm sorry, I agree with the fairness doctrine and I think it's good in an age where the media is controlled by few outlets that they be required to air both sides of an issue. Clear Channel owns 1440 stations across the country and promote a very right wing agenda. You might enjoy this because you get a lot of Rush and other rightwing mouth pieces but it might enlighten others to hear the other side.
When was the last time liberal judges went after religious groups other than Christians? Which major University just posted "women only" hours in their gym for the muslim students who didn't want to work out with men? What school districts are building fountains to wash feet, allowing prayer rugs and time out to bow to Mecca, etc...
The liberal judges are trying to force out the religion of our forefathers and erase our Nation's heritage.
Obama's position on abortion is well documented. He is against parental notification and refused to support laws making it illegal to transport a minor across state lines.
Let me ask you regarding the "fairness doctrine". Do you believe it should apply equally to the major television news networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc? How about the NY Times? LA Times? Etc? Or do you just believe it should apply to the only media that is predominately Conservative?
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2704978
Their is few major reasons why your conclusions are wrong.
1. It is not constitutional. Remember the "freedom of press."
2. They have for years tried to create a "left wing Rush" and none of those shows have worked. B/C no one wants to listen.
3. Who is to say what "unbiased" is. I could very effectively argue, that most major news papers, all the cable, networks, newspapers, and NPR are very liberal in their reporting?
The simple fact is, the renewal of this unconstitutional bill is simply targeted to remove Limbaugh and others on the right.
To further pursue this silence topic. Several democrat senators recently wrote a letter to clear channel demanding they remove rush from the air misrepresenting a quote by a caller on the limbaugh show.
China is still a democrat' s utopia...
I disagree and will again point out Clear Channel Communications who owns 1440 stations across the country and dominates audience share in over 100 major markets. If they want they can promote a single view to the majority of the country (I believe for the most part they do) and because of their power they can crush the competition, which might offer a different view. I can't think of any other media outlet be it newspaper, television or magazine which is as one sided.
You complain that TV is ultra liberal but the majority of what is reported on Obama is negative and McCain gets a free pass on almost everything.
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2705026
When was the last time liberal judges went after religious groups other than Christians? Which major University just posted "women only" hours in their gym for the muslim students who didn't want to work out with men? What school districts are building fountains to wash feet, allowing prayer rugs and time out to bow to Mecca, etc...
The liberal judges are trying to force out the religion of our forefathers and erase our Nation's heritage.
Obama's position on abortion is well documented. He is against parental notification and refused to support laws making it illegal to transport a minor across state lines.
Let me ask you regarding the "fairness doctrine". Do you believe it should apply equally to the major television news networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc? How about the NY Times? LA Times? Etc? Or do you just believe it should apply to the only media that is predominately Conservative?

If one or two television networks (cable and tv) owned the waves and only offered one view then I would say yes. I had always thought it was the duty of news to inform and educate the public? Do you agree with this statement or do you think it's ok to present information that is unbalanced and with an agenda?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2705028
...
You complain that TV is ultra liberal but the majority of what is reported on Obama is negative and McCain gets a free pass on almost everything.
Obama, a freshman Senator, who hasn't even officially become the Democratic nominee yet, just finished a "world tour" where he had hundreds of reporters including the top three news anchors following him like puppies...
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2705031
Remind me again which schools Barak and his wife attended?
Based on their own merit, not their fathers name, wealth and connections. Do you think Bush would have been the governor of Texas or the Pres if he had to rely on his own merits and abilities?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2705028
You complain that TV is ultra liberal but the majority of what is reported on Obama is negative and McCain gets a free pass on almost everything.
Have you turned on the TV lately? I can't stand McCain, but he hasn't even been reported on flat out ignoring the guy. Obama wakes up in the morning and it get reported.
Lets consider, that the media donated $100 dollars to democrats to every $ 1 they donate to republicans
Then you have stuff like NY Times doing stuff like this, http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/getting_iraq_right_120904.htm
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2705035
If one or two television networks (cable and tv) owned the waves and only offered one view then I would say yes. I had always thought it was the duty of news to inform and educate the public? Do you agree with this statement or do you think it's ok to present information that is unbalanced and with an agenda?
I believe it is clear in the Constitution that it is not the roll of the government to interfere.
Do you want State run media?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2705042
Based on their own merit, not their fathers name, wealth and connections. Do you think Bush would have been the governor of Texas or the Pres if he had to rely on his own merits and abilities?
Do you really think 150 days in congress is enough "merit" to run for president?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2705047
I believe it is clear in the Constitution that it is not the roll of the government to interfere.
Do you want State run media?
That is what he is advocating... Hence the democrat utopia comment...
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2705042
Based on their own merit, not their fathers name, wealth and connections. Do you think Bush would have been the governor of Texas or the Pres if he had to rely on his own merits and abilities?
Do you want to compare Obama's merits with President Bush? That's a game I'll happily play...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top