OCinBuffalo

No. DC_Tom, in the most unfunny, kid that the teacher leaves in charge of the class, way, told you the answer. You can't have agreed with it, because you didn't know it before he said it. No, I intentionally only put out some of the facts, not all of them. You should be familiar with this, because that's exactly what DailyKos/Huffington Post/Salon od, but not because you can tell when they are doing it. Rather, because I keep telling you when they do.

Then explain why the liberal media would avoid a story like ACORN? Certainly that is sensational. Certainly that story is national, and certainly it touches on a whole lot of issues, like government waste, abuses, ideologues being given tax money, etc. Hell, it's got every kind of sensational aspect to it, especially the videos of the pimp. And that's my main point: are you telling me that a professional investigative reporter wouldn't have been able to penetrate ACORN and get them just as bad as these college kids did? What reporter wouldn't want to do this story, in terms of pure PR/career points? So what stopped the legions of MSM reporters from doing this story? Why would they not go after something that could help their careers? Look at Megyn Kelly and the Duke Lacrosse Fake Rape story. She made her bones on that story. Now she's got her own show. What made her different than the other reporters covering that case? She did the job properly, and got it right. What did they do? Why don't we know who they are? Why don't they have their own shows? Wasn't the Duke case sensational? Then why didn't these people get the story right?

I am honestly not sure...you are almost always first, so perhaps you merely think you don't care. But, if others were to consistently beat you out, maybe you would care. My typical thread experience: 1. Read the first post, next, etc. 2. Conner says something stupid funny. 3. I check the multiquote with great anticipation and giggles 4. I find that you already crushed him the same way I would have 5. I go back, unclick the multi-quote and the try to lamely pile on the point you already made, or try to say something useful, which is boring It feels like this has happened over 9000 times.

No, because that was specifically designed to be humorous, until Tom ruined it. The part that's still funny regardless is: you don't know whether I am wrong or right on this, and you don't know why.

Good, so by that, I can sue Iran's citizens for allowing their government to cause me intentional emotional distress. I like this! We can sue China's factory workers for their negligent workmanship, and the lead based paint they intentionally used. Oh boy! We can sue a ton of people if US law applies to everyone, everywhere! Well, there's no way to know now, is there? So what am I learning there, master? You get to have all the fun, and I don't get to have any? I think you are just pissed that I got to call conner an idiot first, and that's why you blew me in.

If I were to combine these two posts, would the following conclusion be valid: "Nobody wants to hear(Tom): the latest good thing that unions do(X), the latest pro-tariff legislation(X), or about human right issues(X), because most people know: unions are a necessary evil that are the direct result of bad management decisions, or bad managers, and an effect that can easily be removed by removing the cause, tariffs are proven failures, as evidenced by Taft-Hartley(although, I do have an idea that's a twist on tariffs...another thread), who the human rights abusers are already, but are afraid to want to support doing anything about them, since we aren't supposed to be Ok with invading other countries because of their terrorist activities (but it's OK if a labor party Prime Minister from a European country does it in Europe, and it's Ok if we invade Darfur, because George Clooney supports it. ) so therefore, most media doesn't cater to the crackpot element, because most of what they want to talk about are arguments they have already lost." I mean seriously, I flipped past MSNBC, but on the way I heard somebody talking about welfare reform? As in, 13 years ago? Edit: expanding on this combining idea, isn't it also valid to say: "Everybody keeps reporting on Palin(X), because that's what people want to hear about(Tom)?"

Yes, please do. I want you to take one sentence of mine a week, and really focus on it. Let's just start with what we have: what does the sentence above do to you? Tell us. And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest. How does that sentence make you feel?

Yes, the Constitution was not designed as a definition of the government of our country by its citizens, in fact, it was meant to define how we should govern the rest of the world, since it applies to the rest of the world's citizens... :lol: You're a moron. It only took one sentence to prove it. Again, you have been making it too easy... I specifically ask you not to ruin my fun, and you do it anyway? Come on, it would have taken at least 14 posts, perhaps even pages, for conner to arrive at this, and if he didn't I would handed it to him in the most lulzy way possible... ...all that potential humor down the drain...because you have to ruin it. You are not the Emperor, you are Lando, and this post proves it!

X. Benedict? This is what I am talking about when I say "the far-left doesn't see the world as it is". You never correct yourself, and you never learn anything from the last time you posted something stupid, or posted something neutral and then drew stupid conclusions on it. The only thing you do when you are busted, is try to play it off by telling people you are only kidding, or, run and hide by starting another thread. And finally, what does it say about me that people agree with me sometimes, and not others? What does it say about you, that people, even liberals, rarely agree with you about anything? Ultimately, you will find that, regardless of who disagrees with me, in the end, I usually end up being right. That is, unless you are one of those people who refuse to admit that the surge in Iraq worked, and that gay marriage wasn't completely bungled by assclowns like yourself.

This is not ignorance. This is stupidity, because they are choosing these actions despite being very well informed of their outcomes.

The constitution. The document that only protects US citizens accused of crimes committed inside the U.S., is what is protecting a citizen of Tanzania accused of crimes committed in Africa, that largely killed Africans. Yes! Finally I beat DC_Tom, and get to call you an idiot, first. (Tom, don't get all technical on me, he doesn't know what you are going to say anyway, and you are going to ruin my fun.)

You are the one who has been proven to be talking schit on this board over a 100 times at least, not me. Edit: at least you haven't been busted over 9000 times...yet.

Hmmm. Not sure that this isn't mostly saying what I am saying in a different way. A key difference: The omission concept is one that I have heard many conservatives complain about for years. And often, they are right. Just a few examples out of 1000s: 1. ACORN. Conservative media was way ahead on this story. MSM did everything they could to avoid the story for months, and only started reporting on it after it became cleat that it wouldn't go away = the videos of the "pimp", etc. 2. TEA party. Once again, conservative media was able to perceive this movement properly, and its mass appeal properly, a full year before the MSM media was. In fact the MSM actively tried to force their own perception...racist, fringe, ignorant, unimportant, etc., for that entire year, on their consumers. It wasn't until undeniable evidence was reported by conservative media, that the MSM was forced to do their jobs, and send real reporters to do what real reporters are supposed to do: get the facts. So, pick one: Either the MSM knows their jobs, but refused to do them properly or The MSM doesn't know their jobs IF the conservative media had not existed, these stories would never have had the effect that they did. The facts ultimately came to light, but not because the MSM is good at their jobs. This tells us 2 things: the MSM cannot be trusted as a single source for information by rational people, if for no other reason than they are largely incompetent, and, the omission argument cuts both ways. Regarding the position that the MSM has a corporate bias: you cannot tell me that the MSM is balanced, when 80% of them are self-defined liberals. The far-left complaining about the MSM not saying what they want to hear is irrelevant. We already know the far-left is largely unable to process information properly, and only represent 20% of the country, so why do we care what they think about the MSM?

Nope, but I will enjoy DC_Tom and LaBillz and Magox and all the rest ramming their dildos up your ass here for the next 2 years, because you weren't smart enough to heed my advice. By all means, keep posting Huffington post links while not understanding the issues at hand, I enjoy the humor that causes. By all means, start trying to defend Obama/Pelosi/Reed etc. with Huffington post links. I will really enjoy the humor that creates going forward. I am just trying to throw you a life line here, because I am actually a nice guy. If you slap it away, that doesn't mean I won't continue to laugh at your doltery. After all, funny is funny.

This is the real story here. Why? Because this is the tool that will be used against "yeah, but Obama is a good terror warrior, he kept up the Predator attacks, didn't he?" in 2012. It's an effective tool, because there is no rational counter argument. The Huffington post, and it's entire readership, still only accounts for 20% of the American people, and the 80% is more likely to be pissed off by captured terrorists being set free, than they are to be happy about the predator attacks. Also, Predator attacks are more abstract, in a far away place, while failed prosecutions that never should have happened in the first place, are much more up close and personal.

It must feel nice to have a pain-free ass for once, huh? Did you learn anything from this? Posting things from Huffington Post will always earn you a foot in your ass, because so much of what they say is easily ridiculed, it's almost beneath our ability. Understand: they rarely put anything in the context it supposed to be in, and the lack of context is precisely the reason you keep getting hammered. Also, you are going to find that blindly supporting Obama, and posting links from the leftards, at the same time, is going to become increasingly difficult going forward, and is certain to cause you to be laughed at even more than now. If you wish to avoid this, you are going to have to start really reading and understanding your leftard links. But, you are also going to have to read the Wall Street Journal, Brietbart, Fox, whatever else, to make sure you that you get the proper context, and aren't accidentally dissing Obama in the process by posting these leftard links...like pBills did here.

First and foremost I am saying: my positions are mine, because I thought them up myself, and your positions aren't yours, because you have proven you aren't capable of thinking them up yourself. I am also saying that: the process of bailing out GM is not worth any damage done to our contract law system. It is the only thing that keeps "evil corporate America" in check, and if you truly believe they are evil, then you cannot support what happened to the GM bond holders. In effect you are saying: "it doesn't matter what it says on that piece of paper, I can do whatever I want". IF the government does it, then, sooner or later, corps will do it too, using the same legal precedent. What happens if a corporation, or even GM, suddenly decides to cancel it's contract with the union? You will have nobody to blame but the Obama administration....but of course you will try to blame me...or DC_Tom, or LA.... But you can't be aware of the unintended consequences, because you aren't familiar with the material. The entire country was against the decision, and the decision was reported on by every single major media outlet. Seriously? These turds are trying to un-fire the Juan Williams howitzers that went off...now? This is a waste of their time, and they are only going to be scoffed at or ignored. So this lamedick attempt to marginalize this story, and try to make it about Fox fails to meet LABillz requirement because everybody reported on it, and fails in general. It's just a whole lot of fail. Also, since 80% of the country was against williams getting fired, MOST people disagree with you, which also fails LA's requirements.

No, he is saying that poor and middle class people create jobs and expand tax revenues, and if it wasn't for the rich people grabbing up all the entitlement money, there wouldn't be a deficit. These guys have to stop making it so easy for their "enemies". This is the dumbest thing I have heard a Democrat say in....at least 2 days. The Republicans don't need to spend money on creating one liners, the Democrats are just serving them up. Every single one of these things is going to come back in 2012. Is the once a day, every day pattern of unforced !@#$ ups by Democrats ever going to stop? This one can be redirected and can be used to hit them hard on 4 different angles of attack: 1. factually incorrect 2. economic buffoonery and inexperience driven by retarded ideology 3. further confirmation that the ideology is retarded 4. another example of amateur hour on display when it comes to governing the country, not campaigning Somebody at the DNC needs to start cracking heads. They can't allow the whack-a-mole to continue.

The difference between conner and I Using a specific piece of this topic, GM bond holders getting screwed...because they did. Conner: won't even be aware of whether they did or not, and why, until he stumbles upon a link on Media Matters that tells him emphatically that they did not get screwed, or, it doesn't matter that they got screwed because they are "rich people" and the union people are more important anyway. Now he is for it, but he had no real idea why. Me: First of all, unlike conner, I know what a bond is, and I also know that the integrity of the tool is important, and the Feds have seriously undermined that integrity. Because I took business law, I also understand the serious implications of allowing the Federal government to break contracts without due process. I know that stealing/devaluing people's assets and removing any legal remedy they might seek is setting a precedent that undermines our legal system, and the strength of contracts. Also, I took business policy, accounting, finance, and have been working in the start-up/second round arena for the last 12 years, so I know the difference between a good business model and a bad one. Now, I am against it, because I know that propping up a failing business model is not worth destroying the confidence we have in our financial tools. Tools that I hope to be using going forward. Nor is it worth casting doubt on the strength of contracts. As small business, the only protection and remedy we have is our contracts. The difference is clear: all I need for my opinion is a single hard news story, or it being mentioned by Fox, Drudge, etc., that makes me aware that this is happening, and I take care of the rest. conner's only input into his position is: "I better check the index page of Media Matters 2 times a day". But yeah, conner, go ahead and keep trying to sell the lie that the only difference between me and you is that I get everything I post from Fox/Drudge, etc, and you get everything from Huffington Post Oh, and ..lybob? I am proudly making a living as one of the 00.0001%. I am right, again.

I don't agree on the "smart enough" thing. Instead, I am beginning to form a different position. This is still tentative. Premises: 1. Reagan said "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." 2. Political correctness, and fear of reprisal, has killed off challenging debate at universities. 3. People are fond of talking about kids that are "products of the system" I am starting to think that Obama is also a "product of the system", but in a positive? way. Well, certainly in a different way. This is not about affirmative action, although that may have some bearing, it's not part of my thinking. Obama is a product of Democrat machine politics. Believe me, having participated in them, it's a lot more about the man than about the policies. The average machine Democrat respects the amount and use of power, a lot more than they respect understanding of policy. In fact, policy is often times handed down from God knows where, but then immediately adhered to as holy scripture, without any real understanding of what it means. These concepts are delivered as commands, rather than convincing arguments. So, is it any wonder that Obama, the machine Democrat, responded as he did to the commands of Pelosi/Reid, and the far-left? It's not that he's an idiot. He's simply a product of that system. Obama is a product of the far-left intellectual hegemony in the Ivy League. I have worked with Ivy League people extensively. One of the things that used to shock me was how susceptible they are to getting blown up in a political discussion. Now I know why: the entire time they are in Ivy lala land, nobody is challenging their thinking. Most come out believing that every other smart person agrees with the far-left crap, and they have no reply at all for "No, Abraham Lincoln would not be a Democrat today, goofball, he created corporate America! And, no, the Civil War was not primarily fought over slavery." So, is it any wonder that Obama, the Ivy League intellectual, who has been literally been trained to: believe shovel ready jobs are real say "infrastructure" 1000 times a month believe that income redistribution is not only fair, but will lead to greater economic prosperity for all believe that government spending to create demand is the only way to save a struggling economy not question any of the above, or any other ridiculous far-left claim responded as he did to Reid/Pelosi/Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian college professors he surrounded himself with? It's not that he's an idiot. He's simply a product of that system. He got smoked by Paul Ryan at the Health Care "summit" meeting, because he's no different than the Ivy League people I have crushed in the past. They're not stupid, they just don't have any practice. They have assumed that "what they know is so", and can't respond when you prove that "what they know isn't so". See where I am going with this?

If I am Darth Vader, then that's directed at me: "You have no idea of the power of dark side....or conner's stupidity...or pBills hypocrisy. Any of these ancient evils can account for pages of wasted productivity during work hours." Also, if I am Darth Vader, does that make Magox...Yoda? If so, does that make GG, TPS and ..lybob the other members of the Jedi council? And, how the F does DC_Tom get to be the Emperor? Why isn't his "turn on you like a mother-in-law" ass Lando Calrissian? And, I nominate LaBillz as Han Solo, 1billsfan as Chewy, and Buftex as Princess Leia. What? You mean the John Stewart/Bill Maher/pBills, "I'm just kidding, unless I turn out to be right, therefore I always have an excuse for being intellectually dishonest" tactic?

What? Did you forget about the double standard? It's hysterical that ANY Democrat would dare to be talking about communication skills vs. substance, given Obama's embarrassing performance up to this point. The sheer hypocrisy of it is astounding. Obama still has time to get his act together, and I think he certainly has the ability. I don't think he is a complete buffoon, yet. He better start doing real work properly, and getting results. He needs to show us, and stop telling us. His recent efforts at "communicating" have made things worse for him, and the country. He needs to take on one small thing, get it right, let his results do the talking, then build off of that. Meanwhile, Palin is doing a fine job of playing Obama, etc in 2005-6, and therefore, I don't want to hear any whining.

I didn't see you posting any "hey now, that's a blatantly ridiculous criticism of Bush" posts, so spare me. And of course, you, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, hide behind they "yeah but we are only joking" excuse. "We can lie, and make up any blatant crap we want, be taken seriously if we end up being accurate, but hide behind 'comedy' if we end up being wrong". It's an immature double standard, so yeah, you do need to grow up. The "I was only joking" excuse is middle school, at best.

This is for ..lybob: I was right, again. They moved it to the lame duck, and the whole thing was obviously orchestrated. I can't believe they let him walk out of the "trial". How many of us would be allowed to walk out of our own fraud trial? Another example of how simply being a liberal makes you smarter, and morally superior, to everybody else You don't even have to attend your own trial, and how dare they apply the rules to you? Don't they know you are fighting against the corporations?

....and this simple empirical construct, continues to be validated, and therefore, continues to make liberal heads explode. They don't understand how Fox can be successful, same as they don't understand why 80% of the country doesn't trust them. Instead of Fox being properly seen as the solution to the obvious bias problem, conscious or unconscious, we see liberals denying that the bias problem exists, even when there is clear statistical models that prove it. The cause is simple: liberals aren't seeing the world as it actually is. The stimulus, health care, all of it: same issue. Not seeing the world as it actually is->bad problem definition->bad solution->denial that bad solution failure is your fault->since it can't be your mistake->since the world is supposed to be the (flawed)way you see it. This is not a liberals-only problem...but they are the ones who have to worst case of it right now by far.