This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - hey not you hey
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 21
« on: May 19, 2005, 04:39:27 AM »
He's talking about 2000, not 2004. It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.
are you serious? this is absolutely ridiculous. you dudes need to quit skewing history to your liking. Bush LOST the popular vote in the 2000 election. 2000 election results:
Bush: 50,461,092 (47.9%)
Gore: 50,994,086 (48.4%)
Nader: 2,882,728 (2.7%)
Nader clearly had an effect. I don't remember exactly, but break it down state by state and if Nader and no other significant 3rd party candidate had been running, Gore would have probably won several "Bush" states and been the undisputed winner.
« on: May 18, 2005, 06:56:33 PM »
EXACTLY what I was going to post. what a ridiculous statement. I don't mind a little mudslinging, but geez man, were you asleep the past several elections? besides, Bush didn't even win the popular vote in the 2000 election even though he became president, which only happened a hand full of times in U.S. history.
« on: May 18, 2005, 03:30:42 PM »
Yeah, don't forget how much the true liberals (read liberals of today) hated Reagan and his "trickle down" economics. He's probably the president most in touch with sound economic principles.
Come on, now you're just being obtuse. You don't actually believe this, do you?
as far as that map that Phanatic loves so much...the popular vote was pretty damn close this last election. the blue areas are far more populated than the red areas. a 3 million person descrepancy does not a mandate make.
« on: May 18, 2005, 03:25:41 PM »
I think we should seriously consider allowing the govt. to control the media. I'm serious, let's just go all the way with this and see what happens.
(like none of you suspected I was a fascist :-) )
it works pretty well for the British. although I guess they control it more on the funding side than the content side.
« on: May 17, 2005, 11:46:08 PM »
FWIW, it's been determined that Bush probably has a higher IQ than Kerry. Really, does anyone think that Kerry was that bright?
yeah, I always count on the American Conservative for an objective approach to politics. it's like citing the Socialist Worker.
« on: May 17, 2005, 11:44:27 PM »
ABC - Owned by Disney (remember, they refused to release the Michael Moore flick).
I wouldn't say that rufusing to release the Micheal Moore flick makes you conservative as much as it makes you rational.
Yeah, did you ever thing Disney may have wanted to protect its brand image?
that's all well and fine. but you seem to forget the legal trouble they gave Moore when he wanted to shop around for another distributor. he threatened to show it illegally and go to jail for it if Disney wouldn't relinquish its rights to the film. they didn't want that film put out. it's as simple as that.
most people wouldn't have even linked the film with Disney. it was going to be put out by Miramax, an owned subsidiary of Disney. I doubt people would have chastised Disney for the film.
anyway, content aside, what's more rational for a capitalistic corporation like Disney? not showing a film that was really hot at Cannes, had a lot of free hype, and cost nearly nothing to make, or showing it and making millions? I smell a separate motive.
« on: May 17, 2005, 11:29:39 PM »
are "conservative" and "liberal" names of people on the board?
have you listened to O'reilly or Hannity recently? or ever? they don't make *&^% up, they are just complete morons that skew the truth in such a manner that it nearly becomes complete fabrication. but those mental giants don't "make crap up" as much as they simply lack the mental capacity to think logically.
« on: May 17, 2005, 11:22:26 PM »
that's exactly what I was going to type. I'm not usually a typing Nazi, but that struck me as pretty funny.
« on: May 17, 2005, 05:54:54 PM »
I'm not saying that all media are conservative. I'm simply arguing that most radio talk show hosts are decidely Republican. that, coupled with poor television journalism, on both sides of the isle, make it ridiculous for people to rely on either TV or radio for their news. you always hear idiots call up during Bill O'reilly's radio show and say how Fox News is the only place they get their news from, and Bill O'reilly and Sean Hannity are the only radio hosts they listen to. this is absolutely ridiculous. talk about biased, one-sided information. I'm not saying that all Republicans are dumb, or that all Dems are smart (believe me, I live in a liberal town where some people are absolutely idiotic over dumb *&^%), but that if Republicans are relying on tv and radio for their news, like you alluded to, they are quite misinformed.
« on: May 17, 2005, 05:40:31 PM »
that sounds credible. did they take it at thespark.com?
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 21