chasteh

Is this person serial?

When you take the left side of Liberalism, it also seems quite compatible with the whole definition of conservativism... If only today's republican party genuinely fit within the definition of conservativism... If this is what the majority of the democratic party actually represents, then I think the democratic party has lost its way in a similar way to how the republican party has as I mentioned above. I see most of the republican party being just as socialist as the democratic party is, so labeling authoritarianism as a key feature of liberalism I think is false.

that music is so intense makes the game that much better

Well, don't forget you guys are the most likely to come over to Nuevo California and adopt some of our citizens as slaves. They will obtain the resources and will have the time to build them for you. Then, the fence will be used to keep them in. Don't worry, if you don't want to work, you won't have to do it for long.

>Liberalism makes this choice easy and attractive - and the cancer spreads. "The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996)."

I also eat a LOT of really hot green chile everything. Hopefully RushMC will be downwind of my ass on a load in the future.

Not here. Goin skydiving early in the morning. No time for bars, need sleep. Also need a tracking suit, cause that shit is cool.

Oh hey, its RushMC! Haven't seen you in a while man. How are your straw-man fallacies treating you? (If there ever has been a time on this forum where you actually fought an issue head-on... i'd like to see it. You know... providing justification for your perspective might help in those cases. Just a thought.) Really though, good to see you again. Its been at least a day since you made an idiot of yourself. (Oh no, another PA! Remember folks, a personal attack always means the other guy is wrong!)

Oh.... wait... wasn't the other side of the issue doing that for the entire first page of this thread?

What about the effects that occur when the government imposes taxes on imports? (Thus controlling the cost for foreign corporations to sell their goods in the United States, thus restricting purchase options for domestic consumers, thus increasing the number of purchases made by consumers of goods bought from domestic corporations.)

Perfect!

Like in Stalingrad. Is that a bad example?

Time to move to another country!

Possibly. But I would file you in the group that won't take what I've said head-on.

Ooh, irony! We like that in SC. Perhaps if you hadn't misinterpreted each of my posts in previous pages you would see the irony in a way that views you poorly. "He attacked the US because McCain had more foreign policy experience? Probably the risk of going on a tangent without context." Probably not the best way of preserving meaning, kelpdiver.

Yes. The entire post was intended to show what a bias looks like. It shows it quite clearly. (regardless of what type of source it is)

Oh. Well I suppose I am guilty of such a thing as well, as are all the other posters in the Speaker's corner. However, I would be interested in seeing more of those same people, such as Vinny, more accurately and correctly explaining themselves in ways that are less than questionable.

Nuh uh. Sure don't. Perhaps you can tell me. Note: For "Vinny" here is an example of an unambiguous media bias: (taken from another thread) http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/05/precedent-obama-vs-vice-president.html "Precedent Obama vs. Vice President Cheney. The "one" vs. The "Brilliant one" Hmmm..... I wonder who this article is going to be in favor of? Oh lemme guess... the one they call "brilliant!" "Former Vice President delivered today one of the great compelling moments on post-911 national security. It was nothing short of superb. You can read the transcript here." It was nothing short of superb. Aww shux.... that is another very clear example of a bias.

Unfortunately "first interview with first interview" is inadequate here. Perhaps if the republican party really gave a damn about what Sarah Palin had to say on behalf of John McCain, they should have recognized her several months beforehand to allow first impressions of her to subside. I see no reason to ignore how late Palin was introduced into the campaign and i also see no reason to ignore that it was her first interview in regards to the campaign. The point is that they both occurred in very different stages of the race, meaning that the media sought to cover different parts of the race as events unfolded. Ignoring facts is a liberal forte? No. Ignoring facts is a dogmatic forte. (You know, the kind of thing that happens when a party won't acknowledge how much of a failure their policies/actions have been in the recent past.) In the end, it is very difficult for you to say that Gibson's bias is evident in the two interviews he conducted that were so far apart. Perhaps you could more easily identify his bias if you were to take some of his assertions and judge them as opposed to the questions (of equal difficulty) that occured immediately before the election. You haven't really said much as to why their first interviews are comparable, either. Perhaps you could make this more clear. Also, perhaps you could explain why it is a fact that he is biased. Usually facts are unobjectionable themselves (your "fact" here is highly objectionable) and or they have adequate justification in the form of other reasons that are unobjectionable. You haven't done this here. End.

I still just don't see the racism behind precedence. Edit: Maybe I see it... but only if he was referring to the person speaking out to the president because he is the first black president... (i.e. precedent) otherwise mnealtx should have said president to make what he is saying more clear. (In that case I dont see the racism, I see opposition to the person himself... not his race)

I've heard of wwII bomber crews getting out of a plane with the wings or tail breaking off before. One got out over German-occupied France without a rig on... fell several thousand feet through a glass ceiling and hit the floor. He had something like a broken pelvis, leg, and badly wounded arm... but he lived. (The germans were so amazed that he survived that they took care of him until the war ended)

>Probably the risk of going on a tangent without context. So, I am guilty of writing poorly. Why aren't you? Is that a complete sentence?

No, dude it isn't. That is a different thread. This thread is about the "socialist and biased leap" that ABC has taken by not allowing the Republican party to debate the issue as well as it will allow Obama to. Then, it morphed into ABC being biased itself... and then it morphed into Charlie Gibson presenting biased interviews on national television. Then I challenged the issue of the Gibson's bias. I supported the claim that Gibson's approach is less than biased, given the difficulty of interviews occuring just months before the general election. Part of what propaganda? How would you defend that? Hopefully you wouldn't say something like "because he is hell-bent on destroying America because it is free" because that claim would depend on your perspective versus what he actually said.

To be even more clear, Obama 1) supports defending Israel and 2) supports leaving troops in the middle east, particularly in Afghanistan. Thus, we will remain in a situation that pisses off the one man on the planet that we can't find.

And yours is a clear example of a straw-man fallacy. Look at the lines following the Bin Laden statement. To be clear: Bin Laden said in his post 9/11 tapes that he attacked the United States because 1) we are over there and 2) because we supply Israel with armaments and funds with which to attack muslims. The context was there, your just not reading.