Moderator: Community Team
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Biggest, Unsubstantiated Post of the Year 2011spurgistan wrote:You're angry that Rachel Maddow invited Meghan McCain to talk about gun control on her show in March of 2009? If you have a problem with the talking heads format, that's great, because it is mostly stupid, but having conservative guests on shows is good for conservatives. Especially charismatic and likable ones, like Meghan McCain. Which is odd, given that the liberal media has a preponderance of conservative guests.
Mr_Adams wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/1 ... 74151.html
It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
Instead of ranting myself, I will turn you over to a columnist who shares my feelings
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/11/ ... t-part-22/
Wow. Don't even know how to start on this mess of a post.But anyone who has read anything remotely close to an accurate history of America’s founding would know that the Second Amendment only has one purpose: to arm the people against a tyrannical government. What would happen if the United States military was loosed on the citizens of this nation and the only ones with assault rifles were the military? The Left likes to deride people who make these queries as crazy conspiratorial nut jobs, but this is not some fantasy that has never occurred. Governments are only benevolent until they aren’t. Then what? Lucky for us our founders thought of that and gave us the remedy. An armed populous is an unconquerable populous.
If the military is allowed far more powerful weapons than the average Joe, then the constitutional antibiotic for bad government is contaminated. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with duck season. It is this one thought that should be hammered into every argument with the Left.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Biggest, Unsubstantiated Post of the Year 2011spurgistan wrote:You're angry that Rachel Maddow invited Meghan McCain to talk about gun control on her show in March of 2009? If you have a problem with the talking heads format, that's great, because it is mostly stupid, but having conservative guests on shows is good for conservatives. Especially charismatic and likable ones, like Meghan McCain. Which is odd, given that the liberal media has a preponderance of conservative guests.
Honestly, I would like to see if that's a fact.
And I wonder if the relevant data played loosely with the defintions of liberal and tightly with the definition of conservative, and vice-versa.
spurgistan wrote:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1667599
this popped up on google scholar:
Abstract:
Before every broadcast, the producers of Sunday morning talk shows must answer two basic questions: (1) what views will be represented on our show? and (2) who will present those views? When the topic involves policy and politics and the guest is a Member of Congress – as it often is – the answer to the first question has important implications for what millions of interested viewers learn about what matters in American policy and politics, and the answer to the second question is equally important for what those viewers learn about who matters in American politics.
This article examines how the talk shows answer the second question – the one about who matters. In short, the answer is that in 2009 the talk shows told us (by their selection of congressional guests) that the people who matter are disproportionately white, male, senior, and Republican – disproportionate not just when compared to the American population overall, but also when compared to the population of Congress itself.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Symmetry wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/1 ... 74151.html
It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
Instead of ranting myself, I will turn you over to a columnist who shares my feelings
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/11/ ... t-part-22/Wow. Don't even know how to start on this mess of a post.But anyone who has read anything remotely close to an accurate history of America’s founding would know that the Second Amendment only has one purpose: to arm the people against a tyrannical government. What would happen if the United States military was loosed on the citizens of this nation and the only ones with assault rifles were the military? The Left likes to deride people who make these queries as crazy conspiratorial nut jobs, but this is not some fantasy that has never occurred. Governments are only benevolent until they aren’t. Then what? Lucky for us our founders thought of that and gave us the remedy. An armed populous is an unconquerable populous.
If the military is allowed far more powerful weapons than the average Joe, then the constitutional antibiotic for bad government is contaminated. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with duck season. It is this one thought that should be hammered into every argument with the Left.
Personally, I am against most forms of gun control. However, I find it hysterical how many conservatives dislike Meghan McCain.Mr_Adams wrote:It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
I'm pretty sure nobody cares wether you start or not, Subject.Symmetry wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/1 ... 74151.html
It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
Instead of ranting myself, I will turn you over to a columnist who shares my feelings
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/11/ ... t-part-22/Wow. Don't even know how to start on this mess of a post.But anyone who has read anything remotely close to an accurate history of America’s founding would know that the Second Amendment only has one purpose: to arm the people against a tyrannical government. What would happen if the United States military was loosed on the citizens of this nation and the only ones with assault rifles were the military? The Left likes to deride people who make these queries as crazy conspiratorial nut jobs, but this is not some fantasy that has never occurred. Governments are only benevolent until they aren’t. Then what? Lucky for us our founders thought of that and gave us the remedy. An armed populous is an unconquerable populous.
If the military is allowed far more powerful weapons than the average Joe, then the constitutional antibiotic for bad government is contaminated. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with duck season. It is this one thought that should be hammered into every argument with the Left.
If you think that any of these talk shows are anything other than base entertainment, I am afraid you need to re-examine your views.Mr_Adams wrote: It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
Happens to me constantly. Most of my non-work friends are liberal.Mr_Adams wrote:And for those of you who want to know where this came from, irritating IRL conversations occasionally follow me into the forums.
Mr_Adams wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/1 ... 74151.html
It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
Instead of ranting myself, I will turn you over to a columnist who shares my feelings
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/11/ ... t-part-22/
There is nothing conservative about Megan Mccain. I find it completely unsurprising yet it feels good to know so many people can see through her ditzy bullshitWoodruff wrote:Personally, I am against most forms of gun control. However, I find it hysterical how many conservatives dislike Meghan McCain.Mr_Adams wrote:It's amazing how the media pretends to be neutral, but passes this crap off as representing all sides. Meghan McCain? Is that the best conservative you can get?
LOL. I am starting to find it hilarious how many people think Megan Mccain is a Conservative. Perhaps you guys should look into Megans comments on the Tea Party....spurgistan wrote:You're angry that Rachel Maddow invited Meghan McCain to talk about gun control on her show in March of 2009? If you have a problem with the talking heads format, that's great, because it is mostly stupid, but having conservative guests on shows is good for conservatives. Especially charismatic and likable ones, like Meghan McCain. Which is odd, given that the liberal media has a preponderance of conservative guests.
as they say, you can't carry a cop around with you.BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm adamantly against further gun control.
For a lot of people in poor neighborhoods, a handgun is much more reliable than expecting the cops to help you or expecting them to be able to reduce crime. My problem are the Concealed Weapons Permits costing about $250 per year. Those, who needs a handgun the most, can not really afford $250 per year for a piece of paper, so many "illegally" carry a gun. This illegal action is then exploited by cops for whatever purposes--good or bad.
Does she think that the Tea Party is just another name for corporate cronyism? Because if that's all that's bothering you, that doesn't make her any less of a conservative...it just makes her aware.Phatscotty wrote: LOL. I am starting to find it hilarious how many people think Megan Mccain is a Conservative. Perhaps you guys should look into Megans comments on the Tea Party....
So, still a contender for BUPotY 2011?BigBallinStalin wrote:Biggest, Unsubstantiated Post of the Year 2011spurgistan wrote:You're angry that Rachel Maddow invited Meghan McCain to talk about gun control on her show in March of 2009? If you have a problem with the talking heads format, that's great, because it is mostly stupid, but having conservative guests on shows is good for conservatives. Especially charismatic and likable ones, like Meghan McCain. Which is odd, given that the liberal media has a preponderance of conservative guests.
Honestly, I would like to see if that's a fact.
And I wonder if the relevant data played loosely with the defintions of liberal and tightly with the definition of conservative, and vice-versa.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Um... despite popular belief the Tea Party is not just another name for corporate cronyism. So long as most Tea Party members refuse to endorse people like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich (they haven't in case you are wondering), and continues to endorse Rand Paul, Ron Paul and their ilk, the Tea Party will not be synonymous with corporate croynism.Woodruff wrote:Does she think that the Tea Party is just another name for corporate cronyism? Because if that's all that's bothering you, that doesn't make her any less of a conservative...it just makes her aware.Phatscotty wrote: LOL. I am starting to find it hilarious how many people think Megan Mccain is a Conservative. Perhaps you guys should look into Megans comments on the Tea Party....
pimpdave wrote:That's right TGD, it's another name for Death Squad!
sure she is a global warming, politics as usual, Ron Paul ripping conservative.Woodruff wrote:Does she think that the Tea Party is just another name for corporate cronyism? Because if that's all that's bothering you, that doesn't make her any less of a conservative...it just makes her aware.Phatscotty wrote: LOL. I am starting to find it hilarious how many people think Megan Mccain is a Conservative. Perhaps you guys should look into Megans comments on the Tea Party....
Phatscotty wrote: To quote Megan Mccain "Im 24, fresh out of college, and I keep reading stuff but it doesn't make any sense."
That ship has sailed. What one needs to look at is those who have ALREADY been voted into office and loudly proclaimed so by the Tea Party.thegreekdog wrote:Um... despite popular belief the Tea Party is not just another name for corporate cronyism. So long as most Tea Party members refuse to endorse people like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich (they haven't in case you are wondering), and continues to endorse Rand Paul, Ron Paul and their ilk, the Tea Party will not be synonymous with corporate croynism.Woodruff wrote:Does she think that the Tea Party is just another name for corporate cronyism? Because if that's all that's bothering you, that doesn't make her any less of a conservative...it just makes her aware.Phatscotty wrote: LOL. I am starting to find it hilarious how many people think Megan Mccain is a Conservative. Perhaps you guys should look into Megans comments on the Tea Party....
So, as I said, she's aware. The only thing she's missed in that paraphrasing by you is that she should be including the liberals as well.Phatscotty wrote:sure she is a global warming, politics as usual, Ron Paul ripping conservative.Woodruff wrote:Does she think that the Tea Party is just another name for corporate cronyism? Because if that's all that's bothering you, that doesn't make her any less of a conservative...it just makes her aware.Phatscotty wrote: LOL. I am starting to find it hilarious how many people think Megan Mccain is a Conservative. Perhaps you guys should look into Megans comments on the Tea Party....
the only kind of conservative to be
did you ever watch this videos? Megan mccain repeatedly bashes conservatives and requests that they compromise their values in the name of electability.
Your willingness to cherrypick into contextual oblivion is disgusting.Phatscotty wrote: To quote Megan Mccain "Im 24, fresh out of college, and I keep reading stuff but it doesn't make any sense."
