Veta, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Every time you try to make a point in a thread, you support your position as the only possible solution and you can't understand why anyone thinks otherwise. You claim all of us should think like you and if we did, the U.S., and most certainly the world, would be a better place.

Why are you spouting off about the media right now? Do you hate Fox News THAT much? I mean, is it too much to ask for ONE media outlet that supports the right? Or do you want all media outlets to swing left and suck the balls of the Democrat party?

You ask for us to consider YOUR position as being right and to try to see why YOUR position would make our country a better place, all while condescendingly dismissing anyone elses view that goes against what you believe.

You dismiss anyone from the right as having "talking points" and getting all our information directly from Fox News. Now, I've said this many, many, many times in this forum, but I'll say it one more time in case you still don't get it...

I WATCH FOX NEWS LESS THAN AN HOUR EVERY MONTH UNLESS IT'S ELECTION TIME AND THEN I WATCH FOX NEWS BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY (YES THE ABSOLUTE ONLY STATION YOU CAN WATCH ON STANDARD TV STATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES) THAT IS ROOTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO WIN POSITIONS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

I appreciate a good argument as much as the next guy, probably even more, but your argument isn't specific points aimed at making this place better. Your arguments, whether you admit it or not, is that the Republican Party has intrinsically fucked this country up and only the Democrat Party and their ideals has any chance of saving this nation.

You aren't open to conflicting ideas. You aren't open to supporting ANYTHING from the conservative right. And you aren't open to the idea that your views are wrong in any way.

It makes it really hard to argue when you won't budge at all on any subject. The only way to end any of these arguments is to drop the subject, or concede to your view, and that's really what's wrong with politics today. There's no compromise. It's my way, or the highway.

Anyways, this will be my last response to this thread since your purpose of creating this thread was simply to goad us conservatives into responding to some type of trap you were going to spring on us. Fairly childish and quite typical of the way Democrats operate.

Oh, damn, that last part might be viewed as a Conservative talking point......my bad.

"It's my way, or the highway (being rebuilt by Obama Recovery Money)"

fixed. yw thrax

A+++ rant, sam and i approve.

btw, celtics gonna get hosed by mike bibby in the playoffs.

Thrax I don't think "News" channels should have a rooting interest and I think that the fact that they do is part the problem of the ongoing dividing of our nation on partisan lines. One way or the other NO COMPROMISE NO PRISONERS!

I watch very little cable news, mostly only when I see or hear that some breaking news is going on, then I flip between Fox and CNN, as both do a good job of covering news, they both just suck as soon as they put a talking head on to talk about the political ramifications of something.

Skrum, what is the difference to you between welfare and the ethanol subsidy to corn farmers. Both are targeting a specific demographic, poor people and corn farmers, yet one is called a subsidy and one is called a entitlement. Do you think there is a fundamental difference between these two "handouts" and you would mind elaborating on your reasoning beyond just saying yes or no, thank you.

The word subsidy tends to be applied to particular commodities or economic sectors. The word entitlement tends to be applied to people, since it would be demeaning to refer to people as a commodity. But their economic effects are the same.

Skrum: I don't think you understand some of the basic tenets of political coverage in the American media. The equal time rule is already in law, so you are correct. It doesn't matter how stupid or crazy you are, if you are a political candidate you will get the same time amount of time as McCain or Obama in the media.

I understand you're "okay" with how things are now but don't you think it's possible you only feel that way because you haven't experienced things in a different way... say like how media coverage was in the 70s and 60s? Or for instance how it is in the U.K. or Canada? Most of the peasants in Soviet Russia weren't upset with their dire living standards until they realized how much better the West had it. I would liken your position on many things to the same type of comfort.

Thrax: I agree with Sam, in fact I was about to say the exact same thing before I read his post. The problem isn't who these media outlets are rooting for, the problem is that they have an agenda, conservative or liberal. The Fairness Doctrine, which I am knocking Skrum about right now, was a regulation that the nation had in place since the 1920s to regulate the agendas of media outlets. Essentially the media was required to be fair and honest in how it presented issues and information, as a consequence this made it far more difficult to further any type of agenda. Many nations still have similar regulations in place.

So no, my problem isn't what Fox News' agenda is. My problem is the fact that their focus is first and foremost to further this agenda, rather than to report the news honestly and objectively.

As far as my opinions go, here's the thing Thrax: only one person can be right and I'm not wrong. Now that may come off as arrogant but going to a school full of conservatives it's generally the perspective most of them take, and it's a sort of fortitude I have come to appreciate. So their you have it, if it seems like I am argumentative it might be some frustration with conservatives in general. But I hope you can look past that in the future to have a civil discussion wherein we discuss facts.

By the way I'm not imagining you as some sort of mouth breather that regurgitates what Fox News or any other right wing media outlet says, but at the same time it doesn't seem like a coincidence that the same talking points always come up whenever I have a discussion with you or any other conservative.

veta, youre an asshole. i dont mean that in a bad way.

when i was a freshman in college, my dad and i had a talk about biblical names, since my name is joseph (i was named after my grandfather tho, not the bible dude, altho he is cool). we were running through all the people in the bible, and i was trying to list someone besides jesus who was "perfect".

me: noah
dad: he got drunk
me: abraham
dad: he sold his wife out twice
me: joseph (patting myself on the back)
dad: he was an arrogant cuss.

but the way he said it, it was obv that it was also a dig at me, cus i was an arrogant prick since middle school.

it was a life-altering convo, because my dad who was usually laidback/quiet basically put me in my place. and i realized he was right.

since then, ive tried to be less judgmental/condescending, and more empathetic/listening before i open my fat mouth and tell people all my wisdom.

anyways, thats a long story. what im trying to say is, youre an arrogant cuss. except those are old-fashioned words, so i prefer the term asshole.

learn how to communicate before you get into debates with your friends, or else they wont be your friends much longer.

The only people I talk politics with in real life are my closest friends. I know what you're saying and I'm smart enough to know that being abrasive and condescending isn't the way to get what you want. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's opinion about politics, not on the internet anyway, so I'm not worried about that. I do like talking politics though so I don't mind our discourse regardless of how caustic it can become. That being said I do get abrasive when I'm drunk, but not about politics. It's usually about drinking games or calling people out when I don't like their face or the cut of their jib. I am not a jerk, in real life even if I come off like that here. I do have empathy and I realize my demeanor, but I am not convicted about things I am unsure of. Everything I think is the rational and logical conclusion of everything I know, and since I have faith in myself I am convicted about the conclusions I have drawn. That being said, I would never hesitate to second-guess myself when presented with new information... and that's the difference between my convictions and say those of the devout believers of most religions.

All that aside, did you know that Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua? Jesus means Joshua. So you may be a saint after all monte ;).

too bad his name is Joseph

same thing