Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted January 20, 2012 Are you saying that every single Arab is an Islamo-fascist? Because I sure as hell didn't. well, when you throw around a word like islamo-fascist then ya that's what I thought. I mean, Islam is the religion that all muslims follow and fascist is...fascist. so yea. and for sake of simplicity all arabs=muslim. but we can discuss this in another topic or through PM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted January 22, 2012 Newt Gingrich, wow. The media is truly ruining this country. (Although I'm glad Mitt didn't win) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted January 22, 2012 Newt Gingrich, wow. The media is truly ruining this country. I'm confused by this statement. What did the media do that you think is ruining the country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted January 22, 2012 I'm confused by this statement. What did the media do that you think is ruining the country? John King's question to Gingrich in last night's debate set him up for an ample political opportunity, some say it won him the primary. Not only that, but the whole week (and some of last week) has been a media push for Gingrich, mentioning him in every segment on Fox News/CNN virtually ignoring the other candidates. They create news, not report it. Reminds me of when Santorum received the media push from Iowa when days before he was trailing in single digits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted January 22, 2012 John King's question to Gingrich in last night's debate set him up for an ample political opportunity, some say it won him the primary. Not only that, but the whole week (and some of last week) has been a media push for Gingrich, mentioning him in every segment on Fox News/CNN virtually ignoring the other candidates. They create news, not report it. Reminds me of when Santorum received the media push from Iowa when days before he was trailing in single digits. The news coverage and the question were based on new allegations from his ex-wife. That was, right or wrong, news. Asking a candidate a question about news that pertains to him is exactly what is supposed to happen. The fact that he had a good, or at least good for the moment, answer to the question doesn't make the question bad any more than Romney having no real answer for the taxes question makes that question unfair. He was asked a question, and his answer won him support. That's what one is supposed to try to do in a debate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted January 23, 2012 The news coverage and the question were based on new allegations from his ex-wife. That was, right or wrong, news. Asking a candidate a question about news that pertains to him is exactly what is supposed to happen. The fact that he had a good, or at least good for the moment, answer to the question doesn't make the question bad any more than Romney having no real answer for the taxes question makes that question unfair. He was asked a question, and his answer won him support. That's what one is supposed to try to do in a debate. I don't mind the question or the response. I mind the constant coverage of the answer and every political pundit seeing it as "Gingrich really showed him". Also, prior to the ex-wife allegations Hannity, O'Reilly, CNN were touting the Romney-Gingrich matchup, even though the beginning of the week he was almost dead-even with the other candidates. These shows have millions of viewers, all they need to do is influence less than 1/3 of their viewership. If you watched what happened in Iowa days before the Caucus, the networks used language like "surging" for Santorum and had constant coverage of him all week long. And now we have multiple media outlets reporting (like yahoo) that its between just Gingrich and Romney, completely ignoring the fact that Gingrich isn't on the ballot for states with combined over 500 Delegates. I don't want to sound like the angry Ron Paul supporter, but when pundits have discussions like "Who will get the conservative vote? Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum". Or "Who will evangelicals vote for? Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum?" it gets to me. Paul could be for free federally subsidized cotton candy and rainbows and it would still get to me, because I hate seeing bias at work. I think Romney gets an unfair shake in the media too, but at least he isn't being omitted from discussions, ya dig? /rant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted January 23, 2012 I don't mind the question or the response. I mind the constant coverage of the answer and every political pundit seeing it as "Gingrich really showed him". Also, prior to the ex-wife allegations Hannity, O'Reilly, CNN were touting the Romney-Gingrich matchup, even though the beginning of the week he was almost dead-even with the other candidates. These shows have millions of viewers, all they need to do is influence less than 1/3 of their viewership. If you watched what happened in Iowa days before the Caucus, the networks used language like "surging" for Santorum and had constant coverage of him all week long. And now we have multiple media outlets reporting (like yahoo) that its between just Gingrich and Romney, completely ignoring the fact that Gingrich isn't on the ballot for states with combined over 500 Delegates. I don't want to sound like the angry Ron Paul supporter, but when pundits have discussions like "Who will get the conservative vote? Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum". Or "Who will evangelicals vote for? Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum?" it gets to me. Paul could be for free federally subsidized cotton candy and rainbows and it would still get to me, because I hate seeing bias at work. I think Romney gets an unfair shake in the media too, but at least he isn't being omitted from discussions, ya dig? /rant Is this the first election you've paid attention to? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted January 23, 2012 Is this the first election you've paid attention to? Haha, from an objective perspective maybe. I was a big republican talking points follower the last time around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted January 23, 2012 Haha, from an objective perspective maybe. I was a big republican talking points follower the last time around. In that case, enjoy it while it lasts. By the time the next one comes around you'll be fed up with the whole process and these things won't bother you anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osprey 199 Report post Posted January 23, 2012 well, when you throw around a word like islamo-fascist then ya that's what I thought. I mean, Islam is the religion that all muslims follow and fascist is...fascist. so yea. and for sake of simplicity all arabs=muslim. but we can discuss this in another topic or through PM. what is this i dont even Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jec 427 Report post Posted January 24, 2012 what is this i dont even He equated Islam to Arab, so a pretty ignorant statement is what it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justin Jaudon 221 Report post Posted January 25, 2012 Just so I'm not pigeonholed into any party, I will divulge that I have never voted. I have always felt that I couldn't vote for someone simply because they are better than he alternative. That being said, I am not politically ignorant. I have followed politics for a long time, and I came to the conclusion about four years ago that nothing will save this federal government. It is destined to collapse. It is not functioning well enough to be of use much longer, and I think within fifteen years it will not exist. We can't fix it. It's not unlike the Magic-D12 situation, in some ways (obviously not a literal comparison). Someone on here mentioned that we couldn't trade away our veteran workers and rebuild through the draft. That's true, but we can dump our old government and rebuild through smaller, more localized governments(like states, except with power to actually govern rather than simply follow the fed). My assumptions: In twenty years, the American way of life will not be near as absurd as it is now; mostly because we can't afford it for that much longer. Technological growth in some areas will probably slow down, because we won't be able to afford it much longer. Housing will be more collectivized, with more people staying in one household. The federal government will not exist outside of military presence. We read too much into economic booms and panic too hard at economic downturns. Thus we have painted ourselves into a corner by destroying what once needed only small changes here and there, and turning it into something unsalvageable. I'm a small government guy, but I don't even mean taxes, necessarily. I mean oversight. Tax whatever is necessary, but the bigger the boat, the more leaks you're gonna have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
