Slammed.

[jamie2112]

"I didn't think it was possible but this both blows and sucks".

I know right? Political threads both blow and suck........

 

[Sheep]

I know right? Political threads both blow and suck........

Speaking of turtles!

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1923608&fullscreen=1" width="480" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1923608&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1923608&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:480px;">See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.</div>

SheepStar

 

[billy p]

Thanks for getting back to the original point. Fox's competitors will stand up for Fox because they recognize the potential 1st Amendment issues even if AH's own partisan hacks can't. It's no wonder I fear for the future of your democracy.

Thanks Dave, what would we do without you.....

 

[Tomorrow]

Thanks Dave, what would we do without you.....

Well, Bill...for one thing, without Dave I'd have to come out of retirement.

 

[Sheep]

Well, Bill...for one thing, without Dave I'd have to come out of retirement.

Do it, I dare you.

SheepStar

 

[Tomorrow]

Do it, I dare you.

SheepStar

Okay, Sheep, you got a deal, but only with the following unusual condition. You must offer a logical argument regarding the issue posed by this thread...using facts and not your opinions.

Then I'll consider coming out.

 

[Sheep]

Okay, Sheep, you got a deal, but only with the following unusual condition. You must offer a logical argument regarding the issue posed by this thread...using facts and not your opinions.

Then I'll consider coming out.

I side with Jinjuku.

Let the games begin!

EDIT: BTW, now that I've followed your rules, how about some other people do too (you know, using facts, and not opinions)?

SheepStar

 

[Alex2507]

... how about some other people do too (you know, using facts, and not opinions)?

I'm out.

 

[itschris]

I'd like know where everyone was when on a nightly basis guys like Chris Matthews and the original idiot, Keith Oberman, were bashing Bush on a nightly basis... rarely about anything specific about his policy or the people around him but just personally.

Now, FOX, has a couple of hours of opinion shows that never really attack him personally as much as question his policies, motives, and who he surrounds himself with. Now granted Hannity is who he is. I though Beck went over the line when suggested that given parity, Obama could be considered racist. I think that goes too far, however, what Beck has done is brought to light a lot of characters who operate under some ideals that are counter to what many of us, liberals and conservatives, find acceptable.

I happen to think O'Reilly actually defends Obama quite and often and counters a lot of his guests and presumes a level of "benefit of doubt" as a President, any President, should have.

I do find it kind of amusing that the Administration had just about every single media organization, both television and print, pretty much in the tank the entire campaign and early part of his administration. Now that people are actually taking him to task and questioning some of the very questionable things he's done and is trying to do and bringing to light a pattern of questionable associations that he gives some serious power to, their all whining and up in arms because one new agency isn't walking in lockstep with them.

Millions of people watch FOX everyday, more so than any other cable news channel. You have to be pretty arrogant to say every single one of them are stupid, ignorant, or the typical "they just don't 'get it'"

 

[Tomorrow]

I'm out.

Now look what you've done, Sheep.

You Canucks are running amok!

 

[Davemcc]

Thanks Dave, what would we do without you.....

Well let's see what we've done since I gave up on any hope of changing our politics. We have given up the right to trial, i.e. the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Being charged under the street driving law will get your car impounded on the spot and your insurance raised to about $10K per year...before ever appearing in court.

We've given up the right to free action in our personal space, per charging long haul truck drivers with smoking in their rigs. The rig is their home where they live and sleep for weeks at a time. It's just one scrape on the slippery slope as McGuinty moves to ban drinking coffee or water in your car, a bill which will be in effect soon.

We've accepted that vindictive and malicious legislation is acceptable. Not only has our gov't forced smokers outside, which many people agree with, but they've also legally prevented building outdoor smoking facilities or allowing smokers to take shelter outside during our Canadian winters.

On the spot suspensions for driving with .05 blood alcohol when the legal limit is .08. So, one can be suspended without having broken the law, without having been convicted in court and have the suspension listed on their driving record for their insurance company to raise their rates, effectively ending their capacity to drive without ever having broken the law.

The pattern is familiar. Find a activity that's generally considered unacceptable and use that activity to violate general principles in government and law. Once that new principle is established as past practice in law, it can be extended to other activities which the gov't deems unacceptable. Regardless of what you think about the above activities, the principles being established are: penalty without trial, gov't control of citizen's personal space, using gov't mandated third parties (insurance co's) to provide crippling penalties and targeting specific groups with vindictive, malicious regulation. There are other examples as well but my neighbors and fellow citizens seem to prefer to live with a gov't that legislates the minutiae of their daily personal and social activity with detailed legislation, heavy handed penalty and no recourse to trial or appeal.

 

[Schupo]

I happen to think O'Reilly actually defends Obama quite and often and counters a lot of his guests and presumes a level of "benefit of doubt" as a President, any President, should have.

For a second, I thought you were actually serious! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[billy p]

Well let's see what we've done since I gave up on any hope of changing our politics. We have given up the right to trial, i.e. the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Being charged under the street driving law will get your car impounded on the spot and your insurance raised to about $10K per year...before ever appearing in court.

We've given up the right to free action in our personal space, per charging long haul truck drivers with smoking in their rigs. The rig is their home where they live and sleep for weeks at a time. It's just one scrape on the slippery slope as McGuinty moves to ban drinking coffee or water in your car, a bill which will be in effect soon.

We've accepted that vindictive and malicious legislation is acceptable. Not only has our gov't forced smokers outside, which many people agree with, but they've also legally prevented building outdoor smoking facilities or allowing smokers to take shelter outside during our Canadian winters.

On the spot suspensions for driving with .05 blood alcohol when the legal limit is .08. So, one can be suspended without having broken the law, without having been convicted in court and have the suspension listed on their driving record for their insurance company to raise their rates, effectively ending their capacity to drive without ever having broken the law.

The pattern is familiar. Find a activity that's generally considered unacceptable and use that activity to violate general principles in government and law. Once that new principle is established as past practice in law, it can be extended to other activities which the gov't deems unacceptable. Regardless of what you think about the above activities, the principles being established are: penalty without trial, gov't control of citizen's personal space, using gov't mandated third parties (insurance co's) to provide crippling penalties and targeting specific groups with vindictive, malicious regulation. There are other examples as well but my neighbors and fellow citizens seem to prefer to live with a gov't that legislates the minutiae of their daily personal and social activity with detailed legislation, heavy handed penalty and no recourse to trial or appeal.

Just for the record...I don't drink, smoke or use my car in a reckless manner(ie: street race), nor, am I a trucker... On the other hand McGuilty is a SOB... and I didn't vote for him for what its worth!

Thank god its Sunday, Bill.....