Wade Jarvis wrote:While we are at it you complain about "not hearing the other side" but then choose to belittle a man who knows far more about politics and has done far more research then you. Hannity is not here to defend himself against you so you take a cheap shot at him on the internet. This is a cowardly act! He has a telephone number you can call him and have it out with him on and a message board where you can call him out without being cut off if that was your excuse for not calling.
Wade Jarvis wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:so, im still not voting for some old man that doesnt even know what century it is when he speaks
But you would vote for Obama who said he has been to 57 states? Just imagine if McCain had said that. Video link of it below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
Wade Jarvis wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:so, im still not voting for some old man that doesnt even know what century it is when he speaks
But you would vote for Obama who said he has been to 57 states? Just imagine if McCain had said that. Video link of it below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
slick02eco wrote:Wade Jarvis wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:so, im still not voting for some old man that doesnt even know what century it is when he speaks
But you would vote for Obama who said he has been to 57 states? Just imagine if McCain had said that. Video link of it below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
There are territories which are just like a state if you think about it. Maybe he visited those?
Lucky03 wrote:Quote:
But you would vote for Obama who said he has been to 57 states? Just imagine if McCain had said that.
Dude people criticize politicians all the time for misspeaking. It means nothing just that they tripped on their words. It is the dumbest
way that you can hold a grudge on a candidate. FFS i once called my teacher in grade school mom. by your logic that makes me less of a person
Tristan wrote:Wade Jarvis wrote:The only reason I mention your that this was your only post in the past 30 days is that I have not seen you post before and so I wondered if you just posted in one of the areas of this site that I don't frequent. It was interesting that the only thing you had to offer this community was your opinion. When I have nothing better to offer this site I promise I will leave.
"You say you haven't posted here in over 30 days? *scoffs* Your opinion is banned from the website until you post in other threads/forums!"
Thank you for pointing out the errors of my ways. You know I love people like you who come up with these arbitrary rules as to the value of your opinion. Because I went on a hiatus for a while my opinion is somehow devalued. Oh, and look at that. You joined a few months before me too. You're e-penis is way bigger than mine so you're opinion must be correct and mine nonsense. That's how things work around here, isn't it?
Wade Jarvis wrote:You go on about how Hannity is biased. Nobody was arguing that. If it really made that big of a difference then you could surely find some factual error and we could discuss it.
Now, since it's come to my attention that you only have the ability to glance at my posts, I'll reiterate my point. I didn't say the facts Hannity presents were all wrong. Yes, Obama knew/knows of Bill Ayers. What my point was that he doesn't just present facts. He presents the facts that support his opinion and then has people on to draw conclusions which he charades as facts. Far too many people watch that and just accept everything as fact even though at least two of the guests started their interview with things like "I believe."
Wade Jarvis wrote:As for the other side of the story Hannity has asked Obama numerous times to have a interview with him. Hannity said he would do the interview where ever was convenient for Obama. He would even do it on Hannity and Combs. Obama has said he will meet unconditionally with terrorist but won't even sit down with Hannity!!
Jon Stewart has repeatedly asked for President Bush to be on The Daily Show. Do you see that happening? Also, if Obama doesn't want to to do an interview with Hannity then that doesn't negate the other side of the argument. There are plenty of other informed people who could present the other side of the coin. But that's not how Hannity rolls.
Now this whole "meet with terrorists" thing. Now maybe I'm just completely crazy, but I would tend to believe it's a good thing to sit down with people who have extreme differences/distaste/hatred toward our country in hopes of moving toward peace/acceptance/tolerance/warm fuzzy feelings. I'm sure the fact that we ignore them and refuse to discuss/debate/anything with them really aides in changing their opinion of us. I'm sure it really keeps keep them from wanting to attack us/our allies too. Crazy, I know. We should probably just bomb them all.
Wade Jarvis wrote:If you can't have an intellectual or political debate without name calling then it is a sign of one or both of two following things. You either don't have any thing to back up what you are saying so you resort to name calling or you are very immature so you resort to name calling.
Wow, I call Hannity a tool and you act like I called you or your family member a name. I didn't realize you two were so tight. I stated my argument against Hannity and it is my opinion that he is, in fact, a rather large tool. If I called you a name or something I could see you making a case for this argument, but it's all moot because it's got nothing to do with you. And am I really to assume that you never resort to name calling in your life? Call someone an a-hole? Nah, you're too good for that. You're never "ignorant" or "immature." /sarcasm
Wade Jarvis wrote:While we are at it you complain about "not hearing the other side" but then choose to belittle a man who knows far more about politics and has done far more research then you. Hannity is not here to defend himself against you so you take a cheap shot at him on the internet. This is a cowardly act! He has a telephone number you can call him and have it out with him on and a message board where you can call him out without being cut off if that was your excuse for not calling.
Let me get this straight. I call a tv personality a tool and I'm a coward for not calling him up and saying it to his face? Are you serious? That may be the most incompetent argument I've seen yet. I'm supposed to take time out of my day to call of Mr. Hannity to inform him that he's a tool? Have you called up Obama to tell him he's a radical? Give me break.
Wade Jarvis wrote:The likes of Red2.ZCavi (The Slanky One) can continue to cheer lead for you but it does not change the fact that you have not found a single factual error.
Ooooo cheerleaders. Sweet. I've made the big leagues now.
AGuSTiN wrote:Tristan wrote:Wade Jarvis wrote:The only reason I mention your that this was your only post in the past 30 days is that I have not seen you post before and so I wondered if you just posted in one of the areas of this site that I don't frequent. It was interesting that the only thing you had to offer this community was your opinion. When I have nothing better to offer this site I promise I will leave.
"You say you haven't posted here in over 30 days? *scoffs* Your opinion is banned from the website until you post in other threads/forums!"
Thank you for pointing out the errors of my ways. You know I love people like you who come up with these arbitrary rules as to the value of your opinion. Because I went on a hiatus for a while my opinion is somehow devalued. Oh, and look at that. You joined a few months before me too. You're e-penis is way bigger than mine so you're opinion must be correct and mine nonsense. That's how things work around here, isn't it?
Wade Jarvis wrote:You go on about how Hannity is biased. Nobody was arguing that. If it really made that big of a difference then you could surely find some factual error and we could discuss it.
Now, since it's come to my attention that you only have the ability to glance at my posts, I'll reiterate my point. I didn't say the facts Hannity presents were all wrong. Yes, Obama knew/knows of Bill Ayers. What my point was that he doesn't just present facts. He presents the facts that support his opinion and then has people on to draw conclusions which he charades as facts. Far too many people watch that and just accept everything as fact even though at least two of the guests started their interview with things like "I believe."
Wade Jarvis wrote:As for the other side of the story Hannity has asked Obama numerous times to have a interview with him. Hannity said he would do the interview where ever was convenient for Obama. He would even do it on Hannity and Combs. Obama has said he will meet unconditionally with terrorist but won't even sit down with Hannity!!
Jon Stewart has repeatedly asked for President Bush to be on The Daily Show. Do you see that happening? Also, if Obama doesn't want to to do an interview with Hannity then that doesn't negate the other side of the argument. There are plenty of other informed people who could present the other side of the coin. But that's not how Hannity rolls.
Now this whole "meet with terrorists" thing. Now maybe I'm just completely crazy, but I would tend to believe it's a good thing to sit down with people who have extreme differences/distaste/hatred toward our country in hopes of moving toward peace/acceptance/tolerance/warm fuzzy feelings. I'm sure the fact that we ignore them and refuse to discuss/debate/anything with them really aides in changing their opinion of us. I'm sure it really keeps keep them from wanting to attack us/our allies too. Crazy, I know. We should probably just bomb them all.
Wade Jarvis wrote:If you can't have an intellectual or political debate without name calling then it is a sign of one or both of two following things. You either don't have any thing to back up what you are saying so you resort to name calling or you are very immature so you resort to name calling.
Wow, I call Hannity a tool and you act like I called you or your family member a name. I didn't realize you two were so tight. I stated my argument against Hannity and it is my opinion that he is, in fact, a rather large tool. If I called you a name or something I could see you making a case for this argument, but it's all moot because it's got nothing to do with you. And am I really to assume that you never resort to name calling in your life? Call someone an a-hole? Nah, you're too good for that. You're never "ignorant" or "immature." /sarcasm
Wade Jarvis wrote:While we are at it you complain about "not hearing the other side" but then choose to belittle a man who knows far more about politics and has done far more research then you. Hannity is not here to defend himself against you so you take a cheap shot at him on the internet. This is a cowardly act! He has a telephone number you can call him and have it out with him on and a message board where you can call him out without being cut off if that was your excuse for not calling.
Let me get this straight. I call a tv personality a tool and I'm a coward for not calling him up and saying it to his face? Are you serious? That may be the most incompetent argument I've seen yet. I'm supposed to take time out of my day to call of Mr. Hannity to inform him that he's a tool? Have you called up Obama to tell him he's a radical? Give me break.
Wade Jarvis wrote:The likes of Red2.ZCavi (The Slanky One) can continue to cheer lead for you but it does not change the fact that you have not found a single factual error.
Ooooo cheerleaders. Sweet. I've made the big leagues now.
This is the best f'n post I've read in a long time. Had me LOLing, for reals.
Wade Jarvis wrote:I have said it before and I will say it again. The reason I attack Obama so fiercly is because he so far left and most people are clueless about it. Biden I attack him because he is a lifetime politician and if we truly want change we must not keep electing the same weasels.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Isn't it funny how the baby boomers, who where so against government in the 60's, are now running it for us?
Chris
Knoxfire wrote:nice quote
Those who protest tyranny too loudly often do because they want to be the tyrants, not because they loathe tyranny.