›

Dems fall on Bush's dick

FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
edited May 2007 in Strut Central
I feel like a chump thinking these fucking terds would check Bush's ass.Please write your Senator if you want this war to end. And...if you don't want this war to end, please get down to your local armed forces recruitment office.
«1

  Comments

  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Welcome to 1991.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.

    Your mind. That's a fun thought.
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.

    lol @ 'liberal media'.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    You think they are scared of loosing the Senate for Lieberman jumping over this?

    Can't he get recalled if he switches?

    Now yo yo, whattup yo, time is runnin out
    It's for real though, let's connect politic - ditto!

    ...Peace Connecticut

  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    lol @ 'competent journalism in America'.
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.


    lol @ 'liberal media'.

    relevant excerpt from an article I was just reading:

    Liberals Say That ???The Media??? Slants Right?

    We already studied Newspaper, Magazine and Book investments, which slant Democrat 67 percent . What about the electronic media, TV/Movies & Music? Again, we find that this is a highly politically engaged group, giving $201,603,054 during the study period and again, we find that 68 percent of these investment dollars went to Democrats while only 32 percent went to Republicans.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.


    lol @ 'liberal media'.

    relevant excerpt from an article I was just reading:

    Liberals Say That ???The Media??? Slants Right?

    We already studied Newspaper, Magazine and Book investments, which slant Democrat 67 percent . What about the electronic media, TV/Movies & Music? Again, we find that this is a highly politically engaged group, giving $201,603,054 during the study period and again, we find that 68 percent of these investment dollars went to Democrats while only 32 percent went to Republicans.

    cite or your SOFT
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    http://brookesnews.com/072105democrats.html

    Dolo is never flacid
  • troublemantroubleman 1,928 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.


    lol @ 'liberal media'.

    relevant excerpt from an article I was just reading:

    Liberals Say That ???The Media??? Slants Right?

    We already studied Newspaper, Magazine and Book investments, which slant Democrat 67 percent . What about the electronic media, TV/Movies & Music? Again, we find that this is a highly politically engaged group, giving $201,603,054 during the study period and again, we find that 68 percent of these investment dollars went to Democrats while only 32 percent went to Republicans.


    the trap is set
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts

    a right wing journalist who doesnt list a single source. that counts as a citation to facts?
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts

    a right wing journalist who doesnt list a single source. that counts as a citation to facts?

    He states the source in the very first paragraph you socialist freedom hater.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    http://brookesnews.com/index.html = mad suspect.. no information on the site about who they are or anything

    seriously. what with these sites? why so
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts

    a right wing journalist who doesnt list a single source. that counts as a citation to facts?

    He states the source in the very first paragraph you socialist freedom hater.

    I think you forgot "Pinko, Commie, Fascist" too.
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    muhahahahaha, motherfuckers cowed by my extensive knowledge in all subjects.
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    the thing is, you're making an argument of INFERENCE

    there's no evidence that anything you posted actually means anything substantive when it comes to media narratives, esp. in terms of how defunding the war is still viewed as 'abandoning the troops' rather than, you know, bringing them home
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    http://brookesnews.com/index.html = mad suspect.. no information on the site about who they are or anything

    seriously. what with these sites? why so

    the fact that this information can only be found on obscure sites just adds further proof to the point that the mainstream media is leftist.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts

    a right wing journalist who doesnt list a single source. that counts as a citation to facts?

    He states the source in the very first paragraph you socialist freedom hater.

    http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml

    According to "Federal Election Commission reports". Yeah, that's golden.

    Like saying, "according to books in the the Library..."
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    the thing is, you're making an argument of INFERENCE

    there's no evidence that anything you posted actually means anything substantive when it comes to media narratives, esp. in terms of how defunding the war is still viewed as 'abandoning the troops' rather than, you know, bringing them home

    Ok. So media companies are donating to democrats but tailoring their news output to favor republicans. Get the fuck outta here
  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.

    Your mind. That's a fun thought.

  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    the thing is, you're making an argument of INFERENCE

    there's no evidence that anything you posted actually means anything substantive when it comes to media narratives, esp. in terms of how defunding the war is still viewed as 'abandoning the troops' rather than, you know, bringing them home

    deej. this is a red herring issue. we should be discussing journalistic integrity. that is the problem. (e.g., secret single sourcing vs. multiple verifiable sources, etc.)
  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
    the thing is, you're making an argument of INFERENCE

    there's no evidence that anything you posted actually means anything substantive when it comes to media narratives, esp. in terms of how defunding the war is still viewed as 'abandoning the troops' rather than, you know, bringing them home

    You're arguing with a charicature.

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.


    lol @ 'liberal media'.

    Personally, I'd like to see the ample evidence of this claim?
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    Dudes need to do like your heroes did and just give up. Quit. Back down. Surrender. You cant hang with me on this intellectual tip.
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.


    lol @ 'liberal media'.

    Personally, I'd like to see the ample evidence of this claim?

    ?? anecdotal. the idea that defunding = abandoning is taken as a given and i haven't seen anyone question it, no reporters asking tough questions of dems or republicans about what would actually happen if they didn't pass the new bill.
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts

    a right wing journalist who doesnt list a single source. that counts as a citation to facts?

    He states the source in the very first paragraph you socialist freedom hater.

    I think you forgot "Pinko, Commie, Fascist" too.

    Also, "terrorist-lover."
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    media companies are

    lol

    You should review media consolidation and ownership information. That is, when you are finished reviewing all those FEC data.

    http://www.cjr.org/resources/
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts

    a right wing journalist who doesnt list a single source. that counts as a citation to facts?

    He states the source in the very first paragraph you socialist freedom hater.

    My bad for looking at the end of the article, where most credible journalists would have a long list of references, not a single source.

    Regardless, i don't see what the point of this article is and why you are bringing it up in response to someone talking about the "biased media". Look at Murdoch and News Corp. He has admitted to using his power to try and get republicans elected. Fox News has the balls to disguise itself as "fair and balanced" when its owner admits to a political agenda.

    Whether the other major news sources give more to the Democrats is irrelevant unless you can prove (like Fox news) it has an effect on what they report. You'd have an argument if there was an Olberman or Franken for every O'Reilly and Limbaugh. But there isn't. Its not even close and this article doesn't make any attempt to say that.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    Never a doubt in my mind that demofags would swerve first on this. Bush is unfadeable.
    it helps when the bullshit media perception is that defunding the war = abandoning our troops in the field.


    lol @ 'liberal media'.

    Personally, I'd like to see the ample evidence of this claim?

    ?? anecdotal. the idea that defunding = abandoning is taken as a given and i haven't seen anyone question it, no reporters asking tough questions of dems or republicans about what would actually happen if they didn't pass the new bill.

    Right. This begs the question as to why the Dems folded.

    They knew the troops would be funded. Bush could have kicked a screamed about that forever. The folded for another reason. I wan to to know what it is...

    (cue Dolo: Becuase there pussy gay faggit commies.)
  • Ex-BoyfriendEx-Boyfriend 795 Posts
    (cue Dolo: Becuase there pussy gay faggit commies.)

    Give me a better reason. They didnt want to scarp with bush on this because they know he don't play. Bush was willing to risk being percieved as being responsible for the funding not going through. They werent.
Sign In or Register to comment.