LoveForPriscillaChan

Roe Vs Wade was a dumb case that should have been overturned, if for no other reason than that it's claimant claimed to be a rape victim (and was not). The legal facts in the case were weak at best and the laws of our land should not be dictated through courtroom legislature. Instead we have a model in place called the voting booth. The US by and large has always been anti-abortion. The last time I read a poll on the subject it was 7x% against and I think like 23% for and a few undecided. It has been a few years, but I can't imagine it being all that different now.

Just to clear up some numbers...

As of Jan 2003,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/...ain537570.shtml

For those who did not bother to read the article,

"Seventy-seven percent of respondents said abortion should either be generally available, or available but with stricter limits than now. Just 22 percent said abortion should not be permitted."

If you terrorists were smarter, you'd set the timer for 10 seconds.

T's should be able to use their trusty knife and pry loose the keypad after arming it, or at the very least, bring along a can of spraypaint and cover the bomb

you have got to be kidding me

first off, i dont have any hatred for you, so stop being paranoid

second off, gallup and pew research are both very respected institutions

even you yourself said "They are a well known and respected source and often used by the media themselves. The Pew Research Center are as credible as it gets." while gallup poll is known for their accuracies

seriously, there is no way to win an argument with you

There is nothing biased about that. They are simply stating that most of the positive coverage for Obama has to do with his higher poll numbers.

 

True, but you're using this to prove "typical left-wing media bias", and it clearly doesn't if the majority of positive Obama coverage is about facts. Are you saying the media shouldn't cover polls as news, or talk about the electoral map, or swing states? Try to imagine for a second, that instead McCain was ahead in the polls, had a strategy that was working, was increasing his lead in swing states. I'm sure you wouldn't be here claiming this study said that the media had right-wing bias.

 

It proves exactly my point. If Fox News can do its job and be unbiased enough to cover both the candidates fairly and equally despite Obama's "amazing poll numbers", then so can the rest of the networks. There is also the fact that McCain has been gaining ground for almost 2 weeks and is in a dead heat with Obama in almost every poll out there and there is no mention of that anywhere. Once again, the media shows us where its loyalties lie.

 

And do not get me wrong, I am not Fox News fan. I just think they get a bad rap for doing a pretty good job of what the rest of the media used to do.

As of 28th of October:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1008/mccain-su...downward-spiral

As of 31st of October:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111679/Gallup-D...-All-Bases.aspx

A simple search shows that your statement is wrong in:

1. "McCain has been gaining ground for almost 2 weeks"

2. "is in a dead heat with Obama in almost every poll out there"

So...No

So, I am looking to buy a baselayer to wear during the winter time and I am torn between these two:

http://www.amazon.com/Expedition-Weight-Po...1040&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Duofold-Expedition-T...0759&sr=1-1

Both are the same price; one is 100% polypropylene while the other is 96% Polyester, 4% Spandex bi-ply fabric; anybody have any recommendations between these two, or something else you may recommend? does anybody know anything about the quality of products these two companies make?

my requirements are that it must keep me warm, must give me maneuverability, and can be rained on; the duofold one is less than half the weight of the other one, although i am not sure if this matters

thanks

Fools!

This is the Best

Bonus points to the person who can figure out what the song is about. Tells the story in less than 4 minutes.

i fail to see how i am not adding to the discussion; my posts are aimed driving you to treating other people's post more civil; as for the name calling, i dont believe i've called you a single name before -- if i did i apologize; on the other hand, you did call me/us "eat it up like human flesh as a zombie party" when we read the news; also, you did call me a troll, whining, and uneducated (this was indirectly said by saying anybody who has went to college would understand a certain point).

who's bashing who?

like you, killer combines "left wing blogs" with "credible news sources" (which I will take as mainstream media)

the times

abcnews

ap

washington post

phoenix news times

new york times

usa today

chicago tribune

ZD, when i see your posts in the political forums, i think of looney toons; you know why? whenever one of the characters on looney tunes runs off a cliff, as long as they don't look down, they can stay in the air; as long as you never look at your candidate's criticisms, they are fine; you irresponsibly declare that other people's sources are "typical left-wing bias" and therefore, their whole post is disregarded based on that alone, even if it was riddled with facts

Also, in Chinese, there is a proverb which, roughly translated, means: "he who strikes first gains the upper hand" -- ZD, your posts in this forum is executed to perfection according to the proverb. you're always the first one to accuse others of "whining" or posting propaganda or "typical left-wing bias" etc etc; in a debate, this may work for a schoolyard bully but when somebody realizes your argument is a total farce, then that tactic no longer works and only serves to annoy other people

You know ZD.. rather than bring other subjects that a majority of us don't really care about. If you really wanted to shine some light on the situation, all you have to do is show where Obama or Biden takes their children with them on business trips... (The tax payers paying for Biden's son to fly to Iraq doesn't count.)

 

More specifically find where Obama sends his kids to watch Michelle in an event that is non business related on the tax payers expense and you may just provide a valid argument.

 

We would know these things if the media cared to do any research at all into Obama. It's the ultimate example of the left-wing media's bias. I really do not care that she did nor do I care if any of the other candidates do. It's a none issue and there are more important things to be concerned about. Perhaps the fact that the Democrat candidate likes to associate with terrorists, criminals, racists, and anti-America zealots. That's a bit more important than if a political candidate took his or her kids with them on a trip with them.

wait, again, let me get this straight:

if the media reports something is wrong with the Democrats, democrats are in the wrong (this is fair.)

if they dont report it and you have no factual evidence to back it up, you claim media bias, and democrats are still in the wrong (this is fair?)

seriously, stop using "typical left-wing media bias" as your get-out-of-jail free card

wait, so let me get this straight:

when you use factcheck.org: its A-OK

when you use CNN: its A-OK

when you use right-wing blogs: its A-OK

when other people use factcheck.org: its F-for fail

when other people use CNN: its F-for fail

when other people use left-wing blogs: its F-for fail

and then you have the audacity to say "Seriously, spend some time actually researching these things before accepting them as fact. 99% of the crap being spread around about Palin are made up lies and you guys eat it up like human flesh as a zombie party."

but when i called you out on this, you never reply

i mean, we too can easily say stuff like (and using key words that you always use) "oh my, obviously ZD your post is so bias, so typical right-wing bias, using their mindless zombies in propagating mccain lies and smears about obama blah blah blah"

perhaps it would be helpful if you give out a list of sites/newspapers/television shows or channels/news medium that is "approved by ZD" that will we (we who have an opposing opinion than you) may use; everytime somebody brings up some reference, whether it be a blog or mainstream media, you cry "left-wing biased!" or "crazy liberals stacking polls!" while your sources are holier than god

# 1779 "iüрaíт¦ToMCaT" STEAM_0:0:5125605 02:44 81 0 active

racist terms, this was the only one i ss

you can look up in the chat logs for today between october 14th, 10:00 PST to around 10:15 PST

screenshot

http://www.yousendit.com/download/Y2orQ3Qrdzh1Yk5jR0E9PQ

If we're going to restrict AWPs to 2/team we should, IMO, restrict P90's as well.

 

How dare you.

 

 

 

 

 

Shaftiel

And dualies.

we should restrict glock and usps...that will make round 1 that much more interesting...

Selling off good long term investments in inherently successful companies now after this downturn would be rediculously silly. The financial companies have brought the entire market down, many stocks are way down without justification. Only sell positions in companies that do not have a decent future left in em.

 

True buying in now to failing companies would be equally silly, but there are a ton of stocks out there that are on their 52 wk lows, but have solid economics. They will bounce back and bounce back well once people's irrational fear of a failure of the US and world economies pass and investors start actually looking at the prospects of a company instead of just selling everything they can. If you are still nervous, buy in to the companies you like 1/4 at a time (ie buy 1/4 of what you want 4 wednesdays) to lessen the chance of a continued down slide over the next few weeks.

 

If you got out where fx did (or earlier) you might be ok staying out till the market comes back to reality, but selling now seems crazy to me. If you sell and lose 30%, then miss out on half the upturn you will have to go that much farther to get back to start. Focus on the companies that have strong numbers and you will be fine investing now for the long term. If you are trading, the game is way different. I don't day trade, I invest. Always research a company before they buy their stock. Use whatever markers for sucess you want but don't just base it off of some story you read online about a upcoming move.

 

Now if you are invested in 401K accounts or retirement mutual funds, selling out of them now would be crazy. They are generally well rounded and researched accounts that are meant to pay off over the long term. Trying to play the market on these is silly unless you are really lucky.

 

Have patience. If you don't want to day trade for individual stocks and don't need the money now or soon... try and keep it where it is, the economy is not in that bad of a shape, just alot of fear and instability right now.

 

Just my personal opinion. I work in the financial sector but in no way am responsible for any actions based off this ramble

+1

Read Peter Lynch's books, one of the most successful investors of our time. He also doesn't just "trade". He invests. If a company is strong, has good future, and the price is cheap enough to justify, why wait for the market trend? He also doesn't go "oh, I think the market will bottom out at XXXX and I will get in on that time." Most importantly, he's got the results to back up his strategy.

i like the restriction on the 2 awps + no autos (or at most just 1 auto). on some maps (aztec) if you are unfortunate enough to be placed on T, once CT's get autosnipers to guard from the bombsite, then T's will get eaten up alive. By eaten up alive, i mean T's can kill like 3-4 while CT's will kill a team of 11;

there are reports that palin's husband was a member of the alaskan independence party all the way up to 2002

 

if that is true, isnt that just as bad of an association? she even addresses the party at its convention at 2008

 

Sure, it would be valid if Dude Palin were running for president and if the accusation were actually true which it isn't. This was debunked weeks ago and started on the Daily Kos extremist left-wing blog. Seriously, spend some time actually researching these things before accepting them as fact. 99% of the crap being spread around about Palin are made up lies and you guys eat it up like human flesh as a zombie party.

Exactly which part of my statement is "crap" and that we "eat it up like human flesh as [sic] a zombie party" has been debunked "weeks ago"

there are reports that palin's husband was a member of the alaskan independence party all the way up to 2002

if that is true, isnt that just as bad of an association? she even addresses the party at its convention at 2008

can we enable friendly fire? it will make things much more interesting if a zombie is able to penetrate the group of survivors and run amok within their circle

also, it will make the idea of infected much better, seeing you are taking a risk to attack a teammate if you think they are infected

i thought 50 over was automatically jail time cause of reckless driving

but imagine...75+ on 25? ridiculous

[utube]FiQJ9Xp0xxU[/utube]

As Shaftiel would say, "How 'bout dem [sic] apples?!?"

no, i'm saying your other responses; go back through your other posts and see the times you've just accused the media source as "typical left-wing bias"

 

When people use left-wing hate blogs as their source, then yeah, I am going to call them out as such. Sorry if you do not understand the difference.

You call NPR biased. I believe that says it all.

Why do you accuse me of:

 

1. Hating her policites

2. "afraid" what she means to politics if mccain wins

3. care about how it looks for Dems (whether good or bad) that it didn't pick a woman?

 

I just do not get the nit-picking on her speeches and how she is attacked so often. I am not necessarily referring to you directly but in general to those who hate her. I can google Obama's screw ups and find many that sound as bad or worse and this guy is running for president.

 

[utube]eDJSVPAx8xc[/utube]

 

you used "you"...i think you're referring to me directly, unless they changed the definition of "you" recently and i didn't catch it

all i'm saying is that you are defending palin's answer in the interview by saying "well, the other guys do it too!" and that this is different because the sheer magnitude of her rambling is just out of this world

 

No more so than Obama in the video above. His teleprompter goes out and he cannot talk. Palin's went out half way through her convention speech and she still delivered perfectly. No comparison. You really do not want to go down this road.

 

what road? i'm not defending obama here; i'm just saying that your response is "well, the other guys do it too" is not a good response for someone trying to defend her; in the end, she just rambled on and had no idea what she said

also, i've been following a lot of these threads in the political forums and why is it that every time somebody posts something while linking to a news organization and you disagree with that message, that you seemingly automatically denounce it as "typical left-win bias"

 

I pointed out the CNN video being obviously bias and this is your answer to that? It is so obviously biased that they use an SNL clip to laugh at a VP candidate. It cannot get any more obvious than that and ridiculing me doesn't change that fact.

 

no, i'm saying your other responses; go back through your other posts and see the times you've just accused the media source as "typical left-wing bias"

EDIT: btw ZD, since you can outright read my mind, can you guess who i am voting for come November?

 

Nader?

no, write-in Denny K

ZD, even you have to admit that the CNN video sj put up is absolutely terrible...to the point where SNL can just, word for word, repeat what she said....if she is VP, she'll be the new dan quayle

 

For the exception of John Edwards, there could never be another Dan Quayle. With that said, a couple of minor stumbling and gaffes do not make her a terrible candidate, vp, or an idiot. Biden, Obama, and McCain have had plenty more in the last several weeks. What politician doesn't double speak and screw up when on camera. Come on, just admit that you hate her policies, that you are afraid of what she means to politics in general if McCain wins, and how badly it looks for the Dems for not picking a woman in the first place. The nit-picking of her interviews is really tedious. Unlike actors, politicians do not get to retake. If it helps, I can start making these kinds of threads about Obama's regular screw ups and god help us all if I take the time to do that to Biden.

 

And what does this say about CNN making a story out of this? The studio people are laughing? God forbid if anyone points out their left-wing bias though.

Why do you accuse me of:

1. Hating her policites

2. "afraid" what she means to politics if mccain wins

3. care about how it looks for Dems (whether good or bad) that it didn't pick a woman?

all i'm saying is that you are defending palin's answer in the interview by saying "well, the other guys do it too!" and that this is different because the sheer magnitude of her rambling is just out of this world

also, i've been following a lot of these threads in the political forums and why is it that every time somebody posts something while linking to a news organization and you disagree with that message, that you seemingly automatically denounce it as "typical left-win bias"

EDIT: btw ZD, since you can outright read my mind, can you guess who i am voting for come November?

ZD, even you have to admit that the CNN video sj put up is absolutely terrible...to the point where SNL can just, word for word, repeat what she said....if she is VP, she'll be the new dan quayle

es to the em?