Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 17683130)

Thanks for proving my point. In the future it may benefit you to do your own research before you spend an hour arguing a losing stance, that time might have been more productive for you selling your fake cigarettes at your local anti-abortion rally.

Originally Posted by Gouge (Post 17683069)

Sean and his wife Jill are both on there, i just find it odd that this is the 5th thread about Olbermann that has somehow reverted back to blaming Fox News for something.

Fox News this, Fox News that. Its a one trick pony show with these guys, all they do is either blame Fox News or Republicans for all the worlds problems.

Fucktards, all of them!

Originally Posted by SuzzyQ (Post 17682375)

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn?t buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn?t eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 17683263)

You forgot one:

A republican Darwin-denying religious nut who believes that "Intelligent design" is based on actual science doesn't like feeling stupid, he will go out of his way to try to ban text books to make others just as stupid as he is.

A democrat will just laugh at that republican.

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 17683263)

You forgot one:

A republican Darwin-denying religious nut who believes that "Intelligent design" is based on actual science doesn't like feeling stupid, he will go out of his way to try to ban text books to make others just as stupid as he is.

A democrat will just laugh at that republican.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17683233)

Hey dip shit, what stance did I lose? I asked for links and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to find any, you would have done better to put this link up http://google.com
What a fucking retard
And the cigarettes are thru a Native American collective selling US cigarettes made in the US. And when did I say anything about abortion, I see you're just making shit up because you're too fucking stupid to debate me.

Are you related to LC?

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17683242)

What is really funny is that for a long time, liberals cornered the market on activism, when the Tea Party came out, they didn't know how to handle it, so they labeled it. How you can put a label on 2800 individual chapters that have no leader is just showing how desparate they are.

They complain about the Big Business shipping jobs overseas and well guess where the president is right now and what he's doing?

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 17683342)

Hahaha....you were fucking owned....you're just to damn stupid to see it. :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 17683352)

Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions[1] in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible, for example, someone who thinks he or she is under police surveillance. In order for the diagnosis to be made auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, although olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.

Originally Posted by DateDoc (Post 17682037)

Republicans do not care. If they did you'd see a bunch of threads started about how biased the media is. Instead there are just a lot of threads from Dems attacking Fox News. No matter how bad Fox News is, it isn't going anywhere. No matter what Rush Limbaugh says, he is here until he chooses to retire. While Dems watch Republican shows (boosting their ratings and ad revenue), very few Republicans watch the Democrats' shows.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17683233)

Hey dip shit, what stance did I lose? I asked for links and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to find any, you would have done better to put this link up http://google.com

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 17682486)

No problem though with FOX's parent company, News Corp donating $1 million to republican candidates, FOX News commentators doing fundraisers every weekend for republican candidates, openly endorsing candidates on the air, and the fact that Hannity, Oreilly, Beck, and the rest of them have contributed 10 times the money Olbermann has to republicans. Thats the difference between a political station and a news station, one is ok to do these things, the other gets punished when they do.

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 17683538)

Really? A link to the actual source (Federal Elections Committee - Campaign Funds) is the same as google in your mind? And you're calling me stupid? Its a marvel of nature that you have been able to survive this long without walking in front of a bus.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17683617)

I wanted a link to prove this, we were talking about Olbermann, and you were complaining about Hannity, Beck and O'reilly




Where do you do that shit head?
You linked to a PDF file
the Washington post where the Newscorp gave 1million dollars to the Republican Governors Association
And yet another to a blog about Dick Morris
Not one of these things said anything about the news anchors at Fox news.

Your insipid ramblings about your inadequacies to comprehend the nature of this discussion and many others, I have discerned you have a lack of understanding even the basics of debate and that when giving evidence of your post, you lack the inherent evidence to prove what you wrote. Then argued that is true when still there is no evidence to prove so.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17683617)

I wanted a link to prove this, we were talking about Olbermann, and you were complaining about Hannity, Beck and O'reilly




Where do you do that shit head?
You linked to a PDF file
the Washington post where the Newscorp gave 1million dollars to the Republican Governors Association
And yet another to a blog about Dick Morris
Not one of these things said anything about the news anchors at Fox news.

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 17683685)

Ok, I see you obviously have some kind of learning disability and/or serious mental health issues so I will try once again and this time please try to pay attention. Feel free to reread this post if you don't understand all at once.




Click on the PDF file at http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/427/109...pdf#navpanes=0

this is directly from the Federal Elections Committee and it shows campaign funds for a person running for election, you follow so far? Scroll down to the 10th page and you will see Hannity donated $5000, got it now?

Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 17683628)

What you said.

I however do object to any restrictions placed on anyone for any reason which limit their ability to participate in the political system. It's like. "You work here so you cannot donate to the political candidate of your choice!"

It's just wrong.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17683782)

Newscasters, or ones claiming to be should give the appearance of being neutral. Different for commentators, most are pretty easy to see where they stand.
I think a news company should have rights over their employee's about how they are perceived in the public and anytime a person of popularity makes three donations to any one political party, it will become public. Is it right for the newscaster? no, but his perception as a newscaster will have less value. Keith was a commentator, so I see no reason for all this