Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Present proof FAQ...of the Left "doing the exact same thing" as the guttersnipe Profitt. I'll wait.
Touche FAQ.Present proof FAQ...of the Left "doing the exact same thing" as the guttersnipe Profitt. I'll wait.
Already pointed that out but I guess I'll say it again -
GO TO POST #4 OF THIS THREAD. Three people were questioned about Obama's stance and if they agreed with it and they were given McCain's platform/VP with Obama's name. This is ONE example and there were dozens. There are dozens EVERY election because there are idiots out there. Plain and simple. Blind hacks are unable to think clearly and support things without merit simply because of a little 'D' or 'R.'
Didn't have to wait long did ya?
So I'm home now watching MSNBC, rewound my DVR to about 3 hours and luckily caught the better portion of Rachel Maddow's show. She's now in Alaska to interview Joe Miller and others.
Still watching, but just before this commercial break she asks some angry, clearly, RW voters some things and they start shouting out things like "Get rid of Eric Holder" She asks why are they against Eric Holder. One shouts back, "He's against guns." She asked the lady why? "What has Eric Holder specifically done that is against guns?" She responds with "he's voted down the line that are all anti-gun. Rachel then explains to her that Eric Holder has never had to vote on anything, he's not in Congress or in Senate. Some back and forth, with Rachel sincerely trying to figure what exactly do they have that tells them that Eric is "anti-gun." She ends up saying that she doesn't have all the facts on hand, but she just KNOWS he's anti gun.
Then a younger male, white, as well as the lady above, BTW, chimes in spewing the same nonsense. Again Rachel asks the young man, "What specifically has Eric done that is against the 2nd Amendment." He starts to flutter, then says, "Rachel, just Google Eric Holder and 2nd Amendment and Guns and you'll see all the ammo there." She responds, I will, but why are you currently so angry, what specically has he done that has you so angry....he says, he doesn't have all the facts on hand, but if she Googles it she will find it. And he was sincerely asking her to do so.
Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.
This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.
WoW!!
*SMH*
Touche FAQ.Present proof FAQ...of the Left "doing the exact same thing" as the guttersnipe Profitt. I'll wait.
Already pointed that out but I guess I'll say it again -
GO TO POST #4 OF THIS THREAD. Three people were questioned about Obama's stance and if they agreed with it and they were given McCain's platform/VP with Obama's name. This is ONE example and there were dozens. There are dozens EVERY election because there are idiots out there. Plain and simple. Blind hacks are unable to think clearly and support things without merit simply because of a little 'D' or 'R.'
Didn't have to wait long did ya?
However, there's a stark difference between the two groups though. Those on the Left from Sten's shtick are admittedly uninformed or at least well-known uniformed, average Joe's that are not or were not engaged politically. On the Right, however, you have people who have STRONG opinions, views and/or beliefs who OPENLY engage in political activities...that are CLUELESS about the facts.
Stern's interviewees were regular schmucks on the streets of Harlem regularly minding their own business and were asked political questions. Rachel's interviewees were POLITICALLY ENGAGED folk with STRONG opinions none of which are based on fact.
Will you admit to that?
Interersting. However, I'm not familiar with "Emily's List." Who and/or what is that?You have a point, Marc. I was watching an interview with a woman from Emily's List who said they are still trying to explain to Democrat women why this mid-term election may affect them. Many see the Tea Baggers as quaint and noisy, and do not understand the harm they may do.
I can't say it's a shock that Marc is completely ignoring the fact that Rachel is editing out the information she doesnt like and only keeping the stuff she does.
Kind of easy to prove your point when you limit alternative information isn't it?
Also, I'm amused of the arrogance from the "Anyone who disagrees with me is uninformed, stupid, or lying" crowd.
People look at the same information and come to different conclusions. Get used to it.
It's fascist mantra.... you're either agree with me or you're a:
1. Racist
2. Redneck
3. Moron (also spelled moran by some of our Marxist friends)
4. Stupid
5. Homophobe
6. Idiot
7. Retard
8. Mouth breather (I especially like this one)
9. Ape
10. All of the above.
Occasionally they'll label you a Jew or a Zionist....
Present proof FAQ...of the Left "doing the exact same thing" as the guttersnipe Profitt. I'll wait.
Already pointed that out but I guess I'll say it again -
GO TO POST #4 OF THIS THREAD. Three people were questioned about Obama's stance and if they agreed with it and they were given McCain's platform/VP with Obama's name. This is ONE example and there were dozens. There are dozens EVERY election because there are idiots out there. Plain and simple. Blind hacks are unable to think clearly and support things without merit simply because of a little 'D' or 'R.'
Didn't have to wait long did ya?
Touche FAQ.Present proof FAQ...of the Left "doing the exact same thing" as the guttersnipe Profitt. I'll wait.
Already pointed that out but I guess I'll say it again -
GO TO POST #4 OF THIS THREAD. Three people were questioned about Obama's stance and if they agreed with it and they were given McCain's platform/VP with Obama's name. This is ONE example and there were dozens. There are dozens EVERY election because there are idiots out there. Plain and simple. Blind hacks are unable to think clearly and support things without merit simply because of a little 'D' or 'R.'
Didn't have to wait long did ya?
However, there's a stark difference between the two groups though. Those on the Left from Sten's shtick are admittedly uninformed or at least well-known uniformed, average Joe's that are not or were not engaged politically. On the Right, however, you have people who have STRONG opinions, views and/or beliefs who OPENLY engage in political activities...that are CLUELESS about the facts.
Stern's interviewees were regular schmucks on the streets of Harlem regularly minding their own business and were asked political questions. Rachel's interviewees were POLITICALLY ENGAGED folk with STRONG opinions none of which are based on fact.
Will you admit to that?
You will understand if I insist on your providing some evidence of such ignorance at Obama rallies right?Touche FAQ.Already pointed that out but I guess I'll say it again -
GO TO POST #4 OF THIS THREAD. Three people were questioned about Obama's stance and if they agreed with it and they were given McCain's platform/VP with Obama's name. This is ONE example and there were dozens. There are dozens EVERY election because there are idiots out there. Plain and simple. Blind hacks are unable to think clearly and support things without merit simply because of a little 'D' or 'R.'
Didn't have to wait long did ya?
However, there's a stark difference between the two groups though. Those on the Left from Sten's shtick are admittedly uninformed or at least well-known uniformed, average Joe's that are not or were not engaged politically. On the Right, however, you have people who have STRONG opinions, views and/or beliefs who OPENLY engage in political activities...that are CLUELESS about the facts.
Stern's interviewees were regular schmucks on the streets of Harlem regularly minding their own business and were asked political questions. Rachel's interviewees were POLITICALLY ENGAGED folk with STRONG opinions none of which are based on fact.
Will you admit to that?
Of course I can admit to that. Then again, there are a dozen interviews with at Obama rallies where the people are just as politically active and are screaming their heads off. Many of them voted for Obama with no more than 'hope and change' slogans running through their heads and anger at Bush or the idea that healthcare was going to be free. They ACTIVELY advocated for Obama and were equally ignorant of the actual platforms. They are no different than these people holding up signs and were just as politically active. It is there on both sides. The right is out there and the example today, the left was there 2 years ago. this is because they are the ones that are motivated and out there at this point. Your point is taken, they should not be there and should not be protesting people they know NOTHING about. I just can't believe that you are pinning this solely on a single party when there are plenty of examples of the left doing things like this as well.
The Low-Information Voter: All They Know Is That They're Angry & Its All Obamas Fault
These people are panicked by economic and environmental ruination (there has been leaks/spills in Alaska of late), they have been jerked all over hell and back by the finest propaganda machine man ever created, they are preoccupied trying to stay afloat and cannot study on every issue like a PhD candidate........
Rachel Maddow has an abrasive style (at least when I watched her) and a calm conversation with any of these people about what concerns them most could have been had, Marc. Maddow made time and place choices that maximized their ignorance and fear.
Yanno, one criticism of the left is that we look down on "regular people". Ain't that more or less what you are doing?
Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.
This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.
WoW!!
*SMH*
Or maybe she cut the camera because she just lied. The Bush administration did not drop the case, the DOJ filed suit against the two men in Jan 2009 two weeks before Bush left office. When none of the defendants showed up to court in April/May, it was assumed the lawsuit would win, but the Obama admin led DOJ dismissed the suit.
Racheal Maddow is a lyng hack. She shovels bullshit to idiots like you who believe it.
John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com
New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times
Then even after all that it was brought up again and yet again the Hussein admin shut it down:
Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrellia top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.
Now who is the low-informed voter?
So I'm home now watching MSNBC, rewound my DVR to about 3 hours and luckily caught the better portion of Rachel Maddow's show. She's now in Alaska to interview Joe Miller and others.
Still watching, but just before this commercial break she asks some angry, clearly, RW voters some things and they start shouting out things like "Get rid of Eric Holder" She asks why are they against Eric Holder. One shouts back, "He's against guns." She asked the lady why? "What has Eric Holder specifically done that is against guns?" She responds with "he's voted down the line that are all anti-gun. Rachel then explains to her that Eric Holder has never had to vote on anything, he's not in Congress or in Senate. Some back and forth, with Rachel sincerely trying to figure what exactly do they have that tells them that Eric is "anti-gun." She ends up saying that she doesn't have all the facts on hand, but she just KNOWS he's anti gun.
Then a younger male, white, as well as the lady above, BTW, chimes in spewing the same nonsense. Again Rachel asks the young man, "What specifically has Eric done that is against the 2nd Amendment." He starts to flutter, then says, "Rachel, just Google Eric Holder and 2nd Amendment and Guns and you'll see all the ammo there." She responds, I will, but why are you currently so angry, what specically has he done that has you so angry....he says, he doesn't have all the facts on hand, but if she Googles it she will find it. And he was sincerely asking her to do so.
Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.
This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.
WoW!!
*SMH*
So you are gonna sit here and tell us you had ALL the information on obama and you STILL voted for him? You are the idiot.
You will understand if I insist on your providing some evidence of such ignorance at Obama rallies right?Touche FAQ.
However, there's a stark difference between the two groups though. Those on the Left from Sten's shtick are admittedly uninformed or at least well-known uniformed, average Joe's that are not or were not engaged politically. On the Right, however, you have people who have STRONG opinions, views and/or beliefs who OPENLY engage in political activities...that are CLUELESS about the facts.
Stern's interviewees were regular schmucks on the streets of Harlem regularly minding their own business and were asked political questions. Rachel's interviewees were POLITICALLY ENGAGED folk with STRONG opinions none of which are based on fact.
Will you admit to that?
Of course I can admit to that. Then again, there are a dozen interviews with at Obama rallies where the people are just as politically active and are screaming their heads off. Many of them voted for Obama with no more than 'hope and change' slogans running through their heads and anger at Bush or the idea that healthcare was going to be free. They ACTIVELY advocated for Obama and were equally ignorant of the actual platforms. They are no different than these people holding up signs and were just as politically active. It is there on both sides. The right is out there and the example today, the left was there 2 years ago. this is because they are the ones that are motivated and out there at this point. Your point is taken, they should not be there and should not be protesting people they know NOTHING about. I just can't believe that you are pinning this solely on a single party when there are plenty of examples of the left doing things like this as well.
Thanks.
