|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 3 hours, 2 minutes
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: ]
#1328962 - 02/23/03 01:14 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The sloppiness in the press goes both ways. Quote:
But, in a country where the masses choose their leaders and influence policies, a fraudulent press can mislead the voters into national disaster."
I agree, So letting the "War on terrorism" stand is a liberal thing.
|
fadedpinkwings
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 120
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: falcon]
#1328969 - 02/23/03 01:18 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have watched the media cover this war on terror. they, for the most part have tried to made bush look like an idiot. They have showed alot of sympathy for the liberal point of view regarding the possible war with iraq!
-------------------- I hope all bleeding hearts Die from bloodloss!!!!!
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 3 hours, 2 minutes
|
|
There is no war on terror. Wars are fought against people and countries. The media, are idiots that talk with an owners foot up they're ass while trying to appeal to as large of an audience as possible for they're sponsors. Congress should have stopped this war on terror shit, the media should have questioned it. the only good reason for war on Iraq is that we'll effectively occupy Saudi Arabia.
|
JssMthrFcknChrst
Son of the LordGod Almighty
Registered: 10/12/02
Posts: 446
Loc: Vatican City
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: Skikid16]
#1329010 - 02/23/03 01:37 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It is your fault (and all others as well) because you didn't correct your government. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to make sure you government acts correctly, not the other way around. If your government will not listen, then it has been taken over. Plain and Simple. If the government (at least the US) does not respect the wishes of the voting populous, then it is no longer the government. It is a new beast, one that needs to be destroyed. And that is your duty. Now, I'm not saying that the government has come to the point that it must be destroyed, but we do need to correct it where it has gone astray.
My solution (short version): We need new voting systems and new democratic voting methods. By this I mean we need to lower our reliance on representatives and use our high technology to allow every citizen the chance to put in their vote on the laws that will affect them. There need to be new laws for politicians. Any politician that out steps their bounds as a representative of the people should have a public jury trial, and if found guilty, executed. This country was founded by those who were willing to risk their lives for it, why shouldn't it be run by similar folks?
Certainly this is quite a departure from the plans laid out by our forefathers, however, those were just plans. They themselves changed how the government worked after only a few years of the Federated States. They saw that the country would not be able to survive if things where left the way they were. We are also at that point. We should not aim to rid the country of a government by the people and for the people, but should attempt to limit our government?s susceptibility to influence from greed and ... well greed about sums it up.
I think that the founders of this country would be delighted to be able to provide each and every citizen the ability to directly influence their government. That is what democracy is all about.
Thanks for reading my speil, now feel free to cut me down!!! -jssmthrfcknchrst
--------------------
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
no shit....i am shocked anyone would actually think that the media is slanted right.
Must be the public education system.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
adrug
Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
|
|
Hey, no flaming here. Yours is the only decent solution I've heard so far.
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: ]
#1329039 - 02/23/03 01:51 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Mr. Mushrooms, that was an excellent post.
I think it's important for every one of us to recognize that whether we care or not, there IS a link between us and the government we disagree with. It's a link that goes far beyond voting day. It finds its way into our every-day lives--each dollar we spend is a "vote" for something. No, I'm not proposing boycotts, just something to think about.
hongomon
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
You're a fool for thinking I'm a hypocrite. (learn to spell by the way) Do you agree with all the positions the left takes? Every last one of them? You find it impossible to agree with a lot of whatever a parties platform is without disagreeing with some of it?
Luv, this is the third time you got a word wrong in the SAME paragraph as telling someone to learn to spell.
It's "party's", not parties.
btw--I could really care less if another can't spell. I enjoyed nugs' posts a hell of a lot more than yours.
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Read the fucking thread! it was not just about whining , it was about people who run thier mouths and do nothing else. Ideas without action does not amount to much! I take it you are an idea person,huh. I am involved in the things that concern me in a real way. stop whining. Start doing. that is my point,phlucker.
First I wanna say that I totally agree with you that if the action stops here, it's not enough. But Rono is right that this is SOMETHING--discussion, spreading awareness, etc.
Of course, you don't have any way of knowing whether this is all it comes to for the "whiners" here. How about people who run their mouths here AND do other things as well? (Just to get some of us off the hook...)
hongomon
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: hongomon]
#1329053 - 02/23/03 02:01 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/23/03 02:06 PM)
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
|
heh??? You're saying that it should read, "...a parties platform...", akin to "...a babies bottom..." or "...an idiots lack of sense..."???? No, no, no, those are all wrong. It's "...a party's platform...."
Well, I guess if you have to trust an on-line dictionary over the spongy mass between your ears...
It's been fun splitting hairs with you!
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,634
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 minute, 4 seconds
|
|
Why does the liberal media bury stories about the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey?
Why don't we ever hear about anti-drug war protests unless a bunch of women show their tits.
Why don't we hear what the feds are doing to the medical marijuana people.
I don't think the media leans to the left per se, I think they lean toward profits. They report things in a way that will sell more insurance, automobiles, Toaster Streudle, Hot Pockets, and Rogaine.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: hongomon]
#1329090 - 02/23/03 02:22 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying, the dictionary is. Find one that shows party's as plural for party. Give it a shot. Here's another.... par?ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p?rt) n. pl. par?ties A social gathering especially for pleasure or amusement: a cocktail party. A group of people who have gathered to participate in an activity. See Synonyms at band2. An established political group organized to promote and support its principles and candidates for public office. A person or group involved in an enterprise; a participant or an accessory: I refuse to be a party to your silly scheme. Law. A person or group involved in a legal proceeding as a litigant. A subscriber to a telephone party line. A person using a telephone. A person: ?And though Grainger was a spry old party, such steps couldn't be his? (Anthony Hyde). A selected group of soldiers: a raiding party. Slang. An act of sexual intercourse. An orgy. adj. Of, relating to, or participating in an established political organization: party members; party politics. Suitable for use at a social gathering: party dresses; a party hat. Characteristic of a pleasurable social gathering: a party atmosphere. intr.v. par?tied, par?ty?ing, par?ties To celebrate or carouse at or as if at a party: That night we partied until dawn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English partie, part, side, group, from Old French, from feminine past participle of partir, to divide, from Latin partre, from pars, part-, part. See part.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- party?er or parti?er n. Usage Note: Party is unexceptionable when used to refer to a participant in a social arrangement, as in She was not named as a party in the conspiracy. It is this sense that underlies the legal use of the term, as when one speaks of the parties to a contract. The legal use has in turn led to the presence of the word in many fixed expressions, such as injured party and third party. But party is also widely used as a general substitute for person, as in Would all parties who left packages at the desk please reclaim their property. This usage has been established for many centuries, but in the Victorian era it came to be associated with the language of the semieducated (the Oxford English Dictionary describes it as ?shoppy?), and it has been the subject of many later criticisms. This use of party may have been reinforced in the twentieth century by its adoption by telephone operators. In other contexts, when used in earnest, it may be perceived as a superfluous variant for person. But the jocular use of the term is well established, particularly in references such as a wise old party. ----------------------------------- Be a man, admit you were wrong.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/23/03 02:23 PM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
I have watched the media cover this war on terror. they, for the most part have tried to made bush look like an idiot. They have showed alot of sympathy for the liberal point of view regarding the possible war with iraq!
That's absurd. The media has been kissing Bush's ass every chance it gets ever since 9/11. Then again, so have the Democrats. It may not be an exaggeration to say that the media has a liberal bias, if by liberal you mean mainstream, middle-of-the-road Democrats, but they definitely do not have a far-left bias. They certainly don't represent the views of the Green Party, for example. They do tons of alarmist propaganda stories about violent video games, controversial rappers, raves, the latest "hip" new drug on the market, and other "do you know where your children are?" stories to help parents censor what their kids are exposed to. Granted, that's not necessarily conservative, but it's certainly not far-leftist either. If the media shows any bias, it seems to be a pro-establishment one. They rarely do any stories that would lead would lead the people to question their government's decisions. When they do go after politicians, it is based on some big scandal that usually has nothing to do with their policies. Why? Because that's what gets ratings. Bush choking on a pretzel or Clinton getting a blowjob is more entertaining to the public than hearing about the Patriot Act or the Communications Decency Act. When was the last time there was a big media feeding-frenzy over some bill in Congress?
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
MushyMay
Brian Eno is mypersonal God FNORD
Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 423
Loc: ACT, Australia
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
|
You dug your own hole this time LDS. Pity the Dictionary your so quick to refer to doesn't include grammar. Your statement whatever a parties platform is was not pertaining to the plural of party. It implied ownership. Here is a simple example you might be able to get your head around. Plural: There are many parties. Ownership:This is my party's platform. Get it.
-------------------- MushyMay is a fictional character, as a result any information provided by MushyMay is also fictitious.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: spoiled brats! [Re: MushyMay]
#1329106 - 02/23/03 02:33 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Actually I've checked four. None show party's, all show parties. Please provide your source. Then try here.... http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/23/03 02:35 PM)
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
I'm not saying, the dictionary is. Find one that shows party's as plural for party. Give it a shot.
You're right--I don't think there's a worthwhile dictionary that will do that. What you were after was not plural, but singular possessive. Here's what you wrote:
You find it impossible to agree with a lot of whatever a parties platform is without disagreeing with some of it?
Be a man, admit you were wrong.
I've embarrassed myself enough with this. I shouldn't even have brought it up, but I did, and now I'm going to have to live with it.
your friend, hongomon
|
fadedpinkwings
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 120
|
|
Quote:
That's absurd. The media has been kissing Bush's ass
Bullshit! The news programs have been slanted against the action bush wants to take in Iraq. If you dont see that you are either not watching the news or you are an idiot! they have been ,for the most part, giving the opposing views alot of exposure.
-------------------- I hope all bleeding hearts Die from bloodloss!!!!!
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
I'm not saying, the dictionary is. Find one that shows party's as plural for party. Give it a shot.
Are you totally fucking stupid, luv, or is this whole thing a joke? Hongomon is not giving you the spelling for the plural of "party," he is giving you the spelling for the possessive of "party," which as he correctly points out, is "party's." As in, "a party's platform." For your information, the "a" in front of party (an "a" which you yourself supplied in that sentence) makes it clear that the noun in question is singular. The noun "platform," which immediately follows, has to be related to the noun "party" in some fashion that makes sense. The only relation that makes any sense at all is a possessive relation, which can be communicated either as "a party's platform" or "the platform of a party," take your pick.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were either drunk or joking when you made those last two posts. In the meantime, you may wish to play it safe and not presume to correct other people's spelling, grammar, or reading comprehension, because your own mastery of the English language is hardly, shall we say, "masterful."
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Show me a source. Don't just repeat yourself. Then try.... http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/parties.html http://www.europeangreens.org/ http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/parties.htm Quote:
your own mastery of the English language is hardly, shall we say, "masterful."
It certainly seems to be better than yours is. Had enough or still need more?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/23/03 02:48 PM)
|
|