Single Echo >>>> < Shouting from mountaintops since 2001

Untitled Document

friends ----- Kevin * freesand * Firenutt * LoweZero * Dan * Tim * Noel Montgomery * PurdueCrows
photos -----Wideblue Fotki
archives ----Visit the SingleEcho post archives
What I am reading: Some history for the weekend - Worst VP's in US History * Olympic Merceneries * Nature tells floridians it wants its swamps back * Know Nothin Politics * F*cking Obama

2008-08-24 21:23:34

Biden

I really think Obama just blew his chance to be president.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Nothing comes up beneath your sentence of writing. Is the linked item broken or something?

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Brian says: Its an embedded youtube video. Use a different browser.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Tried on my Palm and in IE 6 on a desktop... both can see the republican funny video a few posts down (about Paris Hilton) but neither show this video...

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Matt says: Is he going after the old people vote with this choice? I think McCain already has that demographic wrapped up. He should have picked Clinton but I can see how he wouldn't want to.

Don't worry though, this won't be why Obama loses. His loss be be because America is racist.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: If Obama loses, it will be because America saw him without a teleprompter saying something more difficult than "HOPE AND CHANGE!!!" and "YES WE CAN!!!". lol. The more unscripted appearances Obama has, the more Americans will realize his 58 States comment wasn't a joke. I have one question though that I’ll be waiting to see answered at the Dem convention, which is; will Democrats call for a full USA troop pullout of Iraq? I mean, come on, we all know we lost the war. At least all Democrats are on the record as saying so. I don’t know why they have not been harping on this issue! They had even stated the surge was a failure. Why couldn’t we have had Obama as President when the going had gotten rough, that way we could have gotten running! Maybe the world and all its dictators could have respected us then. At least it is not too late. Obama can still show the world we can bend over and take it in the rear. Then we will be loved again:)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Brian says: I think Obama will lose the upcoming election. A lot of the unresolved issues are resolving themselves so there isn't a lot to complain about. There is an Iraq timeline for withdrawl, and the surge worked (which Biden backed and then flipflopped Kerry style on). The banks are wrapping up their bleeding caused by Alan Greenspan's experiment with America's finances. Gas is going down in cost, the economy is coming around to where people have to have a little responsibility with their lives...

When November gets here I think a lot of Americans will answer the question "are you better off than you were four years ago" with a no, but they will know they are better off than they were eighteen months ago. As an aside, Obama has been saying all along he is not deficient in the areas that Biden seems to compensate him in, and I think that choosing Biden shows weakness on his part. After all nothing says "change you can believe in" like choosing as your running mate a 65 year old white guy who has been in the senate since 1973. One more thing. Nothing is scarier to me than if McCain also picks a senator running mate. Why is there not an ounce of executive branch experience running for president? Everyone except GHW Bush was a governor all the way back to Nixon. (Ford was a Rep but was not elected, HW was also a rep but served as VP for 8 years under Reagan). If McCain picks a good governor as his VP he wins in November.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Matt says: No Tim. If Obama loses it's because of racism.

Not because he has no experience, not because he is the most liberal senator in Washington, not because he was wrong about Iraq from the beginning, it's because America is racist.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Zac says: No Matt, Obama will lose because to use his own words in his speech tonight: "the times are too serious". In a time when Putin is rolling tanks into Georgia and blaming it on the US presidential election http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586605.stm (I guess we provoked Russia in order to help McCain's campaign?), we don't need unrealistic attempts at Kennedy rhetoric ('in ten years we will no longer be dependant on foreign oil') and/or blatant pandering to irresponsible idiots (provide universal healthcare / change bankruptcy laws / I’ll pay for your college education / various Santa Claus proposals), we need experienced leadership. Obama recognizes this and tapped the Democratic McCain-lite Biden. However, Brian, Vice Presidential choices have never, ever decided an election. Quayle was universally recognized as potentially inept and certainly not ready to assume the presidency if something were to happen to the president. He obviously wasn't the reason H.W. Bush won the '88 election (Reagan prosperity, Willie Horton, Dukakis in a tank helmet, and liberal as a dirty word did); and on the flipside he wasn't the reason H.W. lost the '92 election (break on 'no new taxes', not knowing the price of a gallon of milk, recession - although the economy had recovered in time for the election, but not in time to for people to feel secure, and Americans' ridiculously short memory re: the Gulf War and the freakin' fall of the Iron Curtain, and Ross Perot did). Does America still have a problem with race? Of course we do. But Obama wasn’t going to win a single Confederate state anyway. The election is going to come down to the electorate’s perception on the economy, national security concerns, and turnout in key battleground states. The Slate opinion article cited is flawed, because for the Bradley effect to take place people have to vote differently than they poll - the Bradley effect being based on the theory being that folks want to appear accepting in public and to pollsters (‘but some of my best friends are black’), but that their true racist nature comes out when it comes time to actually vote. If McCain and Obama are currently polling in a virtual dead heat, something different is going on.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Zac says: And yes, I know the Slate piece doesn't directly cite the Bradley effect, but rather lists excuses why Americans aren't smart enough to elect Obama (Lord knows I love the liberal paternal attitude towards the "willfully ignorant" unwashed masses they pretend to fight for and represent). However, I stand by my previous comments where I propose that the Bradley effect will not be the deciding factor in Obama's defeat, but rather it will be a vast, secret Zionist plot that prevents his election ;-)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Zac says: Looks like Brian got his wish: I’ll see your 65 year old white male trillion term senator from a meaningless state and raise you a 44 year old female governor from a meaningless state. This election just got a bit more interesting… http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: I still can't see the stupid video...

Leave a comment (4)

2008-08-06 10:47:32

For Your Viewing Pleasure

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: How many times can we hear the same Bush/Republican jokes rehashed? There is not one shred of original content in this vid. yawn! I'm pretty sure it's only useful purpose is to reasure libs of the superiority they feel by agreeing with the popular sentiment. Of course not one liberal I know lives their lives by the liberal views they say they are for on a political level. This tells me one thing... liberals love to feel superior on a supposed intellectual level, but don't want to screw their lives over like they are willing to screw the country over.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Brian says: And here I just thought it was funny. I liked the paris Hilton reponse to McCain's ads too. Heres that if you want to see it.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Mmmm... satire. Enjoy it for what it is. To Tim, I really don't know what you're talking about with the whole "live their lives by liberal views." I think a lot of people appreciate their own personalized mix of the polar opposites that are the Republican and Democratic parties. It's the specific ideas and goals that matter most to people that guide their votes and political affiliations. If you have a strong feeling about a particular highly polarized topic, chances are you're more likely to align yourself with the party that is on your side of that debate. It doesn't mean other topics don't matter to people and that they are disallowed from having alternative viewpoints from those written in their party's platform. Chill out. When Republicans lose in November and the world doesn't end by January 2010, I think we'll all look back on this nonsense and have a good laugh.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

tim says: I dont need to chill out because im already chill. My response to the vid is exactly what i believe, which is that the purpose of the video has nothing to do with comedy. As to the issues liberals agree with politically and dont live their personal lives the same way, i know for a fact that liberals live their lives conservatively... meaning they fully think things through from start to finish in order to make sure their decisions will be sucessful and they won't waiste a bunch of their own money. Kevin, if the nonsense your talking about is global warming, i agree with you... ill look back and laugh at all the doupes who believed it.)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: I still don't know what you mean; your definition of "liberal" and "conservative" is very different from that found in most dictionaries, from what you said in your previous post. The problem with using such blanket terms, as I tried to describe, is that they rarely define the entirety of an individual's preferences or beliefs. I believe it's completely possible for someone to be anti-gun, pro-choice, a fiscal conservative, and still support expansion of Medicare/Medicaid or the development of a national healthcare plan. These things aren't mutually-exclusive, as the two prevailing political parties may have you believe.

As for global warming... where in the world did that come from? I'm not sure if we've met in person before, but your combative nature makes me think that doing so would be a rather tiring experience. :-) (kidding)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Or... from my laundry list above... anti-gun, pro-choice, a fiscal ne'er-do-good, and despise the idea of creating a national healthcare plan... or any combination of the above. This is America: you're welcome to believe what you want and vote based on your views of the issues, whatever those may be. Simply because someone is left-leaning or right-leaning doesn't mean they must believe in and live their life by their party's written platform. Additionally, Those are just a few hot-button issues that it seems come up over and over again during campaigns to keep us from considering more important policy positions.

Good example - I believe in less federal oversight of public schools (get rid of No Child Left Behind), I disagree with all of the national healthcare plan proposals made so far by any major candidate... relatively conservative positions... but I'm a proponent of additional gun control, disagree with expanding offshore drilling, and believe in further federal oversight of the healthcare industry and insurance companies. Where do I fit on the ladder of liberal vs. conservative? It depends on the issue of the week and how important you believe that issue really is.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Nate says: So I went back into the archives to look for examples of Kevin vs. Tim in 2006 that said the exact same thing. A ton in 2007 but its amazing that after 2 years of these squabbles, Tim still hates liberals, Kevin still infuriates conservatives. Now I am pretty left-wing compared to most of the Crows (although as I'm getting older, I do find myself moving towards the right on fiscal and defense issues). I was reading some of my quotes from 2004 and 2005 and I would that I have changed a bit. Do you guys see the same? Btw Brian - 2 years ago today you called the Credit Crunch. Your post called "Impending Doom".

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

nate says: Sorry, I meant to say that I feel like my views are changing in the past 3-4 years. Maybe it's because I live in Europe and don't trust them to do anything other than drink, have sex and make other Europeans. Maybe it's because I kept my money and investments in a safe place and didn't lose my hat because of a risky real estate and now feel like they need to lose their shirts and not get bailed out. No worries though Kev - still got your back on the social issues though.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: haha, i wouldn't have started with my political comments if the vid wasn't political. and while my initial comments didn't refer directly on the vid content, i often take a deeper look a the root of issues, beliefs, and statements and thats normally where my comments tend to go. the video makers are obviously liberal hacks who copied and refomatted daily show jokes and called it theirs. Kevin, in my opinion people are what they vote. if you always vote for liberal candidates then what does it really matter if you disagree on a couple issues with the politician. On a root level i see liberals having kneejerk opinions to very complex problems. The reason they are happy to take these kneejerk positions is because popular american society says you are stupid for believing otherwise, hense the video and all media opinions of conservatives. I also find liberals i know to be somewhat uninformed because they only need popular culture to tell them what to believe... not all the information and facts. For this reason talking politics with liberals is highly unproductive because you are talking to someone with a lot of perceptions without a lot of actual facts...or their facts are weeks, months, or years old. This is just my experience dealing with people i consider liberal leaning...and for this reason meeting me wouldn,t be exausting because i probably wouldn't waist my time arguing. The internet is a diffen't story for me, it's a place for me to articulate and formulate my own beliefs. I realize I'm disagreed with and I'm ok with that. It doesn't get me upset or even irritated. It is truly just more internet... a way for all of us to spin our wheels and waiste time as I just have by writing this long respnse onn my phones qwerty keyboard:) Most likely you disagree with my sentiments about who i consider to be liberals. The reason I articulate it is because nobody else does. For libs though, the articulation on conservaties is everywhere...so i'm outnumbered. Have a great day!

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: Clarifying my point that libs are uninformed, i dont think they are so because they are stupid or don,t pay attention to the news and facts... It more has to do with only getting their news from the liberal news gatekeepers who typically only tell you what they feel you need to know in order to continue to agree with them. They focus on stories that fit their agenda and downplay stories that don't. So if your talking to me who knows news beyond the gatekeepers and you only listen to the gatekeepers, you are uninformed. For example the media is just finally reporting in detail the fact that the presidential race isnt a runaway for obama and in fact the polls have been in a statistical dead heat for some time. Ive known this for months liberals are just finding that out now. now things can and probably will change, but my point remains on staying informed. Poor libals are just now being blindsised by edwards affair:( I do know that not all liberals are uninformed though. Kevin you seem to be one of those.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Mmmm... listen to the ocean. Nice and calm. Settle, settle down. Zen.

I'd like to meet one of these gatekeepers of which you speak. Do they protect Zuul too? (see previous post comment by Brian from a few weeks ago)...

Fact of the matter is, your whole Bill O'Reilly-esque complaint that the media has a liberal bias is laughable. It's clear from your writing that you're upset that so many "liberals" are mis-informed or have "knee-jerk" responses to issues, but you also write that it's only the votes that matter. Simply put, you can't have it both ways. Either continue to view the world through your red and blue goggles where only the votes matter, or give some credit to the majority of the American populace that has a depth of character and a diversity of opinions that can't easily be summed up by either party's platform (hence the reason most elections are so close in this country, recently). It's because people are forced to decide the lesser of many evils in virtually every case. If I were, for example, pro-gun and pro-choice... and wanted off-shore drilling AND a national healthcare plan... who do I vote for? Nader? I mean... there's no really good answer to that question - and I think that's where most Americans fall in terms of the political spectrum.

You're welcome to keep believing that there is a liberal conspiracy in the media out to get the conservatives... it adds to your character and makes you all that more right-leaning in my opinion. You can poke fun at the fact that most of the jokes in the video are rehashed from Colbert or Stewart... and I'll poke fun at the fact that what you wrote sounds like it was a copy and paste almost directly from Sean Hannity's bedside diary.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: Given that I don't listen to Hannity, but I do respect him...I'll take that as a complement. I actually don't make this stuff up or are taking anyones word for it because I have first hand experience from watching it all these years..... BUT I don't expect anyone to take my word for it that the mainstream media is biased, so let me ask you a question and if you don't know the answer feel free to look it up. Who do the overwhelming amount of mainstream media vote for and contribute money to? This info is not some conspiracy and is documented in media polls and contribution records. Here is just a sample of what you will find: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/ . In the story you will see that a mere 16 media people gave to republicans and kevin I'd bet if you look at the people behind those donations you would say without a doubt that they are biased towards republicans... but im supposed to look at the far past 100 that contributed for democrats and also throw out my common sense and assume that their bias doesn't show up in their news coverage. Only someone real dumb would think that most of the media right now don't consider themselves democrats and are not fawning all over Obama and will not do whatever they can to be a part of getting him elected. I do realize there are a lot of real dumb people though who close their eyes and plug their ears while yelling LALALALALALA when facts and logic rear its ugly head from conservatives. Kevin for that first part of your comment were you waiving your hand around and snapping your fingers while thinking of that:)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: Given that I don't listen to Hannity, but I do respect him...I'll take that as a complement. I actually don't make this stuff up or are taking anyones word for it because I have first hand experience from watching it all these years..... BUT I don't expect anyone to take my word for it that the mainstream media is biased, so let me ask you a question and if you don't know the answer feel free to look it up. Who do the overwhelming amount of mainstream media vote for and contribute money to? This info is not some conspiracy and is documented in media polls and contribution records. Here is just a sample of what you will find: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/ . In the story you will see that a mere 16 media people gave to republicans and kevin I'd bet if you look at the people behind those donations you would say without a doubt that they are biased towards republicans... but im supposed to look at the far past 100 that contributed for democrats and also throw out my common sense and assume that their bias doesn't show up in their news coverage. Only someone real dumb would think that most of the media right now consider themselves democrats and are fawning all over Obama and will do whever they can to be a part of getting him elected. Kevin, were you waiving you hand around and snapping your fingers when you were thinking of that first part of your comment?:)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Brian says: Holy crap. I was out of town for the weekend and it seems I check my page less than a few others do. I will catch up first thing tomorrow and add my view. Going to do a little cyber killing in Call Of Duty 4 now to help recover from a 7 hour drive home...

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Zac says: Ahh...Kevin vs. Tim. It's like the good old days again here on SingleEcho/Wideblue. Oh, and Kevin I agree that the world will not end by January 2010 if Obama's elected. I'll give him more credit than that. Howver, I am currently taking action on the downfall of Western Civilization in the event of an Obama victory. The over/under is currently set at: March 1, 2010.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: This stopped making sense a while ago...

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: I agree this is classic Kevin and Tim. This time Kevin has proved my point that many times liberals take kneejerk opinions based on perceptions. His perception that Bill O'reilly is a cook, or something similar, has caused Kevin to take the kneejerk opinion that most of the mainstream media are not biased and those that believe it, believe a conspiracy. But when you take a look at the facts behind the "conspiracy" you get polls which show that most main stream media figures consider themselves democrats and follow through with Democrat contributions....all while reporting on political races which include the very democrats they support and give money to. I asked Kevin the question: "Who do the overwhelming amount of mainstream media vote for and contribute money to?". Of course Kevin has not answered the question, which I expected. Instead of looking at facts and logic, it's obviously easier to keep an opinion based upon perception. The answer to the question alone doesn’t disprove his "conspiracy" opinion, it merely forces a person to actually look at the facts. Given the reality of the information and facts that are found when answering the question, Kevin really only has two stances he can take on this issue while keeping his "conspiracy" opinion. 1) He doesn't believe most in the media consider themselves Democrats and the media polls and contributions that are documented are lies. 2) He knows most in the main stream media consider themselves Democrats and contribute to Democrats, but he believes they remain unbiased and only go after the truth... sort of the way Bill O'reilly and his fans believe O'reilly to be. So Kevin why don't you answer the question and tell us which stance you take? I agree these comments have gone all over the place, but I did make the statement that the mainstream media is biased. You have stated your opinion that my opinion is a conspiracy, and I have challenged your opinion.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: I chose not to answer your question, Tim, simply because your posts are too damned long to read. I've been scolded a number of times for very long posts on here. Brevity is important if you want a response. In the first 6 lines of your post on my screen (not sentences, but actual lines of text), you said exactly 1 thing: Kevin didn't answer my question and explain why he disagrees with the idea that the media, by and large, supports democratic candidates. Phew, that was hard to say.

Tim, get a life. The reason I don't respond to your questions is because they're simply regurgitated bullshit Republican propaganda - exactly like the regurgitated nonsense in the video that you, yourself, claimed was stupid and childish - thus proving my point that you, as an individual, have nothing of importance or any originality to say.

I like to think that my opinions are my own, not those of my party. If you look at the things I've said in this conversation, they are rationale, well-constructed, well-reasoned, and generally supported by the facts. Fact: Most Americans are not happy with 100% (or even 60%) of EITHER of the major party platforms. Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle. Fact: Most university professors and college students also report that their views are aligned more closely with those of the Democratic party than the Republican party. Fact: Most journalists do align themselves more closely with the opinions and ideals of the Democratic party than the Republican party (perhaps because the Republicans have, since the days of Nixon, been trying to force the media out of business and transform it into a state-run institution with unreasonable levels of censorship, monitoring, and other nonsense). If a political party consistently tried to tell me that I couldn't protect my sources without the risk of going to jail when that's the bread and butter of investigative, gumshoe journalism, I might not align myself with that party either.

I watched O'Reilly faithfully for more than a year when I was in college. I know his style. I know his motives. I even have one of his books on my shelf in my home, right next to an Al Franken book (in the winter, I rub them together to generate heat when the power goes out). See, you assume that simply because I am intelligent, well-read, and unwilling to respond to your all-too-typical "I'm a Republican drone simply repeating what has been said on Fox News for the past several years" rants, I must have a knee-jerk reaction to things.

Saying most people fall in the middle, asking tough questions about how people should vote when there is no candidate that supports their core values... yeah, that's something I hear all the time on......... (oh wait, I don't hear that anywhere). Not CNN, not MSNBC, not from Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Bill O'Reilly, Gretta van Dog Ate My Face... nowhere.

So you continue trying to pick fights and toe the Republican line. If you feel that makes you look smarter or more reasonable than me, so be it. I think that the other people who frequent this blog will see your undeveloped, amateur arguments for what they really are - a parrot repeating something they heard from someone who they think is smarter than them. Get a clue Tim... nothing you've said here is new. Go back to the archives. Read the old posts. See what you thought back then, see how little it has advanced in the past 4 years. Then look at some of the nonsense I used to post and compare it to the logic that guides the things I've said on here recently.

I've explained things using the facts, using historical information, and using a critical analysis of your political theory. I've told you why the media donates more to democratic campaigns (Democrats intrinsically provide the media greater academic and journalistic freedom than Republicans). I've explained why your theory of kneejerk reflexes is wrong (I doubt very many college professors, the majority of which dwell on research projects that require meticulous preparation and data collection, and the majority of which consider themselves liberals, are quick to jump to conclusions about anything). And I've explained why your idea that "only the votes matter" is incorrect - you contradicted it yourself in your previous posts by claiming that kneejerk responses are a terrible thing - then you have the gall to claim that just the votes count and people's votes are guided by a single issue (a kneejerk interpretation of things in and of itself). You can't have it both ways. You're angry. Be angry elsewhere or be angry alone on here. I'm done talking with you. I have real work to do.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: And since I know you'll post some crap about me "running away from a fight," I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence will read what my last post said and see that it accurately sums up our little 17+ post conversation and answers the claims you've made (though arguing them with you is done against my better judgment since I'm familiar with the typical Republican "beat them with the bullshit until they give up" way of trying to argue, too). I'm not going to fall into the trap of continuing since it just feeds your need to use more of the Republican talking points to take up space on this blog and make you think you've said something more important or profound, simply because you've said more. Quality vs quantity - still something the Republicans have trouble with as our nation sinks into the largest debt it has ever faced.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: haha, guess you were not done talking and you didn't have real work to do:) Yes, you have be told by matt to keep things shorter. If you look back at my response to you said that you should say exactly what you think even if it's not short. I actually couldn't care less about trying to argue this or anything else with you Kevin. In fact if you ask anyone I know about this little online conversation, they wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about because this is, as I said before, my form of waisting time online. Some people watch YouTube, I prefer to debate political opinions or I'm bored on my computer. If your going to take things personally then I agree that you shouldn't respond to my comments. I'm not an angry person, but I understand that many people go personal when people challenge their views. Don't worry, I don't get offended easy:) I'm a blessed individual with a life that is almost too good for one person to have... too blessed to be angry. I appreciate you answering the media question that I asked about, but your answer is far different from being the "conspiracy" opinion that you offered in your initial comments. I understand that liberals consider someone having an intelligent conversation about facts is often considered "beat them with bullshit until they give up", but honestly facts and logic are the only thing I care to talk about. If you want to debate over simplistic bumper sticker opinions like "war is bad", then yes I'm not the person to talk to. Also my arguments probably do sound similar to what I said years ago, but so do yours, simply because the issues have not changed... human nature has not changed. Even though I don't listen to conservative media very often, if at all, on a monthly basis, I used to. I'm thankful to those I've listened to for teaching me how to think for myself. You will rarely find me having a strong opinion on things I know nothing about. You keep bringing up oposition to my labeling people liberal or conservative, but thats life. What do you list in your facebook political label? Moderate? If so then you shouldn't get so offended by me talking about liberals:) I have one more thing to say and I'll be done. I find it interesting that the one major political issue that you seem to most disagree with Democrats on is socialized health care. It's also the issue you know the most facts and logic about. It's been nice talking with you.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Ah, the alternative standpoint when a Republican is confronted with a "this conversation is over" phrase... the "I didn't care anyway," angle. How predictable.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: And to set the record straight so it isn't lost in Tim's noise... What I wrote about healthcare plans was: "I disagree with all of the national healthcare plan proposals made so far by any major candidate..." Again, twisting my words to make it appear as though that indicates only Obama / Clinton plans. McCain, in case you didn't know, has also put forth a national plan of healthcare reform, with which I firmly disagree. As I've said until I'm numb in the fingers here... If you fall in the middle, little know-nothing bible-thumpers who are "blessed" and pretentious like you will twist things to make a centrist position appear ultra-liberal - and a far right-wing position appear centrist. You disgust me. Go to church or something.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Kevin says: Anyone with half a brain knows exactly what I was doing with the whole "church" and "blessed" comment, too, if you read all of my posts carefully... ...Though I'm sure the less educated will take it as literally meaning a Christian place of worship and an act performed by a man of the cloth. Just thought I'd add a breadcrumb for those like Tim who might not understand a play on words and artistic meanings.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Brian says: I suppose this was sort of thing was inevitable.

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Brian says: Finally a second to read and write...

Comments from top to bottom...

Kevin - I agree with you about voting alignment. People associate with a few hot button issues and generally vote on those.
Tim - The video is indeed comedy. It comes from a comedy website called funnyordie
Nate - I did call the credit crunch way back then. Too bad I didn't sell all my stocks back then too and buy some nice put options on them...if I had I could be posting this from my yacht.
Tim and Kevin - I must be a bad, uninformed American. You speak of O'Reilly and Hannity and Zuul...I listen to none of these people. All I do is read the paper (or electronic substitute) and watch some news at 10pm. It sounds like I am missing all sorts of endless political arguing and spin, and I think I am completely fine with that.
Tim - I had no idea O'Reilly could cook. Maybe I should be watching the food network? ...jk I know you meant kook.
Disintegration - I posted a funny video about a republican slogan and a video response from Paris and we end up talking about O'Reilly, Healthcare reform, and liberal conspiracy. I think being able to laugh at yourself is the best place to learn to laugh, and find it hilarious that a drug company and the republican party used the same phrase. A SNAFU for sure, and not representative of anything other than funny. All we have to do is go back and watch Dukakis in a tank if you want something else to laugh at...
I don't know why I wrote this comment, no one will scroll down to the 25th position to read it anyways...

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Tim says: It's ok Brian, I scrolled down and read your comments. Thanks for chiming in. Thanks for looking pasts my spelling errrors:)

~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*()>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(>~!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()~!@#$%^&*(

Matt says: Kevin, I especially liked the "I'm not answering your question because your comments are too long" bit in the longest comment of this whole thread (in which you then actually answered the question), that was truly funny. Good work on that one. ;)

Brian, I did read your comment.