Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:48:40 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
...and we're learning!

proggie

A pejorative term for political progressives, typically deployed by political tribalists who would prefer not to engage in substantive discussion.

Progressive: "I think a Tobin tax would raise significant revenues while also having the salutary effect of dis-incentivizing rampant unproductive financial speculation."

Political Tribalist: "F- You you proggie....always want something for NOTHING....why don't you get a life proggie??....sitting in your mom's basement.....HA!"

Anarchist: "You know, I think the progressives are wrong, dude, but why are you being such a douchebag?"

Conservative: "Yeah, I don't really think you're adding much to the discussion, Tribalist."

Political Tribalist: "Whatever, you proggie idiots...Why don't you go whining to your proggie mamas?...I WIN!"

Everybody: "Sigh, ok, whatever dude."
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:53:39 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 701,056
This thread has turned amusing as hell.
Anyone voting for Gary Johnson yet? evil4
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:10:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,469
Location: Alabama, United States
Meanwhile, in Florida.....

-- A college professor at Brevard Community College (BCC) in Cocoa, Fla. has been placed on leave after she allegedly required her class to sign a pledge to vote for President Barack Obama “and Democrats up and down the ticket."

Campus Reform reports that professor Sharon Sweet at BCC allegedly told students to sign a pledge that states: “I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.”

The pledge came from “GottaVote.org,” a website paid for by the Obama campaign.

University administrators said they learned about the incident late Thursday afternoon and launched an investigation, after they received a phone call from a concerned parent.

“Based on the allegations, Associate Professor Sweet has requested, and been granted, a leave of absence without pay effective immediately,” reads a statement put out by John Glisch, Associate Vice President for Communications at BCC.

“The college will continue its investigation into the matter, which will include interviews with all students in her class,” continues the statement.

In addition to being inappropriate action in the classroom, Sweet’s pledge requirement may have also violated Florida election law.
Section 104.31, of Title IX in chapter 104, states that “no officer or employee of the state… shall… use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or nomination of officer or influencing another person’s vote or affecting the result thereof.”

==============

People are losing their minds and all perspective with this election. Craziness abounds.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dirty_D
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:13:57 PM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,490
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
chefkathleen wrote:
This thread has turned amusing as hell.
Anyone voting for Gary Johnson yet? evil4


Actually that is the 3rd party candidate I was referring to awhile back.
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:20:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
the stakes are just too high to leave it to the Democrats.


I've got to agree with him on that. If someone can convince me that the most effective way to vote against the Democrats isn't to vote for the Republicans, I'd love to have that alternative.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:26:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
naughtynurse wrote:
Actually that is the 3rd party candidate I was referring to awhile back.


Within my lifetime, George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have been high profile 3rd party candidates. None really rose above the level of a fart in a hurricane. Some would argue they've thrown the elections, and that might be true due to swing states doing the deciding, but that doesn't bode well for getting Obama into the unemployment line.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
HardNReady12
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:41:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 65
Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States
CleverFox wrote:


I don't expect them to give up their principals but I do expect them to come to the table and offer a compromise. The Republicans have not done this. From 1995 to 2007 the Republicans never gave to Democrats the chance to offer a compromise. The Republicans have been given the chance but they refuse to use it. The Rebublican definitionof bipartisanship has been "You will do it my way or you won't do it at all."


When Princess Pelosi was elected speaker of the house, and Harry Reid was elected Senate Majority leader, they stopped talking to the R's. Dingy Harry would not even let the Republican Senators bring any amendments to the Unaffordable Health Care Act. Dinghy Harry is right now getting ready to adjourn the Senate for 7 weeks. No budget for 3 years and he wants to go home, No Farm Bill, well that's maybe a good idea, Sen. Debbie Stabmenow, is on the AG committee, and the budget committee. The Ag bill is 80% full of food stamps. The Party of Know is trying to do a budget, the house has passed one every year, but not Dingy Harry, too business reading Cowboy poetry. We need to replace Dingy Harry and Stabmenow too. And Barry too. Btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 watch this and see if you see yourself. And go see 2016 and tell me it not true.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:43:05 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Hey HardNReady12, could you post that link again?



evil4

kidding!
tazznjazz
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:27:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
This quote sums up some of the posts on this thread~

''Politics, as a practice, whatever it's professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds''

Henry Adams
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:23:06 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804


Applause
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:16:16 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 18,012
Location: My Tower, United States
HardNReady12 wrote:


When Bush 43 was in office unemployment was 5.26% average. Gas was $1.84 in Jan '09. Now, gas is $4. and unemployment has been over 8% for 43 months. The work force is the smallest it has been in 31 years. 15 million more people on food stamps. in Jan '09 we owed $10.626T now we owe $16T.


*shrugs* i could easily come back at you with: when Bush was in office, someone flew 2 planes into the world trade center, 1 into the pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania. When Bush was in office we went to war with a country that was no threat to the US and racked up a truck load of debt and turned it into a profit suck for Haliburton and several other private industries while good young men and women in uniform were shipped home in caskets or missing limbs. When Bush was president, ever our closest allies were kind of pissed off at us for some of the things he did or said. see how it works? i can simply ignore any good he did and create a laundry list of bad shit that happened during the 8 years of his presidency. you can do the same with Obama. Might want to open your mind and take a look at some of the GOOD things he's done, like saving the auto industry which many agree kept us from going belly up into a recession the liked that haven't been seen since the one in the 30s. oh, and he kind of disrupted Al Quida - remember Bin Laden? i'm sure if you bothered to look, you might find a couple other things he's done right. btw, that movie you're pushing? fact checkers are having a field day with it... oh, and it was made my an Indian Immigrant, not that that should matter...

Live, love, laugh.
VickieLynn1
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:35:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/26/2011
Posts: 5,829
Location: So Cal, United States
[quote=CoopsRuthie]

Voting is a constitutional right. Please don't compare it to buying cigarettes, liquor, or boarding airplanes. Those things aren't rights protected by the U. S. Constitution.[/]




Please, even though voting is a right you still have to prove who you are. If having id is going to prevent the "poor" from voting how is it that these same "poor" have id to buy cigarettes liquor and get government assistance checks cashed. Gee they must have some sort of "government approved id", so why can't they use it to vote. I mean damn my parents have been dead for over 13 years and are still on the rolls.


nothing beats a luscious kiss from well painted lips ;) mmmmmmmmm...........
VickieLynn1
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:08:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/26/2011
Posts: 5,829
Location: So Cal, United States
sprite wrote:


*shrugs* i could easily come back at you with: when Bush was in office, someone flew 2 planes into the world trade center, 1 into the pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania. When Bush was in office we went to war with a country that was no threat to the US and racked up a truck load of debt and turned it into a profit suck for Haliburton and several other private industries while good young men and women in uniform were shipped home in caskets or missing limbs. When Bush was president, ever our closest allies were kind of pissed off at us for some of the things he did or said. see how it works? i can simply ignore any good he did and create a laundry list of bad shit that happened during the 8 years of his presidency. you can do the same with Obama. Might want to open your mind and take a look at some of the GOOD things he's done, like saving the auto industry which many agree kept us from going belly up into a recession the liked that haven't been seen since the one in the 30s. oh, and he kind of disrupted Al Quida - remember Bin Laden? i'm sure if you bothered to look, you might find a couple other things he's done right. btw, that movie you're pushing? fact checkers are having a field day with it... oh, and it was made my an Indian Immigrant, not that that should matter...




Folks keep bashing Mr Bush for going to war on a person who flaunted the rule of law.
Lets try this perspective, the home next door to you is sheltering child molesters. But the home owner says no they are good people and haven't done anything wrong and I'm not turning them over. What does the rule of law say. Walk away so they can mess up some more lives, or you send in the cops to clear them out. I think I'm going to be screaming for them to come clear it out and yes its going to cost "men and material" to do it. No difference. Pure law enforcement.
And Sadam was no innocent, he was violating an agreement with UN (parole) not to pursue items there to.

It was justified

nothing beats a luscious kiss from well painted lips ;) mmmmmmmmm...........
CleverFox
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:46:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 484
Location: United States
VickieLynn1 wrote:




Folks keep bashing Mr Bush for going to war on a person who flaunted the rule of law.
Lets try this perspective, the home next door to you is sheltering child molesters. But the home owner says no they are good people and haven't done anything wrong and I'm not turning them over. What does the rule of law say. Walk away so they can mess up some more lives, or you send in the cops to clear them out. I think I'm going to be screaming for them to come clear it out and yes its going to cost "men and material" to do it. No difference. Pure law enforcement.
And Sadam was no innocent, he was violating an agreement with UN (parole) not to pursue items there to.

It was justified


What justification? There were no weapons of mass destruction, the was no Al Qaida connections with the Bathist party and there were no nuclear weapons. WHERE IS THE JUSTIFICATION!
stephanie
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:22:56 PM

Rank: Bohemian

Joined: 1/1/2010
Posts: 5,682
Location: Dublin, Ire., Ireland
CleverFox wrote:


What justification? There were no weapons of mass destruction, the was no Al Qaida connections with the Bathist party and there were no nuclear weapons. WHERE IS THE JUSTIFICATION!


Ummm..... Can't argue with that..... In Great Britain, it brought down a government..... (Though Tony Blair still makes a fortune as an after dinner speaker...)

xx Steph

'I fear I shall be swept away by the swell I can glimpse through the slats on the pier..." xx SF
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:43:10 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 8,247
Location: Atlanta, United States
I may have to write in Ron Paul or just go with the Libertarian. But damn I like Ron Paul.

Why the hell do we still have troops in Afghanistan? That really pisses me off!

Voting is considered a legal privilege. I had to hear some lawyers arguing that over lunch today (and I wanted to talk football.) The voting right can and has been changed and altered over the history of the USA. It started out that only property owning males (white) could vote. Eventually freed black slave males could vote decades before they gave any women the right to vote. It makes for interesting reading if you enjoy history as I do. Many people even today take their voting privileges for granted and do not exercise them. Go to the polls on election day and VOTE! Many people died to give you that right!

sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:45:24 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 18,012
Location: My Tower, United States
VickieLynn1 wrote:




Folks keep bashing Mr Bush for going to war on a person who flaunted the rule of law.
Lets try this perspective, the home next door to you is sheltering child molesters. But the home owner says no they are good people and haven't done anything wrong and I'm not turning them over. What does the rule of law say. Walk away so they can mess up some more lives, or you send in the cops to clear them out. I think I'm going to be screaming for them to come clear it out and yes its going to cost "men and material" to do it. No difference. Pure law enforcement.
And Sadam was no innocent, he was violating an agreement with UN (parole) not to pursue items there to.

It was justified


let's try this again... the apartment building next door is renting a room to child molesters. solution? firebomb the entire apartment building and shoot anyone who comes out the front exit. Saddam might not have been an innocent, but then, you could say the same of the entire Iraqi population? if i recall, there were civilian casualties.... not to mention a lot of whole sale destruction. did we get Al Queda? no. did we find weapons of mass destruction? no. did we stop their non existent nuclear program? no. for the record, i supported going into Afghanistan after Al Queda when we did so. STAYING there for 10 years, no. I never supported going into Iraq. it did more harm to us than good, both in american lives, money, and international opinion.

there are a lot of people in the world who do what Sadam did - harbor criminals. not only in the middle east, but all over. do you suggest we to go war with all of them? off the top of my head... North Korea, Syria, Iran, Palastine, Russia, Mumbai, Pakistan, Phillipines, Somalia, pretty much 50% of Africa.... that's for starters... there is much worse out there than Saddam even aspired to. do we police the world based on our tenants of justice?

Live, love, laugh.
principessa
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:51:13 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,335
Location: Canada
stephanie wrote:


As Obama continues to wade through eight years of Bush engendered shit, incidentally blocked at every attempted reform by a vindictive Republican congress, Romney and Ryan lie, pander and patently back-flip in an effort to woo America.

Offering platitudes and empty passionless promises, and backed by mega-billion dollar corporations (who REALLY care about ordinary people...) these two men seem to be using soft soap and snake oil in an effort to hoodwink America into selling its soul.

Can they do it?

xx Steph


The real Romney has been outed this week with that video - at home with a country club crowd of rich donors and expressing his disgust for half of the US population not lucky enough to be born to a wealthy family like him. He is clueless about how ordinary people live and struggle and is smug about it.

As the saying goes, he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.


Buz
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:54:34 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 8,247
Location: Atlanta, United States
Saddam Hussein was an evil, murdering dictator that deserved to be taken down. However, we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The evidence for weapons of mass destruction was extremely flimsy at best, based on the eye witness of one unreliable informer. Once there we discovered that there were NO weapons of mass destruction.

I can't believe Bush didn't have someone plant some WMD's in the sand and say we found some. He was and still is so damned arrogant. But hey nothing has changed.

In truth what plastic Romney said is so nothing compared to Obama saying he believes in redistribution of wealth. I'll go down bloody dead in the streets before I give in to that Marxism!

principessa
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:58:28 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,335
Location: Canada
Buz wrote:
Saddam Hussein was an evil, murdering dictator that deserved to be taken down. However, we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The evidence for weapons of mass destruction was extremely flimsy at best, based on the eye witness of one unreliable informer. Once there we discovered that there were NO weapons of mass destruction.

I can't believe Bush didn't have someone plant some WMD's in the sand and say we found some. He was and still is so damned arrogant. But hey nothing has changed.


Watch the movie "Fair Game" to see how Bush/Cheney manipulated the situation to start a war over WMD knowing they did not exist. Valerie Plame, a CIA agent was outed by them and Cheney's chief of staff (I believe) Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice.


sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:05:31 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 18,012
Location: My Tower, United States
VickieLynn1 wrote:
[quote=CoopsRuthie]

Voting is a constitutional right. Please don't compare it to buying cigarettes, liquor, or boarding airplanes. Those things aren't rights protected by the U. S. Constitution.[/]




Please, even though voting is a right you still have to prove who you are. If having id is going to prevent the "poor" from voting how is it that these same "poor" have id to buy cigarettes liquor and get government assistance checks cashed. Gee they must have some sort of "government approved id", so why can't they use it to vote. I mean damn my parents have been dead for over 13 years and are still on the rolls.


how come you assume that the poor buy ciggies and drink? that shit is expensive! if i was poor i wouldn't be throwing money away on liquor or smokes. and how do you assume that the poor get gov't assistance checks? not all of them do, or, maybe the husband does for the family, that means he can vote, but his wife, who doesn't drive, so doesn't need a DL, doesn't. he gets to vote, she can't. something for the 18 yo daughter living at home. there, cut out 2/3 of potential voters right there. what about people who work jobs and get paid cash? landscapers, etc. no need for id, they don't have bank accounts or checks to cash. bam! no vote for you. and really, voter fraud has never been an issue in this country. there is zero reason to make it one now, other than using it to find a way to keep voters who are typically democrats from voting.

Live, love, laugh.
Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:36:49 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,490
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
sprite wrote:


how come you assume that the poor buy ciggies and drink? that shit is expensive! if i was poor i wouldn't be throwing money away on liquor or smokes. and how do you assume that the poor get gov't assistance checks? not all of them do, or, maybe the husband does for the family, that means he can vote, but his wife, who doesn't drive, so doesn't need a DL, doesn't. he gets to vote, she can't. something for the 18 yo daughter living at home. there, cut out 2/3 of potential voters right there. what about people who work jobs and get paid cash? landscapers, etc. no need for id, they don't have bank accounts or checks to cash. bam! no vote for you. and really, voter fraud has never been an issue in this country. there is zero reason to make it one now, other than using it to find a way to keep voters who are typically democrats from voting.


Because I take care of many of them, and they have more gold on their grills then I do in my jewelry box at home!

(Sprite I love you no matter what our differences are!)
Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:38:49 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,490
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Buz wrote:
I may have to write in Ron Paul or just go with the Libertarian. But damn I like Ron Paul.

Why the hell do we still have troops in Afghanistan? That really pisses me off!

Voting is considered a legal privilege. I had to hear some lawyers arguing that over lunch today (and I wanted to talk football.) The voting right can and has been changed and altered over the history of the USA. It started out that only property owning males (white) could vote. Eventually freed black slave males could vote decades before they gave any women the right to vote. It makes for interesting reading if you enjoy history as I do. Many people even today take their voting privileges for granted and do not exercise them. Go to the polls on election day and VOTE! Many people died to give you that right!


I love Ron Paul, and was terribly disappointed (although sadly not surprised) when he was dismissed as a serious candidate.
ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:26:30 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 784
Location: Massachusetts, United States
naughtynurse wrote:


I love Ron Paul, and was terribly disappointed (although sadly not surprised) when he was dismissed as a serious candidate.


Ron Paul's economic theory is based on a return to the gold standard? Does he understand how much gold there actually is relative to the US economy? The reason the US had to leave the gold standard under Nixon was that there simply wasn't enough gold.

US GDP is around $15T right now. The total value of all gold ever mined is about $10T and only about a fifth of that is in the US. There simply isn't enough gold for the proposal to work. Yet Paul keeps on spouting on with this impossible theory because his ideology is impervious to reason.

Then there is the fact that Ron Paul published a racist newsletter under his name for over a decade and the fact that his peculiar definition of libertarian allows the government to pretty much do what the hell it likes on social issues.

Ron Paul isn't a serious libertarian candidate let alone a serious national party candidate. He might just be better than Romney but that is a very very low bar.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:56:19 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,533
Location: Cakeland, United States
Buz wrote:
In truth what plastic Romney said is so nothing compared to Obama saying he believes in redistribution of wealth. I'll go down bloody dead in the streets before I give in to that Marxism!


Are we to suppose that what Paul Ryan has been doing, is acceptable and encouraged, Buz? I mean, he's been bad mouthing the Obama Health Care initiative, joining all the opposition and calling it Obamacare - while in the background, actively applying for benefits for his district and gaining them. He has the gall to badmouth the policy? bs Just another lame, lying hypocrite. He's cut from the same cloth as Dick Cheney...I can see why Republicans lurve him.

While GOP vice-presidential hopeful Ryan today savages Obamacare as “irresponsible,” an editorial in the Nov. 1 The Nation magazine reports that on Dec. 10, 2010 Congressman Ryan wrote HHS “to recommend a grant application for the Kenosha Community Health Center Inc. to develop a new facility in Racine, Wis., an area within Ryan’s district.”

The grant Ryan requested was directly funded by the Affordable Care Act,” the magazine pointed out. The Nation’s editorial said Ryan’s letter “is a stark reminder that even the most ardent opponents of Obamacare privately acknowledge many of the law’s benefits.”


Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
HardNReady12
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:13:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 65
Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States
(CNSNews.com) -Only 8 percent of Americans say they have a "great deal" of trust in the news media, according to a new Gallup poll.

That is down from 11 percent a year ago and is a record low for the 40 years that Gallup has been polling on the question.

See Gallup's analysis of the survey here.

Since 1972, Gallup has periodically asked respondents: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media--such as newspapers, T.V. and radio--when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly--a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

In the latest survey, conducted Sept. 6-9, in addition to the 8 percent who said they had a “great deal” of trust and confidence in the media another 32 percent said they had a “fair amount” of trust. This combined 40 percent who were generally trustful of the media was also the lowest percentage ever.

A year ago, in Sept. 2011, 11 percent told Gallup they had a "great deal" of trust and confidence in the media and 33 percent said they had a fair amount--for a combined 44 percent who generally trusted the media.

Meanwhile, in the poll released today, 39 percent said they had “not very much” trust and confidence in the media and 21 percent said they had “none at all"--making a combined all-time high of 60 percent who who were generally distrustful of the media.

After looking at Howard Stern's on the street interviews, let's hope these fools can't find the polls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ Four years ago these stupid people showed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53C2-b8BOLs
Four years ago Barry voters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s&feature=related
four years later they are still ignorant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s&feature=related

Really sad that these people get to vote.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:18:04 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
HardNReady12 wrote:
(CNSNews.com) -Only 8 percent of Americans say they have a "great deal" of trust in the news media, according to a new Gallup poll.

That is down from 11 percent a year ago and is a record low for the 40 years that Gallup has been polling on the question.

See Gallup's analysis of the survey here.

Since 1972, Gallup has periodically asked respondents: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media--such as newspapers, T.V. and radio--when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly--a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

In the latest survey, conducted Sept. 6-9, in addition to the 8 percent who said they had a “great deal” of trust and confidence in the media another 32 percent said they had a “fair amount” of trust. This combined 40 percent who were generally trustful of the media was also the lowest percentage ever.

A year ago, in Sept. 2011, 11 percent told Gallup they had a "great deal" of trust and confidence in the media and 33 percent said they had a fair amount--for a combined 44 percent who generally trusted the media.

Meanwhile, in the poll released today, 39 percent said they had “not very much” trust and confidence in the media and 21 percent said they had “none at all"--making a combined all-time high of 60 percent who who were generally distrustful of the media.

After looking at Howard Stern's on the street interviews, let's hope these fools can't find the polls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ Four years ago these stupid people showed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53C2-b8BOLs
Four years ago Barry voters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s&feature=related
four years later they are still ignorant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s&feature=related

Really sad that these people get to vote.


I agree. If only we could reduce the voting pool to myopic, theocratic evangelicals and nativist right-wingers, this country would be so much better off.
HardNReady12
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:20:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 65
Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States
beowulf69 wrote:
The presidential race is too close to call right now. Romney and Obama are in a dead heat and there are a lot of undecided voters. It's a pick your poison election.




(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

(CNSNews.com) -Only 8 percent of Americans say they have a "great deal" of trust in the news media, according to a new Gallup poll.

That is down from 11 percent a year ago and is a record low for the 40 years that Gallup has been polling on the question.

See Gallup's analysis of the survey here.

Since 1972, Gallup has periodically asked respondents: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media--such as newspapers, T.V. and radio--when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly--a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

In the latest survey, conducted Sept. 6-9, in addition to the 8 percent who said they had a “great deal” of trust and confidence in the media another 32 percent said they had a “fair amount” of trust. This combined 40 percent who were generally trustful of the media was also the lowest percentage ever.

A year ago, in Sept. 2011, 11 percent told Gallup they had a "great deal" of trust and confidence in the media and 33 percent said they had a fair amount--for a combined 44 percent who generally trusted the media.

Meanwhile, in the poll released today, 39 percent said they had “not very much” trust and confidence in the media and 21 percent said they had “none at all"--making a combined all-time high of 60 percent who who were generally distrustful of the media.


Howard Stern showed us how dumb Barry's voters really are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s&feature=related watch and learn.


LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:28:41 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Dumbasses come in large numbers from both sides of the political aisle, Hardnready12. The videos don't really make a point.
HardNReady12
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:39:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 65
Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.