http://www.gunbanobama.com/default.a...2e929683&t=Way
Printable View
I would have believed something more from Fox, nice BS site.
How did i know you'd be the first to reply
Look up the votes on there tho... they're legit
Some of the votes were counted when he wasnt even in the Senate? Looks like some real legit stuff. When you get sites like that, then you get a small portion of the actual truth and more to the bills he voted for. He isnt going to take your guns away, some just like to think that because Mccain and the NRA said so. I personally dont give a damn about guns and IMO most of America is more worried about things like Healthcare, Economy, Iraq etc.
what makes a site "legit"? anything ending in .com is commercial websites and anyone can make one. Do you believe EVERYTHING CNN or NBC says?
Hm well the NOBAMA is pretty much a dead give away. A site that biased that is solely dedicated to make a certain person look bad, isnt going to give you the whole story or really half of it. Call MSNBC biased all you want, but there arent Kill Mccain banners hanging anywheres.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what makes a site "legit"? </div></div>
Whatever agrees with one's dogma! The libs have held a chokehold on news for 40 years, and absolutely panic when challenged. Of all the media stations, FOX is the only one with any semblance of conservatism, yet the libs cry foul because of FOX. They're never happy til they have a monopoly - they own CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, CSPAN. They merely want to quiet all dissenting voices, and won't rest til they do.
This wasnt from FAUX, so your "point" doesnt really mean anything on this particular site.
The only legit sites are those that praise Barry and take no issue with his history.
All other sites are racist hate-mongering sites worthy of the death penalty.
fox doesnt ahve kill obama signs on there website.
i honestly dont think i have saw any articles in favor of mccain on cnn... somethin you say is neutral. i havent really explored cnn for them though so i could be wrong
And you think just the opposite.
Cant deny that a lot arent like that either.
you still havent answered my question... what makes a site legit. i didnt ask why isnt that site legit.
I beg to differ. Read the quote I responded to. Anyone will seek answers that support the predisposed leanings. Takes a truly open mind to consider others.
And if libs aren't trying to quench opposing views, why are they currently entertaning a reconsideration of the fairness law? It's merely an attempt to close the mouths of anyone who opposes their dogma.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only legit sites are those that praise Barry and take no issue with his history.
All other sites are racist hate-mongering sites worthy of the death penalty. </div></div>
Exactly right. No basis, no merit, no substantiation. Close-mindedness at it's bect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A site that biased that is solely dedicated to make a certain person look bad, isnt going to give you the whole story or really half of it. </div></div>
I did answer it. A legit site would be the opposite for the most part.
whats the opposite?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only legit sites are those that praise Barry and take no issue with his history.
All other sites are racist hate-mongering sites worthy of the death penalty. </div></div>
Exactly right. No basis, no merit, no substantiation. Close-mindedness at it's bect.</div></div>
How can a person who openly admits he is as close-minded as they come criticize anyone else on being close-minded? Seriously.
you tell us raider lol
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">whats the opposite? </div></div>
A site that isnt dedicated to smear another, doesnt use NO-and the person in its headline, sorta gives both sides or doesnt try and spin every word. All of the above.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you tell us raider lol </div></div>
I am 100 times more open minded than most on here about the topics we talk about. Conservatives have no argument when it comes to being open-minded about most things.
well then most of the news stations like cnn, nbc, fox is very biased so pretty much the stuff you post from them are bs in other words. i mean that what u said.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">whats the opposite? </div></div>
A site that isnt dedicated to smear another, doesnt use NO-and the person in its headline, sorta gives both sides or doesnt try and spin every word. All of the above. </div></div>
No such site exists. They are all developed for a purpose - to promote a political ideology, a personal agenda, etc. That's because we all have personal leanings and bents.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am 100 times more open minded than most on here about the topics we talk about. </div></div>
quote of year
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only legit sites are those that praise Barry and take no issue with his history.
All other sites are racist hate-mongering sites worthy of the death penalty. </div></div>
Exactly right. No basis, no merit, no substantiation. Close-mindedness at it's bect.</div></div>
Least I admit it, and that places me far ahead of you. You're as close-minded as anyone I've ever known, yet won't consider it, much less acknowledge it.
How can a person who openly admits he is as close-minded as they come criticize anyone else on being close-minded? Seriously. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am 100 times more open minded than most on here about the topics we talk about. </div></div>
quote of year </div></div>
quote of century!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">whats the opposite? </div></div>
A site that isnt dedicated to smear another, doesnt use NO-and the person in its headline, sorta gives both sides or doesnt try and spin every word. All of the above. </div></div>
No such site exists. They are all developed for a purpose - to promote a political ideology, a personal agenda, etc. That's because we all have personal leanings and bents. </div></div>
Yes and No. There are some sites who are a lot less biased than others, you dont see Mccains name in CNN or MSNBC.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boney</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dick_Vitale</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am 100 times more open minded than most on here about the topics we talk about. </div></div>
quote of year </div></div>
quote of century! </div></div>
I didnt say I was 100% open minded about every little thing, I said I am compared to some on here- political forum and people like you.
And nice sig [richard], a little obsessive over another poster are we?
only those making a fool of themselves... seeing as how we dont have one other than you i guess you could say that.
I'd really be talking.
pretty sure i have had my time on here rookie. i might not fluff as you do but i do read most of the stuff on here. How many people you see running around me sayin im the worst poster on here and im dumb and should stop post... ok now lets ask how many are asking you that stuff [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
btw whats a richard [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
I admit I'm close minded, because I believe in right and wrong, moral and immoral, some things aren't compromisable. There are absolutes. There are things I'll never compromise on. Right is right and wrong is wrong.If that makes me close-minded, so be it - I'll never apologize for it. But I am willing to listen to others' views. I have listened to alot of views, read books from Marx to Dostoyevsky, Freud, Constantin, Francis of Assissi. My point is that I haven't arrived at my belief system haphazardly. It's come from reading, thought, prayer, and consideration - all considered through the lens of experience. That's why I am close-minded - I'm where I'm at because of tough decisions, work, and thought. And that's why I'm also reluctant to beat someone over the head with what I "know" to be truth. IMO, we're all close-minded - that is the element that defines who we are. One's ideology is based on new concepts being filtered through personal experienes.
Fluffing? Cant really accuse me of that. I've been an easy target because of the original reason I came on here in the first place and have screwed up some but a lot is I dont agree with others and I am wrong for doing so. Btw I dont lose much sleep over the harsh words and dont take much on here seriously. I dont hate anyone on here at all, the opposite probably isnt true but I dont let differences on opinions on here really get to me and make me actually dislike someone. Some do though.
yes you post several articles from cnn that goes uncommented.
what was your original reason for coming on here... enlighten us?
Oh I apologize for not sending a PM to all the posters threatening them if they dont comment on the thread. That happens to a lot of threads posted by a lot of posters. So not sure what your point is.
The whole thing with Phil, you can go back and look at the first posts.
several do but we went over fluffs a long time ago...
can someone bring back the little video of what a fluff is for us lol?
So the libs try to quench opposing views, and I must forget, when did they try to label anybody who didn't agree with the Iraq war a terrorist? That is as much of an attempt to keep an opposing view down as it gets in my opinion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of the votes were counted when he wasnt even in the Senate? Looks like some real legit stuff. When you get sites like that, then you get a small portion of the actual truth and more to the bills he voted for. He isnt going to take your guns away, some just like to think that because Mccain and the NRA said so. I personally dont give a damn about guns and IMO most of America is more worried about things like Healthcare, Economy, Iraq etc. </div></div>
The NRA gives Obama an "F" which is enough for me. Are they biased? Sure! But you'll find that they endorse ANY candidate that is pro-gun whether they're Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. For example, they endorse both Virginia candidates Gilmore and Warner, because they both have proven records as supporters of gun owners rights. Rick Boucher, a Dem, gets a constant "A+" from the NRA.
Let's face it, Obama is claiming anything that he thinks will get him votes. He recognizes the impact that the NRA has on voters, so he's trying to claim he is a supporter of our rights as gun owners. That is pure BS, as his past proves otherwise. This tactic of his is repeated in other areas as well, again proving that he is still the least qualified person to ever run for Prez and is hoping people are desperate enough to swallow his lies.
Just like Mccain says he's not like Bush, but is pure BS because his voting record says he is?