|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 22, 2005 19:03:40 GMT -5
A THIRD TERM FOR CLINTON! (only in my dreams) Also, I'd like you to know that every one of you who decided on Bush is a complete and total moron who is obviously blind to society's problems. If the media hates bush so much, then why did he win? The answer: FOX News Corporation and southern religious bigots. If ANYONE read my post in the media thread, you would get where I'm coming from, but of course, you all prefer diversions and lies to the truth. Now I just have to wait and see this post ignored just like all the others I've made on the debate board. Or maybe it's because Bush has most of the right ideas (according to those who belive his ideas), where as Kerry had few. FOX News made Bush win? Don't make me laugh. A single news company doesn't have the power to determine an election. It would take an entire web of media to do that. And slowly but surely that's what's happening. Next election, I predict a liberal president by a slight margin, and depending on how many wars that president gets involved in, we will see a trend of increasingly liberal presidents by increasing margins of votes, and before ya know it we'll be standing in line for bread singing songs about how much we love our dictator (because not doing so will result in death). The only reason Bush won was because of Texas and the little states that are relatively unaffected by the media. But soon the media's icy claws will grip even those states... |
|
|
|
Post by Niccolo on May 22, 2005 22:03:47 GMT -5
YOU IGNORANT ****! DO YOU READ NOTHING I WRITE?
FOX is a giant web! It's the largest, most widely viewed media outlet that ever was! Read my post on the media thread! I go into it in detail! And what the hell do you mean, not reached my the media? It's not ****ing possible!
WERE YOU DROPPED ON YOUR ****ING HEAD?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 23, 2005 6:48:35 GMT -5
I don't care how large FOX news is, one single company can't change the political views of half the country's population. And even if they could, all forms of entertainment are liberally biased, no matter what company owns them. People in rural areas tend to watch less TV and aren't stupid enough to mindlessly follow celebrities. That's why they voted for Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by bad-monkey on May 23, 2005 13:01:06 GMT -5
since when is everything dominated by liberals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 23, 2005 14:55:47 GMT -5
I never said that, I said liberals get into the entertaimment industry very easily.
Liberalism is the parasite, and entertaimment is the host.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niccolo on May 23, 2005 15:25:23 GMT -5
You are an idiot. You won't listen to any points anyone makes. I'm pretty sure that about 50-100 of your posts are just saying how the liberals controll the media, when in fact the conservatives do.
Oh, and I suppose you're right, they (the rural folk) didn't mindlessly follow celebrities, the mindlessly followed what the president told them to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 23, 2005 15:42:35 GMT -5
So you think if Kerry was the incumbent, he would have gotten all of the votes from rural america? I doubt it.
And I will listen if for once you start talking like a normal person instead of rambling about Dick Cheney, George Bush, and FOX news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niccolo on May 23, 2005 17:17:28 GMT -5
Have you even read that post? Has anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 23, 2005 17:23:19 GMT -5
No, and whining about it won't get you anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by KiddoFreak on May 23, 2005 22:00:46 GMT -5
Demon's post was researched and well-written, and not to be offensive lobby, but many of your posts rely on personal opinion and not fact. Just because you don't agree with something doesnt mean you can ignore it. Now, back on topic:
I think that a good leader needs to have good speaking skills, or at least some form of charisma. Now, I thought that Kerry and Bush were both horrible speakers, personally. Kerry speaks as if he is always in a debate, on the edge of his seat, whereas Bush always talks like he's drunk. Now, I find that the best speakers are somewhere in between. If a leader can get my moderately tuned opinions to sway in any given direction, I'll vote for them. So far, Bush has done a better job of that, simply because he seems confident. I realize that speech isnt the most important thing in a leader, I just notice it off the bat.
|
|
|
|
Post by bad-monkey on May 24, 2005 12:54:41 GMT -5
uh-oh, here comes an opinion.....
i dont think how well they say a word has anything to do with them being a good leader. did u know wut he is talking about? did u understand it? then its fine. if he is doing a good job running the country leave him alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vash on May 24, 2005 12:58:49 GMT -5
uh-oh, here comes an opinion..... i dont think how well they say a word has anything to do with them being a good leader. did u know wut he is talking about? did u understand it? then its fine. if he is doing a good job running the country leave him alone. I agree, as long as your can understand them, then it really shouldn't matter how they talk. |
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 24, 2005 14:48:02 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I agree with bad-monkey and phantom-vash. A president who mispronounces words is still a good president. Think of it as comic relief.
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 24, 2005 15:25:05 GMT -5
yeah but a comic relief who can screw up our whole country!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 24, 2005 15:28:51 GMT -5
not if his only flaw is the mispronunciation of words! That won't screw up the country.
|
|
