For those that watch CNN...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo

Yeah, it's anti-CNN, you retarded, bribed idiot. I'm not sure, but when I make 100,000$ a year, I don't want 20,000$ of my money going to some bum that's too lazy to get a job. Of course these people are mad, and taunting the people at these tea parties is going to not only destroy your ratings, but probably result them in actually killing you. I'm surprised the crowd didn't try to lynch her right then and there.

I watched this exact clip on Fox, and was completely outraged at it. There's obviously SOMETHING wrong is there's thousand and thousands of people gathering at these "tea" parties.

I didn't think she was THAT rude. And on the case of giving $20,000 it's not to "some bum that's too lazy to get a job" especially with this economy where you just CAN'T get a job. That argument doesn't work RIGHT now.

Jay.J wrote:

I didn't think she was THAT rude. And on the case of giving $20,000 it's not to "some bum that's too lazy to get a job" especially with this economy where you just CAN'T get a job. That argument doesn't work RIGHT now.

Yeah, I was going to add that, after I thought about it while I was trying to fall asleep.

Besides the bitch didn't seem to understand the connection between spending now and taxing later. These people aren't pissed because they're going to be taxed, they're pissed because their children are going to be taxed. Saying the guy is eligible for a 400$ check is like saying:

"HEY GUESS WHAT I JUST BOUGHT YOU A 400$ GIFT CARD WITH YOUR 2 YEAR OLD CHILD'S CREDIT CARD. OH I ALSO BOUGHT A LOT OF STUFF FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND SPENT A TON ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. HOPEFULLY HE WON'T MIND PAYING IT OFF OVER HIS LIFETIME, THE INTEREST ALONE WILL BE OVER 100,000$"

In a cheerful manner as if he should be grateful.

Pythagoras wrote:

Besides the bitch didn't seem to understand the connection between spending now and taxing later. These people aren't pissed because they're going to be taxed, they're pissed because their children are going to be taxed. Saying the guy is eligible for a 400$ check is like saying:

"HEY GUESS WHAT I JUST BOUGHT YOU A 400$ GIFT CARD WITH YOUR 2 YEAR OLD CHILD'S CREDIT CARD. OH I ALSO BOUGHT A LOT OF STUFF FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND SPENT A TON ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. HOPEFULLY HE WON'T MIND PAYING IT OFF OVER HIS LIFETIME, THE INTEREST ALONE WILL BE OVER 100,000$"

In a cheerful manner as if he should be grateful.

I'd like a more negative reponse, (meaning you'll argue that she's right, etc.), thanks,

(edit) Oh wait...you're one of the ones that actually doesn't support CNN, right? I think I remember you saying don't complain about Fox, look at CNN...or something.

Yes, FOX is less to the right than CNN is to the left. It is now obviously apparent, so the rest of the people on the forum's can come around.

Pythagoras wrote:

Yes, FOX is less to the right than CNN is to the left. It is now obviously apparent, so the rest of the people on the forum's can come around.

I'm confused. Less to the right than CNN is to the left, (wrong?), which means that CNN is more wrong than Fox is right?

I guess that's kind of correct...

(edit) Well, where does that leave Fox? I'm STILL confused,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN823dUu6KA&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=47

I have no idea what this plays, I just YouTubed "Fox bias". Don't really care either - was watching the first video, and the blonde is smoking hot.

Carry on.

Pyth is saying that Fox is less to the right, than CNN/MSNBC is to the left.

CNN - X
Fox - Y
MSNBC - Z

|------Z------------------X-----------------|-----Y---------------------------------|
Left__________________________Balanced_____________________Right

Lol, My mom went to one of the tea parties near where i live. She went with my uncle. The idea of screwing the children over in order to "fix" the current economic situaion is kind of a bad idea (morally & logisticly speaking).

Jay.J wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN823dUu6KA&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=47

I have no idea what this plays, I just YouTubed "Fox bias". Don't really care either - was watching the first video, and the blonde is smoking hot.

Carry on.

Pyth is saying that Fox is less to the right, than CNN/MSNBC is to the left.

CNN - X
Fox - Y
MSNBC - Z

|------Z------------------X-----------------|-----Y---------------------------------|
Left__________________________Balanced_____________________Right

That video was like a flame war. I'm not really sure what to make of it.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/april-16-2009/#clip160688

Total win clip.

Okay... you win. Fox news is more Fair and Balanced than CNN and every other news network. But if Fair and Balanced leads to having a personality like that incredibly hot but woman that would not listen and be incredibly hypocritical or to having a personality like Bill O'Reilly then, DEAR GOD, I don't want to be Fair and Balanced.

And that video didn't work for "my region" (the second one) and probably because of copyright issues. Clearly, Canada is far more socialist than America is. (Yes this is a joke)

O, well I'd give you a clip that Americans can watch, but I wouldn't know if it's the right once since I can't view shit from America. =(

AquaAscension wrote:

Okay... you win. Fox news is more Fair and Balanced than CNN and every other news network. But if Fair and Balanced leads to having a personality like that incredibly hot but woman that would not listen and be incredibly hypocritical or to having a personality like Bill O'Reilly then, DEAR GOD, I don't want to be Fair and Balanced.

And that video didn't work for "my region" (the second one) and probably because of copyright issues. Clearly, Canada is far more socialist than America is. (Yes this is a joke)

Do you even watch Billy?

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

The reporter was the woman, not the guy.

...I can't believe I'm saying this. Clearly, you must've meant "she".

No you're an idiot Bart. (Nicest way possible). Rapid is saying that why are you going to badger someone with a BABY.

The GUY had a baby, and the women REPORTER was being a DICK for picking on him since he had one. Doesn't matter if you disagree with him - you don't just badger him for his beliefs in front of his baby.

Jay.J wrote:

No you're an idiot Bart. (Nicest way possible). Rapid is saying that why are you going to badger someone with a BABY.

The GUY had a baby, and the women REPORTER was being a DICK for picking on him since he had one. Doesn't matter if you disagree with him - you don't just badger him for his beliefs in front of his baby.

Sorry for bumping, but I never saw this post...

If I'm an idiot, then he's blasted moron. (not really, but I had to say something to that)

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

Grammatically, this would mean that the "he" and "him" in the sentence would be referencing to the reporter, (whom is the "she"), due to the lack of transition to the guy.

Pardon me for someone else's mistake. Clearly, that makes me an idiot.

And I completely agree.

I don't think it was gramatically incorrect, just ambiguous - however since "he" was said and there was only one (possibly 2 if you could the baby) guy(s) there...it wasn't that unclear.

RapidFireOmega wrote something wrong. He called me an idiot for his own mistake.

Who do you think he and his refer to, grammatically? He, you would think, would refer to RapidFireOmega, but infact, it is reference to you. You would have no idea of this, and it is grammatically incorrect because there is no proper transition from person to person. His, you would think, would reference to him, but since he actually references to you, it would have to reference to you, but by your logic, it can reference to him without be grammatically incorrect.

Are you telling me that we should all write sentences like this, daily? Do you have any idea how confusing that would be?

I just feel the need to point out that Jay is such a socialist.

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

You're making this so complicated Bart. Look back at it. Even quoted it for you...

He had his 2 year old with him. In reference to the Video, there are three people. One, a female, and two males. He had HIS two year old with him. There's only one child, so it has to be the father, since there is only one male who could be a father. Him is in reference to the same person.... He/His/Him all refer to the same person....And since there's only one person that fits, it must be them .

Your correction doesn't even make sense. "I can't believe I'm saying this but don't you mean she" or something....That would make it just wrong, since the reporter doesn't have a 2 year old. Just because the first sentence is about something, and the second sentence is not doesn't make him wrong...It's understandable, you just misunderstood. Again, it's ambiguous, but EASILY able to be figured out.

Jay.J wrote:

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

He had his 2 year old with him. In reference to the Video, there are three people. One, a female, and two males. He had HIS two year old with him. There's only one child, so it has to be the father, since there is only one male who could be a father. Him is in reference to the same person.... He/His/Him all refer to the same person....And since there's only one person that fits, it must be them .

Your correction doesn't even make sense. "I can't believe I'm saying this but don't you mean she" or something....That would make it just wrong, since the reporter doesn't have a 2 year old. Just because the first sentence is about something, and the second sentence is not doesn't make him wrong...It's understandable, you just misunderstood. Again, it's ambiguous, but EASILY able to be figured out.

The problem is that it is grammatically, refering to the reporter, regardless of who is there. He did NOT include a transitition from person to person.

Jay.J is being silly. He had his two year old with him.

Who do you think I'm referencing to? You, or some unknown, unmentioned person?

Use common sense. Seriously, just THINK about it for a second. Of COURSE you can figure it out, but that doesn't mean it's grammatically correct. Do you see people writing like that, daily? No, people actually REFERENCE to them before using such terms as "he/she, it, his/her", etc. They have to. Otherwise, you have either no idea who they're talking about, or you think they're still talking about the last person mentioned.

Ain't isn't a word, but you can still figure out, (roughly), what it means. Doesn't mean it's correct.

Bartimaeus wrote:

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

The reporter was the woman, not the guy.

...I can't believe I'm saying this. Clearly, you must've meant "she".

Bart, you're just rationalizing that you were wrong because you DIDN'T figure it out the first time and had to be told.

Quote :

Jay.J is being silly. He had his two year old with him.

With that sentence, there is nothing else with it. It's ambiguous, with Rapids post he had a video to go along with it. There's only one person it could make sense with. Your correction doesn't make sense. See what I'm getting at?

Jay.J wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. He had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

The reporter was the woman, not the guy.

...I can't believe I'm saying this. Clearly, you must've meant "she".

Bart, you're just rationalizing that you were wrong because you DIDN'T figure it out the first time and had to be told.

Quote :

Jay.J is being silly. He had his two year old with him.

With that sentence, there is nothing else with it. It's ambiguous, with Rapids post he had a video to go along with it. There's only one person it could make sense with. Your correction doesn't make sense. See what I'm getting at?

No, I don't, because grammatically, he is referencing to the reporter. I don't give a crap what he said before that or after. It's incorrect. PERIOD. It doesn't matter if posted later saying who was who, because he should've said "the/that guy". He is referencing to an unknown, unmentioned person, and that's what makes it incorrect.

I don't understand the first part of your post. I DID mess up in that sentence, yes, I should've corrected him in the way I am now.

Also, look at my edited post:

Of COURSE you can figure it out, but that doesn't mean it's grammatically correct. Do you see people writing like that, daily? No, people actually REFERENCE to them before using such terms as "he/she, it, his/her", etc. They have to. Otherwise, you have either no idea who they're talking about, or you think they're still talking about the last person mentioned.

(edit) It doesn't even matter if he posted the video. Because grammatically, he is still talking about the reporter, (which is the last person he mentioned before using "he").