Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    That seems like such a menial point to me though. "They say fair and balanced, but they aren't!"

    As far as the daytime people. MSNBC actually seems to be going more towards opinion lately. Their lineup is Schultz-Matthews-Olbermann-Maddow-O'donnell(starting Monday). They actually don't have an evening news show. I'm not familiar with who their lead anchor would be. Contessa Brewer? They tried anchoring election coverage with an Olbermann/Matthews combo which didn't work out.

    Oh. And my central thesis isn't really about MSNBC. It's just that Fox News leans right. But having a certain political sway doesn't really say that much, due to the fact that everyone (not just MSNBC) is going to have some bias. I don't think straight, right down the middle news is even possible. And I don't view that as problematic. People are smart enough to wade through everything, and find what they like/dislike and what they agree with and disagree with.
    Yeah, I have to agree with that bolded statement. It's called puffery, and it's to be expected in corporate advertising.

    Now, in the wake of the Colbert/Stewart rallies thread, I have to straighten this apparent inconsistency: First, Colbert and Stewart are comedians, so I expect, even encourage, them to highlight that FOX is not "fair and balanced." No problem there, as made clear in the other thread. Second, that FOX is quite clearly not "fair and balanced" despite its slogan is troubling, yes. And it does hurt FOX's reputation and is ripe for criticism.

    My point, echoing gcoll's, is that FOX's hypocrisy here isn't a move into endgame. Companies claim to be "the best" or "the world's greatest" all the time. The situation changes for a news media outlet, of course, but I just don't think it's enough, in itself, to discredit the entire organization and all its newscasters and pundits.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,181
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    My point, echoing gcoll's, is that FOX's hypocrisy here isn't a move into endgame. Companies claim to be "the best" or "the world's greatest" all the time. The situation changes for a news media outlet, of course, but I just don't think it's enough, in itself, to discredit the entire organization and all its newscasters and pundits.
    In reality, I did make a specific exception for Shepard Smith (who I referred to as Shep). However, the organization, because is purports to be a News organization, is discredited, when it donates to one political party such a significantly large donation $1,000,000 (institutional gifting), consistently brings on as regular contributors political fundraisers (Rove) for only one party, political candidates (although not officially so there is no legal problem that I allege) (Huckabee and Palin, both of whom also have PAC's that donate Republicans) and even has outright statements to raise money made by one of its hosts, and who Republican Candidates have stated that it is where they go to raise money to the exclusion of other "news" sites, not just network, even local. So yes, it is discredited as a news organization but it seems to do a heck of a job in party funding.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    In reality, I did make a specific exception for Shepard Smith (who I referred to as Shep). However, the organization, because is purports to be a News organization, is discredited, when it donates to one political party such a significantly large donation $1,000,000 (institutional gifting), consistently brings on as regular contributors political fundraisers (Rove) for only one party, political candidates (although not officially so there is no legal problem that I allege) (Huckabee and Palin, both of whom also have PAC's that donate Republicans) and even has outright statements to raise money made by one of its hosts, and who Republican Candidates have stated that it is where they go to raise money to the exclusion of other "news" sites, not just network, even local. So yes, it is discredited as a news organization but it seems to do a heck of a job in party funding.
    My earlier post wasn't necessarily directed at you, so forgive my omission of your Shep Smith exception.

    As for the rest ... yeah, that could pretty much do the trick. I'm a little more hesitant to tie the $1MM contribution from News Corp. directly to FOX, given the nature of subsidiaries and all, but it's poor form, at the very least, on the part of News Corp. But yeah, not that FOX can't or hasn't been discredited, just that the "fair and balanced" hypocrisy doesn't quite do it alone.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,581
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Just the bold part, if you look, you will see the active participation in Republican fund raising functions by hosts of programs on Fox, and by many of the regular participants. It is not just the going on and being interviewed. It is also the hosting of programs by actual candidates (although not presently declared) like Huckabee and Palin. Or the continual televising of Rove who runs a major GOP PAC. Or people like Beck saying on air to Michele Bachmann, "How can I help you raise money?" (twice) and "We should have a fund raiser for you Michele." (October 14,2009) on his program. I really could go on, seriously, but it would just be saying the same thing about many different people.
    I don't see what's wrong with any of the things you mention.

    Glen Beck is not an example I would point to when I talk about the merit of Fox News as a news channel. I'd list the names I've already mentioned. And I'd add Kirk Cameron, and Mike Wallace. And Major Garrett just left, but he was solid as well.

    You say you make an exception for Shep, but he's their top news guy. That's significant. And they do have some good, liberal contributors as well. Juan Williams is very solid. Possibly the most even tempered man on television. I don't know many black people who could take "go back to the porch" in stride, and not lose their cool about it. One of the most impressive things I've seen on TV.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver
    So yes, it is discredited as a news organization but it seems to do a heck of a job in party funding.
    What station is worthy of being credited as a news organization?

    What news entity in general? Whenever they do a poll of journalists, they find that 80% + favor the Democrats.

    That's what gets me whenever this conversation comes up. Conservatives have been complaining for years about bias in the media. Most of the media does lean left, but the one conservative outlet is the one that gets all the ****.
    Last edited by gcoll; 09-24-2010 at 05:40 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,181
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I don't see what's wrong with any of the things you mention.

    Glen Beck is not an example I would point to when I talk about the merit of Fox News as a news channel. I'd list the names I've already mentioned. And I'd add Kirk Cameron, and Mike Wallace. And Major Garrett just left, but he was solid as well.

    You say you make an exception for Shep, but he's their top news guy. That's significant. And they do have some good, liberal contributors as well. Juan Williams is very solid. Possibly the most even tempered man on television. I don't know many black people who could take "go back to the porch" in stride, and not lose their cool about it. One of the most impressive things I've seen on TV.


    What station is worthy of being credited as a news organization?

    What news entity in general? Whenever they do a poll of journalists, they find that 80% + favor the Democrats.
    I bet you meant Chris Wallace. I have to admit, I thought that Kirk Cameron was an actor and now is an evangelist so I have no opinion on him.

    As far as Chris Wallace, the only time I see him is on Sunday in a panel show, which strangely enough tends to have Juan in it.

    However, the point is not about what is worthy or not, because that gets into lots of areas, the topic (which I created to not hijack another thread) deals with contributions and fund raising by a purported news organizations. Since I am the one who started this thread, I am roping it back. If you want to start another thread about what makes a news reporting company worthy, I will try to contribute, but it is not what this one is about. Nor is it about leaning left or right or whatever libertarian is, because that, though threadworthy, is not the same thing as being a fund raiser for a political party while calling oneself a news organization.

    Nor is it about other kinds of businesses contributing to political parties and campaigns. They are not news organizations, and therefore, have no necessity to be fair and balanced beyond what might help them.

    This is about a company that calls itself Fox News, whose tagline is fair and balanced, who, contributed $1,000,000 to one party, who can actually provide a list of over 20 hosts and regular contributers who give money, or raise money, or are candidates themselves (where the programs are effectively giving campaign money), all on the Republican side. That they have a few people who you define as liberal, does not equal an equation.

    Frankly, although I am not making this case, so please do not hold me to defend it, I could make a better case for fairness on MSNBC by pointing out that Morning Joe is hosted by a genuine conservative Republican who has been mentioned as a possible political candidate. What liberal hosts a show on Fox that has a political theme? Morning Joe does just that. But more to the point, they don't host fundraisers for the Democrats, they don't give $1,000,000 to the Democratic Party. When the GE PAC does give money, it is pretty well even in distribution between the Democrats and the Republicans. My point is that Fox News is disqualified as a news organization, when it has a monetary interest in who wins elections. This is not about editorial policy, this is about monetary involvement in the outcome.

    edit I just figured out you meant Carl Cameron. You confused me.
    Last edited by cabernetluver; 09-24-2010 at 06:11 PM. Reason: figured out a wrong name
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,581
    vCash
    1500
    lol. I'm ****ing terrible with names. Yeah. Carl Cameron. Chris Wallace. Kirk Cameron, lol. I think Chris Wallace was even on TV as I got his name wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver
    Frankly, although I am not making this case, so please do not hold me to defend it, I could make a better case for fairness on MSNBC
    You really couldn't

    If Olbermann retires, and MSNBC gets a prime time news show....you could make a case.

    It's worthy to note that News Corp's PAC money is usually split up pretty evenly. With an outlier here and there. Murdoch gave a million to the California GOP in the early 90's. But the biggest contributor is actually Comcast. Who I think is in the process of buying MSNBC? Or something. There's something happening with Comcast and MSNBC. They gave more to Dems, but not by too bad of a margin. 60/40.

    News Corp actually gave more to the dems in the 90's. Then more to Repubs. Then it evened out a bit. Then the million. And I think they are foreign owned. Aren't they? They aren't an American company.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver
    My point is that Fox News is disqualified as a news organization, when it has a monetary interest in who wins elections
    GE has a monetary interest in green energy policy, which is much more enthusiastically supported by the Democrats.

    In terms of Fox News' monetary interest, I don't see how their interests are impacted by either party's success or failure. Fox News did well under Bush. They are doing well under Obama.
    Last edited by gcoll; 09-24-2010 at 07:20 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,181
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post

    GE has a monetary interest in green energy policy, which is much more enthusiastically supported by the Democrats.

    In terms of Fox News' monetary interest, I don't see how their interests are impacted by either party's success or failure. Fox News did well under Bush. They are doing well under Obama.
    First, it is not about contributions without the one sided context of $1,000,000 being given to one party, with nothing being given to its counterpart on anything close to that level. When GE has given money, its donations have been to both parties in substantially even numbers. That is the point.

    Second, Fox has a $1,000,000 monetary interest, so, I don't see how that does not equal monetary interest.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,763
    vCash
    1500
    I could have sworn News Corp made the donation. Last I checked News Corp was many things Fox just being one of them.

    Murdoch leans right so it is not as surprising as it sounds.

    If it were one candidate that would be one thing, it is for the Governors group. Maybe it was easier to do that than contribute 20K to each one running in each state.
    Last edited by Randy West; 09-24-2010 at 07:26 PM.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,181
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    I could have sworn News Corp made the donation. Last I checked News Corp was many things Fox just being one of them.

    Murdoch leans right so it is not as surprising as it sounds.

    If it were one candidate that would be one thing, it is for the Governors group. Maybe it was easier to do that than contribute 20K to each one running in each state.
    It is News Corp, but. That is the title that i started with, but, if you go back, you will see where it becomes Fox in attribution, besides, it is easier to type Fox.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,581
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    I could have sworn News Corp made the donation. Last I checked News Corp was many things Fox just being one of them.

    Murdoch leans right so it is not as surprising as it sounds.

    If it were one candidate that would be one thing, it is for the Governors group. Maybe it was easier to do that than contribute 20K to each one running in each state.
    I don't know. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia seems to be taking a hard right stance lately. Perhaps News Corp's influence does impact the content on its channels.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver
    First, it is not about contributions without the one sided context of $1,000,000 being given to one party, with nothing being given to its counterpart on anything close to that level. When GE has given money, its donations have been to both parties in substantially even numbers. That is the point.

    Second, Fox has a $1,000,000 monetary interest, so, I don't see how that does not equal monetary interest.
    I don't know. How are they gonna make money on that investment? Probably just a tax write off or something.

    But that's News Corp. Fox News didn't donate the million. Fox News' monetary interest is ratings. They get good ratings, they generate revenue, their parent company News Corp is happy.
    Last edited by gcoll; 09-24-2010 at 07:38 PM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,763
    vCash
    1500
    1 ActBlue $16,952,246 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
    2 AT&T Inc $3,137,879 48% 51% On the fence
    3 Honeywell International $2,937,760 54% 46% On the fence
    4 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $2,793,368 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
    5 Comcast Corp $2,759,952 67% 33% Strongly Democratic
    6 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $2,418,441 57% 43% Leans Democratic
    7 American Assn for Justice $2,310,200 97% 3% Solidly Democratic
    8 Boeing Co $2,240,667 60% 40% Leans Democratic
    9 Elliott Management $2,230,356 2% 98% Solidly Republican
    10 Club for Growth $2,165,166 0% 90% Strongly Republican
    11 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $2,144,800 99% 0% Solidly Democratic
    12 Lockheed Martin $2,134,120 55% 45% On the fence
    13 American Bankers Assn $2,126,080 39% 61% Leans Republican
    14 Operating Engineers Union $2,122,765 89% 11% Strongly Democratic
    15 National Assn of Realtors $2,031,368 57% 43% Leans Democratic
    16 International Assn of Fire Fighters $2,001,300 82% 18% Strongly Democratic
    17 General Electric $1,945,676 62% 38% Leans Democratic
    18 American Federation of Teachers $1,914,320 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
    19 Teamsters Union $1,861,760 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
    20 American Crystal Sugar $1,843,550 67% 33% Strongly Democratic
    21 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $1,787,050 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
    22 Credit Union National Assn $1,775,593 57% 43% Leans Democratic
    23 Laborers Union $1,753,900 96% 4% Solidly Democratic
    24 New York Life Insurance $1,748,196 58% 42% Leans Democratic
    25 Goldman Sachs $1,740,527 45% 55% On the fence
    26 Raytheon Co $1,729,027 54% 46% On the fence
    27 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $1,727,400 84% 16% Strongly Democratic
    28 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $1,680,752 45% 55% On the fence
    29 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $1,678,315 95% 5% Solidly Democratic
    30 PricewaterhouseCoopers $1,651,448 44% 56% Leans Republican
    31 Microsoft Corp $1,628,529 58% 42% Leans Democratic
    32 Berkshire Hathaway $1,599,871 47% 53% On the fence
    33 United Parcel Service $1,597,865 44% 55% On the fence
    34 National Community Pharmacists Assn $1,591,883 62% 38% Leans Democratic
    35 AFLAC Inc $1,578,250 47% 53% On the fence
    36 Carpenters & Joiners Union $1,573,125 83% 17% Strongly Democratic
    37 American Dental Assn $1,535,600 51% 48% On the fence
    38 Ironworkers Union $1,483,450 97% 3% Solidly Democratic
    39 National Assn of Home Builders $1,465,050 40% 60% Leans Republican
    40 Verizon Communications $1,460,882 56% 43% Leans Democratic
    41 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $1,458,933 44% 55% On the fence
    42 EMILY's List $1,455,234 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
    43 National Auto Dealers Assn $1,419,650 50% 50% On the fence
    44 Northrop Grumman $1,415,415 54% 45% On the fence
    45 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $1,400,250 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
    46 Bank of America $1,393,586 38% 61% Leans Republican
    47 Communications Workers of America $1,351,600 96% 2% Solidly Democratic
    48 American Hospital Assn $1,338,850 72% 28% Strongly Democratic
    49 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $1,304,650 51% 49% On the fence
    50 Service Employees International Union $1,257,165 100% -1% Solidly Democratic
    51 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $1,225,900 58% 42% Leans Democratic
    52 Wal-Mart Stores $1,223,193 49% 51% On the fence
    53 Akin, Gump et al $1,216,760 74% 26% Strongly Democratic
    54 Union Pacific Corp $1,214,400 52% 48% On the fence
    55 Ernst & Young $1,191,941 52% 48% On the fence
    56 Patton Boggs LLP $1,191,269 76% 23% Strongly Democratic
    57 Every Republican is Crucial PAC $1,184,596 0% 100% Solidly Republican
    58 General Dynamics $1,180,773 62% 37% Leans Democratic
    59 Pfizer Inc $1,175,952 56% 44% On the fence
    60 CSX Corp $1,174,600 59% 40% Leans Democratic
    61 Air Line Pilots Assn $1,166,450 87% 13% Strongly Democratic
    62 National Assn of Letter Carriers $1,152,850 96% 4% Solidly Democratic
    63 National Education Assn $1,145,663 92% 7% Solidly Democratic
    64 American Society of Anesthesiologists $1,128,960 42% 57% Leans Republican
    65 Morgan Stanley $1,116,863 43% 55% On the fence
    66 United Transportation Union $1,110,915 89% 11% Strongly Democratic
    67 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $1,110,000 53% 47% On the fence
    68 United Auto Workers $1,106,400 100% -0% Solidly Democratic
    69 JPMorgan Chase & Co $1,075,488 51% 48% On the fence
    70 American College of Radiology $1,073,000 51% 49% On the fence
    71 Koch Industries $1,070,900 13% 87% Strongly Republican
    72 WPP Group $1,037,298 48% 51% On the fence
    73 American Health Care Assn $999,682 66% 33% Leans Democratic
    74 American Postal Workers Union $989,000 99% 1% Solidly Democratic
    75 Citigroup Inc $979,644 50% 50% On the fence
    76 American Optometric Assn $963,650 74% 26% Strongly Democratic
    77 American Assn of Orthopaedic Surgeons $959,700 42% 58% Leans Republican
    78 DLA Piper $957,622 70% 29% Strongly Democratic
    79 Interpublic Group $953,075 82% 18% Strongly Democratic
    80 FMR Corp $942,690 52% 48% On the fence
    81 Wells Fargo $938,257 36% 64% Leans Republican
    82 KPMG International $926,353 51% 49% On the fence
    83 Home Depot $921,665 33% 67% Leans Republican
    84 Norfolk Southern $918,160 62% 38% Leans Democratic
    85 AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America $912,309 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
    86 American College of Emergency Physicians $907,300 58% 42% Leans Democratic
    87 K&L Gates $893,634 64% 36% Leans Democratic
    88 Altria Group $891,750 36% 64% Leans Republican
    89 United Technologies $889,259 58% 42% Leans Democratic
    90 BRIDGE PAC $885,000 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
    91 Amgen Inc $882,009 59% 41% Leans Democratic
    92 Greenberg Traurig LLP $879,748 69% 30% Strongly Democratic
    93 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $876,250 38% 62% Leans Republican
    94 Freedom Project $868,187 1% 99% Solidly Republican
    95 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $863,167 62% 36% Leans Democratic
    96 UNITE HERE $854,000 99% 1% Solidly Democratic
    97 Investment Co Institute $836,775 54% 46% On the fence
    98 Blue Dog PAC $835,000 99% 1% Solidly Democratic
    99 American Federation of Govt Employees $822,690 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
    100 Merck & Co $821,588 53% 47% On the fence


    http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

    Top 100 overall donors so far in 2010.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,181
    vCash
    1500
    gcoll, you confused me with your question about ownership. Both Comcast and News Corp are publicly traded.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,763
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    It is News Corp, but. That is the title that i started with, but, if you go back, you will see where it becomes Fox in attribution, besides, it is easier to type Fox.
    So I am still not understanding the problem. You say it is a News Corp donation, how then does it turn into a donation from Fox? Even if the donation was from Fox why would it matter?
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,181
    vCash
    1500
    The point was made earlier, that it is not about donations per se, but about companies that are in the news business making donations. Corporate donations are something we could address in another thread, but this is a unique business. They literally are protected by the Constitution by name (first Amendment) and as such hold a unique place in our society. That is why I am singling them out.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,763
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    The point was made earlier, that it is not about donations per se, but about companies that are in the news business making donations. Corporate donations are something we could address in another thread, but this is a unique business. They literally are protected by the Constitution by name (first Amendment) and as such hold a unique place in our society. That is why I am singling them out.
    I tried finding that brought up in the thread before I asked but must have missed it.

    I added the donations link for 2010 because I thought it was interesting reading and on topic.

    I thought the first Amendment protected everyone, once again confused sorry.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •