Unfortunately, the problem is in how grandstanding amendments are written. The underlying bill orders the executive branch to stop imposing delays on the Keystone Pipeline.
Opponents of the pipeline wrote the amendment, and they're trying to attach it to the main bill so that in order to vote for the pipeline, they have to vote for "Global Warming is real." Not voting is essentially a vote against the pipeline.
I'd bet this guy is teaching the kids VB Classic (formerly VB6), simply because there's a lot of high school CS textbooks that target it.
The benefit to teaching the kids VB is that they get to see something on the screen that they built from scratch... right away. The benefit isn't to teach them something that they can take right into a job.
Also, I think the VB6 IDE defaults to compiling to an intermediate language that runs in a runtime. It's possible to compile it down to bare metal, but I don't think that's the default.
You sound like you're not an American, so let me explain to you how this works.
In America, you can't be "kicked out" of a political party.
The reason to register for a political party so you can vote in that party's primary. For some offices (not this guy's office) they have what's called a primary election where the people from each party pick the best member of their party to run in the real election. So you have members of the Democrat party picking the best Democrat and members of the Republican party picking the best Republican, and then they run against each other in the general election. (If you're not registered with a party, you usually can't vote in the primary but can vote in the general election.)
One office that has a primary process is the Presidency. In 2008, the two best Democrats (as judged by the party) were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama won the primary and ran for (and won) the Presidency. Hillary Clinton didn't stop being a Democrat. In fact, she'll probably win their primaries in 2016.
For other offices, like the election this guy won, the parties each just pick a guy. The Democrat party picked someone other than this guy and told all the Democrats to vote for the candidate they picked. This guy ran anyway, and through his own campaigning, won anyway. He didn't stop being a Democrat just because his party picked somebody else to run in this election.
RE: Obamacare, Democrats refused to negotiate with Republicans, so all the Republicans voted against it.
RE: Amnesty, some Republicans were/are for amnesty and some were/are against it. A sufficient number were for a comprise along the lines of "actually enforce immigration laws STARTING RIGHT NOW to keep new illegal immigrants from entering. Then, once we're sure the new enforcement is being enforced, we can amnesty the illegal immigrants who are already here." The Democrats wouldn't go for this, so Obama implemented the amnesty unilaterally. No negotiations or compromise involved.
RE: Birth Control, what are you talking about? Some Republicans want to make oral contraceptives available over the counter (without a prescription), but they haven't gotten to the "propose a law to enact it" part yet. There needs to be a bill first before they can negotiate.
The Choudary idiot can't stop running his mouth, and he is given amazing latitude.
This is a feature, not a bug. Choudary is a freaking NUTCASE, and the whole world knows it now because of what he said and what he persists in saying. Kudos to USA Today for digging this guy up and handing him a megaphone. The idea that the punishment for blasphemy should be death is antithetical to western values, and we should be scared of anyone (or any group) that's in favor of this.
It's the same with Holocaust deniers. It's the same with flag burners. As far as I'm concerned, the First Ammendment just makes it easier to calibrate your filter so you can ignore the dopes.
People do not like the Citizens United verdict because it allows corporations to donate unlimited money to political campaigns...
No, GP was right. The only thing the ruling legalized was groups other than the campaigns running ads. Outside groups (like corporations, labor unions, and civic organizations like Citizens United) are now allowed to run ads closer to the election date, but they're still not allowed to coordinate with the actual campaigns.
Look at the images on this page. The 2008 ones are the current revision. Notice specifically the text that says "FLAMELESS RATION HEATERS ARE PROHIBITED ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES UNLESS SEALED IN ORIGINAL MRE MENU BAG."
Or, in non-all caps, it's illegal to open an MRE container on an airplane, because then you'll have access to the chemical heater.
It will make marksmanship training easier because the instructor can see the shooter's sight picture, and tell the shooter to make corrections based on that.
Those figures are highly misleading. If you count all "executive actions," rather than just ones the President decided to call "executive orders," Obama comes out way ahead.
Part of the problem with Net Neutrality is that a bunch of groups use the name to mean different things. You, in presumably good faith, saw "Net Neutrality" and meant "Title II reclassification." I, also in good faith, meant it in the sense of "regulated settlement free peering," which is the condition that the FCC imposed on Comcast, but for the moment, few other companies. (Comcast wants that regulation extended to its competitors as well.)
Way out on the wacko scale, you have people trying to impose the now-discredited "Fairness Doctrine" on the Internet, and calling THAT Net Neutrality. There are people out there saying that every X times you type Fox News into your browser, it should bring you to NPR instead. To some people, that's net neutrality.
Still wondering why we can't have tax id used to authenticate messaging for such comment sites. I mean, like that's a guaranteed unique identifier, non? Its not like you're not putting your name/address on the comment anyway are you?
Isn't the tax ID used for most individuals their Social Security numbers? Putting that on comments (which obviously need to be made public) is an invitation to identity theft.
It also doesn't solve the claimed problem. Groups putting out form letters would just include a field for SSN. Then you'd have a bunch of near identical comments with different social security numbers.
It also doesn't show that it's a real problem. The Constitution says that citizens are allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances, right? What is a petition except a letter asking for the government to do something with a bunch of citizens signing it, ALL OF WHOM USE THE SAME WORDING? Why is the fact that they all use the same wording a disqualifier in the first place?
I'm sure Comcast and AT&T would be more than willing to give the FCC a fast lane for comments arguing against net neutrality.
Comcast is pro-NN because Net Neutrality was imposed on them as a condition of their merger with NBC. They want their competitors to be hamstrung by the same NN rules that they are.
I never said "Republicans are statistically more likely to be racist".
with this one
The only thing I said was that there is a correlation between racism and conservatism... That means that if you take a random sampling of people who identify as having conservative ideologies, they will be statistically more likely to also hold racist beliefs.
(emphasis mine). Can you explain the difference?
"One of the biggest pushers of the second idea ["Old white men can't look out for the interests of minorities, so minorities vote for people of the same skin color as them"] in the Democratic Party is Al Sharpton"
In the same way that one of the biggest pushers of the 2nd idea in the GOP is Rush Limbaugh.
I devoted an entire post to Al Sharpton supporting the idea that white people won't look out for black people with quotes straight from Sharpton's mouth. You're just asserting that... what, exactly? Are you claiming that Rush Limbaugh is telling Republicans that they SHOULD do things to screw Republicans? That they should be? Some kind of inverse or converse? You didn't bother to make an argument here, and are just relying on people to connect RUSH LIMBAUGH = BAD like he's Emmanuel Goldstein or something. Idiot. If you want to claim someone says racist things, you should really give an example.
I also can't square
Seeing as how I didn't say ANYTHING about the context of the Furugson study, it's kinda hard to imagine how I would be lying about it.
with
That means that if you take a random sampling of people who identify as having conservative ideologies, they will be statistically more likely to also hold racist beliefs...If you would like some actual scientific reading on the association between ideology, intelligence, and race views, might I recommend:
Furguson, M.J. & Hassin, R.R. (2007). On the automatic association between American and aggression for news watchers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1632-1647.
Your entire argument, every time, boils down to "I didn't say the things I said, and so you're wrong and I'm right. Here's an ad homonym for your two minutes hate." Enjoy looking like a moron for the rest of your time on the internet.
"It's ridiculous that we have to have a conversation premised on "ZOMG Republicans are racist" every time there's a news story about Democrats saying something racist, but I guess we're in to this."
Actually, we weren't, at least, not until you decided to have this conversation. The only thing I said was that there is a correlation between racism and conservatism. That doesn't mean that every Republican is racist, or that any specific Democrats isn't racist. That means that if you take a random sampling of people who identify as having conservative ideologies, they will be statistically more likely to also hold racist beliefs.
Again, we're talking about a Democrat who said something racist. REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS STORY, but every time it's news that a Democrat says something racist, we have to have a conversation about how Republicans are "statistically more likely to be racist." (You're lying about that by the way.) Why is that?
Seriously, Ben Shapiro and Breitbart are your best sources? That's like deciding what college to go to based on National Lampoons movies.
There's no Shapiro interpretation in my post, just his recounting of facts. If you'd like to argue against the facts that Shapiro brings to the table (i.e. claim Shapiro is misquoting Sharpton) that would be fine. Since you're not, this is a dopey ad homonym attack that does nothing except distract from the point. I'd appreciate it if you could address my point.
My point is that in practice, the Democratic Party earns a lot of influence by convincing minorities that "Republicans are all old, rich, white men" and "You can't trust old, rich, white men to look out for your interests." Both statements are false, and the second one is racist. One of the biggest pushers of the second idea in the Democratic Party is Al Sharpton. No one in the Republican Party owes as much to pushing racist views as Al Sharpton does. It's ridiculous that the person that the Democratic Party sends someone to for absolution for making a racist comment is Al Sharpton. People who are as racist as Al Sharpton are thought of as crazy nuts by Republicans. People who are as racist as Al Sharpton are seen by Democrats as "talk show host material."
If you would like some actual scientific reading on the association between ideology, intelligence, and race views, might I recommend:
Furguson, M.J. & Hassin, R.R. (2007). On the automatic association between American and aggression for news watchers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1632-1647.
And
Hodson, G. & Busseri, M.A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.
You're lying about the contents of the Furugson study. Since I'm not a subscriber to Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, I can't look up the actual study. I'm fairly certain the reason you didn't link to a news story about it is because EVEN A CURSORY GLANCE AT GOOGLE will tell you that the study says THE OPPOSITE of what you're pretending it does.
This is why I linked to Breitbart, by the way. You can see where I got my information from AND SEE THAT I'M NOT LYING ABOUT IT.
Furguson and Hassan study's notices an effect that is that if you show people who "watch the news" "pro-American things" they react "more aggressively." (I can't find good definitions for how they defined any of the terms in quotes.) However, the additional aggression is unrelated to the person's ideology. Liberals and conservatives are BOTH more aggressive, as long as they "watch the news." Furguson and Hassin's actual conclusion is that people are invested in the "rightness" of their views, and that "watching the news" is an expression of their investment (because conservatives are watching Fox, and liberals are watching CNN/MSNB
The American Football League and the National Football League's merger combined the AFL's innovative rule and strategy changes with the marketing, history, and business relationships of the NFL. At the time of the merger, pro football was a mere sideshow in popularity to the college game. (Super Bowl III, the last game played before the merger was announced, was played in the afternoon on New Year's Day in 1969. They couldn't play in prime time because NBC didn't want to put the game on against the college football bowl game that night.)
Today, the NFL runs the most popular sport in the United States, and everyone involved makes a boatload of money.
Do you get the broadcast networks out of Atlanta? Because CNN headquarters is in Atlanta, and it would be incredibly ironic if Fox was OTA there and CNN was not.
It is however accurate to say that individuals that are racist are statistically more likely to vote republican.
It's ridiculous that we have to have a conversation premised on "ZOMG Republicans are racist" every time there's a news story about Democrats saying something racist, but I guess we're in to this. The Sony executive (herself a fairly prominent Democrat) we're talking about is going to see prominent Democrat Al Sharpton, leader of the National Action Network, host of an MSNBC opinion show, and adviser to President Obama on issues of Race, to get absolution for her racist comments. Here's a bunch of things Al Sharpton has said or done in the past. [1]
In 1987, Sharpton served as the attorney for Tawana Brawley, an African American teenager who accused local prosecutor Steven Pagones (who is white) of rape. She claimed she had been kidnapped, raped, and then had racial slurs written on her body in excrement. An inquiry exonerated Pagones the following year. A security guard for Brawley's legal team would later testify that Sharpton and the team knew Brawley was lying all along, and Sharpton lost a defamation lawsuit to Pagones. (Pagones, it should be noted, was a public official, which makes the standard for defamation incredibly high.)
In 1991, Sharpton eulogized at the funeral of an African American child who had been accidentally hit by a car driven by a Jewish man. There, he said that “diamond merchants” had “blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He also said, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” The Crown Heights riots led to the death of Yankel Rosenbaum, an Orthodox Jewish student.
In 1995, Freddy’s Fashion Mart raised rent on a black-owned music store. That was because Freddy’s Fashion Mart had its own rent raised by a black landlord in Harlem. But that didn’t stop Sharpton from blaming Freddy’s Fashion Mart, accusing them of racism. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton incited. Protesters yelled, “Burn down the Jew store.” One of the protesters then shot four employees of Freddy’s and set the store on fire.
After a stripper accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her in 2005, Sharpton turned up as her representative. He said, “I think that when you look at the racial atmosphere, when you look at the fact that there again were the allegations of racial statements, when you look at a lot of people feeling that they have been treated differently, where this girl has basically had a character charged in the media, there is a lot of racism that’s in the air..." There was certainly racism involved in the case. The prosecutor who charged the lacrosse players was found to have prosecuted them maliciously because he thought that prosecuting the rich white students would help him get re-elected in the largely poor, black city. He was found guilty of official misconduct, disbarred and sentenced to jail time.
In 2008, after ten men raped and sodomized a woman in front of her 12-year-old son, and forced the son to have sex with his own mother, four of those men were indicted. They were black. So Sharpton decided that racism was at work. “You cannot have one set of rules for acts that are wrong and horrific in Boca and another set in Dunbar Village,” Sharpton said, referring to the supposed discrepancy between justice in black areas and white areas. “You must have equal protection under the law.” All four defendants were found guilty.
After black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by Hispanic neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, Sharpton accused Zimmerman of racism – as well as the police force of Sanford, Florida. “We are tired of going to jail for nothing and others going home for something. Zimmerman should have been arrested tha
I called no one dumb, though I did insinuate it by calling people a subset of people who don't get their news from cable TV "smart ones"... Finally, I don't hate the audience I characterized, though my political differences with that audience may be great.
Do you see how someone could misinterpret this quote as "Fox News viewers are dumb" and "I hate Fox News viewers?"
The demographic who watches FOX as a source of news [is] likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Opponents of the pipeline wrote the amendment, and they're trying to attach it to the main bill so that in order to vote for the pipeline, they have to vote for "Global Warming is real." Not voting is essentially a vote against the pipeline.
The benefit to teaching the kids VB is that they get to see something on the screen that they built from scratch... right away. The benefit isn't to teach them something that they can take right into a job.
Also, I think the VB6 IDE defaults to compiling to an intermediate language that runs in a runtime. It's possible to compile it down to bare metal, but I don't think that's the default.
The Democrats had exactly 134 days to pass any legislation before the GOP began filibustering.
Or, you know, they could pass bills that were acceptable to both sides. God forbid.
He won re-election Tuesday as an independent
You sound like you're not an American, so let me explain to you how this works.
In America, you can't be "kicked out" of a political party.
The reason to register for a political party so you can vote in that party's primary. For some offices (not this guy's office) they have what's called a primary election where the people from each party pick the best member of their party to run in the real election. So you have members of the Democrat party picking the best Democrat and members of the Republican party picking the best Republican, and then they run against each other in the general election. (If you're not registered with a party, you usually can't vote in the primary but can vote in the general election.)
One office that has a primary process is the Presidency. In 2008, the two best Democrats (as judged by the party) were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama won the primary and ran for (and won) the Presidency. Hillary Clinton didn't stop being a Democrat. In fact, she'll probably win their primaries in 2016.
For other offices, like the election this guy won, the parties each just pick a guy. The Democrat party picked someone other than this guy and told all the Democrats to vote for the candidate they picked. This guy ran anyway, and through his own campaigning, won anyway. He didn't stop being a Democrat just because his party picked somebody else to run in this election.
RE: Amnesty, some Republicans were/are for amnesty and some were/are against it. A sufficient number were for a comprise along the lines of "actually enforce immigration laws STARTING RIGHT NOW to keep new illegal immigrants from entering. Then, once we're sure the new enforcement is being enforced, we can amnesty the illegal immigrants who are already here." The Democrats wouldn't go for this, so Obama implemented the amnesty unilaterally. No negotiations or compromise involved.
RE: Birth Control, what are you talking about? Some Republicans want to make oral contraceptives available over the counter (without a prescription), but they haven't gotten to the "propose a law to enact it" part yet. There needs to be a bill first before they can negotiate.
The Choudary idiot can't stop running his mouth, and he is given amazing latitude.
This is a feature, not a bug. Choudary is a freaking NUTCASE, and the whole world knows it now because of what he said and what he persists in saying. Kudos to USA Today for digging this guy up and handing him a megaphone. The idea that the punishment for blasphemy should be death is antithetical to western values, and we should be scared of anyone (or any group) that's in favor of this.
It's the same with Holocaust deniers. It's the same with flag burners. As far as I'm concerned, the First Ammendment just makes it easier to calibrate your filter so you can ignore the dopes.
People do not like the Citizens United verdict because it allows corporations to donate unlimited money to political campaigns...
No, GP was right. The only thing the ruling legalized was groups other than the campaigns running ads. Outside groups (like corporations, labor unions, and civic organizations like Citizens United) are now allowed to run ads closer to the election date, but they're still not allowed to coordinate with the actual campaigns.
Look at the images on this page. The 2008 ones are the current revision. Notice specifically the text that says "FLAMELESS RATION HEATERS ARE PROHIBITED ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES UNLESS SEALED IN ORIGINAL MRE MENU BAG."
Or, in non-all caps, it's illegal to open an MRE container on an airplane, because then you'll have access to the chemical heater.
It will make marksmanship training easier because the instructor can see the shooter's sight picture, and tell the shooter to make corrections based on that.
Those figures are highly misleading. If you count all "executive actions," rather than just ones the President decided to call "executive orders," Obama comes out way ahead.
This will certainly make marksmanship training instruction easier.
MREs are actually illegal on airplanes. The water/chemical heater thing can be coerced into exploding.
That joke must be relying on Newtonian physics, because it was loaded into a catapult and just WHOOSHED over your head.
At the very least, we should also despise Newton if anyone who ever favored him committed a crime.
Based on the number of people who use weapons based on Newtonian physics to kill, Newton may be the biggest mass murderer of all time.
Way out on the wacko scale, you have people trying to impose the now-discredited "Fairness Doctrine" on the Internet, and calling THAT Net Neutrality. There are people out there saying that every X times you type Fox News into your browser, it should bring you to NPR instead. To some people, that's net neutrality.
Still wondering why we can't have tax id used to authenticate messaging for such comment sites. I mean, like that's a guaranteed unique identifier, non? Its not like you're not putting your name/address on the comment anyway are you?
Isn't the tax ID used for most individuals their Social Security numbers? Putting that on comments (which obviously need to be made public) is an invitation to identity theft.
It also doesn't solve the claimed problem. Groups putting out form letters would just include a field for SSN. Then you'd have a bunch of near identical comments with different social security numbers.
It also doesn't show that it's a real problem. The Constitution says that citizens are allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances, right? What is a petition except a letter asking for the government to do something with a bunch of citizens signing it, ALL OF WHOM USE THE SAME WORDING? Why is the fact that they all use the same wording a disqualifier in the first place?
I'm sure Comcast and AT&T would be more than willing to give the FCC a fast lane for comments arguing against net neutrality.
Comcast is pro-NN because Net Neutrality was imposed on them as a condition of their merger with NBC. They want their competitors to be hamstrung by the same NN rules that they are.
I never said "Republicans are statistically more likely to be racist".
with this one
The only thing I said was that there is a correlation between racism and conservatism... That means that if you take a random sampling of people who identify as having conservative ideologies, they will be statistically more likely to also hold racist beliefs.
(emphasis mine). Can you explain the difference?
"One of the biggest pushers of the second idea ["Old white men can't look out for the interests of minorities, so minorities vote for people of the same skin color as them"] in the Democratic Party is Al Sharpton"
In the same way that one of the biggest pushers of the 2nd idea in the GOP is Rush Limbaugh.
I devoted an entire post to Al Sharpton supporting the idea that white people won't look out for black people with quotes straight from Sharpton's mouth. You're just asserting that... what, exactly? Are you claiming that Rush Limbaugh is telling Republicans that they SHOULD do things to screw Republicans? That they should be? Some kind of inverse or converse? You didn't bother to make an argument here, and are just relying on people to connect RUSH LIMBAUGH = BAD like he's Emmanuel Goldstein or something. Idiot. If you want to claim someone says racist things, you should really give an example.
I also can't square
Seeing as how I didn't say ANYTHING about the context of the Furugson study, it's kinda hard to imagine how I would be lying about it.
with
That means that if you take a random sampling of people who identify as having conservative ideologies, they will be statistically more likely to also hold racist beliefs...If you would like some actual scientific reading on the association between ideology, intelligence, and race views, might I recommend:
Furguson, M.J. & Hassin, R.R. (2007). On the automatic association between American and aggression for news watchers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1632-1647.
Your entire argument, every time, boils down to "I didn't say the things I said, and so you're wrong and I'm right. Here's an ad homonym for your two minutes hate." Enjoy looking like a moron for the rest of your time on the internet.
"It's ridiculous that we have to have a conversation premised on "ZOMG Republicans are racist" every time there's a news story about Democrats saying something racist, but I guess we're in to this."
Actually, we weren't, at least, not until you decided to have this conversation. The only thing I said was that there is a correlation between racism and conservatism. That doesn't mean that every Republican is racist, or that any specific Democrats isn't racist. That means that if you take a random sampling of people who identify as having conservative ideologies, they will be statistically more likely to also hold racist beliefs.
Again, we're talking about a Democrat who said something racist. REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS STORY, but every time it's news that a Democrat says something racist, we have to have a conversation about how Republicans are "statistically more likely to be racist." (You're lying about that by the way.) Why is that?
Seriously, Ben Shapiro and Breitbart are your best sources? That's like deciding what college to go to based on National Lampoons movies.
There's no Shapiro interpretation in my post, just his recounting of facts. If you'd like to argue against the facts that Shapiro brings to the table (i.e. claim Shapiro is misquoting Sharpton) that would be fine. Since you're not, this is a dopey ad homonym attack that does nothing except distract from the point. I'd appreciate it if you could address my point.
My point is that in practice, the Democratic Party earns a lot of influence by convincing minorities that "Republicans are all old, rich, white men" and "You can't trust old, rich, white men to look out for your interests." Both statements are false, and the second one is racist. One of the biggest pushers of the second idea in the Democratic Party is Al Sharpton. No one in the Republican Party owes as much to pushing racist views as Al Sharpton does. It's ridiculous that the person that the Democratic Party sends someone to for absolution for making a racist comment is Al Sharpton. People who are as racist as Al Sharpton are thought of as crazy nuts by Republicans. People who are as racist as Al Sharpton are seen by Democrats as "talk show host material."
If you would like some actual scientific reading on the association between ideology, intelligence, and race views, might I recommend:
Furguson, M.J. & Hassin, R.R. (2007). On the automatic association between American and aggression for news watchers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1632-1647.
And
Hodson, G. & Busseri, M.A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.
You're lying about the contents of the Furugson study. Since I'm not a subscriber to Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, I can't look up the actual study. I'm fairly certain the reason you didn't link to a news story about it is because EVEN A CURSORY GLANCE AT GOOGLE will tell you that the study says THE OPPOSITE of what you're pretending it does.
This is why I linked to Breitbart, by the way. You can see where I got my information from AND SEE THAT I'M NOT LYING ABOUT IT.
Furguson and Hassan study's notices an effect that is that if you show people who "watch the news" "pro-American things" they react "more aggressively." (I can't find good definitions for how they defined any of the terms in quotes.) However, the additional aggression is unrelated to the person's ideology. Liberals and conservatives are BOTH more aggressive, as long as they "watch the news." Furguson and Hassin's actual conclusion is that people are invested in the "rightness" of their views, and that "watching the news" is an expression of their investment (because conservatives are watching Fox, and liberals are watching CNN/MSNB
Today, the NFL runs the most popular sport in the United States, and everyone involved makes a boatload of money.
Do you get the broadcast networks out of Atlanta? Because CNN headquarters is in Atlanta, and it would be incredibly ironic if Fox was OTA there and CNN was not.
It is however accurate to say that individuals that are racist are statistically more likely to vote republican.
It's ridiculous that we have to have a conversation premised on "ZOMG Republicans are racist" every time there's a news story about Democrats saying something racist, but I guess we're in to this. The Sony executive (herself a fairly prominent Democrat) we're talking about is going to see prominent Democrat Al Sharpton, leader of the National Action Network, host of an MSNBC opinion show, and adviser to President Obama on issues of Race, to get absolution for her racist comments. Here's a bunch of things Al Sharpton has said or done in the past. [1]
In 1987, Sharpton served as the attorney for Tawana Brawley, an African American teenager who accused local prosecutor Steven Pagones (who is white) of rape. She claimed she had been kidnapped, raped, and then had racial slurs written on her body in excrement. An inquiry exonerated Pagones the following year. A security guard for Brawley's legal team would later testify that Sharpton and the team knew Brawley was lying all along, and Sharpton lost a defamation lawsuit to Pagones. (Pagones, it should be noted, was a public official, which makes the standard for defamation incredibly high.)
In 1991, Sharpton eulogized at the funeral of an African American child who had been accidentally hit by a car driven by a Jewish man. There, he said that “diamond merchants” had “blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He also said, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” The Crown Heights riots led to the death of Yankel Rosenbaum, an Orthodox Jewish student.
In 1995, Freddy’s Fashion Mart raised rent on a black-owned music store. That was because Freddy’s Fashion Mart had its own rent raised by a black landlord in Harlem. But that didn’t stop Sharpton from blaming Freddy’s Fashion Mart, accusing them of racism. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton incited. Protesters yelled, “Burn down the Jew store.” One of the protesters then shot four employees of Freddy’s and set the store on fire.
After a stripper accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her in 2005, Sharpton turned up as her representative. He said, “I think that when you look at the racial atmosphere, when you look at the fact that there again were the allegations of racial statements, when you look at a lot of people feeling that they have been treated differently, where this girl has basically had a character charged in the media, there is a lot of racism that’s in the air..." There was certainly racism involved in the case. The prosecutor who charged the lacrosse players was found to have prosecuted them maliciously because he thought that prosecuting the rich white students would help him get re-elected in the largely poor, black city. He was found guilty of official misconduct, disbarred and sentenced to jail time.
In 2008, after ten men raped and sodomized a woman in front of her 12-year-old son, and forced the son to have sex with his own mother, four of those men were indicted. They were black. So Sharpton decided that racism was at work. “You cannot have one set of rules for acts that are wrong and horrific in Boca and another set in Dunbar Village,” Sharpton said, referring to the supposed discrepancy between justice in black areas and white areas. “You must have equal protection under the law.” All four defendants were found guilty.
After black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by Hispanic neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, Sharpton accused Zimmerman of racism – as well as the police force of Sanford, Florida. “We are tired of going to jail for nothing and others going home for something. Zimmerman should have been arrested tha
But that's...
That's...
16363.63
I called no one dumb, though I did insinuate it by calling people a subset of people who don't get their news from cable TV "smart ones"... Finally, I don't hate the audience I characterized, though my political differences with that audience may be great.
Do you see how someone could misinterpret this quote as "Fox News viewers are dumb" and "I hate Fox News viewers?"
The demographic who watches FOX as a source of news [is] likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.
You don't think the Democrats saying that the Republican Party is a party of old white men is a political strategy?