( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight.
[/quote]
I honestly can’t tell what point you’re making with this definition. It looks like you’re defining anyone on television as a member of the media. In this case, Michael C. Hall and Courtney Cox would similarly be members of the media. In this expansive defintion, I agree with you, but can’t for the life of me understand why you’d make it.
If you’re suggesting Stewart is part of the News Media, as in, those means of communication specifically designed to reach or influence people with news, you are mistaken, as Mr. Stewart has readily and repeatedly acknowledged.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.[/quote]
Old people with low expense levels in retirement. They own their house, car, and they sell a little of their nest egg every season to help pay bills. This is a significant advantage.
Reagan’s tax cuts shifted the US from being the world’s largest creditor to being the largest debtor nation. That’s what happens when you let an actor be president.[/quote]
First off budgets are done by the house, controlled by the democrats who never once accepted Reagan’s budget which cut massive amount.
I know that actually doing research into what you are talking about is hard, but if you don’t want to look like a troll it would be best if you started.
Ummm just so everyone knows, Reagan only started with tax cuts at the beginning of his first term in 1981. Thereafter he signed a bunch of tax increases to cut discretionary spending. By 1988, he had taken back about half of his tax cuts.
The moral of the story is cut taxes when you can, increases taxes when you have to.
Yeah I am angry the political class is completely captured and destroying the middle class and any semblance of social mobility through regressive taxation. Thought it was obvious.
Posting a 114 page document without citing where the point is is meaningless. I have a professional job and Im a full time grad student, do me the favor I did you and post your stats, I dont have time to read that shit and I dont believe you did anyways. If everything Ive read is wrong and somehow the Bush tax cuts werent a Regan throwback trickle down farce to pander to the wealthiest americans, Id like to know I have been misled.
The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.[/quote]
You really can’t make time over the next few days to educate yourself?
And Reagan’s tax cuts helped create 20 million jobs and a doubling of the tax revenue, perhaps learning the Laffer curve would be time well spent too.
P.S. No one gives a shit about you being a grad student.[/quote]
Reagan’s tax cuts shifted the US from being the world’s largest creditor to being the largest debtor nation. That’s what happens when you let an actor be president.[/quote]
What happens when you let a an inexperienced leftist community organizer become President? Oh yea, we already know, disaster!
[quote]Otep wrote:
I honestly can’t tell what point you’re making with this definition. It looks like you’re defining anyone on television as a member of the media. In this case, Michael C. Hall and Courtney Cox would similarly be members of the media. In this expansive defintion, I agree with you, but can’t for the life of me understand why you’d make it. [/quote]
I’m not defining anything. That is the definition of media.
[quote]Otep wrote:
If you’re suggesting Stewart is part of the News Media, as in, those means of communication specifically designed to reach or influence people with news, you are mistaken, as Mr. Stewart has readily and repeatedly acknowledged.[/quote]
I didn’t say he was a part of the news media. I did say that he doesn’t claim to be influential in politics.
As much as he should not be, Stewart is undoubtedly influential. I go through periods of watching his show and I’ve been watching lately. Recently I’ve seen two former presidents, the dnc chair, and a king on his show. If he wasn’t influential, these people wouldn’t come on his show. I don’t know that I recall him claiming not to be influential (perhaps he has, I don’t watch that much). I have heard him say that he shouldn’t be influential…and I’d agree with that. It’s a sign of the times that I have to turn to the daily show to watch presidents and kings speaking seriously.
Geez, looks like everyone is gaga for rallies of late. First there was Beck, now the two comedians and apparently not to be left out, unions. Since the event is on a Saturday, wonder if the guys and gals will be paid time and a half?
[quote]Menthol wrote:
Geez, looks like everyone is gaga for rallies of late. First there was Beck, now the two comedians and apparently not to be left out, unions. Since the event is on a Saturday, wonder if the guys and gals will be paid time and a half?
They had the bloodthirsty islamist Yousef Islam who has called for the death of Salman Rushdie and anyone else who insults a prophet singing Peace Train. Yet the leftists on this thread wanted to talk shit about the tea party having religious extremists and think that giving such a hateful islamist a platform is a success. It is amazing how the left can be so blind to it’s double standards and outright hypocrisy. Some of you guys have some serious issues.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
It is amazing how the left can be so blind to it’s double standards and outright hypocrisy. Some of you guys have some serious issues. [/quote]
Dude, don’t you know it’s a gene that causes this?
Pretty soon that gene will be the scientific proof that they can not help:
1- Overspending
2- Hating Bush
3- Calling conservatives racists and intolerant
4- Taxpayer robbery
It’s not their fault you see, because it was not a choice…
By the way:
GW’s new book I will buy. He has no harsh politicallly divisive words or criticisms of other parties. A class act.
I have never seen a POTUS use his podium for political blaming and divisive words against other Americans. I have now though…but he can’t help it either.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They had the bloodthirsty islamist Yousef Islam who has called for the death of Salman Rushdie and anyone else who insults a prophet singing Peace Train. Yet the leftists on this thread wanted to talk shit about the tea party having religious extremists and think that giving such a hateful islamist a platform is a success. It is amazing how the left can be so blind to it’s double standards and outright hypocrisy. Some of you guys have some serious issues. [/quote]
Typical. Other than all his charity work and the fact that he was very vocal about his condemnation of 9/11 and donated proceeds from music sales to the families he’s a “bloodthirsty islamist.”
edit: Also, great job focusing in on the one thing you thought you could criticize instead of the huge crowds and positive reviews of the event. There was little bullshitting and apparently good times had by most everybody. But of course that pisses you off.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
It is amazing how the left can be so blind to it’s double standards and outright hypocrisy. Some of you guys have some serious issues. [/quote]
Dude, don’t you know it’s a gene that causes this?
Pretty soon that gene will be the scientific proof that they can not help:
1- Overspending
2- Hating Bush
3- Calling conservatives racists and intolerant
4- Taxpayer robbery
It’s not their fault you see, because it was not a choice…
By the way:
GW’s new book I will buy. He has no harsh politicallly divisive words or criticisms of other parties. A class act.
I have never seen a POTUS use his podium for political blaming and divisive words against other Americans. I have now though…but he can’t help it either.
[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They had the bloodthirsty islamist Yousef Islam who has called for the death of Salman Rushdie and anyone else who insults a prophet singing Peace Train. Yet the leftists on this thread wanted to talk shit about the tea party having religious extremists and think that giving such a hateful islamist a platform is a success. It is amazing how the left can be so blind to it’s double standards and outright hypocrisy. Some of you guys have some serious issues. [/quote]
Typical. Other than all his charity work and the fact that he was very vocal about his condemnation of 9/11 and donated proceeds from music sales to the families he’s a “bloodthirsty islamist.”
edit: Also, great job focusing in on the one thing you thought you could criticize instead of the huge crowds and positive reviews of the event. There was little bullshitting and apparently good times had by most everybody. But of course that pisses you off.[/quote]
His condemnations are nothing more than taqiyya for the kuffar. He preaches the same kind of hatred that led to 9/11. Islam has said that anyone who insults a prophet should pay for it with his life. This is America, we value freedom of speech here. Stewie is wrong to give someone like that a stage in front of the capitol.
It was a political rally for the Democrats, the people who are trying to bankrupt this country. Despite that I’m not angry at them for having their little rally. It is good for the people to see who these people associate themselves with so they know what they are up against.
It was a political rally for the Democrats, the people who are trying to bankrupt this country. Despite that I’m not angry at them for having their little rally. It is good for the people to see who these people associate themselves with so they know what they are up against. [/quote]
It was stated the rally wasn’t democrat or republican rally, why can’t you get that through your head?