News Corp stock falling because of Ron Paul decision?
-
Shog9 wrote:
I'm interested in seeing someone elected who will represent my interests, not entertain me.
Interesting. I'm interested in seeing someone elected who will represent the country's interests. Poles are a fairly good indicator of party response to candidates. Why include all the people that have very low pole responses?
Shog9 wrote:
Now, if i were running some sort of entertainment network, it would be a concern for me... but then i'd have enough experience running "reality" TV shows to cut together a half-hour's worth of fights and snide remarks.
Uh huh... And you'd exclude all the non-snide remarks. And so if Ron Paul was on the show and he wasn't snide enough, somebody would be complaining about your decision on a message board somewhere.
Shog9 wrote:
what sort of questions would you really like to see debated?
How is that relevant? And how would the list of questions change by including Ron Paul in the debate?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Interesting. I'm interested in seeing someone elected who will represent the country's interests.
How noble of you! Presumably then, you know what your country's interests are by reading polls, and vote accordingly, even when the poll-derived wishes of your country conflict with your own? Somehow, i have this idea that i should vote for the candidate who best represents me, and the process itself will take care of subverting my wishes where they fail to align with those of The Nation.
BoneSoft wrote:
Uh huh...
You kinda missed the sarcasm. I was outlining a situation that exists today. No worries, it wasn't important.
BoneSoft wrote:
How is that relevant? And how would the list of questions change by including Ron Paul in the debate?
How is debate relevant? Well, it probably isn't - i mean, most of these things end up as either pissing contests ("I'm more for/against X than my opponent, who is only very strongly for/against it") or opportunities for candidates to hone their favorite sound bites in preparation for the next stump speech. It's part of a grand iterative process designed to choose a candidate with just the right blend of mock-devotion to The Party's Platform and empty respect for The Opposing View. Would the addition of Ron Paul or any of the other fringe candidates change this? Maybe not... and now, we won't find out, which is kinda my whole gripe with it. We'll get exactly the debate The Party wants - no debate at all. Enjoy...
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Interesting. I'm interested in seeing someone elected who will represent the country's interests.
How noble of you! Presumably then, you know what your country's interests are by reading polls, and vote accordingly, even when the poll-derived wishes of your country conflict with your own? Somehow, i have this idea that i should vote for the candidate who best represents me, and the process itself will take care of subverting my wishes where they fail to align with those of The Nation.
BoneSoft wrote:
Uh huh...
You kinda missed the sarcasm. I was outlining a situation that exists today. No worries, it wasn't important.
BoneSoft wrote:
How is that relevant? And how would the list of questions change by including Ron Paul in the debate?
How is debate relevant? Well, it probably isn't - i mean, most of these things end up as either pissing contests ("I'm more for/against X than my opponent, who is only very strongly for/against it") or opportunities for candidates to hone their favorite sound bites in preparation for the next stump speech. It's part of a grand iterative process designed to choose a candidate with just the right blend of mock-devotion to The Party's Platform and empty respect for The Opposing View. Would the addition of Ron Paul or any of the other fringe candidates change this? Maybe not... and now, we won't find out, which is kinda my whole gripe with it. We'll get exactly the debate The Party wants - no debate at all. Enjoy...
Shog9 wrote:
Presumably then, you know what your country's interests are by reading polls
No, but like I said, they are a good indicator. Short of holding an election to determine who gets to be in the election, it's a decent gauge of who has a shot and therefore who is worth spending time to listen to.
Shog9 wrote:
and vote accordingly, even when the poll-derived wishes of your country conflict with your own?
No, I vote for who best represents my views, with faith that the process ensures the best fit for the country. Forgive me for nit-picking, your comment just struck me funny the way it was worded.
Shog9 wrote:
You kinda missed the sarcasm.
So did you. Just trying to push the point that you would exclude content that though might be interesting, ultimately would not really be constructive for your purposes.
Shog9 wrote:
How is debate relevant?
No, how is your question relevant to whether or not Paul should be included. Personally, I don't care if he's there or not. I'd tend to think the more the merrier. But I can see a point to excluding those who really don't have a chance. It's not meant to be an opportunity to hear all the possible views, it's meant to choose a candidate to support. So it makes some since to concentrate on those who have a shot. But at the same time, looking at poles for different state, they differ widely. I probably wouldn't have excluded anybody, but I can see the argument.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Presumably then, you know what your country's interests are by reading polls
No, but like I said, they are a good indicator. Short of holding an election to determine who gets to be in the election, it's a decent gauge of who has a shot and therefore who is worth spending time to listen to.
Shog9 wrote:
and vote accordingly, even when the poll-derived wishes of your country conflict with your own?
No, I vote for who best represents my views, with faith that the process ensures the best fit for the country. Forgive me for nit-picking, your comment just struck me funny the way it was worded.
Shog9 wrote:
You kinda missed the sarcasm.
So did you. Just trying to push the point that you would exclude content that though might be interesting, ultimately would not really be constructive for your purposes.
Shog9 wrote:
How is debate relevant?
No, how is your question relevant to whether or not Paul should be included. Personally, I don't care if he's there or not. I'd tend to think the more the merrier. But I can see a point to excluding those who really don't have a chance. It's not meant to be an opportunity to hear all the possible views, it's meant to choose a candidate to support. So it makes some since to concentrate on those who have a shot. But at the same time, looking at poles for different state, they differ widely. I probably wouldn't have excluded anybody, but I can see the argument.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Short of holding an election to determine who gets to be in the election, it's a decent gauge of who has a shot and therefore who is worth spending time to listen to.
No, it isn't. Are you seriously saying that the front-runners in presidential election campaigns are worth listening to? Heck, most of the time, i'd rather listen to the weather channel than subject my ears to the dross pouring from the pie*****-holes on those clowns... It's bad enough we'll have to put up with one of them as President for at least four years. Read their positions and voting history on the 'Net and leave it at that - they'll only lie to you if you let them.
BoneSoft wrote:
Just trying to push the point that you would exclude content that though might be interesting, ultimately would not really be constructive for your purposes.
I wouldn't. That's probably why i'm not running Fox. Ok, there are probably lots of better reasons why i'm not in the entertainment industry, but my penchant for long, boring conversations as a form of amusement would definitely disqualify me should all the rest fall away.
BoneSoft wrote:
But I can see a point to excluding those who really don't have a chance.
See, i think that's where we differ: in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections. It's a positive feedback system, amplifying and distorting the true wishes of the nation. In your view, this means you should swim with a strong current; in mine, it means navigation is ultimately impossible, and swimming just makes you tired and frustrated. Yeah, that was a heck of a mixed metaphor. Obviously, i'm getting tired and frustrated. ;P *pie is a rather old word, originally referring to the magpie bird which is known for its habit of collecting shiny (but usually worthless) objects.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Short of holding an election to determine who gets to be in the election, it's a decent gauge of who has a shot and therefore who is worth spending time to listen to.
No, it isn't. Are you seriously saying that the front-runners in presidential election campaigns are worth listening to? Heck, most of the time, i'd rather listen to the weather channel than subject my ears to the dross pouring from the pie*****-holes on those clowns... It's bad enough we'll have to put up with one of them as President for at least four years. Read their positions and voting history on the 'Net and leave it at that - they'll only lie to you if you let them.
BoneSoft wrote:
Just trying to push the point that you would exclude content that though might be interesting, ultimately would not really be constructive for your purposes.
I wouldn't. That's probably why i'm not running Fox. Ok, there are probably lots of better reasons why i'm not in the entertainment industry, but my penchant for long, boring conversations as a form of amusement would definitely disqualify me should all the rest fall away.
BoneSoft wrote:
But I can see a point to excluding those who really don't have a chance.
See, i think that's where we differ: in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections. It's a positive feedback system, amplifying and distorting the true wishes of the nation. In your view, this means you should swim with a strong current; in mine, it means navigation is ultimately impossible, and swimming just makes you tired and frustrated. Yeah, that was a heck of a mixed metaphor. Obviously, i'm getting tired and frustrated. ;P *pie is a rather old word, originally referring to the magpie bird which is known for its habit of collecting shiny (but usually worthless) objects.
Shog9 wrote:
See, i think that's where we differ: in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections. It's a positive feedback system, amplifying and distorting the true wishes of the nation. In your view, this means you should swim with a strong current; in mine, it means navigation is ultimately impossible, and swimming just makes you tired and frustrated.
Except that it's not really the case. Until a few months before the 04 primaries began Kerry was a noone candidate. This year the same was true of Huckabee who's became one of the 3 main contenders on the national level. I haven't been watching it as closely, but I think Edwards has done something similar on the dem side.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Shog9 wrote:
See, i think that's where we differ: in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections. It's a positive feedback system, amplifying and distorting the true wishes of the nation. In your view, this means you should swim with a strong current; in mine, it means navigation is ultimately impossible, and swimming just makes you tired and frustrated.
Except that it's not really the case. Until a few months before the 04 primaries began Kerry was a noone candidate. This year the same was true of Huckabee who's became one of the 3 main contenders on the national level. I haven't been watching it as closely, but I think Edwards has done something similar on the dem side.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
dan neely wrote:
Until a few months before the 04 primaries began Kerry was a noone candidate.
Was that about the time Howard Dean's campaign imploded? It's been a while now, i don't remember the sequence anymore - but it sounds about right. I didn't really follow the dems that closely last time around.
dan neely wrote:
This year the same was true of Huckabee who's became one of the 3 main contenders on the national level.
And? AFAIK, his popularity rise plots a fairly steep curve after finally getting on the radar a few months back - so he managed to jump on the scene at around the same time a good number of undecided voters were starting to make up their minds, getting almost exponentially more exposure during the last month. I suspect there's less of an obvious trend for McCain, Guliani, etc. simply because they established their bases of support earlier on. Edwards was reasonably well-known coming out of the 2004 election, and i think his poll numbers have reflected that. Obama has had a much more interesting rise, but started far enough back to have plateaued by now. We're getting into primaries now, which start to supplant polls as a feedback provider. Of course, it's anyone's game to loose - i certainly didn't mean to imply that politicians are powerless to shake voter confidence. Obama could always make a few more stupid mistakes, Clinton could start talking just a little bit more like GWB, Huckabee could stop preaching to the choir and Guliani and Romney could get into some sort of freak-out competition... but really, choking at this point comes down to one thing: making your supporters suspicious that you're a bad horse to bet on. For the next few months at least, that's all that really matters... Then it's time once again for "Our Candidate, right or wrong, when right lauded when wrong ignored". You know the drill.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What else matters?
Exactly why I say capitalism is a piss poor way to solve long term problems.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Really? Than why do we have such tremendously more vast and diverse media resources than ever in history? I would say capitalism is serving social needs far more effectively than any other possible method one could imagine.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Please, these staged forums presented on television are not debates.
Heh, point. :)
As far as I'm concerned, these "debates" are little more than free campaign time for the candidates. I've never learned anything from one of them that I didn't already know about a candidate. What I would like to see is each candidate going on television indiviudally and being asked a set of a few dozen or so questions selected by private citizens. I would also like to see real debates, where these guys stand up in front of each other and just argue with each other the important issues of our times, but that is never going to happen.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
As far as I'm concerned, these "debates" are little more than free campaign time for the candidates. I've never learned anything from one of them that I didn't already know about a candidate. What I would like to see is each candidate going on television indiviudally and being asked a set of a few dozen or so questions selected by private citizens. I would also like to see real debates, where these guys stand up in front of each other and just argue with each other the important issues of our times, but that is never going to happen.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What I would like to see is each candidate going on television indiviudally and being asked a set of a few dozen or so questions selected by private citizens.
If there was a way to keep the question list from being stripped of all the most banal questions, this would be cool.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would also like to see real debates, where these guys stand up in front of each other and just argue with each other the important issues of our times, but that is never going to happen.
Sadly, no. All sides have too much to lose from allowing candidates to show their true colors. :sigh:
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Short of holding an election to determine who gets to be in the election, it's a decent gauge of who has a shot and therefore who is worth spending time to listen to.
No, it isn't. Are you seriously saying that the front-runners in presidential election campaigns are worth listening to? Heck, most of the time, i'd rather listen to the weather channel than subject my ears to the dross pouring from the pie*****-holes on those clowns... It's bad enough we'll have to put up with one of them as President for at least four years. Read their positions and voting history on the 'Net and leave it at that - they'll only lie to you if you let them.
BoneSoft wrote:
Just trying to push the point that you would exclude content that though might be interesting, ultimately would not really be constructive for your purposes.
I wouldn't. That's probably why i'm not running Fox. Ok, there are probably lots of better reasons why i'm not in the entertainment industry, but my penchant for long, boring conversations as a form of amusement would definitely disqualify me should all the rest fall away.
BoneSoft wrote:
But I can see a point to excluding those who really don't have a chance.
See, i think that's where we differ: in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections. It's a positive feedback system, amplifying and distorting the true wishes of the nation. In your view, this means you should swim with a strong current; in mine, it means navigation is ultimately impossible, and swimming just makes you tired and frustrated. Yeah, that was a heck of a mixed metaphor. Obviously, i'm getting tired and frustrated. ;P *pie is a rather old word, originally referring to the magpie bird which is known for its habit of collecting shiny (but usually worthless) objects.
Shog9 wrote:
Are you seriously saying that the front-runners in presidential election campaigns are worth listening to?
Touche, but I meant relative to the weaker candidates.
Shog9 wrote:
in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections.
True. However, some of that is driven by the fear of losing to the other side. Personally, I'm scared because there are so many running that are in the forefront. I'm afraid that there won't be a good candidate to all get behind, the vote will be spread across them, and the other side will have a candidate with a stronger base. Which is a valid fear. But as you rightly point out, that doesn't necessarily get us the best candidate. I dunno, we'll see how it all pans out. But I won't vote for somebody I can't support. I may have to vote for somebody I doubt will win and curl up in the fetal position to watch the election unfold. Personally, on stance alone, Duncan Hunter looks the best to me. And I have no doubts that there's no way in hell he's got a shot.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Are you seriously saying that the front-runners in presidential election campaigns are worth listening to?
Touche, but I meant relative to the weaker candidates.
Shog9 wrote:
in my view, he doesn't have a chance because we've convinced ourselves that voting for people who don't have a chance is a wasted vote - therefore, we say we'll vote for the popular politician who most closely matches our views. Of course, this just makes them seem even more popular, and dilutes the value of both polls and elections.
True. However, some of that is driven by the fear of losing to the other side. Personally, I'm scared because there are so many running that are in the forefront. I'm afraid that there won't be a good candidate to all get behind, the vote will be spread across them, and the other side will have a candidate with a stronger base. Which is a valid fear. But as you rightly point out, that doesn't necessarily get us the best candidate. I dunno, we'll see how it all pans out. But I won't vote for somebody I can't support. I may have to vote for somebody I doubt will win and curl up in the fetal position to watch the election unfold. Personally, on stance alone, Duncan Hunter looks the best to me. And I have no doubts that there's no way in hell he's got a shot.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Touche, but I meant relative to the weaker candidates.
Well, honestly, it's the long-shots that seem most willing to go out on a limb / speak their mind, if for no reason other than to keep their niche supporters happy. That's why i think it'd be interesting to get more of them involved in the debates - they might be more willing than the rest to draw out the major candidates. Probably not... but, we sure aren't getting anything without 'em.
-
Is he hte only candidate being excluded, or are all the wannabes with single digit poll numbers being told to take a hike as well? Only inviting the candidates with a realistic chance of winning is SOP to keep total numbers reasonable and to avoid wasting everyones time.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
dan neely wrote:
Only inviting the candidates with a realistic chance of winning is SOP to keep total numbers reasonable and to avoid wasting everyones time.
Absolutely. I'm not certain whether or not people commenting on this are aware that this is NOT a debate, it is a round table discussion. Fox not only included Ron Paul in prir debates but they also included Alan Keyes, who, while possibly more intelligient than Ron Paul, polls even lower. I say, hurrah to news Corp. I like the way they do business and feel like the availability of honest information obtained via the media has been dramtically enhanced since they dethroned CNN and MSNBC.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
modified on Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:41:21 PM
-
Is he hte only candidate being excluded, or are all the wannabes with single digit poll numbers being told to take a hike as well? Only inviting the candidates with a realistic chance of winning is SOP to keep total numbers reasonable and to avoid wasting everyones time.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
dan neely wrote:
Only inviting the candidates with a realistic chance of winning
At this moment, there aren't any in the Republican party, with perhaps the exception of Huckabee, who just won the Republican caucus in Iowa. Paul is polling higher than Giuliani and McCain - so why should he be excluded?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
dan neely wrote:
Only inviting the candidates with a realistic chance of winning
At this moment, there aren't any in the Republican party, with perhaps the exception of Huckabee, who just won the Republican caucus in Iowa. Paul is polling higher than Giuliani and McCain - so why should he be excluded?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Nationally Paul is at 4% vs 20% for Guilliani and 17% for McCain. He isn't polling better than 4th in any state according to these numbers. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html[^]
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Really? Than why do we have such tremendously more vast and diverse media resources than ever in history? I would say capitalism is serving social needs far more effectively than any other possible method one could imagine.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Really? Than why do we have such tremendously more vast and diverse media resources than ever in history? I would say capitalism is serving social needs far more effectively than any other possible method one could imagine.
I wasn't talking about media resources. But go ahead and keep building those straw men that make your arguments sound good, it's largely the reason I don't respond to your posts anymore.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
utterly dispicable manipulation of the democratic process both in the UK and the US.
Agreed. "Fair and balanced"... "We report, you decide." Both utter bullshit. When you refuse to let a voice speak with whom you disagree, neither of those slogans is in the least bit accurate.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
So a bunch of people vote me down and don't even bother to point out what might be illogical about my statement? Oh, right, that's because my statement is perfectly reasonable, you're just a bunch of damn sheep who refuse to think unless Fox tells you to jump. Pathetic.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Really? Than why do we have such tremendously more vast and diverse media resources than ever in history? I would say capitalism is serving social needs far more effectively than any other possible method one could imagine.
I wasn't talking about media resources. But go ahead and keep building those straw men that make your arguments sound good, it's largely the reason I don't respond to your posts anymore.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
What? You initiate a thread relating the media and politics, and then bring capitalism into it, and me making a comment about that content is a strawman? I don't think so...
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Did you ever consider how long and tedious it would be to give every single individual that wanted to be president their say in the debates? :rolleyes: Poles are a good indicator.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Poles are a good indicator.
In the US, is this anything like the polls they have in the rest of the world?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Poles are a good indicator.
In the US, is this anything like the polls they have in the rest of the world?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
No, in the US they tend to be flag poles in people's backyards. They are a good indicator of the kind of person living there...
"What am I in the eyes of most people, a nonentity, an eccentric, or an unpleasant person--somebody who has no position in society and will never have; in short, the lowest of the low. All right, then--even if that were absolutely true, then I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart."
-
So a bunch of people vote me down and don't even bother to point out what might be illogical about my statement? Oh, right, that's because my statement is perfectly reasonable, you're just a bunch of damn sheep who refuse to think unless Fox tells you to jump. Pathetic.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
The voting is "fair and balanced"...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit