Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals are not taking over the media, either. The media isn't about ideology. The media is a business. It's about ratings. The sooner you accept reality, the sooner you'll stop sounding like the typical right-wing sheep.
As opposed to sounding like the typical bleating left-wing goat!
Another interesting tidbit is that abortions are far more common in the RED states than BLUE.
Most conservatives think Massachusetts is the devil's playground when, actually, MA has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. Isn't that strange? The state that seems to value marriage THE MOST is also open minded enough to want to extend that right to same sex couples without feeling threatened that their marriages will be damaged.
Ya know, on that point - could any of you conservatives explain to me HOW same sex marriage damages traditional marriages? If anything is damaging traditional marriage - it would seem that heterosexual divorce leads the pack.
Do you have a link, with facts, to validate your statement??
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,467,844 times
Reputation: 382
The media is a business. It's about ratings.
You are correct on that one and that is why liberal radio and liberal cable news cannot compete. No one will listen to their ridicules diatribes, conspiracy theories and skewed “news”.
Quote; Because it's a line you have been fed by talk radio.
Aqualung this is for you and everyone
I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE LISTENED TO TALK RADIO. I listen to music on the radio. It's not that I am opposed to talk radio but my radio insists on playing music.
It doesn't matter. That's where the idea originated. You either acquired it first-hand or second-hand. You didn't gain it from observation, because observation proves the contrary.
It doesn't matter. That's where the idea originated. You either acquired it first-hand or second-hand. You didn't gain it from observation, because observation proves the contrary.
What are you talking about. This makes no sense. . . first-hand knowledge is usually gained by observation.
I hear this talking point used by Liberals all the time.
Do you have 1 example of a woman dieing in a "back alley abortion"?
This is a two click link.
First you can read the background about this woman, and then, only if you want to, you can click on a *very graphic* photo of a woman who died from a botched illegal abortion.
One more warning: the photo is very graphic and very sad, but it is two clicks away, this link does not lead directly to it:
What are you talking about. This makes no sense. . . first-hand knowledge is usually gained by observation.
First-hand or second-hand from talk radio. Which means, maybe her husband listens to talk radio and parrots Rush Limbaugh's propaganda to her. That would be second-hand. First-hand would be listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
