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.
Your chart doesn't really prove much, my opinion, and here's why. Where does Fox News gets it's ratings? From the talk shows (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) or the actual news shows? I don't know. In fact, I couldn't tell you even what channel Fox News is on my cable system. I've watched Stewart a few times and can't stand Colbert. What scares me as I enter my dotage is that comedians "report" the news and some folks don't understand it's comedy. Kind of like people quoting Tina Fey as Palin and not knowing the difference. Or the dust up here a couple weeks ago about an Obama/SNL skit.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Viewers of the Daily Show are easily able to see the actual news behind the humor. That's why studies show that they know more about current events than Fox News viewers.
Now, Fox News viewers are not able to distinguish between the lies that Fox tells and actual reality. That's the problem.
All things that SHOULD be handled in a court of law rather than via independent arbitrator.
If someone accepts a job and is offered a contract, then that person should actually read the contract. If the contract has provisions or language that is unacceptable to that person, then that person should notsign the contract.
Problem solved. And you know what? No ammendments by the Congress were necessary.
This was nothing more than an attempt to fire Halliburton. Something the libs have been foaming at the mouth to do since Fahrenheit 9/11.
If someone accepts a job and is offered a contract, then that person should actually read the contract. If the contract has provisions or language that is unacceptable to that person, then that person should notsign the contract.
Problem solved. And you know what? No ammendments by the Congress were necessary.
This was nothing more than an attempt to fire Halliburton. Something the libs have been foaming at the mouth to do since Fahrenheit 9/11.
So you think it's appropriate to punish gang rape of one of your employees by arbitration?
We should not be funding companies with such policies, and thankfully, the majority of the Senate agrees.
If someone accepts a job and is offered a contract, then that person should actually read the contract. If the contract has provisions or language that is unacceptable to that person, then that person should notsign the contract.
Problem solved. And you know what? No ammendments by the Congress were necessary.
Very few people want to live in the kind of country you envision.
If someone accepts a job and is offered a contract, then that person should actually read the contract. If the contract has provisions or language that is unacceptable to that person, then that person should notsign the contract.
Problem solved. And you know what? No ammendments by the Congress were necessary.
This was nothing more than an attempt to fire Halliburton. Something the libs have been foaming at the mouth to do since Fahrenheit 9/11.
Yes, and if this was a private contract you may have a point (though the crap in the contract would still be asinine). However, these are GOVERNMENT FUNDED CONTRACTS. If you are getting a contract from the Government the Government has every right to set up rules and regulations you must abide by. Not allowing sexual assault and rape victims to seek legal action is absolutely absurd, and the government has every right to bar and should bar those who employ those tactics from receiving Government funding and contracts.
If someone accepts a job and is offered a contract, then that person should actually read the contract. If the contract has provisions or language that is unacceptable to that person, then that person should notsign the contract.
Problem solved. And you know what? No ammendments by the Congress were necessary.
This was nothing more than an attempt to fire Halliburton. Something the libs have been foaming at the mouth to do since Fahrenheit 9/11.
...but since the Congress is the one paying the Bill they do have the right to withdraw funding if the "terms" of employment contracts regarding gang rape are only those that a sick psychopath would embrace.
Your response is typical of Fox watchers: they want the truth handed to them instead of using their own tools of research. I can back up the claim that Stewart/Colbert watchers are better informed than Fox watchers because I recall the article from earlier this year. Fox watchers are the LEAST informed people, the results derived from multiple studies over the course of the last decade.
So you think it's appropriate to punish gang rape of one of your employees by arbitration?
We should not be funding companies with such policies, and thankfully, the majority of the Senate agrees.
I disagree with your wording. We aren't "funding" any company. We did hire them, we didn't fund them.
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.
