Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
Mac Newsforums, a part of the
08-05-2013, 05:58 PM #41
08-05-2013, 06:55 PM #42
"Opinions" are what someone thinks. Opinions presented as "facts" are another thing altogether. And a network that is the communicative arm of a political party is, well, giving out propaganda.Senior
08-05-2013, 08:22 PM #43
If you can't afford health insurance, don't have kids.
Along with all sorts of other BS.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
08-05-2013, 09:23 PM #44
So it's not propaganda when a news networks lineup is 85 percent opinion which is almost always liberal? Gimme a break
08-05-2013, 10:51 PM #45
If opinion is presented as opinion, I don't care which party or wing it represents. When opinion is presented as, literally, facts, then it is not representing news or reality. When an organization is run by the "former" head of a political party, and hires members of the same party to present "facts" on the station while they are actively involved in running for elective office, it is not news, it is propaganda. If you watched Fox on the night Obama won his second election, and saw the meltdown of a key Republican player on the air live, then it must be clear that "news" as I understand it is not being presented by that network.
Oh, and I wouldn't care what either Al Sharpton nor Rachael Maddow say as to their opinions (neither one interests me). But I am certain that NBC does keep a rein on what facts are presented, and that political players aren't hired by the station to advance their personal goals in elective politics. MSNBC does follow what remains of the old rules of a news organization. Fox is an entertainment organization which delivers propaganda in the furtherance of a single political party.
There is a difference between the two organizations.Senior
08-07-2013, 05:29 PM #46
, keeping student loans available and relatively cheap (how many members here are in high school or college right now?)
, putting into place a consumer protection agency to help all of us
, getting semi-universal health care that gave 4 million children living in poverty health care as well as allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until the age of 26 (again, how many high school and college kids are reading this right now?), stopping insurers from refusing to insure you if you have a pre-existing ailment
, ending Bush's war in Iraq, all these and more are as nothing compared to letting Apple sell old stock?
What is it about the right wing in America now that thinks that all our problems would go away if only Obama was gone?
Is it because he is a Democrat?
Or you think (wrongly) that he is foreign-born?
That he is not one of "us?" Or that (my belief) that he is Black in a country always previously run by Whites? And that NOTHING he has done is good, even when it is obviously good for them?
Please get it through you head: Most people who dislike President Obama do so because of his performance as President of the United States, simple as that. It's not a race problem, for most it's not even a issue of being a Democrat, but just what he as actually done during his time as President.
I'm not going to go any further here, as you seem to be just rewriting the same arguments over and over. If you want to support the current president, then go ahead. What I dislike the most, however, is people who try to claim that we should look past things like race, etc, and then at the same time want to give someone special treatment because of exactly that. and in the case of Obama, it's like people want to give him leeway seemingly because of it, to the point of allowing him to get away with just about anything, acting like what ever he does, no matter how negative the impact, is perfectly ok. The last time I saw such accommodating behavior was, to be frank, in a special ed class. which I got to witness a lot when I worked IT at an elementary school.
08-07-2013, 08:30 PM #47
Since your first response is so terribly terribly incorrect there is no use in replying to anything else you wrote:
"he Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.
An earlier bill seeking to supersede the Ledbetter decision, also called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was first introduced in the 110th United States Congress but was not successfully enacted at that time, as it was passed by the House but failed in the Senate."Senior
08-08-2013, 08:42 AM #48