Select your best hookup:
Local
Gay
Asian
Latin
East Europe

megapersonals con

Seriously tho, don t take it seriously, just be standard & just see it as a way of meeting men and women you may not of run into otherwise. camden singles One particular of the indian attributes of with no exceptional Dating in India website is no joining charge. Happn matches you with people today who are situated nearby. locanto slc Of course, even when you are paying for it to be somewhat much less soul crushing, dating is nonetheless dating.

megapersonels

You can also share your personal creative writing right here. single men in montreal In today s Dwelling with the Lost Italian food column, Sarah Nasello shares a recipe for her Festive Onion and Olive Cream Cheese Dip that s fast and easy to prepare. 49 / €9. best dating apps costa rica All too typically, the actual character of the person only seems when some adverse occasion hits them or you.

Home  Sign In  Search  Date Ideas  Join  Forums  Singles Groups  - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!


10/14/2012 4:48:47 PM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Election season is coming to a close and revelations are flying. Recently the Huffington Post published a very disparaging article in an attempt to prove Romney is a monster. Personally I don't take anything Huffington posts seriously beause in my experience by fact checking it appears to me that more than 50% of the time they misrepresent facts or take them out of context just to prove their agenda.

Why does media do this? It is simple. They do it because their primary goal is not to report facts or news but rather to promote their particular agenda. Anything related to Adrianna Huffington and the Huffington Post is automatically suspect. The Huffington Post is not alone.

What about an outlet like Fox News? While Huffington and many large city newspapers generally promote liberal agendas, Fox News promotes a conservative one. Regardless I rarely agree with O'Rieley and Hannity. What they present are opinions. On the other hand, Stossel, Cavuto, Greta Van S., and Lou Dobbs do make sense and their facts and reporting generally hold up to scrutiny. That is refreshing.

The point is there is a difference between creating and crafting stories and reporting them in such a way as to promote an agenda; and simply reporting facts on the other hand. Understanding and representing facts is something neither liberal nor conservative media do very well because they are biased. In all of these stories sensational headlines and shocking revelations are the "tell" that gives them away.

What Huffington posted is merely an example of the liberal side of things. It is similar to books promoted by O'Reiley. In my opinion neither is worthy of serious consideration by anyone seeking facts or the truth. These meanderings amount to simple gossip.

Gossip is below all important intellectual standards. These kinds of things and tactics are fundamentally immoral on every level because they misinform those of us not crafty enough to see through the BS. In promoting this rubbish one places themself in seriously compromised company and runs the risk of dying disparaged and stupid.



Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!

DateHookup.dating - 100% Free Personals


10/15/2012 8:30:30 AM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


people still watch, read, listen to the news?

10/15/2012 1:21:01 PM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  

pentopaper
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (52,079)
Okmulgee, OK
50, joined Nov. 2008




10/16/2012 3:23:39 AM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Walter Cronkite ended each news boradcast in the 40's, 50'w and 60's with the statement, "And that's the way it is." There has been no decent news reporting since he retired and besides, he's dead now many years. Such a shame! Not since the famous sport reporter Howard Cosell declared that boxing was fixed he declared and refused to report on it any longer have we had such honest brokers. That is a shame. It's all smoke and mirrors today. It takes a lot more dilegence thn ever before to sort out the facts of anything. TMI...too much inforamtion, that's the rub....but information and tructh are not synonomous. One must be very careful today! There is way too much "crap as fact" going around.

10/17/2012 12:29:37 PM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from andy505050:
I try to stay away from msnbc and fox. Ill watch them both sometimes and try to sort out fact from rhetoric. But I read most of my news. NPR isn't to bad either, but I find that even NPR seems to be developing a liberal slant.


A news person shouldnt ever be a celebrity.


Yeah...like Candy Crowley as a debate moderator. She interrupted Romney more than twice as many times as Obama and supported Obama by incorrectly "fact checking" Obama's intital position on the assault in Bengazi. Romney was truthful when he said it took like 2 weeks for the White house to admit it wasn't a demonstration over a stupid film, but a well planned and coordinated terrorist attack. So this celebrity "moderator" didn't moderate, she judged. In the words of the great sage Jed Clampet, "Pitiful, just pitiful!".


10/19/2012 12:40:41 AM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  
mrfartypants
Over 1,000 Posts (1,159)
San Antonio, TX
33, joined Nov. 2011


Recently the Huffington Post published ...



OP, after this I didn't read any of your post.

10/24/2012 10:12:46 AM Do you see the differences among "news" outlets?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from andy505050:
I would like to know when "fact" and "truth" will be inserted in this race. Romney's numbers dont add up. And Obama just don't have a clue. As someone who has the ability to look around the corner and see what opportunities lie ahead, I get what Romney is saying about cutting taxes. But without the economic growth he is predicting his plans will destroy our already weak economy and explode our debt even higher.

I know what Romney is going for. In the past during the 1920's then during JFK's admistration and later in Reagans administration these presidents got taxes lowered from around 70% to 28%. This in time expanded the tax base and increased economic activity and led to the govt actually getting more revenue.

Whats different now is our rates arent 70%. Our economy is in the shitter because we all spent more money than we had, and now we have had to lose some stuff and pay our debt back. Its not taxes this time. We don't have 40% we can afford to cut out of our tax code. Or 20% for that matter. And then boost military spending by another 2 trillion over 10 years. What for?

I hope I am wrong. I hope cutting taxes by 20 percent works and does expand our tax base. I just don't see how we are going to be able to make the investments other countries are making in the economies and their people by cutting the taxes.

But we are a capitalist country. Capitalism is about risk and reward. But the question now is is the risk worth the reward this time. There is so much at stake.


I'm only guessing but I'm sure his numbers will add up when the whole plan is revealed. I think an important part of it may relate to the "47%" that pay no taxes and get back much more than they pay in.

If he stops that transfer of wealth, all the money collected by the IRS stays in the system rather than having more than half of it paid back out in refunds. Maybe that's what he really means when he talks about "closing loopholes". If nobody gets back more than they pay in that would certainly close the gap.