outfoxed

[seth]

http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Outfxd2/Trailer_A(Med).mov

[BFG]

Oh man more Left wing bullshit - slandering such a well respected and neautral News information network like fox ROFL

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Bah!  It won't play on this stupid PC at work....what does it say?

[seth]

in essence it prooves how Fox is not impartial in its news.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

in essence it prooves how Fox is not impartial in its news.

Ah, well who didn't know that?  I've been saying all along that none of the media sources anywhere in the world tell you just the facts and let you make up your own mind.  I hate that about all the media sources I have seen.  I love how everyone thinks that Fox News was going to be the new "Conservative" media source....but in their quest to be "fair and balanced" they have to give both sides, which means they have both liberals and conservatives there.  I really wish I could get some honest, no-spin....no document faking.....no telling me what they want me to hear....good old fact-only reporting.  But I guess I need to get off the crack pipe with that wish.

[Maniac]

Bobby this is exactly what BFG said it is, left wing crap. Plus i had to get a new player to watch it damn you!  

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Have it on DVD, it's a good movie, sets up a solid claim and defends it with fact, worth checking out. It will piss you off. FOX does have Colmbs, but he is a waste of space. If you watched the debates you would know JK soundly won, however FOX played it like the Pres won, which we all know is BS.

[BFG]

Oh shit sorry Maniac... i forgot my [sarcasm] quotes.

... Front page of todays paper - appology from the Fox Network regarding its totally biased coverage of some Kerry issues and some complete lies contained in an article posted on the Fox website by a senior reporter.

[Maniac]

Lol damn i though BFG and i agreed on something oh well maybe next time.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

-Election 2000-    Bush-50,456,002      Gore-50,999,897

This is a little off-topic, but I feel I finally need to respond to Spetsnaz's signature...

Spets, you act like this is the first time this has happened.  How do you explain these:

1.  John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in the 1824 election, yet Adams won.

2.  Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Samuel J. Tilden by 264,292 votes in the 1876 election, yet Hayes won.

3.  Benjamin Harrison trailed Grover Cleveland by 95,713 votes in the 1888 election, yet Harrison won.

You see, this is something that happens sometimes, it isn't something new.  By the way, I know you already know this Spets...having the same major in college that I had...but I just thought I should shed some light for the rest of the people on this forum.

[spike]

Whether or not spets knows that, it demonstrates how strangly the US election system works. I mean, I would think that if the greater number of people wanted one guy, then he would get into office. The Electoral College was created when people lived in remote areas, and it wasnt easy for people to come together, get a good idea of the situation, and intelligently choose a canidate. So it made sense that there was a small group of people who would represent their region. But now, with the advent of 24 hour news and the internet, does it really make sense to keep the electoral college?

(btw, that summary came from a dim memory of 8th grade history, so if I got something wrong, please correct me...with the minumum of flames..)

["Sixhits"]

-Election 2000-    Bush-50,456,002      Gore-50,999,897

This is a little off-topic, but I feel I finally need to respond to Spetsnaz's signature...

Spets, you act like this is the first time this has happened.  How do you explain these:

1.  John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in the 1824 election, yet Adams won.

2.  Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Samuel J. Tilden by 264,292 votes in the 1876 election, yet Hayes won.

3.  Benjamin Harrison trailed Grover Cleveland by 95,713 votes in the 1888 election, yet Harrison won.

You see, this is something that happens sometimes, it isn't something new.  By the way, I know you already know this Spets...having the same major in college that I had...but I just thought I should shed some light for the rest of the people on this forum.

Not to get nuanced or nothing, but...

Don't you think the person with the most votes should win?

Anyway, it's not that Bush lost the public vote but won the electoral college.

It's that the Republicans set out to steal the election by, 1) supressing minority voters, particularly in Flordia, and expecially by targeting any black person with a name remotely similar to a felon, and 2) by fighting tooth and nail to make sure votes were not counted in Florida.

According to Republicans votes don't matter -- only winning.

As far as I'm concerned an honorable man would have insisted on counting all the votes.  Someone who seeks the highest office in our land needs to care about our fellow American's votes, and that those votes are counted. And Bush didn't care to. He is not the legitmate President.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

-Election 2000-    Bush-50,456,002      Gore-50,999,897

This is a little off-topic, but I feel I finally need to respond to Spetsnaz's signature...

Spets, you act like this is the first time this has happened.  How do you explain these:

1.  John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in the 1824 election, yet Adams won.

2.  Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Samuel J. Tilden by 264,292 votes in the 1876 election, yet Hayes won.

3.  Benjamin Harrison trailed Grover Cleveland by 95,713 votes in the 1888 election, yet Harrison won.

You see, this is something that happens sometimes, it isn't something new.  By the way, I know you already know this Spets...having the same major in college that I had...but I just thought I should shed some light for the rest of the people on this forum.

Yessa, but that was 1824, 1876, and 1888 not 2000. In other words my children won't bear the burden of those elections, like they will have to with the results of the 2000 election. The EC was put in place to insure that the peasants wouldn't make the wrong choice for CIC, however in such a technologically advanced democracy I question its validity. Plus, it clearly displays that the majority of people in the U.S. DO NOT prescribe to conservative ideals.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

As far as I'm concerned an honorable man would have insisted on counting all the votes.  Someone who seeks the highest office in our land needs to care about our fellow American's votes, and that those votes are counted. And Bush didn't care to. He is not the legitmate President.

Actually, the New York Times did do a count of the votes that never got counted during the election of 2000 and guess what?  Bush won the most popular votes in Florida, which means he also would have won all of the electoral votes for Florida.  He still would have ended up winning the election with less popular votes nationwide, but there wouldn't have been the big stink with the Supreme Court.

["Sixhits"]

As far as I'm concerned an honorable man would have insisted on counting all the votes.  Someone who seeks the highest office in our land needs to care about our fellow American's votes, and that those votes are counted. And Bush didn't care to. He is not the legitmate President.

Actually, the New York Times did do a count of the votes that never got counted during the election of 2000 and guess what?  Bush won the most popular votes in Florida, which means he also would have won all of the electoral votes for Florida.  He still would have ended up winning the election with less popular votes nationwide, but there wouldn't have been the big stink with the Supreme Court.

Got that article?

And, just for fun... The Republican Convention on video. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Saddam....

http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov

And... DEMOCRATS -- the Promise of America

http://www.newdem.org/promise/video.php

[spike]

Proof? I had sex with Mary Kate and Ashely at the same time, believe me?

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Plus, it clearly displays that the majority of people in the U.S. DO NOT prescribe to conservative ideals.

No, it only shows that the majority of people who VOTED in the U.S. did not prescribe to conservative ideas.  Big difference there, but nice try bro.

[BTs_FahQ2]

it's funny how those of you who appear to act educated have no clue how our electoral system works.

Here it is in a nutshell to help you understand:

the electoral college was created to fend off popular insanity (I could go into detail, but in case of weird coincidences, the college is supposed to remain of sound mind to elect a president).  This is not the major issue for it though.

The electoral college was also created to ensure a candidate wins the presidency by a majority percentage while creating a 2 party system.  If you take Israel for example, (I use them because they have this happen so often) they have upwards of 30 parties running for Prime Minister.  This means Mr. Sharon got about 35% of the vote.  This means a majority or significat amount of the population doesn't support it's leading.  This is why there is always chaos amongst opinion and it's leaders; ie - he must fend off no confidence votes about every goddamn month instead of concentrating on his duties.  This happens in many other places with the same system installed.

This is the beauty of the creation of the electoral college, it insures stability beyond the governments capacity and has a huge mental effect on the population.  This is why most americans, no matter who wins, rally behind a president.  They can accept he won with a majority of support and move on with their lives. Of course this does create a few occasions where someone with less votes wins the presidency, but we have yet to have a national crisis where changing stability has warranted a change of system.

If you understand this nod yes, and then listen next time you are in a political science, history class or anywhere else they offer knowledge on the issue.  It's not just a case about whining who got more votes.


ahh and for those who still bitch about a stolen election.  I remember a young JFK who rose to the national spotlight with a little stolen election.  So it's not a one party issue, both sides are as crooked as they can get and both sides will stop at nothing to see their candidate push their agenda.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Got that article?

No.  Once they realized who actually won the election, they wouldn't publish it because it would make Bush look good.  And we can't have that, now can we?  Talk about your "non-biased" media all you want.  They are all a bunch of bullshit artists who want nothing more than to feed you what they want you to hear.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

LOL that video is hilarious SiX.

GS, ok lets look at the biggest chunk of people who did not vote in 2000. Minorities, people of a lesser SES, and young people. All three of these groups lean towards the left. Without Reagan's charisma, conservative ideals would have been washed up two decades ago.