RIDDLE : in your opinion ,what do Wolf Blitzer, Larry king Thomas Friedman,Bill Kristol, Judith Miller, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith,, Richard Perle.....and the Neo conservatives share ?
Most liberals are not traders; no dumb ass traders would vote for a wealth distribution program that's going to take away your hard earned money, unless you are very stupid so, oktiri. Either you are stupid or you are a blk brother, a brother will be excused but not any other dumb ass in the world.
Study released today showing the average Democrat/Liberal spends 73% of their income on cigarettes and beer. Not even the imported kind.
oktiri, Anderson Cooper on his CNN AC360 show repeatedly refers to William Kristol as a "leading conservative." That is truly a false flag representation of the founder of PNAC - Project for New American Century and also being son of the founder of neo-conservatism. These are the guys who pushed for the Iraq war years before 2001-09-11. It is like CNN is touting neo-conservatives like the "real social conservatives" - which is absolutely bullshit. When Larry King frequently has Ben Stein as a guest, and then "introduces" him with his merits on economics - but then progress to talk about politics - he vehemently suppresses the facts about Ben Stein which are highly controversial... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed The campaign Ben Stein has about "religious and ethnic awareness" in schools and a highly controversial documentary... It sucks when people try to sneak in a "whole basket of opinions" based on a single merit. They could easily divulge what radical opinions people have - and their agendas - but noooo, they do it under false pretences all the time. That just goes to show what kind of "ethics" and "integrity" are prevalent in CNN.
Obama easily fooled: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=obama&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#q=obama lie&hl=en&emb=0&start=10
So the closed minded little publicly funded world of atheists does not like controversy and can control the debate because they control the venue... what else is new?
Just looking at the two propositions displayed in the graphic, I'd say that the Fox viewers were more correct than any other viewers or the study authors. "Since the war ended, the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" Not a very specific statement as the WMD are not defined. For instance, are unmixed chemical WMD precursors included in the proposition or not? There were a lot of precursor agents found, but not constituted into workable WMD's. Nevertheless they could easily have been constituted into WMD's. Hundreds of empty chemical weapons shells were also found along with equipment to manufacture them and load them. What about the 300 tons of radioisotopes including Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60, both of which are extremely radioactive substances that are ideal for use in Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD), or âdirty bombs.â Along with 500 tons of yellowcake left over from the first gulf war, these were in the possession of Saddam Hussein, and any lifting of the sanctions against him would certainly have led to the possibility of him utilizing them (the NY Times reported a couple of years ago that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program all planned out on paper that was extremely sophisticated). And then there were the concentrated anthrax, ricin and botulinum toxins found in amounts enough to further produce unlimited additional amounts of each, enabling a quick reconstitution of Saddam's biological warfare program (only a few vials of each needed to be preserved). So taking the above into account it would be quite correct to agree with the statement proposed. The next proposition is no more specific than the first. "US has found clear evidence the Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaida terrorist group" Is having a diplomatic officer stationed in Pakistan that regularly communicated with Osama bin Laden close enough? Well the Hussein regime boasted of such in one of their own newspapers. And that would be a closer working relationship than almost every other country in the world. The idea that Saddam and Osama were at ideological odds with each other is just a convenient liberal myth. In a 1999 issue of the same newspaper Osama was called an "Arab and Islamic hero." A number of western news accounts prior to the war outlined al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq, including Newsweek, ABC News, NPR, CNN and others. In a 1999 Washington Post article President Clinton is quoted linking a Sudan chemical weapons plant, funded by al Qaeda with Iraqi nerve gas experts providing advise. This was not the first time Iraqi WMD experts had been linked to al Qaeda funded weapons plants in Sudan. It has been documented that a number of al Qaeda representatives had visited Iraq over the years prior to the war. Saddam trained many foreign terrorists in Iraq, including many who ended up in Afghanistan with al Qaeda. In short there is a multitude of evidence that al Qaeda and Iraq had a significant relationship, and again the correct answer to the study proposition would be yes. So the conclusion, at least from these two prominent study proposals, would be that Fox News viewers are more informed than viewers and readers of liberal media outlets, and indeed, the study authors themselves.