Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It looks like Issa and the committee will have the votes, if enough Democrats break:
House Dem breaks from party, plans to vote for Holder contempt | Fox News
It proves that MSN and Fortune are tied and have been for a long time. Joint ventures are a common theme of Microsoft. The merger with Fortune, like the one with NBC, is part of the Microsoft strategy of using established venues to foray into markets.
That means nothing at all.
And Time magazine, who actually DOES own Fortune, leans right.
Do you think Time leans as far right as Hugo Chavez? Well, not that far right.. Maybe they lean right the way ThinkProgress does, huh?
If enough Democrats break? Way to spin there short bus. Don't need one democrat vote to get the vote.
If enough Democrats break? Way to spin there short bus. Don't need one democrat vote to get the vote.
But a lot of dems will vote for the censure anyway.
While fuckwits like Bugnuts see only party, Holder has defied the authority of the United States Congress. That pisses a lot of Congressmen off, including democrats. Pelosi and the SS will move to keep the dims obedient, but many will break ranks and vote to censure Holder.
So, by your logic, since NBC and the Wall Street Journal both regularly engage in joint ventures:
NBC/WSJ poll: Obama, Romney remain in dead heat - Lean Forward
Does that mean that MSNBC is a right-wing news outlet, or that the Wall Street Journal is a Left-wing outlet?
Or do you think they've "merged" to become one wildly swinging news conglomerate?
Because I'm betting Rupert Murdoch would be a bit surprised to hear that his paper has "merged" with NBC...
I hope that made sense in your head, because it's just a mess of jibber-jabber on my screen.
I know but short buses post was misleading.
I know but short buses post was misleading.
I'm a little concerned if this ends up a vote down party lines, or close to party lines. Since the censure is purely a political act, it could actually harm the Republicans if this is portrayed by the DNC press as empty partisan theatrics.
Seriously, Unconsiouscornhole, you are queer AND stupid. You can't think, you can't write, and you don't post at a lot of threads, do you. The threads where you post are where the queer wingnuts all try to make shit, without squat, in the hope of shitting their pants, in front of each other.
"Does it hurt? I mean actual, physical pain, TO THAT STUPID?" I've actually had to talk to queer as a three-dollar-hillbilly retards, like YOU, in real life. Even though I don't much like it, writing to you guys beats actually being where you shit your goddamn pants, spread HIV, then eat shit, and die.
When you didn't realize F&F would wind up in court, after the NRA got into it, what is keeping you from simply finishing the shit, in your pants, and moving on?
I go over to this stupid thread, after I post, at a lot of others, since I need to see where the wingpunk queers all run off to, when they don't have a lot of crackpot arguments, against global climate change. Believe it or not, you wingpunk queers usually argue, against global warming, with the same kind of shit you post, here. So I come over here, to check it.
When you first realized you were a dumbfuck queer, who couldn't talk, did you think you would help yourself, by writing a lot of shit, about how you'd like to suck Issa's balls, in front of all your Log Cabin Club punkhole shitbags?
Bugnuts, you're what clinical psychologists refer to as "a fucking retard."
You are incapable of posting a rational response to anything.
Not exactly the same. Joint polling is a joint venture, but MSN is the web portal for Fortune - not so in regard to the WSJ.
Time magazine is a far left, to claim it, the NY Times, or Washington Post, as "right leaning" is absurd.
I know but short buses post was misleading.
I'm a little concerned if this ends up a vote down party lines, or close to party lines. Since the censure is purely a political act, it could actually harm the Republicans if this is portrayed by the DNC press as empty partisan theatrics.
*THAT* is already happening 'Bro...
Jay Carney: Fast and Furious Contempt Vote Just Political Theater
Not exactly the same. Joint polling is a joint venture, but MSN is the web portal for Fortune - not so in regard to the WSJ.
Time magazine is a far left, to claim it, the NY Times, or Washington Post, as "right leaning" is absurd.
According to you, 90% of the media is "far-left", and the other 10% is "moderate".
So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take you seriously when you say a magazine is "Far-Left". Especially one that I've read often, and know to be specifically not "far-left".
Next you'll be claiming that the WSJ was "far-left" until Murdoch took it over.
I'm a little concerned if this ends up a vote down party lines, or close to party lines. Since the censure is purely a political act, it could actually harm the Republicans if this is portrayed by the DNC press as empty partisan theatrics.
*THAT* is already happening 'Bro...
Jay Carney: Fast and Furious Contempt Vote Just ‘Political Theater’
OK glad you brought this up T. If this is purely politics as the democrats say it is, and there is nothing to hide, why don't they release the documents and prove their is nothing there? What better way then to show that this is political and show that there was nothing to hide?
The democrats can say see I told you so, nothing there.*THAT* is already happening 'Bro...
Jay Carney: Fast and Furious Contempt Vote Just Political Theater
OK glad you brought this up T. If this is purely politics as the democrats say it is, and there is nothing to hide, why don't they release the documents and prove their is nothing there? What better way then to show that this is political and show that there was nothing to hide?
Just to play devils advocate on this point...
saying that something could be used to illustrate a point and creating something to specifically illustrate a point are two very different things. Do you really think EITHER side will allow for that nuance or point to anything they can as a smoking gun? ( pun intended )
According to you, 90% of the media is "far-left", and the other 10% is "moderate".
So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take you seriously when you say a magazine is "Far-Left". Especially one that I've read often, and know to be specifically not "far-left".
Next you'll be claiming that the WSJ was "far-left" until Murdoch took it over.
I'm a little concerned if this ends up a vote down party lines, or close to party lines. Since the censure is purely a political act, it could actually harm the Republicans if this is portrayed by the DNC press as empty partisan theatrics.
*THAT* is already happening 'Bro...
Jay Carney: Fast and Furious Contempt Vote Just Political Theater
OK glad you brought this up T. If this is purely politics as the democrats say it is, and there is nothing to hide, why don't they release the documents and prove their is nothing there? What better way then to show that this is political and show that there was nothing to hide?
According to you, 90% of the media is "far-left", and the other 10% is "moderate".
So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take you seriously when you say a magazine is "Far-Left". Especially one that I've read often, and know to be specifically not "far-left".
Next you'll be claiming that the WSJ was "far-left" until Murdoch took it over.
Honestly, I have NEVER heard anyone claim Time was anything other than left of center before.
What would possibly make them "right, " as you claimed? Do you think the NY Times is also "Right Wing?" The Washington Post? The Huffington Post?
