Messages

931

General Discussion / Re: Election Day Discussion & Coverage

« on: November 03, 2010, 11:21:43 AM »

I don't have time for politics, nor do I believe in political parties. There's too many other stuff going on in my life that's far more important.

You sound like me two years ago. I was once naive in thinking that I don't have to participate in politics. That there wasn't much of a difference between the parties. That the media wasn't biased. And that there was no such thing as an "evil" politician.

Boy was I in for a rude awakening! As sad as it may seem, there are politicians out there that just want power. They don't give a damn about you or this country. All they want is to be re-elected. And they'll make whatever deals they can to get re-elected (with the help of donations from big corporations and unions).

Like it or not, our freedom isn't a done deal. We have to keep fighting for it. Both in war and in elections. To quote Ben Franklin, when a woman asked him what he and the founding fathers had given them, "a Republic, if you can keep it."

So unless you're okay with politicians deciding what doctor you can see, what college you can go to, what food you can eat, etc, I urge you (and everyone else that "doesn't care") to get involved! It doesn't matter which "side" you pick, just make sure you know what you believe, educate yourself on history of both parties, pay attention to what's going on, and vote!

And for the love of sanity, please don't use The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report as your primary source for news.

932

General Discussion / Re: Election Day Discussion & Coverage

« on: November 03, 2010, 10:41:34 AM »

I am disappointed at this election. At least Jerry Brown has been elected to the governor's office again. That's good news.

Yah, always good to have someone in office that has no plan.

Jerry Brown "it's all a lie... I didn't have a plan for California"

933

General Discussion / Re: Election Day Discussion & Coverage

« on: November 03, 2010, 10:39:34 AM »

I am very happy Harry Reid is going to remain in office. 

I guess voters took him seriously when he said "but for me, we'd be in a world-wide depression."

http://www.breitbart.tv/reid-but-for-me-wed-be-in-world-wide-depression/



On one hand, Harry Reid is a disgrace. On the other hand, I wonder what violence by the union workers would've occurred had he'd lost, as he promised them much (and they spent much to elect and re-elect him).

So what has Harry Reid done for you, TampaMillTWC88?

934

TWC Fan Art / Re: Tyler's HD Concepts

« on: November 02, 2010, 07:24:34 PM »

Wow! Nice work, Tyler!

935

Local Forecast / Re: Jean Luc Ponty

« on: November 02, 2010, 03:26:35 PM »

1997: Once Upon A Dream

1988: Sunset Drive

936

General Discussion / Re: Election Day Discussion & Coverage

« on: November 02, 2010, 10:48:06 AM »

In regards to this election, we have given the Democrats a chance to turn things around and its clear that was a poor decision. Tomorrow will be a great day!

That is what you think. But not this time!    The republicans screwed America over big time for 8 years, forcing us into the worst recession in any of our lifetimes, and we have only just started to recover from that mess.

OMG, I am SO sick of hearing that B.S. (FYI - I'm directing my anger at the Dems and the liberal media, not you)!! Yes, it's true, the Bush era Republicans screwed up on a lot of things. Medicare Part D, the border, and No Child Left Behind to name a few. But let's not forget that the economy was doing fairly well (except around 9/11) until Pelosi came into power in 2007. People seem to think that the President is solely responsible for the economy. Not so. More often than not, it's the congress. So when people talk about the "Clinton boom" and the "Bush recession," what they should really be talking about is the Gingrich boom and Pelosi recession. Like it or not, the President has had almost two years to fix things, the Congress has had almost four. Things are clearly not getting better. So we have two options, we can vote for more of the same or try a new batch of Republicans. Personally, I'd rather take a chance on the Republicans. I mean, most Democrats won't even acknowledge that there's a problem. They mock us for daring to complain or disagree with them. And they expect us to reward them for that? I don't think so!

As a side note, what we Tea Party activists are trying to do is elect new Republicans that are true conservatives. We are NOT trying to elect or re-elect the Republicans that ran things during the Bush years. Those were mainly progressives (who aren't much different than the liberal progressives currently in power). And progressives are bad! So when you hear the President or one of his supporters saying that we want to go back to the way things were, he's full of it. I don't know a single conservative that wants to go back to the way things were. We want LIMITED government. Period.

937

General Discussion / Re: Election Day Discussion & Coverage

« on: November 01, 2010, 07:45:53 PM »

I don't turn 18 until the 20th, and I wish I could vote in the South Carolina governer's race. The battle Jim DeMint and the no-name, no-political background Democrat? Well, you can probably guess who's winning that one.

I think it would be pretty funny if he actually won 

Funny? Really?

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want that kind of power in the hands of someone that's crazy.

938

General Discussion / Re: Election Day Discussion & Coverage

« on: November 01, 2010, 07:21:21 PM »

So, if you are eligible to vote, will you tomorrow?

What are the big races in your area?

Heck yah! I don't think there are any "big" races in my area, though. However, in 2012, Senator Ben Nelson will (likely) be running for re-election. Assuming we get a conservative to run against him, that will probably be a tight race. Then again, maybe not. He was one of the Democrats that caved on the healthcare bill at the last minute, earlier this year. And from what I understand, there are numerous Democrats (who voted for him) that weren't happy about that.

939

Programming and Graphics / Re: TWC Revamp: Strong Chance Of Less Weather Coverage

« on: October 29, 2010, 10:39:44 AM »

It's been discussed many times before, but I think it's worth repeating...

Have two channels. One for people that use TWC for weather information and another for people who don't wanna think. One with 24/7 weather and another for weather reality, oh excuse me, ACTUALITY TV!

940

Local Forecast / Re: the weather channels christmas music 2010

« on: October 29, 2010, 10:30:37 AM »

I think its crazy how they stop the music before Christmas is even over

...and how it only starts a week prior to. I say give it at least two weeks.

941

Programming and Graphics / Re: TWC Revamp: Strong Chance Of Less Weather Coverage

« on: October 27, 2010, 11:29:56 PM »

When I look at this thread overall, everyone is in agreement about how we view NBC's role with TWC, but some of us are just tired of discussing it and want to move on to something more positive.

Okay, let's talk about bunnies.

942

Programming and Graphics / Re: TWC Revamp: Strong Chance Of Less Weather Coverage

« on: October 27, 2010, 10:33:37 AM »

I can understand her idea of people having more access to the weather through TWC's website, iPad, etc., but the problem is that's only "some" NOT "all". What are the people who do occasionally watch TWC for severe wx updates and aren't able to have availability to those sources supposed to do?

Exactly! My step-dad is a farmer (so he needs to check the forecast at least once a day) and does not use the internet. My mom often jokes about how she has to print out any emails he gets or how he never checks his text messages. When you're on the go all day long, you need the forecast now...not at 6. Which is where TWC SHOULD come in. Of course, it's NBC's network and they can do whatever they want with it. I'm just saying (again) that they're nuts if they think this move won't result in a huge loss of viewers.

943

Programming and Graphics / Re: TWC Revamp: Strong Chance Of Less Weather Coverage

« on: October 26, 2010, 03:25:26 PM »

Like Jesse said, we'll get used to this like we all did before.

Yes, some will, but many won't. Many will just give up on TWC and find another source for weather information (I did years ago). What NBC doesn't seem to realize (or care) is that there are still many people out there that need on up-to-the-minute weather information. And in it's heyday, the place for that was definitely TWC. The appeal was that you didn't have to wait for the 6:00 or 10:00 news. You could get your weather forecast every few minutes. You could get live coverage of an event. You didn't have to wait or settle for for a bunch of stupid boxes, with information typed in a font size that requires binoculars to read, covering up half the damn screen. But now, as time goes by, NBC is moving farther and farther away from what made TWC, well, TWC. Don't get me wrong, if they WANT to become a G4-like network, that's fine. But they're nuts if they think most or all of their loyal "weather" fan base will stick around.

944

Programming and Graphics / Re: TWC Revamp: Strong Chance Of Less Weather Coverage

« on: October 26, 2010, 10:49:17 AM »

Just like people got over the MTV thing, people will get over the TWC thing as well. Trust me. You'll all eventually get over it and move on to more important "in real life" problems.

While reading this thread, I was wondering if I was going to see your trademark "dad" answer.

Yes, people who were upset over MTV's choice to dump music videos got over it. Only they got over it by watching another channel.

I love her razor-thin arguments for long-form (or as I like to call it, long-nap) programming. Yes, outdoor photography has a little to do with weather. But then again, so does buying patio furniture at Home Depot and scratching yourself in the morning. When do those Emmy-worthy programs debut?

945

General Discussion / Re: Happy Birthday Martin!

« on: October 22, 2010, 10:19:00 AM »

Happy Birthday, Martin!