Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on October 23, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
-
Anyone else happy to see this?
I smell desperation...
Hopefully the reaction, the push back to Obama over reaching is something better than just more Republicans getting elected. Hopefully it will be the right kind of Republicans, the type with a constitutional/libertarian bent.
There have been numerous articles about this, Krauthammer has an article about it I read this morning
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/23/white_house_tactics_go_too_far.html
-
I think it could be a pivotal moment in the history of this (I hope and pray) one-term administration. The White House brought checkers strategy to a chess match, doing the one thing which would force the sympathetic media to take a stand in defense of their industry, not just Fox News. Juvenile and foolish.
-
Attacking the very people who conned the stupid into voting for you in the first place. I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance and lack of sense this administration shows. Let's hope they keep it up until the MSM is no lenger getting tingly feelings in their special areas at the sight of Obama.
-
The White House brought checkers strategy to a chess match...
Not to criticize, but it looks more like a bar brawling strategy to me.
-
SW:
Point taken. I was trying to illustrate that short term gain can bite you later. Breaking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they defied you on an agenda item is short-sighted when you might want their support two years hence. If your intent was to cow them into submission, fine, but resentful servants aren't reliable.
-
I'm quite annoyed actually.
Fox is horrible and needs to die in a fire, as long as MSNBC, and CNN closely follow.
Most TV news is about ratings, not news. Fox caters to what conservatives "already know to be true" while MSNBC caters to what liberals "already know to be true". Neither outlet does any real serious news gathering, and contribute to ignorance in this country in its watchers, increasing the empty echo chamber which is TV political coverage.
Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.
-
I kinda personally like Fox, but I find this hilarious. The same gang of people who is going to make Iran, Norkieland, Putin, etc. play nice is not even able to stage a credible battle against a few talking heads? Power, I can feel it. :lol:
-
I'm quite annoyed actually.
Fox is horrible and needs to die in a fire, as long as MSNBC, and CNN closely follow.Most TV news is about ratings, not news. Fox caters to what conservatives "already know to be true" while MSNBC caters to what liberals "already know to be true". Neither outlet does any real serious news gathering, and contribute to ignorance in this country in its watchers, increasing the empty echo chamber which is TV political coverage.
Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.
I love Fox news. And, yes, it is preaching to the choir.
From the founding of our country, news has been even more aggressively partisan than it is now.
I truly wish we could return to that very brief period during which news was "objective".
Unfortunately, the media decided it wanted to use the trust it had built up as an objective reporting source in order to push a progressive/liberal/leftist agenda. Now that the trust has been lost, the left that has relied on that support is screaming and crying that the news isn't objective. (But, of course, it's just that BAD EVIL TERRIBLE right wing Fox that's responsible.)
Objective reporting is lost. The liberals killed it. They want it back? It's simple, STOP BEING BIASED.
Of course, ABC, NBC, and CBS are far too invested in liberal ideas to do that.
Thus, I prefer things stay as they are as to return to a liberal monopoly on "news".
-
The problem is that neither the liberal nor the conservative journalists consider themselves biased. Exceptions would of course include the likes of Limbaugh, Alan Colmes, Hannity, etc. The columnists who are clueless about their biases would fill a phone book. I'll bet E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd think they're neutral.
-
276 days down, 1185 to go.
-
Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.
Do you actually think politicians should be "doing something" to make sure that journalism is "fair" or "credible"?
Do you like to see politicians respond to criticism in the press by simply declaring that the press is not credible?
-
Journalism never was fair, unbiased, or credible. For a while it was customary for journalists to pretend otherwise, but it never was actually true.
-
Journalism never was fair, unbiased, or credible. For a while it was customary for journalists to pretend otherwise, but it never was actually true.
Quoted for truth. There are varying degrees of bias, but true, pure objectivity is something that does not exist.
-
Do you actually think politicians should be "doing something" to make sure that journalism is "fair" or "credible"?
Do you like to see politicians respond to criticism in the press by simply declaring that the press is not credible?
If its the actual case, yes. I absolutely dont think they should respond wth legislation or anything like that.
Having said that, I also think press treatment (wether I personally feel it's legitimate or not) of politicians is a reflection of discontent with the current system that is far more showing of basic problems with the system than anything else.
-
The problem is that neither the liberal nor the conservative journalists consider themselves biased. Exceptions would of course include the likes of Limbaugh, Alan Colmes, Hannity, etc. The columnists who are clueless about their biases would fill a phone book. I'll bet E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd think they're neutral.
Actually, Limbaugh, Hannity and most of the other "conservative" talk show hosts don't consider themselves to be journalists. The ones I listen to pretty much all call themselves commentators and don't claim to be objective. Contrasted with the liberal commentators that claim to be unbiased journalists it ceased to be funny a little over a year and a half ago.
-
Media Matters jumps into the fray with statements that include the below quote (bold mine). Truly, Fox could pay the highest dollar advertising firm on the planet and not get publicity this good.
"The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore," says the introduction to a memo by Media Matters founder David Brock. "
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Media_Matters_coordinates_campaign_against_lethal_Fox.html
-
"The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore," says the introduction to a memo by Media Matters founder David Brock. "
They're scared now.
-
The Obama administration fired a round down range at the so-called mainstream "journalists" by taking on FOX. Obama and his get hammered by FOX and shortly thereafter Obama's talking heads show on snooze shows claiming FOX does not engage in real "journalism". Most telling was the distinction drawn between news and talk radio. Then Obama frees up his <insert species> czar for a pool interview and dictates the absence of FOX. Blew up in his face like an exploding cigar. Obama said he hoped credible institutions would not take FOX's lead on some of the more interesting stories of corruption.
Putting it all together Obama just tried to isolate FOX and intimidate the rest of mainstream "journalism" into keeping unfavorable stories in FOX and away from mainstream "journalists".
The other excuse I'm figgurin' on is Obama Copperfield is pulling another illusion. Deliberate create a story to dominate the coverage. then with the other hand, work quickly to accomplish something else out of the public's view.
-
The other excuse I'm figgurin' on is Obama Copperfield is pulling another illusion. Deliberate create a story to dominate the coverage. then with the other hand, work quickly to accomplish something else out of the public's view.
I'm thinking something along these lines too. Obama and friends has to know that telling American people not to watch channel X will only result in more people watching said channel.
-
I'm thinking something along these lines too. Obama and friends has to know that telling American people not to watch channel X will only result in more people watching said channel.
Yes it's the health care bill that's being ram-roded down our throats.
-
There's never been "objective" or unbiased news coverage. Philosophically impossible. But there is sound journalistic practice, relying on an array of sources and in-depth research rather than a few convenient "insiders" who reinforce what you already believe. And why do we tolerate "journalism" based on anonymous or un-corroborated sources? Thank you, Bob Woodward. Most journalists today aren't just indoctrinated liberals, they are lazy and desperate indoctrinated liberals. They go for the easy phone calls because they need to get something in print, on deadline, and like, as too many modern Americans, to offend no one so they can keep on getting those nice paychecks. And everyone wants to get invited to Ben and Sally's parties...
(Don't ask me how I know.)
-
There's never been "objective" or unbiased news coverage. Philosophically impossible.
Agreed.
But if you get some biased in different directions, then it pretty much balances out. (well, if you call 5-1 a "balance" :rolleyes: )
But that "balance" is what BHO was trying to destroy :mad:
IMO, any president should be impeached over this behavior. :police:
-
You won't get any disagreement from me on that last. I see two parallels: Nixon and Caligula.
-
If its the actual case, yes.
So you are OK with the POTUS bullying news organizations, rather than responding to the substance of criticism. Obama and his associates are not private citizens; they are public officials. As with the Cambridge police debacle, what would be free speech for most of us are abuses of power for the White House.
Not to mention that they threatened other news organizations about following in FOX's footsteps, and tried to deny FOX an interview which was offered to the other networks. Do you find this behavior understandable, rather than chilling?
Krauthammer:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13618691
-
Journalism never was fair, unbiased, or credible. For a while it was customary for journalists to pretend otherwise, but it never was actually true.
They should stop pretending, and everyone would be better off. They should be openly biased. That's why bloggers are popular; they do not conceal their biases. If I had a blog/radioshow/tv spot, I would be openly against leftism etc.
Or as Penn and Teller put it "Fair, but biased as hell".
-
They should stop pretending...
Or at the very least, they could stop deceiving themselves. You can't do much objective reporting, if you can't admit your own biases.
As others have said, bias in journalism is not new. What is so dangerous about the current situation is that the vast majority of the established news outlets are biased in one direction. And now the one TV news outlet that doesn't share that bias is being attacked by a sitting president and his staff as "not real news." Add to that the threat of a new Fairness Doctrine (in whatever form), to crack down on dissent in talk radio. Spooky times.
-
I'm quite annoyed actually.
Fox is horrible and needs to die in a fire, as long as MSNBC, and CNN closely follow.
Most TV news is about ratings, not news. Fox caters to what conservatives "already know to be true" while MSNBC caters to what liberals "already know to be true". Neither outlet does any real serious news gathering, and contribute to ignorance in this country in its watchers, increasing the empty echo chamber which is TV political coverage.
Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.
Naahhh, not all of Fox needs to die. The news shows are pretty good but I could do without Beck. O'Reilly and Hannity are entertaining to watch, much more so than a dweeb like Keith Olbermann. The word to describe why Obama thinks he can get away with this is hubris.
-
Beck and his weepy self is the guy who has brought some of hte best Obama dirt to light.
-
What with all the "how much bias is there really?"
Commercial journalism exists for one purpose - to make money. Be it selling air time or print ads, that's the bottom line. Trying to make one particular outlet less biased than another is, well... it's just laughable. They are all biased. The sad part is that people in the general public somehow thing that "journalistic integrity" actually exists in the real world just like it's supposed to. It can't. So long as the news media exists as a for-profit entity, or if there is a human in the mix, there will be bias.
Fox News has, to their credit, figured out that the VAST majority of the country is situated outside the borders of New York/DC and Los Angeles. They have set up their programming and their news reporting guidelines to cater to that audience. And it's worked. Their market share numbers prove it. Obama and his cronies hate it because they aren't stupid. They know their future is directly tied to those of us outside the real-world ignorance of the beltway and the make-believe environs of Holly-La-La-wood.
Successful, and trying to report in a way that will generate viewers among those of us in flyover country? Definitely. Unbiased? No. They are simply biased in a way attractive to those of us who work for a living.
Brad
-
If profit was the only motivating factor in journalism, then all the other news networks would imitate Fox News. Fox has the proven, effective formula for how to be successful in network news.
Seems to me that pushing a lefty ideology is at least as important to the other journalism sources as turning a profit. Probably more important. They certainly act like it is.
I also think a reason for Fox's unrivaled success is that none of the other networks are willing to give up their left-leaning agendas. This leave Fox the only player in the "don't beat your viewers over the head with your leftie agenda" market space. Fox has the market cornered by default.
-
If profit was the only motivating factor in journalism, then all the other news networks would imitate Fox News.
In this case it is directly tied to tradition. It's a case of "it's been this way so long it can't be any other way". They exist as a profit-making entity, but their traditions have become so blinding even that they are instutionally unable change with the business times. In their eyes, and in the entrenched traditions of their network, anyone who disagrees with them must be nutty. Therefor, this conservative movement thing must be a passing fancy and it will all go back to normal soon.
This kind of institutional tradition is hard to shake, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It takes an enormous shakeup for them to stop, take stock, and figure out "hey, maybe we should rethink this". The old-guard news agencies are finally getting the drift, but only after a couple years of falling viewership and circulation have forced it upon them.
Fox News has the luxury of being a relative newcomer, and being founded by a businessman rather than a "journalist". As an institution they have enough of a buisness mindset to know which side their bread is buttered on. They are capitalizing on the fact that most of the country was/is completely fed up with the way their news was being slanted. They also know (or at least give the appearance of trying) that people will go do their own fact-checking via the interwebz. CNN, MSNBC, and a the major lib newspapers still haven't figured out that this internet thing allows folks to see what really happened, not just the newsies particular views on it.
Brad
-
Rush seems to find joy in pointing out how a lot of the more liberal news outlets are losing ratings and/or readers. If they were just after money, you would think they would be firing executives and changing major news anchors more often.
-
It's a matter of ideology trumping business sense. They are so dead-set they are right no matter what that they will cling to a sinking ship.
Brad
-
I watch Fox because they actually are Fair and Balanced. When there's an issue they bring in people from both sides of political fence and fire the same questions to both sides.
If you watch the other networks, then the debate consists of the liberal vs the socialist.
-
Just more Unity Party pro-wrestling match here folks. Both Fox and Obama agree that at all costs the thing to be avoided is middle America going third party enmasse & tossing ALL the traitors out Left AND 'Right'.
-
Just more Unity Party pro-wrestling match here folks. Both Fox and Obama agree that at all costs the thing to be avoided is middle America going third party enmasse & tossing ALL the traitors out Left AND 'Right'.
ummmm :angel: (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27080107/newt-for-president.htm)
-
ummmm :angel: (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27080107/newt-for-president.htm)
How does this mean anythig in response to nraforlife's comment?
-
did you watch the vid? maybe it didn't say what i thought =(
-
Just more Unity Party pro-wrestling match here folks. Both Fox and Obama agree that at all costs the thing to be avoided is middle America going third party enmasse & tossing ALL the traitors out Left AND 'Right'.
Actually, Glenn Beck (Fox) regularly says that both parties are full of it and should be tossed out.
-
Fox covers GOP scandals, and commentators on the network have criticized the GOP - for example, Hannity has repeatedly said that the GOP was spending money like drunken sailors, and IIRC, it was Ann Coulter that called the GOP "The Stupid Party." So Fox isn't a "Republican Channel."
On the other hand, when the other networks are covering Democrats - particularly liberal Democrats - they tend to ignore Democrat scandals, and overall their idea of balance when covering Democrats (especially BHO) is to split the difference between being unabashedly adoring and embarassingly lickspittle. **
Fox doesn't "spike" stories that make the Dems look bad, so, obviously, they need to be punished.
(** - Full disclosure: I heard something along these lines from a Fox commentator . . . but the comment still rings true!)
-
Actually, Glenn Beck (Fox) regularly says that both parties are full of it and should be tossed out.
At the very least, all the incumbents should kicked out. However, I think you should start with the Democrats. :)
-
There are some pretty good Republican incumbents out there. Some pretty bad Republican incumbents, too, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here.
-
'Cause if you're not down with Third Party, you're a bad, bad person.
-
There is no Third Party. That's what really amazes me. There is literally no alternative party right now. Where are all the people that were Republican back when Republicans were like, Republican? Did they all change? Or is there just NO PARTY for them?
-
Actually, Glenn Beck (Fox) regularly says that both parties are full of it and should be tossed out.
and when push comes to shove next Fall Beck will be right in there with Hannity and Limbaugh telling Americans that they MUST vote for the RINO's offered by the Repubs or die a horrible death at the hands of Harry Reid. Beck is just another Judas Goat safety valve to keep middle Americans from pondering much less acting upon Issues which could REALLY threaten those in control.
-
Right. The Republican Party exists to serve as a safety valve to help keep the Democrats in power forever.
-
Right. The Republican Party exists to serve as a safety valve to help keep the Democrats in power forever.
It all makes sense now! It's like the Matrix where it only worked because there was a "choice" between being in the Matrix and being outside. It all must actually be controlled by some SUPER computer and we accidentally created AI which is slowly taking over the world!
Er...
Umm...
Well, I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords!
-
I, for one, welcome our new Third Party overlords.
Honestly, let's say that by some miracle a third party does rise to prominence. What makes anyone think their sh-- won't smell, too?
-
Right. The Republican Party exists to serve as a safety valve to help keep the Democrats in power forever.
At the top of the pyramid the Rulers agree completely- you are to be kept harmless and controlled. That is the job of the Repubs. The Democrats fill the same function keeping your 'leftist/progressive' opposite numbers harmless and controlled.
-
At the top of the pyramid the Rulers agree completely- you are to be kept harmless and controlled. That is the job of the Repubs. The Democrats fill the same function keeping your 'leftist/progressive' opposite numbers harmless and controlled.
Got it.
-
I, for one, welcome our new Third Party overlords.
Honestly, let's say that by some miracle a third party does rise to prominence. What makes anyone think their sh-- won't smell, too?
It'll probably have a completely different smell, though.
-
Wait!
Rats, i just lost it.
Who are our rulers, again?
And what are they doing in Giza?
???
-
There is no Third Party. That's what really amazes me. There is literally no alternative party right now. Where are all the people that were Republican back when Republicans were like, Republican? Did they all change? Or is there just NO PARTY for them?
The Republicans got religion, oh and became authoritarian and also Dem light. My question would be where are the true conservatives/classical liberals that believed in personal rights and states rights over big government and big religion? While Thomas Paine took it a little far for the times, he got it right on a lot of things. Jefferson got most of the rest nearly right. Unfortunately things haven't really been right since the beginning. The framework was good, but even the founders made a lot of mistakes in the implementation phase. Future generations have just compounded the errors.
-
What makes you think there were ever so many of us?
Maybe the debate 200 years ago was just how conservative/libertarian we really ought to be. Jefferson (libertarian/anarchist) vs Hamilton (conservative). Federalist vs anti-federalist. Etc.
But in modern times? When was the last time there was ever a really strong classical liberal majority?
-
How many of us do we need?
-
More than we have, it seems.
-
The Republicans got religion, oh and became authoritarian and also Dem light. My question would be where are the true conservatives/classical liberals that believed in personal rights and states rights
We're in our religious right churches, wondering why people like yourself keep blaming us for things we didn't do.
-
I was watching Newt scream for democrat light in the New York race on Greta the other night.
It seems like Newt still thinks the Republicans lose because they aren't liberal enough -- he also suggested that as long as they carry they (R) label they are good as gold; and they shouldn't push people out of the (R) party or the (D) will win. How come the democrats can get it right, but the republicans can't? Democrats push their party left and further left, kick out people that don't two the line then get control of congress, and elect the leftist of the left to the all the important positions (while there are still a large number of center leaning dems around). But the republicans do the opposite, they get into power, and put the center/left leaning republicans in power ....
-
Starting to sound like someone has their tinfoil wrapped a bit too tight...
-
....................... Where are all the people that were Republican back when Republicans were like, Republican? Did they all change? Or is there just NO PARTY for them?
some of each, but yes step by step over the past 10 years Evangelical Christians as a whole (the former heart of the conservative wing of the repubs) have been converted to warmongering golem statist shills for the neocons aka zionist marxists.
-
On a totally unrelated note, anyone know how much Huffington post pays people to infiltrate conservative type forums?
-
Why would they need to?
-
and when push comes to shove next Fall Beck will be right in there with Hannity and Limbaugh telling Americans that they MUST vote for the RINO's offered by the Repubs or die a horrible death at the hands of Harry Reid. Beck is just another Judas Goat safety valve to keep middle Americans from pondering much less acting upon Issues which could REALLY threaten those in control.
Sorry, I keep letting the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theorist rants. I'll just step aside. We wouldn't want reason or reality to interfere.
-
What conspiracy has nraforlife alleged?
-
What conspiracy has nraforlife alleged?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=21554.msg412292#msg412292
-
We're in our religious right churches, wondering why people like yourself keep blaming us for things we didn't do.
step by step over the past 10 years Evangelical Christians as a whole (the former heart of the conservative wing of the repubs) have been converted to warmongering golem statist shills for the neocons aka zionist marxists.
How does it feel to be a warmongering golem statist shill for the zionist marxists, Fistful? I'll bet you feel empowered. Golem's can smash stuff up good.
-
some of each, but yes step by step over the past 10 years Evangelical Christians as a whole (the former heart of the conservative wing of the repubs) have been converted to warmongering golem statist shills for the neocons aka zionist marxists.
bbbwwwwwaaaaaahhahahhahahaaaaaaaa!
-
What conspiracy has nraforlife alleged?
In this thread, or in other threads?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=21435.msg410011#msg410011
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=21554.msg412292#msg412292
-
bbbwwwwwaaaaaahhahahhahahaaaaaaaa!
Are there Zionist non-marxists?
-
Can I be a brass golem? Probably haven't advanced enough in the eeeevvvviiiilllll cabal to rate adamantium yet.
-
I watch Fox because they actually are Fair and Balanced.
lol looks like they got their meme in your head. I know all news outlets are biased, its just rankles me that Fox has to repeat their motta "Fair and Balanced" about 20x per program. If you were really fair and balanced would you have to keep saying it every chance you get?
CNN seems to be the only news org that doesn't reek of bias every news item they get.
-
Can I be a brass golem? Probably haven't advanced enough in the eeeevvvviiiilllll cabal to rate adamantium yet.
Golem Balog,
I'm afraid you only rate high-enough for stone golem at the moment. You need to do more damage to increase your rating.
Sincerely,
The Evil Cabal
-
Golem Balog,
I'm afraid you only rate high-enough for stone golem at the moment. You need to do more damage to increase your rating.
Sincerely,
The Evil Cabal
I always forget, are we controlled by the Jews, or do we hate them? I can never get that straight.
CNN seems to be the only news org that doesn't reek of bias every news item they get.
I lol'ed. ;/
-
Are there Zionist non-marxists?
Absolutely not! There are only zionist marxist pupeteers controlling the bavarian illumnaiti, free masons and the United states governemnt! Who whlese should have felled the over engineered twin towers, caused ruby ridge, waco, oklahomo city, and all the other atrocities?
:laugh:
-
>Who whlese should have felled the over engineered twin towers, caused ruby ridge, waco, oklahomo city, and all the other atrocities?<
Fistful?
-
I always forget, are we controlled by the Jews, or do we hate them? I can never get that straight.
The former, I believe.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fi_know_youre_listening.png&hash=4d0bad0b8fd3e6c67d6a9ec9f28159d6c07251b7)
-
>Who whlese should have felled the over engineered twin towers, caused ruby ridge, waco, oklahomo city, and all the other atrocities?<
Fistful?
For
the
win
-
There is no Third Party. That's what really amazes me. There is literally no alternative party right now. Where are all the people that were Republican back when Republicans were like, Republican? Did they all change? Or is there just NO PARTY for them?
You haven't heard about the Tea Parties and town hall events? Or what are you asking? I can tell you where they weren't. They weren't at the polls voting for John McCain, Sarah or no.
If you're wondering why there is no massive groundswell third party, then I would ask why you expect one. The Rep's aren't working that well for us now, but third parties haven't been much help, either. Or if there is some third party about to win big, it will become more obvious as we get closer to the 2010 elections.
-
i predict the big winners in the 2010 elections will be the...
whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_%28United_States%29) :O
=D well that should be your laugh for today, was mine anyway :angel:
-
Rather than thinking about 3rd parties, folks should be working to put the R's back toward the conservative right. The only people you hear saying that R's need to be more centrist are the leftists for land sake. When Reagan managed to do that, the R's had a bit of honor for a short period of time. One man can put his finger in the dike only for so long. Once the R's got the power, they forgot what put them there. As for Newt lately, I think he's getting senile.
Look what's happening in NY 23rd. The conservative is in the lead as an independent. Don't forget, this is a special election. There was no primary. If this would have been an ordinary situation, there would have been a primary and the independent would have been on the R ticket, not the leftist RINO.
Recent polls (for whatever they are worth) say Americans are 40% conservative leaning, 20% liberal and the rest are independents. Most independents lean to the right most of the time. They did not lean left in the last election, they were sending a message and it is showing itself loud and clear. Left is bad, right is good. Those of us who tend to be R's should send a message to the party poobahs to wise up.
-
CNN seems to be the only news org that doesn't reek of bias every news item they get.
Ha!
-
Rather than thinking about 3rd parties, folks should be working to put the R's back toward the conservative right. The only people you hear saying that R's need to be more centrist are the leftists for land sake. When Reagan managed to do that, the R's had a bit of honor for a short period of time. One man can put his finger in the dike only for so long. Once the R's got the power, they forgot what put them there. As for Newt lately, I think he's getting senile.
Look what's happening in NY 23rd. The conservative is in the lead as an independent. Don't forget, this is a special election. There was no primary. If this would have been an ordinary situation, there would have been a primary and the independent would have been on the R ticket, not the leftist RINO.
Recent polls (for whatever they are worth) say Americans are 40% conservative leaning, 20% liberal and the rest are independents. Most independents lean to the right most of the time. They did not lean left in the last election, they were sending a message and it is showing itself loud and clear. Left is bad, right is good. Those of us who tend to be R's should send a message to the party poobahs to wise up.
I wondered how that worked. With all of the grassroots support for Hoffman, why couldn't they get him in on the primary? I know a lot of other districts that have done more with less.
I suppose it makes a bit more sense if they didn't actually hold a primary election.
-
Quote from: Seenterman on Today at 02:09:33 PM
CNN seems to be the only news org that doesn't reek of bias every news item they get.
I lol'ed. rolleyes
CNN doesn't reek of bias?!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :laugh: !
-
CNN seems to be the only news org that doesn't reek of bias every news item they get.
You're exposed now. Thanks for coming out of the closet.
-
We're in our religious right churches, wondering why people like yourself keep blaming us for things we didn't do.
When the religious right stops supporting and passing laws to push their specific morals on the rest of us, I will stop blaming them. As it stands now there are many millions of us who cannot support the current republican party because of the religious right.
Why can't the religious right live and let live? I've never advocated telling anyone what they can and cannot believe or do in their churches, or who they can marry, or what they can put in their bodies. Why does the religious right insist upon telling us what we have to believe, who we can marry and what we can put in our bodies, or when we can choose to die ..... there are just too many things to list. And why or why can I not buy a car on sunday? I mean really give me a break with the blue laws already.
-
On a totally unrelated note, anyone know how much Huffington post pays people to infiltrate conservative type forums?
I certainly hope that wasn't directed at me? If it was you owe me an apology.
-
You're pretty feisty for a new guy.
-
Why can't the religious right live and let live?
I don't attend church, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself part of the "religious right," so maybe my comments can be seen as neutral.
Many, although not all, Christians believe that abortion is murder. It would easily follow that someone who believes an act to be murder would want to outlaw the act.
The other major issue for "the religious right" is gay marriage, although I see that as a reaction to the gay movement's efforts to legalize gay marriage. It wasn't an issue when nobody was trying to change the laws.
Beyond that, I don't see the "religious right" trying to force anything on anyone, unless you consider trying to block the removal of the Ten Commandments and other signs of religion from public places to be forcing something. I see it as a reaction to atheists trying to change the status quo.
-
I don't attend church, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself part of the "religious right," so maybe my comments can be seen as neutral.
Many, although not all, Christians believe that abortion is murder. It would easily follow that someone who believes an act to be murder would want to outlaw the act.
The other major issue for "the religious right" is gay marriage, although I see that as a reaction to the gay movement's efforts to legalize gay marriage. It wasn't an issue when nobody was trying to change the laws.
Beyond that, I don't see the "religious right" trying to force anything on anyone, unless you consider trying to block the removal of the Ten Commandments and other signs of religion from public places to be forcing something. I see it as a reaction to atheists trying to change the status quo.
As a card-carryign member of the religious right, I can attest that this is dead on right.
We think one of government's primary purposes is to protect innocent lives from crimes such as murder, hence our opposition to abortion. As for the rest of it, we simply resent the gays and atheists and whomever trying to re-engineer society. American culture and society has proven wildly successful as-is, and there's no sense in altering it over the manufactured gripes of a bunch of PC malcontents.
-
You're pretty feisty for a new guy.
New? Strange definition of new you have.
-
Card-carrying member of the religious right here, too.
Looks like I'm well behind the power curve in proselityzing, oppressing others, and generally throwing my morality around hither and yon.
Note to self to fix that - once I remind certain members of this forum that they're using some pretty damned broad brush strokes... =|
-
New? Strange definition of new you have.
Maybe the words "New Member" under your moniker and a post count (at this writing) of 35 had something to do with it. =D
-
lol looks like they got their meme in your head. I know all news outlets are biased, its just rankles me that Fox has to repeat their motta "Fair and Balanced" about 20x per program. If you were really fair and balanced would you have to keep saying it every chance you get?
CNN seems to be the only news org that doesn't reek of bias every news item they get.
You had me until your last line. CNN is just sneakier than Fox. I happen to agree with their bias slightly more than Fox's, but that doesn't make it any better.
One of the only news orgs that doesn't make me flinch is NPR. Theur reporters have obvious biases, but they compensate by trying their best to have different reporters with different biases to balance things out.
-
You had me until your last line. CNN is just sneakier than Fox. I happen to agree with their bias slightly more than Fox's, but that doesn't make it any better.
One of the only news orgs that doesn't make me flinch is NPR. Theur reporters have obvious biases, but they compensate by trying their best to have different reporters with different biases to balance things out.
Then why is it that NPR reports always seem to have the exact same bias?
-
I always forget, are we controlled by the Jews, or do we hate them? I can never get that straight.
An even moar important question: If one were to convert to Judaism, would you be let into the Big Secret Plot To Overthrow And Plunder The West?
-
Card-carrying member of the religious right here, too.
Looks like I'm well behind the power curve in proselityzing, oppressing others, and generally throwing my morality around hither and yon.
Note to self to fix that - once I remind certain members of this forum that they're using some pretty damned broad brush strokes... =|
I don't have a card, but I figure I am in that group also.
NOTE: To People with Short Memories: The Religious Right has been in the US for longer than the US has existed. The difference these days is a lot of secular liberal idiots out there trying to change the laws. Honestly, the "religious right" is just a BS label created by lefties trying to marginalize Republicans.
Surprise, surprise, but a pastor in my "conservative" church said he didn't care about the laws on gay marriage. In his opinion, heterosexuals stopped respecting the institution of marriage years ago. What are we all complaining about? :)
-
Maybe the words "New Member" under your moniker and a post count (at this writing) of 35 had something to do with it. =D
Of course perhaps someone could do a tiny bit of research and discover quite a bit. Let's see.
MikeB join date APS 3-4-2005
Balog join date APS 7-19-2005
MikeB join date THR 12-30-2003
Balod join date THR 9-23-2003
Granted I don't have nearly as many posts, but new guy is not exactly accurate, which is what i was trying to point out. Now then should my opinion on the reason Republicans do not win as much as we might wish(granted I'd prefer libertarians) be ridiculed because of a low post count I will leave to you.
Whether all the proud "I'm a religious right" posters just want to make a statement for themselves or listen to why alternative views exist is up to them.
Of course I suppose there will be a few who think I joined THR in 2003 just so I could join APS when it seperated from THR in 2005 just so I could troll APS in 2009, but now we get to the ones who joked about conspiracy theories after my original post. Can't help them and don't really want to. Now want to have a serious discussion or just discount the guy with a low post count, just because?
-
Now want to have a serious discussion or just discount the guy with a low post count, just because?
How about we discount* posts with lame arguments like...
When the religious right stops supporting and passing laws to push their specific morals on the rest of us, I will stop blaming them.
...regardless of the author's post count or join date?
Basic law in every civilization has rested on the morals of someone in that civilization. In feudal times, those who owned the land and who could hire men-at-arms made the law. Asiatic despotisms had law based on the despot's beliefs.
In the USA, your fellow citizens influence and elect those who make the law. Don't want the bluehairs & bluenoses to participate? Tough noogies. The terminally uncool religious right folk have every right, same as you, to speak and advocate.
And as has been pointed out above, the culture war came to them and was not a battle of their own choosing. It might even be those same religious right folks you disdain who preserve little things like free speech in the face of "hate-speech" laws that would outlaw speech the politically connected find objectionable.
* I think a 75% discount rate ought to apply for that lame post. Any future posts will, of course, receive their own discount rate dependent on the lame/limberness of the post.
-
How about we discount* posts with lame arguments like......regardless of the author's post count or join date?
The number of posts argument was used against me, perhaps you missed that? I didn't initiate it.
Basic law in every civilization has rested on the morals of someone in that civilization. In feudal times, those who owned the land and who could hire men-at-arms made the law. Asiatic despotisms had law based on the despot's beliefs.
In the USA, your fellow citizens influence and elect those who make the law. Don't want the bluehairs & bluenoses to participate? Tough noogies. The terminally uncool religious right folk have every right, same as you, to speak and advocate.
I'm sorry; are you saying it's ok to have laws based on a single groups "morals" if you happen to agree with them? Sounds despotic to me.
And as has been pointed out above, the culture war came to them and was not a battle of their own choosing. It might even be those same religious right folks you disdain who preserve little things like free speech in the face of "hate-speech" laws that would outlaw speech the politically connected find objectionable.
We wouldn't have such hate speech laws if it wasn't for the complicity of many "Republicans".
* I think a 75% discount rate ought to apply for that lame post. Any future posts will, of course, receive their own discount rate dependent on the lame/limberness of the post.
Taxing Posts? Sounding kinda socialist to me?
-
I'm sorry; are you saying it's ok to have laws based on a single groups "morals" if you happen to agree with them? Sounds despotic to me.
That's not quite what he said. Let me put it another way.
Basic Fact 1: Laws are morals enforced by government.
Basic Fact 2: In a democratic society, the majority decide which laws (morals) to impose by force.
Basic Fact 3: Bills of rights and other constitutional safeguards protect the rights of minorities. (Sometimes in fact, sometimes only in theory.)
Also, I'm pretty sure the talk of huffington post was aimed at someone else.
-
That's not quite what he said. Let me put it another way.
Basic Fact 1: Laws are morals enforced by government.
Basic Fact 2: In a democratic society, the majority decide which laws (morals) to impose by force.
Were we not setup as a republic to avoid this situation, or do you want to pick and choose when we are a republic vs. a democracy depending on the particular side you are on a given issue? Remember the tyranny of the democracy quote by Jefferson?
Basic Fact 3: Bills of rights and other constitutional safeguards protect the rights of minorities. (Sometimes in fact, sometimes only in theory.)
I'm a republic type of guy, I always want to protect the minority within reason. I certainly don't agree with laws given any extra protection to a particular minority, but the general minority should always be protected from the majority as is indicated by the idea of republic as put forth by our founders who in my opinion unfortunately did not get the complete implementation of their idea correct.
Also, I'm pretty sure the talk of huffington post was aimed at someone else.
Fair enough. I just wasn't sure there.
-
Still haven't heard anything contrite regarding what was uttered about the Religious Right.
My subtle hint went unanswered. Quite seriously, I can't let that stand, whether I was a religious man or not.