Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jeez guys I thought Al's post was a joke. At least I got a laugh.
Methinks sometimes you take life too seriously.
Methinks sometimes you take life too seriously.
I want a divorce!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Well, many people see it as background information as to the validity of what the person is saying. Otherwise, why get an education at all? Why put it on your resume? Why have a resume?
FNN is NOT a counterbalance to the "liberal media". The problem is, FNN does not match the degree to which they stray from center as the mainstream "liberal media" does. Sure, there are liberal media outlets that are pretty extreme, but they are not prime time TV. FNN is prime time. If mainstream media is too liberal, then what would the proper response be? A neutral news outlet. If that's the problem, then FIX IT. Don't bring another problem into the mix with an overly conservative "news" outlet. Besides, those talking heads are not news. They are not news journalists. They would never hold back saying something as "fact" if they couldn't lock in a definite source first. They live off of their own guesses as to how things are. That's how they get their ratings and how they make their money. They get their "information" from others who presumably get their information from the source. Not only that, but they only relay the information to you that they want to relay so it supports their interests. That is not news reporting and is very detrimental to the whole process. They can bash the NY Times all they want, but the NY Times is far closer to center then FNN will ever be.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
There's a critical error here. The majority do not decide what is good for us. They decide what we get. And therein lies the problem: what we get is often not good for us. Or as my father says "Just be thankful you're not getting all the government you're paying for."
No election settles the argument; only intelligent discourse can. In that discourse trying to categorize theories of governance and each other into simple-minded buckets (eg "radical conservative") contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, and in fact derails it until we're down to idiocy like counting wars by party-affiliation. Or watching Fox.
Anyway, turnabout being fair play, how about those who think of themselves as liberals propose a divorce agreement of their own. I bet it would make pretty good reading.
As for who IS to "...decide what is good for us", it is the MAJORITY of those who vote in the U.S.A. That is what democracy is all about, rule by the majority. It's OK to be a member of the "vocal minority"....no issues with that.....but don't delude yourself that you know what is right for the country when you ARE in the minority--those choices are made by the majority. We shall see what happens in the upcoming elections....I, like you, foresee some significant realignments within the political arena, and I sincerely hope that the multitude of "sides" can agree to a peaceful co-existence, but at this time it's all hope and speculation, based on what I am observing.
One thing is for sure....this political situation sure has excited more strong emotion than most I've seen in my 61 years on this earth (with the possible exception of Nixon's transgressions).
Doug
Quote:
Well Doug, The majority of the US wants nothing to do with the Healthcare Bill, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid think it will be good for us once we see it whether we want it or not.
Democracy at its finest! Gallup 50% oppose 38% for Rasmussen 55% oppose 41% for. I'm sure there are polls showing quite different percentages, but the large percentage of people I talk to (all radical conservatives I guess) are opposed to the bill. If the polls finding the percentage of liberals vs conservatives are correct, conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1 which would make these poll numbers believable. And independents are leaning toward more conservative views.
One thing is for sure....this political situation sure has excited more strong emotion than most I've seen in my 61 years on this earth (with the possible exception of Nixon's transgressions).
Doug
Quote:
Well Doug, The majority of the US wants nothing to do with the Healthcare Bill, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid think it will be good for us once we see it whether we want it or not.
Democracy at its finest! Gallup 50% oppose 38% for Rasmussen 55% oppose 41% for. I'm sure there are polls showing quite different percentages, but the large percentage of people I talk to (all radical conservatives I guess) are opposed to the bill. If the polls finding the percentage of liberals vs conservatives are correct, conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1 which would make these poll numbers believable. And independents are leaning toward more conservative views.
No, Pat...just answering a direct querry from Al. I didn't want him to think that I am someone who is unaware of the way mass-media works. As for us knowing what we are talking about, ALL of us here do--I mean, after all, we are merely expressing opinions, no? My degrees don't make my opinions any more valid than your life experiences make yours, or whatever degrees you hold. The issue here for me is respect....we need to respect each other even if we don't agree with their opinions. Hopefully I have conducted myself in that manner, it has certainly been my intention!!
Right you are, Al....I've always considered myself a centrist independent and find myself adopting more conservative views.....don't let my "liberal" postings confuse you, I have views from one end of the political spectrum to the other, but compared to my views of 10 years ago, I'd certainly say I've moved slightly to the right. Need an example....how many liberals do you know who propose a soldier every 100 yards along the U.S./Mexico border, armed with an automatic rifle and orders to shoot to kill if the "wetbacks" don't submit the first time they are challenged? Not exactly a liberal view, eh?
Some of the things I see coming out of D.C. these days scare me....but, then, Gee-Dub scared me more!!
Cheers from Doug!!!
Pat
Supporter
Doug,
I hate to break it to you but The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes, with the main research aim being to report how different ballot layouts correlate with voter mistakes. The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore (a.k.a. “The Crazed Sex Poodle”) been completed (they were blocked by the Supreme Court), Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
On a different note, as a 30-year army vet, I also resent the statement "Republicans Love War". That is utter nonsense and nothing but liberal pabulum propaganda. Anyone that’s ever been in one detests it. That's why they want to win them to get them over or deter them from happening from in the first place.
No offense intended here Doug but these days a "media professional" is not exactly the gold standard of credibility. You are not any more educated than many members of the forum (myself included) and I think we are perfectly capable of interpreting news from whatever sources we choose in the manner we feel appropriate. We then can come to our own conclusions.
I hate to break it to you but The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes, with the main research aim being to report how different ballot layouts correlate with voter mistakes. The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore (a.k.a. “The Crazed Sex Poodle”) been completed (they were blocked by the Supreme Court), Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
On a different note, as a 30-year army vet, I also resent the statement "Republicans Love War". That is utter nonsense and nothing but liberal pabulum propaganda. Anyone that’s ever been in one detests it. That's why they want to win them to get them over or deter them from happening from in the first place.
No offense intended here Doug but these days a "media professional" is not exactly the gold standard of credibility. You are not any more educated than many members of the forum (myself included) and I think we are perfectly capable of interpreting news from whatever sources we choose in the manner we feel appropriate. We then can come to our own conclusions.
Last edited:
Cheney scared the hell out of me. I think GW was easily led at times. I by no means think he was a good president, but at times I think he got a bad rap.
But at the same time, no matter what BO does, I don't think most liberals will ever admit it when he is wrong. My sister is a BO fan and if he committed murder in front of her she would swear he didn't do it! She is profoundly happy to be among those that voted BO into power. Such a beautiful family, I restrain a constant gag reflex whenever I'm around her.
<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" http:="" www.gt40s.com="" forum="" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype> There is so much I would love to add to this conversation, but it would be a huge essay that I'm sure that most people wouldn't want read anyway. But one thing I wanted to bring to the table is what I believe the difference between extreme leftists and right wingers are....
<o
> </o>
... and the difference is.. not much.
<o> </o>
Well, at least as far as actions and behavior. If you distill it down past any political affiliations, what's the difference? Both sides try to pant the other side with an overly broad brush saying things like, 'if you exhibit X then you are going to end up like Y'. We all know that the left loves to paint the right as Nazis. Ok, then lets just have the right pant the left as Stalinists. After all, the leftists support all these social plans, and what's more social than hard soviet style communism?
<o> </o>
So everyone on one side tries to exemplify the other as either a Nazi or a Stalinist.
<o> </o>
But at the end of the day, Hitler and Stalin weren't so different, were they. Both where conducting military expansion. Both were insane. Both killed millions of people.
<o> </o>
Another example is that the left loves to say that the right is a bunch of 'right-wing conspiracy theorists'. Well, I'm sure you have heard of Alvin Greene, the unlikely <st1:state><st1lace>South Carolina</st1lace></st1:state> Democratic primary gubernatorial nominee. Mr. Greene has upset a lot of democrats by winning the primary. All those left wing conspiracy theorists are saying he's a plant by the other side! How ironic! <o></o>
<o> </o>
<o> </o>
<o
> </o>... and the difference is.. not much.
<o
> </o>Well, at least as far as actions and behavior. If you distill it down past any political affiliations, what's the difference? Both sides try to pant the other side with an overly broad brush saying things like, 'if you exhibit X then you are going to end up like Y'. We all know that the left loves to paint the right as Nazis. Ok, then lets just have the right pant the left as Stalinists. After all, the leftists support all these social plans, and what's more social than hard soviet style communism?
<o
> </o>So everyone on one side tries to exemplify the other as either a Nazi or a Stalinist.
<o
> </o>But at the end of the day, Hitler and Stalin weren't so different, were they. Both where conducting military expansion. Both were insane. Both killed millions of people.
<o
> </o>Another example is that the left loves to say that the right is a bunch of 'right-wing conspiracy theorists'. Well, I'm sure you have heard of Alvin Greene, the unlikely <st1:state><st1
lace>South Carolina</st1lace></st1:state> Democratic primary gubernatorial nominee. Mr. Greene has upset a lot of democrats by winning the primary. All those left wing conspiracy theorists are saying he's a plant by the other side! How ironic! <o></o><o
> </o><o
> </o>
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:smarttagtype class=inlineimg title=Embarrassment smilieid="2" alt="" border="0" redface.gif="" smilies="" images="" forum="" www.gt40s.com="" http:="" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src="></o:smarttagtype>
Another example is that the left loves to say that the right is a bunch of 'right-wing conspiracy theorists'.
<o
Well, they are, aren't they :furious: ?
(Couldn't resist.....my bad!)
Dugly
Be careful what you wish for. Looking back in recent political history, say the last 100 years, of real life country-wide "divorces" and you'll see a distinct pattern in which the "divorcing" groups later realize that their problem wasn't the other group...it was, in fact.....themselves. Specifically, the inability to provide enough jobs/opportunity, justice, civil liberties and equitable governance for all their people. The other group was just a convenient, but misplaced, place to focus their anger and frustration....with all this, of course, facilitated by new political "leader" trying to climb their way to the top. And the cycle continues.
Getting divorced is easy. Just like it's easy to blame everyone other than ourselves, including the "liberals" the "left wingers" the "tree huggers" the "greenies" etc.
Staying married, getting along, and making something good of it is a lot harder to do.
Getting divorced is easy. Just like it's easy to blame everyone other than ourselves, including the "liberals" the "left wingers" the "tree huggers" the "greenies" etc.
Staying married, getting along, and making something good of it is a lot harder to do.
Last edited:
I guess I am also happy BO is POTUS. The alternative was MCAIN/PALIN and that would have been even worse! There were no other options.
Pat
Supporter
Yep, a significant number of Americans are still happy with Obama. I’m sure in the first 18 months many of the voters in Rhodesia were happy with Robert Mugabe. His power elites still are. His redistribution scheme took the breadbasket of Africa to the impovishment that is now the Republic of Zimbabwe. The problem is that those wealth redistribution schemes somehow seem to fare badly over time.
Al,
I'm confused I thought the majority of those in the US voted for Obama and yet you seem to only want to accept the majority decision if it is a republican that is voted in, or have I missed something?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
No, a majority would not have voted differently. Approval rating is different from "I'd vote for the old clueless guy (war service record respected of course) and the nutjob from Alaska."
Possibly true Jeff, but I disagree with your take on the other candidates. My take is:
- the economy would be performing
- our credibility in the world would be higher
- we would have had a control on immigration
- the health care bill wouldn't have been rammed through
- we would have supported Isreal, and not distanced ourself from her
- we would have had better experience in the White House including the person from Alaska who actually has executive experience
- the economy would be performing
- our credibility in the world would be higher
- we would have had a control on immigration
- the health care bill wouldn't have been rammed through
- we would have supported Isreal, and not distanced ourself from her
- we would have had better experience in the White House including the person from Alaska who actually has executive experience
What you had was a quote from Doug, I said that the healthcare bill was not the will of the people but was pushed through anyway with whatever means it took.
At this point in time, Donald Duck could be doing a similar job.
