# Does anybody else



## DustinJolley (May 2, 2008)

Does anybody else despise the far left as much as I do? Especially MSNBC. You know, Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, and Keith Olbermann who is without a doubt the worst "news" person on Earth. Since when does only talking to people you agree with and attacking Fox News on a daily basis mean anything to anybody except what it really is, stupidity? And I don't want to hear from any Liberals who hate Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.


----------



## shesulsa (May 2, 2008)

Just for balance right from the start:  

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/


----------



## elder999 (May 2, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Does anybody else despise the far left as much as I do? Especially MSNBC. You know, Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, and Keith Olbermann who is without a doubt the worst "news" person on Earth. Since when does only talking to people you agree with and attacking Fox News on a daily basis mean anything to anybody except what it really is, stupidity? And I don't want to hear from any Liberals who hate Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.


 

I don't "despise" anyone, except maybe Satanists....:lol:I don't have much tolerance for the "far" anything, including the left, though our definitions of it may differ. I don't "hate" Bill O'Reilly-I mostly don't watch him-because he's a rude loudmouth, not because of his viewpoints. I don't watch MSNBC at all-hardly know who those people are.....of course, I don't care much for _NotNew-_, er _FoxNews_, either. 

Of course, there are those here you'll completely agree with, or at least mostly agree with. There's at least one fellow who says "liberalism is a diseaase," or a "mental disorder," or some such. Though I'm really not sure that he knows what "liberalism" is-our definitions probably don't match, anyway....I don't care much for any "ism," really: I'm anti-gun control, AND pro-choice,for just one example of where _I_ stand. 

For an idea of what _I_ feel about "liberalism," or the "far-left," have a look here.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 2, 2008)

I dont despise anyone in the news business. but the facts are the facts, the journalism field has totally lost it's sense of ethics.

They dont even bother to hide thier lust for Obama these days


----------



## Twin Fist (May 2, 2008)

Elder, i recommend O'Rielly to everyone. he actually is FAIR. Tough questions, but fair ones. He has for example given obama a LOT of slack......


----------



## elder999 (May 2, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, i recommend O'Rielly to everyone. he actually is FAIR. Tough questions, but fair ones. He has for example given obama a LOT of slack......


 
SHouting down someone, not letting them  speak their mind, *telling them what they think*,and calling them "pinheads" is not fair.It's rude, loudmouthed bullying.

I did enjoy his book, though......


----------



## Tames D (May 2, 2008)

Keith Olbermann the worst? Now you've crossed the line Mr.


----------



## arnisador (May 2, 2008)

Televised news is entertainment. _It's over_.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 2, 2008)

Elder, if, as you said, you dont watch it, how do you know what he does?

ah-ha

In point of fact, he rarely yells at anyone. That happens ONLY when he asks a question, they wont answer it and they start spinning. Then we will get in their butt.

Ans he lets people speak their mind, right up until they start spouting crap that isnt true, or has no relation to the topic at hand.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 2, 2008)

The shills at MSNBC and the shills at Fox have the same bosses.  Some people need to study Hegel.


----------



## mrhnau (May 2, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Televised news is entertainment. _It's over_.


indeed! I wish they would simply report the news rather than call in every marginally well known person to add commentary. I guess that would not sell too many commercials though... God forbid the news actually reporting the news!


----------



## elder999 (May 2, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The shills at MSNBC and the shills at Fox have the same bosses. Some people need to study Hegel.


'

Yep.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 2, 2008)

hmmm

if the bosses are the same, you would think MSNBC wouldnt be such a dismal failure ratings wise , seeing as how Fox usually doubles everyone else.....


just saying


----------



## Makalakumu (May 2, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> hmmm
> 
> if the bosses are the same, you would think MSNBC wouldnt be such a dismal failure ratings wise , seeing as how Fox usually doubles everyone else.....
> 
> ...


 
Stupid is as stupid does as my momma always said...

Seriously, Olberman and O'Reilly both have good things to say.  If the American people ever put them together, our rulers would be in major trouble.  

So, I guess what I said above still stands.  Except that I'm not insulting anyone on the right or left.  Only those who can't see that we all have a piece of the puzzle and we just need to put it together.


----------



## DustinJolley (May 3, 2008)

Thank you, Twin Fist. I must say in my own defense however that there also some people on the far right that I don't like either. For example, Bill Keller the anti-Mormon, anti-Islam, anti-Oprah, anti-everything and everybody that doesn't fit his definition of Christianity host of Live Prayer which nobody watches. Michael Savage is another example, as are Pat Robertson, James and Shirley Dobson, and the worst of the worst, Fred Phelps, the idiot from the extremist cult the Westboro Baptist Church which hates everybody. Phelps is considered far right, even though he's actually a registered Democrat.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

I loath pat Robertson

and Fred Phelps has a room reserved for him in hell


----------



## Flying Crane (May 3, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> And I don't want to hear from any Liberals who hate Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.


 
You don't want to hear from?  

I'll just point out that this is an open forum, and the comments of all members are welcome as long as they are respectful.  Once you begin a thread, you don't have any control over who you are going to hear from.


----------



## elder999 (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, if, as you said, you dont watch it, how do you know what he does?
> 
> ah-ha
> 
> ...


 
I don't have to _watch_ it to _see_ it. We frequently have the television on at work-CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC are rotated pretty frequently, along with C-Span, though we don't see much MSNBC. SO, I've _seen_ him *bullying*-I don't call t _watching_ because i was doing something else at the time, something less than critical. As for at home, I'm rather well known for not _watching_ TV-I didn't watch television at all between 1994 and 2001. 

Here's a great one from CSPAN, though, not his show at all.

And  here he isshouting down a colleague.


----------



## Nolerama (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I dont despise anyone in the news business. but the facts are the facts, *the journalism field has totally lost it's sense of ethics.*
> 
> They dont even bother to hide thier lust for Obama these days



Yes it has.


----------



## CoryKS (May 3, 2008)

"I hate conservatives, but I really ****ing hate liberals"
- Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park

Yup, that about does it.


----------



## shesulsa (May 3, 2008)

I'd say just about every business who turns a black dollar has lost their sense of ethics.


----------



## DustinJolley (May 3, 2008)

Let's not forget the racist radio show hosts Don Imus, Hal Turner, and Al Sharpton who nobody listens to anyway.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

the problem Shesulsa, is that journalism DEMANDS the highest ethical standards. When people come to you for FACTS, and your ethics slip, people dont gets facts, they get OPINIONS.

that way lies disaster.

Elder,
I was watching that night. Rivera was trying to sidetract the discussion onto drunk driving when it was about illegal aliens. Rivera has always been on the side of the illegals, so it wasnt a shock that he didnt face the facts, but still. 

oh yeah, Al Franken. Franken spoke for 35 minutes, instead of the alloted 15. He then interrupted O'Reilly during his turn. I would have yelled at him too. Franken is a tool, and deserved it.

In 4 years, i have seen him shout at Rivera, Sunsara Taylor, a certifiable nutbark, one of the 9-11 truthers, and he cut the mike on some democratic shill who, when asked a direct question about Hillary Clinton, ignored the question and blathered on about "Bush did this, bush did that"

try actually WATCHING him Elder, you will be surprised. Considering that he doubles or triples the ratings of any other commentator on TV, he must be doing something right.


----------



## DustinJolley (May 3, 2008)

Thanks again, Twin Twist. It's actually nice to have somebody on here that agrees with me. I honestly can stand Al Franken or Geraldo Rivera. Rivera is nothing more than an Olbermann clone in disguise in my humble opinion. "Shut up! You had your 35 minutes!" -Bill O'Reilly. I love that! Somebody should've told Al Franken to shut up 20 years ago! Lol.


----------



## elder999 (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> oh yeah, Al Franken. Franken spoke for 35 minutes, instead of the alloted 15. He then interrupted O'Reilly during his turn. I would have yelled at him too. Franken is a tool, and deserved it..


 
Uhh...if you watch the footage, Franken spoke for about 20 minutes, not 35. Not the alloted 15, but certainly not unusually over that, either.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not about to actually WATCH him, any more than I'm likely to listen to Rush Limbaugh, or WATCH any of the talking heads on any of the coprorate owned news networks...which is, well, all of them.


----------



## shesulsa (May 3, 2008)

I don't watch or listen to ANYONE anymore. Not right, not left, not libertarian, not green ....  Everyone seems to think they can compartmentalize politics and rights according to religious value, economic value, environmental value.

We really need to get over this high-school mentality, protect rights, be responsible with our earth, and arm worthy citizens because it just makes sense to do it.

Being partisan or siding with a ... side ... is only using half your brain. It's like buying cable. You're only gonna watch between 3-9 of the 60+ channels you pay for ... but you still have to pay for the others.


----------



## DustinJolley (May 3, 2008)

Keith Olbermann never should've been hired by MSNBC in the first place. He uses his Countdown show to attack people he disagrees with, almost all of them are Conservatives or people on CNN and Fox News. Among the people he's named or nominated "The Worst Person in the World," only a few of them have been Liberals. Let's name a few of his Worsts winners and runners up. Bill O'Reilly 100 times and counting, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Brent Bozell, Al Sharpton, Michael Savage, President Bush, Sean Hannity, Orrin Hatch, Mitt Romney, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Neal Cavuto, Cal Thomas, Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, Malik "Zulu" Shabazz, Michelle Malkin, Rupert Murdock, Nancy Grace, Greg Gutfeld, Roger Ailes, Himself, Dick Cheney, Barbra Bush, Dennis Miller, John McCain, WalMart, The CIA, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, Tom Cruise, Brit Hume, Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs, Rudy Guliani, Pat Robertson, David Horowitz, and Newt Gingrich, just to name a few.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 3, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> I don't watch or listen to ANYONE anymore. Not right, not left, not libertarian, not green .... Everyone seems to think they can compartmentalize politics and rights according to religious value, economic value, environmental value.
> 
> We really need to get over this high-school mentality, protect rights, be responsible with our earth, and arm worthy citizens because it just makes sense to do it.
> 
> Being partisan or siding with a ... side ... is only using half your brain. It's like buying cable. You're only gonna watch between 3-9 of the 60+ channels you pay for ... but you still have to pay for the others.


 
For the record your and my views happen to coincide 100% concerning the content of this post.

I rather suspect the "high-school clique" divisiveness is intentionally encouraged by Those Who Ought To Know Better But Never Do. Much the same way Rome did the bread and circuses act to keep the people preoccupied.

I also rather suspect we'll meet the same fate as Rome, and that it's arrival is not far distant.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

I think 24 hour "news" stations have killed the free press.
I consider Olbermann and O'Reilly one in the same. 
Fox News and MSNBC are both obviously not credible. 
Guys like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are in the tank for Obama/Left leaning politics.
and Sean Hannity and Bill O are clearly right wing diehards.
I know the argument would be made that these guys are commentators and not anchors...and it's a good argument. I just have a problem with these guys pretending to be "fair and balanced", Etc Etc.
For example, if anyone thinks Bill has voted for a democrat in the past 10 years..you're obviously not watching his show. It's ALWAYS attacks on "left wing loons" in his talking points. Keith Olbermann is Bill O in reverse. IMO

I base these opinions strictly on my having viewed both stations a bit in the past 3 years or so.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

Josh,
you should watch the Factor more often.

Hannity you are right about, but you are wrong about O'Rielly


----------



## DustinJolley (May 3, 2008)

That's right, Twin Fist. As anybody who watches "The O'Reilly Factor" ought to know, O'Reilly isn't a Republican or a Democrat. He's an independent just like Lou Dobbs.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Josh,
> you should watch the Factor more often.
> 
> Hannity you are right about, but you are wrong about O'Rielly



I have seen bill fairly often in the past 3 years. I love the constant "I am teh highest rated guy on cable news worship me" ********

(though true, it serves no purpose except to say that a lot of Americans watch him..wow. a lot of Americans bought "thriller" by michael jackson... it still sucked.). 

Aside from that, I would say that it is pretty clear you're the forum Neo Con Cheerleader. I mean no disrespect. I've just been reading a few of your posts and it seems you're pretty right wing. To right wing people bill o seems fair. things like "left wing loon", "pinhead" and taking the "traditional warrior" side of the "culture war" seem a bit bias to me. He seems OBSESSED with coming off as a man of the people while attacking the far-left nightly. I think someone who is objective looks at the far left AND far right and dismisses them both. I cannot remember him ever.. EVER talking down the far right in his talking points. I am all for attacking the far left, but I don't see the balance. The ACLU are clearly harmful to the US, but I would argue the Christian coalition is equal to the ACLU. I wish bill would focus some of that anger on the far right. That's all.

I consider myself a social libertarian In case you're wondering.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> That's right, Twin Fist. As anybody who watches "The O'Reilly Factor" ought to know, O'Reilly isn't a Republican or a Democrat. He's an independent just like Lou Dobbs.



See, I understand and respect that. I just don't see Lou and Bill the same. Maybe it's just my perception. Bill comes off as a bully to me. It's probably a personal bias of my own to be honest. Who knows?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

*Dustin*, if you think the media and politicians in combination wind you up now, just wait until you've been around the sun another twenty tmes or so .

If anyone takes their political 'meat' from the table laid out by the commercial media then you need to take a collective step back and realise that it's all a 'shadow play'.  Ignore the multi-million dollar campaign funds and the publicised opinions they buy.  Decide on what you believe, look at what the puppets ... sorry, serious candidates say they stand for, compare the two lists and vote accordingly.  Everything else is spin and manipulation.

To come clean, I haven't voted for a long time because I concluded that the whole system is a corrupt front (this was a many years before such ideas were bandied about by 'fringe' groups and even before the Internet was 'born' in it's modern incarnation).  Your votes change nothing for the plain and simple reason that the people and organisations that run things are not elected.  This is not necessarily some crack-pot conspiracy theory, just the plain and simple truth that the bureaucracies control what really happens.  Who sits in the 'window' is just for show.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Aside from that, I would say that it is pretty clear you're the forum Neo Con Cheerleader. I mean no disrespect. I've just been reading a few of your posts and it seems you're pretty right wing.




Wrong and wrong

I am pro choice
I am pro gay marraige
I am pro gun registration, within reason
I voted for Perot, TWICE
I voted for McCain in 2000
I am a LONG way from neo-con

I think you are forgetting something. The man has said countless times that he doesnt devote as much energy to the far right because the far right is marginalized in this country. And it is. There is no mainstream media championing the far right the way they are the far left. 

The right cant even compare on the internet, where far left blog-worlds like  DailyPOS and "we wont"MoveOn.org

Not tomention the fact that the far left is MUCH more of a threat. Perfect example, the right wants kids to have the OPTION of praying in school.Not mandated, OPTIONAL

the far left will not allow ANY prayer on public land.

which is more draconian?

The left is more of a threat to the traditional values of this country. The right doesnt want much to change, they LIKE America pretty much the way it is. the Left wants to change EVERYTHING.

i think O'Reilly is balanced not because I agree with him but because I have seen him go after BOTH sides. But hey, it's all good. i disagree with you, but who cares right?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

You piqued my interest with that, *TF*.  For a foreigner, could you elaborate on what you mean with your next to last parapgraph?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 3, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> *Dustin*, if you think the media and politicians in combination wind you up now, just wait until you've been around the sun another twenty tmes or so .
> 
> If anyone takes their political 'meat' from the table laid out by the commercial media then you need to take a collective step back and realise that it's all a 'shadow play'. Ignore the multi-million dollar campaign funds and the publicised opinions they buy. Decide on what you believe, look at what the puppets ... sorry, serious candidates say they stand for, compare the two lists and vote accordingly. Everything else is spin and manipulation.
> 
> To come clean, I haven't voted for a long time because I concluded that the whole system is a corrupt front (this was a many years before such ideas were bandied about by 'fringe' groups and even before the Internet was 'born' in it's modern incarnation). Your votes change nothing for the plain and simple reason that the people and organisations that run things are not elected. This is not necessarily some crack-pot conspiracy theory, just the plain and simple truth that the bureaucracies control what really happens. Who sits in the 'window' is just for show.


 
Yup.

I kinda like the fact nobody seems to quite really know just exactly where *I* stand


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Wrong and wrong
> 
> I am pro choice
> I am pro gay marraige
> ...




If by marginalized you mean... an active part of the republican party. 

I think that's a debatable point. You can't really  provide facts for that point either way so I'll just let that go while saying I strongly disagree that the far right is worse than the far left. I see them as equal.

On another note I apologize for labeling you a Neo-con too quickly. I suppose people could assume I am "far left" by some of my posts too. 

I would, however still hold that Bill is NOT objective. I still have yet to see a reason why he leaves the far right out of his angry rants. that they  are marginalized doesn't cut it for me. I guess it's a matter of perception.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Wrong and wrong
> 
> 
> Not tomention the *fact* that the far left is MUCH more of a threat.



hehehe. That's called an "opinion"

Sorry, I had to say something about that.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Perfect example, the right wants kids to have the OPTION of praying in school.Not mandated, OPTIONAL
> 
> the far left will not allow ANY prayer on public land.



This is incorrect.  It has never been illegal, nor have any credible left wing groups tried to make illegal, private prayer on any public land, including schools.  What they have fought is school (or more generally governmental) sanctioned prayer where the school takes the lead and endorses the prayer.



Twin Fist said:


> The right doesnt want much to change, they LIKE America pretty much the way it is. the Left wants to change EVERYTHING.



Oh no my friend, the right wants to change everything too.  They want to take us back to the mythical time in the past when everything was peaceful and nice.  Thus, knowingly or unknowingly in the service of their corporate masters, agitating for the dismantling of the social safety net, the "Great Society" reforms, and governmental oversight and regulation of industry.  On the social side, advocating for an explicitly Christian governance, with associated morality laws such as the banning of abortion or homosexual marriage.  Truly, some of these far-right types qualify as radicals in any sense, advocating for a theocratic government which we have never had - despite their spinning of history.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Oh no my friend, the right wants to change everything too.  They want to take us back to the mythical time in the past when everything was peaceful and nice.  Thus, knowingly or unknowingly in the service of their corporate masters, agitating for the dismantling of the social safety net, the "Great Society" reforms, and governmental oversight and regulation of industry.  On the social side, advocating for an explicitly Christian governance, with associated morality laws such as the banning of abortion or homosexual marriage.  Truly, some of these far-right types qualify as radicals in any sense, advocating for a theocratic government which we have never had - despite their spinning of history.



You far left loon!! It wasen't "mythical" It was called Reaganland.
And about "Christian Governance" ummmm HELLO Commie.. This country was founded on Christian values. It's not "spinning history"... Clearly you should move to France...with all the other *******! :boing2:

You secular progressives need to stay away from my gun and my bible or I will have to do what Jesus teaches.. and blow your ****ing head off!!

ALWAYS TRYING TO INFEST our country with your HOMOSEXUALS and "HEALTHCARE".. you know what? Move to SAN FRANSISCO instead...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 3, 2008)

I'm gonna guess this is tongue-in-cheek......?


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'm gonna guess this is tongue-in-cheek......?



That's probably a good guess. :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

:lol:  You would hope ... {I'm positive it is and funny too}.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 3, 2008)

Joshua said:


> ALWAYS TRYING TO INFEST our country with your HOMOSEXUALS and "HEALTHCARE"



Sorry man, my bad. :wah:


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> :lol:  You would hope ... {I'm positive it is and funny too}.



Staffordshire, England?? Oh look.. the EUROPEAN *elites* think the liberal humor is funny. What a shock. Why don't YOU move to FRANCE TOO!!!!

If it was not for America.. you'd be speaking German!!!!
SOCIALIST DOG!!!!!!


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Sorry man, my bad. :wah:



You're GOD damn right YOUR bad!.. yeah you like that? Huh commie? GOD, I said GOD.. what are you gonna do about it!?!?!?


----------



## Empty Hands (May 3, 2008)

Joshua said:


> .. what are you gonna do about it!?!?!?



Cry?


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Cry?



obviously. that's all you liberals are good for........

 That and giving Bill O a hard-on nightly.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Staffordshire, England?? Oh look.. the EUROPEAN *elites* think the liberal humor is funny. What a shock. Why don't YOU move to FRANCE TOO!!!!
> 
> If it was not for America.. you'd be speaking German!!!!
> SOCIALIST DOG!!!!!!


 
Now, now ... ROFLKLITA ... them's fighting words, young man .  

If it wasn't for us not joining the Germans, *you'd* be speaking English ... oh hang on . As for moving to France - gadzooks milord, are you lost to all decency when crafting your gibes? :lol:.

Sadly, I'd guess we'd better rein in our good humour and stray closer to topic - it is a good one for discourse after all.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

haha. yes. I only wanted to point out the obvious humor.. or.. humour in the right-wing point of view. And I say "move to France" because Bill O'reilly actually "boycotted" France after the invasion of Iraq. A common right wing tactic in the US is to call someone "French" if they appear left of what they deem as acceptable.

I am done in the study for now. I need sleep and I find myself laughing more often than not.

Cheers


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

are you two done making vague stereotypes? or do I need to give you some more time??

heh heh:lol2:

Sukerkin,
the core of American Liberalism is socialism. Plain and Simple. With a little Marx and Lenin thrown in for good measure. Now what are the earmarks of Marx and Lenin?

equality of everyone, wether they deserve it or not
outlawing religion
disarming the people
eliminating the "burgois" ie the wealthy
state ownership and oversite of business

and thats just for starters

The goal of the American Liberals (not democrats per se, I am talking the far left liberals here, the people behind the scenes with the money, like Soros) is to remake the USA into a socialist nation. But they cant come out and say that, because they know that the people would never have it. So they disguise it. They use terms that sound like good ideas.

Affimitive Action SOUNDS good on paper, but what it is, is doing away with reward equal to merit

Higher taxes on the rich   sounds good on paper, but what it really is is "wealth re-distribution" and the elimination of the wealthy

government control of commerce supposedly to "protect the working man" but in reality to control every aspect of business

seperation of church and state sounds good, but which was meant to ensure the free exercise of religion has become the emilination of religion from the public. Some liberals have even suggested that parents taking thier children to church is child abuse and grounds to take those children away. Socialism allows no other dieties. 

Gun control sounds like a good idea, but what it really is is a way to disarm the  people. 

And they are smart about it, they label things "progressive" cuz hey, that sounds like "progress" and that HAS to be a good thing, right?

They lubricate this change with bribes. They are called 'entitlement programs" like welfare, un-employment, dis-ability, etc

If you are on welfare, and an election is comming up, and the liberals tell you 'the republicans will cancel your welfare checks" who will you vote for? 

the point Sukerin, is that the changes the far left want to make are sweeping and total. 

The changes the right wants to make are not as bad.

Now the FAR right, which is just as scary, but they are a small group, with little funding, and no real political power. Plus, here is a prime example of the far right: gay marraige. The far right wants to keep marraige as "one man, one woman"

but right now, with the exception of ONE state, thats the way it already is.
So they are not wanting to change, as much as maintain the status quo

Now i happen to agree with the liberals on this subject, but the fact is, only one side wants to CHANGE something.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

:tup:  Given that the French are the ones that won the America's their independance that is indeed an ironic barb to wind this side-excursion on .

Open history challenge:

A) Name an engagement in the War of Independance that the (purely) American forces won (you get the fact that we were fighting the French navy at the same time for free)

B) Name the most successful General in said War of Independence

For the sake of thread integrity, feel free to mail me with your answers or start another thread with this as the OP.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

thats all well and good. But there is a reason the French today are referred to as "cheese eating surrender monkey's"

And the boycott Josh referred to was because the French refused to help the US in Iraq.

Come to find out, the government of France had several ILLEGAL business deals going with Saddam...............


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

My thanks for your detailed answer, *TF*.  

Sadly, the late hour (for me) and too much 2004 Wolf Blass Yellow Label means an intelligent response will have to wait until tomorrow evening (I'm teaching tomorrow so it'll be a fair delay; please don't think a lack of reply means anything negative).

P.S.  Dont feed my anti-French prejudice, good sir.  I have enough trouble keeping it tied down as it is :lol:.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

Have a good night brother


----------



## Empty Hands (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Now the FAR right, which is just as scary, but they are a small group, with little funding, and no real political power.



No, unfortunately, the far right has an enormous amount of money and political power given their size.  Keeping the far right happy is a major part of every serious Republican contender's campaign.  There is a reason why George Bush spoke at Oral Roberts University, where interracial dating was against the rules at the time.  There is a reason that McCain has sought out the endorsement of extremist pastors like Hagee.  There is a reason that until he outed himself as a gay meth-head, Ted Haggard as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals met every Monday with President Bush.  Now, it may be cynical use, but the Republican party gives an enormous amount of attention and promises to the far right in exchange for their money and votes.

In contrast, you would be hard pressed to show such associations for serious politicians on the Left.  They just can't get away with it.  Obama is being hammered mercilessly for his association with Wright, who has views less or equally disturbing to the far right pastors who have long been associated with the Republican party.  If the the Dems were meeting every Monday with MeCHA or representatives of the Communist party, the howls out outrage would be audible in Siberia.


----------



## tellner (May 3, 2008)

The Far Left? We don't have one in the US. We have a far, far right that fits every single textbook classic definition of fascism from Eco on down. It is currently the mainstream of the Republican Party. It's not the belief of every single Party member. But it's the platform from "opposition to organized labor" and "partnership between business and government" to "imposition of pervasive surveillance".

What people of that sort call a "Far Left" has economic, civil liberties, social welfare, trade, fiscal and even labor policies that are pretty much identical to those of a moderate Republican of forty years ago. Seriously. 

Olbermann, whom the poster despises as a radical leftie, is further to the right than I. F. Stone or the other great icons of the 20th century.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

Empty Hands,
Every major Democrat in the race at the time went to the DailyPOS convention.  So your "you would be hard pressed to show such associations for serious politicians on the Left" just got shot full of holes.

The far left has BILLIONAIRES funding them. The Far Right has a bunch of poor white people in churches funding them. Who do you think wins that contest? Plus, what hast he far right gotten accomplished? not much. The far left on the other hand........




Edited to take out my reply, short though it was to tellner. No point in engaging him.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Every major Democrat in the race at the time went to the DailyPOS convention.  So your "you would be hard pressed to show such associations for serious politicians on the Left" just got shot full of holes.



Say what?  The Kos crowd are committed to helping Democrats win, not to extremism.  They were even willing to go with a pro-life Democrat in the Chafee race.  That ain't exactly extreme.



Twin Fist said:


> The far left has BILLIONAIRES funding them. The Far Right has a bunch of poor white people in churches funding them. Who do you think wins that contest?



Well, those churches aren't exactly poor, and the megachurches have thousands of members with a national political and lobbying apparatus.  Your local church on the corner of 5th and Main they ain't.

In any case, the far right has its share of billionaires.  Richard Melon Scaife.  Rupert Murdoch. And so on.



Twin Fist said:


> Plus, what hast he far right gotten accomplished? not much. The far left on the other hand........



Well, I can't think of anything the far left has accomplished.  We are still at war.  Unionism and labor protection are at an all time low.  So are import barriers and protectionist measures that they favor.  The Bush administration is pushing hard on regulatory schemes and institutions that the left favors.  Ditto for Great Society stuff like Social Security, although they didn't manage to accomplish anything on that one.

Meanwhile, the far right has gotten their religion into government with the faith based initiatives nonsense.  They got themselves two anti-Roe Supreme Court justices, Roberts and especially Alito.  Those two alone will provide dividends to the far right for decades to come.  The far right also has its representatives taken seriously and courted in Congress and the White House.  Not bad for a bunch of poor white churchgoers, eh?


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

I think it's important to point out that what Americans consider "left" is actually not left at all compared to the rest of the world. Our country is, in my opinion..too afraid of change. (and I don't mean Obama haha).... 
I think a little more secularism would do us good. I'll give you an example...

Could you imagine even an open agnostic becoming president these days?
It's almost a pre-requisite that you're a Christian to hold the presidency in this country. I think this at least HINTS at a strong religious right in the USA.

I think a lot of the right wingers in the US are holding our country back. Another example...
I think we're the only country in the free world that has an active anti-darwin movement to keep Evolution on the same textbook page as creationism. 

To say the far right is somehow less powerful than the far left in the USA?? That's a tough pill to swallow.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 3, 2008)

EH,
you and I live on two totally seperate planets my friend..

I will answer at length later, i gotta do something. Be cool


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Well, I know it gets heated, but debating someone point for point gives me a respect for them. Feel lucky. I await your reply


----------



## DustinJolley (May 4, 2008)

Joshua, with all due respect, the point that Twin Fist and I are trying to make is that all the news networks except for Fox News: CNN, CNN Headline, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc... are in the tank for the Democratic Party. In fact Media Matters for America, a Liberal hate website has contributors and supporters who appear regularly on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and Olbermann is now a regular contributor for The Daily Kos, a website so vicious and anti-American, the internet blocking software doesn't even allow it to be shown on a computer with such software.


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Joshua, with all due respect, the point that Twin Fist and I are trying to make is that all the news networks except for Fox News: CNN, CNN Headline, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc... are in the tank for the Democratic Party. In fact Media Matters for America, a Liberal hate website has contributors and supporters who appear regularly on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and Olbermann is now a regular contributor for The Daily Kos, a website so vicious and anti-American, the internet blocking software doesn't even allow it to be shown on a computer with such software.




I appreciate that point of view. I just disagree with it. To quote Maddox.

*"**"Liberal media":* 
*Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media."  To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.*


----------



## DustinJolley (May 4, 2008)

Joshua, Michael Savage isn't a Conservative first of all. Second, you know damn well that the media is owned by the extreme left of the Democratic Party!


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Joshua, Michael Savage isn't a Conservative first of all. Second, you know damn well that the media is owned by the extreme left of the Democratic Party!




mike sure isn't a liberal would be the point. and yes, let's dismiss all of those other news outlets and just focus on what bill o tells us to believe.  all hail bill O


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

I would also add that if you only get your "news" from Fox News... you deserve to believe the rest of the news is "owned" by the far left. I won't debate that point any more. You're right, the ENTIRE "mainstream media" is liberal. You win. Enjoy sucking Hannity's balls


----------



## elder999 (May 4, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> ......... Second, you know damn well that the media is owned by the extreme left of the Democratic Party!


 
Okee-dokee, here we go:

MSNBC, NBC-*owned* by General Electric-that same GE that supplies appliances, lightbulbs, powerplant turbines, and, oh yeah, _brings good things to light_ like jet engines, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. The same GE that ran the Hanford Reservation Facility for the U.S., making nuclear materials for weapons. The same GE that began releasing nuclear material from Hanford in 1949...just to see how far downwind it would go. The same GE that was run by MR. Jack Welch-Republican, and major contributor the Bush campaign......

CBS-Owned by VIACOM, 

ABC-Owned by Disney

Fox News-Owned by NewsCorp (Rupert Murdoch)

CNN-Owned by Time Warner.

These _5 companies_ control* 75%* of  the media's prime time viewing.

I'd put it to you, Dustin, that the media is as liberal as its corporate ownership permits-no more. That if you look for the faces of that corporate ownership, at the top you'll find mostly Republican Conservatives-even though they all might contribute to both parties-wisely-you'll find that they contribute more to Republican causes, either in person or through PACs.Their power structure has a huge investment in making certain that the country is divided and distracted on "key" issues..so that we don't realize that the airwaves belong to the public, that they get their licenses to use those airwaves from the government for free, and that WE the people are the ones who make decisions, or put people in place to make those decisions for us.....but THEY do their very best to control what you know, what you think about it, and how you act on it.

_*"Come sail away; come sail away; come sail away with me!"*_


----------



## DustinJolley (May 4, 2008)

Nice try Joshua and Elder999. The media is owned by liberals. How else do you explain the kind of dirty, and almost pornographic content on most network and cable network TV entertainment programs? Desperate Housewives, South Park, Reno 911, The View, Oprah, etc... You guys all talk like Rupert Murdock owns the entire media industry, which obviously isn't true.


----------



## elder999 (May 4, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Nice try Joshua and Elder999. The media is owned by liberals. How else do you explain the kind of dirty, and almost pornographic content on most network and cable network TV entertainment programs? Desperate Housewives, South Park, Reno 911, The View, Oprah, etc... You guys all talk like Rupert Murdock owns the entire media industry, which obviously isn't true.


 

Well, no, Dustin-the media is owned by _corporations_, and the people that run those corporations are generally conservative Republicans-don't take my word for it, see for yourself. Keep in mind that public information is available for their political contributions, and that they generally contribute to people of both parties, but you'll find that they contribute more, mostly or all of their funds to Republican causes.

 While I don't know about most of those programs you mentioned , I have to ask how _Oprah_ is almost pornographic. I can  also tell you that when I resumed TV programming at home in 2001-2002, I experienced a bit of culture shock, so I'm kind of with you there, and I'd agree that most of the people who make those shows probably are "liberals." They don't _own_ the media, though; they make a product that the media buys. In the end, the media buys it because people will watch it, and they can sell advertising. Same goes for the news, and the manner in which it is reported. 

Voting statistics over the last 10 years say the country is pretty much split down the middle on a variety of issues, so for every person like you who stands there cussing out Mr. Olbermann (_instead of just changing the channel or turning the damn thing off???_) there's another out there nodding his head in agreement, somewhere-I know it's hard to believe, but that's the exactly the way that someone at the top of a corporation wants it. Case in point would be the Elian Gonzalez case, but you and I could find any major news story of the last 10 years, look at the reportage from both ends of the spectrum-say, Fox News and CNN, and the substantive *facts* would be the same, but the commentary, nuance and spin for the _truth_ would be completely different.


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Nice try Joshua and Elder999. The media is owned by liberals. How else do you explain the kind of dirty, and almost pornographic content on most network and cable network TV entertainment programs? Desperate Housewives, South Park, Reno 911, The View, Oprah, etc... You guys all talk like Rupert Murdock owns the entire media industry, which obviously isn't true.



You're ignoring FACTS. How do you explain the content on network and cable network TV? AMERICAN SUPPLY AND DEMAND. If your fellow citizens didn't watch those things it wouldn't be on TV. No one was acting like anything. You claim the media is owned by the far left, which is factually untrue.

Also, your entire premise in naming off those shows is ****ed. The republican party doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Here's an idea, tell your congressmen to stop having homosexual affairs left and right while voting against gay rights and stop focusing on what's on TV. ..Actually I take that back.. Nevermind.. Let's focus on what's on TV. Fox News is owned by Fox, which has NO ****ing leg to stand on when it comes to the morality of television shows. Those living in glass houses need to not throw stones.

As much as you want to believe everything bill tells you to be true, some things require facts. (like claiming the entire media is owned by liberals)

Really, if you'd believe anything from a man who "boycotted" France for not supporting our _wonderful_ war in Iraq and complains that evil democrats are coming to take Christmas away... I really don't have pity for you.
 You want to hear "news" on how America can never do wrong in the world and how evil and forceful the "Secular progressives" are? I say have at it.. Yep enjoy your willful ignorance.

Just don't label everything that isn't on the right-wings dick as "left wing"


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Okee-dokee, here we go:
> 
> MSNBC, NBC-*owned* by General Electric-that same GE that supplies appliances, lightbulbs, powerplant turbines, and, oh yeah, _brings good things to light_ like jet engines, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. The same GE that ran the Hanford Reservation Facility for the U.S., making nuclear materials for weapons. The same GE that began releasing nuclear material from Hanford in 1949...just to see how far downwind it would go. The same GE that was run by MR. Jack Welch-Republican, and major contributor the Bush campaign......
> 
> ...


 
Bravo!  Bravo, El Snarko!


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Say what?  The Kos crowd are committed to helping Democrats win, not to extremism.  ...........



If you dont think the DailyPOS crowd is extreem, then our definitions are very, very different. Also, I would posit that if they are not your idea of extreem, it is not surprising that you dont see examples of far left activist as often as i do. because to you, they are not far left. To me they are. VERY. Sadly, I dont know of a way to reconcile these opposing views. 




Empty Hands said:


> Meanwhile, the far right has gotten their religion into government with the faith based initiatives nonsense.



Uh, no. Faith Based Initiatives are a way of getting the organizations that already do charitable work the funds to do so on a large scale. This is not establishment of any religion. This is not endorsement of any religion, so i am afraid you are just wrong about that.



Empty Hands said:


> They got themselves two anti-Roe Supreme Court justices, Roberts and especially Alito.



Roe should be overturned.Not because abortion is bad, but because it is a very badly decided case. I agree with the result, but the "equal protection" is not the way to do it. many legal experts agree.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

Joshua said:


> I think it's important to point out that what Americans consider "left" is actually not left at all compared to the rest of the world. Our country is, in my opinion..too afraid of change. (and I don't mean Obama haha)....



Who cares what the rest of the world does or thinks? I base my decisions off of what is good for america, not what France thinks is good for France



Joshua said:


> Could you imagine even an open agnostic becoming president these days?
> It's almost a pre-requisite that you're a Christian to hold the presidency in this country. I think this at least HINTS at a strong religious right in the USA.



That has more to do with the FACT that the vast overwhelming majority of Americans are religious, at least to some degree, people want a President that represents THEM. There is nothing wrong with that.



Joshua said:


> I think a lot of the right wingers in the US are holding our country back. Another example...
> I think we're the only country in the free world that has an active anti-darwin movement to keep Evolution on the same textbook page as creationism.



Both are theories. Neither is proven. Both are believed by a LOT of people. I would prefere that creationism be taught in Social Studies rather than biology, but it should be discussed at least.



Joshua said:


> To say the far right is somehow less powerful than the far left in the USA?? That's a tough pill to swallow.




only because you are more left than right. it is natural to see oneself as the  minority. Wether you are or not.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

Joshua said:


> mike sure isn't a liberal would be the point. and yes, let's dismiss all of those other news outlets and just focus on what bill o tells us to believe.  all hail bill O



Josh,
This:
"You win. Enjoy sucking Hannity's balls" 
was entirely out of line. You should apologize for that.

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the majority of the print media and almost the entire Blog world

versus

Fox

And BTW, Clear Channel also hosted Air America, which failed miserably, I think because people dont want to hear negative negative negative, and thats all the far left moonbats at Air American had to offer.

regardless of who OWNS the, look at their CONTENT.

but that doesnt matter to you guys I am sure. Even though you know FULL WELL that owners dont control content.

BTW Elder, GE's IS, not "was" run by CEO Jeffery Immelt, not a republican


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

I am actually willing to admit all of the above are valid points..Very good points indeed. EXCEPT the first one. 

who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I do. You should too. It's impossible for America to solve ANY of the global problems including the "war on terrorism* ©"  *alone...as you can clearly see.


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Josh,
> This:
> "You win. Enjoy sucking Hannity's balls"
> was entirely out of line. You should apologize for that.



It's a figure of speech. I will do no such thing.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 4, 2008)

Joshua said:


> It's a figure of speech. I will do no such thing.


It's also not an acceptable way to debate here, and wasn't needed. Thread was doing ok until you got all "special".  Wasn't needed. You might last longer here unless your point is to go out flaming.


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

The Last Legionary said:


> It's also not an acceptable way to debate here, and wasn't needed. Thread was doing ok until you got all "special".  Wasn't needed. You might last longer here unless your point is to go out flaming.



"last longer here"? Honestly, If I'm in some sort of danger of some sort of a ban for that.. then I'd prefer it be done and get it over with. If you think that was a personal attack of some sort you obviously don't understand the figure of speech. If you feel like I've broken some rule of ethics, report me...  Otherwise You keep your idea of what's acceptable and I'll keep mine. Thanks...Again, Ban me or whatever if it's that bad. But you'll get no such apology.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

Josh, I dont care what the rest of the world thinks because of one thing.

WE look out for their interests, but they dont return the favor. Look at Israel. We have backed them for decades, given literally BILLIONS to them in money,a ndmore in hardware. And yet they spy on us.

If something happens to them, they come running to US to fix it. Then complain about American interference in thier affairs....

WTF???

That sort of double standard chaps my sensitive areas.

the two biggest critics of the Iraqi invasion, Germany and France BOTH had illegal deals going on with Saddam's regime. So they didnt care about right or wrong, or legal or illegal, they wanted to make MONEY

What makes the US noble, we LOSE money to do the right thing, Like rebuilding Iraq. We dont have to. We could pull out, and bail. but we dont. because it wouldnt be RIGHT

BTW- before you blow a gasket, the reason i say it wouldnt be right is because pretty much everyone agrees if we leave, the Iranians WILL take over. OR a new Taliban takes over. Either or those things would be in the long term BAD for everyone involved. But worst of all for the Iraqi people.

Or do you disagree with that too?

And Josh, I like you well enough, but your comment was rude and over the line. For here. IRL it wouldnt bother me. But in this highly moderated forum, there is no place for that sort of thing.

But we are getting off topic

the media, is what it is, and more and more, what it is isnt good.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 4, 2008)

The rules are posted.  You did read them right? 
Oh, and for the record, I did report you. 
Now I'll ignore you. Bye!


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

also, whoever just neg repped me for not being polite and respectful.. please. What I said was clearly a figure of speech meaning "to follow blindly". I show respect for people who disagree with me. If it's a matter of choosing my words more wisely It's noted.


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

The Last Legionary said:


> The rules are posted.  You did read them right?
> Oh, and for the record, I did report you.
> Now I'll ignore you. Bye!



I'm going to request this thread be locked. It got wayyy off track because apprently you cannot understand a figure of speech. If i'm to be banned for that..Good riddance.


----------



## DustinJolley (May 4, 2008)

Twin Fist, these people don't seem to understand the obious fact that Liberals are the ones who are telling us what we SHOULD believe NOT the so called "Conservative," Fox News. "We report. You decide."


----------



## DustinJolley (May 4, 2008)

We're going to have to continue this discussion again on Wed. the 14th because I will be out of town until then starting this Tue. morning. Thank you.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

see ya Dustin


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 4, 2008)

Joshua said:


> I'm going to request this thread be locked. It got wayyy off track because apprently you cannot understand a figure of speech. If i'm to be banned for that..Good riddance.


It's off track because you confused this site with one of the crap filled mud pit ones and chose a poor metaphor, and then decided to be a jerk about it. Debate here is preferred to be a bit more, intellectual. Preferred. As TF said, face to face, no problem. Here, it's different.  Face to face I'd be saltier still, and we'd probably laugh over cold drinks. 

I'll stand down, you apologize for the comment, and y'all can go back to the more important discussion that was going on before this short trip to tangent land. Deal? 
Please signify agreement by returning to the original discussion and not replying to me. :viking1:


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> And Josh, I like you well enough, but your comment was rude and over the line. For here. IRL it wouldnt bother me. But in this highly moderated forum, there is no place for that sort of thing.




In real life it wouldn't bother anyone. you're right. I think, or would hope the moderators would understand the difference between a figure of speech and being disrespectful. I like you enough too.. and the debate was good. I appreciate it. I'm done in the study though.. or if cry-babies get their way.. on MT.

Either way this will be my last post on this topic, regardless of what self righteous "you r s0 disresepctful lolol" comments are left after I'm gone.
It IS clear that my style of debate may be too abrasive for this forum.
So i'll step back. But apologize? "hahahhaa" <<that's all you'll get to the ones calling for it. ESPECIALLY the ones who didn't take part in the discussion until like 10 posts ago just to bash my posts. wow. Stop playing moral police.

Later.


----------



## Kacey (May 4, 2008)

*Attention all users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful*
*
Karen Cohn
MT Senior Moderator*


----------



## Empty Hands (May 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> If you dont think the DailyPOS crowd is extreem, then our definitions are very, very different.



They are profane, vicious, insulting, utterly committed to helping Democrats win, and they really hate the Republicans.  They are also espouse mainstream policy positions.  They are partisan, not political extremists.



Twin Fist said:


> Faith Based Initiatives are a way of getting the organizations that already do charitable work the funds to do so on a large scale. This is not establishment of any religion. This is not endorsement of any religion, so i am afraid you are just wrong about that.



The government is funding certain religious groups.  I don't know what else you would call that.  In any case, the far right was pretty happy about the development.  I would agree that it is not the biggest thing to get worked up over, the office hasn't been well funded or been particularly effective.  Nonetheless, it is an example of a far-right victory which is what you were asking for.



Twin Fist said:


> Roe should be overturned.Not because abortion is bad, but because it is a very badly decided case.



That doesn't change the fact that nominating these two justices was a huge priority for the far right, and they got their big victory.  They want Roe gone, and not because they are finnicky legalists - they want abortion banned by any means necessary.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That doesn't change the fact that nominating these two justices was a huge priority for the far right, and they got their big victory.  They want Roe gone, and not because they are finnicky legalists - they want abortion banned by any means necessary.



Ok, and what will happen is Roe is overturned?

WORST case, it goes back to the state legislators, and the people can vote on it.

Wow, thats horrible, letting the people actually decide something.............


ok, that was sarcastic, but I trust you get my meaning. SO WHAT if it gets overturned? The states would just have the option of doing what they want with the issue. And I think it would still end up legal in any case. i think it should be. But, if the people actually got to decide the issue, whats the harm in that?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 4, 2008)

and i have to point out, it hasnt been overturned, has it?

no.

And it more than likely never will be.


----------



## Josh (May 4, 2008)

Hey, I hate to be off topic.. but upon reviewing my own comments.. Yeah, I was offensive. I apologize for the harmful comments. 

On the whole Roe v Wade issue. I have to leave my own opinions at the door on this one. I feel like it should be a states issue. I feel at the very least it should be voted on.


----------



## elder999 (May 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Both are theories. Neither is proven. Both are believed by a LOT of people. I would prefere that creationism be taught in Social Studies raher than biology, but it should be discussed at least.
> .


 

Actually-and I need to point out that I believe in the Creator AND evolution-creationism is *not* a theory. While the normally excellent MErriam-Webster's English Language Technical Manual is deficient in this case (the definition might  apply to creationism) I can say as a scientist that in order to qualify as a  scientific "theory," the idea has to be testable and capable of being disproven, which creationism is not:



> *from the excellent but totally confounding to most, National Academy of Sciences*
> 
> 
> Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena



 What creationism is  is a speculation, conjecture or postulate-can't verify it, and you can't disprove it. Doesn't make it an invalid idea, just one whose scientific basis is unduplicable, testable or provable-unlike evolution, for which there are myriad testable models....and, of course, _one does not necessarily exclude the other._...additionally, the confusion comes from most people (other than scientists) commonly using the word "theory" to denote an idea, conjecture, speculation or postulate....*Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!*

....I like the idea about teaching it in social studies, though-good man.


----------



## elder999 (May 5, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> .
> 
> BTW Elder, GE's IS, not "was" run by CEO Jeffery Immelt, not a republican


 

Why, because he's a tree-hugging greenie?

I'm not sure what his party affiliation is, but his public record of political donations, seen  here,  leans heavily to the Republican side-not exclusively Republican-wisely-but more than 70% of his affiliated donations went to the Republicans.*Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!*


And, for the record, I'm willing to bet he won't be CEO of GE come 2010 at the latest-



TwinFist said:


> regardless of who OWNS the, look at their CONTENT.
> 
> but that doesnt matter to you guys I am sure. Even though you know FULL WELL that owners dont control content.



Well, you'd think that in the case of the news, the _facts_ would control content, but that's not the case either.....who really cares about any other programming-it's the expression of the free press that's troubling.....in any case, there's every indication that Rupert Murcdoch controls content.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 5, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> But, if the people actually got to decide the issue, whats the harm in that?



I didn't say it was harmful, I said getting Roe overturned by any means necessary was a big priority for the far right.  Do you deny this?


----------



## Big Don (May 5, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I didn't say it was harmful, I said getting Roe overturned by any means necessary was a big priority for the far right.  Do you deny this?


In that the purpose of the judiciary is the interpretation of laws, not the making of new laws, that being the purpose of the legislature, the court's ruling in Roe, is, or should be, null and void. Unless of course you want judges like the idiots that sentence child molesters to 6 months in jail running the country...


----------



## Big Don (May 5, 2008)

Interesting that the CEO of News Corp (owns Fox News) Rupert Murdoch, contributes to Hillary, Kerry, Specter, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings and others, and is STILL called all kinds of nasty names by your end of the political spectrum....
Shoot, I think less of Fox news now, just seeing what kind of liberal dipsticks Murdoch has given money to, Chuck Schumer for Pete's sake...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 5, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I didn't say it was harmful, I said getting Roe overturned by any means necessary was a big priority for the far right.  Do you deny this?



I dont deny it, mind you, as I have said, i am pro-choice myself. And no, I am not a fool, the far right wants RvW overturned because they want to end abortion, I know that.

But

The Supreme Court is, as you pointed out, already "stacked"

why hasnt there been a challenge to Roe?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Interesting that the CEO of News Corp (owns Fox News) Rupert Murdoch, contributes to Hillary, Kerry, Specter, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings and others, and is STILL called all kinds of nasty names by your end of the political spectrum....
> Shoot, I think less of Fox news now, just seeing what kind of liberal dipsticks Murdoch has given money to, Chuck Schumer for Pete's sake...


 
Murdoch has an agenda, don't kid your self.  

The left vs. right paradigm is pure ********.

Study some Hegel.

Thesis vs. Antithesis = Synthesis.

This is the only religion the elite worship.

The Middle - aka less regulation and more "big government" is the wet dream of the elite.

Are you human?  If so, that means we need alot of the same damn things.  Maybe take a look at what other primates do.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> why hasnt there been a challenge to Roe?


 
Eugenics.  

Planned Parenthood started as a Eugenics program.  Killing babies as the bottom of the genetic barrel has been very popular with the elite in the last century or so.

Social management.  

Nearly all of the supreme court justices subscribe to a Galtonian philosophy of human nature.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Okee-dokee, here we go:
> 
> MSNBC, NBC-*owned* by General Electric-that same GE that supplies appliances, lightbulbs, powerplant turbines, and, oh yeah, _brings good things to light_ like jet engines, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. The same GE that ran the Hanford Reservation Facility for the U.S., making nuclear materials for weapons. The same GE that began releasing nuclear material from Hanford in 1949...just to see how far downwind it would go. The same GE that was run by MR. Jack Welch-Republican, and major contributor the Bush campaign......
> 
> ...



I'm late to this discussion, but there is another point to Elder's analysis which has gone un-noticed, or at least un-remarked upon: If one considers not just prime time television, but also radio, print and even the Internet, a vast proportion of the media we consume is owned by an ever smaller number of players. Be they liberal or conservative, that tells me that the message is being filtered, and the media are tilting in the direction of monopoly, which is bad for public discourse -- conservative or liberal. 

We've had a similar issue building in Canada over the last twenty or so years where we appear to have all kinds of choice in media; whereas we actually have less. Among, say twenty, Canadian channels that I can access with basic in my market, I'd say most of them belong to about three companies, not counting public broadcasters.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 5, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> And no, I am not a fool, the far right wants RvW overturned because they want to end abortion, I know that.



Then we agree. 



Twin Fist said:


> The Supreme Court is, as you pointed out, already "stacked"
> 
> why hasnt there been a challenge to Roe?



These things take time.  An actual case has to be brought, with an actual involved plaintiff, and wend its way through the district and appellate courts.  A political pressure group can't just file a case with the Supreme Court tomorrow.  The involved groups have been case shopping, and will be bringing forth their challenges in the years to come.  It will take years too, the appeals process is glacial.  Unless your case is Bush v. Gore!

As it is, the Supreme Court has already upheld the Partial Birth Abortion ban by a 5-4 vote despite the absence of life/health clauses for the mother.  The future is looking bright indeed for the far right!


----------



## Empty Hands (May 5, 2008)

Big Don said:


> ...the court's ruling in Roe, is, or should be, null and void.



Again, the groups that want Roe overturned are doing so because they are against abortion and want it banned, and Roe is standing in their way.  Not because they are high minded legal scholars.


----------



## Big Don (May 5, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, the groups that want Roe overturned are doing so because they are against abortion and want it banned, and Roe is standing in their way.  Not because they are high minded legal scholars.


Does thinking abortion is abhorrent negate the fact that the court had no right, under the US Constitution to rule as they did, not unless the Earth really is flat for the flat earth people...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 5, 2008)

Can someone explain to me who *"the elite"* are?  I keep seeing that term used in various threads, but there has never been a proper definition.  And unless we share a common terminology, the use of it is meaningless.


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> .........the fact that the court had no right, under the US Constitution to rule as they did, ...


 
Care to explain that-briefly?


----------



## Big Don (May 6, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Care to explain that-briefly?


That the federal judiciary is not empowered to make law?
Sure. Article One, Section One of the US Constitution:


> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Dictionary.com definition of legislative:





> 1.having the function of making laws: a legislative body.    2.of or pertaining to the enactment of laws: legislative proceedings; legislative power.


That is pretty simple and unambiguous.


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> That the federal judiciary is not empowered to make law?
> Sure. Article One, Section One of the US Constitution:
> 
> Dictionary.com definition of legislative:
> That is pretty simple and unambiguous.


 
Well, that's all well and good, but, since they didn't _make_ law, but _negated_ existing law, i.e., *made a ruling*, it's also pretty clear that they didn't violate the Constitution, which is what you said they did-in fact, you said that they "had no right to rule as they did," which, Article Two, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution says they do.

So, you still haven't explained anything, briefly or otherwise.

*come sail away, some sail away, come sail away with me!*


----------



## Sukerkin (May 6, 2008)

Thanks for that link, *Elder* - the last thing I expected when I started following this thread was to learn more about the workings of the judiciary in the States :tup:.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2008)

getting a bit off track arent we gentlemen?


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Interesting that the CEO of News Corp (owns Fox News) Rupert Murdoch, contributes to Hillary, Kerry, Specter, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings and others, and is STILL called all kinds of nasty names by your end of the political spectrum....
> Shoot, I think less of Fox news now, just seeing what kind of liberal dipsticks Murdoch has given money to, Chuck Schumer for Pete's sake...


 

Well, of course he does-it points out the Hegelian dichotomy(?) that Upnorthkyosa has been referencing quite subtly. He gives _more_ to Republicans because they're more likely to be directly in line with his political desires and motives. He gives to the others that  you mention because they also have power, and by giving to them, he ensures that they owe him something-if not a vote on dergulating certain aspects of the communications industry, or doing away with the regulation that keeps owners of television stations from owning newspapers in the same market, they at least owe him a listen if they want another donation. It also gives him the false appearance of impartiality.And, if one looks at what the other CEOs and owners of networks have given, one finds the same sort of thing-donations to both sides of the aisle, with the overwhelming majority to Republicans, and donations to strategic Democrats-usually those who sit on committees that could effect their interests, but often those, like Kerry, who might wind up being President.

In the case of NBC and GE, if one looks to the GE Political Action Committee (that's what it's called:GEPAC) one finds the same thing: 60-70% donated to Republican officers, candidates and causes, and the remainder to Democratic ones. I point this out because nearly 30% of Jeffrey Immelt's donations went to GEPAC.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 6, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Can someone explain to me who *"the elite"* are? I keep seeing that term used in various threads, but there has never been a proper definition. And unless we share a common terminology, the use of it is meaningless.


 
Good question.  I'll give you my best answer, but know this, "the elite" means different things to different people so I doubt we will ever complete agreement on exactly who "they" are.

When I refer to the Elite, I am referring specifically to the Old Guard, Old Money, WASP families like the Rockefellers, Carnagies, Morgans, Astors, etc.  This is a very Amerocentric group, though.  In a broader sense international banking families (and no, I am not referring to Jews) like the Rothchilds or many of the European Royal families can also be classified as Elite.

The thing to keep in mind is that these families have interests that transcend the normal things that have meaning to us.  Politics, nationality, sovereignty, money, etc...all of this takes on a different meaning in the elite context.  For example, in this thread, if was brought up that the "left" and "right" media both have the same bosses and they are the Elite.

This kind of pragmatic attitude towards politics has nothing to do with allegience to partisanship.  It has everything to do with manipulation of society for a gain of some kind.  

This is why I said it was important to study Hegel.  These 19th century German philosophers had a huge influence on world events.  In particular, they provided Elite families with a rationale and rule book for the manipulation of society for their own gain.

A good example is the Hegelian Dialectic.  If you are powerful enough to precipitate the antithesis, you can propose a thesis, and control the synthesis.  Political parties do exactly this in the hands of the elite.  The right and the left make lots of noise, but the "middle" was the original goal the entire time.  The sythesis of ideas was directed by the control of the thesis and antithesis.


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> A good example is the Hegelian Dialectic. If you are powerful enough to precipitate the antithesis, you can propose a thesis, and control the synthesis. Political parties do exactly this in the hands of the elite. The right and the left make lots of noise, but the "middle" was the original goal the entire time. The sythesis of ideas was directed by the control of the thesis and antithesis.


 
In the meantime, though, those of us standing outside of this "elite," only see, hear and side with the noise from the left, or the noise from the right, so for them, there is no perceived dialectic, but a _dichotomy_-albeit, one that is at least partly manufactured.In any case, the perception becomes that there is "A" and "_not_ A", as in "pro-choice," and "pro-life," when, in fact, those behind the scenes-the elite that Upnorth speaks of-don't care about either "A" or "not A." They are completely devoted to "B"  as an outcome, which can and will coexist with either "A" or "not A".

In the meantime, "A" and "not A" people are at each others throats, when they should consider that neither of them would necessarily benefit from "B".....but they don't even see "B" to begin considering it...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 6, 2008)

A neat precis in the last two posts gentlemen, which points out the futility that is antagonistic debating of Left and Right.  

We have too brief a span on this Earth to let ourselves be divided by such things; after all, those that determine the course of global events are not concerned in the slightest about our maunderings.

When we feel the political/religious bile begin to rise we should recall the words of a very wise playwright:

"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.".

EDIT:  Having just watched a documentary about the last time we allowed intolerance to rise to epic levels, it would seem the tears behind my eyes have enabled me to regain a certain perspective that recent work stresses had robbed me of .


----------



## DustinJolley (May 14, 2008)

I'm back!!! Lol! Isn't interesting how Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being loud and obnoxious, when they have plenty of loud and obnoxious people on their own side? Such as: Randi Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Rosie O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Julian Bond just to name a few.


----------



## theletch1 (May 14, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> I'm back!!! Lol! Isn't interesting how Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being loud and obnoxious, when they have plenty of loud and obnoxious people on their own side? Such as: Randi Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Rosie O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Julian Bond just to name a few.


You make an excellent point, DJ, and without realizing it drive home the point that the last several posters have put forth.  While there appears to be a gaping chasm between the "right" and "left" they are but two sides of the same coin and that "coin" is in someone elses pocket.


----------



## DustinJolley (May 14, 2008)

Could you elaborate on that? I don't quite understand what you mean by "two sides of the same coin."


----------

