NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's look at some examples and reach a decision together, shall we?

Kerry laid out a detailed and well thought out policy of government

Bush chanted flip-flop until his throat bleed.

Latham focused on positive reforms he planned to introduce

Howard screamed interest rates

Liberals take the time to explain the detailed medical differences between a foetus and a developed human

Conservatives have pictures of tiny arms

Obviously I'm over-simplfying this. But come on guys, let's get throw a little mud back. I for one am sick of actually proving my arguements when some conservatives can fall divine illogic.

Oh who am I kidding. Anyway, chuck us your thoughts. I've got a poll comming and everything.

Yeah, sometimes I wonder what the point is.

Let's look at some examples and reach a decision together, shall we?

Kerry laid out a detailed and well thought out policy of government
Kerry whined and bitched about the swift boaters, yet oddly enough still hasn't taken a libel suit against them.

They really need to get politically brutal. Jedi Pacifism only works in Star Wars. As 2004 showed, America is a short attention span country that only responds to mudslinging and dirty laundry as proven by the constant success of "reality shows" where backstabbing is a ratings grabber.

Kerry whined and bitched about the swift boaters, yet oddly enough still hasn't taken a libel suit against them.
Winning a libel suit when you're a politician takes an absurd amount of time and money, and the odds are stacked against you from the start, as you not only have to prove that the statement was false, you also have to prove that the statement was made with intent to harm. Good luck doing that.

That's because conservatives have such small penises/breasts they need to make up for it in vile anger. lol jk! there was my flinging mud back. :p

Now for my detailed and well thought out argument:
It's mainly because whenever liberals attack, conservatives play the victim card and counterattack at the same time. Take a look at FOX News during the 2004 election campaign. Brit Hume: "Bush's days of absorbing Kerry's attacks without counterattacks are over." He could've said, "Bush begins attacking Kerry again," but no. See how cleverly he twisted it around? And if liberals try to pull the same stunt, I'm sure you'll find the conservative mudslinging trebuchets roll out and go insane. There are also angry liberals that fling lots of dirt (Al Franken, Michael Moore), but then look at people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, and they are dwarfed in the pure hostility of the latter, yet they are made out to be much worse than the latter.

Kerry whined and bitched about the swift boaters, yet oddly enough still hasn't taken a libel suit against them.

Really? I never heard Kerry whine about the Swifties. He countered their statements with fact that the Navy later verified. Mostly it was reporters and the Navy who dug enough into matters to clearly show that the Swifties were just thugs with a vendetta. Seems to me that it was the Swifties who were whiney, lying biatches, and certain classless Republican followers too that liked wearing purple bandages.

As for the libel suit, I don't blame Kerry for wanting to wash his hands of the whole matter. If he had pursued the suit, you'd probably be bitching and whining about a frivolous lawsuit.

That's because conservatives have such small penises/breasts they need to make up for it in vile anger. lol BWUAHAHAHAHA...

good one.

They really need to get politically brutal. Jedi Pacifism only works in Star Wars. As 2004 showed, America is a short attention span country that only responds to mudslinging and dirty laundry as proven by the constant success of "reality shows" where backstabbing is a ratings grabber.

America needs to pull up its drawers and get it's head out of the toilet of the mainstream media and perhaps let tyhe individual think for himself/herself. Unfortunately, it seems that people in this society are too lazy to take responsibilty for themselves. Western society media is constantly lowering the standards by which we live so that in the near future, I figure we'll be flinging our own feces at one another. I for one am all for it!

Winning a libel suit when you're a politician takes an absurd amount of time and money, and the odds are stacked against you from the start, as you not only have to prove that the statement was false, you also have to prove that the statement was made with intent to harm. Good luck doing that.
That and a court would have to rule mudslinging illegal... fat chance.

President Bush won the election, Kerrey flip-flopped too,
just wait for the next election and try your luck, I hope another republican will win the next election even a Libertairan, no democrat, but that is my right, just like it
is your right to wish a democrat will win, just wait untll the next election and try your luck, you can complain about what President Bush has done or not done, but stop complaining about Kerrey should or could have won the election, should have or could have done this or that, he lost and thats it, its over.

That and a court would have to rule mudslinging illegal... fat chance.

Muslinging is already actionable, there is nothing to rule on.

I'm a conservative(not a neocon), but I'll still choose the top one.

As an independent voter who wanted the democrats to actually field someone worthy of a vote I am pissed that they picked that scumbag idiot asshole , Kerry the lying backstabbing fool . His only legitamite qualification was " I am not George Bush " WTF did you expect ? You go to a gun fight with a wet noodle like that asshole and win ? The democrats need to figure the hell out how to win . HINT- MODERATE to CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT - see BILL "BLOW JOB " CLINTON for ex . The best President a man ever had . He made giving a good hummer something a women could be proud of ! Bill is my Idol ...and it helped that he wasnt a left wing friggin nut case . ( really guys if your over 30 ...like 35 to 40 or more ...did you EVER think a good noodle slurp would be actually fashionable ? that women would be going to classes for it ? Thank my man Bill " cigar " Clinton ! ).

I wish he could run again . :D

I think they should. The way it's going now, the right's on an insane powertrip, and the left is just letting them get away with it. For example:

Right: "ABORTIONS MUST BE BANNED! BAN ABORTIONS NOW OR WE'LL SICK LYNNDIE ENGLAND ON YOUR ASS!!!"

Left: "We don't want to ban abortions entirely, so they'll only be outlawed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Okay? That way EVERYONE'S happy!!"

If Liberals start throwing mud back at the Conservatives, will we be any better than them? No.

*Voted B*

I think they both need to get involved in a massive mudslinging war and destroy each other. But I hate both of the parties.

In this metagame, sling it if you got it.

Sling it if it's true. I'd HOPE that both parties would play by the same rules, but if you have to resort to libel to appear better, how bad are you?

We I think the biggest thing is the Democrats have forgotten how to win. Noone wants to vote for wannabe-evil when evil seems to be doing a fine job at it.

Face it, the rightwing hates the Democrats. The trick is to aim moderate-left and pickup the RINOs hiding under cover of moderates.

Secondly, pick a southern governer.

Thirdly, target soem southern state like Florida. Believe it or not they can swing your way, plus the blow to the Republicans would be sweet.

Hold off on forming too many opinions until you actually get into office.

Some of these stances might help:

-Bring troops home, after accomblishing mission.
-Capital punishment is a state issue.

Oh, and he should be religous but not overtly so....

Heck just run Clinton again... I dunno... but him in a wig or something...

Run Gore with Clinton as VP, and have Gore step down.

Does that work? Is that allowed? I wouldn't think so, but...

If we ban abortions where will we get our liberals from ?

that was a lame joke, besides liberals should fight dirty its only fair,were have some dawn kinbg isssues damn it

If we ban abortions where will we get our liberals from?

Ordinary households where the children are brought up to find evidence then form a conclusion instead of thinking something and scrambling to prove it, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

this thread is hilarious. Either you all are actually joking, or suffer from idealogical delusions were one side eats babies and the other has halos above their heads.

Im guessing its the delusions.

Seriously youre flaunting your stupid around like its a good thing. Actually it is a good thing, for the ACTUAL free thinkers left in the world we are busy laughing at the sheep and how delusional they are to the point they actually believe the ideas they are spilling out their mouths are theirs.

REFORM OR KILL YOURSELF.

Meh. We should just have our politicans duel to the death with stubby pencils. Sort out the REAL WASP men from the wimps. :p Surely you don't like that whole democracy thing? Otherwise, why have this discussion about ethical rhetoric?

Run Gore with Clinton as VP, and have Gore step down.

Does that work? Is that allowed? I wouldn't think so, but...

You can't run for VP if you can't run for President. For the very reason you suggest I suppose. So no. It doesn't work.

The democrats want to win and it's easy if they stopped and thought about it. This is a two issue nation - because no-one here really pays any attention to the news except for the chattering classes and policy wonks - and the two issues are gun-control and abortion. If the democrats just found a candidate with a "good" record on guns, they'd win.

this thread is hilarious. Either you all are actually joking, or suffer from idealogical delusions were one side eats babies and the other has halos above their heads.

Im guessing its the delusions.

Seriously youre flaunting your stupid around like its a good thing. Actually it is a good thing, for the ACTUAL free thinkers left in the world we are busy laughing at the sheep and how delusional they are to the point they actually believe the ideas they are spilling out their mouths are theirs.

REFORM OR KILL YOURSELF.

Make a point or shut up. Insults don't count.

EDIT: It may help if you have perfect grammar, advanced vocabulary, and didn't manage to sound like a trolling dumbass.

this thread is hilarious. Either you all are actually joking, or suffer from idealogical delusions were one side eats babies and the other has halos above their heads.

Im guessing its the delusions.

Seriously youre flaunting your stupid around like its a good thing. Actually it is a good thing, for the ACTUAL free thinkers left in the world we are busy laughing at the sheep and how delusional they are to the point they actually believe the ideas they are spilling out their mouths are theirs.

REFORM OR KILL YOURSELF.

or the parties.

Run Gore with Clinton as VP, and have Gore step down.

Does that work? Is that allowed? I wouldn't think so, but...


Actually, there's nothing in the constitution about running for a third NONCONSECUTIVE term ;)

You can't run for VP if you can't run for President. For the very reason you suggest I suppose. So no. It doesn't work.

The democrats want to win and it's easy if they stopped and thought about it. This is a two issue nation - because no-one here really pays any attention to the news except for the chattering classes and policy wonks - and the two issues are gun-control and abortion. If the democrats just found a candidate with a "good" record on guns, they'd win.

Not quite that simple - cons would run ads about their other supposed failures (Such as voting against such and such a bill because of what was tacked onto it). Those situations really present nothing good for the politician - "Vote for it and go against my policies on such-and-such a rider, and possibly have it held against me, or vote agaisnt it and have it used against me in ads, possibly causing me to go home."

Come on, you don't call Farenheit 9/11 and Cindy Sheehan mudslingers? The left is slinging plenty of mud, as is the right - please, let a moderate libertarian have a shot at the oval office.

Actually, there's nothing in the constitution about running for a third NONCONSECUTIVE term ;)

There's also nothing in the Constitution about multiple terms. But there is an amendment to it that forbids consecutive, though I'm not sure on the language.

this thread is hilarious. Either you all are actually joking, or suffer from idealogical delusions were one side eats babies and the other has halos above their heads.

Im guessing its the delusions.

Seriously youre flaunting your stupid around like its a good thing. Actually it is a good thing, for the ACTUAL free thinkers left in the world we are busy laughing at the sheep and how delusional they are to the point they actually believe the ideas they are spilling out their mouths are theirs.

REFORM OR KILL YOURSELF.

Dont give them ideas :D They allready blame Bush for that anyway .

George W " the destroyer of worlds and one who can fart out hurricanes that only attack black people " Bush The Anti - dem .

Actually, there's nothing in the constitution about running for a third NONCONSECUTIVE term ;)

Yes there is:



Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

You're thinking of mayor of New York

I hate to say it, but liberals (and moderates as well) might want to start playing a bit dirtier. After all, it seemed to work for Bush, and all of his major opponents were more liberal than he was by a far cry.

2000 Republican Primaries: Bush vs. McCain (conservative vs. moderate)

McCain: "Blah blah blah, stick to the issues."

Bush: "You can't vote for him! He has a BLACK BABY!"

Bush wins.

2000 Election: Bush vs. Gore (conservative vs. moderate-liberal)

Gore: "Blah blah blah, use the surplus for health care."

Bush: "You can't vote for him! He's a tax and spend liberal!"

Bush wins...well, depending on whom you ask, anyway.

2004 Election: Bush vs. Kerry (conservative vs. liberal)

Kerry: "Blah blah blah, heal the division between the left and right."

Bush: You can't vote for him! He'll ban the Bible and let men marry men!

Bush wins, with people citing "moral values" as their most important issues.

Needless to say, Bush has flipped the bird to the Southern racists who supported him by being slow to respond to the multitude hurricanes (though he didn't help poor blacks any more), has turned into a cut-and-spend conservative (though lots of people fail to see what the problem with that is), and...well, OK, he is on a morality crusade, attacking perfectly legitimate pornography, gay marriage, and not restraining the FCC.

Liberals need to start appealing to emotion as well as logic. Conservatives are helping to divide this country, and maybe it's time for liberals to beat them at their own game.

George W " the destroyer of worlds and one who can fart out hurricanes that only attack black people " Bush The Anti - dem .

That would be the retarded "It obviously wasn't my fault, so let's blame..." crowd. There's some on both sides - "Even though Bush has been in office for 5 years, it's still Clinton's fault."

Damm that sucks can you imagine the partys in the white house if Clinton could get back ?


G. W . " despoiler of virgins and enemy of jihadist everywhere " Bush
REMEBER LOONEY LIBS ......"ITS ALL HIS FAULT " BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE !

Dont give them ideas :D They allready blame Bush for that anyway .

George W " the destroyer of worlds and one who can fart out hurricanes that only attack black people " Bush The Anti - dem .

I swear, you must positively REVEL in acting like a mean spirited bastard. I've read your vitriolic garbage for some time now. What did the democrats do to you? Did they tie you to a chair and force you to watch you mom getting gang-raped by the Kennedys? Did they hold you at gun point and force you to claim as few exemptions as possible on your W4, all the while promising that your "hard earned money" would go to some "welfare queen" in... Queens? Or are you just one of those sub-highschool jerkoffs who thinks they're a fucking genius because they're in trig as a soph?

If we ban abortions where will we get our liberals from ?

You can quit your baiting/trolling anytime now, along with this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692433&postcount=49

It's really unnecessary.

G. W . " despoiler of virgins and enemy of jihadist everywhere " Bush
REMEBER LOONEY LIBS ......"ITS ALL HIS FAULT " BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE !


For the love of all that is good and holy, any person who is like that in a serious manner doesn't deserve to vote. Not everything is Bush's fault. A great deal of the blame is rightfully his, but he gets blame for things beyond his control (I remember reading a review that insinuated Bush had caused both hurricanes - how fucking stupid can you be? It costs money to fix that, at what gain? What motive would he have?) and common sense gets thrown by the wayside.

Kerry whined and bitched about the swift boaters, yet oddly enough still hasn't taken a libel suit against them.
Gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that if you're a public figure, it's fucking near impossible to win a libel suit. Do you honestly think Clinton did a fraction of the shit the right-wing threw at him while he was President? That he had people bumped off, that he raped a woman in the White House? Why didn't he sue once he left office? Because he's a public figure and the bar you have to clear to prove maliciousness is damn near impossible to clear.

Actually, there's nothing in the constitution about running for a third NONCONSECUTIVE term

There's also nothing in the Constitution about multiple terms. But there is an amendment to it that forbids consecutive, though I'm not sure on the language.

Do yourselves a favor, try actually reading the constitution:

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

(emphasis added)
As you can see, consecutive or non-consectutive terms are beside the point - no one can be elected more than twice. Possibly an "end run" could be made by making a twice elected president a V.P. and then having the president resign/die/be impeached - but then the V.P. elevated to pres. would only be allowed to serve out the remainder of the term of the resigning/dead/impeached president and he could not run for re-election at the end of that term.

Or are you just one of those sub-highschool jerkoffs who thinks they're a fucking genius because they're in trig as a soph?

Taking trig as a soph by choice either makes you a genius or an idiot. It makes you a genius if you take it because you're smart enough for it. It makes you an idiot if you took it because you wanted bragging rights. (incidentally, in my school, you lose either way - taking trig before junior year gets you trashed.)

Do yourselves a favor, try actually reading the constitution...

I was aware that there was an amendment. However, the original, unmodified Constitution contains nothing of the sort (also leaving out free speech and all that good stuff). And as I stated, I wasn't sure if it expressly forbid only consecutive terms or just more than two terms.

EDIT: G'night folks, if you need me you can reach me via any online means you choose (But really, just TG me in-game; don't expect much as I debate primarily to become more educated, not to prove I'm right.)

What I can't understand here and was hoping some one will explian to me. If less then 40% of the U.S. population supports bush how did he get reelected? In my math classes we were always told that to have a majority wins vote at least 51% had to be for or against something.

What I can't understand here and was hoping some big gun slinging beer drinking
male conservative who will never know what it is like to become acciedentaly pregant will explian to me. If less then 40% of the U.S. population supports bush
how did he get realected? In my math classes we were always told that to have a majority wins vote at least 51% had to be for or against something.

They only count the people who actually bother to go out and vote for the purposes of presidential elections.

They only count the people who actually bother to go out and vote for the purposes of presidential elections.

What so they force people to poll?

I swear, you must positively REVEL in acting like a mean spirited bastard. I've read your vitriolic garbage for some time now. What did the democrats do to you? Did they tie you to a chair and force you to watch you mom getting gang-raped by the Kennedys? Did they hold you at gun point and force you to claim as few exemptions as possible on your W4, all the while promising that your "hard earned money" would go to some "welfare queen" in... Queens? Or are you just one of those sub-highschool jerkoffs who thinks they're a fucking genius because they're in trig as a soph?

Thats the spirit dont hold back !

I have listened to looney liberal Bush bashing for five friggin years . Whats the matter Michael Moore get your tongue ? I hated it when the friggin looney republicans went after Clinton for years and said so . Now its the idiot crybaby assholes that cant win an elections turn .
Every thing I posted has been said about Bush . EVERY WORD . And worse .
Bush has been called friggin Hitler ..worse than Stalin ..ETC. And now I am in a threads that says that liberals are being too nice...they should fucking get dirty ....CAN YOU SAY IRONY ....

Michael Moore ... Sean Penn ... Al Frankin.......Al Sharpton.......Harry Belefonte...Eric Foner....google the bastards and check out the Bush quotes...did you know Bush arrainged and is responsible for 9-11 ?Jeff Danziger....Bill Moyers.....Bob Shrum...Julian Bond..Bush is responsible for genocide on black people ....Paul begala...Bush voters are bigots and murderers....Maxine Waters.....republicans are the enemy they are all plantation owners ...JIM McDERMOTT special mention " Bush is worse than Hitler " I am REVELING MY ASS OFF !!!

Liberals need to get down and dirty.....

Bob Shrum......"BUSH IS A FUCKING IDIOT " - Jennifer Annison

" Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant " - Julia Roberts

Jane Smiley " The Unteachable ignorance of the red states "

barbara Foley....we brought 9-11 on our selves we deserve it .

eric foner....ward Churhill......ummm Phil donahue..And thousands more looney toons..


so you tell me WHAT could have possibly got me going .

What so they force people to poll?

No, they just call them up, or stop them in the street. But a lot of people who say they are "likely voters" don't want to admit to a stranger that they never have and never will vote. Plus people lie to pollsters about who they are actually going to vote for.

Calm down people. Or poor ol' Rotovia will get ModSpanked. :(

No, they just call them up, or stop them in the street. But a lot of people who say they are "likely voters" don't want to admit to a stranger that they never have and never will vote. Plus people lie to pollsters about who they are actually going to vote for.

So by this you are saying that people actually LIKE Bush or really dont care, but are just lying because they don't wan't people to think that they are stupid and voted for a man that, after having gone through the Twin Tower disaster, did not have the foresight to set up an adaquite emergency response organization?

As opposed to conservatives, I would think the "left" side of politics assumes the voter to be a rational, thinking individual, who will actually look at the facts and make a decision based on them.

Of course that's a stupid way of thinking, but if you start to treat the voter like the animal he/she is, democracy goes down the drain.

So I say: Increase the education budget and wait. "Our" way of thinking will turn out right eventually...

So by this you are saying that people actually LIKE Bush or really dont care, but are just lying because they don't wan't people to think that they are stupid and voted for a man that, after having gone through the Twin Tower disaster, did not have the foresight to set up an adaquite emergency response organization?

No, I am saying that more people voted for him last november than voted for Kerry. And this may not, for a variety of reasons, be reflected in the polls. What's more, you can't directly infer who would win an election from approval ratings. A lot has to do with who the opposition candidate is. Bush could be the most unpopular president in history, but he would still beat fred phelps or ward churchill.

So I say: Increase the education budget and wait. "Our" way of thinking will turn out right eventually...
Tried that before--post WW II. Good public schools, lots of opportunity for kids to go to college, and what happened? Kids saw through the bullshit and started demanding accountability from government--from a liberal government, I might add. The establishment didn't like the idea that the rabble might actually ain some power, so they started defunding the public school system, and we've been going downhill ever since.

For the love of all that is good and holy, any person who is like that in a serious manner doesn't deserve to vote. Not everything is Bush's fault. A great deal of the blame is rightfully his, but he gets blame for things beyond his control (I remember reading a review that insinuated Bush had caused both hurricanes - how fucking stupid can you be? It costs money to fix that, at what gain? What motive would he have?) and common sense gets thrown by the wayside.

It's just karmic payback for all the lies Bush told about his opponents in past elections.

If we ban abortions where will we get our liberals from ?

I don't get it.

There's more projection in this thread than in a 50 screen multiplex.

" Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant " - Julia Roberts
You try and prove her wrong!

Calm down people. Or poor ol' Rotovia will get ModSpanked. :(

Yea sure! We know you like it!

Whose been a bad little Rotovia! :p

That would be the retarded "It obviously wasn't my fault, so let's blame..." crowd. There's some on both sides - "Even though Bush has been in office for 5 years, it's still Clinton's fault."

You will hear about Clinton for another 20 years. There are people here that still bring up Carter......

I think there needs to be a mix of the two. Liberals sometimes seem to try to trot out facts rather than the emotional ploys of the conservatives. Like the whole "I believe in a woman's right to choose" verses "do you want to see your child's life snuffed out" thing?

As far as gay rights go, I think those who favour causes like gay marriage should focus not just on constitutionality or legality or whatever of denying the equal protection of the laws, they should also be arguing from the standpoint of people who are effing tired of having to hide who they are and live a lie and they want to be able to have *the rights* that heterosexual people can have.

Let's look at it this way with an example: "Adam and Steve" who have loved each other for 20 years can't get married and if they live in a particularly unfriendly state, Steve would get nothing if Adam died and wouldn't even be allowed to visit him in the hospital. Meanwhile, Britney Spears can go to Las Vegas and get hitched and then say "oops! I did it again" and get it annulled after 56 hours. Two men or two women getting married does not threaten the institution of marriage. People who make a mockery of marriage by doing it as a joke (which she admitted to IIRC) are a bigger threat. Divorce is a bigger threat.

I think liberals shouldn't be afraid to get righteously indignant. Liberals shouldn't be afraid to get downright PISSED. Libs shouldn't be afraid to scream, "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!" If conservatives try to harp on the same damn issues, libs should show the hypocrisy of the right wing, because God knows it's out there.

I think there needs to be a mix of the two. Liberals sometimes seem to try to trot out facts rather than the emotional ploys of the conservatives. Like the whole "I believe in a woman's right to choose" verses "do you want to see your child's life snuffed out" thing?

As far as gay rights go, I think those who favour causes like gay marriage should focus not just on constitutionality or legality or whatever of denying the equal protection of the laws, they should also be arguing from the standpoint of people who are effing tired of having to hide who they are and live a lie and they want to be able to have *the rights* that heterosexual people can have.

Let's look at it this way with an example: "Adam and Steve" who have loved each other for 20 years can't get married and if they live in a particularly unfriendly state, Steve would get nothing if Adam died and wouldn't even be allowed to visit him in the hospital. Meanwhile, Britney Spears can go to Las Vegas and get hitched and then say "oops! I did it again" and get it annulled after 56 hours. Two men or two women getting married does not threaten the institution of marriage. People who make a mockery of marriage by doing it as a joke (which she admitted to IIRC) are a bigger threat. Divorce is a bigger threat.

I think liberals shouldn't be afraid to get righteously indignant. Liberals shouldn't be afraid to get downright PISSED. Libs shouldn't be afraid to scream, "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!" If conservatives try to harp on the same damn issues, libs should show the hypocrisy of the right wing, because God knows it's out there.


*applauds*

The problem is not that the Democrats are weak pussy-willows that throw flowers at their enemies and let people push them around... the problem is that the Republicans are willing to abandon their own values and change their position if it will get them more votes. They know which issues are capable of mobilizing the largest amount of people, and then take whichever side will get them the votes. Remember small government?
Of course, the Democrats know this, and are currently trying to play the same game... but unfortunately, this involves capitulating to the Republicans in order to better present themselves to the voters, and this just makes them look weak-willed.

Needless to say, Bush has flipped the bird to the Southern racists who supported him by being slow to respond to the multitude hurricanes (though he didn't help poor blacks any more), has turned into a cut-and-spend conservative (though lots of people fail to see what the problem with that is), and...well, OK, he is on a morality crusade, attacking perfectly legitimate pornography, gay marriage, and not restraining the FCC.

Liberals need to start appealing to emotion as well as logic. Conservatives are helping to divide this country, and maybe it's time for liberals to beat them at their own game.

1.) Bush has flipped the bird to the Southern racists who supported him by being slow to respond to the multitude hurricanes:

To tell you the truth, the Hurricane Relief is not Bush's problem. Let me get back to you on which guy is in charge.

Oh, and maybe you should consider how long Clinton took to respond to a major disaster caused by a hurricane. I think it was a month? While Bush took, 3 days to a week?

2.) (Bush) Has turned into a cut-and-spend conservative:

Really? By going, searching out and destroying people who want to harm us, by protecting our interests, that is a bad thing? And if it isn't, where does that money come from?

3.) Liberals need to start appealing to emotion as well as logic. Conservatives are helping to divide this country, and maybe it's time for liberals to beat them at their own game:

Uh, you got that reversed. Liberals appeal to emotion, conservatives use logic. And as a Moderate, I can say this. Personally, when 9/11 hit, do you really think that Gore could have done a better job? If so, show me how.

That would be the retarded "It obviously wasn't my fault, so let's blame..." crowd. There's some on both sides - "Even though Bush has been in office for 5 years, it's still Clinton's fault."

Actually, concerning economics, the first two to four years of the Bush Administration were Clinton's fault. You don't generally see the side effects of a president's rule for at least 2, and usually four years after they leave office.

Oh, and Kerry never explained his plan for the military. And he never explained his plan for the economic situation of the country. And he had no charisma. Bush had Charisma, and at least stood for something. That is why he won.

Such Leftist Political Mudslinging in this topic. I think the Left throws enough as it is. Fox is the only national news program that shows any side of the right in them.

So yeah, that is my two cents. Go ahead and tear this apart, I love a good debate.

To tell you the truth, the Hurricane Relief is not Bush's problem. Let me get back to you on which guy is in charge.

I think you meant to say "in charge of deploying the National Guard."

Oh, and maybe you should consider how long Clinton took to respond to a major disaster caused by a hurricane. I think it was a month? While Bush took, 3 days to a week?

Oh, you THINK it was a month? How much of this alleged "month" was spent on Clinton's ranch?

2.) (Bush) Has turned into a cut-and-spend conservative:

Really? By going, searching out and destroying people who want to harm us, by protecting our interests, that is a bad thing? And if it isn't, where does that money come from?

I think you meant to say "by searching out and destroying people that are separate from the people who want to harm us... but you don't have to know that." And to be honest, I'd rather pay a little bit more in taxes and still have some government programs left over that don't involve monitoring which books I check out at the library. How interesting that you would ask "where the money comes from," by the way. Maybe your friends in the White House will answer that question the next time they decide to cut taxes.

3.) Liberals need to start appealing to emotion as well as logic. Conservatives are helping to divide this country, and maybe it's time for liberals to beat them at their own game:

Uh, you got that reversed. Liberals appeal to emotion, conservatives use logic. And as a Moderate, I can say this. Personally, when 9/11 hit, do you really think that Gore could have done a better job? If so, show me how.

I love it when nutjobs call themselves "moderates," as if the word actually has some kind of a meaning to them, but I digress. If conservatives used logic, they would understand that if you want to keep terrorists from getting into Iraq after you've occupied it, you might want to close the borders. If conservatives used logic and didn't rely on emotion, they wouldn't hang around outside abortion clinics holding placards with pictures of dead babies, singing "We shall overcome." Frankly, if conservatives used logic, they wouldn't be conservatives.
Do I think Gore would have done a better job after 9/11? Yes, because he's a smart guy. I want a smart guy in the White House, someone who wont screw up all the time and embarrass our country over and over and over again.

Actually, concerning economics, the first two to four years of the Bush Administration were Clinton's fault. You don't generally see the side effects of a president's rule for at least 2, and usually four years after they leave office.

Oh, right. Now tell us the one about Ronald Reagan's economic boom during the Clinton years. Give me a break.

Oh, and Kerry never explained his plan for the military. And he never explained his plan for the economic situation of the country. And he had no charisma. Bush had Charisma, and at least stood for something. That is why he won.

Want to hear a secret? Kerry was in the military. Kerry fought and killed for our country. Somehow, I think he's a little more qualified to carry out military operations then someone who basically dodged the draft. Bush didn't win because he "stood for something," he won because Americans (unjustifiably) feel safer with a Republican in the White House. They voted with their emotions, and are now suffering the consequences.

Such Leftist Political Mudslinging in this topic. I think the Left throws enough as it is. Fox is the only national news program that shows any side of the right in them.

If the Left has a lot of mud to throw at the Right, it's only because the Right has so many opportunities to supply it to them.

So yeah, that is my two cents. Go ahead and tear this apart, I love a good debate.

Yeah, well, I know you say that, but you probably prefer to just repeat the Bush Administration's weak talking points over and over, and then ironically accuse the Left of "using the same tired arguments."

I think the left should fight dirtier, but take a look at the disproportionate backlash against Michael Moore and you'll see why they don't very often. The mainstream media is very much for the status quo and for the people in power, and anyone trying to give an alternative viewpoint needs to be able to deal with a heap of scorn and personal attacks.

One important thing is that "fighting dirtier" should not include personal attacks, just a more aggressivw way of debating. I mean, a reasonable perrson can see that both sides usually make some good points, but try arguing reasonably and you will be taken to pieces. Michael Moore can obviously recognise this, which is why he doesn't make 'reasonable' arguments and why he always ignores any good points the opposition make. His critics seem to treat him as if he were an academic and accuse him of dishonesty, but the fact is that this is what public debate has been reduced to.

There's also nothing in the Constitution about multiple terms. But there is an amendment to it that forbids consecutive, though I'm not sure on the language.

A the 22nd Amendment has correctly been pointed out as the limitaion on terms, not consecutive terms, I'll spank you for the suggestion that amendments are not part of the constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

In otherwords, amendments are legally a part of the constitution, so there is a part of the constitution that addressesd specifically this case.

Winning a libel suit when you're a politician takes an absurd amount of time and money, and the odds are stacked against you from the start, as you not only have to prove that the statement was false, you also have to prove that the statement was made with intent to harm. Good luck doing that.
Very, very easy for Kerry to do. Intent to harm is evident given that they were obviously attempting to shoot down his presidential aspirations. Otherwise the swifties would have done something like this before Kerry became the primary nominee for the Dems. As to disprove the validity of what the swifties wrote, all he would have to do would be to release his full military records to whatever judge/jury oversees the trial. If he's telling the truth, they would vindicate him, if they're telling the truth, the records would expose Kerry as the lying bastard he is.

The Democrats are too pansy to get their hands dirty...

Let's look at some examples and reach a decision together, shall we?

Kerry laid out a detailed and well thought out policy of government

Bush chanted flip-flop until his throat bleed.

Latham focused on positive reforms he planned to introduce

Howard screamed interest rates

Liberals take the time to explain the detailed medical differences between a foetus and a developed human

Conservatives have pictures of tiny arms

Obviously I'm over-simplfying this. But come on guys, let's get throw a little mud back. I for one am sick of actually proving my arguements when some conservatives can fall divine illogic.

Oh who am I kidding. Anyway, chuck us your thoughts. I've got a poll comming and everything.
Kerry had a "well thought out policy of government???" Aaahahahahahahahahaha! Yeah. RIGHT! ROFLMFAO!!! That idiot couldn't even remember something that was "Seared, seared into my mind, I tell you!" Ahahahahahahaha!

Gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that if you're a public figure, it's fucking near impossible to win a libel suit. Do you honestly think Clinton did a fraction of the shit the right-wing threw at him while he was President? That he had people bumped off, that he raped a woman in the White House? Why didn't he sue once he left office? Because he's a public figure and the bar you have to clear to prove maliciousness is damn near impossible to clear.
Why would he waste his time? All the stuff that was said of Clinton really never had an impact on the majority of the population. There were never any failed bids for the presidency by him and he hasn't attempted to run for senator. Such is not true of Kerry however, and you could argue that the swifties accusations and his shitty responses to their accusations caused him to lose the presidency. Taking out a libel suit could have been seen as defending himself against scurrilous accusations in the public's eye and made him that much more receptive to public opinion.

The Democrats are too pansy to get their hands dirty...

No, most of us just prefer to be decent humans with ethics. But apperently decency and ethics are two words that some conservatives don't understand. So in retaliation to your little ignorant statement I feel that as a person with an education I should show you the difference.

Decency:
Meaning #1: the quality of conforming to standards of propriety and morality
Antonym: indecency (meaning #1)

Meaning #2: the quality of being polite and respectable

Ethics:
in philosophy, the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members.

Good Day Sir

You try and prove her wrong!
From the Tormont-Websters Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary.

Reptile
Republic
Republican
Republican Calender
Republicanize
Republican Party
Republication
Republish
Repudiate
Repudiation
Repugn
Repugnance
Repugnant.



Democrat can be found just above demon and a little bit below demise.

i think liberals should get more hardcore and aggressive, kick the shit out of conservative rednecks YUH! Therein the danger lies in becoming as scummy as your average redneck. But the trick is to preserve your inner integrity.

Kerry had a "well thought out policy of government???" Aaahahahahahahahahaha! Yeah. RIGHT! ROFLMFAO!!! That idiot couldn't even remember something that was "Seared, seared into my mind, I tell you!" Ahahahahahahaha!

oh what, bush has a well thought out policy of government???

Political mudslinging is demeaning to the politicians doing it, destructive to the political process, and insults the intelligence of the voters.

In fact, it has only one thing going for it: It works.

:rolleyes:

BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS
By JENNIFER LUCE and DON GENTILE
Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit the bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal :rolleyes:

Kerry whined and bitched about the swift boaters, yet oddly enough still hasn't taken a libel suit against them.
Kerry didn't respond to the Swift Boaters at all...

I think that the liberals/Democrats should fight dirty. It would be funny.

This is a two issue nation - because no-one here really pays any attention to the news except for the chattering classes and policy wonks - and the two issues are gun-control and abortion. If the democrats just found a candidate with a "good" record on guns, they'd win.
Those are the only two issue where the parties seem to differ. I agree that the Democrats should abandon the failure that is gun control. The only people who support it are the centre-left. All of the right and the far left support gun rights.

And why is it exactly that the American public is not convinced by reasonable politics?

so you tell me WHAT could have possibly got me going .

A. Im not a democrat.

B. That is quoted entirely out of context. I might as well give this quote:


Bush... is... hitler

...Bush is a fucking idiot...

Wow, you say some mean things about bush. Why do you hate bush so much?

I'm sorry what was the context ? I seem to have misplaced it ...was it sarcastic ?

Chellis
Possible SOF spammer




Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,264
Bush is a traitor. He was the main force behind the Iraq war. The Iraq war, both ideologically and recruitment-wise, has emboldened the terrorists. Bush himself has said we are at war with the terrorists, and that the terrorists are our enemies.

Bush had given aid and comfort to the enemy. Aided their recruitment levels, and comforted them ideologically, emboldening their idea that america is evil. Bush should be tried as a traitor


I thought I had the context because I included the whole post right ?

I'm sorry what was the context ? I seem to have misplaced it ...was it sarcastic ?




I thought I had the context because I included the whole post right ?

The context was the thread it was posted in. I posted that after people were having a discussion on traitors, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, etc. I posted that to show them how easily and stupidly one could accuse someone of treason, if they tried.

But just seeing that, it seems as if I really am calling Bush a traitor(thats a discussion for another place, another time). Hence, its out of context. At the least, you should have linked the thread.

The context was the thread it was posted in. I posted that after people were having a discussion on traitors, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, etc. I posted that to show them how easily and stupidly one could accuse someone of treason, if they tried.

But just seeing that, it seems as if I really am calling Bush a traitor(thats a discussion for another place, another time). Hence, its out of context. At the least, you should have linked the thread.

Sorry I thought it actully helped me to almost make the same point . I was using as an example of over the top Bush Bashing that has been going on after someone said that I myself needed a nice blue pill and maybe a rubber room ...to paraphrase :D By taking it out of context I was wrong.
My mistake .

I removed it from my post .

Let's look at some examples and reach a decision together, shall we?

Kerry laid out a detailed and well thought out policy of government

Bush chanted flip-flop until his throat bleed.

Latham focused on positive reforms he planned to introduce

Howard screamed interest rates

Liberals take the time to explain the detailed medical differences between a foetus and a developed human

Conservatives have pictures of tiny arms

Obviously I'm over-simplfying this. But come on guys, let's get throw a little mud back. I for one am sick of actually proving my arguements when some conservatives can fall divine illogic.

Oh who am I kidding. Anyway, chuck us your thoughts. I've got a poll comming and everything.

Wow, your view of reality greatly differs from mine.

First of all, since when did Kerry lay out a detailed plan of government. All I heard was "vote for me, because Bush is an idiot"

I haven't seen liberals or conservatives take much time to explain differences between a foetus and an adult. I usually hear "It's a clump of cells" from the liberals and "It's a baby" from the conservatives. For both groups I've occasionally seen them describe the development of the foetus. It doesn't help liberals to do so anyway.

I don't think one group fights dirtier then the other. They are both bad. All I've been hearing on the East Coast is a bunch of red state bashing. And everyone calling Bush an idiot (not that it's untrue, but isn't that fighting dirty). Oh, and what about the NARAL add that claimed Roberts supported clinic bombing? That's a blatent (and dirty) lie. These things just aren't noticed by you because they don't offend you, while you notice the conservatives bashing your side.

I think all of this fighting dirty is a bad thing. Instead of making sound arguments about things we just start the name calling. The last election was fought so dirty that many voted because they hated the other guy, not because they particularly liked the guy they were voting for. Both parties decided to insult different parts of the populace and the side Bush was on was just the slightest bit larger.

Just about for every people group in the US was insulted by one party or the other. For example: The Republicans attack gays, so the Democrates attack evangelicals.

The whole election was about hate. It made me sick. --End rant

From the Tormont-Websters Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary....Democrat can be found just above demon and a little bit below demise.
:D

Sorry I thought it actully helped me to almost make the same point . I was using as an example of over the top Bush Bashing that has been going on after someone said that I myself needed a nice blue pill and maybe a rubber room ...to paraphrase :D By taking it out of context I was wrong.
My mistake .

I removed it from my post .

I just want to say thank you. While I disagree with some things you say, and you don't give off a great impression, you do seem like an intelligent, if emotional, person.

I think you meant to say "in charge of deploying the National Guard."

No, I meant to say in charge of deploying relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. That would be FEMA's job. Not Bush's. Yet he gets the blame. Especially when the National Guard is out fighting in Iraq, helping make up for the two divisions cut by the Clinton Administration. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Oh, you THINK it was a month? How much of this alleged "month" was spent on Clinton's ranch?

I am now going to eat my own words. While the Clinton Era Administration prepared Beautifully for Hurricane Floyd, but then the Flood Came, and, well I believe it took a month for the Clinton FEMA to even begin to address the problem of Flood Floyd.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1479542/posts

Oh, and the time spent on Bush's Ranch during Hurricane Katrina: 1 night. He had been there for a month working, while taking some time from getting out of Washington and actually be out of the world where, 'If you deny it ever happened, it will go away'.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9148526/site/newsweek/

I think you meant to say "by searching out and destroying people that are separate from the people who want to harm us... but you don't have to know that." And to be honest, I'd rather pay a little bit more in taxes and still have some government programs left over that don't involve monitoring which books I check out at the library. How interesting that you would ask "where the money comes from," by the way. Maybe your friends in the White House will answer that question the next time they decide to cut taxes.

Like the fact they haven't cut taxes for families several times already, trying to stop a recession that Clinton caused? And, while it is a little extreme, they are doing what they think is right. Though I don't recall anyone monitering the books I check out of the library.

I love it when nutjobs call themselves "moderates," as if the word actually has some kind of a meaning to them, but I digress. If conservatives used logic, they would understand that if you want to keep terrorists from getting into Iraq after you've occupied it, you might want to close the borders. If conservatives used logic and didn't rely on emotion, they wouldn't hang around outside abortion clinics holding placards with pictures of dead babies, singing "We shall overcome." Frankly, if conservatives used logic, they wouldn't be conservatives.

I believe the topic is over! There you have it, a Liberal is fighting dirty! But I also digress. The last Liberal to use logic was FDR, who actually managed to save America by putting in Social Programs.

If you want to argue about borders, why don't we look at it this way. What is most of the Iraqi border? Desert. What would be required to close the borders, something we haven't even done here? Fencing, cement, soldiers, workers, lots of food, tons of water, and trillions of tax payer dollars. Logistically speaking, it is impossible. And didn't you mention something about not spending money?

As for the abortion clinics, I can't really comment on it. Because the thread will get locked because the moment I tell you my solution, you will scream and shout about 'woman's right to choose'.

And to the comments about Conservatives not using logic, why do they happen to be in charge of Congress?

Do I think Gore would have done a better job after 9/11? Yes, because he's a smart guy.

I will not comment on this, I am laughing far too hard to do so.

Now tell us the one about Ronald Reagan's economic boom during the Clinton years.

Let us go back to the early 1900's. Herbert Hoover enjoyed a magnificent career in the White House till 1929, when the Stock Market crashed. That was during his Second Term, when his economic policies began to take effect. Now, enter FDR. Using his economic policies, he was able to bring the nation out of the Great Depression during his second Term. Can you see the pattern here?

Want to hear a secret? Kerry was in the military. Kerry fought and killed for our country. Somehow, I think he's a little more qualified to carry out military operations then someone who basically dodged the draft. Bush didn't win because he "stood for something," he won because Americans (unjustifiably) feel safer with a Republican in the White House. They voted with their emotions, and are now suffering the consequences.

Want to hear another secret? Bush was in the National Guard, part of the military. And I might want to add that before you talk about someone draft dodging, look at Bill Clinton.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

And Bush also won because he stood for something. My Girlfriend, a DEMOCRAT, voted Bush over Kerry because she could understand Bush, and yet she couldn't understand Kerry. American's voted with there mind, not emotion, and we have Bush in office as a result.

Yeah, well, I know you say that, but you probably prefer to just repeat the Bush Administration's weak talking points over and over, and then ironically accuse the Left of "using the same tired arguments."

Actually, as you can see, I prefer to use research to back up my arguements, something you don't do. So I suggest you keep your fingers off the keyboard and quit typing out propaganda unless you can get research to back it up. At which point it will not be propaganda anymore, but a researched opinion, which I will then read and respond to.

By the way, just how old are you? I want to know so the next time you try to give the Democratic Party, or just the human race a bad name, I can use my best insults against you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My apologies to the rest of you. I didn't want to turn this into a huge post, but there were so many inconsistancies in her post that I had to address them all.

As a non-American, I find that the conservative element of the politics in the US has a tendency to name-call more so than the more liberal elements. To me, that shows that their arguments are weak and they have to resort to the mudslinging due to low intelligence or lack of conviction of their own beliefs.

As a non-American, I find that the conservative element of the politics in the US has a tendency to name-call more so than the more liberal elements. To me, that shows that their arguments are weak and they have to resort to the mudslinging due to low intelligence or lack of conviction of their own beliefs.

Question: Do you listen to main stream media, or the conservative elements as well?

As a non-American, I find that the conservative element of the politics in the US has a tendency to name-call more so than the more liberal elements. To me, that shows that their arguments are weak and they have to resort to the mudslinging due to low intelligence or lack of conviction of their own beliefs.


i find that statement completely unfair, especially when campaigns seem to degrade into a torrent of finget pointing with grown men yelling "he's the stupid one"; and non-american liberals are not any better, for example: the canadian liberal party basically won the last federal by using scare tatics in the east, to defeat the interests of the west, not that it has mattered up untill 9 years ago for any provincial election, as the NDP had all the unions bought and paid for. sorta figuratively, mostly literally.

As a non-American, I find that the conservative element of the politics in the US has a tendency to name-call more so than the more liberal elements. To me, that shows that their arguments are weak and they have to resort to the mudslinging due to low intelligence or lack of conviction of their own beliefs.

I'm not sure that's completely true. I think there's the same general amount of name calling on both sides. Consevatives, however, are more effective, efficient and, frankly, better at it than Liberals. Maybe this is because Conservatives are more pragmatic in their affairs. They have more of an, "Do what it takes" attitude than liberals, who are saddled with a, "Do what you should" philosophy.

When a Liberal starts slinging mud, everyone says, "Oh look, there's a liberal slinging mud, how embaressing for them." When a Conservative starts doing it, well, it's such an art form that you don't realize until a couple of years later that you're dirty and no one wants to stand next to you.

I'm not sure that's completely true. I think there's the same general amount of name calling on both sides. Consevatives, however, are more effective, efficient and, frankly, better at it than Liberals. Maybe this is because Conservatives are more pragmatic in their affairs. They have more of an, "Do what it takes" attitude than liberals, who are saddled with a, "Do what you should" philosophy.

When a Liberal starts slinging mud, everyone says, "Oh look, there's a liberal slinging mud, how embaressing for them." When a Conservative starts doing it, well, it's such an art form that you don't realize until a couple of years later that you're dirty and no one wants to stand next to you.

I don't know, NBC, CBS, and ABC are pretty good at Slinging Mud at Conservatives, and they are Liberal.

I don't know, NBC, CBS, and ABC are pretty good at Slinging Mud at Conservatives, and they are Liberal.

Not this again. NBC, CBS and ABC are not liberal or conservative. They are whores and will go whichever way the wind is blowing. If you want "liberal" go to Air America, if you want conservative, go to FOX.

Not this again. NBC, CBS and ABC are not liberal or conservative. They are whores and will go whichever way the wind is blowing. If you want "liberal" go to Air America, if you want conservative, go to FOX.

They seem to slant liberal to me, but I wonder if this had more to do with where they are from then an intentional bias. I've noticed that many seem to reflect an East coast type of ideology (which doesn't allways fall cleanly on the liberal/conservative divide). I suspect this has something to do with many having studios in New York.

Not this again. NBC, CBS and ABC are not liberal or conservative. They are whores and will go whichever way the wind is blowing. If you want "liberal" go to Air America, if you want conservative, go to FOX.

Actually Fox is probably the only true neutral there is. Fox represents both Liberal and Conservative elements rather equally.

They seem to slant liberal to me, but I wonder if this had more to do with where they are from then an intentional bias. I've noticed that many seem to reflect an East coast type of ideology (which doesn't allways fall cleanly on the liberal/conservative divide). I suspect this has something to do with many having studios in New York.

Probably, though you have to look at who is in charge. The people in charge are the people who wanted to change the world through the news they told, rather than just talk about it.

Yea sure! We know you like it!

Whose been a bad little Rotovia! :p
I'm strangely turned on...

Actually Fox is probably the only true neutral there is. Fox represents both Liberal and Conservative elements rather equally.
Bullshit. Fox News is shamelessly conservative, that's the only reason people watch it.

I agree that liberals need to fight dirtier. But we need somebody who isn't Michael Moore.

Its odd there was supposed to be a big peace protest this weekend but I only was able to see a few seconds of coverage on ABC, CBS , and NBC . Fox hardly touched it either . CNN was almost all hurricane all the time . Was it a bust ? You would think they would have harped on it .

About US Media:

The reason ABC, CNN etc are being perceived as "liberal" (keeping in mind that the word is being misused...) is this:
During Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movements, these stations reported on them. Not only was it the first time that serious and honest reporting was being done in a war (which immediatly portrayed something completely different from what citizens had been used to from WWII and Korea), but also the plight of black people and their actions against it was broadcast all over the country. No bias was applied here (left vs right as we know it wasn't even properly defined yet then) - simply reporting.

Now, if you're a "patriotic" American, and you like that black people sit in the back of the bus (or you just don't care), or you think it's a good idea that you're fighting the reds in Vietnam, then the question begs to be answered:
Why do they show this? Why do they want to make me feel bad?
Answer: Because they obviously hate me and the way I think!

And from there these news stations had this image attached to them as being leftist, and perhaps slightly un-American.

And in comes Fox. Fox is the child of an arch-conservative man, Rupert Murdoch. It has been shown a billion times that Fox editors control what is being reported and how.
Fox rides on the wave that the traditional news media is somehow biased, and portrays itself as "balanced" by using this shifted view of the media on a left vs right scale.

Perceived:
Right-------------------Fox----Balanced-----------------Other News--Left

Actual:
Right----Fox-------------------Balanced--Other News-----------------Left

[QUOTE=Belator]Actually Fox is probably the only true neutral there is. Fox represents both Liberal and Conservative elements rather equally.

Umm, Fox...neutral. I've watched Fox News infrequently and and at random hours during the day, and I've never heard any regular news program. It's all commentary. Extremely conservative commentary. I'm sorry there is one liberal, Combs, whose an extremely intellegent, nice, respectful, and quite man whose teamed up with an extremely loud, arrogant jackass named Hannity who completely overwhelms Combs.

However the other networks, are as it was put so eliquently previously, whores. Before you start calling them liberal, remember liberals tend to be unfriendly toward large greedy coporations, and who runs all the major TV news outlets? Big, greedy coporations. So them being liberal is unlikely. Maybe the journalists are, but the people controlling the programing aren't.

Now to the point of this thread. I don't think liberals should fight dirty. As much as it sucks to lose because they sling mud, liberals shouldn't sink to our opponents level. Some elements already have and they need to stop doing it. We must win because our ideas our better, not because we're better at throwing mud. As it's been said many times in this thread, people throw mud, because they can't win based on ideas. Once we start throwing mud we lose all credibility.

Karl Rove and Fox News are the big keys. Liberals have no equivalent to either. There's no liberal mastermind who gets to call the shots and organizes massive vitriolic smears, and there's no 100% liberal media agent to spread propaganda far and wide.

Conservatives have been planning this comeback for decades, while the liberal groups were screwing around and not really taking the threat of neoconservativism all that seriously.

[QUOTE=Belator]Actually Fox is probably the only true neutral there is. Fox represents both Liberal and Conservative elements rather equally.

Umm, Fox...neutral. I've watched Fox News infrequently and and at random hours during the day, and I've never heard any regular news program. It's all commentary. Extremely conservative commentary. I'm sorry there is one liberal, Combs, whose an extremely intellegent, nice, respectful, and quite man whose teamed up with an extremely loud, arrogant jackass named Hannity who completely overwhelms Combs.

However the other networks, are as it was put so eliquently previously, whores. Before you start calling them liberal, remember liberals tend to be unfriendly toward large greedy coporations, and who runs all the major TV news outlets? Big, greedy coporations. So them being liberal is unlikely. Maybe the journalists are, but the people controlling the programing aren't.

Now to the point of this thread. I don't think liberals should fight dirty. As much as it sucks to lose because they sling mud, liberals shouldn't sink to our opponents level. Some elements already have and they need to stop doing it. We must win because our ideas our better, not because we're better at throwing mud. As it's been said many times in this thread, people throw mud, because they can't win based on ideas. Once we start throwing mud we lose all credibility.

But how many of the other stations actually put out genuinely conservative reporters on the air? And they do discuss things happening around the nation, they just take it apart, and analyze it. But isn't that what the other National News Organizations tend to do?

Oh, and the only reason people started howling at Fox is because the managed to be the only ones to report inside the Republican National Convention. Nevermind they did that at the Democratic National Convention as well, but when they got the Republican National Convention, then people howled.

Actually Fox is probably the only true neutral there is. Fox represents both Liberal and Conservative elements rather equally.

Seriously...have you ever actually watched Fox News??

If you were to compare the actual "newscast" of Fox compared to CNN or MSNBC, you would find almost no real difference.

The opinion shows, however, clearly brand Fox as highly right wing.

The worst part about it is, a lot of Fox viewers seem to view the opinion shows as actual "news", when in reality it is just one idiots opinion.

Nice name BTW :cool:

Seriously...have you ever actually watched Fox News??

If you were to compare the actual "newscast" of Fox compared to CNN or MSNBC, you would find almost no real difference.

Actually I have watched Fox News. I have also watched MSNBC, some ABC and some CBS. And when you put Bill O'Rielly on the air, a known Conservative, as well as report some things in quite the same way, you are actually showing fair and balanced news.

Oh, and Colmes does speak over Hannity. I have seen him do it several times.

And when you put Bill O'Rielly on the air, a known Conservative, as well as report some things in quite the same way, you are actually showing fair and balanced news.

Wait...maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you saying it's "fair and balanced" to have a decidedly right-wing slant?

Oh, and Colmes does speak over Hannity. I have seen him do it several times.

Erhm...I never brought that up, but then again I haven't bothered with television news since the Election, so I really couldn't say.

What...no comment on the eerie similarity of our names? :p

Wait...maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you saying it's "fair and balanced" to have a decidedly right-wing slant?

Compared to everyone else? Sorry, but they actually try to report stuff that other networks don't touch. Can't think of anything that comes right to my mind, however, I haven't watched the news since I started college. No TV for Belator. :(

Erhm...I never brought that up, but then again I haven't bothered with television news since the Election, so I really couldn't say.

Meh, I watched it about once to three times a week afterword. Mostly because my parents had the remote.

What...no comment on the eerie similarity of our names? :p

Tried for Belator and it wouldn't let you?

Compared to everyone else? Sorry, but they actually try to report stuff that other networks don't touch.

That doesn't make them balanced, though, it just means they cover a more varied range of topics.

Tried for Belator and it wouldn't let you?

Check our join dates... :p

I love the way Fox News calls politcal commentary fair and balanced news. Kind of like how Hitler's speechs were historical lectures on race relations.

Achtung45 remark about small conservative parts was followed by:
BWUAHAHAHAHA...

good one.

I have to disagree. It was not a good one. I met a Republican once with very large breasts. He was kind of sensitive about them...

I don't get it.
Beer and Guns thinks liberals only care about abortion. I'm a liberal who opposes abortion. Think of all the other things Beer and Guns is wrong about!

That doesn't make them balanced, though, it just means they cover a more varied range of topics.

Good point. Though at least give the president the benefit of the doubt, and when he does something completely wrong, they do slam him. That is pretty balanced, don't you think?

I love the way Fox News calls politcal commentary fair and balanced news. Kind of like how Hitler's speechs were historical lectures on race relations.

Hitler's speeches were historical lectures on race relations. Poor race relations, but race relations none the less.

Belator quote:Actually, concerning economics, the first two to four years of the Bush Administration were Clinton's fault. You don't generally see the side effects of a president's rule for at least 2, and usually four years after they leave office.:


Oh, right. Now tell us the one about Ronald Reagan's economic boom during the Clinton years. Give me a break.

The fall of the Soviet Union was Carter's doing. It just took a while to materialize.

Now tell us the one about Ronald Reagan's economic boom during the Clinton years.


Let us go back to the early 1900's. Herbert Hoover enjoyed a magnificent career in the White House till 1929, when the Stock Market crashed. That was during his Second Term, when his economic policies began to take effect. Now, enter FDR. Using his economic policies, he was able to bring the nation out of the Great Depression during his second Term. Can you see the pattern here?

I think my explanation also assists here. And I still am waiting for a response from Bertram.

This whole thread is so utterly moronic, it does not even deserve a reply. This whole thread reads like a fresh bucket of chum in a liberal shark feeding tank. Baseless accusations and libelous attacks are part of the reason why the Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency over the last ten years. The day the Democrats actually STOP doing that is the day I will begin to worry. It doesn't appear that I have anything to worry about for awhile anytime soon. :rolleyes:

The fall of the Soviet Union was Carter's doing. It just took a while to materialize.


:D You get that from Comedy central ? Thats a good one !

This whole thread is so utterly moronic, it does not even deserve a reply. This whole thread reads like a fresh bucket of chum in a liberal shark feeding tank. Baseless accusations and libelous attacks are part of the reason why the Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency over the last ten years. The day the Democrats actually STOP doing that is the day I will begin to worry. It doesn't appear that I have anything to worry about for awhile anytime soon. :rolleyes:

Actually, Hilary is starting to slow down and stop. And thanks for the post, Myotisinia. You get a cookie.

Beer and Guns thinks liberals only care about abortion. I'm a liberal who opposes abortion. Think of all the other things Beer and Guns is wrong about!

Hmmm I do not think liberals only care about abortion . What gave you that idea ? Real liberals care about alot of things . My trouble is with the looney left. I personally agree with some liberal adgenda's. where we part ways is when the extremist get involved .
I am sure liberals think I am wrong about alot of things. I would hope so .
They seem to be really good at whats wrong because I have neve seen them do anything right . It starts out well and some things get accomplished but they can never stop before they screw things up . Maybe thats why they cant win an election ? You might want to think about that for an example .

At any rate look at this thread and its subject matter . Instead of looking at real substantive and proactive and worthwhile measures that will make the liberals more attractive to voters so that they will be considered for election , we get a " we need to throw more / less dirt " . :rolleyes:

Liberals will win a national election when elephants grow wings and fly .