RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization

RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

puella -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 4:43:17 PM)
Hello Mercnbeth (not sure which one posted, so hello to both of you!), I really had a quite different feeling about that news article. After what Fox News has done to Barack Obama ( Obama-Osama, [scary terror music] his middle name is HUSSEIN!!!!! run for the hills, he went to a Madrassa, halfrican American, is he black enough?) Hillary Clinton (blaming the madrassa story on her, their violent denigration of her and her husband) and their support in terms of constant air time to people like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter who have been shockingly revolting over and over and over, and her recent offensive behavior calling Edwards a faggot.... I would refuse to deal with them too. They have not shown any mission as a corporation to seek unbiased journalism and news... as much as one can these days.. I would not debate in an atmosphere where the controls were being managed by people who smear without conscience and who have more allegiance to a singly party rather than actual facts. I think it about time that people who are being affected so negatively by them actually refuse to give them more power.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 4:45:19 PM)
quote: The best thing that occurred for the Republicans who want to recapture the white house as well as the Senate and Congress was for the Democrats to win as they did. Now as the majority they claim was all they needed to effect change They cannot change anything as long as Bush holds the veto, hopefully most Americans understand their government enough to realize that unless a party holds enough power to override a veto they have only bargaining power, not the kind of power that you seem to be claiming they have with this statement.

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 4:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I am a bit puzzled why you attribute their desire to not debate on the Fox network as fear. Your correct, it may not be fear but simply a matter of party identity. The situation does provide an example of Kerry-ess flip flopping. First approach Fox as a sponsor and then cite them as biased. It's an identity they seem to want to extend. My point was that having a debate on Fox network allows them to profit from it. I would tell them to go suck eggs and have my debate on a less rabidly partisan network. quote: quote: And I would like to point out that for the past 3-5 years, most (or all) of the speeches that the Simian In Chief has given have been to closed audiences, no or little press notification, who are friends from Daddy's rolodex. Pointing out they offer no difference and offer no alternative. You lost me on this one. quote: quote: I find it amusing as hell that Republicans are jumping on this to prove the Democrats are inferior; they have been doing the same exact thing to the Democrats for 6 years. Ditto to above but the people they have to present an alternative view may not be so influenced or satisfied by juvenile name calling as some do. True. Again, the Republicans have been doing it to the Democrats for years. They have no leg to stand on saying the behavior is obnoxious. quote: Of course, I would treat them fairly. It is much for fun watching somebody get voted into oblivion to their face than it is to play 3rd grade popularity contest style games with them. quote: The best thing that occurred for the Republicans who want to recapture the white house as well as the Senate and Congress was for the Democrats to win as they did. Now as the majority they claim was all they needed to effect change; they still point to the Republicans as the cause for their ineffectiveness and whine at not being "invited" to parties and meetings? Well it will be very hard for them to run on a platform of failed effectiveness as the majority. Of course they'll get the 'head bobers' but at a satisfaction level less than an incumbent tired and unpopular presidency I doubt Ms. Pelosi will need to be concerned of the size of her jet in 2 years. The 100 hours has long passed with no measurable results. The factions within the party serve to illustrate the point as to why. The biggest accomplishment of this Congress was the passing of non-binding referendum! WOW - Why not back it up with a spending bill that would cut off funding and see how it flies. Allegedly they claimed that was the mandate they were given by the people in November. Now they attempt to bury a mandatory pull out within an all encompassing appropriations bill. Again do they fear clearness or is it a case that they fear factions within the Democratic party who don't support that effort? Even if vetoed by President Bush it would be an example of integrity. I am anxious to support any party and/or candidate that illustrates that practically extinct trait among politicians. They cannot muster enough votes to pass a binding resolution for Monkeyboy to veto. Why pick fights one cannot win? quote: Fear describes the Democrats for me because they have opportunity, as a group, they don't use. Singularly the situation regarding FOX speaks to the leaders suffering the same cowardly trait. If the debate was used by the Republicans why is it any different than the use of any sound bite by either side. The issue in this instance however was created by the Democrats. If not fear what was it? It was their forum, their debate, their audience, 100% democratic candidates. What opportunity would they have provided the Republicans? Is it less an opportunity than can be exploited now? Even the most jaded Republican or Democratic 'head-bober' knows that any debate with pre-approved questions is in reality an extended political commercial. I dont agree. But then I come from the school of choose one's battles carefully. I agree with the party leadership that it is not in the Democrats best interest to waste their political capital. The Republicans are doing a bang up job destroying any positive opinions people might have about their actions, why (as was quoted from Napoleon) interrupt the enemy in the performance of a mistake? Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:12:09 PM)
quote: They cannot change anything as long as Bush holds the veto, hopefully most Americans understand their government enough to realize that unless a party holds enough power to override a veto they have only bargaining power, not the kind of power that you seem to be claiming they have with this statement. Well they've offered nothing, done nothing, and have the respect of no one except for the 'head bobers'; who now rationalize their impotence. Most Americans voted for a change not a candidate or a party. In the minds of many, they effected change by changing the majority of both houses of Congress. What they don't have is the integrity and confidence to act upon the power they've been given. Not an opinion - but based upon what's been generated since this Congress has been empowered. It will come to haunt them, because you better believe the opposition will point that out early and often. quote: They cannot muster enough votes to pass a binding resolution for Monkeyboy to veto. Why pick fights one cannot win? You lose me here Sinergy. They wanted the majority and got it, they dictate what is debated and voted upon. Filibustering by Republicans would place the Republicans under scrutiny that they can't afford. Exactly what can't they "win" by putting forward a simple vote to cut funding as of May 1st for the Iraq war? Why do it? Because it distinguishes you from your opposition and the citizens of this country are starved to support a party or candidate with the "balls" to do just that. A Presidential veto would be a rallying cry for the entire party in 2008. Again, if it is a position in tune with the majority of voting US citizens its an opportunity not to be missed! I agree that there lacks enough support to overcome a veto. All the more reason to move forward with the initiative. Surrendering to a lame duck unpopular President versus standing up to a position to the end of your ability to effect change. Which are you more likely to support and endorse?

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:18:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: They cannot muster enough votes to pass a binding resolution for Monkeyboy to veto. Why pick fights one cannot win? You lose me here Sinergy. They wanted the majority and got it, they dictate what is debated and voted upon. Filibustering by Republicans would place the Republicans under scrutiny that they can't afford. Exactly what can't they "win" by putting forward a simple vote to cut funding as of May 1st for the Iraq war? Why do it? Because it distinguishes you from your opposition and the citizens of this country are starved to support a party or candidate with the "balls" to do just that. A Presidential veto would be a rallying cry for the entire party in 2008. Again, if it is a position in tune with the majority of voting US citizens its an opportunity not to be missed! I agree that there lacks enough support to overcome a veto. All the more reason to move forward with the initiative. Surrendering to a lame duck unpopular President versus standing up to a position to the end of your ability to effect change. Which are you more likely to support and endorse? Well, from a long term perspective, the best thing for the Democrats to do is allow the Republicans to keep shooting themselves in the head. Not saying that is the best thing to do (I wouldnt) but I can understand the point. A 1 or 2 vote majority is not really enough of a control of Congress to really do much. Sinergy

WyrdRich -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:26:12 PM)
I think Fox scares the Hell out of the Dems. We shouldn't have had to wait 5 years for Bill Clinton to get the question Chris Wallace asked him. It should have been asked by Mike Wallace as the top story on "60 Minutes," Ted Koppel should have asked it 6 different ways until he was satisfied with the answer. Dan Rather might still have a career if he'd asked it. Why don't the Dems have the stones to risk getting asked a hard question? Makes me wonder if they have anything to say after "Bush sucks."

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:26:56 PM)
quote: Hello Mercnbeth (not sure which one posted, so hello to both of you!), Hello back at 'ya, and the easy way to distinguish us, is I (Merc) post in black, beth uses another color and rarely posts to a political thread, unless the cause is personal to her. she's much smarter than I in that regard! I post for the pleasure of debate and my continuing education. To your question, I differentiate a network from its political editorial programming. No network is immune to it. Do I need to mention the names of the political pundits on CNN and the other news outlets who are the liberal counterparts of Malkin and Coulter? Only those seeking 'head bobing' material consider either polarized side representative of any mainstream opinion. My question is why would the Democrats want to make an issue of surrendering to it, and therefore giving it more legitimacy than it would have if they just went forward and debated? Did the FOX network go conservative overnight? When the approached them in the first place had they any doubt of their political leaning? I give the Democratic leaders who approached FOX originally much credit. They knew the best way to get the message of their candidates to an audience who wouldn't normally hear the message was to put it on FOX. Not quite comparable to the KKK going on BET with a recruitment drive, but it illustrates the point for dramatic comparison purposes.

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:30:13 PM)
I think the message is: "FOX is not a valid broadcast outlet." A lot of people feel that way. And given that, it's just better for everyone concerned to put it on the table and say it. FOX doesn't deserve the respect, and C-SPAN will do the job just fine. And since C-SPAN let's people netcast it with attribution ( As opposed to FOXs asshole-IP policy ), I figure things will work out just fine.

puella -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:32:10 PM)
Well, I can certainly not speak for the Democratic Party, but were it me, I would be thinking along these lines.... At some point, you stop playing with the kids who keep being dirty, underhanded cheaters, even if it means you don't get to play kickball that day. Just out of curiosity, who on CNN are you talking about? Jack Cafferty (sp?) is probably the most empassioned against the administration, but he always is factual.... and Glenn the bigot Beck is on CNN...

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:32:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich I think Fox scares the Hell out of the Dems. We shouldn't have had to wait 5 years for Bill Clinton to get the question Chris Wallace asked him. It should have been asked by Mike Wallace as the top story on "60 Minutes," Ted Koppel should have asked it 6 different ways until he was satisfied with the answer. Dan Rather might still have a career if he'd asked it. Why don't the Dems have the stones to risk getting asked a hard question? Makes me wonder if they have anything to say after "Bush sucks." Probably the same reason that Monkeyboy wont allow anybody to ask him a hard question. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:34:38 PM)
I really think the issue at some level boiled down to FOX's prohibition against rebroadcast w/o additional royalties paid to FOX. That means no one could post fair-use excerpts on YouTube, without FOX being able to DMCA-Takedown-Notice them off the air. That ain't exactly FREEDOM OF SPEECH, is it?

WyrdRich -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:38:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich I think Fox scares the Hell out of the Dems. We shouldn't have had to wait 5 years for Bill Clinton to get the question Chris Wallace asked him. It should have been asked by Mike Wallace as the top story on "60 Minutes," Ted Koppel should have asked it 6 different ways until he was satisfied with the answer. Dan Rather might still have a career if he'd asked it. Why don't the Dems have the stones to risk getting asked a hard question? Makes me wonder if they have anything to say after "Bush sucks." Probably the same reason that Monkeyboy wont allow anybody to ask him a hard question. Sinergy He gets asked the questions all the time, Sinergy. They get shouted at him.

WyrdRich -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:43:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I think the message is: "FOX is not a valid broadcast outlet." A lot of people feel that way. Considering their audience, compared to any of the other cable networks or all of them combined, you'd find lots of disagreement on their validity. A lot of people are so used to being spoon-fed info with a political slant to the left that they just can't handle the cognitive disonance of a different voice. Better we should chuck the First Amendment, right?

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich I think Fox scares the Hell out of the Dems. We shouldn't have had to wait 5 years for Bill Clinton to get the question Chris Wallace asked him. It should have been asked by Mike Wallace as the top story on "60 Minutes," Ted Koppel should have asked it 6 different ways until he was satisfied with the answer. Dan Rather might still have a career if he'd asked it. Why don't the Dems have the stones to risk getting asked a hard question? Makes me wonder if they have anything to say after "Bush sucks." Probably the same reason that Monkeyboy wont allow anybody to ask him a hard question. Sinergy He gets asked the questions all the time, Sinergy. They get shouted at him. Not really. He almost never gives public speeches anymore, and those he gives tend to not involve press people or those who ask difficult questions. One way to never get asked to attend one of his events is to shout out a hard question. And more importantly, he NEVER answers the hard questions. Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:50:39 PM)
quote: I think the message is: "FOX is not a valid broadcast outlet." Which could be counter in this instance by; "The Democrats are not a valid political party afraid of confrontation." Both statements can be considered legitimate by a 'head-bobing' minority. Actually some people can assimilate and hear opposing views without fear of feeling threatened. quote: Just out of curiosity, who on CNN are you talking about? Jack Cafferty (sp?) is probably the most impassioned against the administration, but he always is factual.... and Glenn the bigot Beck is on CNN... puella, in the spirit of full disclosure I'll admit to being guilty of getting all my news from written media. I avoid editorializing given as a form of news from either side and see it represented in 100% of the news stations. I don't need anyone to direct me in determining my position or opinion. Usually I'll read until getting to the point of forming an opinion then I'll do my best to find something to read that contradicts it. The identity of Coulter is known to me simply because of what I've read of her. When I read what she's said it seems obvious to me that like Rush Limbaugh, she's a caricature of a political position. Any name caller losses any argument I witness on the basis of being too ignorant to offer a position in lieu of a label. I take your word regarding Cafferty, who I only remember as a talking head on a local NYC station that Don Imus used to say looked like Herman Munster. When there is a crisis or event that requires viewing a news outlet I'll put them all up on my TV and flip to whoever has the must up to date status. The result of what's going on now has made FOX new more renowned. Again, they were approached by the Democratic leaders not the other way around. All that you speak of and all the news slanting didn't get any worse or better since that decision was made.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:51:42 PM)
quote: Well they've offered nothing, done nothing, and have the respect of no one except for the 'head bobers'; who now rationalize their impotence. Most Americans voted for a change not a candidate or a party. In the minds of many, they effected change by changing the majority of both houses of Congress. What they don't have is the integrity and confidence to act upon the power they've been given. Not an opinion - but based upon what's been generated since this Congress has been empowered. It will come to haunt them, because you better believe the opposition will point that out early and often. To be honest I am wondering what you Democrats to do? I have not been paying much attention to be honest with you, but I really am wondering what exactly you think the American people expect from them? Secondly, what you seem to be stating is that the American people expect that the Democrats somehow defy the constitution and make laws contrary to the rules inherent within it when it comes to overriding presidential vetoes... you also seem to be inferring that most Americans are too stupid to understand how our government works when it comes to overriding veto power. I am certain that you are correct, some Americans without a doubt will buy into "its all the congress, it is all their fault".... These types tend not to understand how things work or they are so blinded by partisan hatred they are more than willing to assign blame where very little exists.

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:54:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Which could be counter in this instance by; "The Democrats are not a valid political party afraid of confrontation." Both statements can be considered legitimate by a 'head-bobing' minority. Actually some people can assimilate and hear opposing views without fear of feeling threatened. The president you support, whom I refer to as Simian In chief, is not one of those people who can assimilate and hear opposing views without fear of feeling threatened. Sinergy

puella -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:55:59 PM)
Heheh! He does look like Herman Munster, but thinner and older!

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 5:59:03 PM)
For those interested, here is a video called Outfoxed about Ruppert Murdoch and Fox News... it illustrates this topic quite nicely' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&q=outfoxed

WyrdRich -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 6:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania For those interested, here is a video called Outfoxed about Ruppert Murdoch and Fox News... it illustrates this topic quite nicely' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&q=outfoxed And after viewing this 'behind the scenes' look at how an admittedly biased commentary show is put together, go read about how most of the bias in the other media is so institutional and ingrained that they don't need to give instruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goldberg "Bias" should be required reading for anyone with a television set.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02