world

Republicans say party needs to get with the times

132 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

132 Comments
Login to comment

How about coming back to the mainstream and doing something about the Tea Party types who scare level-headed people off the Republicans. The FOX-ification of the party is making it look like a joke, on top of candidate flip-flopping on issues that people want engaged. By all means present an alternative, but make it a credible and sound one.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The GOP's been in an ideological death spiral for years now. Only those with binders full of blinders will be surprised by this news/article.

Here's some ideas:

Ditch the:

Tea Party fanatics

Bible and religious beliefs

Anti-immigration/anti-women/anti-minorities/anti-gay, etc. positions.

Ie: start becoming compassionate human beings with a belief system grounded in the real world not the spirit world.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape.

Not just going on FOX News every night might be a good start. Talk about preaching to the choir.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It wouldn't matter because the MSM controls the country. Whoever controls the message control the masses.

The majority of people wants to do away with Chrisitanity and moral. The election 2012 was the deciding point as to which direction the country would go toward. The majority of the people choose to go toward liberalism.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No, no don't change a thing. It's perfect the way it is.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The big question is whether this a sincere change of heart or just a phony marketing message. I'll bet it's the latter.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think the GOP or if you want to call the more Ultra- conservative wing of the party need to and should embrace immigration reform. Don't blame the Tea party, that's another typical liberal scapegoat. TP were people liberal and conservative, libertarians that were born out of Obama and the Dems out of control spending and wanted srict fiscal responsibility from the government. I firmly believe the country doesn't need to do away with religion that is a personal opinion. Obama won more or less NOT because he was overwhelmingly popular this time around, not like in 2008, but many people were promised to get stuff, plain and simple. Romney wanted to provide jobs and get people up and running and create, CREATE jobs, something that liberals never seem to understand, growth is the key, not massive government intrusion and high taxation. If you look at Blacks and Latinos, they don't have anything in commen with liberalism. They are both against abortion, church going people, entrepreneurial, but Republicans like Reagan, both Bush's and McCaian went against the party and high objections towards Amnesty or reform. Do I think the move is sincere, I do, ONCE the GOP and again, I'm talking about the Ultra- conservative block realize that these people are NOT true liberals in the sense of the word and if many immigrants can feel and believe with certainty that they will not be sent back, that will change a lot for the GOP. Also the thinking about immigrants differs from the West coast to the East coast. West Cooast conservatives really know and understand the problem that you cannot ship 12 million illegal people back, not going to happen, they are more sympathetic towards their cause. On the East Coast, they have a more hostile, ship the, back attitude and are more hard-headed when it comes to illegal immigration, they are more stubborn to this problem. As an independent who is more strong leaning towards conservatism, I DO think in some areas, the GOP needs to make some minor radifications, but never give up on ther principles, that is why they are conservatives! FOX news has nothing to do with it, I worked there and NBC and NBC was waaaay more out of control out of line and I saw 3 people fired in my career for having conservative opinions and did not want to tow the liberal line of the network, these people were bullied and austrasized for having a different POV. That is Pure intolerance. You have all form of opinions on FOX, whether you want to believe it or not, that is your right, but I met all kinds of people with various political beliefs and all were tolerated.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

GOP does not have to change anything. Nada. Instead, be authentic and let us know who they are and what they really believe. Hillary is waiting for the next GOP candidates. Warren Buffet has already endorsed her today.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The GOP's been in an ideological death spiral for years now. Only those with binders full of blinders will be surprised by this news/article.

Some death spiral, 2010 mid-terms less than two years ago saw the Republican's come roaring back to take control of the house and gains in the Senate in an Historic turn-around election. Now it seems they are in a death spiral less than 2 years later.

As far as being surprised by this news article, you've got to be kidding, its the same tripe the Media rolls out every time the Republicans end up being defeated in a national election. Unless of course they win, then the tripe is how they managed to be able to steal the election instead (see Bush).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Bass - "but never give up on ther principles, that is why they are conservatives."

LOL! I've heard the same line from other extreme conservatives and GOP governors lately.

But let's face it - you guys have no choice.

1/ If you are going to make your crippled party more attractive to females, for a start you can become more tolerant on the abortion issue.

But that goes directly against the unprovable Biblical verses you pretend to believe in that say 'Thou shalt not kill" (even though starting illegal wars that end up killing hundreds of thousands is for some very weird reason 'ok.')

2/ If you are going to make your smashed up party more attractive to homosexuals, you'll have to become more tolerant on the gay marriage issue.

But that headbutts against another completely unprovable Biblical verse you guys claim to be true.

Right there, attracting these voters means giving up on your core principles and becoming more tolerant.

If you can do that, you might not lose quite so badly in 2016.

Good luck with that.

It's amazing really - the 2012 election clearly showed 21st century America has left the GOP in the dust.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Aloe funny to see the knives coming out for Romney.

Proves what Global Liberals have been saying all the time - conservatives were only pretending to like him, but their like was 'like' all along. -)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sail,

"Some death spiral, 2010 mid-terms less than two years ago saw the Republican's come roaring back to take control of the house and gains in the Senate in an Historic turn-around election. Now it seems they are in a death spiral less than 2 years later."

Yes, Americans paid for their ridiculous recession impatience at the ballot in 2010 by empowering the Republicans; who brought nothing but a policy of total myopic partisan obstruction designed to stop Obama from getting anything done.

That, coupled with your piss-poor candidates, and the party's refusal to shake of the radicals and the angry old white man image, is why you suffered an embarrassing defeat to a sitting President with unemployment at 8%. Claims of media bias continue to be farcical. It's voter bias you need to examine.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"retool the party message to appeal to Latinos, women and working-class people"

What about blacks? 95-99% of blacks voted for Obama.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's not surprising at all that the GOP is being left behind.

What would you expect considering their attitudes towards homosexuals and women are rooted in 1st century Biblical beliefs?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Sure, Sushi, just make up stuff and post it. Sheesh.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Republican Party is closely associated with fundamentalist Christianity, which in itself is not a problem; the problem is that it has adopted their way of thinking: Things are so because they are so, bereft even so of any evidence.

America was a global initiator of public education precisely because the founders realized that a democracy required an educated electorate, and Americans generally uphold this tradition on considering public policy on a logical basis. High taxes, for example, are mostly known to Americans as inhibiting initiative - but how high is high? Excessive spending is known to adversely affect the budget - but how much can be considered excessive, and in what area? Social issues come and go, but many evolve into long-lasting initiatives that involve expansions of liberty - how do you distinguish these trends, and how do you handle them?

The Democratic Party has done a superior job in identifying, cognizing, and producing policies to respond to these precisely because it does so in a logical way. The GOP, unfortunately, has tended in recent years to respond in a dogmatic way bereft of logic and, thus, hope for a better future.

Cognitive dissonance might as well have been the campaign slogan for the Romney campaign, and for GOP campaigns in general in 2012. Until the party learns to absorb trends, process them, and deliver results that really mean things to Americans, they will never be a legitimate national political force.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Republicans' Nov election drubbing"

Drubbing? 48% of the popular vote for president, and retaining a majority in the House of Representatives is not exactly a drubbing. And this, against Obama's formidable charisma.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The GOP, under the fine leadership of Rush Limbaugh is doing just fine. The more that lost souls listen to their guru leader, the almighty El Rushbo, as he likes to call himself, well they will just keep seeing rich, white men as a victim of white women, of blacks, of Latinos, of Gays, Lesbians etc..which is not bases on reality, plenty of Latinos also hate gays, plenty of blacks also hate gays, and just look at the inter racial gang violence in Los Angeles, plenty of blacks want to kill latinos and sure the latinos are out after blacks etc..so it is quite incredible to me that so many people actually go together and voted for Mr.Obama, because on the ground, in the cities etc..everything is not cut and dry, it is not all black and white.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sushi - You said

"It's not surprising at all that the GOP is being left behind. What would you expect considering their attitudes towards homosexuals and women are rooted in 1st century Biblical beliefs?"

So you are saying all Republicans' attitides toward honmosexuals and women are rooted in 1st century Biblical beliefs, when this is true of only Christian extremists.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Serrano, whistle past the graveyard all you'd like. The GOP not only lost the presidency during historically high unemployment in an election year but also lost the popular vote for the House - only gerrymanded districts allowed them to retain control. Demographics show, moreover, extreme GOP weakness in groups ascendant in the US: the young, the educated, people of color. Spin it all you'd like, but if the GOP does not address these problems, 2010 will prove to be their high-water mark.

As a Democrat, that makes me chuckle; as an American, it makes me shiver.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Laguna -

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! The Democrats did indeed manage to squeeze out a majority popular vote in the House! I did not know that. Technically, they should have the majority. The U.S. election system indeed sucks.

But Obama's charisma is formidable, to say the least. The Republicans could have nominated Jesse Jackson and he would have lost to Obama.

Spin it all you like, but watch the U.S. gov't's debt rise to $20 trillion before Obama is finished.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yes, Americans paid for their ridiculous recession impatience at the ballot in 2010 by empowering the Republicans; who brought nothing but a policy of total myopic partisan obstruction designed to stop Obama from getting anything done.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious. The Democrats were tossed out in 2010 and replaced with the Republicans by the American people with the intent and express purpose to STOP OBAMA from getting anything more done. That's why they were elected in the first place. Unless you or some else have some sort of different reality in that they were in fact elected in 2010 as some sort of endorsement of Obama and his policies????

Obama chose after that election to not to meet them halfway and moderate his positions. He chose to paint them as do nothing obstructionists as his ticket to get re=elected. He never had any intention of working with the Republican house majority, or any other Republican for that matter. From 2010 it was all about demonizing the Republicans and faulting them for all that was ill with the country and a more than compliant Media to plant and pile that that narrative on. I'll submit to you and every single Liberal on this board it is Obama and his administration that has no interest in compromising with the Republicans. It does them no good at all in the political strategy they are pursuing. They chose to demonize the Republicans and its pretty easy to do when you have a Media that is more than willing to not do its job and just repeat the Democrat talking points.

Case in point Marc Rubio was working on a Republican version of the DREAM act. A perfect chance for Obama to join the Republicans and work out a law that truly benefits all Americans and really do it it a bi-partisanship manner that puts country first instead of politics.

Cant have any of that now could we? It completely destroys the Obama strategy. No problem though, Obama just bypasses Rubio's effort and granted blanket amnesty by executive order in a manner that would make any tin-pot dictator proud.

Doesn't matter how he did it because the lap dog media instead of focusing on an imperial Presidency power grab for political gain ( I use to think Nixon was bad, Obama makes him look like a piker when it comes to conducting and imperial presidency) , the press focused instead only how wonderful Obama and the Democrat's are for Hispanics. Gee, who needs a press to do its job anyway when they are nothing more than dutiful servants to your political agenda in aiding in your appeal to Hispanic voters. That's just one case of many.

Also just for basic information on how super wonderful the Media is. I'd recommend to them if your going to print an article on how the Republicans need to change their ways you might want to use quoted sources of some Republicans that actually DID NOT LOSE their respective elections last week for advice on the future way ahead.

Brown lost his Senate seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

said Rep Charles Bass of New Hampshire, who lost his seat to Democrat Ann Kuster

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

GOP soul-searching seems to be en vogue on US media lately. Even outspoken Louisiana Governor Jindal is weighing in. According to him, while GOP can still win local elections, to win the White House, they would need a national coalition. Seems the issue is, the GOP's main base of white male voters is declining (there are more female voters and the white majority is shrinking).

So for the first time in a long time, they would actually need the help of minority groups (whether females, young adults, non-whites, non-Christians, etc.) to create a coalition. They can't just rely solely on their main base anymore, so they have to be more accommodating to create a bigger umbrella platform that would appeal to people with different lifestyles.

Particularly in "battleground states." Growth of ethnic groups, especially Latinos, have turned formerly red states of Nevada and Colorado into battleground states and previously battleground state of New Mexico into solid blue. Those --along with Florida, Arizona, and Texas-- coincide with the largest Latino population growths. In 2 or 3 generations, Texas may become a battleground state too.

Now enough of this seriousness. Time for more important matters - like stocking up on Twinkies before it's too late (nuclear Armageddon is just around the corner, and then it'd just be me and the mutant cockroaches fighting over my Twinkies).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Spin it all you like, but watch the U.S. gov't's debt rise to $20 trillion before Obama is finished.

Cool. Evidence? - None. Balanced view on revenues and expenditures? - None. Congratulations: you've proven yourself worthy of being a House GOP member!

Sailwind, much can be read into elections, and much is usually wrong, including your statement:

with the intent and express purpose to STOP OBAMA

If that were the case, the very same electorate would not have reelected Obama two years later. It is clear that a sitting president in the midst of a serious recession is not likely to receive an overwhelming endorsement from the electorate. Your subsequent statement:

Obama chose after that election to not to meet them halfway and moderate his positions.

is also clearly false as evidenced by reality. Boehner stood at a precipice to receive major reductions in social spending in return for $800 billion in revenue increases over 10 years, but he (or, more properly, his caucus) rejected this. The numbers talked about now are a much lower reduction in social spending with a doubled number in revenue increases. Boehner is the picture-boy for non-buyer remorse at this point.

Regarding Rubio and his "Drream act" fantasy: a simple Google search would show that there was no way his efforts would have become law, and this is for two reasons: One, Obama would have benefited, and the GOP would have none of that; and two, the GOP is not really into making things comfortable for undocumented aliens. Save your breath on that, please.

Finally - blaming the media? After Turdblossom's spin on Fox? Really - still?

This is not what will make the GOP a viable participant in American society - it is, in fact, quite the opposite. Here is to hopes that you guys eventually work it out.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Serrano - "So you are saying all Republicans' attitides toward honmosexuals and women are rooted in 1st century Biblical beliefs, when this is true of only Christian extremists."

Serrano, like you, I was a victim of cultural conditioning - aka - brainwashing too.

Hopefully one day you'll snap out of it.

Good luck.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sailwind - "From 2010 it was all about demonizing the Republicans and faulting them for all that was ill with the country."

Mate, from someone of your maturity, that's stunningly naive....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sailwind - "Gee, who needs a press to do its job anyway when they are nothing more than dutiful servants to your political agenda in aiding in your appeal to Hispanic voters."

What a pile of cr*p that was.

The press tend to be educated folks who know how to string a sentence together in their native language.

Part of the problem for the folks in the conservative camp is they struggle - often - to do this.

Just look at gee dub, Palin, Perry, et al.  Stupid as posts. And conservatives insult themselves by refuting this.

The press know shoddy English, grammar and logic when conservatives slap them with it.  So, what do you really expect the press to do - report and hype up illogical, backward, error-filled conservative talking points?

Why? 

Right there is part of the reason behind the 'media bias' you conservatives love to hate.

But you're missing the point in its entirety.

If you folks would become a bit more proficient in your native language (sorry, but your last post is a case in point), perhaps the press will give you a wider pass.

Until then, good luck.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If that were the case, the very same electorate would not have reelected Obama two years later.

Obama and his campaign chose a strategy of demonizing and defining Romney early as a totally unacceptable alternative to President Obama. The Media, and I am not sure why you and others don't just don't come out and admit it that they were your best allies this election cycle, just dutifully complied in pushing the Obama narrative and It really worked beyond all expectations.

Romney was only able to gain traction after the first debate as that was an event that was actually unfiltered by the Media, but after months of prior relentless negative pounding by Obama and his media cohorts the damage was really to deeply set to overcome. The uncaring rich white guy label who really would never be in the average American's corner was the goal to be planted with the electorate and the electorate responded by ultimately voting for the guy they perceived this election as the one that really actually cares the most about them (Obama..... "He's really trying" was a frequent undercurrent I had noticed in so many comment threads, not just on J.T but all over the Media map to justify folks continued support for him).

Nothing secret or magical in this. It's basic politics 101. Obama may be a pretty inept President ( My opinion, keep your shirts on) but he is not an inept Politician. Campaigning is the one thing he's actually good at and its obvious as he did get re-elected with his horrible record on the economy and overall handling of the Nations business these past 4 years.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"Obama and his campaign chose a strategy of demonizing and defining Romney early as a totally unacceptable alternative to President Obama."

Demonizing a political prostitute that couldn't even come clean about his own shady tax affairs, or halt the serial gaffes or even bold-faced lies like in the case of Jeep?

Please.

" The Media, and I am not sure why you and others don't just don't come out and admit it that they were your best allies this election cycle"

Waaaaaaaaa! Heh, I'm guessing you signed the petition for your state to cede from the US in an undemocratic fury. Seriously, what happened to your immediate post-election comments which seemed admirable?

Join the rest of your partisans rightly blaming Mitt for the election landslide. Seriously, more oxygen will reach the brain without that nose peg.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

One narrative competitive in GOP loserdom analyses is that Romney lost due to the way the message was delivered rather than what the message was.

Obama and his campaign chose a strategy of demonizing and defining Romney early as a totally unacceptable alternative to President Obama.

Welcome to reality, son. You might have said that Romney and his campaign chose a strategy of demonizing and defining Obama early as a totally unacceptable alternative to potential President Romney and it would have been no less true.

Romney was only able to gain traction after the first debate as that was an event that was actually unfiltered by the Media...

Ah - that first debate, when Romney started parroting Obama positions? That point where Romney's Etch-a-Sketch polymorphology had brought him from Massachusetts governor to right-of-Texas governor slayer and then back to Massachusetts governor again? The media noticed these evolving twists and noted them - that is their job. Sail, truthfully: Which Mitt lost, and for what reasons? It is precisely the Zelig character of the candidate that prevents accurate analysis of where what went wrong.

More honest introspection is required for the GOP to right what has gone wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Waaaaaaaaa! Heh, I'm guessing you signed the petition for your state to cede from the US in an undemocratic fury.

Nah, just stating facts. His re-election strategy wasn't exactly a state secret. Good to have the Media in your tank when you pursue this type of strategy don't you think.

Obama plan: Destroy Romney

The second aspect of the campaign to define Romney is his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60921.html

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So, Sushi, when are you going to admit that you're wrong about all Republicans' arttitudes toward homosexuals and women are rooted in 1st century Biblical beliefs?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Just look at gee dub, Palin, Perry, et al. Stupid as posts.

One does not get elected President of the United States or become a Governor of their respective States by being stupid. This so called logic defies common sense and reality. One can disagree about political governance and policy but to blithely call a person stupid by their ability and talent to achievine the position as a duly elected Chief executive of the entire Country as in Bush's case or Chief executive of a State as inGovernors in Palin or Perry's case is just plain ludicrous.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You might have said that Romney and his campaign chose a strategy of demonizing and defining Obama early as a totally unacceptable alternative to potential President Romney and it would have been no less true.

Nah, it would have never worked. It would have opened up Romney and Republicans to the left's favorite tactic to shut down and denigrate any opposition to them. They would called it what they always resort to....... racism.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

One does not get elected President of the United States or become a Governor of their respective States by being stupid.

Not by being stupid, I'd agree. But in Palin's case, despite being stupid. Very stupid.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They would called it what they always resort to....... racism.

Ah. You see, according to Ryan, Obama won because of higher turnout in "urban areas" (dog siren!); according to Romney, he lost because Obama gave out gifts to takers (dog siren!). You can turn racism on its head all you want, but the people have seen it for what it is. Really, Sail - blaming the electorate is blaming the messenger. Opposing the Democrats without resorting to racism is entirely possible: Bush II received a higher minority vote that did Romney, though still poor; Nixon excelled among minorities. It was the Reagan-initiated "Southern strategy" that is now getting old. By now, even the cats are clued into the dog sirens.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sail, stop this right now. You're making me feel like a victim for - yet again - having to explain to you - an American - about American politics.

Sail - "One does not get elected President of the United States or become a Governor of their respective States by being stupid. This so called logic defies common sense and reality."

Again, complete rubbish. 

Case in point: Gov. Perry.

Which state does he represent?

Texas.

Which other complete loser did Texans elect as governor not once but twice, and who led Not just America but the entire planet into a massive recession?

That's right - gEORge bUsh.

The problem is as I've stated before: EDUCATION.

Or in the case of Texas and millions or conservatives - lack of it. 

Losers elect losers. It's entirely natural and should surprise no one.

The GOP/conservatives do it every time.

Yes, it's funny on the surface, but what isn't funny is the damage that electing mentally derelict, uneducated losers to power inflict.

Case in point: the Great Recession, the War on Women, the war on homosexuals, immigrants, non-Christians, Hispanics, ethnic minorities, the list goes on and on. Conservatives are downright dangerous and Americans should be proud that Mitt Romney got the boot and the GOP got roasted at the polls.

It seems that finally Americans as a whole are coming to their senses about a whole host of issues that Global Liberals have known to be right all along.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

LOL! I've heard the same line from other extreme conservatives and GOP governors lately.

As if the Dems and in particular Obama, who as we know IS against gay marriage and always was.

But let's face it - you guys have no choice.

You always have a choice.

1/ If you are going to make your crippled party more attractive to females, for a start you can become more tolerant on the abortion issue.

Hmmm, married women hugely came out and supported Romney while single women went for Obama ( wonder why?) Most Conservatives as well as I are PRO life, that does NOT mean, we against women that are PRO Choice. Don't even start with that echo chamber. Just because MY personal beliefs are against abortion, but that doesn't mean that I would block a woman and her choice as to what to do with her own body. Most conservatives think the same, yet the few ULTRA extremists give the impression and not to mention the liberal media in painting the picture that conservatives are against women, what a load of garbage.

But that goes directly against the unprovable Biblical verses you pretend to believe in that say 'Thou shalt not kill" (even though starting illegal wars that end up killing hundreds of thousands is for some very weird reason 'ok.')

Sushi, don't even go there buddy, you will lose all day on that one. Don't make it as if liberals have never and would never involve themselves in ANY kind of war. Yeah, most liberals don't have a spine, but don't give me the starting illegal war crap! When Clinton went into Bosnia, you liberals were fine with that, he didn't even bother to go to the UN. But for some odd reason, because he's a liberal and Bush is a conservative gives liberals a pass???

2/ If you are going to make your smashed up party more attractive to homosexuals, you'll have to become more tolerant on the gay marriage issue.

I'm from CA, born in L.A., Capitol state of gay people, many conservatives ARE tolerant of gays. Most of my gay friends are conservative, again, stop lumping in all conservatives as one monolithic group. NOT working, NOT resonating. http://gayconservative.org/

But that headbutts against another completely unprovable Biblical verse you guys claim to be true.

I have a lot of liberal thinking people that are against homosexuality, just depends.

Right there, attracting these voters means giving up on your core principles and becoming more tolerant.

You don't know what you are talking about.

If you can do that, you might not lose quite so badly in 2016.

Depends on what the people want, they want handouts or they want growth.

Good luck with that.

Has nothing to do with luck.

It's amazing really - the 2012 election clearly showed 21st century America has left the GOP in the dust.

For now, but that number and parties always changes, always go back and forth.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@El

The GOP, under the fine leadership of Rush Limbaugh is doing just fine.

Watching a tad bit too much of msnbc again, eh?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Serrano - "So, Sushi, when are you going to admit that you're wrong about all Republicans' arttitudes toward homosexuals and women are rooted in 1st century Biblical beliefs?"

LOL! You just humiliated yourself again by questioning this basic reality.

Good try, though. :-)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Bass - "I have a lot of liberal thinking people that are against homosexuality, just depends."

Do you keep them in binders, like Mitt does with his women? :-)

"Binders full of liberal thinking people."

What are you going to come up with next???

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hmmm, married women hugely came out and supported Romney...

Hmmm. 53% of married women voted for Romney - two percent greater than the general population.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

53% of married women voted for Romney, eh? Well, with the great electoral college system we got, even if 53% of all voters voted for Romney, Obama probably still would have won the electoral college vote.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

One does not get elected President of the United States or become a Governor of their respective States by being stupid.

That lesson seemed lost on one of the chairpersons of Romney's campaign, John Sununu. He called the president lazy and "not very bright" (read: stupid) and gave him no chance whatsoever of out-performing Romney in a debate.

They would called it what they always resort to....... racism.

Again, a primary voice speaking for the Romney campaign -- Sununu -- proclaimed that the fundamental reason Colin Powell decided to vote again for President Obama was because of race.

With Romney's post-election comments being decried by some Republicans -- Governor Jindal of LA among them -- we're finally seeing some people within the GOP getting fed up with statements that the electorate can hear all too clearly.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When are the Democrats going to start doing what's right for the country instead of burying us in even more debt?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Just because MY personal beliefs are against abortion, but that doesn't mean that I would block a woman and her choice as to what to do with her own body. Most conservatives think the same, yet the few ULTRA extremists give the impression and not to mention the liberal media in painting the picture that conservatives are against women, what a load of garbage.

GOP candidate Romney publicly announced that he supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As president, he would have made Supreme Court appointments in line with his wishes. It is the GOP that wrote into its platform support for the idea that constitutionally-protected life begins at conception.

What is a "load of garbage" is pretending that intelligent women in America could not see clearly how the conservative movement was actively working against their hard-fought gains.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One does not get elected President of the United States or become a Governor of their respective States by being stupid.

Sailwind, Bush is so stupid and was such a failure that even the republican convention left him off the list. In fact the republicans praised Clinton, who is smart, and left bush twisting in the wind. Fact is most republicans are stupid, if not fox news soon makes them so.

Serrano, when are republicans going to stop busting the federal budget and then blaming everyone but themselves? Most Americans figured this out, that is why your party lost this months election in all three major areas, the WH, the Senate and the House. No one wants republicans in government as they fail, except for the anti-black groups in the deep south and empty west.

So, yes it is true that republicans need to evolve beyond the 1980s tired and failed Reagan formula. The problem is that republicans do not believe in evolution. Or other facts for that matter.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Serrano - "When are the Democrats going to start doing what's right for the country instead of burying us in even more debt?"

Sorrry, do you mean the debt that YOUR 2 votes for GWB created when he started all those unwinnable wars against those guys that if they aren't for us they're against us?

Those guys and that debt?

Sure looks like your hands are dirty on that count, my friend.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm going to quote one conservative member on these boards. In a recent posting, he said the following:

"I can't imagine the self loathing that a white male Democrat must feel about themselves - it's amazing that they all don't just kill themselves over what horrible people they are."

What makes the statement stand out is that no other conservative/Republican support made any comment on it. They just let it stand.

What I can say with near-certain assurance is that any kind of statement resembling the one above coming from someone claiming to be "liberal" would be challenged by other liberals -- starting with yours truly. I know that I have challenged statements of others on the left -- although I've never seen any that come close to that doozy above.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Serrano - "When are the Democrats going to start doing what's right for the country..?"

Um, they wiped the floor of Mitt Romney and the TeaPublicans.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So, yes it is true that republicans need to evolve beyond the 1980s tired and failed Reagan formula. The problem is that republicans do not believe in evolution. Or other facts for that matter.

We witnessed the nominally Republican mayor of our nation's largest city -- Michael Bloomberg -- come out in support of President Obama and the Democrats, primarily over the issue of global climate change -- the evidence and facts of which certainly matter, especially to the young.

Expect to see more "evolution" on this issue among the Republicans -- as they are doing with the immigration issue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Lack of education and religious belief. It’s why the conservative types -

Hate homosexuals (based on unproven Biblical verses)

Want to overly control their own women (ditto)

Are against abortion (ditto)

Hate (educated) Democrats and Global Liberals (well-educated people must be “elitists” and “snobs,” etc.)

Actually buy into Creation theory (based on unproven Biblical verses) instead of evolution

Still don’t believe in climate change (inability to accept clear facts)

Cannot do simple arithmetic (education, failure to understand reality)

Think Fox News is news (education (lack of), failure to understand reality)

Buy into corrupt conservative ideals (all the above).

Americans can be proud they shut the door on Mitt Romney and his conservatives pals.

Calling them dangerous would be an understatement.

Again people, it’s education, education, education.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Do you keep them in binders, like Mitt does with his women? :-)

Sorry, that joke wasn't funny then and it's really boring now .

"Binders full of liberal thinking people."

Not everyone is perfect.

What are you going to come up with next???

That the Dems are very honest people in every way possible

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Considering the fact that most hispanic's lean conservative on social and economic issues there's no reason why Republicans shouldn't be doing much better with them aside from the inflammatory positions of several of its loudest members on immigration reform. Jeb Bush and Rubio are excellent examples of how to court hispanic voters by getting ahead of the curb and actually trying to write out legislation that makes sense to address the illegal immigration problem.

What I can say with near-certain assurance is that any kind of statement resembling the one above coming from someone claiming to be "liberal" would be challenged by other liberals

I didn't see you complaining when a liberal leaning poster made a new account with a title directly insulting several posters and proceeded to lambaste every poster with a differing viewpoint. I believe you yourself called me primitive at one point during a discussion on gun rights...or was it religion. I'm insulted and chided so often they all kind of blend into one at this point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn't see you complaining when a liberal leaning poster made a new account with a title directly insulting several posters and proceeded to lambaste every poster with a differing viewpoint.

Since I have no idea what you are referring to, there's no way I could be expected to "complain."

I believe you yourself called me primitive at one point during a discussion on gun rights...or was it religion. I'm insulted and chided so often they all kind of blend into one at this point.

There's a vast difference between chiding an individual, who might well have earned it through their own documented remarks, and insulting an entire class of people -- as in all white Democrats.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That's right - gEORge bUsh.

The problem is as I've stated before: EDUCATION.

As in having enough of one to be able to actually spell George Bush properly?

I'll state it again. One does not become President of the United States or a Governor of their respective states by being "stupid". That's just absurd and it defies all common sense and logic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There's a vast difference between chiding an individual, who might well have earned it through their own documented remarks, and insulting an entire class of people

Does not square at all with your yabits Nov. 18, 2012 - 11:53PM JST post

I see absolutely no individual chiding of Sununu in your remarks and just using him for a wholesale lumping all Republicans into Sununu's thoughts of that being the typical Republican thought pattern to lambast.

Again, a primary voice speaking for the Romney campaign -- Sununu -- proclaimed that the fundamental reason Colin Powell decided to vote again for President Obama was because of race

.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Sushi

Lack of education and religious belief. It’s why the conservative types -

Hate homosexuals (based on unproven Biblical verses)

This always cracks me up, lol. Well, that includes Blacks and Latinos that overwhelmingly dislike homosexuality, by a large margin and yet, they are so called Democrats and liberals, so that's ok, but if a white person that is conservative and dislikes gays, he's a racist. ROFL Typical liberal illogical rhetoric at its best!

Want to overly control their own women (ditto)

Another boogeyman fairy tale. We want to control how much presents Santa will bring us as well.

Are against abortion (ditto)

Yes, as well as Hispanics and Blacks, but they are Democrats and voted big for Obama. There position about abortion and a conservatives position about abortion is NOT different at all. Again, being hypocritical as usual.

Hate (educated) Democrats and Global Liberals (well-educated people must be “elitists” and “snobs,” etc.)

That's the problem with most liberals, you guys think that you are smarter than life itself. We got a so called smart guy ( supposedly in the WH and still nothing happened, except the smart man created oceans of debt, won't curb spending, force fed us a healthcare plan that over 60% of Americans hate, no annual budget, has not dealt with the high unemployment rate and especially has been a disappointment to two of the largest minority groups that voted for him. Yes, real smart.

Actually buy into Creation theory (based on unproven Biblical verses) instead of evolution

I have never met someone that died, came back and explained, this is what's out there or not. Could be, could be not. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. I reject liberalism, you reject conservatism, nothing wrong with it, matter of opinion. Not going to win that argument. Tell the Blacks and Latinos that while you're at it, would love to hear what they would say to you. Lol

Still don’t believe in climate change (inability to accept clear facts)

Some do and some don't. I know many liberals that don't believe in climate change and I know many conservatives that do believe in it. Stop pigeonholing.

Cannot do simple arithmetic (education, failure to understand reality)

Your President has proven besides not being able to function without his trusted teleprompter that he is also the worst mathematician in the world, but don't take my word for it, ask the Chinese.

Think Fox News is news (education (lack of), failure to understand reality)

ROFL, but Think Progress, Daily Kos and Huffington Post is?? As a former employee for both networks I learned a whole lot more in 3 years of being and working with FOX than 12 years with NBC, oh...yeah, I learned how to disregard morals and ethics while I was there, so yeah, I got edumecated at NBC. Buy into corrupt conservative ideals (all the above).

Americans can be proud they shut the door on Mitt Romney and his conservatives pals.

Don't hatch your chickens while they are counted. The way Obama is going now, it'll be a repeat of the last 4 years. Already bought my front row tickets to watch disaster unfold.

Calling them dangerous would be an understatement.

Obama's policies are exactly like Castor oil, bad tasting and him borrowing the way he is 3.5 billion a week is conspired safe????

Again people, it’s education, education, education.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Sushi

Lack of education and religious belief. It’s why the conservative types -

Hate homosexuals (based on unproven Biblical verses)

This always cracks me up, lol. Well, that includes Blacks and Latinos that overwhelmingly dislike homosexuality, by a large margin and yet, they are so called Democrats and liberals, so that's ok, but if a white person that is conservative and dislikes gays, he's a racist. ROFL Typical liberal illogical rhetoric at its best!

Want to overly control their own women (ditto)

Another boogeyman fairy tale. We want to control how much presents Santa will bring us as well.

Are against abortion (ditto)

Yes, as well as Hispanics and Blacks, but they are Democrats and voted big for Obama. There position about abortion and a conservatives position about abortion is NOT different at all. Again, being hypocritical as usual.

Hate (educated) Democrats and Global Liberals (well-educated people must be “elitists” and “snobs,” etc.)

That's the problem with most liberals, you guys think that you are smarter than life itself. We got a so called smart guy ( supposedly in the WH and still nothing happened, except the smart man created oceans of debt, won't curb spending, force fed us a healthcare plan that over 60% of Americans hate, no annual budget, has not dealt with the high unemployment rate and especially has been a disappointment to two of the largest minority groups that voted for him. Yes, real smart.

Actually buy into Creation theory (based on unproven Biblical verses) instead of evolution

I have never met someone that died, came back and explained, this is what's out there or not. Could be, could be not. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. I reject liberalism, you reject conservatism, nothing wrong with it, matter of opinion. Not going to win that argument. Tell the Blacks and Latinos that while you're at it, would love to hear what they would say to you. Lol

Still don’t believe in climate change (inability to accept clear facts)

Some do and some don't. I know many liberals that don't believe in climate change and I know many conservatives that do believe in it. Stop pigeonholing.

Cannot do simple arithmetic (education, failure to understand reality)

Your President has proven besides not being able to function without his trusted teleprompter that he is also the worst mathematician in the world, but don't take my word for it, ask the Chinese.

Think Fox News is news (education (lack of), failure to understand reality)

ROFL, but Think Progress, Daily Kos and Huffington Post is?? As a former employee for both networks I learned a whole lot more in 3 years of being and working with FOX than 12 years with NBC, oh...yeah, I learned how to disregard morals and ethics while I was there, so yeah, I got edumecated at NBC. Buy into corrupt conservative ideals (all the above).

Americans can be proud they shut the door on Mitt Romney and his conservatives pals.

Don't hatch your chickens while they are counted. The way Obama is going now, it'll be a repeat of the last 4 years. Already bought my front row tickets to watch disaster unfold.

Calling them dangerous would be an understatement.

Obama's policies are exactly like Castor oil, bad tasting and him borrowing the way he is 3.5 billion a week is conspired safe????

Again people, it’s education, education, education.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Sushi

Sorrry, do you mean the debt that YOUR 2 votes for GWB created when he started all those unwinnable wars against those guys that if they aren't for us they're against us?

Here we go again, let's get Obama and his failed policies off the hook by blaming Bush again, since the man has no real record, the only thing we can do is blame Bush, because Obama, the anointed one is totally absolved of ANY wrong doing, because he's holier than the good lord himself. Like Madelyn Albright said, when she was asked, "how long will you blame Bush for Obama's failed policies" and she replied, "forever." Typical liberal mindless logic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Since I have no idea what you are referring to, there's no way I could be expected to "complain."

They were around for some time.

There's a vast difference between chiding an individual, who might well have earned it through their own documented remarks, and insulting an entire class of people -- as in all white Democrats.

So it's alright to be disrespectful and rude to another poster if you think they earned it. But by all means keep qualifying your statement. You said, "What I can say with near-certain assurance is that any kind of statement resembling the one above coming from someone claiming to be "liberal" would be challenged by other liberals"

Chiding and disrespectful comments seem to fall under the category of 'resembling' the offensive comment you alluded to. I'm a rude dude but at least I'm honest about it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Chiding and disrespectful comments seem to fall under the category of 'resembling' the offensive comment you alluded to.

To you they might. The distinction that an entire class of people are so "horrible" that they should kill themselves is easy for some to grasp as bearing no resemblance at all to "chiding." Perhaps you can't tell the difference.

They were around for some time.

I don't know what you're talking about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Some do and some don't. I know many liberals that don't believe in climate change and I know many conservatives that do believe in it. Stop pigeonholing.

Really? Can you provide the names of three prominent liberals who don't accept the science on climate change?

I'm assuming that "many" would mean more than one or two.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I see absolutely no individual chiding of Sununu in your remarks and just using him for a wholesale lumping all Republicans into Sununu's thoughts of that being the typical Republican thought pattern to lambast.

Sununu was appointed to co-chair Romney's campaign -- which meant his remarks were coming in his role as one of the chief spokespersons of the Republican Party's nominee. I didn't exactly see many Republicans jumping up to criticize Sununu for calling President Obama "not very bright" and for pulling out the race card on retired General Colin Powell's choice to lead our nation.

It appears to me that the "typical Republican" remained silent in the face of the insulting remarks of one of their party's top campaign officials. That means that they either agree with him, or don't have what it takes to express their disagreement.

I'm reading how former Speaker Gingrich has characterized Mitt Romney's statements on Obama "giving stuff away" as "nuts". Having seen a number of conservatives here repeating Romney's lines, I'd have to say that Newt would be lumping them in too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sununu was appointed to co-chair Romney's campaign -- which meant his remarks were coming in his role as one of the chief spokespersons of the Republican Party's nominee. I didn't exactly see many Republicans jumping up to criticize Sununu for calling President Obama "not very bright" and for pulling out the race card on retired General >Colin Powell's choice to lead our nation.

Joe Biden is our duly elected Vice President of the United States, he also played the race card in accusing the Republicans of wanting to put African Americans "back in chains" in a speech in the old Southern State of Virginia. I also did not see many Democrats jumping to criticize Biden for these atrocious remarks. I sure did not see anything from you disavowing Joe on that subject.

Also, Let me know when you actually have some sort a leg to stand on here, you have no compunction when it comes to using race to demean and insult and you have no boundaries at all in using race as a club in a blanket character destruction of those that disagree with you politically.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Joe Biden is our duly elected Vice President of the United States, he also played the race card in accusing the Republicans of wanting to put African Americans "back in chains" in a speech in the old Southern State of Virginia. I also did not see many Democrats jumping to criticize Biden for these atrocious remarks

Ridiculous. Biden was speaking to a racially-mixed audience and used a metaphor to describe what would happen when the Republicans "unchained" the banks and Wall Street.

This is especially funny after reading comments on these boards from conservatives who specifically point to blacks as being on the Democrats' "plantation."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ridiculous. Biden was speaking to a racially-mixed audience and used a metaphor to describe what would happen when the Republicans "unchained" the banks and Wall Street.

You obviously approve of the message and it's rather a shame that you would actually think African Americans would not know exactly what Biden meant and was referring to in his so called metaphor. Interesting that you can be that tone deaf when you have claimed to have such a superb talent for racially coded "dog whistles" that your astute hearing seems to pick up on all the time.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

To you they might. The distinction that an entire class of people are so "horrible" that they should kill themselves is easy for some to grasp as bearing no resemblance at all to "chiding." Perhaps you can't tell the difference.

So you make a vague statement about how you disapprove of disrespectful comments. And then you make a disrespectful comment. So let me get this straight, if its a rude statement against a group of people its bad but if its against a single person it's perfectly fine? Is it restricted to only statements about telling people to kill themselves. If you're going to compromise your statement with qualifiers you should have just been more specific from the onset.

I don't think I would have had a problem if you had told everybody to ignore such rude comments but I take exception to the statement that liberal posters possess some kind of moral high ground in terms of quality control among your numbers.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I probably can't get away with posting the name of the account. But hay, if you want to see another example of rampant intolerance just check out any article having anything to do with the Catholic Church where posters frequently refer to all members as pedophiles or supporters thereof. That seems a bit offensive but I guess since it doesn't fulfill your strict criteria.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So let me get this straight, if its a rude statement against a group of people its bad but if its against a single person it's perfectly fine?

A statement wishing for death to one's political opponents, to give but one example of a group of people, goes beyond mere "rudeness" and "disrespect." I have not seen anything approach that level (i.e. wishing death) of hatred being expressed by a liberal. If I saw such a thing, I would not let it pass the way those who hate liberals have done. You may not like or agree with where the line is drawn, but in my opinion things dealing with the death of others crosses over it. And my apparent silence over lesser offences should not cause readers to the lose the point that a much more egregious line was crossed and met with total silence from non-liberals.

I am going to search for posts dealing with the Catholic Church, in an attempt to verify your claim that posters "frequently" engage in mass condemnation.

I don't think I would have had a problem if you had told everybody to ignore such rude comments but I take exception to the statement that liberal posters possess some kind of moral high ground in terms of quality control among your numbers.

Again, I have not seen any statement coming from liberals wishing death upon any class of people. I'm not sure that refraining from making such statements or challenging them when made puts one on particularly high ground, but there's clearly a moral low ground that those opposed to liberals regularly exhibit. And, when clear evidence is pointed out, they make a concerted effort to muddy the waters.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You obviously approve of the message and it's rather a shame that you would actually think African Americans would not know exactly what Biden meant and was referring to in his so called metaphor. Interesting that you can be that tone deaf when you have claimed to have such a superb talent for racially coded "dog whistles" that your astute hearing seems to pick up on all the time.

I genuinely feel as an American of European descent whose grandparents emigrated here long after slavery was abolished, that the metaphor of "chains" would and should resonate with all listeners, regardless of race. I believe that credit card and college debt, when taken to abusive excess, constitutes a type of enslavement. Not only do I approve the metaphor, I believe it serves to reveal how many of us have been made victims by the forces of "unchained" banking and finance. As such, it's a unifying message.

I have to consider that those most vehemently opposed to Biden's metaphor would naturally come from those who wish to enslave others, those who don't care about enslavement or who rank it as preferable to anything interfering with the "free market," or from those whose ancestors enslaved and otherwise exploited people.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have not seen anything approach that level (i.e. wishing death) of hatred being expressed by a liberal. If I saw such a thing, I would not let it pass the way those who hate liberals have done. You may not like or agree with where the line is drawn, but in my opinion things dealing with the death of others crosses over it. And my apparent silence over lesser offences should not cause readers to the lose the point that a much more egregious line was crossed and met with total silence from non-liberals.

There is a firm difference between saying that one statement made by one poster was bad. It's another thing to sit back and say look at you, allowing a poster to say such things, why I'd never allow such as statement to pass. Never mind that such statements are more likely than not taken off by the moderator who's job it is to pass such judgement but you make two very shaky assertions. The first being that other posters identify with the poster making the comment, I don't think there's one poster on this site that I agree with more than 40% of the time. The second is that you think that any poster should feel responsible for the rantings of another.

Again, I have not seen any statement coming from liberals wishing death upon any class of people. I'm not sure that refraining from making such statements or challenging them when made puts one on particularly high ground, but there's clearly a moral low ground that those opposed to liberals regularly exhibit.

Okay, I guess that's a start. You've gone from taking the high ground to just allocating everybody that doesn't agree with you to the moral low ground. Your still using one instance, that most rational posters simply ignored as drivel, and using it as a poster child for how you believe others behave, that argument strikes me as flimsy at best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a firm difference between saying that one statement made by one poster was bad. It's another thing to sit back and say look at you, allowing a poster to say such things, why I'd never allow such as statement to pass.

The article expresses the admission that conservatives need to change their message. I simply provided an example of how seriously some of their messages cross the line. Wishing death on one's opponents seems pretty obvious to me as a message that's not likely to win anyone over. I found it noteworthy how it passed without any comment.

but you make two very shaky assertions.

I have made no such assertions. I simply presented basic observations. The "assertions" are coming from your imagination.

After this discussion, I can add to my observations the tendency by some to treat comments wishing death on one's opponents as "drivel," while at the same time attempting to elevate personal chiding and disrespect to the level of mass-death of white Democrats. It appears that the moral compass on the conservative/libertarian side has gone completely haywire, which probably accounts for the tone-deafness mentioned in the article.

I've done some looking at threads pertaining to a certain religious group to find if there are "frequent" attempts to portray "all members" in a derogatory manner. I have yet to find any such evidence, however it is interesting to note that those which come closest to that line are more likely to be written by those on the conservative side of the spectrum. Again, I suspect that imagination has overtaken reason here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I simply provided an example of how seriously some of their messages cross the line.

The line you established is one where you place yourself and those you agree with in a position of unassailable enlightenment while loping everyone you don't agree with in a blanket category that condones death threats. You use the blanket term conservative to describe a lot of posters on this site, many of which possess views that line up with your own on a number of topics. But when they take a position you don't agree with you make every attempt to sap legitimacy from their arguments, not through discussion but by guilt through association. Associations that are entirely based on your perceptions.

After this discussion, I can add to my observations the tendency by some to treat comments wishing death on one's opponents as "drivel," while at the same time attempting to elevate personal chiding and disrespect to the level of mass-death of white Democrats.

As stupid as the statement you alluded to is it certainly doesn't look like a wish for death. Looks more like a tongue in cheek comment that turned to foot in mouth somewhere along the way between brain and keyboard, thus drivel. Silly nonsense that one ignores.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The line you established is one where you place yourself and those you agree with in a position of unassailable enlightenment

Unassailable enlightenment? In reality, it's a minimal standard of decency liberals like myself are content to uphold.

You use the blanket term conservative...

It's not the most accurate or convenient term to describe those who express hostility towards liberalism. (Communists hate liberals and liberalism too.) Nevertheless, the vast majority of those who do express hostility in that direction on this particular site tend to come from the conservative/libertarian ranks.

But when they take a position you don't agree with you make every attempt to sap legitimacy from their arguments

When the observation is remaining silent in the face of remarks that are disparaging to the extreme of an entire class of people, I'm not sure how that corresponds to sapping anything, since no "argument" exists.

Associations that are entirely based on your perceptions.

I believe that I have to be onto something here. I don't believe the issue would be getting the response it has otherwise. All those who are opposed to liberalism would go a long way towards removing any possible wrong perceptions by providing some visible response when a minimum standard of decency has been breached by someone on their side of the spectrum. I am more than willing to do the same if presented with evidence that it's occurring on my side. And I'd like to think that expressions that involve death or killing off of an entire class of people would be something that -- even if tongue in cheek -- violates a minimum standard.

Starting with that bar set extremely low, perhaps those on the conservative/Republican side -- keeping to the theme of this topic -- will be able to work towards the realization that we liberals bring much of value to the table. Knee-jerk hostility to liberals or liberal groups such as "white Democrats" is probably not going to attract many new folkd to the Republican tent.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have to consider that those most vehemently opposed to Biden's metaphor would naturally come from those who wish to enslave others,

I'll pass that on to Jessie Jackson:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Thursday said that the flap over Vice President Joe Biden’s recent comments concerning Republicans putting people “back in chains” was “not helpful and a distraction from President Barack Obama’s message.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79799.html

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Note that Jackson is referring to "the flap over" and not the comments themselves. You know, folks like yourself blowing them all out of proportion.

"Jackson also slammed the 24/7 news cycle for playing up stories -- like the Biden flap -- that detract from weightier policy issues."

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Note that Jackson is referring to "the flap over" and not the comments themselves. You know, folks like yourself blowing them all out of proportion.

I'll pass that on the Governor Wilder.

Former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder had harsh words for Vice President Joe Biden a day after Biden told a rally in Virginia — which included a significant number of African-Americans in the audience — that Republicans and Wall Street are going to put “y’all back in chains.”

“Slavery is nothing to joke about,” Wilder said Wednesday on Fox News’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto.” “And the history of this nation’s involvement with slavery is nothing to pass off in a joke.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79778.html

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'll pass that on the Governor Wilder.

Wilder completely missed the point. (From the picture at the site, he does not look very well.)

Newark mayor, Cory Booker, had to correct him: "But in the same evening, another prominent African-American came to Biden’s defense. Cory Booker, the charismatic mayor of Newark, urged voters to look at the vice president’s quote in context.

“Please, I beg America, listen to the whole speech by the vice president,” he said on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Booker added, “This was a substantive speech about how we’re going to reform Wall Street, about how we’re going to protect consumers, about how we’re going to stop the overleveraging of banks, about how we’re going to create a consumer bill of rights, a credit card bill of rights, how we’re going to go against predatory lending. All of that is the substantive things that my majority-black city in Newark is concerned with. These are the real, substantive issues that the media and that the sound-bite politics is distracting us from.”

Let's also note that a person claiming that "many liberals" don't accept the science of the human impact on climate change has failed to come up with a single example.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Wilder completely missed the point. (From the picture at the site, he does not look very well.)

I'll pass that on to Jesse Jackson's daughter (you can feel free to insult her also since she also disagrees with you by telling us she doesn't look well either in the linked picture).

Santita Jackson, the daughter of Rev. Jesse Jackson, has called for Joe Biden to apologize for his remarks about black people being in chains.

http://www.yourblackworld.net/2012/08/uncategorized/jesse-jacksons-daughter-says-joe-biden-needs-to-apologize-for-slavery-remarks/

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'll pass that on to Jesse Jackson's daughter (you can feel free to insult her also since she also disagrees with you by telling us she doesn't look well either in the linked picture).

Santita Jackson, who works for FOX News, and whose comments have been used by the birther movement? When it comes to "insulting," she certainly doesn't need any help from me. Like Wilder, she completely allowed her emotions to cause her to miss the point.

Some folks love to trot out people of color willing to play to their ignorance and prejudices. In this case, it's hard to tell if conservative ignorance trumps conservative prejudice. Since "chains" were a big part of the European experience in America too -- in the form of indentured servitude in colonial days -- Biden's remarks on Wall Street and the banks putting people back in chains easily applies to more than just people from Africa.

It was comforting to see the odious Mia Love lose her race in very conservative Utah. Her message of wanting to join the Congressional Black Caucus to tear it down from within is a perfect example of the kind of message that hurts the Republicans. Thanks to her, and to that message, Utah has one representative who is a Democrat.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It was comforting to see the odious Mia Love

I see your "civility" is on full display again.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

“And if you think about Joe Biden's comments, "They want to put ya'll back in chains," I think it's absolutely disrespectful to the office that they hold. I deserve a president that sees me as a human being.”

Mia "odious" Love commenting on Bidens "metaphor".

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/29/13554487-video-mia-love-race-doesnt-matter-calls-biden-disrespectful#comments

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It's not the most accurate or convenient term to describe those who express hostility towards liberalism.

Your definition of liberalism is also somewhat lacking. In the purest definition I'm considerably more classically liberal than yourself given my consistent record of advocating minimal intervention in all things. In this way I'm capable of annoying most of the posters most of the time. The labels don't work well so I address individuals and have considerably more fun that way.

When the observation is remaining silent in the face of remarks that are disparaging to the extreme of an entire class of people, I'm not sure how that corresponds to sapping anything, since no "argument" exists.

It's an observation on how many posters operate. Take an outlier, someone who posts sprawling ludicrous messages that any reasonable person would write off as an internet troll and pay them no mind, and then every time you encounter someone with an opposing view point you use it like ammo against the their credibility, another conservative like you said X therefore you believe X, all you conservatives believe X, people of my group would never think or say anything so vile.

I am more than willing to do the same if presented with evidence that it's occurring on my side. And I'd like to think that expressions that involve death or killing off of an entire class of people would be something that -- even if tongue in cheek -- violates a minimum standard.

Thats a loaded request as you are allowed to pick and choose which people you feel are 'on your side'. The reason I make an effort to avoid terms like liberal and conservative are the fact that such terms muddy the waters of discussion and prevent anything useful from happening. I also avoid them because trying to get a firm grasp on what makes a person part of one of these groups is neigh impossible. I believe in limited government in all things, capitalist economic models, gay rights, drug legalization, drastic restructuring of how military spending works, and across the board spending cuts. That doesn't fit into the two term dynamic you have going for you. Other posters have shown themselves to favor capitalist models but seem to support restrictions on items of personal choice. In which case they're technically an economic liberal but a social conservative. Additionally US liberals sound a lot like European conservatives and that's about where I stop paying attention to such labels.

Starting with that bar set extremely low, perhaps those on the conservative/Republican side -- keeping to the theme of this topic -- will be able to work towards the realization that we liberals bring much of value to the table.

Recognition of value is a two way street. It requires one to see past the extremes and see the people you disagree with and the experience that they bring to the discussion. This process of mutual valuation is not progressed by taking pot shots. I didn't give a rip about whatever the Presidents pastor said, in my mind he was like a real life internet troll being used to stir up commotion, just like how I don't give a rip when someone says something dumb on a comment section. I happen to think my time is better spent contemplating the topic rather than contemplating the ichor that drips from the mouths of people I'm not interested in.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Your definition of liberalism is also somewhat lacking. In the purest definition I'm considerably more classically liberal than yourself given my consistent record of advocating minimal intervention in all things.

You may well be more classically liberal, since the liberal philosophy has grown and evolved over 200 years -- as man has been faced with existential problems (nuclear holocaust, massive environmental destruction, etc.) the early thinkers did not have to contend with or consider. I'm not sure holding to the primitive form of a political/economic philosophy is anything to be proud of.

just like how I don't give a rip when someone says something dumb on a comment section

If a comment suggests death or violence, not giving "a rip" is part of a more serious problem. Your comment has helped me make my point.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You may well be more classically liberal, since the liberal philosophy has grown and evolved over 200 years -- as man has been faced with existential problems (nuclear holocaust, massive environmental destruction, etc.) the early thinkers did not have to contend with or consider

Same crap different day. I'm sure the collapse of Rome was a pretty big deal too but that doesn't change the fundamental belief in the rights and liberties that all people should enjoy. If you face a problem free men must be allowed to solve it, or let it be. If you feel the need to change your fundamental beliefs to suit every new instance than perhaps you need to reevaluate what those beliefs are.

I'm not sure holding to the primitive form of a political/economic philosophy is anything to be proud of.

If belief in the rights and abilities of your fellow man and the sanctity of free will is primitive so be it.

If a comment suggests death or violence, not giving "a rip" is part of a more serious problem. Your comment has helped me make my point.

Yes, you have made the world a safer and more tolerable place by pointing out one comment. It's a comment section on a news site, not really a comprehensive cross section of the human experience. Plus, the first rule of dealing with internet trolls is to not feed them, I disregard this rule when I'm having fun but if you take one seriously that means he won. Not only did you take this online mischief maker seriously but you expect others to as well.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Apparently, to some black folks, another person expressing solidarity in a situation in the face of an "unchained" Wall Street is trying to become "familiar."

You should pass that on to "Homeboy" Biden.

Joe-Biden-gaffes-VP-calls-President-Obama-homeboy-trying-reassure-Hurricane-Sandy-victims

'So as the president said when he was up here with the governor, we’re not going anywhere. We’re not not going anywhere. And you’ve got a homeboy in the deal who gets it,' he concluded.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235029/Joe-Biden-gaffes-VP-calls-President-Obama-homeboy-trying-reassure-Hurricane-Sandy-victims.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And cut back the wasteful military spending back to what it was around 1999-2000.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sailwind,

Respectfully, never have I seen a man with an agenda that desperate.

Yours,

Me :)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Here's the deal: the Republicans based blame Romney when they should be blaming themselves.

The base, members of which post here, believe Romney lost because he was not conservative enough.

Actually, this is nonsense.

Mitt Romney lost because he failed to win enough voters outside of the GOP's base coalition—not because he failed to energize the GOP base. Here are facts:

In 2008, John McCain won white evangelicals by a 50-point margin. In 2012, Romney won those voters by a 57-point margin—a seven-point gain. (As a share of the total vote, white evangelicals were 26 percent in both years.)

Contrast Romney's seven-point gain in support among white evangelicals with his much smaller gain in support among everyone else: In 2008, President Obama won those voters by 26 points. In 2012, he won them by 23 points. Romney gained, but not by enough.

In shot, the GOP's base wasn't enough to deliver victory. They turned out for Romney, and he lost. Just as they turned out for McCain. And he lost too.

The Republican base lives in fantasy land. The problem is not with their candidiates for national office not being conservative enough. The problem is their candidates are too conservative. Too conservative on women's liberation, too conservative on gay rights. To conservative on taxes. Too conservative on immigration. Too conservative on the integreity of science.

In short, too conservative on everything.

The Republicans estblishment knows this. The base does not. They cling to a past that never existed. And that 'traditional America' is gone, baby gone. The base either must accept that, or the party will go the way of the wigs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm thinking they'll be toting wigs before accepting their perpatual relegation to the wilderness. Four years of blaming the media still seems to soothe the pain of reality...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Four years of blaming the media still seems to sooth the pain of reality"

Four years of blaming Bush worked to get Obama re-elected.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Four years of blaming the media still seems to soothe the pain of reality...

Can I blame 1 week of reality instead prior to this election to help ease the pain?

The Final Days of the Media Campaign 2012 November 19, 2012

Obama Enjoys Surge in Positive Coverage the Last Week of the Race; Attention to Romney Drops

In the final week of the 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama enjoyed his most positive run of news coverage in months, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Only during the week of his nominating convention was the treatment in the press more favorable.

http://www.journalism.org/analysisreport/finaldaysmediacampaign_2012

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"In the final week of the 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama enjoyed his most positive run of news coverage in months"

Nothing to do with his slick handling of the storm in that week?

You know, events that even had previously out-spoken Gov. Christie admitting "Obama deserves great credit" in an election week?

Really, you need to find another axe to grind.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Too bad the Republicans didn't draft Sarah Palin - now THAT would have made for some interesting debates!

Obama: So, you can really see Russia from your house?

Palin: That was Tina Fey who said that. So, the national debt has ballooned to $16 trillion. What's your plan to reduce it?

Obama: That is George W. Bush's legacy. He and you Republicans left us a big mess to clean up. We're still cleaning it up.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Interviews with more than a dozen Republicans at all levels of the party indicated that post-election soul-searching must quickly turn into a period of action.

'To hear some Republicans...' ooh - all twelve of them interviewed. Well, that sure illustrates what the masses feel; 12 a-holes interviewed to prove a liberal talking point. There are many things about 'these times' that many of us don't want to 'get with'. Don't talk to a small handful of people and make assumptions of the masses. That's a typical leftist shortcoming.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The problem is as I've stated before: EDUCATION.

@Sushi

You see there is your agenda. It has nothing to do with your supposed free choice for all homosexual issue. That is used by the likes of you to stir up dissension. Do you give free choice to women to have children??? Complete free choice??? Or do you say they have to get educated?

Im betting if the education isnt to your specific standards-in other words what you dictate as truth (see China Koreas and Japan for interpretation) then you will use anything to stir up people. You would ply homosexuals against heterosexuals, womena against men. So long as you control the education of the youth, you control the future.

What is wrong with education eh??? Go on state what you think is the problem, not just embolden the word as if it is obvious. Education levels the world over are higher than theyve ever been, so what is your problem. You cant control what people learn???

Sushi discreetly throws that in, when admit it, that is your agenda. a-z. After that youre just having a democratic argument, with any point of dissension that you can drag up.

As for this article it's democratic in nature-get with the times people. Youth are beyond the tea party, gop, homosexual, abortion issues....theyve heard them all before. They are not specifically right or left issues, that is just said in places like Japan where the talk can be plied as foreign idealism. The young people are more aware than that, you treat them as if they are stupid, but heres new for yous; your trip is OLD.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nothing to do with his slick handling of the storm in that week?

Yup.

Much of that surge in positive coverage, the data suggest, was tied to Obama's strategic position, including improving opinion polls and electoral math, rather than directly to positive assessments of Obama's response to Superstorm Sandy.

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/final_days_media_campaign_2012

0 ( +1 / -1 )

About my axe.....(If the link doesn't work for you, just google, The Final Days of the Media Campaign 2012 Pew Research. It's pretty fascinating and quite eye opening on what they found.

Then, in the final week (October 29 to November 5), a noticeable change occurred: Obama's coverage improved dramatically while Romney's coverage stayed about the same but shrank in volume.

That week, fully 29% of the Obama stories were positive compared to 19% which were negative, a net plus of 10 points. That was the best week Obama had seen since the week of the Democratic National Convention in early September; the final week also marked only the second week of the general election when Obama was the subject of more positive stories than negative.

Romney's coverage in that final week slipped slightly, but not by a significant amount. That week, 16% of his stories were positive compared to 33% that were negative, a difference of 17 points.

Rather than Romney faltering in the last week, in other words, the difference was largely that Obama benefited from a new media narrative.

The overall news coverage of the storm was extensive. For example, for the five days between October 29 and November 2, all three major networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) led both their morning and evening newscasts with stories about Sandy-an unusual occurrence. However, the media did not run many stories that directly connected the disastrous events with the presidential campaign, even when Obama was a key part of those stories.

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/final_weeks_mainstream_press

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The smoke from the election clears slowly as you hear a distant voice - "I didn't get my way AGAIN! This is not fair. The media is biased against me. Why isn't Sarah Palin president? I sent her the money she asked for. I'll bet Obama, using the FEDERALLY FUNDED US Postal Service took all the cards and letters with donations and spent it on hippie crap. Also, I'll bet he purposely took personal love letters from Sarah Palin sent to Victim Boy in and attempt to keep him down. It's all a liberal conspiracy that was hatched at the Sundance Film Festival by Robert Redford, Matt Damon, Sean Penn and Michael Moore. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!! Can't you see it?!?!?!"

By the way, the strange sound you heard while reading through some of the earlier posts on this thread was the sound of the victim card being aggressively played. But what are you going to do? When all you've got to bring to the table is your own desire to be a martyr, that victim card gets pretty dog-eared, pretty quickly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The media is biased against me.

The Media does have a liberal bias and no longer can be trusted as being objective and fair in covering politics. It is what it is Taka and its just reality, especially if you happen to be a Conservative or a candidate with an "R" in front of your name.

Not sure why you would even want to try and deny it, It works totally in your political favor after all. I mean its not like your political ideology or Liberal outlook on Governance really needs the actual level playing field that the press use to provide in political coverage for your ideas to prevail with the electorate. w So it is rather surprising that the Media actively seeks to try rig the game to ensure its desired own desired voting outcome, but I'm just an observer of the Media in action after all.

Why isn't Sarah Palin president?

Umm..She didn't actually run might be a big factor in that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So President Obama got positive media coverage for his good handling of Sandy, to the extent he got spontaneously rave reviews on the ground from a Republican governor, and this is your centre-piece of proof media bias?

Seriously, the claims of media bias are getting more unhinged by the minute. It's nigh on Tin-foil hat territory. I think the only more far-fetched claim you've yet to make is Obama or perhaps CNN can somehow conjure up storms.

If anything, I think the media actually played up Romney's chances towards the end, to keep a lot of people interested and ratings up in a long-winded election that most people had already called an Obama shoe-in at the time the likes of Santorum, Gingrich and flip-floppin' Mitt where wheeled out as challengers.

Even people in your own party - the topic of the thread - are looking to why they were soundly defeated, and the mutterings I'm hearing is that they realize they need to evolve or become extinct. If you don't want to be on the losing end of every election for the foreseeable future, I suggest you drop the blame, and do the same.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So President Obama got positive media coverage for his good handling of Sandy, to the extent he got spontaneously rave reviews on the ground from a Republican governor, and this is your centre-piece of proof media bias?

No offense, but how did you get that conclusion from The Final Days of the Media Campaign 2012 Pew Research analysis of the Media's coverage of the election.?

The overall news coverage of the storm was extensive. For example, for the five days between October 29 and November 2, all three major networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) led both their morning and evening newscasts with stories about Sandy-an unusual occurrence. However, the media did not run many stories that directly connected the disastrous events with the presidential campaign, even when Obama was a key part of those stories.

They clearly state that this wasn't the case for all of his glowing Media coverage the week prior to the election.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Even people in your own party - the topic of the thread - are looking to why they were soundly defeated

Also Madverts,

The article also clearly states one of the reasons they have to contend with in the future is......."teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape." The days of a fair and objective Media towards a Republican candidate running for national office is truly a thing of the past. Republicans in the future that are vying for National Office will have to contend with this reality and confront it head on.

Peter Wehner really summed this up quite well in a recent piece he wrote for Commentary Magazine about the Media environment today. I have to say his last sentence is pretty profound but also very sad in its own way.

For some journalists, it’s fairly clear as to why: they had a rooting interest in Mr. Obama winning and they carried a deep dislike, even contempt, for Governor Romney. But for many others I think the explanation is more subtle and in some respects more problematic. They appear to be completely blind to their biases and double standards. If you gave them sodium pentothal, they would say they were being objective. Self-examination, it turns out, is harder than self-justification. And of course being surrounded with people who share and reinforce your presuppositions and worldview doesn’t help matters. (A model for today’s reporters is Richard Harwood, a Washington Post reporter who called his editor in Washington, Ben Bradlee, and asked to be taken off the 1968 Robert Kennedy campaign on the day of the California primary because he sensed he was, in the words of RFK biographer Evan Thomas, losing his “newsman’s reserve and … his objectivity.”)

In general, journalists receive critiques like this with indignation. They enjoy holding up public officials, but not themselves, to intense scrutiny. They insist that their personal biases never bleed into their story selection or coverage. But the outstanding ones and the honest ones would admit, though perhaps only to themselves, that the double standard is real and troubling, that it’s injurious to their profession, and that things really do need to change. Perhaps because they still know why they got into journalism in the first place—not for advocacy but to report the news in a relatively even-handed manner, to “speak truth to power,” regardless of the political views of those in power, and to pursue stories in a way that is fair and unafraid.

Today such an attitude sounds almost quaint.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/20/the-medias-benghazi-scandal/

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You've got me convinced, since I read this tweet:

Pres. Obama’s steady support of @israel throughout this crisis helped stop the war.He did a good job. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2012

My only question to you who has worked tirelessly to demonstrate the shocking media bias, is how the hell did they get a tinfoil hat on Donald Trump's head?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So nice of sailwind to present an opinion piece as fact while screaming about the bias in the media.

Crimeny the guy isn't even smart enough to figure out who the hell the media even is.

I am just gobsmacked by the degree of ignorance shown and the steadfast clinging to said ignorance. It's absolutely cult-like.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The days of a fair and objective Media towards a Republican candidate running for national office is truly a thing of the past.

SLAP! That was the victim card thrown down with FEELING! Like a game of dominoes at sea.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

MadvertsNov. 22, 2012 - 11:50PM JST

You've got me convinced, since I read this tweet:

Pres. Obama’s steady support of @israel throughout this crisis helped stop the war.He did a good job. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2012

My only question to you who has worked tirelessly to demonstrate the shocking media bias, is how the hell did they get a tinfoil hat on Donald Trump's head?

Good post. I am thinking to send him my cat for his hair piece.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, the strange sound you heard while reading through some of the earlier posts on this thread was the sound of the victim card being aggressively played. But what are you going to do? When all you've got to bring to the table is your own desire to be a martyr, that victim card gets pretty dog-eared, pretty quickly.

I dont think anybody is worried-cant you smell the victory that is brewing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So nice of sailwind to present an opinion piece as fact while screaming about the bias in the media.

Interesting conclusion since I did nothing of the sort. I was impressed with Mr. Wehner's opinion piece on the state of the Media today an his observations.

Crimeny the guy isn't even smart enough to figure out who the hell the media even is.

Back to personal insults gain. Not sure why this always seems to happen when having a discussion with a liberal.

SLAP! That was the victim card thrown down with FEELING! Like a game of dominoes at sea.

Not sure were this whole victim card thing is about either. Much of the "soul searching" after Romney's defeat is in fact focused on how to deal with a hostile Media environment and still effectively get your message and positions out. It would be beyond "stupid" for the Republican party not to try to overcome this barrier if they ever really do want to hold sway in a national election.

This has nothing to do with being some sort of victim. It has everything to do with recognition of reality andthe barriers a Republican candidate is going to face and then developing an effective strategy to deal with it so that your message can actually be heard outside of a hostile Media narrative filter.

The Republican's can do big tent outreaches to minorites with a smaller Government message and a libertarian fiscal conservative philosphy all year long and be quite effective at it to boot. Ted Cruz just was elected Senator from Texas with a huge backing of those that support that message. However, the outreach efforts really does no good at all if the overall impression given and re-enforced constantly by a hostile Media filter is that your party is filled with nothing but "angry white guys" with the general public.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

My only question to you who has worked tirelessly to demonstrate the shocking media bias, is how the hell did they get a tinfoil hat on Donald Trump's head?

Not quite sure how, it sure seemed to also fit pretty well on his noggin when he was spouting his birther nonsense. I think the guy really only craves any publicity and attention he can generate for himself to try to keep himself somehow relevant in the public eye. Celebrity status can be so fleeting with a fickle public after all.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Back to personal insults gain. Not sure why this always seems to happen when having a discussion with a liberal.

You victim, you. My how you suffer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You victim, you. My how you suffer.

Your concern for my suffering is touching. I was really quite hurt after your comments on how I am not even smart enough to figure out who the hell the media even is. But to see you now have sympathy for my ignorant plight brings pure joy to this long time contributor to J.T's discussion board eyes.

Now if the Republicans could only figure out a way to get the Media ( I sure hope that means newspapers, network T.V newscasts, magazines and such ya know stuff like that) to parlay the same message that you've so kindly sent me, the message of "I care for your plight and have empathy for your suffering" they'd do a heck of a lot better in national elections.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Now if the Republicans could only figure out a way to get the Media"

You main in Denial for as long as you see fit - that's four years and counting - all I can say is what they really need to do is work on promoting candidates that aren't piss-poor like Mitt Romney, move towards cutting out the screaming radicals (a side to the party that you yourself refuse to even acknowledge) and do something about the angry old white man image the defies the changing demographics of the USA in the 21st century.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You may remain in Denial...

Sorry

0 ( +1 / -1 )

all I can say is what they really need to do is work on promoting candidates that aren't piss-poor like Mitt Romney

Agreed, Romney wasn't the best but he did prevail in the primaries. Obama's team was salivating at the chance to go after him if he was the nominee. Romney was way to easy to stereotype as your typical uncaring rich white guy country club Republican type and boy did they ever go with that . The party should have seen that coming a mile away but I believe the calculus was offset by the fact that he was pragmatic Governor of the bluest state in the union and the rank and file really believing actuall that the economy being as bad as it is that this would offset his pre-given negatives with the electorate. The maxim "It's the economy stupid" really didn't hold this election. It turned on which candidate was the most likeable and was perceived as caring the most for them. Obama won that messaging battle hands down.

move towards cutting out the screaming radicals (a side to the party that you yourself refuse to even acknowledge)

Screaming radicals are more of the domain of the far left Democrat side of the house. The Tea Party leaves a protest with no arrests, Occupy protests keep the police quite busy. Not to mention screaming Code pink types in walking vaginas demanding Abortions for all and taxpayers paying for it.

and do something about the angry old white man image the defies the changing demographics of the USA in the 21st century

Electing, Suzanna Martinez Governor of New Mexico, Governor Sandoval of Nevada, Senator Marc Rubio to the Senate and now this election cycle of Ted Cruz also to the Senate with "screaming radical tea party support" seems to be pretty darn pro-active in changing that image by actual deed and real results Madverts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You victim, you. My how you suffer

So you do smell it brewing. Smells as good as a thanksgiving meal.

What is so sad or scary, though, is how so many people are taken in by what the media says, which leads to actual deeds. It makes you wonder just how long those who would divert the average persons attention have been aiming to take that power, and for what cause. To me it doesnt seem like just the young caught up in the plights of those discriminated against-half the time the young are just bust getting educated, and ahead in life. No. To me it seems like a lot more of a determined front of purposely causing dissension, to take the power from countries like Americca. I mean most people know, whether they like AMerica or not besides, that AMerica has a lot of power the world over. SUrely must seem tempting to some. But keeping control, means making everyone align with your cause. Feeding off of empathy kinda thing.

Just like this comment I quoted from Hayden. It makes you think that one, in this case sailwind, is better off than we the reader are. And on the other hand it makes you think there is others out there who are pitifully suffering that deserve our empathy from the reader. Hayden, wanna try naming who you are referring to? I am pathetically tired of those who scream out that their country is poorer off than anywhere else, and then the next moment I meet somebody from that x country, and they seem to be doing it quite well, and they themselves dont give a damn about the poorer people in their x country. So maybe you wanna highlight who you are referring to when you say that. Suffer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Agreed, Romney wasn't the best but he did prevail in the primaries."

In light of the competition, let's be fair here, it was hardly an achievement

"Romney was way to easy to stereotype as your typical uncaring rich white guy country club Republican type and boy did they ever go with that."

That's because he is the typical uncaring rich white guy country club Republican type. One that couldn't even come clean about how little tax he paid, and presumably, how he got even richer milking the financial meltdown as many Americans got kicked out on the street.

Seriously, you were expecting the media or team Obama not to run with this?

"The party should have seen that coming a mile away"

I think they did. Many of us were posting over a year ago the Republicans had resigned themselves to two terms of Obama, and since they had a relentless candidate that simply wouldn't go away in the from of Romney, they let him hang himself and got rid of him in the process. It seems like a smart move on the part of the party, if that's what really happened.

"The Tea Party leaves a protest with no arrests, Occupy protests keep the police quite busy."

Have any "Occupy" members been elected as officials?

The Tea Party are what are keeping you Republicans out there in the wilderness. Really, I don't understand why you don't accept this. Couple that with blaming the media for a bias only you can see isn't helping your symptoms. The party has been hijacked by radicals, and it's refusal to modernize and adapt to changing demographics reminds me of how backwards the French are with the internet, simply because they had their own invention called Minitel. Check it out, they only turned the service a few months ago.....

Refusal to move with the times is the reason you're an angry minority. And like I said, even the Republicans in the article agree with me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Here Sail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

Imagine that the Democrats are the internet and the Republicans are Minitel.

The inevitable is that at some point, you simply have to get with the times and let the past become extinct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The party has been hijacked by radicals

Or realists-you know the ones who refuse to get caught into every whiff of a brand name that jumps up. But I hear you on the media hype thing too. Obama is a sitting duck that's for sure. Agreed, something brewing, and move with the times. imo

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Or realists-you know the ones who refuse to get caught into every whiff of a brand name that jumps up."

You mean people who think the world is 6000 years old and a prepared to create situations like the fiscal cliff to get their own way?.

Yes.

Radicals.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Madverts,

Have any "Occupy" members been elected as officials?

No, Tea party members have though, as a matter of fact Tea Party members were elected in droves across the nation in the 2010 mid-terms.

The Tea Party are what are keeping you Republicans out there in the wilderness.

Doesn't square with reality. The Republicans were in the wilderness prior to 2010 mid-term elections. They were soundly defeated in 2006 by the Democrats, shellacked even worse in 2008 with Obama elections and even had James Carville crowing and writing a book and forecasting 40 years in the wilderness for the GOP.

Two years later 2010, the Democrats lost more seats than any party in over 65 years, The Tea party movement was able to bring back the Republican party to relevance Madverts.

Couple that with blaming the media for a bias only you can see isn't helping your symptoms

Yes of course only the bias only I can see (along with over 60 percent of my fellow countryman).

Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I wonder why Sushisake and others have such hatred of the Bible and Christian beliefs and morlals, which believe it or not, are the bedrock upon which the USA and the Republican Party were founded? There are those in the GOP who do not support homosexual "marriage" but do uphold rights for homosexuals. Are they to be condemned and villified for that? The fact is that a majority of thr American people also hold those same views. The same with abortion. The thing that amazes me about Liberals is their utter intolerance and mean spiritedness towards those who hold different views.

Regarding the recent election, when you have a mass media almost exclusively on the side of Obama, it is extremely hard to win. Im also concerned about reports I have read about people boasting about the number of times they invidiually voted for Obama. I smell a rat.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Here Sail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

Imagine that the Democrats are the internet and the Republicans are Minitel.

Madverts,

I looked into your comparison and your analogy with this.

Apart from ease of use, two other factors ensured Minitel's success. First was that it was distributed free of charge by the then state-owned France Telecom (or its predecessor the PTT).

This meant that even the poorest of households contained a set, subsidised by the taxpayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18610692

No offense but you may what to reconsider it. It looks to me as more like a typical big government taxpayer subsidized freebie failure. The exact opposite of your basic Republican free market limited Government outlook. This looks like the very model and prime example of your American Democrat party big government solution that typically end up costing way to much, become a drain on the public purse, can't compete with the private marketplace and end up as total failures in the long run.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"No, Tea party members have though, as a matter of fact Tea Party members were elected in droves across the nation in the 2010 mid-terms."

Yes, we've already been through the reasons as to "why" this brain-fart occurred, you just failed to listen.

Voters however, clearly did listen. The tea party radicals cost Republicans what were near sure-thing Senate seats in Missouri and Indiana by nominating two candidates from your Tea Party Taliban and their disgusting views towards women, and at the House level, tea party hero Joe Walsh lost badly, as did Allen West.

These radicals are the reason you're party is once again irrelevant on the sidelines and the party is fighting its' own internal war. You don't have to believe me, the facts are pretty obvious to most people that still have their oral and visual functions following US politics.

"Yes of course only the bias only I can see (along with over 60 percent of my fellow countryman)."

The poll you submit demonstrates that people polled don't trust the media, not that it is skewed in favour of Democrats or President Obama. BIG difference there my friend.

What you've actually done here is taken a poll associated with the subject, and then proceeded to mould it to your fantasy that the media is in the tank for Obama. Earlier this year Fox "News" Channel celebrated 10 years as country’s most-watched cable news network, dear God man is there any wonder Americans don't trust the media when such partisan poop and often outright lies is spewed 24/7?

Seriously, you don't need to further convince me that you've saddled up and ridden off into the sunset for tinfoil hat territory on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, I was about to complain you failed to check out my Minitel analogy.

"This looks like the very model and prime example of your American Democrat party big government solution that typically end up costing way to much, become a drain on the public purse, can't compete with the private marketplace and end up as total failures in the long run."

My analogy actually pertained to an obsession of clinging to one idea (or better ideology) because it was your own, despite when events and progress in Reality meant another, far superior idea had long superseded your relevance.

Full marks for the way you perceived it. The monopolies such as France Telecom and the government continue to impede fair capitalism and growth in France, and the limp wrist media never challenge a thing, but that has absolutely no baring in reality with the topic has it?

And despite you wanting it to be so, it is also a far cry from how the Democrats in the US do business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and by full marks I meant that. Heh :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama needs to get with the program and start reducing the national debt. Unfortunately he is incapable of this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A loyal Bush supporter worried about the national debt?

Sorry buddy, you might as well be Lance Armstrong worrying about doping in the 2013 Tour de Fyance.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The poll you submit demonstrates that people polled don't trust the media, not that it is skewed in favour of Democrats or President Obama. BIG difference there my friend.

The Gallup 2012 poll didn't show the skew, happy to report that the Gallup 2011 poll on the same subject did show it the skew quite nicely (as I saddle up and ride with my tin-foil hat into sunset).

The majority of Americans still do not have confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 44% of Americans who have a great deal or fair amount of trust and the 55% who have little or no trust remain among the most negative views Gallup has measured.

The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/majority-continue-distrust-media-perceive-bias.aspx

Actually Madverts,

About FOX news, anybody with an I.Q above room temperature knows FOX has a right slant bias. It's no secret and the network is a success as it is the only outlet that serves really serves as a counter balance to the prevailing left wing MSM in the U.S.

It in effect serves as the other side of the story in the classic "there are two sides to every story" statement. If there was feeling in the electorate that the Media wasn't skewed toward one party (Democrats) FOX wouldn't have been able to exist in the Media market in the first place.

I'm pretty grateful for FOX and for the function that it does. I really do not want to be subjected to a weakened democracy with one party rule and a de-facto Media that continues to devolve into nothing more but a mouthpiece for Democrat talking points and passing it out as unbiased news reporting. Liberals, of course hate the FOX news network, and generally just resort to what liberals always seem to do hurl insults along the lines that the viewers of FOX are nothing more than knuckle dragging neanderthals. Never understand that need to insult anyone who disagrees with them from the the left side of the house, but it is what it is.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Madverts,

I hope your still following this thread. As events move along and different topics take sway over the discussion board and other topics take to fore, I wanted to pass this on to you.

I enjoyed having this very spirited discussion with you. It was a pleasure and anytime that I learn something new from the discussion such as your example of Minitel and the actual history behind it, I consider that to be a great bonus and one of the prime reasons I enjoy participating here on the J.T discussion boards.

Have to be honest although I appreciated the valiant effort brought forth in trying to change or soften my viewpoint but just a no go at all in changing my view that the overall Media (with the exception of FOX of course) in the U.S is still deep in the tank for Obama and the Democrats though ;).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well thank-you. See you next time ....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or realists-you know the ones who refuse to get caught into every whiff of a brand name that jumps up.

You mean like the realists I met in Kentucky who scheduled a tea party protest at the local armory because they didn't have to pay to book the space. It's paid for by local taxes. That's where they held their anti-tax message. At the armory. Because it was free. When I tried to point this out to a few people there, I was labeled a traitor and oddly enough, faggot.

THOSE realists? Are those the realists you are talking about because they are so detached from reality they'll believe anything told to them by an angry old white man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites