Watching Fox News Network

[Fellowship]

How funny it is to watch these people on Fox interview people like Tom Delay of all people and he looked and sounded like the fool he is.

It is as if you can see it on their faces, The folks that host Fox & Friends show a look of ( crap we are on the wrong side of this ) defeated look on their faces and in their voices.

I am sure Limbaugh and Hannity will put more BS spin on this whole thing.

They just don't get it.

The American people have a larger resolve than the ego of the republicans who fail to adjust their policies.

Fellowship

edit: by the way Fox is not my network of choice.... I just thought today would be a fun day to tune in and see the looks on their faces.

[SDW2001]

How funny it is to watch these people on Fox interview people like Tom Delay of all people and he looked and sounded like the fool he is.

It is as if you can see it on their faces, The folks that host Fox & Friends show a look of ( crap we are on the wrong side of this ) defeated look on their faces and in their voices.

I am sure Limbaugh and Hannity will put more BS spin on this whole thing.

They just don't get it.

The American people have a larger resolve than the ego of the republicans who fail to adjust their policies.

Fellowship

edit: by the way Fox is not my network of choice.... I just thought today would be a fun day to tune in and see the looks on their faces.

Gloat it up.

[Fellowship]

Gloat it up.

I am not much of a democrat to be honest.

I am just damned glad we no longer have a rubber stamp congress.

You see the former congress and president are bankrupting this country while halliburten and oil companies have record profits.

Something needs adjusting and you saw the process unfold on election day.

With regard to Fox... I am just sick of their slant with no balance.

Today we see how out of whack it really is for that network.

I do EXPECT the democrats and the republicans to turn this country around. The country and the world is watching.

Fellowship

[Aquatic]

I don't think it would be a good thing to have EITHER party control ALL THREE branches of government. Seriously.

[jimmac]

Gloat it up.


Why not?

You would.

[Bergermeister]

Gloat it up.

With pleasure.

Have a nice day!


---

True: either party in control of all three seats is a bad idea as there would be no way of balancing the scales.

[talksense101]

Now GWB and his cronies in the media need to figure out a way to shift the blame for all the problems onto the democrat controlled house and maybe senate. Should be easy to do as the financial hell hole the US is in along with the KGB mindset of the homeland defense will take time to fix. Besides, GWB has made sure all of the key posts in the country are held by his Yes men.

The democrats need to do some serious work and follow it through if they are to make any difference. The 2008 elections will be a Republican win otherwise.

[Gilsch]

With pleasure.

Have a nice day!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D


Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh (http://blogs.sun.com/ThinGuy/resource/howarddeanscreamaudio141jqd.mp3)

edit: "the scream"

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I don't understand. According to CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.main/index.html it's 49 / 50 / 0 for the Senate, Rep / Dem / independent.

But according to Fox http://www.foxnews.com/ it's 49 / 48 / 2.

Someone explain.

[thuh Freak]

I don't understand. According to CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.main/index.html it's 49 / 50 / 0 for the Senate, Rep / Dem / independent.

But according to Fox http://www.foxnews.com/ it's 49 / 48 / 2.

Someone explain.

Two senators who won as non-Democrats (as Independents) will caucus with the Democrats. It is believed that the two Indy's will vote along with the Dems on most issues.

[shetline]

I don't understand. According to CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.main/index.html it's 49 / 50 / 0 for the Senate, Rep / Dem / independent.

But according to Fox http://www.foxnews.com/ it's 49 / 48 / 2.

Someone explain.
There will be two independents, but both will be caucusing with the Democrats. It looks like CNN simply lumped the Independents in with the Dems, which makes it kind of pointless to leave the separate Independent column there.

[Bergermeister]

Fox is just being truly representative of the part allegience so that at least on paper it doesn't look so bad for the Repuglicans.

[SpcMs]

They are just pathetic, aren't they. On the occasion of Rummy's departure they wrote:

"Shortly afterward, the United States invaded Afghanistan, liberating 25 million people. Coalition forces entered Iraq in March 2003, which resulted in the downfall of Saddam Hussein but caused internecine fighting that critics say has led to a civil war with American soldiers in the middle of it."

Of course,
* it was not the US that invaded Afghanistan and liberated 25 million people, it was an international coalition with UN backing
* it were not 'coalition' forces that 'entered' Iraq. It was the 'US' that 'invaded' Iraq. And it's not 'critics' who warn of civil war, it's the US military.

Oh well, back to celebrating :smokey:

[SDW2001]

They are just pathetic, aren't they. On the occasion of Rummy's departure they wrote:

"Shortly afterward, the United States invaded Afghanistan, liberating 25 million people. Coalition forces entered Iraq in March 2003, which resulted in the downfall of Saddam Hussein but caused internecine fighting that critics say has led to a civil war with American soldiers in the middle of it."

Of course,
* it was not the US that invaded Afghanistan and liberated 25 million people, it was an international coalition with UN backing
* it were not 'coalition' forces that 'entered' Iraq. It was the 'US' that 'invaded' Iraq. And it's not 'critics' who warn of civil war, it's the US military.

Oh well, back to celebrating :smokey:


They're pathetic? Well, I think it's pathetic that you can start an entire thread on ONE conservative network, whilst ignoring the few DOZEN liberal networks and hundreds of liberal newspapers.

[Splinemodel]

I am not much of a democrat to be honest.

I am just damned glad we no longer have a rubber stamp congress.

Congress hasn't been very rubber stamp, which is why Savage seems to think that Bush "intentionally sabotaged" some of the key republican candidates by speaking at their campaign rallies. Now he can get his way on a handful of non-Iraq issues, such as the handling of illegal immigrants, which the republican congress has not been very supportive of.

For the record, I find Savage to be the Howard Stern of political talk: you listen, but you're not sure why.

Secondly, you seem to be very much a democrat, at least from what I can glean off your posts. Not a Pelosian psycho-dem, but certainly a dem.

[Fellowship]

Secondly, you seem to be very much a democrat, at least from what I can glean off your posts. Not a Pelosian psycho-dem, but certainly a dem.


I am sort of a democrat and sort of a republican in ways (depending on what decade of rule we are talking about)

Why? Because I am a moderate. who just happens not to be tied to any party.

I believe that the candidate who can learn to support moderate causes not far left or far right will be received well with the voters of this country.

Just my opinion

Fellows

[e1618978]

[deleted]

[SDW2001]

Congress hasn't been very rubber stamp, which is why Savage seems to think that Bush "intentionally sabotaged" some of the key republican candidates by speaking at their campaign rallies. Now he can get his way on a handful of non-Iraq issues, such as the handling of illegal immigrants, which the republican congress has not been very supportive of.

For the record, I find Savage to be the Howard Stern of political talk: you listen, but you're not sure why.

Secondly, you seem to be very much a democrat, at least from what I can glean off your posts. Not a Pelosian psycho-dem, but certainly a dem.

That's true...they haven't stamped anything in at least two years. Not social security or immigration or the ports deal or, well, anything. I don't think Bush sabotaged anyone. The irony is that I think he might get more done now. He's no conservative.

[pfflam]

The dems were allowed to win, Rove and gang merely didn't use the Diebold machines as they have in the past and will agin in the near future.

With the Dems in power in congress, Bush/Rove/next-NeoCon presidental figurehead of choice can now get the Americans to leave Iraq and risk no disfavor from his base: they will always be able tto blame the Democrats for doing what they know they need to do. At least that way they can say as much to their base, while on the other hand they can say 'see, we listen too'

They are only covering their bases, they want to have someone to blame - and with a Demoratic COngress they can pretend that The Dems are to blame.

I don't think I say 'mark my words' on these boards too often ( I said it before Bush's 1st election saying that we would be in a dark dank spiritless depressed miasma by the time he was 3 years into term . . . and I was right!) but I am saying it now. This is a darkly Machievellian twist by the Rove industry which has controlled elections since Bushes first 'win'

Don't be too happy about this.

The only thing that can assure that I am wrong is to work to change voting procedures quickly< make voting easy and recountable before the real important election that this phantasmic trump was given allowance for the one that this one was meant to viel.

[jimmac]

The dems were allowed to win, Rove and gang merely didn't use the Diebold machines as they have in the past and will agin in the near future.

With the Dems in power in congress, Bush/Rove/next-NeoCon presidental figurehead of choice can now get the Americans to leave Iraq and risk no disfavor from his base: they will always be able tto blame the Democrats for doing what they know they need to do. At least that way they can say as much to their base, while on the other hand they can say 'see, we listen too'

They are only covering their bases, they want to have someone to blame - and with a Demoratic COngress they can pretend that The Dems are to blame.

I don't think I say 'mark my words' on these boards too often ( I said it before Bush's 1st election saying that we would be in a dark dank spiritless depressed miasma by the time he was 3 years into term . . . and I was right!) but I am saying it now. This is a darkly Machievellian twist by the Rove industry which has controlled elections since Bushes first 'win'

Don't be too happy about this.

The only thing that can assure that I am wrong is to work to change voting procedures quickly< make voting easy and recountable before the real important election that this phantasmic trump was given allowance for the one that this one was meant to viel.

I'm sorry but I don't think so. I think the republicans are geniunely in trouble. I think their past has finally caught up with them. If you believe that they manipulate elections and didn't this time it's because they dare not. Drawing attention to their misdeeds is not what they want to do now. I think in certain offices the shredders are going 24 hours a day. The reason is that we now have the power to get at the truth with congress and the senate on our side. I also think this will extend to the next election And whoever wins it won't be a republican.

[SDW2001]

The dems were allowed to win, Rove and gang merely didn't use the Diebold machines as they have in the past and will agin in the near future.

With the Dems in power in congress, Bush/Rove/next-NeoCon presidental figurehead of choice can now get the Americans to leave Iraq and risk no disfavor from his base: they will always be able tto blame the Democrats for doing what they know they need to do. At least that way they can say as much to their base, while on the other hand they can say 'see, we listen too'

They are only covering their bases, they want to have someone to blame - and with a Demoratic COngress they can pretend that The Dems are to blame.

I don't think I say 'mark my words' on these boards too often ( I said it before Bush's 1st election saying that we would be in a dark dank spiritless depressed miasma by the time he was 3 years into term . . . and I was right!) but I am saying it now. This is a darkly Machievellian twist by the Rove industry which has controlled elections since Bushes first 'win'

Don't be too happy about this.

The only thing that can assure that I am wrong is to work to change voting procedures quickly< make voting easy and recountable before the real important election that this phantasmic trump was given allowance for the one that this one was meant to viel.


Pardon me, but are you serious? This is the very definition of left wing kookery. They allowed[i/] the Dems to win so that they could win in the future? They [i]allowed the party that had previously said in quite public fashion that they wanted to impeach Bush? They held some kind of advatange with the Diebold machines...an advantage they didn't utilize?

Respectufully, please think about what you're saying....maybe read it back to yourself and then tell me it's reasonable and that you actually believe. It's rampant, wild speculation. Beyond that, it's just plain silly.

[SDW2001]

I'm sorry but I don't think so. I think the republicans are geniunely in trouble. I think their past has finally caught up with them. If you believe that they manipulate elections and didn't this time it's because they dare not. Drawing attention to their misdeeds is not what they want to do now. I think in certain offices the shredders are going 24 hours a day. The reason is that we now have the power to get at the truth with congress and the senate on our side. I also think this will extend to the next election And whoever wins it won't be a republican.

Well, I agree with part of that. The were in trouble because of, again:

Iraq
Corruption
Lack of action on immigration
Spending
Blue dog dems

The question is: "What do they do now?" Some have likened this loss to where the party was after Reagan lost to Ford in 1976. There was tremendous pressure from both the right (especially the fiscal right) and from the moderate "RINOS" to pull the party one way or another.

Some of it, I think will depend on the Dems. If the Dems continue to report to their left wing powerbase, as they do now, the Republicans will likely go more to the center and the landscape will change a bit. However, if there is resurgence of blue dogs and conservative dems..in other words "old dems" (some call them new dems, but I'm talking about Truman/Kennedy/Scoop Jackson/Zel Miller/Joe Libermann dems), then the Republicans will likely have to go right, at least fiscally.

I think to say they're in trouble for a long time is not a well thought out prediction. The dem victory was somewhat....pardon the term.."artificial" as it was more about Republican failures then it was a dem vision for the future. It was the voters demanding an alternative to the Republican policies and scandals that were happening. It was dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, and Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney personally.

I'll reiterate, this was not a "blue wave" or a liberal revolution that will likey last for years to come. I think that if dems start to believe that and start to govern with truly liberal policies, they'll be gone faster than "Nick and Jessica" went off TV. I already see many here pretending that this is what happened. That kind of delusion s highly dangerous to your party (I'm not saying you believe it, I'm sort of "warning" others that do).

I've been waiting for a long time to see the dems turn around, believe it or not. I think they may have...but the next step for them to become a permanent majority is to truly govern with moderate social policies and with conservative fiscal policies. I'm not sure they can do that, but we'll see. A lot of the leadership has certain beliefs, whether they tell you about them or not. They believe in higher taxation...they think it brings in more revenue. They think that tax cuts have to be "paid for", I notion I firmly disagree with. They want out of Iraq...now. They feel we should put more money into "defensive" measures in the WOT and less into "offensive" measures such as military action. They want to stick it to the "rich" (whatever that means) and help the lower- middle and possibly middle-middle class.

In other words, we'll have to see what they do. It's definitely not a good time to be predicting decades long problems for Republicans though. I still think that the Republicans are very likely to take the White House based ont he candidates themseleves and the political landscape of the country.

[jimmac]

Well, I agree with part of that. The were in trouble because of, again:

Iraq
Corruption
Lack of action on immigration
Spending
Blue dog dems

The question is: "What do they do now?" Some have likened this loss to where the party was after Reagan lost to Ford in 1976. There was tremendous pressure from both the right (especially the fiscal right) and from the moderate "RINOS" to pull the party one way or another.

Some of it, I think will depend on the Dems. If the Dems continue to report to their left wing powerbase, as they do now, the Republicans will likely go more to the center and the landscape will change a bit. However, if there is resurgence of blue dogs and conservative dems..in other words "old dems" (some call them new dems, but I'm talking about Truman/Kennedy/Scoop Jackson/Zel Miller/Joe Libermann dems), then the Republicans will likely have to go right, at least fiscally.

I think to say they're in trouble for a long time is not a well thought out prediction. The dem victory was somewhat....pardon the term.."artificial" as it was more about Republican failures then it was a dem vision for the future. It was the voters demanding an alternative to the Republican policies and scandals that were happening. It was dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, and Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney personally.

I'll reiterate, this was not a "blue wave" or a liberal revolution that will likey last for years to come. I think that if dems start to believe that and start to govern with truly liberal policies, they'll be gone faster than "Nick and Jessica" went off TV. I already see many here pretending that this is what happened. That kind of delusion s highly dangerous to your party (I'm not saying you believe it, I'm sort of "warning" others that do).

I've been waiting for a long time to see the dems turn around, believe it or not. I think they may have...but the next step for them to become a permanent majority is to truly govern with moderate social policies and with conservative fiscal policies. I'm not sure they can do that, but we'll see. A lot of the leadership has certain beliefs, whether they tell you about them or not. They believe in higher taxation...they think it brings in more revenue. They think that tax cuts have to be "paid for", I notion I firmly disagree with. They want out of Iraq...now. They feel we should put more money into "defensive" measures in the WOT and less into "offensive" measures such as military action. They want to stick it to the "rich" (whatever that means) and help the lower- middle and possibly middle-middle class.

In other words, we'll have to see what they do. It's definitely not a good time to be predicting decades long problems for Republicans though. I still think that the Republicans are very likely to take the White House based ont he candidates themseleves and the political landscape of the country.

Well I think things are changing in a very big way. I think the republicans will be in disfavor for at least years to come. Remember we have a new voting generation coming in and they're more inclined to be liberal according polling data. Also they're more likely to vote. As for the whitehouse I think it as always must follow the cycle through to it's completion.

[SDW2001]

Well I think things are changing in a very big way. I think the republicans will be in disfavor for at least years to come. Remember we have a new voting generation coming in and they're more inclined to be liberal according polling data. Also they're more likely to vote. As for the whitehouse I think it as always must follow the cycle through to it's completion.

1. Unsupported

2. Link? I haven't seen that data at all.

3. Voting: Not true. Turnout for young voters is miserable.

4. Agreed, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

[e1618978]

Is this the end of the republican party? I don't think that they can repeat the 1994 revolution, because nobody will believe them. None of the items on the "Contract with America" were achieved, even though the party had 12 years in power (half of which they had both houses of congress and the president).

Nobody will believe them if they go to the right and rediscover limited government and accountability - last time they got elected on that type of platform they became even more bloated and corrupt than the democrats ever were. Maybe they will split into two parties, libertarians and social/religious conservatives.

[SDW2001]

Is this the end of the republican party? I don't think that they can repeat the 1994 revolution, because nobody will believe them. None of the items on the "Contract with America" were achieved, even though the party had 12 years in power (half of which they had both houses of congress and the president).

Nobody will believe them if they go to the right and rediscover limited government and accountability - last time they got elected on that type of platform they became even more bloated and corrupt than the democrats ever were. Maybe they will split into two parties, libertarians and social/religious conservatives.

Could be, though they did begin to push the Contract through. They got welfare reform through and balanced the budget, for example. I don't know that people will or won't believe them. That remains to be seen. There will be plenty of Republicans that say "we've lost our roots and I'm here to get back to them."

[e1618978]

Could be, though they did begin to push the Contract through. They got welfare reform through and balanced the budget, for example. I don't know that people will or won't believe them. That remains to be seen. There will be plenty of Republicans that say "we've lost our roots and I'm here to get back to them."

I think that will only work with new blood. No way will people believe that from the old crew, and only some of the old ones got kicked out - Ted "Alaska bridge to nowhere" Stephens is still there, for example. If the Republican party gets back in, it will be the old pork barrel bastards who have the seniority to get the chairmanships.

If they want people to believe them, the small government conservatives will have to form their own new party.

[Bergermeister]

What is the definition of appalling?

It is rising according to this:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75954

And for, SDW, who demands links from everyone but offers few of his own:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/09/young-voter-turnout-highe_n_33709.html

THis says the youth vote is way up this year and in favor of ... oooo... let's see... Democrats.

SDW: before you question someone's statement, why don't you find some links to the contrary? Otherwise, you look hollow. Also, before you go dismissing the source, notice that the original report is by Reuters.

[SDW2001]

I think that will only work with new blood. No way will people believe that from the old crew, and only some of the old ones got kicked out - Ted "Alaska bridge to nowhere" Stephens is still there, for example. If the Republican party gets back in, it will be the old pork barrel bastards who have the seniority to get the chairmanships.

If they want people to believe them, the small government conservatives will have to form their own new party.

Hopefully not. I've often wondered if American politics would get to the point where I am a "Reagan moment", where the Dems represent my positions better than the Republicans. We're nowhere near that now, but who knows...maybe in 20 years.

[SDW2001]

What is the definition of appalling?

It is rising according to this:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75954

Appalling as in it's still low? I agree.

[jimmac]

1. Unsupported

2. Link? I haven't seen that data at all.

3. Voting: Not true. Turnout for young voters is miserable.

4. Agreed, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.


I posted this data for you just before the election on another thread. Please don't ask me to look up things for you again and again.

Now it's your turn show me the data that says turnout for young voters was " miserable ".

Because the data I posted for you shows the opposite is true now.

[jimmac]

Hopefully not. I've often wondered if American politics would get to the point where I am a "Reagan moment", where the Dems represent my positions better than the Republicans. We're nowhere near that now, but who knows...maybe in 20 years.


SDW things are changing! Whether you agknowlege it or not doesn't matter. Then things will change without you.

[Splinemodel]

Well I think things are changing in a very big way. I think the republicans will be in disfavor for at least years to come. Remember we have a new voting generation coming in and they're more inclined to be liberal according polling data. Also they're more likely to vote. As for the whitehouse I think it as always must follow the cycle through to it's completion.

I'm not so sure. Down here in the South -- not even the authentic south -- most of the youth seems quite non-liberal in all respects. Florida and Texas are big states, too. Up in the North (from my experience, since I'm from DC) the youth is certainly socially liberal, as are most people, but a good, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative candidate would probably do quite well in both North and South. The trouble is that the two-party system makes it a little hard for such candidates to rise into prominence outside of a large state with a heavily varied voter base (California).

[pfflam]

Pardon me, but are you serious? T
Not really

But it was a fun thought.

I will say that it is possible that the Dems stand more to lose from this win then they imagine: namely the fact that now Bush can blame away all his ills acrued in the next two years (and I'm sure there will be plenty). One thing that always rallies the Right is a common enemy and an easy goat . . . the right-wing mind set loves to define itself in opposition, its part of the what makes the Right what it is.

Meaning that most right-leaning political ideaologies tend to view the world as a series of power-plays where all positions are ultimately subordinate to the need to survive and triumph through 'victory'. For the Right, what makes something right is that it wins. True Right political thought (as opposed to moral conservatives) sees the universe as struggle wherein the test of worth is that it should win.

Hence the irony that so many so-called Christians find themselves engulfed by a larger Political ideology which is willing to use the Christians' morality as just another tool in its arsenal.

The other ironic thing to note: it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the Political-Right thinks this way: they create the environment of viscious struggle that justifies their world-view of viscious struggle.

And if the world is struggle it is best to have an enemy that can be discerned clearly and against which one's own usually abstract self can be defines as a fixed quantity.

[SDW2001]

I think that will only work with new blood. No way will people believe that from the old crew, and only some of the old ones got kicked out - Ted "Alaska bridge to nowhere" Stephens is still there, for example. If the Republican party gets back in, it will be the old pork barrel bastards who have the seniority to get the chairmanships.

If they want people to believe them, the small government conservatives will have to form their own new party.

You could be right. You may very well be right.

[SDW2001]

jimmac,

I don't recall that data on the liberal tendencies of today's youth. If it's so easy to find, why don't you just post it instead of dodging? You also dodged my other points, the ones that were responses to your claims of:

1. Republicans being in trouble for years to come.
2. Young voters being more liekly to vote (ALL data I have seen shows the 18-25 demo is LEAST likely to vote).

[SDW2001]

Not really

But it was a fun thought.

I will say that it is possible that the Dems stand more to lose from this win then they imagine: namely the fact that now Bush can blame away all his ills acrued in the next two years (and I'm sure there will be plenty). One thing that always rallies the Right is a common enemy and an easy goat . . . the right-wing mind set loves to define itself in opposition, its part of the what makes the Right what it is.

Meaning that most right-leaning political ideaologies tend to view the world as a series of power-plays where all positions are ultimately subordinate to the need to survive and triumph through 'victory'. For the Right, what makes something right is that it wins. True Right political thought (as opposed to moral conservatives) sees the universe as struggle wherein the test of worth is that it should win.

Hence the irony that so many so-called Christians find themselves engulfed by a larger Political ideology which is willing to use the Christians' morality as just another tool in its arsenal.

The other ironic thing to note: it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the Political-Right thinks this way: they create the environment of viscious struggle that justifies their world-view of viscious struggle.

And if the world is struggle it is best to have an enemy that can be discerned clearly and against which one's own usually abstract self can be defines as a fixed quantity.

Uh...LOL...pardon me again, but ARE YOU SERIOUS? ;)

[pfflam]

You seem to missunderstand my response to your innitial 'are you serious': no I wasn't

then there are simple musings about the nature of Right-political thought, of which I am very serious. if you disagree about the characterization then do tell why and how. You yourself seem to be catagorizable as a fiscal/moral conservative and not so much a political rightist, though you eat their shiit for dinner and don't know it.

[SDW2001]

You seem to missunderstand my response to your innitial 'are you serious': no I wasn't

then there are simple musings about the nature of Right-political thought, of which I am very serious. if you disagree about the characterization then do tell why and how. You yourself seem to be catagorizable as a fiscal/moral conservative and not so much a political rightist, though you eat their shiit for dinner and don't know it.

hahaha. I would say I'm a right leaning centrist with regard to moral /social issues and very strict fiscal conservative. I knwo you weren't serious. I was just having some fun! :)

[jimmac]

jimmac,

I don't recall that data on the liberal tendencies of today's youth. If it's so easy to find, why don't you just post it instead of dodging? You also dodged my other points, the ones that were responses to your claims of:

1. Republicans being in trouble for years to come.
2. Young voters being more liekly to vote (ALL data I have seen shows the 18-25 demo is LEAST likely to vote).


I did post the reference for you awhile ago. Just before the election. However if you're so busy saying stuff that you can't listen to the other side of a dialog it's not my affair. I don't link things for you twice!:mad:

Ps. It was from CNN I believe if you want to go to the trouble of looking it up.

[SDW2001]

I did post the reference for you awhile ago. Just before the election. However if you're so busy saying stuff that you can't listen to the other side of a dialog it's not my affair. I don't link things for you twice!:mad:

Ps. It was from CNN I believe if you want to go to the trouble of looking it up.

jimmac,

I am listening. You have my full attention. I am merely asking you to back up what you say. I don't recall you posting it and I'm not trying to frustrate you by asking for it over and over. I am claiming your claims are patently false, and your response is that you don't want to expend the energy and that you've already proven your point? Come on. I am literally calling you a liar here. ;) No really, I'm just saying you're completely wrong....the truth is 100% the opposite of what you posted regarding youth turnout.

[SDW2001]

How bout a little generosity or graciousness here?

He's asking for the link in good faith and you're in a better position to post it since you apparently know where it is having used it in the past.

Exactly. I'm not trying to be a troll about it. I really haven't seen the data. The data I have seem says that "da yuts" ;) vote more infrequently than the oldies, like jimmac. :D

[jimmac]

How bout a little generosity or graciousness here?

He's asking for the link in good faith and you're in a better position to post it since you apparently know where it is having used it in the past.

Shawn,

It's because he always asks this. It's part of the whole " I just don't understand or remember " ploy.

[SDW2001]

Shawn,

It's because he always asks this. It's part of the whole " I just don't understand or remember " ploy.

Jesus. It's not a ploy. I don't use ploys as they are a waste of time.
You just know you made an assertion you cannot back up. At least, that is all I can assume with your repeated refusal to back up your extraordinary claims.

[jimmac]

How bout a little generosity or graciousness here?

He's asking for the link in good faith and you're in a better position to post it since you apparently know where it is having used it in the past.

Shawn I've tried to search for the one link in the endless exchages I've had with SDW prior to the election. It could have been one of the links that has expired. However I haven't found it. Besides a quick search shows dozens of articles that say the opposite. Young people are more likely to be conservative and not vote. So I'm willing to concede this one point to SDW. Besides I have a very busy life now and can't devote endless amounts of time to sifting through all the exchanges I've had with him. I swear to god that is what the article said however. The other thing is that SDW has never accepted any data I've submitted for him so what difference would it have made?

[MacRR]

Statistics on demographics of who voted:
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/2ndtable/t6a_2_2.htm

Statistics on demographics of who did not vote:
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/2ndtable/t6a_2_1.htm

Enjoy :)

[ronaldo]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-11-14/48062.html

Maybe 50 % Democrat.

[SDW2001]

Shawn I've tried to search for the one link in the endless exchages I've had with SDW prior to the election. It could have been one of the links that has expired. However I haven't found it. Besides a quick search shows dozens of articles that say the opposite. Young people are more likely to be conservative and not vote. So I'm willing to concede this one point to SDW. Besides I have a very busy life now and can't devote endless amounts of time to sifting through all the exchanges I've had with him. I swear to god that is what the article said however. The other thing is that SDW has never accepted any data I've submitted for him so what difference would it have made?

Uh, I might accept it if you <b>ever offered</b> data. You almost never do. Generally you say you will, and then you'll post commentary links or links to opinion pieces. When you do post data, it's cherry picked and INCLUDES commentary in the article or is under a headline that...surprise...just happens to match with what you're saying verbatim. Most of what you post is interpretive and subjective. On the rare ocassion that you do post hard and reliable data, you follow it up with some ridiculous and meaningless rhetorical comment like "Uh Oh SDW! Things aren't looking good!"

Thanks for conceding the point though. That is all I was asking.

[Gilsch]

Maybe 50 % Democrat. Maybe 30% Rep, the rest Independent. I saw some statistics somewhere else with a nice breakdown and the numbers looked similar. Interesting numbers.

[jimmac]

Uh, I might accept it if you <b>ever offered</b> data. You almost never do. Generally you say you will, and then you'll post commentary links or links to opinion pieces. When you do post data, it's cherry picked and INCLUDES commentary in the article or is under a headline that...surprise...just happens to match with what you're saying verbatim. Most of what you post is interpretive and subjective. On the rare ocassion that you do post hard and reliable data, you follow it up with some ridiculous and meaningless rhetorical comment like "Uh Oh SDW! Things aren't looking good!"

Thanks for conceding the point though. That is all I was asking.


You know you didn't have to be a jerk about this. I've offered you tons of data and do you know what you usually say? You don't like the source ( even if it's a nationally known website like CNN ). Or you'll simply say " I disagree with that " even though there it is in black and white.

It is most of your posts that are interpretive and subjective. Always colored by your polarized viewpoint and Bush colored glasses ( and ego ). You've made yourself clear SDW. The democrats won and it sticks in your craw like a rock! You've done your best to insult them and discount before they even started while trying to appear neutral. Yes SDW we already know what you're about.

[SDW2001]

You know you didn't have to be a jerk about this. I've offered you tons of data and do you know what you usually say? You don't like the source ( even if it's a nationally known website like CNN ). Or you'll simply say " I disagree with that " even though there it is in black and white.

It is most of your posts that are interpretive and subjective. Always colored by your polarized viewpoint and Bush colored glasses ( and ego ). You've made yourself clear SDW. The democrats won and it sticks in your craw like a rock! You've done your best to insult them and discount before they even started while trying to appear neutral. Yes SDW we already know what you're about.

1. You almost never post "data." Sometimes you post predictions (yours or others) that are based on data...sometimes. But that's the problem, it's usually a prediction, an interpretion, or both

2. I accept CNN as a major news source. However, it still leans left and is generally pessimistic on the economy in my experience.

3. I have a right to disagree with something. I will usually explain why unless it's clear that we've covered it and/or I know you or others won't budge. Then I'll just disagree, which I see nothing wrong with. We can all disagree.

4. Bush colored glasses and ego? OK, I can almost see your first point (though it's not true) but when has my "ego" played a part?

5. The Dems winning concerns me. It doesn't "stick in my craw." I know you'd like to think I'm in tears about it...and that I curse at my computer screen and TV, screaming "WHY!?" but I'm not. The fact is I have high hopes for the Dems getting something done. However, those hopes are fading just one week after the election. Murtha as majority leader? Pulling out of Iraq beginning in 4-6 months and admitting defeat? Tax increases (did you see Rubin's comments).

6. I'm not neutral, nor do I claim to be. I'm a conservative and a registered Republican. That said, I take issue with my party and their behavior in recent years, specifically on immigration, spending, confirming judicial nominees, lack of action on SS, an ill-advised and expensive medicare bill, etc. However, it is my opinion that the Democrats will likely be much worse. Their position on security issues is frankly extremely frightening, and in my opinion, flat out wrong (examples: Detainees, Iraq withdrawal, NSA program). I also feel their criticism goes beyond the pale...beyond civil discourse and mere opposition.

Elections are held between two parties for the most part. I've made my choice, though my party lost this time. I am hoping, as I said, that the Dems don't go off the deep end. We'll see.

[jimmac]

1. You almost never post "data." Sometimes you post predictions (yours or others) that are based on data...sometimes. But that's the problem, it's usually a prediction, an interpretion, or both

2. I accept CNN as a major news source. However, it still leans left and is generally pessimistic on the economy in my experience.

3. I have a right to disagree with something. I will usually explain why unless it's clear that we've covered it and/or I know you or others won't budge. Then I'll just disagree, which I see nothing wrong with. We can all disagree.

4. Bush colored glasses and ego? OK, I can almost see your first point (though it's not true) but when has my "ego" played a part?

5. The Dems winning concerns me. It doesn't "stick in my craw." I know you'd like to think I'm in tears about it...and that I curse at my computer screen and TV, screaming "WHY!?" but I'm not. The fact is I have high hopes for the Dems getting something done. However, those hopes are fading just one week after the election. Murtha as majority leader? Pulling out of Iraq beginning in 4-6 months and admitting defeat? Tax increases (did you see Rubin's comments).

6. I'm not neutral, nor do I claim to be. I'm a conservative and a registered Republican. That said, I take issue with my party and their behavior in recent years, specifically on immigration, spending, confirming judicial nominees, lack of action on SS, an ill-advised and expensive medicare bill, etc. However, it is my opinion that the Democrats will likely be much worse. Their position on security issues is frankly extremely frightening, and in my opinion, flat out wrong (examples: Detainees, Iraq withdrawal, NSA program). I also feel their criticism goes beyond the pale...beyond civil discourse and mere opposition.

Elections are held between two parties for the most part. I've made my choice, though my party lost this time. I am hoping, as I said, that the Dems don't go off the deep end. We'll see.

Number one is just utter bull. The rest I will accept as just you being once again so wrong about pretty much everything.

[SDW2001]

Number one is just utter bull. The rest I will accept as just you being once again so wrong about pretty much everything.

#1 is fully accurate. When I get some time I think I'll go back and show you with your own words.

Have a nice day. :lol:

[tonton]

#2 When both the debt and the wealth gap growing as quickly as they have been, not only would it be factually incorrect, it would be grossly IRRESPONSIBLE to not be pessimistic about the state of the economy. I have yet to see a single statistic from SDW or Trumpt or Fox News or anyone that shows a great economy, while taking into account the wealth gap and the general lack of economic health of the lower and middle classes.

[jimmac]

#1 is fully accurate. When I get some time I think I'll go back and show you with your own words.

Have a nice day. :lol:

Ok. I'll be waiting.

A good example of you not listening to the facts was during the recent election. I showed you poll after poll that showed what was eventually to happen. I also noted that they all said basically the same thing. Far out numbering the one you talked about. Did you pay attention? Nope.

And here we are.

[jimmac]

#2 When both the debt and the wealth gap growing as quickly as they have been, not only would it be factually incorrect, it would be grossly IRRESPONSIBLE to not be pessimistic about the state of the economy. I have yet to see a single statistic from SDW or Trumpt or Fox News or anyone that shows a great economy, while taking into account the wealth gap and the general lack of economic health of the lower and middle classes.

Yes SDW! What about this?:no:

[MacRR]

5. Pulling out of Iraq beginning in 4-6 months and admitting defeat?.


I'd hate to be the one to break it to you, but we already lost the war. While some of us Americans know when to call it a night, some other Americans feel the need to hang out until well after last call in hopes a hottie win will go home with them... and in the mean time many US soldiers are going to die all for that vanity. Four months or 18 months- the war will still have been lost years ago. The only difference will be the death count and defecit will be far larger in 18 months as opposed to 4-6 months.

[SDW2001]

#2 When both the debt and the wealth gap growing as quickly as they have been, not only would it be factually incorrect, it would be grossly IRRESPONSIBLE to not be pessimistic about the state of the economy. I have yet to see a single statistic from SDW or Trumpt or Fox News or anyone that shows a great economy, while taking into account the wealth gap and the general lack of economic health of the lower and middle classes.


Wait....nice try. You're attempting to shift the burden of proof. It's generally accepted that the economy is strong. You're making a specific claim that parts of it are not. You are the one who needs to post data, not ask for it form us.

But because I'm such a fair guy :D, I'll endulge you anyway:

Here's an excerpt from an MSNBC Article that discusses Consumer Confidence lagging despite wage growth. Consumer confidence, as you know, is often a trailing indicator, and that is not my point here: This is:

NEW YORK - Americans’ wages and benefits are rising at the fastest pace in almost two years, but they’re still so worried about jobs that their confidence in the economy waned in October, a report on Tuesday showed.

Now let's look at unemployment....this from Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to its lowest in nearly 5-1/2 years during October as 92,000 more jobs were added and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up, a government report on Friday showed.

I notice it doesn't say "Rich Unemployment Rate."

Finding data on "new job quality" is very difficult. However, it's a myth that all the new jobs are in fact "hamburger manufacturing. Some anecdotal evidence.

Fed says semi-skilled (middle class!) workers hard to find:

[quoteSAN ANTONIO, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said on Monday that U.S. employers were witnessing a clear shortage of certain types of workers, including welders, plumbers and truck drivers.[/quote]


Now I realize those are just a few examples. However, as I said I think the burden of proof is on you here. I've noticed that folks on your side of the spectrum really love the calss warefare tactics, yet you seem unable to provide real documentation of the fact that lower and middle classes are getting screwed. It's more some rehtorical talking point. Moreover, you haven't documented what the Administration or GOP has done to exacerbate the "situation." The fact is we have a strong jobs market. Anyone who speaks english and has even a GED can get a job in this country for at least $8.00 an hour. That's the honest truth and you know it. Anyone with a HD diploma can make a liveable wage or close to it. Anyone with vocational training can pull down$30,000-$80,000 year, dending on their field. Anyone with a bachelors plus can do even better.

The government doesn't bear responsibility for providing people with a comfortable life, no should it. We have the largest middle class in the world in this country. If anything, I'd think you'd be screaming about how they pay almost 50% of their income to govenrment agencu in the form of taxes, fees, etc. Do the math. It's true.

[Gilsch]

We have the largest middle class in the world in this country. If anything, I'd think you'd be screaming about how they pay almost 50% of their income to govenrment agencu in the form of taxes, fees, etc. Do the math. It's true. Uhh, no. Largest middle class in the world would be India. :err:

[Gilsch]

Speaking of Fox Views...anyone see the latest leaked memo? Gotta love these guys. Of course it's not the least bit surprising.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/memo4.jpg
My favorites: "Let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress".

Then calling a congressman "a political hack".

Good thing they're "fair and balanced". :D

[Bergermeister]

Good thing they're "fair and balanced". :D

Glad to hear that... it is reassuring.




FOX NEWS: THE NEW CREED

We're fair and balanced!

Cut his mic!

Shut up!

[SDW2001]

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias! Fox Conservative Fascist Bias!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Yes. 'Fox conservative fascist bias.'

Maybe the 'fascist' is a bit much, but yes, unlike CNN, Fox is a dedicatedly political organisation, and the only reason you defend it is because you share its politics.

[MacRR]

but why attack or defend it in lieu of more important issues?

[SDW2001]

Yes. 'Fox conservative fascist bias.'

Maybe the 'fascist' is a bit much, but yes, unlike CNN, Fox is a dedicatedly political organisation, and the only reason you defend it is because you share its politics.

That's where you lose me. I think it's conservative leaning news source, no more so than CBS goes liberal. A "dedicated political organization?" Come on. And you know, even if it was, it would not begin to counteract the hundreds of liberal outlets in the MSM.

The reason people get bent of shape is that it's dominating cable news. And that drives you bonkers.

[MacRR]

Cable news is important because 1) it's how many people get information, 2) it shapes the national discourse, 3) it obviously affects people's understanding of those "more important issues."
So you believe Bush won due to FOX news?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point.... but you can't change that Fox reports news in it's politically biased way unless you become the guy who owns it and calls the shots. There are many sources of information in this day and age- and certainly everyone who watches FOX is watching it because it shares their outlook. As far as any patsies who inadvertently tune into fox and unknowingly get swayed..... well, you can't make stupid people smarter. Same goes for conservatives tuning into say- real time with bill maher and seeing the liberal light.

[SDW2001]

So you believe Bush won due to FOX news?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point.... but you can't change that Fox reports news in it's politically biased way unless you become the guy who owns it and calls the shots. There are many sources of information in this day and age- and certainly everyone who watches FOX is watching it because it shares their outlook. As far as any patsies who inadvertently tune into fox and unknowingly get swayed..... well, you can't make stupid people smarter. Same goes for conservatives tuning into say- real time with bill maher and seeing the liberal light.

There is almost no such thing as balanced news anymore...if there ever was. About the only thing you can do is read headlines for factual events. And even then, they omit and overplay certain things. It's no win.

[audiopollution]

There's always ...

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

or

http://badnews.interestalert.com/

... for those days when you want an obvious bias.

[MacRR]

There is almost no such thing as balanced news anymore...if there ever was. About the only thing you can do is read headlines for factual events. And even then, they omit and overplay certain things. It's no win.
I agree- but that's only human. There's so many outlets for information nowadays, that you can easily find out the facts if you know how to look for them. All this bickering about one news source or another flying a party afilliated flag seems like a non-event. I'd bet that town cryers back in the day had their biases as well- with peasants fighting each other at public floggings about this baron or the next....

It seems more conducive to worry about the war itself and the way out, than argue the semantics of how each news outlet expresses it's bias be it nonchalantly or subversively in its reporting of the war (for example). My point is this is all washed by the sheer volume of news sources out there. One of my worries is that were it not for the internet and bloggers, the existing major news broadcasts would conglomerate and wipe out all forms of bias for one sole bias.

[SDW2001]

There's always ...

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

or

http://badnews.interestalert.com/

... for those days when you want an obvious bias.


:lol: Where do you find this shit?

[jimmac]

:lol: Where do you find this shit?


You know I think the democrats winning got to you more than I realized. You've really been posting overtime. Like that would change something.;)

[SDW2001]

You know I think the democrats winning got to you more than I realized. You've really been posting overtime. Like that would change something.;)

I've just been more into it lately. New Macbook and all!

[MacRR]

you get the core2duo macbook?

[SDW2001]

you get the core2duo macbook?

Yup! I'm on my Windows POS at work now though!

[AquaMac]

Fox news — oxymoron

[tonton]

Fox news — oxymoron

Unless you replace "Fox" with "Faux", in which case it become an adept descriptive of the medium in question.

[Bergermeister]

Faux News - Fair and Balanced



sounds about right...:lol: