[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
So basically the idea is to transform America into a Socialist state and have the government regulate even more of our lives.
And here it is: the 5-second-sound-bite!
Thank you for proving me right.
[/quote]
You are very welcome!
Thank you for proving that Democratic Libs are nothing more than re-cycled Socialists. Sound bite? Sure! The truth – You can’t stand it!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Is it just me, or do you also think that Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance of being elected President in 2008?
Oh, I think she might get the Democratic nomination all right (and as a Conservative Republican I am rooting for her to get it) but getting elected President – no way!
Reasons she cannot get elected:
(1) She is way too far far far left on everything (despite her attempts to move toward the center, she reveals her leftist stripes over and over again).
(2) She is married to Bill Clinton.
(3) We just don’t elect Senators. John Kennedy was the last - I cannot even name another ever.
(4) She is way to angry – Americans don’t want their leaders to be angry and shrill. She yells about everything in that annoying (chalk on a blackboard) voice of hers.
(5) The country as a whole is far more conservative.
(6) Can we really trust Hillary to keep us safe from attacks? Could you imagine her standing up to any of the world’s maniacs?
As I said, I am hoping she gets nominated, so the Republican can trounce her, but in my opinion SHE DOESN’T HAVE A PRAYER.
Does it really matter?
Quit reading right-wing mass media propaganda without going to independent non-corporate news sources for an alternative viewpoint.
These are MY ideas bro…you know ideas – the thing that you libs never seem to have.
Yes it does matter! Are you saying that it doesn’t matter who is leading our nation? What are you brain dead?
I am also laughing at you for your calling conservatives who report the news “propaganda” as if the liberal news media (which you libs had an absolute lock before the advent of cable TV and conservative talk) has no agenda…come on…do you think we are all as stupid as you libs?
No retard, I’m not brain dead but you are brain-washed which is actually worse.
My point is that it really doesn’t matter if it’s one of the corporate whipping boys of either party. Both worship power.
Their is really no bias in the media in terms of conservative or liberal viewpoints whatever they may be. The news media is biased to profits. It is biased to those who own the media.[/quote]
Tisk Tisk – calling me names. Now we are getting personal. I was not attacking YOU, but your ideas.
That’s OK – “sticks and stones…”
“No bias in the main stream media” – if I’m brain washed, then I would say that you are “brain challenged” if you really believe that. You think the TV Networks – ABC, CBS, NBC – are not totally left-leaning biased liberals? Have you watched any of the Sunday morning “news” shows lately? Have you read the N.Y. Times? Not biased, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
That’s OK – you libs can keep calling us names and promoting your Socialist policies, and we Conservatives will just keep on being right and winning elections. I kind of like that!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Doesn’t matter who gets elected. Anything will be a step up from Bush. Heck if you guys elected an old boot your country would be in better hands.
Yea…we need to be more like Canada!
No wait…we don’t need that…[/quote]
I will forever hold Canada in contempt for unleashing Celine Dion unto the world.
Not cool canada!!!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite
The media is biased to their owners - major corporations!
[/quote]
Oh darn…that’s not what has been reported in the thread above. Here are some facts for you:
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite?s vote.
Lichter and Rothman?s survey of journalists discovered that ?Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.?
?Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right ? a margin of seven-to-one.?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Doesn’t matter who gets elected. Anything will be a step up from Bush. Heck if you guys elected an old boot your country would be in better hands.
Yea…we need to be more like Canada!
No wait…we don’t need that…
I will forever hold Canada in contempt for unleashing Celine Dion unto the world.
Not cool canada!!!
[/quote]
That and the entire gun issue…
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Doesn’t matter who gets elected. Anything will be a step up from Bush. Heck if you guys elected an old boot your country would be in better hands.
Yea…we need to be more like Canada!
No wait…we don’t need that…
I will forever hold Canada in contempt for unleashing Celine Dion unto the world.
Not cool canada!!!
[/quote]
For once I agree.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Is it just me, or do you also think that Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance of being elected President in 2008?
Oh, I think she might get the Democratic nomination all right (and as a Conservative Republican I am rooting for her to get it) but getting elected President – no way!
Reasons she cannot get elected:
(1) She is way too far far far left on everything (despite her attempts to move toward the center, she reveals her leftist stripes over and over again).
(2) She is married to Bill Clinton.
(3) We just don’t elect Senators. John Kennedy was the last - I cannot even name another ever.
(4) She is way to angry – Americans don’t want their leaders to be angry and shrill. She yells about everything in that annoying (chalk on a blackboard) voice of hers.
(5) The country as a whole is far more conservative.
(6) Can we really trust Hillary to keep us safe from attacks? Could you imagine her standing up to any of the world’s maniacs?
As I said, I am hoping she gets nominated, so the Republican can trounce her, but in my opinion SHE DOESN’T HAVE A PRAYER.
Does it really matter?
Quit reading right-wing mass media propaganda without going to independent non-corporate news sources for an alternative viewpoint.
These are MY ideas bro…you know ideas – the thing that you libs never seem to have.
Yes it does matter! Are you saying that it doesn’t matter who is leading our nation? What are you brain dead?
I am also laughing at you for your calling conservatives who report the news “propaganda” as if the liberal news media (which you libs had an absolute lock before the advent of cable TV and conservative talk) has no agenda…come on…do you think we are all as stupid as you libs?
No retard, I’m not brain dead but you are brain-washed which is actually worse.
My point is that it really doesn’t matter if it’s one of the corporate whipping boys of either party. Both worship power.
Their is really no bias in the media in terms of conservative or liberal viewpoints whatever they may be. The news media is biased to profits. It is biased to those who own the media.
Tisk Tisk – calling me names. Now we are getting personal. I was not attacking YOU, but your ideas.
That’s OK – “sticks and stones…”
“No bias in the main stream media” – if I’m brain washed, then I would say that you are “brain challenged” if you really believe that. You think the TV Networks – ABC, CBS, NBC – are not totally left-leaning biased liberals? Have you watched any of the Sunday morning “news” shows lately? Have you read the N.Y. Times? Not biased, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
That’s OK – you libs can keep calling us names and promoting your Socialist policies, and we Conservatives will just keep on being right and winning elections. I kind of like that![/quote]
So calling ME brain dead wasn’t a personal attack. You sound like Clinton trying to splice the word is.
I don’t watch the Sunday morning shows all that often anymore. They never get to the real issues they just skirt around them.
It doesn’t matter if journalists are left-leaning as they can only print what editors say. And the editors only do what the owners allow.
If the press is so liberal where were all the anti-war voices leading up to our invasion? They were silenced by the mass media who again, work for there owners.
There is little room for real debate in the corporate press. The issues are kept within certain parameters and are not allowed to go outside. That is the propaganda line.
I’ll say it again, the press is biased to those who own them.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite
The media is biased to their owners - major corporations!
Oh darn…that’s not what has been reported in the thread above. Here are some facts for you:
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite?s vote.
Lichter and Rothman?s survey of journalists discovered that ?Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.?
?Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right ? a margin of seven-to-one.?
[/quote]
Oh I guess if it’s not printed in the thread above it must not be true.
It doesn’t matter if journalists voted for more democrats as they can only print what the editors allow. And the editors are beholden to the owners who are beholden to profits first.
The bias is to PROFITS not to liberal or conservative viewpoints whatever they may be.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
The point that I wish to make is that you are now being given a chance to tell us what YOU libs would do if you had your person in there. What are your ideas about protecting the country? All you seem to be able to do is to Bash bush. Well, I’ll tell you a secret: this has been tried before and has failed!
You will only get someone elected if you calm down, quiet down, and propose serious solutions to the serious problems. You know, something besides “Bush stinks…”
Well, where are Hillary’s ideas to solve problems?
We have ideas. We try to explain them. Hard. But unfortunately our solutions take more than 5 seconds to explain – unlike “lower taxes” or “smaller government” or “reduce entitlement spending”. We seem to lack the rhetoric skills of Republicans that allow them to reduce solutions to a sound bite. Even when they never really mean it, like Joe Scarborough said the other day (remember the last time any of the above sound bites actually happened under a Republican government?).
We learnt quite quickly that if it takes longer than 5 seconds to explain: better save your breath.
A certain Bill Clinton was able to make explanations unnecessary out of his sheer charm. He rarely had to explain anything. He just whipped up his public speaking skills and made people vote for him without ever having to tell them what his solutions were. It worked pretty well.
He learnt that with the best: FDR and JFK, who were even better at it.
Unfortunately, we haven’t found another Bill Clinton… yet…
So where are the ideas? You just said you have them, then you say you can’t explain them in 6 seconds. Well, explain them in as many seconds as you would like.
It is incredible folks, the Dems are asked for ideas and then they turn it around to bash Bush and the Republicans again for their ideas.
By the way, I don’t care how many seconds of an explanation that it takes. Good ideas – like lower taxes and less government – are good ideas. If it were up to the Republicans alone, we would have both. However, you cannot be serious if you deny that when Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending He was able to pull the US out of the economic malaise that had plagued it for over a decade. Reagan’s tax cutting policies are responsible for the economic turnaround which Clinton then enjoyed during his time of fooling around with young girls in the Oval Office…
Good try hspder but you Dems cannot hide behind bashing Bush.
Ideas please?
a) Tax policy?
b) Gas prices?
c) Protecting the U.S. from terrorism?
d) Iraq policy?
e) Policy toward rogue states – N. Korea, Syria, etc.
Ideas? Do you have any???[/quote]
Man, you just don’t have a clue how stupid you sound.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite
The media is biased to their owners - major corporations!
Oh darn…that’s not what has been reported in the thread above. Here are some facts for you:
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite?s vote.
Lichter and Rothman?s survey of journalists discovered that ?Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.?
?Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right ? a margin of seven-to-one.?
[/quote]
I can’t believe that people still claim there to be a liberal hold on the media. What will it take for this notion to die. The only place I can find a firmly slanted liberal view is late night radio. Aside from pbs, every television network obviously favours the right. The Abromov story got almost zero press on CNN.
Clinton getting a blowjob got more press than
the flurry of Bush fuck ups that are far to numerous to list. It wouldn’t matter if every journalist was a left wing fanatic because the journalists no longer have a say in what is reported.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
I don’t know what rosey, noble vision of Washington politics you believe in, but this is how every sucessful politician operates.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you!
[/quote]
So, now we have two ‘Lefties’ condoning and willing to live with corruption and two-faced politics. Any more?
I swear, the Left is just doing a major meltdown across this land. Maybe there is hope for us yet!!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
That’s OK – you libs can keep calling us names and promoting your Socialist policies, and we Conservatives will just keep on being right and winning elections. I kind of like that![/quote]
They really are done, just don’t know it. Maybe someone like Guliani will finally put ‘the stake through the heart’.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite
The media is biased to their owners - major corporations!
Oh darn…that’s not what has been reported in the thread above. Here are some facts for you:
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite?s vote.
Lichter and Rothman?s survey of journalists discovered that ?Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.?
?Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right ? a margin of seven-to-one.?
I can’t believe that people still claim there to be a liberal hold on the media. What will it take for this notion to die. The only place I can find a firmly slanted liberal view is late night radio. Aside from pbs, every television network obviously favours the right. The Abromov story got almost zero press on CNN.
Clinton getting a blowjob got more press than
the flurry of Bush fuck ups that are far to numerous to list. It wouldn’t matter if every journalist was a left wing fanatic because the journalists no longer have a say in what is reported.
[/quote]
How does your response answer anything he wrote?
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
I can’t believe that people still claim there to be a liberal hold on the media.[/quote]
And I can’t believe that there are people who still don’t see that there is a strong liberal hold on the mainstream media.
Um…balanced reporting?
[quote]Clinton getting a blowjob got more press than
the flurry of Bush fuck ups…[/quote]
You have to draw the proper conclusion from the set of facts!
You noticed that Clintons sexual tryst got plenty of media attention.
Then…
You draw the wrong conclusion and think that the press must be fair.
That would be incorrect!
The proper conclusion from that set of facts is that Bill Clinton got caught doing something that no other President got caught doing!
That makes for BIG headlines…and yes the press will eat their own if the story is good enough.
[quote]that are far to numerous to list. It wouldn’t matter if every journalist was a left wing fanatic because the journalists no longer have a say in what is reported.
[/quote]
Please expound on this. Tell us why journalists have no say in what they are reporting.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
That’s OK – you libs can keep calling us names and promoting your Socialist policies, and we Conservatives will just keep on being right and winning elections. I kind of like that!
They really are done, just don’t know it. Maybe someone like Guliani will finally put ‘the stake through the heart’.
[/quote]
You know I think Guliani’s day has come and gone.
Count up how many bald former New York
Mayors have been elected to the Presidency.
See what I mean?
It’s like the old “it’s difficult for a Senator or a VP to be elected President” rule.
True enough!
The last senator was John Kennedy. The last VP was George Bush the 1st. How many in modern day have tried failed:
Goldwater
Humphrey
McGovern
Mondale (he had the double hit VP and Sen.)
Dole
Gore (Doubly vexed VP and Sen.)
Kerry
Anyway…The answer to the original question is ZERO.
No bald Mayors from New York or anywhere else have ever risen to the Presidency.
(I think I have far too much time on my hands)