1 of 2
1
The Stain of the Dems and Media in Bed Together
Posted: 30 April 2005 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Judging by the collusion of the dems and the media the past 4 years, it appears that the future is bright for anti-Americanism, anti-Christian, anti-morals, anti-faith based, anti-this, anti-that.

Give you an example, this judicial problem caused by the obstruction of the Dems is outrageous. Simply outrageous and yet, rarely have a seen an article pointing out the obstruction of the dems in this area (and there are others, but we don't have all weekend to cover them). What you see is the party line, the dem party line, saying that the neuclear option is bad and a power grab. Hey, we got one judge waiting for 4 years for a simple vote. 4 years! Matter of fact, here is another goody….

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/30/dems.radio.ap/index.html

And don't give me that dung about 130 odd judges were confirmed, only 10 judges were not, blah, blah, blah. Yes, 130 odd judges were confirmed….in the LOWER COURTS. Dems have blocked access to faith based people in the HIGHER COURTS, the ones with the real power. But you won't find it laid out clearly in the media.

Collusion has been occuring on so many issues, makes you wonder where reality starts and ends anymore. For the majority of Americans, reality stops at the front door of the networks, the NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, Time, Newsweek, CNN, etc., etc.

The problem is that virtually the same hour, news reporters and a dem politician will break a story, or issue the same story. Folks, the odds of this being a coincidence are larger than winning the lotto.

Tell you what, 100 years from now college kids will be studing US Government and will marvel with contempt that the collusion that has occurred between the dems and the media. By that time, there might not be democrat party…..

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 06:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

I hate politics. Want to bridge the gap between opposing organizations? Legalize POT!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

People who base their legal opinions on their faith and not on the law or, better yet, reason, have no place making decision for the masses.  Let them argue church law, and keep it the hell out of the public arena.
Refer back to the fact that literal interpretations of scripture are EVIL.  Unless you’d care to defend the Middle Ages—and subsequently return to them.
This is what the neo-cons are after.  But with more wealth than the Church or the greediest feudal lord could ever have contemplated.
And this is where the so-called Christians true colors come out:  if you don’t agree with them, you will suffer under their (ironic, hypocritical) judgments.
The push from the Right to remove checks and balances from government is most terrifying because it suggests that they have no intentions of ever sharing power, and cannot conceive of being ousted—and will do all they can to prevent that from happening.
This is what happens when reason is absent in one’s arguments—you simply attempt to suppress the opposition.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Hey Guest, I see the point, but we can use the same logic against your liberal judges who allow their life view to cloud their judicial decisions.

For example, you said, “People who base their legal opinions on their faith and not on the law or, better yet, reason, have no place making decision for the masses.”

Great, then lets not allow liberal activist judges to make decisions for the masses.

You said, “where the so-called Christians true colors come out: if you don’t agree with them, you will suffer under their (ironic, hypocritical) judgments.”

Hey, the most insolent and intolerant bunch the past 3 years has been the liberals. They, whose claim to fame is tolerance, have tried to shut out, shut down, keep out, hold back, shut down people of faith, opinions that somehow align with conservative view. If you don’t agree with the liberals today, you’ll be insulted, hit with pies when speaking, you’ll be a victim of media subterfuge, etc.

You said, “The push from the Right to remove checks and balances from government is most terrifying because it suggests that they have no intentions of ever sharing power, and cannot conceive of being ousted—and will do all they can to prevent that from happening.”

Well, if you recall, not so long ago your side had the presidency and the senate (or was it congress and the senate-Clinton’s first term). So I think these things are cyclical. You have two major chances (06 and 08) to vote them out of office (but don’t cheat in the elections or we’ll catch ya!!!!!!).

So all is not so bad for your side. You still have the print media, hollywood, and the elite news media on your side. Bush can’t catch but a one day break even when things go well. But then again, that is the way things go with your side. Case in point, that silly Reagan movie with Brolin. It was 3 hours of worried faces and drama music and clandestine damage control meetings interrupted by a 5 minute scene: Mr. Reagan! Mr. Reagan! You’ve Won the Cold War. You’ve Won the Cold War!! (cut scene back to drama music and Reagan fiddling with jelly beans like a 5 year old, being consoled by two obnoxious yes men…..).

(Was that movie a comedy or was it supposed to be a serious look at one of the best presidencies of the 20th century????????????????)

Note: Sorry, but I’m just as politically jaded as the next guy. Guess it is the current political climate.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

I’ll have to ignore most of what you say, because it so typically ignores any sort of sense.  It’s been argued before, and your intransigence is noted.
Tell the millions in the countries he helped to ruin (Central America, etc.) and the lower classes of this country how great Reagan is.  I hope there is a hell sometimes, just for bastards like him.
Save me your simplistic, one-sided rhetoric.
The Democrats are not “my side.”  They just tend to be closer to it than “your side” is.
Intolerance is wrong.  When it is practiced by so-called “Liberals,” it is wrong.  But most of the time, it’s just the intolerant of the Right (a larger group, to be sure) getting upset about being properly labeled.
Liberal intolerance, when valid, is directed towards intolerance.  Intolerance of oppressive ideologies is different from oppression based on race, class, sex, etc.
The notion that Christians are being oppressed in this country is beyond funny—it is sickening.  No one is telling them what they can think.  Many, however, rightly demand that they not try to dictate to the rest of us.  And, of course, we’re led to ask why they think the things they do, which are so detached from modernity.
A judge should be ostensibly Liberal, because he/she must be able to consider opposing viewpoints.  Open mindedness is at the core of true Liberal thought.  Go ahead—try to claim the same for you and yours.  No, actually, don’t.  I’ve read your frail attempts to do so before.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

That is the problem, liberal judges often seem to ignore opposing sides of view. Take for example, the district court in San Francisco. It is lopsided toward the liberal point of view that the Supreme court routinely has to spend its precious time overturning their decisions.

Just giving you the conservative point of view. Call it what you want, but Conservatives do not feel like they are getting a fair shake these days.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Don’t cry about getting a fair shake when a “fair shake” entails dictating morality to those of us who would rather think than be commanded.
Go oppress yourselves.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2005-04-29
[quote author=“TheChampion”]Dems have blocked access to faith based people in the HIGHER COURTS, the ones with the real power. But you won’t find it laid out clearly in the media.

I don’t think its that they’re blocking ‘faith based’ people.  I’d wager just about every judge in every court in this country would describe themselves as having religious faith.  So that would include judges appointed and confirmed by both parties.

Still, as a (admittedly wavering) Democrat, I have a problem with this whole situation.  It seems like the concept of rational debate is being thrown out the window.  What ever happened to persuasion?  If these people would make such bad judges, I’d rather see my party just give their reasons and allow a vote.

By preventing the vote as they are now, it makes it seem as if its just a move to score political points against Bush and the Republicans.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2005-03-11

Nupraptor wrote:

I don’t think its that they’re blocking ‘faith based’ people. I’d wager just about every judge in every court in this country would describe themselves as having religious faith. So that would include judges appointed and confirmed by both parties.

Good point. This entire ‘faith based’ idea is pure propaganda.

Still, as a (admittedly wavering) Democrat, I have a problem with this whole situation. It seems like the concept of rational debate is being thrown out the window. What ever happened to persuasion? If these people would make such bad judges, I’d rather see my party just give their reasons and allow a vote.

Your viewpoint is one that is apparently shared by a great number of people. I think that’s why no one has really made the propaganda call yet. On the surface, it sounds like a perfectly rational option… a vote, either up or down. The trouble with this presentation is the impossibility of anything other than acquiescence to partisan party rule. If the dissenting (minority) party does not have a means to block a vote, that vote itself becomes an automatic affirmation. As long as party politics requires our congress to toe a party line, any nominee the ruling party makes will automatically be affirmed. So why bother with congressional consent? We could save a lot of time and frustration, not to mention advancement of political propaganda, if the president were simply allowed to independently choose whomever he wanted for any office. Is that really what we want as a democracy? No checks and balances?

The current state of our political system with all it’s corrupt features, partisan politics, and corporate lobbying was not the vision of the original foundation of our country. Congress was supposed to be a body of intelligent men who represented both the states and the people and used integrity and reason as the basis for government. As that no longer seems to be the case, we have to work with whatever means we currently have to maintain a balance of power between differing ideologies. It seems a quite imperfect system we have, but it is the current state of affairs of democratic rule.

By preventing the vote as they are now, it makes it seem as if its just a move to score political points against Bush and the Republicans.

Yes, you’re right. And that is precisely the point of the Republican party machine in its well orchestrated public policy agenda. The Democrats need to be explaining a little more to the public instead of simply drawing the lines of battle. The Republicans have learned the power of manipulating the public media in a very effective way. Democrats need to learn those lessons before we can have any rational debate in this country. A public informed of all facts in regards to both parties, without partisan propaganda, will be necessary for anywhere near a balanced democratic system.  And we can only hope for a future system in which everyone in our government accepts the responsibility of service and the dedication to serve with reason and integrity rather than political agenda.

Wishfully thinking,

Maggie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2005-04-29

[quote author=“Peregrine”]Congress was supposed to be a body of intelligent men who represented both the states and the people and used integrity and reason as the basis for government. As that no longer seems to be the case, we have to work with whatever means we currently have to maintain a balance of power between differing ideologies. It seems a quite imperfect system we have, but it is the current state of affairs of democratic rule.

I’m all for a balance, but not simply for its own sake.  What good does it do to assume your opponents are immune to persuasion?

The Republicans have learned the power of manipulating the public media in a very effective way. Democrats need to learn those lessons before we can have any rational debate in this country. A public informed of all facts in regards to both parties, without partisan propaganda, will be necessary for anywhere near a balanced democratic system.  And we can only hope for a future system in which everyone in our government accepts the responsibility of service and the dedication to serve with reason and integrity rather than political agenda.

I’m pretty much with you there.  Although I don’t really buy that the Reps are manipulating the media such a meaningful way.  If the Dems would care to show us why they so oppose these nominations, they’d have no problems getting the message out there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2005 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

I think President Bush got it right—the people blocking these judges disagree with their judicial philosophy. It has nothing to do with whether the judges are people of faith.

A while back, I debated Conservative Atheist on the subject of abortion. We had profound, unresolveable disagreements about it. Despite his lack of faith, CA’s position on the issue is identical to that of these judges. If CA were up for a federal judgeship, his position on the question of Christ’s divinity would be irrelevant. There are pro-abortion rights Christians and anti-abortion rights atheists. The Democrats would object to the latter group more than the former.

Faith isn’t the issue. Those religious radicals who say it is are simply lying about the affair, but that’s no surprise.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2005 04:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2005-03-11

Nupraptor:

I’m all for a balance, but not simply for its own sake.  What good does it do to assume your opponents are immune to persuasion?

By balance of power, I was really thinking of a check of power.  I agree with you, a balance for its own sake would be pointless and stagnant.  It seems that the attitude of immunity to persuasion has been present in our legislature during this administration.  I think it is a product of extreme partisan politics and is promoted by the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude.  I do believe the currents are showing signs of changing, however.  I’m beginning to hear a few voices who are speaking in questioning and rationing tones on both sides of the podium.  Whether sincere or not, I think they are beginning to hear a little more of public outcry and are trying to figure out a course of action for the next two or four years.  It is entirely possible that persuasion could be used and now is certainly the time to try.  The Democrats have the opportunity with the fillibuster to get some of their message out, but they just don’t seem to connect to the opportunity. 

When I spoke of the Republicans manipulating the public media, I was not thinking of the way the overall media is reporting them.  I was thinking of the way they have so effectively learned to use entertainment news and the sound bytes and catchy little phrases that the American public picks up on and seems to support in their simplicity.  All the people of faith, no child left behind, culture of life, fairness of the up or down vote, etc.  It all sounds very altruistic to mainstream Americans, most who seem to listen to media impressions to form their political opinions.  (and Fox news is the most popular media, isn’t it?)  When these ideas are then projected from the pulpits of churches, they become a ‘system of values’ in the minds of the average listener.  While the Republicans are winning these ‘hearts and minds’ (or at least think they are), the Democrats are standing by a little bemused, trying to figure out what has happened.  I recently heard someone say… “While the Republicans have figured out the PR angle, the Democrats are still assuming the public will see things in an obvious way.”  The Democrats need to realize that obvious does not apply in today’s political arena.

Maggie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2005 05:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Peregrine, interesting view. Hey I was just thinking how bad the dems must be percieved by the American public right now. I mean, they got the elite news media, print media, tv sitcoms, movie biz, hollywood media, media in other countries, HECK, who do they not have giving negative reports, negative comments, backhanded comments, insults on Bush, the Bush administration, Republicans, conservatives in general…...and they still couldn’t win the presidency and they lost seats in the Senate and Congress. How is that possible?

The only thing I can figure out is that the American public can only talk back with one thing, their vote. And the vote is overwhelmingly Republican. Dems have to figure out how to get back in the mainstream.

I could tell them how to do it, but they wouldn’t listen to Joe-public.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2005 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

We actually vote better with our dollars.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2005 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2005-03-11

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Peregrine, interesting view. Hey I was just thinking how bad the dems must be percieved by the American public right now. I mean, they got the elite news media, print media, tv sitcoms, movie biz, hollywood media, media in other countries, HECK, who do they not have giving negative reports, negative comments, backhanded comments, insults on Bush, the Bush administration, Republicans, conservatives in general…

Champion,
First, just a casual comment.  I find it interesting that you have continually defended your religion on the basis that millions of biblical believers can’t be wrong.  At the same time, you dismiss the possibility that the great majority of media and millions of liberal thinkers in this country are wrong.  Seems like contradictory thinking to me.

...and they still couldn’t win the presidency and they lost seats in the Senate and Congress. How is that possible?

Are you seriously questioning how that is possible or are you merely trying to substantiate your opinion?  If the former is the question, I will share a viewpoint with you.  First of all, I think you are terribly presumptious in your perception of the American public, much less the outcome of the elections.  Methinks you’ve been listening too much to those snappy little soundbytes, especially those speaking of GWB having a mandate for his ideology and policies.

Take a look at the statistics.  If 51% of voters chose Bush, then you must see that 48% chose Kerry.  In all the showdown states, the vote was within 5 percentage points, with the election decided once again by a single state. Especially considering all the issues at stake, and Bush being a wartime incumbent, along with Kerry’s negative image and lacklustre campaign, it would take much more than that margin to obtain a mandate.  Those winning percentages reflect actual figures of just over 3 million voters out of a pool of over 121 million.  Do you really believe his election reflected the confidence of the American public?

Considering the Congressional elections… the Republicans gained 4 seats in the Senate (out of 34 available) and 2 seats in the House (out of 435 available). 

Considering the gubernatorial elections… Republicans won 6 of 11 races, once again not quite 55% of the vote.  That still leaves almost half of these postitions for the Democrats.

So where is your “overwhelming” vote?  It seems to me the country is still pretty much equally divided, and anyone who thinks otherwise is basing their opinion on propaganda from one side or the other. 

One thing we do agree on… Dems do have to get back into the mainstream.  But don’t underestimate either their abilities, their positions, or their support by the general public (especially those who can think independently), and wish to maintain this country as a democracy rather than a theocracy.

Maggie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2005 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Well, we all should know by now that Champ has his own take on “fact”—as displayed by his insane notion that the “Liberal Media” is an extant notion.  Which major news source are you watching or reading that hasn’t bending to the administration’s will for nearly five years?  Even the less corrupt ones only mention the negatives in passing, and only now, after freedom of information complaints, are negative reports and photos from the president’s war getting much main-stream publicity.
But, about that election…  Even disregarding the lingering likelihood of massive voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere, I believe this “mandate” we’re looking at may be explained thusly:  A huge proportion of the Republican voters were the blue-collar, working-hard-just-to-get-by, poorly-educated, easily-manipulated populace.  Through the bully pulpit, Bush, Rove, and those other evil-minded bastards had tremendous media access and consistently manipulated the information that the public received, and constantly misdirected the bought-out media with red herring after red herring.
That the better-educated, multi-cultural parts of the nation were the predominantly Democratic parts is certainly worthy of note.  The more desperate, easily manipulated masses were effectively lied to.  There’s more than one way to steal an election.  Lies and threats are useful tools for the corrupt.
This points to major problems with our Democracy:  First, money is obviously too influential.  Second, with two parties, most people are not represented, and only vote based on severe compromise.  And, our educational system provides exactly what any student of Democracy knows: it only works with an educated populace.  And so on.  Standing by this system, which has been eviscerated by Capitalism and greed, is like standing by the Roman Empire while the barbarians hordes are bearing down.  Ironic, as it is now the barbarians who are in charge here, marauding the world for plunder.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed