Okay, I'll admit it...CNN is looking pretty liberal - Page 3

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, I'm not talking about liberals vs conservatives when it comes to stupid.

That's separate from the nuanced view of things that's not sexy to sell.

And while I agree that sometimes there is a clear and easy choice, we live in a complicated world and that's generally not the case.

I understand where you're coming from. And it's the reason why I consider myself an old school Democrat and not a Republican. Republicans tend to see things in black and white. However, Democrats often make up the gray or start debating gray and making non-issues suddenly an issue just because.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-31-2006, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not appearing on Fox that's an issue, it's that his brand of 'liberalism' is the same brand of 'liberalism' that's generic to .. ie, Colmes.. etc.

I've yet to really see him take a stand for any liberal issue, so I see him as being pretty spineless. I think that's where the dislike comes in.

I don't think I've ever seen a real hardcore liberal contributer or host anywhere on FNC. It seems they only allow milquetoast liberals to act as cute pets on the stage to be carefully managed and only allowed to return if they behave themselves. CNN gave an entire daily hour long show to blatant, outspoken conservative Glenn Beck. FNC would never dream of such a thing. Have you ever seen a liberal on FNC without a handler near by to control him? The fact that Glenn Beck now has his own show on CNN is definitive evidence that CNN will do whatever is profitable, whether it's liberal or conservative.

motivez · 10-31-2006, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Seems like these are very easy for stupid people to consume, no?

What are you insinuating about the target audience of my post?

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

What are you insinuating about the target audience of my post?

That they're more nuanced than I am

Scrum · 10-31-2006, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The Republican Congress has not prevented the Democrats from coming up with solutions and presenting them to the American populace. The Democratic party has become a party of slander and obstruction. That is not the fault of the Republican Congress. The minority party always takes the obstruction role, but over the past 6 years the Democrats have taken it to a new unprecedented level that can only be described as embarrassing to the party.

What have they obstructed?
Please start naming all these things so i can write them down.
All I have seen is them kowtowing to the right so as not to be labeled a terrorist lover.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Hopefully when they take some power back this week things will begin to change from them. Because as of now they're no better than the GOP. And in my opinion the GOP is doing a real shitty job...

Yet I never see you post a thread that speaks badly about the GOP. It's always "Liberals" this and "Democrats" that.

Maybe that will change this week as well?

Were you going to respond to this post?

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Were you going to respond to this post?

It's a flawed question. I could list things that have been obstructed, but they are minor. The idea that being a party of obstruction doesn't mean they've been successful.

Scrum · 10-31-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's a flawed question. I could list things that have been obstructed, but they are minor. The idea that being a party of obstruction doesn't mean they've been successful.

But they "have taken it to a new unprecedented level". Wouldn't that mean they have been at least somewhat successful?
Wouldn't there be evidence of them doing this by using a filibuster or by them actually opposing things?

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

But they "have taken it to a new unprecedented level". Wouldn't that mean they have been at least somewhat successful?
Wouldn't there be evidence of them doing this by using a filibuster or by them actually opposing things?

You are really stretching here. The Democratic party has taken the notion of obstruction to a new unprecedented level. When all they do for six years is attempt to obstruct and slander without presenting any ideas or counter arguments....

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 11:59 AM

YouTube Video

Where's the plan?

"We need a new policy, new strategy... We need a foreign policy that's tough and smart..." Ok bimbo, what's the plan to do that? They have none. Absolutely nothing. They've had six years to come up with something and they don't have anything but talking points.

attacking stay the course, outsourcing security, bush has ignored the middle east for 6 years, iran's nuclear capabilities, blaming N. Korea on Bush, etc etc to infinity. Talking points, criticism, no solutions. This is the DNC Director of communications. Surely she would know what the Democrat's plan is no? Surely their entire agenda isn't to give soundbytes and attack the GOP.

More recently:
Rep. Charles Rangel yesterday blasted Dick Cheney as a "son of a bitch." angel said Cheney may need to go to "rehab" for "whatever personality deficit he may have suffered."

This is what the Democratic party has become. They're being overtaken by the extreme left. They have no plan, no agenda other than to attempt obstruction and slander the GOP.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-31-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

YouTube Video

Where's the plan?

"We need a new policy, new strategy... We need a foreign policy that's tough and smart..." Ok bimbo, what's the plan to do that? They have none. Absolutely nothing. They've had six years to come up with something and they don't have anything but talking points.

attacking stay the course, outsourcing security, bush has ignored the middle east for 6 years, iran's nuclear capabilities, blaming N. Korea on Bush, etc etc to infinity. Talking points, criticism, no solutions. This is the DNC Director of communications. Surely she would know what the Democrat's plan is no? Surely their entire agenda isn't to give soundbytes and attack the GOP.

More recently:
Rep. Charles Rangel yesterday blasted Dick Cheney as a "son of a bitch." angel said Cheney may need to go to "rehab" for "whatever personality deficit he may have suffered."

This is what the Democratic party has become. They're being overtaken by the extreme left.

I really don't care what the plan is, to tell you the truth. I suppose I'm like Dubya in this respect...I don't like to micromanage. I'm far from an expert on NK or Iraq, but I'll tell you this much...I don't trust delegating these decisions to the Republicans any longer because they've proven they don't know what the fuck they're doing...I thought Dems were supposed to be impractically theoretical while Reps were pragmatic to get the job done? Turns out the complete opposite...this entire foreign policy fuck up is predicated on neocon PNAC wet dreams that have not and will not come true.

Regardless of what the Dems actual plan is or is not, I think they're a better choice than the Reps. The Reps had their chance and fucked up royally. They've proven themselves incompetent and have no credibility left. Anything different at this point is better than what's clearly not working, and people who clearly don't know wtf they're doing.

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I really don't care what the plan is, to tell you the truth.

Well then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Without this understanding at the core of our principles there's not much else to debate on. I believe our politicians should have and should present us with a plan of what they intend to do. If they don't have a plan and stay focused on slander for six years I believe they should rethink what they went into politics for.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-31-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Without this understanding at the core of our principles there's not much else to debate on. I believe our politicians should have and should present us with a plan of what they intend to do. If they don't have a plan and stay focused on slander for six years I believe they should rethink what they went into politics for.

I never understood this way of thinking. Let's say my car won't start and I have two mechanics to choose from. You're one of them and say, "I'll fix it!" I say, great...I'll let you have a shot first. You then proceed to start beating the shit out of my trunk with a baseball bat. My car still won't start. You ask for a little longer, and continue to beat my trunk with a baseball bat. It then becomes clear to me you don't know what you're doing and what you're doing isn't working. At that point, do I really have to know what the other guy's specific plan is in order to fire you and hire him? You might say, "Well how do you know the other guy won't screw things up worse?" That's a legit concern if the other guy is a bum off the street, but if he's got a pretty good record with lots of experience, I don't see why you'd have to go over his specific plan before you let him start.

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I never understood this way of thinking. Let's say my car won't start and I have two mechanics to choose from. You're one of them and say, "I'll fix it!" I say, great...I'll let you have a shot first. You then proceed to start beating the shit out of my trunk with a baseball bat. My car still won't start. You ask for a little longer, and continue to beat my trunk with a baseball bat. It then becomes clear to me you don't know what you're doing and what you're doing isn't working. At that point, do I really have to know what the other guy's specific plan is in order to fire you and hire him? You might say, "Well how do you know the other guy won't screw things up worse?" That's a legit concern if the other guy is a bum off the street, but if he's got a pretty good record with lots of experience, I don't see why you'd have to go over his specific plan before you let him start.

It's more like you have a car that won't start. Both guys inspect the damage.

One says, "Not a problem. I can fix it by doing this this and this. It'll cost you this."
The other says, "He's wrong"
You ask why he's wrong and he second guy says "he's just wrong"
You ask what he would do to fix it and he goes "He's wrong."
You plea with him to explain what's wrong and how he can fix it and he goes "he's wrong."
You say "Can you explain to me why he's wrong and what you'll do to fix my car?"
and the second mechanic goes "He lied."

Now the first person may be full of shit and could be doing the job halfassed and expensively. But the second person could be a florist for all you know and not have a clue as to what's going on. Some people might say "whatever this guy isn't doing a satisfactory job, I'll take a chance." Others may not be willing to chance their car with someone who hasn't shown any sense of intelligence dealing with cars.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-31-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's more like you have a car that won't start. Both guys inspect the damage.

One says, "Not a problem. I can fix it by doing this this and this. It'll cost you this."
The other says, "He's wrong"
You ask why he's wrong and he second guy says "he's just wrong"
You ask what he would do to fix it and he goes "He's wrong."
You plea with him to explain what's wrong and how he can fix it and he goes "he's wrong."
You say "Can you explain to me why he's wrong and what you'll do to fix my car?"
and the second mechanic goes "He lied."

Horrible analogy! We're way past the point of discussing possible solutions and costs for a problem. We already had the discussion you illustrated above-- it was the '04 election. Now the first mechanic has had 4 years to fix the problem using his solution and it clearly doesn't work, and he's actually made it worse.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Some people might say "whatever this guy isn't doing a satisfactory job, I'll take a chance." Others may not be willing to chance their car with someone who hasn't shown any sense of intelligence dealing with cars.

The Republicans haven't shown any sense of intelligence dealing with cars. Whatever image of strategic planning savvy they had withered away and died in Iraq.

JaJae · 10-31-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The Republicans haven't shown any sense of intelligence dealing with cars. Whatever image of strategic planning savvy they had withered away and died in Iraq.

The Republicans are keeping things moving. Not as well as we would like, but they've been the ones upkeeping it.

All we hear from the Democrats is things like "He's a son of a bitch", "He's a liar", "the elected leader of Iraq is an anti-Semite" etc etc.

No solutions. And when a member of their party says "hey, come on guys.. let's get our acts together and figure this out" he gets booted from the party.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-31-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The Republicans are keeping things moving. Not as well as we would like, but they've been the ones upkeeping it.

All we hear from the Democrats is things like "He's a son of a bitch", "He's a liar", etc etc.

No solutions. And when a member of their party says "hey, come on guys.. let's get our acts together and figure this out" he gets booted from the party.

What do you mean they're keeping things moving? More like keeping things stagnating or moving in the wrong direction.

I love how you completely ignore Biden's quite elaborate partition plan and Murtha's plan. They have plans. You guys just either ignore them or attack them as traitors when they propose them. Look what happened to Murtha when he dared suggest his plan! It was like Swift Boat v. 2.0 all for going against stay the course. I know it's part of republican rhetoric to say dems are all criticism and no solutions, but how can you miss these?

Full Text of Rep. John Murtha's November 2005 Plan to Withdraw Now from Iraq

My plan calls:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
-- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

You might say that's too general, but what is the Republican plan? Stay the course? That's even more simplistic.

Biden's:

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

Now if you disagree with their plans, fine. But it's dishonest to say democrats have no plans and only complain.

Scrum · 10-31-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

What do you mean they're keeping things moving? More like keeping things stagnating or moving in the wrong direction.

I love how you completely ignore Biden's quite elaborate partition plan and Murtha's plan. They have plans. You guys just either ignore them or attack them as traitors when they propose them. Look what happened to Murtha when he dared suggest his plan! It was like Swift Boat v. 2.0 all for going against stay the course. I know it's part of republican rhetoric to say dems are all criticism and no solutions, but how can you miss these?

Full Text of Rep. John Murtha's November 2005 Plan to Withdraw Now from Iraq

You might say that's too general, but what is the Republican plan? Stay the course? That's even more simplistic.

Biden's:

Now if you disagree with their plans, fine. But it's dishonest to say democrats have no plans and only complain.

I couldn't agree more. Fantastic post.

Those two plans are being talked about by the Republicans now as viable solutions, though credit doesn't go to Murtha and Biden for saying it a long time ago.