Anyone who believes that Fox is as right as the others are left is a COMPLETE idiot. Independent studies done over the last 2 years have proved as much. Not to mention, just watch Fox and see.
...
The big difference is the others blow whatever left-wing candidate there is at the time and Fox does not blow anyone.
You hardly EVER see any criticism of the magic ONE on any of the lefty stations.
Fox has consistently called out Bush and McCain.
This country is going in the shitter with with the big shit that was just elected. WHEN he becomes president, I will support the office. But I will never support the man. Now that does not mean I will be full of hate toward him. We just disagree on, well, every damn thing he stands for. Any God-fearing gun-toting southerner that supports the magic ONE, should turn in their southern card and move north of the Mason-Dixon line. Or Florida.
And screw all libs if they think I will lay down and kiss anyone's ass. For 8 years the bastards have been hateful to the max, they can expect a little discomfort for the next four.
As a bitter gun owner who clings to God and religion I could not agree with you more.
Fox has consistently been "fair and balanced" whereas the other "news" programs (and I do watch them from time to time) have not; they've been in the tank for The Obama since day one; even the Hildebeast got the short shrift by them whereas when she's been on several Fox News news and opinion programs she was treated fairly.
As a general note all of the commentators on the various networks have their own subjective views which do surface in the form of personal opinions. Hannity and Colmes are good examples of commentators as is Bill O'Reilly, the loathsome Keith Olbermann, the
Democrat socialist sycophant Chris Matthews, and the gollum-like Larry King.
Just curious as to why we need a party system anyway. Exactly what is accomplished by that other than polarizing a nation?
We have a two-party system because that's the result of Alexander Hamilton's and Thomas Jefferson's disagreement over the function of a Federal government as defined by the Constitution.
Hamilton favored a more centralized/federalized approach to government by basically allowing a more classically liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the authority defined within it. He feared anarchy without a strong central government.
Jefferson favored a far more limited federal government by allowing only a strict interpretation of the powers defined for government within the Constitution. He feared that a liberal interpretation of the Constitution would give us another tyrannical government which he'd just help fight a war against.
Federalist versus democrat. Two philosophical approaches which fit nicely with our bi-cameral Congress and provided an instant and additional layer of checks and balances.
Unfortunately that philosophical approach became one major reason for the later War of Northern Aggression. And the Federalist approach won it. And, over the years, the Federalists became Republicans, the Jeffersonian democrats became Democrats...then the Democrats became socialists and the Republicans became the old Jeffersonian democrats.
And the past few years the Democrats have become more socialistic and the Republicans have become more like the big government, FDR Democrats leaving real conservatives who cling to their guns and religion trying to keep the party more in line with the Jeffersonian democrat philosphy of smaller and less intrusive government, decentralized power, responsible budgeting, etc.
Anyway, I digress, the real failure lately has been that both parties have been more alike than not and the two-party system is designed to make third parties fail with little or no electoral rewards for their effort; that is why other parties have merged with larger parties in the past.
Because Republicans are generally decent, God-fearing, patriots. We support our country even when we may disagree. Democrats, as a rule, do not. People are making a huge deal out of Elisabeth because she did what TRUE patriots do. She got on the bus. She said, "okay, my guy lost. I'm an American first. So I'm going to give the new administration my support and hope we can keep it from screwing up." A Democrat would never do that: See 2004, 2000, 1988....
...
Generally I think that you are correct but there are men and women of ill-repute in the Republican Party just like in the
Democrat socialist party. Republicans are almost ALWAYS held to a higher standard than
Democrats socialists by the MSM (unfortunately) but by the public too by extension. And that is, in part, why we were thumped in the elections this week.
...
I support the country. I do not and will not support Obama now or ever. I will actively work to see that he isn't re-elected. That's the way things work.
I support my country and will always respect the office of the Presidency. However, I will not respect a President who has not earned it as I opined in an earlier post this week.
The Obama has done nothing to earn anything but disdain from me right now. This man has Hamas endorsing him!
Any candidate with the Republican Party that had had his background NEVER would have made it through the primary season vetting process if that far so why in the hell should I give him any kind of leeway?
I too will actively work to make sure that
Democrats socialists like him are NOT re-elected but the work begins by helping to cull the socialists out of my own political party and getting us focused back on the conservative philosophy of Jefferson democratic ideals.
Our first president was wise well beyond his years when he urged Americans in his farewell address to "forswear excessive party spirit and geographical distinctions".
That's correct Sani but that does not mean that I and bitter clingers like me must embrace
Democrat socialist elected representatives or their philosphy. I don't think that being the loyal opposition (loyal to my country but opposed to Pelosi, Reid, and The Obama) is excessive party spirit. It's called honest disagreement.
As mentioned, part of the problem with the Republican Party as I see it is that we've been all too happy to compromise with the
Democrats socialists and they NEVER compromise with us. Hell, our candidate this year was one of the biggest Republican compromisers in Senate apart from Jim Jeffords (who was replaced by a real socialist), Lindsay Graham, and a handful of others who represented half of the "Gang of 14" if you'll recall! Look what the hell running him got us! Look what having a compromiser in the White House got us at least for the past couple of years...yes, I voted for him but he was a hellava lot better than Gore and Kerry ever would have been!
That may be true, but you're basing that mostly on Bush, who eventually pretty much everyone agreed was a fuck up. Some of us just took longer to admit it.
He was on a lot of things but he's carried the war on the jihadist terrorists to their land and probably made them think twice before ever trying to hit us again. They've clearly been hurt and hurt badly but we'll never know the true story because the MSM won't report it since it might help make President Bush "look" good in the public eyes. My ONLY real regret for W is that he did not get Bin Laden and that is a bitter disappointment indeed.
At least he didn't compromise with the jihadists whereas The Obama wants to negotiate with them!
Anyway, I'm done with this for a little while...I'm leaving for Las Vegas in the morning...we'll see yall on the dark side of the moon.
By the bye, I'm not a mod but I'm really glad to see the activity in the SGA this week...sometimes I think I'm like the John the Baptist in the desert here.
Carry on...
51 Replies
13055 Views