Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
I might agree with you 100% if the perspectives, stories and opinions presented (on the big networks) were balanced. But they are not. They lean heavy to support left views ............
I'll disagree with the blanket statement about the media. But regarding this statement in context with this thread this couldn't be more innacurate. The mainstream media coverage of the Lieberman loss....see....there I go falling into the trap again.....I mean the Lamont victory, has been completely one sided and the debate directed precisely where the right leaning media wants it. Lieberman was polished up nice and shiney as a mainstream Democrat and the so called "left leaning" pundits had nothing but nice things to say about him while at the same time condeminng Lamont's supporters as "fringe" and extreme. That's supposedly the "left side" of the argument! On the right you have Rupert Murdoch publically supporting him and even Sean Hannity talking about helping the Lieberman campaign. So basically how can anyone see the results of this election being some sort of massive shift to the left or some sort of party cleavage? Lieberman has a history of supporting legislation that favors big business and he was rabidly pro-war. So when you take into consideration that the MAJORITY of the public, not just democrats but the public as a whole is not in support for this war, how can a democratic primary ELECTION that favors the anti-war candidate be somehow labeled as a shift to the "new left"? The fact is, it can't. Let me rephrase, it shouldn't but it is because that's what the way the corporate media wants it portrayed.
I understand what you are saying but, in a way you validate my point.
The media loves Liberman and that perspective sets the perspective of the story. They hate Bush and that does the same too.
The Hanity comment is true but it has to be looked at in perspective (and I don't want to get into that here)
As for the Lamont victory? He is left in todays anti war fringe that has taken over the party. Liberman is by no means a conservative. But his support of the war tuned out the one issue left leaning moveon.org types.
I mean no disrespect or want to insult anyone with the last statement. I use it to define some groups in the context of todays debates. (I should be able to do better sorry)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
As for the Lamont victory? He is left in todays anti war fringe that has taken over the party.
Less than 40% of the public supports the war. I don't have the figure but I'd be willing to guess that at least 75% of democrats are against the war. So basically, those who support the war are the "fringe" and Lamont's victory is right in line with the thinking of the vast majority of democrats as well as 60% of all Americans. That's nine disapproval percentage points higher than a "mandate".
QuoteHe is left in todays anti war fringe
so, you actually believe that being anti-war is a "fringe" position?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
billvon 2,473
>(the left politico in washinton)
It is your belief, then, that the federal government is currently controlled by left-leaning democrats?
I think there might be a wee hole in your theory.
It is your belief, then, that the federal government is currently controlled by left-leaning democrats?
I think there might be a wee hole in your theory.
kallend 1,679
Quote
Public schools are controlled by local school boards, whose members are elected by the people of the district. When you are so far to the right that almost everyone looks like a leftist maybe the problem is you.
That may be the way it looks on the surface but all the money collected goes to Washintong first and then you get your money back only when you teach what they (the left politico in washinton) tell you to teach.
Ahem, what have you been smoking? All three branches of the govt. in Washington are controlled by the Republicans. If Washington looks like its controlled by lefties to you, maybe the problem is YOU.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Public schools are controlled by local school boards, whose members are elected by the people of the district. When you are so far to the right that almost everyone looks like a leftist maybe the problem is you.
That may be the way it looks on the surface but all the money collected goes to Washintong first and then you get your money back only when you teach what they (the left politico in washinton) tell you to teach.
Ahem, what have you been smoking? All three branches of the govt. in Washington are controlled by the Republicans. If Washington looks like its controlled by lefties to you, maybe the problem is YOU.
The NEA has always been firmly in the Dem's pockets...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I'll disagree with the blanket statement about the media. But regarding this statement in context with this thread this couldn't be more innacurate. The mainstream media coverage of the Lieberman loss....see....there I go falling into the trap again.....I mean the Lamont victory, has been completely one sided and the debate directed precisely where the right leaning media wants it. Lieberman was polished up nice and shiney as a mainstream Democrat and the so called "left leaning" pundits had nothing but nice things to say about him while at the same time condeminng Lamont's supporters as "fringe" and extreme. That's supposedly the "left side" of the argument! On the right you have Rupert Murdoch publically supporting him and even Sean Hannity talking about helping the Lieberman campaign. So basically how can anyone see the results of this election being some sort of massive shift to the left or some sort of party cleavage? Lieberman has a history of supporting legislation that favors big business and he was rabidly pro-war. So when you take into consideration that the MAJORITY of the public, not just democrats but the public as a whole is not in support for this war, how can a democratic primary ELECTION that favors the anti-war candidate be somehow labeled as a shift to the "new left"? The fact is, it can't. Let me rephrase, it shouldn't but it is because that's what the way the corporate media wants it portrayed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites