All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    for some annoyingly unknown reason, my answer to Robbie's original question, which were right next to each other when I posted, became dimensionally separated, leading to dumb-sounding non sequitors.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    We generally expect reasoned and rational thought here. Silliness is OK, but when it is outright wacky, most of us don't seem to get it (though, by her response, perhaps NMA is in tune with your humor).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm just this old retired guy who obviously flubbed at making people laugh by writing something silly. Okay, that does not work here like it did for me somewhere else where people on that board knew me a lot better.. Live and learn, but you're trying to shove my face in the poodoo. Stomped or stumped? C'mon!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Not always Fred. Case in point - Sheriff Clarke in Milwaukee county. Runs as a Dem, because that's all that could get elected in MKE, but is one of the most conservative people in politics that I know. Similarly, Scott Walker, who used to be MKE county executive (a non-partisan position) is also very conservative. If he had not first been appointed to the position due to a resignation of his predecessor, it is unlikely that he would have been elected outright the first time, non-partisan or not. The advantage that Clarke has is that he's a black man. Many inner city people will vote skin color over anything. Generally that goes against conservatives, as there are relatively few conservative blacks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Has there been another study?
    Would love to see it.
    I'm a JFK Democrat; Free speech applies to EVERYONE, not just Democrats, and it's innate, not granted by the Constitution, as the Constitution says.

    Post the study if you can find it, Robbie. Let people know.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Herb7734,

    You make a good point, except that parties are representatives of a general point of view, i.e. Democrats-Liberal, Republicans-Conservative. of course one could argue that Republicans seldom stick to a Conservative view in reality.

    Your point about politicians taking a different point of view than their party line would be a great departure from the weasels of both parties that seem to get elected every couple of years. As an example of differing view would of course be Ted Cruz and rand Paul along with Missisippi's Chris McDaniel. Chris McDaniel of course was attacked by the good ol boy Senators with their various organization to get out the democrats to cross over in the primary to defeat him. To say that these Senators are scum would be insulting the scum. Perhaps only allowing money from citizens (yes that includes corporations domiciled in the state) to contribute to campaigns would be a good idea. At the same time I have a problem with restricting contributions because I believe in free speech. I wished I had a real solution to the problem you addressed above.

    Fred Speckmann
    mailto:commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: allosaur,

    I can only assume that the 2 negative thumbs were given because your comment above makes no real sense in any way I have tried to comprehend it. It makes no sense grammatically or philosophically. "Here has a new dino mascot..." has no meaning.

    Please expand on your intentions
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That was their original intent, but they have become mostly power brokers. Most voters are too lazy to investigate who they are voting for, therefore we get the straight ticket voters. We probably should be happy that they vote at all, based on our miserable voting numbers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 11 years ago
    Rob, the astonishing thing is the "groupthink" which
    leads to this systematic ganging-up-on-them stuff.

    regardless of the lack of wisdom, "they" gang up.

    I would think, after a lifetime of seeing it proven,
    that people would learn from their mistakes and
    quit thinking that there's a good end which comes
    of illicit means. -- j

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That would be George Washington.

    Parties are used as a mechanism to identify generally common perspectives.

    I agree with you that voting a "straight-ticket" should be prohibited.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years ago
    Which founding father said that he didn't like the idea of political parties? Whoever it was, I agree with him. There really is no need for them. Affiliations can be formed and dissolved based on individual proposals. Politicians can express what they are for or against without having to adhere to a policy put forth by a party when they disagree with it instead of having to toe the line for "unity" sake. As a matter of fact, come to think of it, I'll take it one step further; block voting should be banned altogether. Vote your conscience without the influence or pressure of any affiliation. They call me "Beautiful Dreamer."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If I remember that study it was flawed. It included all the commentary shows in the nighttime viewing hour, not merely the 30 min "network" news period. Fox News Special Report is an hour long, but generally, the commentary doesn't start until after the half-hour of straight news.

    When comparing straight news reporting for that 30 min segment against the other 3 networks and the same 30 min period on CNN, Fox News has always come out the most even handed reporting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    FOX was biased, as of 2000 or so.
    That was the last just examination I saw.
    The others all leaned left slightly or moderately.
    FOX leaned strongly right.

    As a JFK Democrat, I CHEERED.
    Yet, I recognized that their goal wasn't to lean right. They saw a news story - they searched for how to show the other side as well. "Fair and Balanced" was the goal. So if they showed the casualty numbers of the US troops, they also showed the casualty numbers of the enemy.

    Who does that? Deaths of the enemy isn't news- they die all the time if they fight the US.
    Deaths of our troops are rare and more 'newsworthy".

    People who are ethical, rich, powerful rarely end up in the news as criminals, so when they commit a crime, it's news. No one writes about the crimes of the average person - no news there.

    FOX tried to show a mixture, different sides, so compared to the other stations, they lean right.

    Then there is ratings, and frankly, conservatives (and JFK Democrats and others) like being informed on all sides of an issue and watch several sources. Wouldn't surprise me if FOX does it consistently for both parties while their talk shows lean right the same amount that the others lean left.

    I depend on it while watching both.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo