Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 11 years ago
    What's new here isn't new at all - the "objective" press is not objective at all.

    The vast majority of them have a very liberal agenda and will do anything and everything to taint the Republicans while throwing themselves under the bus if necessary to protect Liberals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years ago
    "I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordure’s are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief... This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." ~Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Russpilot 11 years ago
    The reason that the media doesn't mention it when it is a democrat is simply because we all expect it out of them, while it is generally more unacceptable for a republican to step out of line. If the media did not say that they were republican, the liberals would just assume it was one of their own. This, of course, would negate pretty much everything that they are trying to do in indoctrinating the gullible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
      Sorry, Russ, but your analysis is all wet. Whenever something nefarious happens with a politician, it is assumed that it is a republican. Just ask some folks sometime about a new scandal with a non-household name politician.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
          I'm not sure what the "Not always Fred," referred to. As I stated, " ...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."

          We are not all that much apart in our beliefs. I can understand the situation with the Sheriff's position, but I'm not sure about your reference to Scott Walker. That he's a Conservative is well understood by me. Whether or not he would have won his first election is a little confusing to me, are you referring to the county executive position of the governors? He won his recall election because he was a Conservative that cut taxes, threw out the unions and managed to have a surplus.

          As to Clark having an advantage as a black man would depend on whether the county has a larger black population or not. In the past two elections, black conservatives have done fairly well. Granted that there are few of them, but when they are they usually get a high percentage of the white vote. That's not always true, maryland with a large black city (Baltimore) population is the perfect example where a conservative whether black or white has little chance of winning.

          Fred
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years ago
        what if one votes a straight blank ticket [since we can't vote for NOTA]?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
          Why would anyone do that? It would have the same effect as not voting at all, except wouldn't have been a waste of time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years ago
            I have never voted a STRAIGHT blank ticket - there's always something to vote against. I have cast a partial blank more than once or twice, with the only effect I know of being my own satisfaction. I will not willingly vote for someone I see as a bad choice, just because he is the lesser of the evils offered.
            I'd like to believe that someone counts all the ballots, and all the votes, and says "Hey! 19 people voted for nobody!" - but probably not.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
              Oh, I have often left a race blank. Either didn't know enough to make an informed choice, or didn't see that any of the candidates were worthy of my vote. What it seemed to be advocating in your post was just turning in a blank ballot. Which would seem to just be a waste of time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 11 years ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 11 years ago
    Hmmm, interesting. I didn't see Fox News mentioned at all, only the network news. I have to wonder if they're really the one outlet that's "fair and balanced," or do they do the reverse, and label Dems and not Republicans? I know the liberals love to say Fox is biased.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 11 years ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
    Nay. The same goes for Progressive cheerleaders across the cyber-heavens. I know one who could not capitalize Republican or any Republican’s surname. Where is the rule book? They all seem to know how to do it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo