I am sure they is some corruption in Washington, but I also believe that some elected officials go to Washington with good intentions and find out how difficult it is to do the things they promised. Congress seems to be so set in its ways, one congressman or senator cannot seem to do much without the assistance of other congressmen and that is where the problems lie. After finding out how hard it is to get things done there, these people with good intentions start playing the political games and taking benefits for being in the positiion. I do think Washington corrupts.
I will admit that I don't follow football very closely. I was giving a bit of a "political" spin with my take on the negotiations, in case you didn't catch it.
We had one Representative I liked, Bart Stupak. He was solid middle-ground, a Democrat who held many Republican beliefs. I didn't always agree with him, but I thought of him as one of the decent folk that rarely received attention from the media, though he was there a long time. Republicans were angry with him for voting for PPACA, one of his last acts. He wasn't going to though, until he got a promise from Obama that he would use his Executive Power to strike the requirements for abortion-funding. Stupak then retired, a decision he had made months before, but he and his family received death-threats from angry Republicans for the vote on PPACA. In his place is a Republican, who I don't like at all.
Two of the three were misses. Admitting "Obama is a failure" and "Eric Holder is at fault" isn't good enough. I'll give you the one where you say you admit when you're wrong...whether it's true or not. I think of that one as a flesh wound though, and not a kill-shot... a minor flesh wound. More like a scratch really. An abrasion.
I'd suggest looking into adding a "Mute" function... something that allows you to ignore people's posts... but that wouldn't really work here. It would be the sound of one hand clapping. I guess the only real options are to ignore posts, to not respond to them, and/or to report blatant personal, objectionable comments. Ignoring/not responding to obvious lies or misrepresentations of facts, especially the ones in a response to your own posts, isn't much of an option. It only encourages more lies and misrepresentations of facts to be presented without a counter/correction of the lies and misrepresentations. That leaves the only option of reporting blatant personal/objectionable comments... something I said I wouldn't do, but I'm rethinking my stance on that given the sheer amount present in comments.
Oh? I looked for a way to ignore posts by people, more for curiosity than as an option (see reasons above), but hadn't seen that. I'll take another look lol
I see Stujoe posted a thread asking about it... back on the old site (2008). I searched again but didn't find anything, not that I'd use it though. This comment sums it up: Looks like you may be out of luck, in that you may be seeing me (and others) whine in a report, "That's uncalled for!" from time to time. Since I doubt some (including myself) can refrain from posting childish remarks for very long.
I think the subject matter in this thread is fair media. I am sure I have gotten off topic a little and readily admit that when I want to reply to another post. Anyway, let me get back on topic. I was watching the Jim Lehrer News Hour last night, which I really believe is an objective news program, and they were talking about Newt's falling in the polls, because of all the negative adds being played in Iowa, and across the nation, from his opponents. Do you think this type of news story would be shown on Fox or even NBC?
It was shown on Fox this morning. For all that Fox is vilified, it is actually a pretty reasonable source for news. It is admittedly right-leaning, but no more than CNN is left-leaning--so what's the difference between the two, really?
For MOST of the country, Fox is generally recognized as having the fairest and most balanced NEWS. (I am sure the vocal minority will disagree with this.) However, their editorial programs do tend to the right. But even on the editorial programs, they most often present liberal opinions - Beckel, , Combs, Rivera, Van Susteren, Williams, etc. are a few of their regulars Now, can you name just one single conservative on NBC, CBS, or ABC?
Hold on, the reason I watch the Jim Lehrer News Hour is because they always have both points of view represented. You are trying to start something that is not there. I just have always thought and still believe that the networks, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox are partisan, that is why I chose the programs I watch. Now I do watch all of them, but I believe Jim Lehrer is the most objective program. I want both sides of the argument.
I've never watched Jim Lehrer--it sounds as if I'll have to check him out. However, I agree with rlm that you'd have to search really hard to find a conservative regular on MSNBC, CNN, or HLN.
You guys didn't miss the link I posted about BO & the left wing media did you? Jake Tapper reported that BO held a summit with most of the darlings of the far left media...one can only imagine what was discussed there. I'm sure he gave them their stories & opinion for the coming year. ***Get ready, moen, a lot of new instructions will be trickling down to you soon!
I wouldn't consider Jim Lehrer a liberal, but some things he's said can be a little biased: July 21, 2009 PBS’s Jim Lehrer forwarded several questions with a clear leftward tilt during an interview with President Obama on his Newshour program on Monday. He urged the executive to “crack heads” to get his health care plan passed, and inquired if “taxing the wealthy” was an option to fund it. Lehrer later pressed Mr. Obama on the “huge profits” being made by “big Wall Street banks.” The PBS anchor led the interview with a sympathetic question on the president’s slipping poll numbers: “Mr. President, it must have been a little unpleasant for you to wake up this morning to see this headline: ‘Washington Post poll shows Obama slipping on key issues, approval rating on health care falls below 50 percent.’ What’s that mean?” After the president’s initial answer, Lehrer went right to health care, and hinted that the Democrat’s “reform” plan should be passed with little to no congressional input: “As you know, a lot of the commentary over the weekend was that nothing’s going to happen, getting from here to the final hurdle here, unless you really start cracking some heads, and really say, ‘Hey, this is the Obama plan, this is what I want. So much for what this committee wants and that- what that committee wants. Here’s what I want, and I'm going to push and go.’ Are you ready to do that?” March 25, 2010PBS's Jim Lehrer on Tuesday wrongly accused Republicans of always being against major social legislation in this country including the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and Medicare. "[T]hrough history, recent history in particular, Republicans have opposed things like Social Security, Medicare, even civil rights legislation, but then, once they lost, they took some deep breaths and moved on, and then finally ended up embracing many of these major changes in -- in laws and in the way we do business here," the News Hour host amazingly said to his guest Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and Kyl quickly corrected Lehrer. December 13, 2008 In today's "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" moment, PBS's Jim Lehrer actually defended the corrupt actions of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Friday asking his guests, "What's the big deal here?" During his discussion with regulars Mark Shields and David Brooks on Friday's "News Hour" the subject of Blago arose, and Lehrer took what has to be considered an absurd position on this issue.
