Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
What kind of nation are we? We are a nation that is being manipulated by politicians, the news media that serves the politicians, and political pundits, that are used by both the aforementioned, to be the mouthpieces of the political parties. Many of these people and organizations, have fostered the image of a progressive, all inclusive party on one side of the aisle, and an oppressive, racist bigoted party on the other. This is the demise of our country.


woody - I would put O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and almost the entire national Conservative talk radio system as the top three who influence the population in an often unfortunate manner.  I'd be interested in knowing who you would rank on top as reaching the masses with this progressive approach you describe?  I can't think of any representative of the news media who can come close to matching the influence of my top three.  Just curious who you can come up with.  Thanks.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #62 
Coach - I think it's a matter of degree.  In some cases (no pun intended) absolutely. Then, unfortunately, it becomes a matter of "the first platoon is the best and only platoon and the other guys stink up the ballpark".  Compromise of thought and issues suffers.    Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #63 
CoachB25 - I wasn't trying to grade or compare these three Conservative examples but rather to ask who else is out there influencing voters anywhere near this level?  Most of the people I know, who voted for Obama, have no idea who Chris Matthews, Ed Schulz, or Lawrence O'Donnell is.  They all know Rush and O'Reilly.  I think it's more a case of turning on the car radio and either supporting what you listen to daily or being repulsed by it.  Terms like moochers, slut, lowlifes, (Rush mostly), and the like may help solidify a particular position or drive you far away.  Whatever the case, these are the primary cases of political influence reaching the masses and I can't think of many left leaning individuals who reach and corrupt Obama voters to the extent woody suggests.
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,932
Reply with quote  #64 

The stats I gave I noted were from fox business----of fox news. They were from a conservative leaning source.
Romney said 47% because at the time of the data that was the exact amount of people getting federal money. He got it from his people. He used it without knowing it included ALL people getting federal money.
He said it at a private republican fundraiser, it was casual for a partisan crowd so it didn't have to be fact checked since it was private, and he intended it to rally people to donate money to him at that fundraiser by pointing the finger at only people getting welfare and food stamps and needing the donations and support because those people were about half of america. Once out there he couldn't back off so his camp had to spin it. Trying to make the election makers vs takers but it didn't work and even gingrich said it was a direction that would not have positive results....especially when there are as many makers and takers in each party. Divicive politics don't work. You have to beat the incumbent. Didn't people learn that from Bush jr going for his second term after the tidal wave of negativity during his first term. You need to win the swing states not just your own states. You cannot insult a voter then ask them to vote for you.
Be real..if all the takers in america voted democrat along with wealthy democrats, billionaires, ceos, celebs, musicians, athletes and polititians that are democrat it would have been a 75% landslide (basically take away 40-47% of republican vote since those people are part of the 47% too). 

The vast majority of all the top people at fox news are former republican politicians and/or give huge political donations to republican party and candidates. (Guys at very top, hosts, political analysts, commentators, news people, etc). Even those that try to be unbiased still leak bias....it is in their best interest since that is their audience. They can't change their core attitude and feelings. But yes...O'reilly is nothing like rush. Bill will still overtalk and drown out any guest on his show and lean heavily right but he tries to sprinkle in liberal and democrat perspectives via guests. Rush doesn't lean right---he stays far right. His audience is far right conservatives and that is who he sells his outrage to.


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
woody

Registered:
Posts: 7,552
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
What kind of nation are we? We are a nation that is being manipulated by politicians, the news media that serves the politicians, and political pundits, that are used by both the aforementioned, to be the mouthpieces of the political parties. Many of these people and organizations, have fostered the image of a progressive, all inclusive party on one side of the aisle, and an oppressive, racist bigoted party on the other. This is the demise of our country.


woody - I would put O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and almost the entire national Conservative talk radio system as the top three who influence the population in an often unfortunate manner.  I'd be interested in knowing who you would rank on top as reaching the masses with this progressive approach you describe?  I can't think of any representative of the news media who can come close to matching the influence of my top three.  Just curious who you can come up with.  Thanks.


OK, how about George Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer, John Stewart, Arianna Huffington, Bill Maher, Oprah Winfrey?



__________________
You Liberals crying for open borders for the most part, don't live on the border. You are therefore insulated from illegal immigration. You are immune from the local costs involved, both economic, and in lives lost. So unless you live down here, and bear the burden, STFU about "immigration reform". You know nothing, and are better suited to eating bandwidth and scones at a Starbucks than telling me what I should feel. Arrogant Pissants.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #66 
I suppose many Obama voters that I talk with would know Oprah but, beyond that, not so much.  I can tell you from where I sit, there is no continuous daily racist bashing or demonizing of the Right reaching large numbers of voters to the extent you suggest.  Nothing comes close to the impact talk radio imposes nationwide which surely reaches a larger audience by far.  Even here in California I can't name a Progressive talk radio host.  I still say you give the Sunday talk shows and MSNBC way too much credit.  Instead, it's talk radio, and maybe even O'Reilly somewhat, who reaches significant voters and either turns them on or turns them off. 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 7,552
Reply with quote  #67 
The reason why there are no "progressive" radio hosts, is because they have no market. Remember Air Americas failure? I do. They failed because their target audience, Liberals, did not tune in. Conservatives like to be abreast of political issues, I listen to NPR, MSNBC, and a lot of conservative shows, to get a take from both sides. I don't think the Liberals care much about politics on a day to day basis. They are watching dancing with the stars, or a reality show. They live in a world of their own. Just look at the man on the street interviews, they more often than not are completely ignorant of politics, yet they vote.
__________________
You Liberals crying for open borders for the most part, don't live on the border. You are therefore insulated from illegal immigration. You are immune from the local costs involved, both economic, and in lives lost. So unless you live down here, and bear the burden, STFU about "immigration reform". You know nothing, and are better suited to eating bandwidth and scones at a Starbucks than telling me what I should feel. Arrogant Pissants.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #68 
woody - In a roundabout way, I think you're making my point.  Whatever the level of political interest on the left there may be, there is no media mass influence successfully convincing them the Right is a racist bigoted Party while the Left is an all inclusive one.  If there is a media influence on the Left or Center at all, I say it comes from the Right in an often offensive manner that probably turns them away.  In fact, it may have turned some on the Right away too as it appears Mitt Romney received fewer votes than John McCain.

At the same time, it can't be the non taxpayers versus the taxpayers either because red states lead in non taxpayers,  according to some reports.  No, I think the recent election was much simpler than any outside influence argument, good or bad, and it appears to me it all came down to voters seeing economic progress being made as well as an understanding one side appears to be more focused on solving problems like health care, immigration, equal rights, middle class, and education.  There is so much more on the table of the American people than the continued discussion on lowering tax rates for the wealthy and I believe the voters confirmed such.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 7,552
Reply with quote  #69 
I believe it was more about a weak republican candidate selected by voters in Blue states being foisted upon the Red states. We didn't want Romney. That's who was selected for the majority of Republican voters by a minority in lowly populated states, and the favored child of a failed GOP leadership. Whom will the "party" decide I will vote for in 2016? I, and the large majority of other GOP voters will have no say in it. I envision another Dole, Romney, McCain. Don't dare nominate a true conservative, that might alienate the "Moderates", and Liberals who won't be voting for a Republican anyway. Ronald Reagan is turning in his grave, the blue bloods have once again lost an election by their inept annointing of their candidate.
__________________
You Liberals crying for open borders for the most part, don't live on the border. You are therefore insulated from illegal immigration. You are immune from the local costs involved, both economic, and in lives lost. So unless you live down here, and bear the burden, STFU about "immigration reform". You know nothing, and are better suited to eating bandwidth and scones at a Starbucks than telling me what I should feel. Arrogant Pissants.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #70 
Dewey, both parties are corrupted....I wanted Romney to win for one reason, only...I did not wanna know that the almost 50% on some kind of entitlement program are so easily influenced by democratic propoganda...They do want others to pay more taxes, but, they do not want their entitlement money cut one cent...They say nothing about wasteful Government spending and hold no politicians accountable for it.....They really do care about nothing political as long as they get their Government check....Do what ya'll want, just don't cut my check.....It really has gotten to this point in America....Where do we go from here?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #71 
woody - I'll let you do your own soul searching on why the GOP lost as I only wanted to take issue with your "undue media influence" and "have vs have not" conclusions.  There were a great many haves and have nots who combined to re-elect President Obama.  There were many have and have nots in red States who voted against him.  This appears to be nothing more than another argument with little merit.  Imo, it's far deeper than this.  You're side is up against a Country who believes access to preventive health care is a good thing, that people living in poverty deserve our support, that the Hispanic community is a very productive segment of society, that all citizens are deserving of particular rights, that education is worth investing in, and that Government can play a role in moving us forward.  Here I think you'll find a larger percentage than the 47% the GOP candidate was overly concerned about.
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #72 
Mr. Dewey, While the left doesn't have the radio presense that conservative talk radio does, talk radio for the most part is listened to by those that are already part of the quire for the most part.  I don't believe Oreilly has a radio show any more and he shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Limbaugh and Hannity.  His program is well balanced with guests from the Right and the Left and he does not have the agenda they do.  Regardless of the adjectives and hyperbole you choose to describe as the right media, it's reach doesn't come remotely close to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, N Y Times, L A Times, Letterman, Leno, John Stewart, SNL and too many more to list. 

How would you equate your argument that Romney received 2 mill fewer votes than McCain to Obama receiving 9 mil fewer votes than Obama?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slideby7


How would you equate your argument that Romney received 2 mill fewer votes than McCain to Obama receiving 9 mil fewer votes than Obama?


I certainly wouldn't credit an influential left wing media for these results.  I'll stick with my belief that if any voter is being influenced by the media, to the extent woody suggests, it's probably happening inside their car.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #74 
I'm certainly not the first to say it, but, it is true....The character of America has changed so much that it it is no longer recognizable.....This generation is raising the next generation to sustain itself with Government handouts....It has become a way of life....Now, which politician will try to reverse this course?.....Keep in mind that free Government money is a battlecry for elections from this point forward!
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #75 
America did not secure it's border with Mexico....Big mistake....Now, America's laws are diluted and responsibility for obeying our law is almost non-existent....Republicans and democrats, both, are responsible for the illegals in this country....Nobody is minding the business of protecting America!
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #76 
The ills of American are not on the shoulders of the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Matthews CNN, Foxnews and MSNBC...Our political system has become so corrupted by money that we no longer control it....Look how much was spent on this election....That money comes from somewhere....We'll go like this for awhile, but, America will reach a point where we'll hardly remember what we once had!
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by slideby7


How would you equate your argument that Romney received 2 mill fewer votes than McCain to Obama receiving 9 mil fewer votes than Obama?


I certainly wouldn't credit an influential left wing media for these results.  I'll stick with my belief that if any voter is being influenced by the media, to the extent woody suggests, it's probably happening inside their car.


Mr. Dewey, You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but they are just that, your beliefs.  The three networks alone have more viewers in one night than the talk shows you singled out have listeners in a week.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,042
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slideby7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by slideby7


How would you equate your argument that Romney received 2 mill fewer votes than McCain to Obama receiving 9 mil fewer votes than Obama?


I certainly wouldn't credit an influential left wing media for these results.  I'll stick with my belief that if any voter is being influenced by the media, to the extent woody suggests, it's probably happening inside their car.


Mr. Dewey, You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but they are just that, your beliefs.  The three networks alone have more viewers in one night than the talk shows you singled out have listeners in a week.
And it permeates way beyond just the news shows. There is liberal bias in sitcoms, dramas, even some sportscasts. Add to that the AP which is copy and pasted by virtually every paper in the country and the online "news" outlets like AOL and Yahoo, etc and the numbers are staggering and dwarf the one right leaning broadcast channel.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #79 
Guys, I didn't drop in to argue with each of your contrary beliefs but to disagree with woody's assertion that one side of the media is fostering the beliefs of the population as a whole while the right leaning media can't seem to carry much influence whatsoever.  Then we went on to agree how many voters don't pay much attention at all which further illustrates the unlikelihood of any overwhelming influence by the media folks.  It looks like we're grasping at straws.  Besides, how did Obama lose nearly nine million votes with all this so called influence?  Or how did he lose Mississippi who has the highest percentage of food stamp recipients in the nation?  I suspect each different answer will represent somebody's personal beliefs.




Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Keep in mind that free Government money is a battlecry for elections from this point forward!


bluedog - President Bush both increased food stamp recipients by 86% and increased Rx coverage for our elderly.  Despite these two steps, he ended his term with one of the lowest approval ratings ever, 22%.  I think there may be more to governing than your statement suggests.
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #80 
Mr. Dewey, I didn't know it was an argument.  I view it as a disagreement.  Regardless of why you dropped in, I don't see where that precludes us from taking a different position.  You may be grasping at straws, I am not.  Obama lost nine million votes because many were disappointed in his first four years. 
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,932
Reply with quote  #81 
Know who cares about margin of victory? The losing side. Sports, politics, competititons.
It is finding something to knock about the winning side. "You barely won".."You won by less than last time"..etc. But they still won. You can't put lipstick on a loss and turn it into something better than a win.

Obama won a 2nd term. He won the electoral votes by alot and popular vote by over 2%. President Obama becomes the first president since Reagan to win over 50% of the vote in both elections. Doesn't matter by how much since he Cannot run again. He is done. We cannot punish him or hurt him...we can merely screw ourselves out of anger he got re-elected. Like it or not he is here for 4 more years.

Bush won a 2nd term. He won electoral votes and unlike his first term where he lost popular vote he won the popular vote the 2nd term. Doesn't matter what people said or thought about him. Michael moore could kiss his butt for all he cared. He was in. People complained and talked of going to canada. Bye is what I said after the election. Hope canada wants you. Unlike america you can't just walk into canada. Better have a loved one, family member or job sponsoring you to get in on anything more than a vacation.

Just like back in 2004 we have people unhappy with the results and lashing out at people of the other party for voting that person in. Newsflash---nomatter who is elected president nearly half of america will not have voted for them and be unhappy...and in the case of Bush first term over half of america did not vote for him and he won (which is why so many were hoping obama would not win popular vote so like the liberals in 2004 we could get that late touchdown in a game we have already lost and have something negative to keep the outrage political talk shows on tv and radio going.
Everything looked bad for Bush going into 2nd term election and he won. Now youy see why newt gingrcih before the election said obama was going to win. He said the incumbent president is hard to beat nomatter the issues of the country. Of course newt is right and didn't blow smoke about how gop was going to win in landslide. He has gone thru alot of political drama and many presidential elections from different positions in his time. The contender can show the current presisent sucks but can you show you won't suck as much or worse. Yes it can be worse. A sucky QB can be replaced with a guy who sucks worse. You have to show that your candidate will be better for sure....and that is hard.

2016 is a clean slate. Both parties go head to head with nobody being re-elected and both have primaries. Until then we have to put politics aside and be americans. Being bitter and outraged is what conservative radio sells. It isn't because more of us on right are concerned with politics than it is us liking to gripe and complain. Radio is entertainment. Talk shows nomatter the topic are entertainment. If you want the news you can skip political spins on it and pick up local newspaper hardcopy or via smartphone or pc. Most people like entertainment with their news. Same with sports. Don't just watch the game and get score..pick it apart afterwards. Analyze the players, coach, etc. Critique good and bad moves. Reasons and excuses. Monday morning quarterbacking. Our self important society plays into it where we want the country to mirror our own beliefs and when it doesn't there is a problem with the country. Happened in 2004 and in 2012. From people on both sides.
Bush was the better choice in both is elections. Better than gore and kerry. Obama was better choice than mccain and coinflip vs romney. And we on the right tried a trick play by getting sarah palin on the ticket to electrify and energize our party and that was fail. So many other qualified and better choices...female and male. "Anyone but bush" philosophy didnt work and "anyone but obama" didnt work either.
Because of our "spread anger, frustation, and blame" media on both sides we will always have half the population upset over who is president......that is not changing with our current 2-party system. Even today people cling to politics over being an american first. Several of us fought for american . We didn't care what your political party was or race , gender , etc. I was proud to serve and proud of this country. I still am.

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #82 
As Dewey said, both parties are responsible for upping entitlements...This is politics, now.....The taxpayers are being controlled and the handout people are voting....
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #83 
Fhoenix, check your facts, please!

"(CNN) – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who predicted Mitt Romney would win the presidential election in a clear victory, conceded Wednesday morning that his expectations were off.

"I was wrong," Gingrich said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,932
Reply with quote  #84 
These polititians say many things and contradict themselves.
Gingrich stated, "If the elections were held today I suspect that Obama would win". Youtube had several clips. He was not onboard after the primaries. He told his supporters and staff different things than he said to mainstream media. This was all before the election (probably mostly sour grapes from losing primaries but he still said it before election).. Then he said romney would win easily (of course he did publically---it would have been national news if a prominent republican came out saying romney was going to lose....even if they believed it), then he apologized on a cnn political tv show and said he was wrong to predict a romney win with 300 electoral votes.
Which way Gingrich actually felt of both things he said only he knows...but he at times had said each would win.

"I think you're going to find that whether it's Michael Barone or Karl Rove, the whole group of us, we all thought we understood the historical pattern and the fact that with this level of unemployment, with this level of gasoline prices, what would happen." Gingrich went on to admit that President Barack Obama had run a "very, very effective campaign" and suggested Republicans would need to reassess their strategy for future races. "Republicans are going to have to take a very serious look at what happened and why did it happen and why were we not more competitive at the presidential level," Gingrich said.Gingrich also "bluntly" admitted he was wrong on "CBS This Morning," and said the Republican party needed to become a "party of inclusion." He did commend Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, for their wins in the House races.

Also this---
Former White House Chief of Staff, William Daley was asked who would win a month ago  "Obama, because he deserves to be the winner. Romney, coming out of the Republican primaries did not do anything to move the ball for him to become more likable or more well known more understood as to what he may do, other than to say, 'I'm not President Obama, therefor vote for me,'"

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 8,291
Reply with quote  #85 
America was founded as a Republic...But, we are becoming a Democracy....

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up to until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to lose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by dictatorship."
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,093
Reply with quote  #86 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbmom1812
Thought this might be an interesting question with Obama now going on his second term.  Here's what O'Reilly thinks.

http://www.bit.ly/WAOdsv




This one's for you susan, this is a thread she made day after obama won his 2nd term. She was fearless in the face of defeat, lets see how hilLIARy supporters choose to act for a few years. Dewy bashed GW for all of obama's years.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,878
Reply with quote  #87 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
This one's for you susan, this is a thread she made day after obama won his 2nd term. She was fearless in the face of defeat, lets see how hilLIARy supporters choose to act for a few years. Dewy bashed GW for all of obama's years.


RIP
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,093
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
woody - I'll let you do your own soul searching on why the GOP lost as I only wanted to take issue with your "undue media influence" and "have vs have not" conclusions.  There were a great many haves and have nots who combined to re-elect President Obama.  There were many have and have nots in red States who voted against him.  This appears to be nothing more than another argument with little merit.  Imo, it's far deeper than this.  You're side is up against a Country who believes access to preventive health care is a good thing, that people living in poverty deserve our support, that the Hispanic community is a very productive segment of society, that all citizens are deserving of particular rights, that education is worth investing in, and that Government can play a role in moving us forward.  Here I think you'll find a larger percentage than the 47% the GOP candidate was overly concerned about.


High atop his high horse you see

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 2,886
Reply with quote  #89 
Didn't know her, but I suspect that softball mom would enjoy knowing that these 16 losers are moving out of the neighborhood.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/08/celebrities-leaving-u-s-trump-wins/

__________________
"I can picture you attempting to grow Ivanka some fruit."
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 2,886
Reply with quote  #90 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal


High atop his high horse you see


lol that's gonna sting. I wonder how many deweyism nuggets you might unearth over the next couple of months........

__________________
"I can picture you attempting to grow Ivanka some fruit."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: