Is MSNBC Serious? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

galadriel2 -> Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 3:57:30 AM)

When Chris Matthews says that Sen. Obama is the New Testament - is he serious? Jesus was so controversial and radical and committed to exposing to the world His love for the Father that they murdered Him. 'But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do.' (John 14:31a) When they intimate that conservatives are mean and hateful and the Republican Party is falling apart - who takes them seriously?

God bless all abundantly,
Galadriel2



iluvatar -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 8:52:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: galadriel2

When they intimate that conservatives are mean and hateful and the Republican Party is falling apart - who takes them seriously?


Most people.

-Dan.



tafkam -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 9:00:35 AM)

Well, Michelle Obama said we all need Barack to "save our souls". Kinda makes you want to stand back and make room for the lightning bolt, doesn't it?

People like Matthews and Olberman are so in the tank for Obama that it's almost pathetic to watch them.

I know some will argue that conservative commentators are just as much in McCain's corner, but I would disagree. Nearly every major conservative talker has expressed real and grave concerns about McCain as the best choice....



iluvatar -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 9:23:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam
People like Matthews and Olberman are so in the tank for Obama that it's almost pathetic to watch them.

I know some will argue that conservative commentators are just as much in McCain's corner, but I would disagree. Nearly every major conservative talker has expressed real and grave concerns about McCain as the best choice....


It's not that the conservative talkers are above such antics - they aren't - it's that they wanted one of the more conservative candidates to win the nomination.

-Dan.



fiat_lux -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 9:23:49 AM)

quote:

When they intimate that conservatives are mean and hateful and the Republican Party is falling apart - who takes them seriously?

It's a fairly common accusation. (Not really an accurate one, but it's not as though it's new or unusual to hear it.) Also kind of a silly reference to the New Testament, I have to say. I can give ten reasons off the top of my head why I don't consider Obama's platform to be in line with the teachings of the New Testament.

Personally, I wouldn't take any commentators seriously.



TaoPoohBear -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 4:53:06 PM)

He was commenting about Super Tuesday, when everyone thought Hillary would (of course) be the nominee.

February 6, 2008

quote:

"I've been following politics since I was about 5," said Mr. Matthews. "I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising."


Got anything more current, like "He's Moses" since he won?[:D]

In so far as the Republican party -
quote:

In the 2006 congressional elections, voters 18 to 29 years old favored Democrats over Republicans by 60% to 38%. Hispanics favored Democrats 69% to 30%; Republicans' share was 14 percentage points lower than its Hispanic vote in congressional elections two years earlier. Independents went for Democrats 57% to 39%; in 2004, Democrats only narrowly got more votes than Republicans.
17% of Republicans are 18 to 34 years old, down from 25% in 1997. Republicans 55 and older constitute 41% of the party -- up from 28% a decade ago.
Longtime Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio this year conducted an exhaustive survey of his party's voters to update one he did in 1997. He found that the party is significantly older and more conservative than it was a decade ago. That, he says, suggests a Republican Party increasingly at risk of being seen "as very old-fashioned, very old and not in touch with the realities of today's society."

Can't speak for others, but I'm a 50 year old who worked with the Reagan campaigns in '76 & '80 in California (and I felt comfortable enlisting in the Army after Reagan won, because I knew I could trust him). I became a Democrat in the early '90s because of the nasty stuff I began to see out of "my" party. Just a personal observation.
And no, I'm not going to go into detail. If you want a sample, watch Fox News; That kind of stuff never really changes. MSNBC just picked up on the trend, and realized that the youth demographic was there for the taking. It's all about Buck$.



HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 6:15:55 PM)

quote:

In the 2006 congressional elections, voters 18 to 29 years old favored Democrats over Republicans by 60% to 38%. Hispanics favored Democrats 69% to 30%; Republicans' share was 14 percentage points lower than its Hispanic vote in congressional elections two years earlier. Independents went for Democrats 57% to 39%; in 2004, Democrats only narrowly got more votes than Republicans.
17% of Republicans are 18 to 34 years old, down from 25% in 1997. Republicans 55 and older constitute 41% of the party -- up from 28% a decade ago.
Longtime Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio this year conducted an exhaustive survey of his party's voters to update one he did in 1997. He found that the party is significantly older and more conservative than it was a decade ago. That, he says, suggests a Republican Party increasingly at risk of being seen "as very old-fashioned, very old and not in touch with the realities of today's society."


None of that surprises me in the least. Who owns the public school system? Not Republicans. They're all busy earning money to pay the taxes for it all. Whomever controls the shaping of the young minds surely owns the future. And as for the Republican party being further to the right, that's utter poppycock. GWB did not govern from the right. As to the Dems, does anyone seriously think JFK would recognize his party?



TaoPoohBear -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 6:54:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter

And as for the Republican party being further to the right, that's utter poppycock. GWB did not govern from the right.


quote:

After President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, however, many attributed the high turnout of Republican voters who claimed to be motivated by "moral values" as a sign that the Religious Right and social conservative factions of the party have gained considerable influence. Although it is clear that compared to the influence of the conservative factions of the party, the numbers and influence of the moderate wing of the party had diminished in recent decades
Wikipedia - Factions in the Republican Party
1 Conservatives
1.1 Religious Right
1.2 Social conservatives
1.3 Fiscal conservatives
1.4 Neoconservatives
1.5 National Security Oriented
1.6 States' Rights Oriented
1.7 Paleoconservatives
1.8 Libertarian conservatives
2 Overlap
3 Moderates and Liberals
3.1 Moderates
3.1.1 Liberals

Seems to be alot more Conservatives! Or are you arguing that Conservative doesn't mean "right"?
(something I"ve always believed anyway![:D])



fiat_lux -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 9:19:33 PM)

quote:

None of that surprises me in the least. Who owns the public school system? Not Republicans. They're all busy earning money to pay the taxes for it all. Whomever controls the shaping of the young minds surely owns the future. And as for the Republican party being further to the right, that's utter poppycock. GWB did not govern from the right. As to the Dems, does anyone seriously think JFK would recognize his party?

You're dead on. Only Republicans pay taxes and only liberals own public institutions. [8|]

More to the point, ten-year statistics aren't really very useful for real long-term trends. After eight years of Democratic controversies in the White House and I'm sure you'll see a swing back in the other direction.



ta_mosquito -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/3/2008 10:02:25 PM)

Moved from Current Events to Election 2008.



rlj -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/5/2008 11:06:35 PM)

quote:

I became a Democrat in the early '90s because of the nasty stuff I began to see out of "my" party. Just a personal observation.


When people ask me why I'm no longer a Republican and left them (and I am the only member of my family to have never voted for democrat for president) I quote what Reagan said when he left the Democratic party but with a little difference:

I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.



TaoPoohBear -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 8:11:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

I became a Democrat in the early '90s because of the nasty stuff I began to see out of "my" party. Just a personal observation.


When people ask me why I'm no longer a Republican and left them (and I am the only member of my family to have never voted for democrat for president) I quote what Reagan said when he left the Democratic party but with a little difference:

I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.

Yeah, sad state of affairs.
More disturbing for me is when I see a "political test" being applied to faith.
The Republican party & Christianity are not a marriage made in heaven, despite some rather prominent folks saying otherwise.
An interesting article on the Conservative usurpation of the Republican party - The Fall of Conservatism
quote:

The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in the 2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized, and Bush allowed to break into pieces.

You know, not only did I vote for Reagan twice but campaigned for him. I never thought of him as conservative, just "common sense". I can't apply that label to current conservatives.



Sophie11 -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 9:27:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

quote:

The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in the 2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized, and Bush allowed to break into pieces.

You know, not only did I vote for Reagan twice but campaigned for him. I never thought of him as conservative, just "common sense". I can't apply that label to current conservatives.


It depends on what your definition of conservative is. As far as I am concerned, the Republican party is in no way a reflection of true conservatives.

Most politicians only want to be elected, other than that I doubt most of them hold any real values. It is sad.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 3:04:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

You know, not only did I vote for Reagan twice but campaigned for him. I never thought of him as conservative, just "common sense". I can't apply that label to current conservatives.


Who can you apply that to these days?

John



davemiller7 -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 3:33:31 PM)

I like what Rush calls most of them: Country Club Republicans. Or what many others call them: RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). That, unfortunately, is what the Republican Party has turned into. Sadly, not many true conservatives left.

-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

quote:

The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in the 2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized, and Bush allowed to break into pieces.

You know, not only did I vote for Reagan twice but campaigned for him. I never thought of him as conservative, just "common sense". I can't apply that label to current conservatives.


It depends on what your definition of conservative is. As far as I am concerned, the Republican party is in no way a reflection of true conservatives.

Most politicians only want to be elected, other than that I doubt most of them hold any real values. It is sad.



rcjames -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 3:44:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

I became a Democrat in the early '90s because of the nasty stuff I began to see out of "my" party. Just a personal observation.


When people ask me why I'm no longer a Republican and left them (and I am the only member of my family to have never voted for democrat for president) I quote what Reagan said when he left the Democratic party but with a little difference:

I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.


rtj, and when you left where did you go?


Thanks
RC



its_GO_time -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 10:45:30 PM)

quote:

GWB did not govern from the right. As to the Dems, does anyone seriously think JFK would recognize his party?


GWB is as conservative, as Bon Jovi, is heavy metal. JFK is the one who originally said that a rising tide lifts all boats: Most of you know it as "Reaganomics"

As for MSNBC, I stopped watching them, when they took "Tucker(Carlson)" off the air. Too libretairian for them, I guess. [8|]



rlj -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/6/2008 10:59:24 PM)

quote:

rtj, and when you left where did you go?


2000 was a no vote but that was because of my work schedule at the time unfortunately same as in 2002*. 2004 was Constitution. 2006 was Dem for Senate, I believe Rep for House and Dem for Governor. Local I don't pay any attention to. Let me add I vote local, I pay attention local but I don't worry about Dem, Rep or Ind.

Our GoP governor at the time in '06 had finished his second term with enough scandal and incompetence to garner an approval rating of 8% and I'm honestly impressed that he earned that much. Governor Strickland reminds me more of an old Southern Democrat or one from the 70s as opposed to the modern day liberal types. He received the endorsement of the NRA and isn't big on increasing programs but wants to get the budget balanced. It's a shame that he doesn't want a VP nod because he would have been an outstanding fit for the borderline states that could go either way like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

As for one party or the other at this point I am leaning towards Dem for the simple fact that middle of the road neocon Republicanism I consider to be at least as bad or worse than the Democrats but not worse than "modern liberalism". If I'm going to vote for a socially conscious, big time government candidate I may as well vote for the party that has been doing it for decades and not the "Johnny come latelys". : /

I dislike both parties thought to be honest. I would like to think that a nation of well over 300,000,000 people of every religion and nationality could actually have more than *2* political parties to choose from. The system is set up though to pretty much keep that status quo in power infinitely.

*Ohio bow season is about 6 weeks starting the first of November. I work in a factory and I am in the minority for my position in that I don't hunt. That can make my schedule in November pretty nuts throughout the month.



sunshinesoprano -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/7/2008 8:48:50 AM)

I think you could ask that question of any media outlet, quite frankly.

Something else that you have to remember, is that these commentators have to do SOMETHING to keep people coming back. It's about money and ratings. They have to be dynamic and controversial or no one would watch! Sadly, enough, but true.

And sadly, I don't think either the republicans or the democrats resemble what the party was intended to be. If it weren't wasting a vote to keep Barack out of office, I'd write in Bugs Bunny...that's how disgusted I am with the whole thing.

My mom is a die hard democrat, and she said that as time passes, it boils down more and more to this...

"Republicans support the wealthy, Democrats support the poor."

I happen to disagree. I think they poth support the wealthy and the poor keep getting poorer.

But this is about the media. The media exists to make money, and unfortunately, it is a disservice to people who cannot evaluate and think for themselves, which appears to be a great number of Americans.



TaoPoohBear -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/7/2008 10:48:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

You know, not only did I vote for Reagan twice but campaigned for him. I never thought of him as conservative, just "common sense". I can't apply that label to current conservatives.


Who can you apply that to these days?

John

I assume that's rhetorical.[:D]
I haven't seen "common sense" on either side of the aisle.
I do like Keith Olbermann; But that's showmanship, not politics. [:D]



rcjames -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/7/2008 1:59:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
I haven't seen "common sense" on either side of the aisle.
I do like Keith Olbermann; But that's showmanship, not politics. [:D]


Wow, liking Keith (Make it up as I go along) Olbermann; not that's showing common sense.[8|]


Thanks
RC



NoShow -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/7/2008 2:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

JFK is the one who originally said that a rising tide lifts all boats: Most of you know it as "Reaganomics"


I thought Sean Lemass, originally said it.



TaoPoohBear -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/7/2008 7:02:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
I haven't seen "common sense" on either side of the aisle.
I do like Keith Olbermann; But that's showmanship, not politics. [:D]


Wow, liking Keith (Make it up as I go along) Olbermann; not that's showing common sense.[8|]


Thanks
RC

His facts (such as they are) can always be verified, how they're presented is showmanship.

I assume you're saying I'm not showing common sense?!
Can't recall ever critizing your choices of entertainment, just the entertainer.
Is that the difference between a progressive (myself) & a conservative (yourself)? I tend to judge the performer instead of the listener.[:D]



its_GO_time -> RE: Is MSNBC Serious? (7/14/2008 10:35:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoShow

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

JFK is the one who originally said that a rising tide lifts all boats: Most of you know it as "Reaganomics"


I thought Sean Lemass, originally said it.


He probably did. But, I know JFK said this;
"I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies...."

And Keith Olberrmann is a wannabe. On FOX sports he was a wannabe Chris Berman, and now on MSNBC, he a wannabe Bill O'Reilly. I bet I've only watched his show, a half dozen times, but I cannot remember any of them in which he didn't(or perhaps couldn't help himself from) mention(ing) O'Reilly's name.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI