Glenn Beck vs. Ed Schultz. Given the size of their bellies, I think the man wih the longer arm reach wins. Got to get ahold of your opponent to beat him.

I mean, is the only problem you have with the fact that he's actually calling them out on it? I mean, is FoxNews really a legit news organization (aside from MSNBC, CNN, etc). They constantly make "errors" of party affiliation in scandals, they air clips during their news shows that are out of context to make any democrat (especially Obama) look bad, they distort nearly everything, and their highest rated show(s) are blowhards that spread lies and repeat talking points. So sure, it seems rather petty to call out the idiot channel, but at the same time you've belabored this for days as if it affected your life in some profound manner, or that we should all be "concerned" or something. I know you are in the middle and as "independent" as they come, but at least put the bullhorn down for a few hours to scan the other GOP blogs for some other "news" to paste here in faux concern.

Ahhhh but Schultz was a football player. Advantage: MSNBC!

I'm not sure how meaningful such a debate is because it's all pure speculation. However, I very much doubt invading Iraq (or not) had much influence on whether we got attacked in the balance of the Bush Administration or not. If you take a look at the attacks that have been foiled, you'll see that it's generally a combination of increased security and/or vigilance due to 9/11 (i.e. on planes, in airports, this avenue is effectively closed to terrorists now) and good intelligence/law enforcement work by the FBI, local law enforcement in the U.S., and various intelligence agencies around the world.

I'm not responding to the PATRIOT Act, because the claim here was about the Iraq War, and I think drawing a straight line between invading Iraq and the lack of attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is very dangerous thinking. It's the kind of "one cause, one effect" thinking that gave us, for instance, the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

As the plethora of attacks and attempted attacks worldwide since 9/11 have shown, there continue to exist a wide variety of vectors for terrorist attacks. This is going to be a problem for us, for everyone, for a long time. Thinking we can solve it by creating a honeypot in another part of the world is very, very dangerous wrong thinking, and thinking that's not even based on actual evidence.

We need good and sophisticated techniques to counter this threat, and randomly invading countries in the Middle East wasn't it, and won't be it in the future.

and we disagree. I dont think any of those shows belong on a channel with "News" in the title and have coalesced a bit to Cam's point and could see them with an editorial banner at the top or bottom but, hey we disagree, nothing new.

The fact that Al Qaeda continues to operate on a worldwide basis should be of concern to you. While I'm not arguing that you should care about the Australians Al Qaeda blows up in Jakarta, or the Spaniards Al Qaeda blows up in Madrid, or the Turks Al Qaeda blows up in Istanbul, I'm confused by your inability to see the evidence of Al Qaeda's continuing operational capability to be relevant to our own security situation.


But Al Qaeda has continued to be able to recruit on our home turf. There have been multiple arrests in the U.S. just this year of Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. who were planning attacks.

By invading Iraq we did not take the fight to their "home turf" because their home turf can be anywhere. Look, this concept didn't even work for the British in Northern Ireland, and Al Qaeda has no "home turf" as clearly defined as the IRA's.


I'm not addressing that. I'm saying this is an inaccurate statement:


This claim has as much factual basis as a claim that the Raiders suckage this decade is mainly due to Bill Belichick taking over the Patriots. There is no credible evidence to support the strength of the claim you're making as anything more than an incidental relationship.

So, just to be clear, I had stopped reading the thread for a few pages (and probably will do so again once this argument has run its course) so I came in on page 128 and was only specifically replying to your belief that invading Iraq made us safer (which I have hopefully made clear by this point).

I can completely see why people would still support specific Republicans in this day in age and even, to an extent, the Republican party.

I mean, I supported Democrats in the early 90s even when it was clear that the party in general and the leadership in particular were a bunch of corrupt, out of touch, idiots.


I may be wrong on this, but I thought the most egregious aspects of the PATRIOT Act were supposed to sunset soon anyway, so tactically the Democrats are just going to let them sunset and have the problem resolve itself. But I could be wrong, as I haven't kept up on this.

Because some people feel that the government exists to do something and that there are some things that need to be regulated and some programs that need to exist. The answer to nearly every issue shouldn't be "get the government out of it."

I get the primetime comparison between Fox and MSNBC, but where on Fox is the equivalent of the three hours MSNBC gives to Scarborough and his frequent contributor Pat Buchanan?

As for Grayson, he's a back bencher that's figured out a way to be a star. His clown act is raising a ton of money, but his substance is very similar to Bachmann and the like. The tragedy is these acts work.

I think people are smart enough to figure out the difference as far as which shows are opinon, but I've been known to give the human race far too much credit at times from an intelligence standpoint. :)

Well, the DOW went over 10,000 earlier this week (or was it last week?), so wrong here. I never felt particularly good about this prediction, to be honest, but I think it just goes to show that the stock market really doesn't mirror the economy at large anymore.

Edit: if it ever did (mirror the economy)

Not the arguements I see on tv or this board. Nobody (a lot of hindsight, but still) is a big fan of the war in Iraq yet Democrats seem to use this as their reason to press some of their unpopular ideas. You think health care is a waste of money? What about the war!? Nobody seems to be a big fan of welfare but the Republicans say... you don't like tax breaks to big corporations? Well I don't like people living off the tit of the government!

The answer to most issues is get the federal government out of it. And you can talk roads, military (which isn't a slamdunk anymore with our military inductrial complex), internet, etc all you want. But take a look sometime where your tax dollars are really going (welfare, federal education subsidies, farmers, corporations, GM, Goldman Sachs, etc) and tell me why I shouldn't want the government out of it. Give me something besides the military that even a fraction of my tax dollars are spent on and I will consede that I shouldn't want the government out of my life as much as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a rather staunch Paulite? Isn't Paul a member of the GOP?

Fox and MSNBC both have counter-point people on their shows. I'm not sure how having Scarborough on MSNBC minimizes their leanings. He gets pounded on his own show more often than not mainly because most of his guests lean to the liberal side. He's the personal punching dummy of the network.

There are a lot of us who DON'T think health care is a waste of money. The reason we sometimes use things like the war as rebuttals is because the reasons often stated by the opposition is "It costs too much and the nation can't afford it." A logical response to that is to point out the trillions we spend on defense and wars, that the majority of Republicans don't have a problem with. I don't see why that wouldn't make sense to you.


I don't understand that last statement, to be honest. I think the basic point that many were making is that we spend too much (as a percentage) on the wars and defense and need to do more in other areas.

In general, the free market cannot and will not police itself. I think that the financial meltdown has proven that we need more government intervention, not less. And something has to be done about healthcare for sure. 62% of the bankruptcies in this nation come from medical problems and of those, 78% of the families that went bankrupt had health insurance at the start of their illness. That is not a system that is working. Well, I take that back. It works great. Until you get sick.

The system isn't going to fix itself.

There's no comparison between guests and the host of the show. It's Scarborough's show. He has a great deal of control over what guests are aired. He has exactly the same amount of on-air time as Olberman, Maddow and Schultz combined. Does Fox give three hours to a former Democratic congressman?

Like I said, I get the primetime comparison, but to say MSNBC is as much an arm of the Democratic Party as Fox is of the GOP means ignoring the three hours every weekday of Scarborough and Buchanan.

Not really a staunch Ron Paul supporter. He is about as close as it gets to what I believe in Congress right now but he would not be my optimal candidate. He is a big believer following in the Constitution which I agree with but here is a perfect example where that would go completely haywire if he had his way. He thinks that Federal Reserve has way too much power and can't just print money at will. (I agree wholeheartedly) However his solution is that the Constitution says that gives that power to Congress. :eek: Bernanke and Greenspan vs Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi?

But in general I agree with his views more than any other. What exactly is your beef with Paul except for the fact that he has to run as a Republican because of how screwed up the political system is? Saw in an interview that he made last year that he was able to get his message out to millions more as the wacky GOP candidate with no chance than when he was the Libertarian's candidate for president back in 1988. You don't remember when Obama and McCain shut Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin out of the debates. If they are such nut jobs why not let the American public decide? Why continue the two party monopoly? Expose these Libertarians for their crazy ideas! Or maybe they are scared that Americans might have to actually think and not debate whether MSNBC or Fox News spins better.

FOX has counterpoint people? Who??

Colmes!

Is that show even on anymore?

I've said many times the game is rigged against third parties, but I don't think the answer is letting everyone into the debates. At some point it really should be viable candidates only, but the problem is establishing viability. It might work to have at least one third party candidate debate.

My bigger point is that Paul has decided to work through the two party system and supporting Paul also means working through the two party system. It's not necessarily the choice of ignorant sheep, it can be a rational decision based on how the world currently works. I'm not interested in supporting a third party because I don't think in my lifetime I can get any closer to my policy preferences through a third party, not because I hope to continue some sort of corporate oligarchy.

Saw this graph and thought it was interesting. Maybe sometime soon we'll have a sensible marijuana policy.

to counteract that though, i dvr'd something the other day (forget what channel) called "Pot City, USA" talking about the problems that legal medicinal marijuana has brought to California, focusing specifically on Humboldt County and the town of Arcata." It's a fucking mess. Something like 1 in 7 houses have been rented out for use as grow-houses and the insides are destroyed. There are criminal elements all over the place, armed men at the grow houses, the occasional shooting, etc.

Was talking with my brother - there needs to be some sort of "it is illegal to grow in residential areas" type law, or zoning for it or something. Also laws about regular inspection of growing conditions and a prohibition against firearms of any sort located either on a property where growing is occuring, or on the person of anybody located on such a property.

I'd be happy to plow some corn under and plant some marijuana.

I hate it when Libertarians use the phrase "ignorant sheep". While I don't think a lot of people are using common sense, all that using the term “ignorant sheep” does is makes them come across as an elitist.

To your point on Ron Paul... I agree that he worked through the two party system but he also never gets taken into the partisan bickering about Fox News or the war or the economy. He sticks to principles. Most of the time his views are in line with the Republicans but sometimes (Iraq, war on drugs, Bush's out of control spending) they are against party lines. That's all I look for. There are a few Republicans and Democrats who are the same way. What happens at FOFC and on tv and with most members of both parties is they get caught up in the nonsense of partisan bickering while they ram stuff through that supports nobody but special interests and their re-election campaign. And that is what I don't get about the people on here. They will blindly support one side or the other just to argue when in fact neither side is looking out for their interests at all.

I didn't say that. You'll have to talk to the person who associated either network with a political party.

I don't really think he gets pounded. It's a pretty mixed cast of characters, but it's still dominated by Scarborough. I actually think it's a good show because it doesn't go as far to the left or right as the evening guys do. One of the few shows that actually has some quality interviews and substance. Not just the daily talking points.

youve never done this in any thread?

I've associated each with how they lean (liberal, conservative), but I've never said that either was an outlet of a party.

yeah, you probably havnt stated that any station has been the official mouthpiece of any party...

Lets define associated though.

very happy that it looks like the expanded hate crimes bill is going to get passed and signed into law...ridiculous that its taken this long.

Frame it however you want. The point is that saying and Fox and MSNBC are equals means ignoring that big block in the morning when Scarborough and Buchanan are given free reign.

That's fine if you want to justify it in that manner. I watched the Joe clips over at Huffington Post this morning. He was a punching bag. It was him being hammered by 4 other commentators who were obviously very biased to the left. If I was MSNBC, I'd be pissed that I had bent over backwards to support this administration only to see them give all the ratings to Fox News with a strategic move that makes very little sense.

Oooh! Oooh! What was the big right wing blog outrage this morning?

While this is a cute little farce that everyone plays up, it has little basis in fact. The truth is that I post more articles from left-leaning sites than anyone in this thread. For that matter, it's a farce that the current administration is playing up and looking foolish in doing so. But feel free to level the attacks at other posters. It's a lazy way to discuss politics instead of discuss the daily issues at hand. No one's keeping you from posting some topics of note, but it's easier to make it about the poster than it is to actually discuss the topic.

This is an interesting development given the upcoming climate change meetings. There's a substantial erosion in belief amongst the American public that climate change is man-made.

Steep Decline In Americans' Belief In Global Warming

There is also a significant percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's Ark. I don't think I would put much stock in the American public vs. Science.

O RLY

Im also glad you posted that stuff about climate change and the Noah's Ark thing and thereby reiterated your support for the need for a "Editorial" disclaimer on the shows on 'News' channels that aren't.

Dola:

Once gas prices start climbing back up all of a sudden Americans will care about our dependence on foreign oil and start buying into global warming again.

This shows that you either don't get out enough or have not had significant interaction with everyday people. I think a good reason we have a lot of people in office (D and R) is because people are too dumb and lazy to figure things out. Most people I know down here (non-academics, good old Southerners) are not smart enough and just pick up on the outrage of these shows. That goes for the bleeding liberals deep inside the A as well. But I'm told that just because one is intelligent doesn't mean theirs is the only opinion that matters...

The article didn't say it was proof that anything did or didn't change. It just noted that public perception had changed, which means the party in power faces more of an uphill battle than they would have as little as one year ago.

The science is obviously up for debate.

Well, I have noted in another thread that I steer clear of Wal-Mart at all costs. That may be where I'm missing out on seeing 'everyday people'.

Like Evolution?

Wonderful article in Newsweek a few weeks ago that totally debunked the ANTI-Evolution argument.

1. What is 'like evolution'? Quote what you're talking about. It's tough enough to follow your arguments as it is. :p

2. Link the article. I'm not even sure what you're saying it debunked.

And while I agree with you on a lot of conservative causes I refuse to get on board with the religion vs. science argument on global warming. IMO it isn't up for debate. Does science change when new things are proven? Absolutely. Could it change in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years? I am sure it might. Does all current research point towards us causing a lot of the global warming right now? Yes.

My dad is a scientist (actually really conservative in his political views) and I take his opinion and that of almost the entire scientific community over people that don't like Al Gore.

Religion vs. science? What debate is that? I'm talking about the sparring between the various scientists as to whether it's a man-made effect. Personally, for me, it's not a case of me believing it's not man-made. I just don't think that there's enough evidence to make the correlation without doubt. I also think people should be eco-friendly in general just because it's a good idea to keep the environment clean. As for Al Gore, they could use a better spokesman, especially given his move to profit through eco-business investments that have grown largely because of his 'documentary'.

Oooh boy! It's global warming Friday!

Americans are gung ho for pretty much anything for the first three months. Then they realize effort and/or sacrifice is involved and quickly sour.

I have found it interesting, however, that global temperatures have actually dropped since the highs in the mid-90's. Of course, a drop in temperature doesn't necessarily mean that global warming doesn't exist either, but Americans have never really been into thinking beyond their generation. It's just the nature of the beast.

It really isn't sparring between scientists. I have read it is basically between 85 and 95%. And if you don't think the Republicans try and convince people that it isn't happening by playing off the "Science? Science doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, you going to believe Science?" than you must not really live in the Midwest like I do. It is totally a debate based solely on politics (mostly anti Al Gore) and religion and no reason whatsoever.

And I am not a big fan of most of Al Gore's other politics. And I think he is very hypocritical when he lives in mansions and flies jets and tells me to cut back on my energy usage. But it still doesn't mean he isn't right on this. Even Nancy Pelosi is right on a couple of things. :)

No doubt. I just have studied science my whole life and think the amount of reason used and the mythology used is enough for me to give them the benefit of the doubt over somebody that has "faith" in a 2000 year old book.

But even the "enlightened" Americans are still all about themselves. A lot of people hate Ayn Rand and think she doesn't give human beings much credit but she pushed an idea that it is hard to argue with.

Again, like Mizzou, I don't understand where you're going here with the whole 2000 year old book vs. science. What does the Bible have to do with global warming? It would be like someone saying that they don't believe in global warming because the scientists are mostly liberal and therefore more likely to be pot-smoking hippies. How can you trust a pot-smoking hippie when it comes to science?

OT, but you brought it up --> Oh, and maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Ayn Rand preached the power of human beings above all. :)