Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

There is a difference though between contested and divisive that is a little blurry at times. Ford/Reagan was a little divisive because Reagan wouldn't even shake Ford's hand and unite the party but even that didn't stop Ford until his made a huge blunder at a debate. Carter/Kennedy was divisive because Kennedy took it all the way to the convention, but I doubt Carter could have won under any circumstances.

This time though doesn't seem so divisive. The republicans seemed on a runaway train to nominating a guy after two tiny states, and that seems really unfair to everybody else and to the candidate who gets tricked into thinking he actually ran a campaign. Two states and no criticism would just leave Romney a sitting duck for Obama who does know what a tough campaign is all about.

The republicans did a fine job in finding a candidate: Their choice is a candidate republicans don't like or a candidate nobody else but republicans like. They need to take a long look at the negative affect if the tea party and the quality of candidates this two-party dalliance has created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

More of the Beltway media pining for Mitch Daniels, a charisma-free zone who would have fared the same way Huntsman did. Chris Cizzila is the guy who spent years telling readers about the glories of "T-Paw" and how "T-Paw" would be so formidable, so what do you expect.

http://www.washingto...mffLQ_blog.html

Also strange that media darling Daniels was chosen since his policies while working in the Bush White House helped create the financial disasters of the last decade. I guess that just makes him even more of a hero.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, everybody on the left cheered when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter. Some liberals even suggested that he had previous knowledge of 9/11.

And Carl, it doesn't appear to me that most in the media are nodding along. Rather, this RNC Chairman's comments are being portrayed in a negative light.

And while Obama did in no way compares to that cruise captain, the fact of the matter is that he has done some extraordinarily insensitive things (while so many are out of work), like when he held an "Alice in Wonderland" themed Halloween party in 2009, or last year when he threw himself a star-studded 50th birthday bash. It's funny, though, that the "conservatively biased" media still goes out of its way to portray Barry as such a "likeable" person even after acting like such a prick. (Meanwhile, the "cold and calculating" Romney was constantly at his wife's side as she battled MS. Thus, because the liberal media has inaccurately portrayed both men, I have zero doubt that Obama will win the election.)

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Those people weren't running the DNC. This man is the head of the Republican Party.

The only hint of a negative reaction I saw was from Bob Scheiffer. I've even seen articles which tsk-tsked because the DNC head wasn't as OTT as Priebus was. This is all a fun game to the media, and the uglier the comparisons, the better (especially if it's on the right). Look at how breathlessly they covered the claims that Obama wanted to kill old people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMO, that is what news reporting should do. (The article also reminds us of how bad the recent tragedy at sea was.) Just let the facts speak for themselves (without editorializing), and the man will be viewed in a negative light.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • It seemed to be your intent. coming into a thread I started and making multiple posts saying my data was wrong. In the next paragraph you say "Of course, I was suspicious from the very first instance where what I saw & heard did not agree with what it should have.  I'm very glad to know why." That certainly didn't stop you from immediately saying the data was wrong, until I provided additional receipts. Why did you not check the daily episode guide (for instance, this one for the 1980's) I posted for the world to see for exactly this reason...to help confirm airdates: http://daytimeroyaltyonline.com/days-daily-summaries-1980-1989-t15361.html? That is what you should be checking BEFORE you make any posts in the future like this, trying to suggest something from my data is incorrect. You could have also messaged me and asked me why your dates weren't adding up with what the correct data is. I would have fast forwarded through that video you posted, spotted Roman and Hope and immediately have told you that was the 11/1/83 episode.
    • Jason, just let me say that it was not my intent to any way impugn any of your data  or research. I'm very sorry if it came out that way. Obviously the person I got these 4 November episodes from has mislabeled files, multiples, which I was certainly unaware of.  When I am editing it is all about what I see & hear. Later, I find time for greater reflection.  Of course, I was suspicious from the very first instance where what I saw & heard did not agree with what it should have.  I'm very glad to know why.  If you find you are no longer interested in the edit, that is fine. I have no ego in this. I did it only to share it.
    • I feel like Vernon and Anita need to not be hypocrites and try and take the heat off Bill in this case. It's clear that the family used him as a fixer and especially knowing he helped with Martin's situation, they need to either be quiet or support him. BTW...with Vanessa being in the hospital for food poisoning, am I the only one who thought Shanice was gonna say she's pregnant or had an STD? The only reason I say STD is because she hasn't had any memorable sex partners, but I definitely don't believe she just had food poisoning.
    • Yeah, I mean I know that the name still pertains. I just laugh at it not now being called Arizona Dust, but, I admit it simply does not have the same ring to it. Above, that is interesting that Arizona had already come up before the crisis. 
    • Anita vs. Leslie, bring it!
    • Leslie and her family are from Chicago? Anita's background also includes being a former Chi-Town native? Might they connect this and go somewhere with it?
    • Honestly who's to say Leslie even birthed Eva, I mean she's a liar, I wouldn't believe a word she says about Eva being Ted's(or hers)
    •   1. 11/1/83 cast/set list:  

      Please register in order to view this content

          The "11/2/83" video you posted of Ruth Buzzi's scenes includes Roman and Hope in them, meaning the video you posted is actually 11/1/83, since Roman and Hope aren't in 11/2/83.   2. The video you posted of "11/2/83" has scenes with Roman and Hope. As you can see from my cast/set list, Roman and Hope are not in the 11/2/83 episode (see above note):   4573...11/2/83: Cast: Mickey, Julie, Doug, Maggie, Neil, Don, Marie, Alex, Liz, Andre as Tony, Gwen, Chris, Eugene, Sandy, Letitia, Charlene, Mrs. Whiting, Wanda/Guard, Dave, Delia, Saleslady # 1, Saleslady # 2, Figure in Dark, Raven/animal, Cats/animals, Birds/animals.   2.  11/3/83 :My video collection starts with 11/4/83. so I don't have the 11/1/83 or 11/3/83 video, but in addition to the cast/set list for 11/3/83, here is also the parking clearance call sheet for that day, showing Ruth was not only in the cast/set list but did work that day:     They even had hired the animal trainer and all the animals for the day, so It's sort of a certainty that her scenes were not cut that day, or it would have been a big waste of the budget. 3. As for 11/7/83, I just fast-forwarded through that whole episode myself. Letitia is in it from start to finish. It's her big final episode where she is killed. She starts the episode saying "Eugene, are you there?" In the next act, Marlena shows up and meets Letitia's lion. Later in the episode, Letitia is killed by "Eugene" (the Salem Slasher in a Eugene mask).   So, as we can see from your own post, the 11/2/83 date you have listed on that video is incorrect, since Hope and Roman are in that video but not in the 11/2/83 episode.It seems the dates you have on all your early November 1983 episodes are incorrect.   When you post videos and suggest that my data is incorrect, do you not first compare who is in the scenes and see if that matches who is in the episode? You didn't do that with the "11/2/83" episode, which based on Roman and Hope being in it means that is actually 11/1/83. Best to do something like that first before suggesting my data and research is incorrect.
    • Within the Dupree family, I predict Vernon/Anita will be conflicted about what to do about Bill and his role in the whole Ted/Silk Press Sheila situation... especially since Bill knows where the particular bone about Martin is buried. Dani, Chelsea, and Naomi's reactions to what Bill possibly did isn't hard to guess.. but Hayley's reactions will be interesting to hear.  Especially given her recent pregnancy scare.. she might not be so much on Bill's side, or she'll totally surprise us and be totally on Bill's side.   Either way, I think Martin's secret will be the main focus in May sweeps.. with the fall out of the Eva secret playing out in the background... while the Joey/Vanessa/Doug thing continues to boil/develop.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy