The Brainwashing of My Father

[soulster]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jensenko/the-brainwashing-of-my-dad-documentary

[soulster]

Pt. 1:

Jen Senko is a filmmaker who watched in horror as her father slowly came to believe the extreme right-wing lies of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media mavens. Now she’s making a documentary about it called The Brainwashing of My Dad.


Senko’s first documentary, Road Map Warrior Women, won recognition with several festival awards. Her most recent film, The Vanishing City, co-directed with Fiore DeRosa, exposes the economic policies that have made New York a city for the rich. The Vanishing City won Best Feature Documentary in the Williamsburg International Film Festival, Best Short Documentary in the Harlem International Film Festival, and Honorable Mention in the Los Angeles International Film Festival.


Rory O’Connor, a filmmaker and author whose works include the book, Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio, interviewed Senko about her film.


Rory O’Connor: Tell us about the origins of your film. When did you first notice your dad’s ‘brainwashing,” and when did you determine to make a documentary film about it?


Jen Senko: I remember the first time I really noticed it. My dad picked me up from the bus station when I was visiting from New York. On the way home we passed a Hooters and he started complaining about the “attack” against Hooters by the establishment, and saying how silly it was and how it interfered with our freedom.


He was frighteningly angry—excited, argumentative, belligerent… I didn’t understand why. I tried to change the subject and said something about all the SUVs I was seeing on the road—this was in the ’80s, when they first came out. My dad had always been a “non-waster” and tightwad—anytime he got gas he marked it down in a little book to keep track of how much he was spending—so I thought he would agree. I was flabbergasted when he got even angrier and threatened to pull over and let me hitchhike the rest of the way home.


If you said anything that he would disagree with politically, it would trigger an extremely large reaction. For example, once on an online dating site, I specified, “No Republicans please.” He found out about it somehow, called and left a phone message. He was sputtering, so mad he could hardly speak, and blurted out, “Don’t ask me for help anymore.” He stopped just short of disowning me.


ROC: Describe the specifics of your father’s transformation. How did it happen? And why?


JS: When I was growing up, no one seemed particularly political. Both my parents were Democrats. Republicans were just other people. My father used to get to work in a car pool when we were growing up in West Long Branch, NJ. When he got a promotion, we moved to Maryland and then he had a long-distance solo drive to work. He started listening to talk radio to pass the time.


He didn’t like to waste time so driving and listening to talk radio I’m sure seemed “educational” to him. It was Bob Grant. Bob Grant was a bombastic, rude, openly racist and sexist radio host. And very slowly, my dad began to change.


Then when he started listening to Rush Limbaugh, that was when I started getting worried. He hated Bill Clinton with a passion I thought was bordering on obsessive. As for why it happened, at this point I can only guess. Unlike my mother, he was easily influenced and seemed to respond to anything he thought was not fair or unjust. He was sort of naïve in a way—people would tell him a story and he would be a little gullible, because he had an open personality.


So when Rush Limbaugh told him that poor people and Mexicans and blacks and feminazis were to blame for well, everything, he got mad too and took it up as his cause. He would get super-angry and bite the middle of his tongue and look like he was going to explode.


ROC:How exactly did his behavior change?


JS: When I was growing up my dad seemed to love everybody. I never heard any kind of talk against any race or ethnicity. He was funny and goofy and talked to anybody….When I was in college I knew a lot of gays, and he was friendly and even gregarious and even thought them “cultured.” He wasn’t prejudiced at all. It wasn’t until later that he underwent a radical change.


I remember one time in particular when we went to New York to go to Radio City Music Hall. A black homeless man asked him for money. My father called him sir and gave him money. That is imprinted on my memory. When my dad changed, he became obsessive. He got angrier. After he retired, he would sit in the kitchen and eat his lunch and listen to Rush Limbaugh for three full hours a day. God forbid you interrupt Rush. He tried to inject his political views into any conversation he had, with anybody. Around Christmas-time [[not just on Christmas Day) he would be sure to shout “Merry Christmas” to anyone and everyone, because he believed that liberals were engaging in a war on Christmas.


He believed it when Rush Limbaugh told him that climate change is a hoax. He called Al Gore an “asshole” even after watching the entire An Inconvenient Truth—by then he could not be moved. He also would compliment smokers on smoking. When we would go to a restaurant and people sat outside to smoke, he would take a deep breath and exclaim how good it smelled.


This was because Rush Limbaugh told him that the scientists were lying about the findings about smoking—oh, and those greedy scientists just wanted funding money and that’s why they were perpetrating this myth about climate change being caused by humans. You couldn’t argue with him. He was one angry, whirling, right-wing dervish. He even got mail from and gave money to the NRA though never owned a gun in his life. My mother found he wrote all these checks to various right-wing causes.


ROC:What are the forces that you see having changed your father and his behavior?


JS: Interesting that you ask that question because it is such a central component in my film. I’ve been told that using the word “conspiracy” is not a good idea. But there were specific plans drawn up, some in secret, by members of the Republican elite to create a major change from the political direction the country was moving in [[namely more progressive) to one with much more emphasis on business through, in large part, the media. Those forces turned into changes in the media and the language and framing of values and messages like “liberal media” being repeated over and over. They created scapegoats to blame, and produced a hostility within him towards other people that he felt should be making it on their own—no excuses! He became convinced that if they were suffering it was their own fault.


ROC:How can media habits actually have such a pronounced effect on people, to change them so radically?


JS: By media habits, I’ll answer as if you mean listening or watching habits. In the film, Steve Rendell discusses the personal nature of talk radio. There is an intimate connection between the radio and the listener. As for the effect it has on people, I think any message told repeatedly has an effect on people. It works in advertising and it works in forming one’s political views.

[soulster]

Pt 2:

ROC:How has your father reacted to your proposed film? Is he supportive? Does he think you are part of the “liberal media”?


JS: My dad knows that I’m making a film about him. I’m always filming something. He’s proud of me. We get along great now. I love him to pieces. And I won’t give the film away but he is not the same person he was three years ago. My father has always loved me, but I think had this film been made during the time of his political obsession that love would have been greatly tested.


ROC:Are you hearing from other people in the same familial boat? How many?


JS: More than I could have ever imagined. The right-wing media noise machine has had a profound affect on lives of individuals, whether they listen to it or not.


ROC:Is this more a male phenomenon in your opinion? Is it more prevalent in any one group?


JS: It is more of a male phenomenon. Rush’s audience is 72% men and most are white over the age of 65, and with Fox and other outlets, it’s similar stats. However, I have met people across the board who get sucked into right-wing media outlets. It always surprises me.


You can somewhat understand the draw for white men. In the past, it was almost a guarantee that merely by being a white male one could assume a good job and a certain social status. Their roles in the world were turned upside-down during the civil rights era of the ’60s and ’70s. Men had very specific roles and suddenly they were being challenged by women and minorities. They either had to adapt or reinvent themselves or find a sympathetic voice that told them it wasn’t their fault and there were groups to blame. And that anger, even though it’s anger, is still passion. It provides a purpose and I believe anger can be addictive. It can be a rush.


ROC:Is there an antidote to this brainwashing? A cure?


JS: That’s part of what my film is about. The answer is deprogramming by exposing lies, but part of the problem is how to get them to listen.


ROC:Is it really brainwashing or is that a metaphor, an exaggeration?


JS: That’s a good question. And I’m not sure I can answer it one way or another. Perhaps some people think that brainwashing is an exaggeration, but I, and others, have seen profound and frightening changes in people they would never have imagined possible. What is brainwashing? In the ’50s and ’60s when there were red-scare movies like The Manchurian Candidate—those movies showed how someone could be led to act against their own beliefs and their own interests. My father voted against his own interests as do many of these Fox viewers and right-wing radio listeners. How is that different from the notion of brainwashing?


ROC:Aren’t liberal opinion outfits, like MSNBC, guilty of much the same thing from the other side of the political spectrum?


JS: I think it is impossible not to have a bias in media. But, I also think there is a difference between facts and opinion. Right-wingers I know always challenge me with that question. And I answer it this way: I say MSNBC largely is a “tattletale.” They talk about and try to expose the right’s lies.


The second thing MSNBC does that Fox doesn’t do is correct themselves when they make a mistake. They are, however, decidedly pro-administration and since they have a corporate media structure behind them they can’t go too liberal. As Jeff Cohen would say, there’s a very narrow debate in the news. You have extreme right, right and MSNBC is center-left. Although Chris Hayes can be pretty in your face and honest, Al Sharpton wouldn’t say anything bad about the president.


ROC:Tell us about some of the people interviewed in your film, such as George Lakoff, Jeff Cohen, Edward Herman etc. Why did you choose them?


JS: Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky and the others made me aware that not only is there no so-called “liberal media,” which I knew, but that all of the media is biased toward business.


ROC:Isn’t all media a form of brainwashing in some sense?


JS: I don’t think so. No, I think there are very different ways the media operates, and perhaps intent is part of that.


It’s a very complex answer. Media can be a form of brainwashing depending on the viewer/listener. Most people who choose to ingest one type of media are going to get influenced by that media. Unless people read a lot on their own—and most people don’t have time to—they will listen to and believe whatever is fed them. And that’s easier to do when you have uneducated masses of people.


A less educated mass also serves the corporate purpose. Thus the push for charter schools, by the way. They can teach them what they want to teach them. There are also those who gravitate toward an authoritarian media who blame others for your troubles. If people aren’t doing well in life, it gives them a passion to be angry and have someone else to blame, like poor people and minorities.


ROC:You say, “Documentarians are the new journalists.” What does that mean? What happened to the “old” journalists?


JS: Most journalists work for a corporate-owned media. That said, corporations have an agenda and like many corporations they want to keep costs down and provide “gains” for their shareholders. So they don’t pay the journalist what they need to be paid in order to do a thorough job. And most importantly, a “thorough job” wouldn’t serve their corporate interest anyway.


Though there are some great journalists who write for truly independent online publications—like AlterNet—documentarians now are also telling the stories in another medium that can possibly reach more people and with less outside influence. For instance, Josh Fox’s Gasland films are super-important and that’s why the right is going to try to disparage documentarians.


ROC:What are your hopes and goals for this film?


JS: Ha! Always, my hope is to help save the world in some way. In a way that I know how to and that is, to tell a personal story accompanied by facts and information that isn’t out there and compiled. There are many books out there but we need film. It’s more accessible to more people. In my wildest dreams I would hope that it becomes one of those “known” things that Fox News is Faux News and convinces people to vote against their own interests and hate anybody who doesn’t think like they do. I would like for their jig to be up. And I would hope that liberals could learn a little something about framing and language, as the brilliant George Lakoff talks about.


ROC:What is the status of your Kickstarter campaign and how can people find it?


JS: We did surpass the initial goal of $15,000. At the moment we are at around $26,000. I have stretch goals, which would enable us to get much furtheralong in the film. As of Thursday, October 10 there will be 20 more days.


People can also choose to support the film for a tax deduction through WMM[[Women Make Movies).


ROC:What actions do you hope to drive viewers to take, if any?


JS: As I see Fox News being played in more and more doctors’ offices, airports, lobbies of any sort, ask your doctor or whomever why they would choose to show such a divisive program, and ask them to please stop. My mom has done it. I have done it. It doesn’t take that much time to do. Just politely complain and suggest they show something more neutral. That’s just one among many things.


There’s also a great organization called StopRush and they swarm targeted advertisers that advertise with Rush Limbaugh. And clamor for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated!


ROC: If you had 30 seconds to speak to Rush Limbaugh, what would you say?


JS: I guess I’d ask him a number of “why”s. Why do you do what you do? Is it the money? Do you believe what you say? Do you realize you have been a party to the destruction of families all across America by tearing them apart into “Dittoheads” versus non-Rushies? How do you feel about yourself? Are you proud of yourself? Then I would call him a Fat Fuck [[not that there’s anything wrong with being fat).

[Jerry Oz]

I know a guy who literally believes that the ACA will destroy America. He's perfectly fine with going into default and triggering a new recession if it means the president doesn't get his way. Think about that... Let's destroy the country in order to avoid destroying it. Last week, he told me that the president shut down the government by choice, that Congress could not force him into doing it. He didn't respond when I asked him why the GOP leaders in the House talked for months about shutting down the government if it was simply at the president's whim?

The worst part about right-wing media? The people that they're inciting into believing that the apocalypse is near are the ones that have the most guns and are looking for any reason to use them. The next few years will see this country implode due to ignorance, hatred, and hypocrisy.

[soulster]

I know a guy who literally believes that the ACA will destroy America. He's perfectly fine with going into default and triggering a new recession if it means the president doesn't get his way. Think about that... Let's destroy the country in order to avoid destroying it. Last week, he told me that the president shut down the government by choice, that Congress could not force him into doing it. He didn't respond when I asked him why the GOP leaders in the House talked for months about shutting down the government if it was simply at the president's whim?

Any time you present these nut jobs with FACTS or make them have to actually THINK, and find that you won't accept their BS rhetoric, they shut up and leave fast.


The worst part about right-wing media? The people that they're inciting into believing that the apocalypse is near are the ones that have the most guns and are looking for any reason to use them. The next few years will see this country implode due to ignorance, hatred, and hypocrisy.

What is really sad is that life-long friendships have ended because of all this tea-bagger crap.

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

The comment "No Republicans please." seems biased to me. Just who is close minded?

The truth of the matter is there are extremes on BOTH sides. There's brainwashing on BOTH sides. Partisanship is at an all time high in Washington. Both parties are more interested in the next election than the plight of the average American. While they doddle aand fight, the quality of life for most Americans continues to decline. This country is extremely divided, and it starts at the top with all the divisive rhetoric coming from the left and right extremes in both political parties and the media mouthpieces representing those extremes.

~~Mary~~

[Jerry Oz]

Mary, whereas I don't want to blame a party at the chance of appearing to support the other, there has never been a more obstructionist wing of government as the present GOP controlled Congress. If there are "extremes" to be discussed, I challenge you to find either the fervor or the fear that is being stoked up by the right. There is no liberal equivalent to the shouting and vitriol that we saw at town hall meetings running up to the 2010 mid-term elections where TEA partiers would not even permit elected officials the opportunity to address constituents. What we are seeing is new.

[soulster]

The comment "No Republicans please." seems biased to me. Just who is close minded?

The truth of the matter is there are extremes on BOTH sides. There's brainwashing on BOTH sides. Partisanship is at an all time high in Washington. Both parties are more interested in the next election than the plight of the average American. While they doddle aand fight, the quality of life for most Americans continues to decline. This country is extremely divided, and it starts at the top with all the divisive rhetoric coming from the left and right extremes in both political parties and the media mouthpieces representing those extremes.

~~Mary~~ OK. The independents and conservatives like to say there are extremes on both sides. But, I never see left wing extremists. Oh, people say they exist, but I have yet to meet one. But, I meet tons of people who pin the needles to the right. I also don't see political extremists holding the country and the world's economy hostage in the attempt to ruin the president. Jerry, to be accurate: the democrats control the Senate, and the republicans control the House right now. The tea-baggers have just enough power to disrupt the House and call the shots. Those tea-baggers got in because not enough people voted against these morons in the 2010 congressional election. This is why it's important to vote in congressional elections every two years.

The only way out of this mess is for level-headed people to VOTE next year. Oh yeah, there are roadblocks in some areas, like voter registration hurdles, democrats and old people thrown off the rolls, and gerrymandered districts. This was all planned, folks. THis is why people should pay attention to the news.

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

Al Franken is one leftist extremist I can think of. Micheal Moore is another. MSNBC is as left leaning as Fox News is right leaning. There is plenty of hatred and vitriol on BOTH sides. All one had to do is look at the posts on Faebook during the last election. Many of the posts were taken from left and right extremist groups and they were as nasty as anything I've ever seen. I worked in politics for years, and have never seen the degree of partisanship I'm witnessing now. Moderates in the Senate and House used to be able to forge compromises. No more. Politics was called "the art of comproomise" for decades. You tell me where it exists now.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Neither party is innocent regarding their actions. This country is a mess and it's getting worse. It's taken decades to reach this point and Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of getting us here.

I saw many examples of hatred from the left during the last election. How about saying all Republican women are stupid, or if you vote against Obama, you're a racist. Talk about being close minded and biased!! Perfect examples IMHO. There was just as much vitriol from the right. The posts I saw from both sides were ignorant, disgusting, prejudiced, and in many cases full of false information.

Whenever you label one group as all bad, that is prejudiced and biased in itself.

~~Mary~~

[Jerry Oz]

Okay. Name calling is bad. Advocating violence? A little worse... Ted Nugent made threats against the president. That's extreme. Chuck Norris wants the state of Texas to secede from the union. That's extreme. GOP state legislators are running a amuck and passing laws that remove the rights of workers to collectively bargain, require "suspicious" looking people [[read: Hispanic) to carry proof that they are citizens, removing the legal [[and moral) requirement to use deadly force as a last option, and making it difficult for some to vote while making it easier to legally obtain dangerous firearms. That is extreme. Somebody who calls another person "racist" for voting against President Obama is silly, but doesn't compare with what's going on. Al Franken is not the left's version of Ted Cruz by a longshot and MSNBC doesn't come close to countering the outright lies that Fox News broadcasts every night. There are extremists on both sides, but I don't think too many are afraid of those on the left. Just sayin'. [[And Soulster: Of course I know that the Senate is Democratic. Next time, I'll say the House instead of Congress.)

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

I think the Secret Service might disagree. They were thousands of violent threats against George Bush, and they weren't coming from people on the right.

Wasn't there a broadcaster on MSNBC who got booted off the network for his outrageous opinions and lies?

Many Americans ARE afraid of extemists on the left. lol

The point is extremists on both sides are known for bad behavior, violent threats, the spread of false and dubious information, and passing bad legislation. Neither party is interested in what is good for the country. Both are posturing for the next election at the expense of the American people.

~~Mary~~

[Jerry Oz]

Every president has thousands of violent threats, that's a bad example. And Keith Olbermann was fired for touching the line that Geraldo, Greta, Billo, and Hannity cross every day. There is no left equivalent to right wing media. And per Soulster's statement, I have met many people who believe that the government is coming to take their guns away from them, but I've yet to meet someone who has plans [[or a desire) to do so. And I feel sorry for you if you're afraid of someone on the left because I can't imagine what you think they're going to do. What will they do? Smack you with a food stamp? LOL. Bullet for bullet, the violent wing of our political divide is on the right side and it's not even close. Don't try to distort my opinion to believe that those on the right are all violent or afraid; most are not. However, when you hear people talk about revolution, secession, or outright pray for someone to kill the president, that's crazy and it's typically coming off of "conservative" media.

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

We'll agree to disagree. Any threats of violence towards a president of either party are serious business. The point is extremists on the right and the left have made them.

" Somebody who calls another person "racist" for voting against President Obama is silly, but doesn't compare with what's going on"

This quote from your previous post is much more than silly. The original statement that anyone who doesn'r vote for Obama is racist is inherently racist in nature.

The fear I have of extremists on the left and the right is how many people believe their propoganda, and the divisiveness they cause in this country. All one has to do is look at threads like these and posts made on Facebook, taken off hate pages from both sides. I don't watch MSNBC or Fox because neither are news networks. They are opinion networks spewing their individual agendas and hatred towards the other side. The Limbaugh's, Franken's, Nugent's, Moore's, etc. hold no credibility with me.

I am not trying to distort your opinions. I'm stating my own. Don't make assumptions about me and my fear of the left. You don't know what my political views are. The bottom line is I have no use for extremists on the left or the right.

I'm bothered by blanket statements made by either side. I'm bothered by extremists on the right and the left. I'm bothered by the hatred and the great divide in this country, which is reflected by our elected officials. I'm bothered by racist remarks, no matter who makes them. I'm bothered by the partisanship and lack of leadership and compromise that exists in Washington today. None of it does anything to benefit the lives of the American people.

~~Mary~~

[Jerry Oz]

Okay. We all have our own opinions and you're certainly entitled to yours.

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

Okay. We all have our own opinions and you're certainly entitled to yours.

And you are entitled to yours. On that we can agree.:)

~~Mary~~

[soulster]

Al Franken is one leftist extremist I can think of. Micheal Moore is another.

Soooo, what specifically is it that makes these two extreme, in your opinion?Can you articulate it?


MSNBC is as left leaning as Fox News is right leaning. There is plenty of hatred and vitriol on BOTH sides.

As pointed out in the interview, MSNBC functions more as a fact checker against Fox news. They expose the lies of the right-wing. You can fact-check anyone on MSNBC and you will not find anything wrong. You cannot say that about Fox.

When conservatives try to say that MSNBC is extreme, they are only attempting to justify their alligience to Fox. The so-called independents try so hard to stay neutral that they totally miss the nuances of each.


All one had to do is look at the posts on Faebook during the last election. Many of the posts were taken from left and right extremist groups and they were as nasty as anything I've ever seen. I worked in politics for years, and have never seen the degree of partisanship I'm witnessing now.

That goes true for a lot of us. But, ask yourself, who started this partisan aggression? Hint: it wasn't the usually passive, trusting, forgiving Democrats. Even with all the vitriol directed at Nixon, Reagan, and Bushie Jr, the liberals never stooped to the levels the conservatives have now with Obama. Never! None of those guys caused liberal to form a sub-party that would disrupt politics, use racial and religious hatred, deny citizens their Constitutional rights, and threaten the world economy because of their hatred.


Moderates in the Senate and House used to be able to forge compromises. No more. Politics was called "the art of comproomise" for decades. You tell me where it exists now.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Neither party is innocent regarding their actions. This country is a mess and it's getting worse. It's taken decades to reach this point and Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of getting us here.

Get real! You tell me who caused this sad state of affairs. If you say it was both parties, you are living in la-la land. You see who started this, and it wasn't the Democrats! These "neutral" types obviously don't pay much attention to what is really happening. If they did, they wouldn't be talking about it being both parties' fault. When you get polls with a majority saying they would fire ALL of Congress, you have to remember that most people do not even pay much attention to the news, much less know how government works.


I saw many examples of hatred from the left during the last election. How about saying all Republican women are stupid, or if you vote against Obama, you're a racist.

Sure, there was, but It was never on the same level as what we see with republican/conservatives. With the liberals, it was all talk. With these conservatives, they shoot at Democratic headquarters, burn crosses, fly confederate flags, send letters with Anthrax. and do other forms of terrorizing. And, they did this when they had a majority in congress and a conservative president!




Whenever you label one group as all bad, that is prejudiced and biased in itself.

I don't see anyone prominent on the right standing up to these radicals and publically calling them out. No one! They just keep low and say that citizens are just expressing their free speech. but, if a liberal says anything, they want to gut the First Amendment.

[soulster]

I think the Secret Service might disagree. They were thousands of violent threats against George Bush, and they weren't coming from people on the right.

As I recall, they were arrested. Ted Nugent says treasonous stuff, and they let him go.


Wasn't there a broadcaster on MSNBC who got booted off the network for his outrageous opinions and lies?

There certainly was. I guess you didn't keep up with the details of it. It was extreme-right radical Michael Savage, and it was because of his hate speech against gays.

Maybe you're talking about Keith Olberman. Well, he didn't get fired, he quit. It had nothing to do about his show's content, but everything to so with that he didn't get along with people there. He was a prima-donna. The same thing happened to him at the network that picked up his show afterward.


Many Americans ARE afraid of extemists on the left. lol

That's because the conservatives did a good job of framing them as dangerous. It was part of their plan to fill the government with conservatives. You can do your own research, too. This was the plan since the early 70s. Guess who was one of the original architects of the conservative movement? It was the original shut-down-the-government Newt Gingrich, who used cable TV to grandstand and make a name for himself in the 80s. Again, check it out. Jerry Falwell was another mover and shaker of the conservative movement.


The point is extremists on both sides are known for bad behavior, violent threats, the spread of false and dubious information, and passing bad legislation. Neither party is interested in what is good for the country. Both are posturing for the next election at the expense of the American people.

You say that, but you have to give me some good examples of liberals doing things as bad as the conservatives have.

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

Soooo, what specifically is it that makes these two extreme, in your opinion?Can you articulate it?

I don't have to articulate it. They have. Franken had a radio show to respond to Limbaugh - one extremist to another. Moore has said on Larry King and other shows his views are radical. I don't think you would call them "conservatives".




As pointed out in the interview, MSNBC functions more as a fact checker against Fox news. They expose the lies of the right-wing. You can fact-check anyone on MSNBC and you will not find anything wrong. You cannot say that about Fox.

Say what?? Fox and MSNBC are not guilty of news gathering in the traditional sense. Both put their spin on hard news, and both have show hosts who spew nothing but opinion.

When conservatives try to say that MSNBC is extreme, they are only attempting to justify their alligience to Fox. The so-called independents try so hard to stay neutral that they totally miss the nuances of each.

I find this comment ridiculous. It can be said liberals are doing the same to justify their alligience to MSNBC. Since when have Independent voters been neutral on issues. lol I'm sure some watch both to get two sides to the story.



That goes true for a lot of us. But, ask yourself, who started this partisan aggression? Hint: it wasn't the usually passive, trusting, forgiving Democrats. Even with all the vitriol directed at Nixon, Reagan, and Bushie Jr, the liberals never stooped to the levels the conservatives have now with Obama. Never! None of those guys caused liberal to form a sub-party that would disrupt politics, use racial and religious hatred, deny citizens their Constitutional rights, and threaten the world economy because of their hatred.

I guess you've never heard of the "Blue Dog" Democrats who crossed over and helped to elect Reagan to his second term. Imagine, "conservatives" in the Democratic Party. :) Both political parties contain factions within them. Hatred and vitriol, no matter the level, coming from either side does nothing but increase the partisanship and divide that already exists. BOTH are guilty of spewing hate. It's wrong any way you look at it, and it's wrong no matter who's doing it.



Get real! You tell me who caused this sad state of affairs. If you say it was both parties, you are living in la-la land. You see who started this, and it wasn't the Democrats! These "neutral" types obviously don't pay much attention to what is really happening. If they did, they wouldn't be talking about it being both parties' fault. When you get polls with a majority saying they would fire ALL of Congress, you have to remember that most people do not even pay much attention to the news, much less know how government works.

I know how government works. I worked in the federal and state governments. When I said this country is in a mess and it took us decades to get here, and both parties are responsible, I was referring to political shenanegins in the past. If you think Democrats have not done their fair share of blocking Republican presidents, you are the one living in la-la land. The Republicans may be the obstructionists on the current issue, but Democrats are not innocent by any means. When a Senate president and POUS refuse to compromise, they are obstructing progress, too. Partisanship and lack of compromise are at an all time high, and this is why many Americans are fed up with both parties. They're damaging the lives of ordinary citizens.


Sure, there was, but It was never on the same level as what we see with republican/conservatives. With the liberals, it was all talk. With these conservatives, they shoot at Democratic headquarters, burn crosses, fly confederate flags, send letters with Anthrax. and do other forms of terrorizing. And, they did this when they had a majority in congress and a conservative president!

Balderdash! I guess you weren't around during the MX missle days. The most violent people I encountered during that time were the so-called "peace nicks" who occupied Congressional offices, threatened the lives of staff members, Congressional representatives, and the president, peed in plants and wrote checks on people's personal checkbooks, among other things.





I don't see anyone prominent on the right standing up to these radicals and publically calling them out. No one! They just keep low and say that citizens are just expressing their free speech. but, if a liberal says anything, they want to gut the First Amendment.

Baloney!! John McCain, Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham and others have spoken out against the tea party tactics in the House.

~~Mary~~

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

As I recall, they were arrested. Ted Nugent says treasonous stuff, and they let him go.

Unless you are a high ranking member of the Secret Service, and I'm guessing you're not, you have no concept or knowledge of the threats they deal with on a daily basis. There was and still is a great deal of hatred towards George Bush. To say they were all arrested is just plain false. 99% of the threats are never reported in the media, so how could you possibly know. The threats and vitriol towards Bush from liberals continues today. My point is threats against any president are wrong. Both sides make them, so neither side is better than the other.



There certainly was. I guess you didn't keep up with the details of it. It was extreme-right radical Michael Savage, and it was because of his hate speech against gays.

Maybe you're talking about Keith Olberman. Well, he didn't get fired, he quit. It had nothing to do about his show's content, but everything to so with that he didn't get along with people there. He was a prima-donna. The same thing happened to him at the network that picked up his show afterward.

I guess you didn't read all of what I said. I don't watch or listen to Fox or MSNBC because of the prejudicial nature of both networks. I'm interested in hard news, not spin.


That's because the conservatives did a good job of framing them as dangerous. It was part of their plan to fill the government with conservatives. You can do your own research, too. This was the plan since the early 70s. Guess who was one of the original architects of the conservative movement? It was the original shut-down-the-government Newt Gingrich, who used cable TV to grandstand and make a name for himself in the 80s. Again, check it out. Jerry Falwell was another mover and shaker of the conservative movement.

You keep talking about "conservatives" in this and other threads. Please give me your definition. You must be aware they exist in both major parties, and there are different types of conservatives and disagreement among them. You keep referring to "neutrals", too. Who and what are they?? It's not a term I've ever heard used in political circles. This is why I have a problem with blanket statements labeling people as if they all think alike. I'll be interested in your definitions and response.

You don't think liberal extremists have done a good job of labeling themselves?? You get real. :) Extremists on both sides don't need any help from anyone else. Do you honestly think Democratic strategists don't have plans to fill offices with Democrats?? Again, both parties have strategic plans with one objective in mind - winning elections.



You say that, but you have to give me some good examples of liberals doing things as bad as the conservatives have.

The current situation is a good example of Democratic leaders being as unwilling to compromise as the tea party House members. In the previous administration, who blocked immigration reform, social security reform, etc..?

~~Mary~~

[soulster]

Baloney!! John McCain, Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham and others have spoken out against the tea party tactics in the House.

~~Mary~~

Really? I don't hear them. They must not be saying it too loud. Where was their vocal disapproval of the tea-baggers four years ago?

[soulster]

The current situation is a good example of Democratic leaders being as unwilling to compromise as the tea party House members. In the previous administration, who blocked immigration reform, social security reform, etc..?

~~Mary~~ There is nothing to compromise! Obama and the Democrats gave them their sequestration last January. Obama capitulated in 2012 the last time the republicans pulled this crap.

Bottom line: they LOST the election. The republicans need to get over it and stop trying to FORCE their will on the voters who voted against it last year.

Obamacars is here to stay. The deficit is no longer an issue. It never really was. All the republicans want to do is damage Obama because he's a BLACK man in the WHITE house. That is all.

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

Really? I don't hear them. They must not be saying it too loud. Where was their vocal disapproval of the tea-baggers four years ago?

Evidentally you don't follow the news. McCain spoke out against the House Republicans weeks ago. It was widely reported on The Today Show, GMA, nightly newscasts and the Sunday morning news shows like Meet The Press and This Week. Lindsay Graham said this over the weekend on news programs - "Republicans are in free fall because of this." Susan Collins [[our Senator from Maine) tried to forge a compromise late last week and was critical of House Republicans. It was reported nationally and here in Maine. It was reported on the nightly news this evening that Republicans are so divided in the House, the tea partiers don't have the votes anymore. So, moderate House Republicans have turned on the tea party faction as well.

~~Mary~~

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

There is nothing to compromise! Obama and the Democrats gave them their sequestration last January. Obama capitulated in 2012 the last time the republicans pulled this crap.

Bottom line: they LOST the election. The republicans need to get over it and stop trying to FORCE their will on the voters who voted against it last year.

Obamacars is here to stay. The deficit is no longer an issue. It never really was. All the republicans want to do is damage Obama because he's a BLACK man in the WHITE house. That is all.

I wish Democrats and Republicans would get over it when they lose the presidency, but they don't. The opposition always tries their best to block the president in power. This is nothing new.

IMO the tea party faction in the House made a huge mistake, even though polls show many Americans do not want Obamacare. It is the law of the land, and we should let the chips fall where they may. I believe House Republicans will pay a price for this, and they should. These things are cyclical in nature. When the voters get fed up with one party or the other, control of the Congress changes. House members are elected every two years, and I don't think voters will forget this fiasco anytime soon.

Did you really make that last statement - "All the republicans want to do is damage Obama because he is a BLACK man in the WHITE house."???

You're saying all Republicans are racists? It is as unbelievable as it is untrue. Your statement is racist in nature and it's the kind of blanket statement that hurts any credibility you might have.

I responded to your points, but you have not responded to my questions, so I will copy and paste and ask you again.

"You keep talking about "conservatives" in this and other threads. Please give me your definition. You must be aware they exist in both major parties, and there are different types of conservatives and disagreement among them. You keep referring to "neutrals", too. Who and what are they?? It's not a term I've ever heard used in political circles. This is why I have a problem with blanket statements labeling people as if they all think alike. I'll be interested in your definitions and response."

~~Mary~~

[soulster]

Evidentally you don't follow the news. McCain spoke out against the House Republicans weeks ago. It was widely reported on The Today Show, GMA, nightly newscasts and the Sunday morning news shows like Meet The Press and This Week. Lindsay Graham said this over the weekend on news programs - "Republicans are in free fall because of this." Susan Collins [[our Senator from Maine) tried to forge a compromise late last week and was critical of House Republicans. It was reported nationally and here in Maine. It was reported on the nightly news this evening that Republicans are so divided in the House, the tea partiers don't have the votes anymore. So, moderate House Republicans have turned on the tea party faction as well.


Oh, I watch the news! I may hear these people say a little something here and there, but I never hear them over the Sarah Palin's or Ted Cruz's of the world. I also don't see these people who are congresspeople DOING much for fear that they will be primaried by tea-baggers.


I wish Democrats and Republicans would get over it when they lose the presidency, but they don't. The opposition always tries their best to block the president in power. This is nothing new.

The Democrats have NEVER threatened the economy and defaulting because of the opposition's views or policies. NEVER! And, you cannot point to any examples other than what the republicans/tea-baggers have done.


IMO the tea party faction in the House made a huge mistake, even though polls show many Americans do not want Obamacare.

Let me tell you about those polls: those polls say that because the majority of Americans don't even know about or understand what ObamaCare is. They turn on Faux news and soak in their lies like sponges. Jimmy Kimmel, or one of those comedians, went out a couple of weeks ago and asked people on the street if they approved of the ACA, and they said they did. Then, he asked them if they liked Obamacare, and they said no. Then, he asked people if those two were the same thing. People don't know they are the same thing. Then, there are thjose who dislike Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't have the single-payer option, which was originally part of it, until the democrats capitulated [[again) to the republicans and took it out.


It is the law of the land, and we should let the chips fall where they may.

Spoken like someone who doesn't like it. I think the ACA, or "ObamaCare", once known as "RomneyCare", is a great thing for this country in so many ways. And, yes, it's the LAW, upheld by the Supreme Court.


I believe House Republicans will pay a price for this, and they should.

Oh, they will! We are watching a public suicide.


These things are cyclical in nature. When the voters get fed up with one party or the other, control of the Congress changes. House members are elected every two years, and I don't think voters will forget this fiasco anytime soon.

And, i'm going to make damn sure they don't!


Did you really make that last statement - "All the republicans want to do is damage Obama because he is a BLACK man in the WHITE house."???

You're damn right I did, and it's absolutely true! People can lie to themselves and everyone all they want, but many whites, who, BTW, are the overwhelming constituents of the republican party, have never, and will never accept a black man as the POTUS. To make themselves feel better, they tell lies like he was born in Kenya, or that he's a Muslim, a communist, socialist, nazi, or whatever idiodic racist crap they can come up with. You have seen and heard it all, too. You saw them fly confederate flags in front of the white house last Sunday. If one of them broke a nail, they would blame Obama for it. NONE of this would be happening if a white person had been president.


You're saying all Republicans are racists? It is as unbelievable as it is untrue. Your statement is racist in nature and it's the kind of blanket statement that hurts any credibility you might have.

Not all, but a lot of them are closet, or "accidental racists". I live in tea-bagger country. I deal with these people every stinking day. I have lost friendships because I found out their true feelings. I'm not just sitting behind a keyboard typing this stuff, this hits closer to my home than you think! And, the so-called christians are the absolute worst ones!


I responded to your points, but you have not responded to my questions, so I will copy and paste and ask you again.

You either did not ask me, or i didn't see it. Hit me!


"You keep talking about "conservatives" in this and other threads. Please give me your definition.

A social conservative: those who hold views that pretty much mirrors whatever their interpretation of what the bible says. The one thing they have in common with the fiscal conservative is, is that MONEY and capitalism overrides all else. "Let the free market decide!" they say. It used to be called "supply-side" economics, or 'the trickle-down theory". More like "trickle-on", really. The free market types do not care about the interests of the poor and needy. Sorry if you don't like my definition, but that is what they stand for today. They wealthy ones don't like government because they don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to give money to "those" people. Oh, you know: the welfare queens, the lazy people...minorities!


You must be aware they exist in both major parties, and there are different types of conservatives and disagreement among them.

Conservative liberals and liberal conservatives are what people now call "moderates". The problem with these moderate conservatives is that they let the lunatics control the party because they want to win so bad they can smell it, and that's why they refuse to speak too loud when one of the more extreme elements of their party say and do such offensive things.


You keep referring to "neutrals", too. Who and what are they??

People who are trying to show how good they are by trying not to be identified with one party or the other. It is still my educated and experienced belief that most moderates, or neutrals, lean conservative/republican. Notice how quick they are to criticize liberals, but find it very hard to say anything negative about a republican/conservative.


It's not a term I've ever heard used in political circles. This is why I have a problem with blanket statements labeling people as if they all think alike. I'll be interested in your definitions and response."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the terminology.

[soulster]

Here are the disgusting things the republicans did:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/congress-government-shutdown_n_4085699.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

Oh, I watch the news! I may hear these people say a little something here and there, but I never hear them over the Sarah Palin's or Ted Cruz's of the world. I also don't see these people who are congresspeople DOING much for fear that they will be primaried by tea-baggers.

And who's fault is that? The media does the reporting. The fact is Republicans in the Senate and the House have spoken out against the tea party faction, and I gave you some solid examples in my previous post. Many do face tea party candidates in primaries and would be facing them regardless of the current situation. That's politics!



The Democrats have NEVER threatened the economy and defaulting because of the opposition's views or policies. NEVER! And, you cannot point to any examples other than what the republicans/tea-baggers have done.

Oh really? Opposing Social Security reform during the last administration ,and refusing to even negotiate on the matter or put up their own legislation can and will hurt the economy. Even the Democrats admit reform is needed before the system goes bankrupt, but so far, they've made no attempt to do anything about it. Democrats are also resistant to addressng the financial problems facing entitlement programs. The longer the problems are not addressed, the more expensive the final solutions will become. You're missing the point. The opposition always tries to block the efforts of any given president holding office. This has happened throughout our history. It's not just politics, the Constitution provides for checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.





Let me tell you about those polls: those polls say that because the majority of Americans don't even know about or understand what ObamaCare is. They turn on Faux news and soak in their lies like sponges. Jimmy Kimmel, or one of those comedians, went out a couple of weeks ago and asked people on the street if they approved of the ACA, and they said they did. Then, he asked them if they liked Obamacare, and they said no. Then, he asked people if those two were the same thing. People don't know they are the same thing. Then, there are thjose who dislike Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't have the single-payer option, which was originally part of it, until the democrats capitulated [[again) to the republicans and took it out.

So you know what the American people think, and you're positive it's because they tune in to Fox News. lol I think the problem is something else. Most people don't watch Fox or any other news. They pick up false information in other ways--bogus and biased sites on the internet, talking to friends, Facebook posts, etc.. The dumbing down of America is a problem extending from our schools to overuse of the internet, lack of reading newspapers and magazines, etc.. The problem goes much deeper than what you suggest. I'm also quite sure most Americans have not read the more than 2,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare legislation. The members of Congress who voted for it haven't read it either. I know I don't know all that's contained in the bill, and I don't know anyone who does.



Spoken like someone who doesn't like it. I think the ACA, or "ObamaCare", once known as "RomneyCare", is a great thing for this country in so many ways. And, yes, it's the LAW, upheld by the Supreme Court.

You're making blanket assumptions again. I don't know all that's contained in the bill. I didn't read it, so I don't know if I like all the provisions or not. That's why I said let the chips fall where they may. Parts of it haven't been put in force as yet and we won't know the true effects of this legislation for years to come. You give the impression you know all about the bill. That would mean you've read the legislation and you agree with the content.



Oh, they will! We are watching a public suicide.

No question about it. The tea party faction's strategy was wrong from the beginning and they're digging the hole deeper day by day. Legally, they attempted legislation by appropriation, but they picked the wrong thing to extract from the budget and the wrong time to do it.



And, i'm going to make damn sure they don't!

Well, aren't you all powerful. lol


You're damn right I did, and it's absolutely true! People can lie to themselves and everyone all they want, but many whites, who, BTW, are the overwhelming constituents of the republican party, have never, and will never accept a black man as the POTUS. To make themselves feel better, they tell lies like he was born in Kenya, or that he's a Muslim, a communist, socialist, nazi, or whatever idiodic racist crap they can come up with. You have seen and heard it all, too. You saw them fly confederate flags in front of the white house last Sunday. If one of them broke a nail, they would blame Obama for it. NONE of this would be happening if a white person had been president.

There you go again making blanket statements lumping all people together. There are racists in the Republican Party. There are racists in the Democratic Party - many "Blue Dog" Democrats from the south. Racism, bigotry and bias are wrong period. When you make racist statements, you're no better than the very people you criticize. It might interest you to know historically the largest group of crossover voters are REPUBLICAN women, many of whom voted for Obama. Your blanket statements, bias, hated and vitriol come through loud and clear in your posts. You have a lot in common with the people you despise so much. All of you contribute to the great divide in this country. Sad...




Not all, but a lot of them are closet, or "accidental racists". I live in tea-bagger country. I deal with these people every stinking day. I have lost friendships because I found out their true feelings. I'm not just sitting behind a keyboard typing this stuff, this hits closer to my home than you think! And, the so-called christians are the absolute worst ones!

Refer to my comments above. I feel sorry for all of you who harbor so much hatred and vitriol towards others. You're proving my point again about blanket statements and categorizing people.



You either did not ask me, or i didn't see it. Hit me!



A social conservative: those who hold views that pretty much mirrors whatever their interpretation of what the bible says. The one thing they have in common with the fiscal conservative is, is that MONEY and capitalism overrides all else. "Let the free market decide!" they say. It used to be called "supply-side" economics, or 'the trickle-down theory". More like "trickle-on", really. The free market types do not care about the interests of the poor and needy. Sorry if you don't like my definition, but that is what they stand for today. They wealthy ones don't like government because they don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to give money to "those" people. Oh, you know: the welfare queens, the lazy people...minorities!

I asked the question because I knew you wouldn't know the answer - at least not in political terms. There are social and religious conservatives. There are fiscal and military conservatives. There are libertarian conservatives/aka/tea party. There is much disagreement among them. You get in trouble when you lump them all together. Fiscal and military conservatives can be, and many are, pro-choice, pro gay rights, etc.. There are religious conservatives who disagree with military conservatives because some religious conservatives are anti-military and pacifists. Social and religious conservatives have their differences, too. Your blanket statments just don't cut it.



Conservative liberals and liberal conservatives are what people now call "moderates". The problem with these moderate conservatives is that they let the lunatics control the party because they want to win so bad they can smell it, and that's why they refuse to speak too loud when one of the more extreme elements of their party say and do such offensive things.

Oh lord!! I've never heard moderates described this way before - not by political people who work in the field. Clearly you make up your own definitions and categories. Once again you're characterizing the way an entire group thinks. Conservative liberals and liberal conservatives are oxymorons! They do not translate into so-called moderates. Moderates in the political world are people from both parties who cross party lines to forge agreements. They don't follow "the party line" at all times. Sometimes they vote with their caucus and sometimes against, depending on the issue. I've seen moderates on both sides speak out many times about issues they support when it goes against their caucus.



People who are trying to show how good they are by trying not to be identified with one party or the other. It is still my educated and experienced belief that most moderates, or neutrals, lean conservative/republican. Notice how quick they are to criticize liberals, but find it very hard to say anything negative about a republican/conservative.

Another made up category - "neutrals". In the political world they are called Independents and are registered as such. Registered Independents out number both Democrat & Republican registered voters. Once again, you're off the mark. Independents can lean left or right depending on the issue and/or the candidate.



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the terminology.

I knew what you were getting at. I asked the questions deliberately because I knew you would not know the answers, as evidenced by your posts. I also knew you would falsely characterize people, express your own bias and lump individual's thinking altogether. You've proven my points. Thank you.

~~Mary~~

[soulster]

And who's fault is that? The media does the reporting. The fact is Republicans in the Senate and the House have spoken out against the tea party faction, and I gave you some solid examples in my previous post. Many do face tea party candidates in primaries and would be facing them regardless of the current situation. That's politics!


Fuck politics! These few may have spoken softly about the shutdown and the tea-bagger antics, but they still fall in lock-step with them when it comes down to the wire. They care more about their re-election than they do about the people.



Oh really? Opposing Social Security reform during the last administration ,and refusing to even negotiate on the matter or put up their own legislation can and will hurt the economy.


Yeah, and screw over milions of Americans who depend on that little SSN scheck each month to survive. The GOP's plan was to privatize it all. You know what a catastrope that would have caused.



Even the Democrats admit reform is needed before the system goes bankrupt, but so far, they've made no attempt to do anything about it.


Sure it needs adjustment. It is over 50% of your annual budget, with no end in sight. But, privitizing it wan't the way, and it is the only republican answer to it. All the wealthy wants to do is make money off of the system.



Democrats are also resistant to addressng the financial problems facing entitlement programs. The longer the problems are not addressed, the more expensive the final solutions will become.


Aside from Social Security and medicare [[both which are enjoyed by the very same people who want to cut it), the so-called entitlement programs only account for about 2% of the budget. Oh, all those minority welfare cheats! They're ruining the country!



You're missing the point. The opposition always tries to block the efforts of any given president holding office. This has happened throughout our history. It's not just politics, the Constitution provides for checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.


No, you're missing the point. This has not been business as usual. This has been a nasty fight between a vindictive party that is mad because they lost two elections to a liberal Black man who threatens the white way of life. You don't like my terminology? Too bad, because it is the truth!

[soulster]

So you know what the American people think, and you're positive it's because they tune in to Fox News. lol I think the problem is something else. Most people don't watch Fox or any other news. They pick up false information in other ways--bogus and biased sites on the internet, talking to friends, Facebook posts, etc..


When is the last time you actually took a look at the cable news channel ratings? You have to break things down by demographics. The majority of people who get their news from cable news are white, over 65, and the ones who have all the time in the world to watch TV and read news papers. These people vote religiously, and lean republican these days. They watch the #1 channel: Fox news.



The dumbing down of America is a problem extending from our schools to overuse of the internet, lack of reading newspapers and magazines, etc.. The problem goes much deeper than what you suggest. I'm also quite sure most Americans have not read the more than 2,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare legislation. The members of Congress who voted for it haven't read it either. I know I don't know all that's contained in the bill, and I don't know anyone who does.


OMG! One thing we actually agree on!



You're making blanket assumptions again. I don't know all that's contained in the bill. I didn't read it, so I don't know if I like all the provisions or not. That's why I said let the chips fall where they may. Parts of it haven't been put in force as yet and we won't know the true effects of this legislation for years to come. You give the impression you know all about the bill. That would mean you've read the legislation and you agree with the content.


Careful! I didn't say you disagreed with it, just that you spoke as a person who does.



There you go again making blanket statements lumping all people together. There are racists in the Republican Party. There are racists in the Democratic Party - many "Blue Dog" Democrats from the south. Racism, bigotry and bias are wrong period. When you make racist statements, you're no better than the very people you criticize. It might interest you to know historically the largest group of crossover voters are REPUBLICAN women, many of whom voted for Obama. Your blanket statements, bias, hated and vitriol come through loud and clear in your posts. You have a lot in common with the people you despise so much. All of you contribute to the great divide in this country. Sad...


You sure are good about defending the republicans. You call your self an independant, but your sure are trying hard to defent the GOP. Could I have been right? It sounds like it. :)



I asked the question because I knew you wouldn't know the answer - at least not in political terms. There are social and religious conservatives. There are fiscal and military conservatives. There are libertarian conservatives/aka/tea party. There is much disagreement among them. You get in trouble when you lump them all together. Fiscal and military conservatives can be, and many are, pro-choice, pro gay rights, etc.. There are religious conservatives who disagree with military conservatives because some religious conservatives are anti-military and pacifists. Social and religious conservatives have their differences, too. Your blanket statments just don't cut it.


This proves you did not understand my words. My statements did cover it. Oh, wait, I guess I had to spell it all out for you in detail.



Oh lord!! I've never heard moderates described this way before - not by political people who work in the field. Clearly you make up your own definitions and categories. Once again you're characterizing the way an entire group thinks. Conservative liberals and liberal conservatives are oxymorons! They do not translate into so-called moderates. Moderates in the political world are people from both parties who cross party lines to forge agreements. They don't follow "the party line" at all times. Sometimes they vote with their caucus and sometimes against, depending on the issue. I've seen moderates on both sides speak out many times about issues they support when it goes against their caucus.


Welcome to what is really being said about them in the real world. It shows how insulated political people are from the rest of us.



Another made up category - "neutrals". In the political world they are called Independents and are registered as such. Registered Independents out number both Democrat & Republican registered voters. Once again, you're off the mark. Independents can lean left or right depending on the issue and/or the candidate.


Again, get your head out of the conservatives' asses. No wonder people have no respect for politicians.

[Jerry Oz]

I just ran out of popcorn, but I want to see who wins this debate. Can you two wait until I return before one of you admits that the other one was right all along?

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha. Jerry, that is a great comment.

I'm not debating anymore. I stepped into this thread because I disagree with the attitude and statements made. I've made my points, and I'll let them stand . At this point it gets repetitious. We can agree to disagree. No minds are being changed here. It's back to the music for me.:cool:

~~Mary~~

[smark21]

Cable News is overrated. Only 4-5 million Americans watch it on a daily basis. That makes well over 250 million, if not 300 million, Americans who have better things to do with their time than watch Cable News.

As for today’s brand of conservatives—that may be the name of their team, but they are not Conservatives in any sense of the word as defined by such political philosophers as Edmund Burke. Tea Party conservatives are actually radical reactionaries. All these liberal vs. conservative fights on cable news and talk radio and internet forums is just a low brow ideological twist on Professional Wrestling.

[soulster]

I just ran out of popcorn, but I want to see who wins this debate. Can you two wait until I return before one of you admits that the other one was right all along?
I don't even believe Jive Mary ever worked in politics. She/he speaks in generalities and not in the real world.

Smark, That may be true of the numbers that watch cable news, but they are also the ones who vote. That's why it matters.

[Jerry Oz]

Ultimately, the ballot box is the determining reason our government works or does not. If there is a large enough number of people willing to vote for Tea Bag wackos, then America gets what America deserves. The fact that most Republicans don't ascribe to their fanatic worldview but still capitulated to them as opposed to losing their vote is the most amazing thing, to me. So, you're so afraid of the angry mob that helped put you in control of the House that you are letting that angry mob set your agenda? They sold their souls to that devil, I just wish they wouldn't try to drag the rest of us to hell along with them.

[soulster]

I'm glad that the world has finally seen the destructive nature of the tea-baggers.

As soon as I watched the speech this morning, I turned to Fox to see what they were talking about. The seconds after Obama's speech, attacking the tea-baggers, they gave more lies about the deficit, then turned do what they always to when they are wounded: foreign policy and nuclear weapons.

[Jerry Oz]

What??! Did they out of time for gun control, abortions, and social welfare programs?

[soulster]

What??! Did they out of time for gun control, abortions, and social welfare programs?
It's a pattern i've noticed. Every time something happens where the republicans lose something, or get embarrassed, Fox news always 1) ignores what just happened and falls back on their stale old talking points. 2) they turn to foreign policy issues that they care about....anything to take the flock's mind off of what just happened.

In contrast, if you go to CNN or MSNBC, they are talking about the event.

You know, I laugh at people who claim to not watch cable news, or any TV at all, and say they rely on the internet for their news, as if the internet is un-biased. As my father used to say: poppycock! If anything, the web is even more partisan. Just like with TV, you look for websites and blogs that jibe with your own political bent.

[Jerry Oz]

That guy I keep referring to keeps telling me that the real reason behind Benghazi was Hillary gave permission to the NSA to give rockets to the Syrian rebels. That is the reason behind all of the secrecy, he says. Wait until it comes out; it's going to blow the lid off of the Obama administration. I don't know how he knows this months before NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN know about it, but he preaches it as if the gospel truth. Nowadays, when I throw what passes as my logic at him, he literally looks off, thinks for a second, and breaks out the talking point as if he was instructed what to say. It's kind of creepy that these guys are willing to believe remarkably far-fetched stories because Obama has to be the doom of America as we know it.

[soulster]

Jerry, that's what these conspiracy people do: they claim they, or someone they trust, has this very secret information that will just blow everyone away when they hear it. Problem is, no one will hear it, and there is no grand coverup/conspiracy.

These people are almost always far-right nutjobs.