Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

irishjet34

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
54
Did Romney pull out a cheat sheet at the first debate? Decide for yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ5_qdHLV8&feature=player_embedded

Wow, I am sorry that ranks right up there with the altitude excuse. Mitt had it that night just face it! The president did perfectly fine in the other two debates. You have had some reasonable things to say on here throughout but I am sorry this makes you look like a conspiracy theory lunatic grasping at straws! While we are at it, whats your theory on 9/11 and where is elvis?
 

irishjet34

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
54
Did Romney pull out a cheat sheet at the first debate? Decide for yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ5_qdHLV8&feature=player_embedded

Wow, I am sorry that ranks right up there with the altitude excuse. Mitt had it that night just face it! The president did perfectly fine in the other two debates. You have had some reasonable things to say on here throughout but I am sorry this makes you look like a conspiracy theory lunatic grasping at straws! While we are at it, whats your theory on 9/11 and where is elvis?
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
Just saw "Atlas Shrugged 2" before the game. Looks like we've got some Wesley Mouch types on this site. Thanks for the laughs. It's as if we all learned economics from the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. God help us.

Ah yes, Ayn Rand, that paragon of intellectual achievement. Ayn Rand is the real world equivalent of Hollden Caulfield, full of angst and completely oblivious to how the world actually works.

As for famous dead guy quotes: the Founding Fathers were great thinkers, but they operated in a completely different world that was still driven by the mercantilist system. This was a time when Governments competed to hold the largest gold reserves. The economic logic of the American revolution has no relationship to the economic logic of today.

Today, the majority of American debt is held in the US. Of that debt, most of the debt is owed to the US govt. In other words, we didn't really borrow it, we shifted it from one place to another (or, we printed it. Which can cause inflation, but won't as long as demand for the American Dollar remains high.) Govt debt is definitely a long term problem, but the emphasis should be on the long term. We are in no danger of defaulting; Moody's downgraded the US credit rating because of Republican threats to declare bankruptcy, not because the US govt might be unable to repay its debts. For what its worth, the Markets (I'll give Ayn Rand fans a second to offer their respect and prayers to the market gods)....reacted to Moody's credit downgrade not at all. In other words, after the initial shock, people still saw American debt as the safest in the world.

Today, the gravest threat to our economy is unemployment. But because of the debt, neither candidate can pass a stimulus bill that will move unemployment: the slow recovery will continue with Obama's policies. If I knew what Romney's were, I'd have a better idea of what to predict, but as far as I can tell his only real plan is to shift govt. spending from govt. agencies he doesn't like (EPA, Department of Ed, Department of transportation, state, etc...) to the defense industry. Not the most efficient move, but shouldn't blow up the economy either. As a long term investment though, defense is a losing bet when compared to things like infrastructure, research and education, so I'd say the long-term effects may be pretty substantial, but that's impossible to prove.

US debt: how big is it and who owns it? | News | guardian.co.uk
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
You guys realize that Obama is going to win right?

On top of that, the economy is going to surge during his final four years.

It's going to be a hilarious amount of fun to watch Obama preside over unprecedented growth over the next four years.

And it will be a lot of fun to hear all you conservatives try to spin it like it wasn't very good.

Hillary 2016 unless you guys can somehow come back to the middle.

(I don't think you can.) Maybe you'll have a shot in 2020. You never know.
 

irishjet34

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
54
You do realize that Hilary will never be able to get out of the Democratic primary now after the whole mess in Libya. It is like the Oliver North Situation. Secondly, real clears polls have been a bit skewed for this reason. Exit polls in 2004 and 2010 showed voting party identification to be evenly split. With 2008 being the exception with much excitement around the democratic party. Now, for some reason many of the polls are showing a larger democratic sampling then there was in 2008, which in all aspects of the real world is just not going to happen! Infact the Pew poll at one time was sampling at a +19 D ratio over R. I am not sure if it is tied into the fact that now only 9% of people respond to the polls compared to about 37% that not to long ago did. Looking at that I do not believe any candidate can go into election night thinking they have a victory in the bag. I do believe Romney faces an uphill battle throughout this election and it is close no matter what way you look at it.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
Think tank recommends big benefits cuts

Think tank recommends big benefits cuts

Think tank recommends big benefits cuts

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Nov 1, 2012 11:36:21 EDT

A new report by a liberal-leaning think tank recommends a dramatic overhaul of military pay, retirement and health care benefits as part of a $1 trillion cut in defense spending over 10 years.

The Center for American Progress calls for capping pay raises, eliminating military health benefits for many retirees who are covered by an employer-provided plan, and reducing the value of military retired pay as well as making retirees wait until age 60 to start receiving it.

Recommendations are included in a report, Rebalancing Our National Security, released Oct. 31 by the progressive think tank and advocacy group. The report opposes across-the-board cuts in defense spending that could occur beginning in January under sequestration but still calls for major reductions in defense spending.

Capping pay raises, the report says, could save $16.5 billion over the next five years. Reducing retiree health care benefits, through a combination of restricting care and raising fees, could save $15 billion a year. Reforming military retired pay could save, in the short term, up to $13 billion a year, and over time could save up to $70 billion a year off the current plan.

In addition to cutting compensation and benefits, the report also recommends cutting the number of active-duty troops permanently based in Europe and Asia, saving $10 billion a year. It recommends withdrawing 33,000 troops from Europe and about 17,000 from Asia.

In calling for less spending on military pay raises, the report basically endorses a plan proposed, but not yet executed, by the Defense Department. Under the Pentagon plan, pay raises beginning in 2015 would be capped at less than the average increase in private sector pay, a move that responds to a belief that military members are being paid more than civilians with comparable jobs and experience. This happened because Congress, over Pentagon objections, has regularly provided the military with raises that were slightly larger than the average private-sector raise to eliminate what had been perceived as a pay gap. The end result, says the report, is that the average service member is receiving $5,400 more in annual compensation than a comparable civilian.

The Defense Department plan calls for a 0.5 percent raise in 2015, a 1 percent raise in 2016 and a 1.5 percent raise in 2017 to bring pay levels back in line, which the CAP report endorses.

“To its credit, the Department of Defense has attempted to tackle this problem in its FY 2013 budget request, outlining a plan that would gradually bring military pay back in line with the Employment Cost Index without cutting any service member’s pay,” the report says. “Congress should demonstrate political courage and allow the Department of Defense to execute this long-term plan.”

Similarly, the report endorses many of the Defense Department’s proposals for cutting health care costs by raising fees, mostly on retirees and their families. But the report goes a step further: “To truly restore the Tricare program to stable financial footing, the Defense Department should enact measures to reduce the overutilization of medical services and limit double coverage of working-age military retirees,” the report says.

One idea would be to modify Tricare for Life benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees so that the program would not cover the first $500 of costs per year and would cover only 50 percent of the next $5,000.

Another idea would be to mandate that working-age retirees could only have Tricare benefits if they or their spouses do not have access to employer-provided health benefits. The report suggests this would be an income-based restriction but does not say what the cutoff should be.

The report also recommends modifying military retirement benefits. For anyone currently in the military with fewer than 10 years of service, benefits could be cut: Instead of receiving 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years of service, with immediate benefits, the report says the benefits would be 40 percent of base pay with payments not beginning until age 60. For people not yet in the military, there would be no fixed retired pay in the future, only a pre-tax retirement savings plan based on contributions from the service member.

Think tank recommends big benefits cuts - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Swift-boating of Obama Fails

Obama should have been destroyed by now. That was the plan.

He was going to be “Swift Boated” in this election, just like John Kerry was in 2004.

It would be about Benghazi, where on Sept. 11 of this year, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. This would be the spear point that would fatally wound the Obama campaign.

It would be a classic smear: The Obama administration had delivered a “stand down” order to potential rescuers, and so the four Americans had died.

Why would any agency or anybody in the administration do such a thing? It didn’t matter. Wingnuts can always find motives. There are still people who say Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster. Whole books have been written about that one.

There are legitimate questions to be answered about what happened at Benghazi. There always are questions after such tragedies. Warnings were ignored by the George W. Bush administration before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, after all. Were warnings ignored in Libya? Hindsight will probably find some.

But Ambassador Stevens would hardly have ventured to Benghazi with inadequate protection if he thought there were legitimate warnings not to do so.

So a different narrative, a different point of attack, would have to be found for Benghazi. On Oct. 26, Fox News reported that urgent requests for military backup during the attacks in Benghazi “was denied by officials in the CIA chain of command - - who also told the CIA operators twice to ‘stand down’ rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”

The CIA and State Department denied it, but “stand down” would become the rallying cry for the far right.

It not only appears everywhere on social media, but on Friday Obama was on his way to a rally at the Franklin County Fairgrounds in Hilliard, Ohio, when, according to the White House press pool report, it “passed small groups of onlookers, including a slightly larger cluster holding signs related to Benghazi such as: ‘We won’t stand down … Benghazi’ and ‘What are you hiding?’ ”

But Benghazi has proven to be not dynamite, but a firecracker. The October surprise has not turned into a bombshell. Instead, it has bombed.

Romney might have made it an issue, but he blew two chances. In the second presidential debate, Romney delivered a muddled attack as to whether the administration had called the killings a terrorist act quickly enough. Then Romney finally managed to remember his talking point.

“But I find more troubling than this, that on - - on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador … when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, other political event,” Romney said.

But Obama was ready. He had rehearsed, too. “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.”

Romney then eagerly leapt into a parsing battle (which he lost) as to whether Obama actually had called it “an act of terror.” But who cares what Obama called it? It is far more important if Obama failed to protect American lives. Why didn’t Romney pursue that?

It was a mistake and one he failed to correct in the final debate when moderator Bob Schieffer raised it in his very first question. But Romney muddled about again: “We see in — in — in Libya an attack apparently by — well, I think we know now by terrorists of some kind against — against our people there, four people dead. Our hearts and minds go to them.”

So Romney blew it. And the Obama administration responded yesterday with an extensive tick-tock of events stating that help was rushed to Benghazi and there was no stand-down order.

David Ignatius, the highly respected columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, who had been vigorous in demanding more information about Benghazi, wrote online Thursday: “While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.”

Not that the Romney campaign couldn’t find diehard conspiracy advocates. John McCain, who has been determined for the past four years to stamp out any admiration he once earned for being a principled “maverick,” told Fox News Thursday that the Obama administration was engaged in “a classic scandal and cover-up” that “could be as bad as Watergate.” Worse, actually, since “nobody died in Watergate.”

“I think it can have an impact [on the election] because we’ve still got five more days,” McCain said hopefully.

But it won’t. There have been enough domestic smears, slurs and lies in this election that we don’t have to go looking for them in Benghazi.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
^Going back a couple of days, this is the point I was trying to make about the Benghazi line of attack on the President. I wasn't trying to minimize the deaths of Americans, I was only making the point that blaming it on the President was slimy politics and it wasn't working.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
^Going back a couple of days, this is the point I was trying to make about the Benghazi line of attack on the President. I wasn't trying to minimize the deaths of Americans, I was only making the point that blaming it on the President was slimy politics and it wasn't working.

This is good news if true...not sure I care as much about the political part of this...I care that both guys in a tight political race can be CIC. Had there been a stand down issued, for real, that eliminates a guy from being a credible CIC...a guy who might win.

But dude, there is indeed still another component to this I see rather Romney tripped over it or not...Why the "vile" movie tact...

The only thing I can fathom is because Egypt and Benghazi were somewhat spatially related, folks assumed they were motivation-related??? But the timeline offers far too many opportunities to have corrected it...to me, this was an attempt to obfuscate major screw-ups. Ok, not unheard of I guess...BUT

why is that guy still incarcerated? No he isn't an awfully nice fellow...yes he had other legal issues...but I believe he was detained on camera, and incarcerated for a political stunt...Not only that, in the effect, his life was traded for political points...I just think that sucks. ...and I said it loooong before talking heads said it so spare me that line of thinking. This is a foundational issue...even if the President didn't know, he knows now. That guy needs to be freed, and now protected. The president needs to explain why all that happened.
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
Is the election up on the Golden Sports Book?

Should be.


I'll bet all my Vbucks and 500 of my real ones that says Obama gets 4 more.
 
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
I see a lot of you have been suckered in by the Mainstream (liberal) Media. Two days until you are shocked into reality. Romney will carry Ohio and as such will be POTUS #45. The over sampling of democrats in these national polls has mis-led millions of Americans. CNN has shown Obama ahead in Ohio in the previous four polls by 4 points. If this were true there would be no way Romney would prevail. It is my argument that this poll is not accurate. Again, they over sample dems and use the polling model based upon the 2008 election (not going to ever happen again). The masiah has been unmasked. In early voting in Ohio while the dems lead in this category by a large margin, the diff. b/t 2008 and 2012 is an approx. 240K swing in favor of the republicans. Just like Benghazi, the lies will only be hidden by the national media only for so long. This administration left two Navy Seals, another American worker, and a US Ambassador (also raped) to be killed and then they lied for weeks. We will get to the truth of this matter.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
I see a lot of you have been suckered in by the Mainstream (liberal) Media. Two days until you are shocked into reality. Romney will carry Ohio and as such will be POTUS #45. The over sampling of democrats in these national polls has mis-led millions of Americans. CNN has shown Obama ahead in Ohio in the previous four polls by 4 points. If this were true there would be no way Romney would prevail. It is my argument that this poll is not accurate. Again, they over sample dems and use the polling model based upon the 2008 election (not going to ever happen again). The masiah has been unmasked. In early voting in Ohio while the dems lead in this category by a large margin, the diff. b/t 2008 and 2012 is an approx. 240K swing in favor of the republicans. Just like Benghazi, the lies will only be hidden by the national media only for so long. This administration left two Navy Seals, another American worker, and a US Ambassador (also raped) to be killed and then they lied for weeks. We will get to the truth of this matter.

You listen to far too much talk radio, friend. Nobody is being suckered; there is the right-wing media and the regular media. Unfortunately for the right-wing media, reality has a liberal bias. There is certainly a biased media, but it is pretty much contained to FOXNEWS, AM radio and the right-wing blogosphere. My early condolences to you regarding the fate of your cozy delusions this Tuesday.

(Go back to the last page and read the article I posted regarding the Benghazi nonsense if you want to challenge the views provided to you in your bubble.)
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
You listen to far too much talk radio, friend. Nobody is being suckered; there is the right-wing media and the regular media. Unfortunately for the right-wing media, reality has a liberal bias. There is certainly a biased media, but it is pretty much contained to FOXNEWS, AM radio and the right-wing blogosphere. My early condolences to you regarding the fate of your cozy delusions this Tuesday.

tumblr_lqc7euQDnr1qafrh6.gif


As bad as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are just as bad.

There is no center media. Honestly the only time I see real talk is when O'Reilly and Stewart box it out hahah
 

WaveDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
307
Aren't the PAC's not controlled by the Romney campaign?

That is odd, though.

It's not that odd. Oregon is tightening up and yes, the PAC is not controlled by the campaign. An Oregonian poll had President Obama up by 6 over Romney which is significantly tighter than it was in '08 versus McCain. Part of the deal is that Obama's team built a firewall around a select number of states like Ohio. So they dumped a ton of money and advertising into those states. So a number of other states didn't get a lot of negative Romney stuff. After the debates people saw Romney and started tilting towards him without having had him defined by the Obama campaign. That's why Romney can go into states like Oregon, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan etc. and start pushing real hard to expand his map. Also, you have national advertising. I get ads here in Idaho and that race won't even be close up here. They also have a lot of money and there is only so much money you can spend in a state. But for an example, Pennsylvania: the Romney campaign spent a ton of in PA last week. Romney is going there today, I think. Dems may think, "No way will PA vote Republican." But then they have to explain why Bill Clinton is going there tomorrow to stump.

Do I think Romney will win Oregon? No, but it's also not absurd that you see campaign ads there.
 

In Lou I Trust

Offseason gon' be long
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
188
Has anyone heard of this "Redskins Rule" that's all over Google? My buddy had it as his FB status so I looked it up and it's quite a crazy coincidence. Apparently when the Redskins lose their home game before the election the incumbent loses the race. It's only been wrong once since they moved to DC; in 2004 when they lost but Bush still beat Kerry.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
5:07PM EST November 4. 2012 - Carolina Panthers fans are likely pretty pleased with their team's ability to win for the first time since Week 2, but one man is likely even happier.

History dictates that the Panthers 21-13 victory over the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field bodes well for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In the 18 presidential elections that have taken place since the Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, 17 have been predicted by the team's performance in its final home game prior to the election.

If the Redskins win at home, the incumbent party usually wins the presidential election. If the Redskins lose at home, the challenger usually prevails.

The only time the rule hasn't come through was in 2004, when the Packers beat the Redskins 28-14 in the final game before the election. Steve Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau, who popularized the rule, claims that while that result should have meant that challenger John Kerry would have won the White House, it still holds true because the Democrats actually won the popular vote in the 2000 election.

Sounds like Hirdt was trying to hedge his bets on that one, but the rule's overall track record is still pretty impressive. Given that our most recent USA TODAY poll has the candidates neck and neck in key swing states, the Redskins rule seems about as credible a theory as the hundreds of other election prognostications we've heard in the past week. The good thing is we should all know for sure on Wednesday.

Did Cam Newton and the Panthers predict a Romney win?
 
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Benghazi was never going to be an Oct. surprise for the Romney campaign. It just unfortunately happened. As far as the 2nd debate. The President and Candy Crowley mis-spoke. While it is a fact that the President did use the word "act of terror" in his speech in the rose garden the next day, he was not specifically linking "act of terror" with the Benghazi attack. He was speaking of acts of terror in general (and to the original 9/11). Why carry on for two weeks about a dumb *** video that no one saw. Secondly, if a dumb *** video did annoy people, too bad. We live in the United States and have free speech. Where is the outcry for the artwork in NYC of Jesus in urine? They can't explain why they carried the narrative about the spontanious gathering (LIE, LIE, LIE). The facts are that the truth will come out. As far as Gov. Romney not bringing it back up is b/c this election is really about the economy and the utter failures of President Obama. The problem with Liberals is sooner or later, they run out of other peoples money to blow. The final point is this. I may be totally wrong and Obama wins and if he does, I will support my President. It is my opinion that he will not be given another term in office. We will agree to disagree on this election and we have but two days to see the true outcome.

On a totally separate note: I wish you and all you neighbors well in dealing with Hurricane Sandy's wrath.
 

Walter White

New member
Messages
733
Reaction score
61
You listen to far too much talk radio, friend. Nobody is being suckered; there is the right-wing media and the regular media. Unfortunately for the right-wing media, reality has a liberal bias. There is certainly a biased media, but it is pretty much contained to FOXNEWS, AM radio and the right-wing blogosphere. My early condolences to you regarding the fate of your cozy delusions this Tuesday.

(Go back to the last page and read the article I posted regarding the Benghazi nonsense if you want to challenge the views provided to you in your bubble.)

There is also left wing media. Not just "regular media". Everybody is at least a little biased.

MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.com
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Benghazi was never going to be an Oct. surprise for the Romney campaign. It just unfortunately happened. As far as the 2nd debate. The President and Candy Crowley mis-spoke. While it is a fact that the President did use the word "act of terror" in his speech in the rose garden the next day, he was not specifically linking "act of terror" with the Benghazi attack. He was speaking of acts of terror in general (and to the original 9/11). Why carry on for two weeks about a dumb *** video that no one saw. Secondly, if a dumb *** video did annoy people, too bad. We live in the United States and have free speech. Where is the outcry for the artwork in NYC of Jesus in urine? They can't explain why they carried the narrative about the spontanious gathering (LIE, LIE, LIE). The facts are that the truth will come out. As far as Gov. Romney not bringing it back up is b/c this election is really about the economy and the utter failures of President Obama. The problem with Liberals is sooner or later, they run out of other peoples money to blow. The final point is this. I may be totally wrong and Obama wins and if he does, I will support my President. It is my opinion that he will not be given another term in office. We will agree to disagree on this election and we have but two days to see the true outcome.

On a totally separate note: I wish you and all you neighbors well in dealing with Hurricane Sandy's wrath.

Thanks for your thoughts regarding the storm. Much appreciated. Fortunately, I wasn't affected too much, personally. But many of family, friends and neighbors were.

The point I was trying to make about Benghazi is that it should not be an issue in the election. It isn't on the President, personally. Its a tragic situation, no doubt, but considering the size of the United States's global presence it is absurd for a particular security failing to be laid at the President's feet.

There has to be an investigation into what went wrong, people need to be held accountable, and the perpetrators need to be hunted down and brought to justice. But the investigation need not be prosecuted by the right-wing media for political gain.

Buster and Walter, there is obviously a liberal bent at MSNBC. I should be more careful about using rhetorical device.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Buster and Walter, there is obviously a liberal bent at MSNBC. I should be more careful about using rhetorical device.

...and at CNN. Piers Morgan is a huge lefty.

I can appreciate Anderson Cooper's professionalism though.
 
Messages
7,068
Reaction score
410
I see a lot of you have been suckered in by the Mainstream (liberal) Media. Two days until you are shocked into reality. Romney will carry Ohio and as such will be POTUS #45. The over sampling of democrats in these national polls has mis-led millions of Americans. CNN has shown Obama ahead in Ohio in the previous four polls by 4 points. If this were true there would be no way Romney would prevail. It is my argument that this poll is not accurate. Again, they over sample dems and use the polling model based upon the 2008 election (not going to ever happen again). The masiah has been unmasked. In early voting in Ohio while the dems lead in this category by a large margin, the diff. b/t 2008 and 2012 is an approx. 240K swing in favor of the republicans. Just like Benghazi, the lies will only be hidden by the national media only for so long. This administration left two Navy Seals, another American worker, and a US Ambassador (also raped) to be killed and then they lied for weeks. We will get to the truth of this matter.

Yes, those poor billionaire media owners sure are liberal!
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
...and at CNN. Piers Morgan is a huge lefty.

I can appreciate Anderson Cooper's professionalism though.

Buster, I don't really watch CNN TV but I read the website and they have a fair number of ex Bush appointees writing for them. I would say that CNN is rather balanced in that they have some liberals and some conservatives and some moderates.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,721
Watching Sunday morning commentary on major networks was embarrassing. Stephanopolus had about half a dozen "panelists", only one was Republican. All the libs, talked over each other constantly and George Will only talked when Steph asked him his opinion directly.

No surprise the general rheotric was Republicans hate women and minorities.

Funniest thing was DirecTV guide said Chris Matthews was on, instead it was Judge Judy.
 
Top