If you liste to CNN then you certainly have the "Junk" part down pat.

CNN is a serious news channel compared to MSNBC and CNBC (is it still on the air?). Any channel that has Olbermann and Matthews pretending to do real news between rants against moderates and conservatives cannot be considered real news sources. People who argue otherwise probably think that Media Matters is an objective source of on-line news.:lol:

I watch them all, too. I am a gen-u-ine news junkie. I listen to both Rush and the Diane Rehm show.

 

CNN is much closer to center than Fox.

 

I watch them all and consider the two about the same from center with CNN leaning one way and Fox the other.

CNN is a serious news channel compared to MSNBC and CNBC (is it still on the air?). Any channel that has Olbermann and Matthews pretending to do real news between rants against moderates and conservatives cannot be considered real news sources. People who argue otherwise probably think that Media Matters is an objective source of on-line news.:lol:

 

KO is 100% left wing. I've never felt that way about Matthews though. He seems to dislike everyone.

 

Secondly, when your network hires Karl Rove as Fox has done, you forgo the right to claim "fair and balanced."

Anybody plan on buying the book?

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol::lol:

KO is 100% left wing. I've never felt that way about Matthews though. He seems to dislike everyone.

 

Secondly, when your network hires Karl Rove as Fox has done, you forgo the right to claim "fair and balanced."

Have you watched Karl Rove on FNC or are you just parroting the left wing's caricature of him? Rove was not hired to read the news, he was hired to provide expert political analysis and he does an excellent job.

 

Most people hired by the networks to provide political commentary are very biased and it affects their commentary on the technical aspects of campaigns. Rove does as professional a job in providing analysis as anybody on any of the news networks.

 

In contrast, although Fox's Dick Morris has a very good understanding of the mechanics of running a successful campaign, his visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton even gets on this conservative's nerves. If I want to see Hillary Clinton bashed relentlessly, I can just surf to MoveOn.org.

 

James Carville, although more prone to deliver nasty shots at political opponents than some, is also professional enough to critique candidates of both parties fairly. I can tolerate some liberal bias if the commentator is fair enough to concede that his own side makes some blunders and the other side does some things right and Carville does that, IMO.

 

If you have not spent much time watching Karl Rove on FNC, I encourage you to do so. I think most liberals would be shocked at how soft spoken, polite, and calm Rove is considering the image of him that has been painted by the mainstream and liberal media.

:lol: That's like saying Obama is close to the center. :creepy:

In the overall scheme of things, he is. All three candidates are moderates on the spectrum I look at.

In the overall scheme of things, he is. All three candidates are moderates on the spectrum I look at.

:lol::lol::lol: What spectrum are you looking at? One moderate is running, one liberal is still running, and one extreme liberal is still running - not counting Ron Paul.

 

The attempted "moderate makeovers" of the liberal Democrat presidential candidate has become so predictable since 2000!

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You need to get out there and meet some real extreme liberals (and conservatives apparently.)

 

These candidates agree on almost the entire framework of government and economics. Positionally, their differences are minute when you look at all the alternatives that mankind has devised over thousands of years for how to order society.

 

That's not to say that the details are unimportant. While there are those (both liberal and conservative) who would say that there's no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore, I wouldn't. But when you look at some REAL differences of opinion when it comes to political philosophy, it becomes clear that they really are moderates.

 

Which is a product of our two-party system, imposed by plurality winner-take-all voting. If we had multi-member districts and a parliament, then you could see some real differences in political thought (Israel being an extreme example due to their very low threshold for seating.) The fact of the matter is, our current system encourages the candidates of the two major parties to position themselves as close to center as possible.

:laugh: I was unaware that one's political opinion could be proven wrong by another opinion. The fact is, our current system produces an abundance of liberals and conservatives who attempt to run as moderates in presidential races. There are very few moderates elected from either major party and McCain is one of them. That is the reason that he is disliked and mistrusted by most conservatives. Conversely, Obama has nearly unanimous support among liberals, or soon will have once Hillary's supporters get over her loss.

 

To avoid thread jacking, I started two new threads that posed this question to BGP voters. I did not include a Hillary thread because she is extremely unlikely to be her party's nominee.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You need to get out there and meet some real extreme liberals (and conservatives apparently.)

 

These candidates agree on almost the entire framework of government and economics. Positionally, their differences are minute when you look at all the alternatives that mankind has devised over thousands of years for how to order society.

 

That's not to say that the details are unimportant. While there are those (both liberal and conservative) who would say that there's no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore, I wouldn't. But when you look at some REAL differences of opinion when it comes to political philosophy, it becomes clear that they really are moderates.

 

Which is a product of our two-party system, imposed by plurality winner-take-all voting. If we had multi-member districts and a parliament, then you could see some real differences in political thought (Israel being an extreme example due to their very low threshold for seating.) The fact of the matter is, our current system encourages the candidates of the two major parties to position themselves as close to center as possible.

 

Excellent post and well said. I have always felt this forum would be well served to have a Marxist/Leninist poster inject some real disparity into our debates.

Excellent post and well said. I have always felt this forum would be well served to have a Marxist/Leninist poster inject some real disparity into our debates.

I think that we have but they keep getting suspended. :lol:

I think that we have but they keep getting suspended. :lol:

The real revolving door on contributors for this forum have been with guys like HoosierEagle and billyrayjoebob. Quite frankly, there's just not enough liberals on this site that they could be continually getting suspended.

In the overall scheme of things, he is. All three candidates are moderates on the spectrum I look at.

Obama's not even close to being a moderate. This is the most left candidate I've seen in my lifetime. The man makes Hillary seem moderate. :eek:

Excellent post and well said. I have always felt this forum would be well served to have a Marxist/Leninist poster inject some real disparity into our debates.

IMO when we say that Obama is far left we mean within the realm of a democracy. What we are saying is that without being a socialist, he promotes a lot of policies that are similar to socialism.

 

If not judging political position in terms of a democracy, than true conservatives would support a dictatorship (which doesn't sound correct to me, are dictators on the far right? Because that doesn't make any sense)

IMO when we say that Obama is far left we mean within the realm of a democracy. What we are saying is that without being a socialist, he promotes a lot of policies that are similar to socialism.

 

If not judging political position in terms of a democracy, than true conservatives would support a dictatorship (which doesn't sound correct to me, are dictators on the far right? Because that doesn't make any sense)

Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracy and communisim are, but there's a difference between socialism and communism-- even though the terms are incorrectly used interchangably.

 

Dictators can be either far right or far left- fascism and communisim for example.