Recount in Ohio - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2004, 12:39 PM   #16
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
New York Post? I don't see how they lean to the right at all. I read their review of The Passion of the Christ, and it basically asked for a "politically correct" version of Christianity or "religion" in general. Very secular as usual. As for Hannity, Alan Colmes joins him to even out the debate. I for one enjoy their show, and enjoy both of their opinions. O'Reilly? He's technically not a conservative, he's been both a democrat, republican, and an independent. He stands as a right-leaning independent nowadays. And Reagan... Ron Reagan? He's a hard liberal who still claims Bush stole the 2000 election.
The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, which owns Fox News. But you lost me with the Passion of the Christ thing. Alan Colmes evens out Hannity? Now THAT'S funny. :-) O'Reilly is the worst of all. His brilliance is in his ability to manipulate a few viewers into believing that he truly IS independent. And, no, I don't mean Ron Reagan. He's one of the good guys. I meant Michael. The one with the talk show.
__________________

__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:43 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2


The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, which owns Fox News. But you lost me with the Passion of the Christ thing. Alan Colmes evens out Hannity? Now THAT'S funny. :-) O'Reilly is the worst of all. His brilliance is in his ability to manipulate a few viewers into believing that he truly IS independent. And, no, I don't mean Ron Reagan. He's one of the good guys. I meant Michael. The one with the talk show.
Okay, so Colmes is probably a moderate, rather than a complete liberal, or you might just think he's a bad debater. O'Reilly is undoubtedly disrespectful at many of his guests, but I believe in his cause for protecting our kids from pornography and violence in schools. Michael is a republican, but I don't see him as a threat to the liberals, unless all conservatives are.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:50 PM   #18
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2


You can't just ignore AM radio's impact. Rush Limbaugh alone is on over 600 stations and has over 20 million weekly listeners. That's a helluva reach. The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News is the most watched show on cable TV and it can't even come close to those numbers. You know as well as I do that there is a very powerful right-wing segment in our media. But unless they're calling themselves "fair and balanced" there's nothing wrong with it. But don't deny it exists.

And if I hear one more person hold up the major networks as counters to the kind of sensational bias we see on Fox, I'm gonna lose it.

The problem with the political discourse in this country is that it has nothing to do with discourse. It's this way especially on cable news. It gives you an ILLUSION of debate. The problem is that no one talks about POLICY anymore. They prefer talking about, and perpetuatin, stereotypes (the right wing redneck, the tree-hugging liberal). We spend half our time angry at the extremes, when in reality very few people live out there. And the worst part is that NO ONE (on either side) is ever willing to hear the truth when it comes dressed as opposition.
You're quoting John Stewart right?

I think its fair to say ABC, CNN, CBS, etc. are counterweight to FOX news. Sensational bias from FOX? I dunno. Outside of the "debate" shows the bias to me isn't as apparent (seems the same as other news networks). Cavuto vs Dobbs... anyone?

Again there was the ABC election memo concerning trying to make up for Republican attack ads (unbiased, uh ok), CBS memogate, etc.... sure why not believe that. Add Walter Cronkite's declaration many years back that the media is liberal.... hmmmm wonder why people think that the media is liberal. The editor for the Chicago Tribune and some other major newspaper acknowledge most reporters (especially in the White House press corp probably voted for Kerry or supported Kerry). Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek, believes the American media is liberal. I dunno, I can see a case being built for the media being biased as Fox is relatively biased.

I did not discount the effect of AM radio but c'mon... AIR America is out there now. Hollywood is an acknoweldged liberal stronghold whose influence is pervasive in American culture. The AP which IMO should report straight news does not do it. It seems to do its reporting with a noticeable liberal slant in terms of headlines and content. Not all but some, and so blatantly so that its ridiculous considering what papers use the AP for. The AP which is used by pretty much every newspaper in the country.

I do not know anything about O'Reilly's numbers (though they are supposed to be high) but Rush's audience as well as many other conservative talk shows on AM radio pull in a good amount of anti-Rush and anti-Savage fans which would cut into the numbers.

Does the right have some kind of machine? I think so. But it does not dominate politcal discourse the way you make it out to be.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:54 PM   #19
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
And, no, I don't mean Ron Reagan. He's one of the good guys. I meant Michael. The one with the talk show.
LOL... you bash O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.... ? And then you give a free pass to Ron Reagan? He's an awful pundit and as funny/ goofy as Hannity. He also looks terrible on TV news wearing a jean jacket.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 01:05 PM   #20
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Okay, so Colmes is probably a moderate, rather than a complete liberal, or you might just think he's a bad debater. O'Reilly is undoubtedly disrespectful at many of his guests, but I believe in his cause for protecting our kids from pornography and violence in schools. Michael is a republican, but I don't see him as a threat to the liberals, unless all conservatives are.
I'll just say one more thing about this. Do you know anyone who's FOR letting kids see pornography or FOR violence in schools? The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he takes on issues like this—issues which no one really disagrees with—and rails against them as if he's looking out for us, the folks. Thanks, Bill! You saved our children! His typical foil is either the ACLU or some "activist judge." But the problem is that these "liberals" are just as much against pornography and violence as O'Reilly is, but unlike Bill—who's only worry is ratings—they have the Constitution to consider.
__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 01:08 PM   #21
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:29 AM
I don't see O'Reilly and Chris Matthews that much different in style (to a degree).
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 02:47 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2


I'll just say one more thing about this. Do you know anyone who's FOR letting kids see pornography or FOR violence in schools? The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he takes on issues like this—issues which no one really disagrees with—and rails against them as if he's looking out for us, the folks. Thanks, Bill! You saved our children! His typical foil is either the ACLU or some "activist judge." But the problem is that these "liberals" are just as much against pornography and violence as O'Reilly is, but unlike Bill—who's only worry is ratings—they have the Constitution to consider.
I laughed at your post, and thought that in a lot of ways, you're right. He does exaggerate on liberals, making it sound like they're all in favor of teen pregnancy and such. I've met a few people on here who may be liberals, but they still want the best life for their kids.

Nobody is FOR it except for sleazy pornographers who want to get young people hooked on pornography for life. I also think that parents aren't doing enough to protect their kids from viewing it. It's a shame that our legislative system didn't approve of banning porn for those under 18. I don't know the reason why, but I'm assuming they took Freedom of Assembly to an extreme. Their way of saying, we know it's wrong, but it's "constitutional."

I think O'Reilly has plenty of reasons to rip the ACLU to shreds. They support NAMBLA, they want God out of our country, I could go on and on. I'm not sure O'Reilly is the best guy in the world to do it, but someone has to stand up against their Anti-Christ agenda.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 03:38 AM   #23
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Anti-Christ agenda? how bout the Anti-non-Christian agenda of the conservative right?

The Anti-Christ agenda is, in reality, an attempt to keep God out of our laws, as it should be. Not everyone believes in God, and even those who do believe do not always agree with each other. What may be viewed as God's law to one person may be simply a nice example to strive for to another, or a quaint idea to someone else. Once we begin legislating our religious beliefs into law, discrimination against those who don't share our beliefs will rise. It's already happening.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 05:53 AM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I've met a few people on here who may be liberals, but they still want the best life for their kids.

Nobody is FOR it except for sleazy pornographers who want to get young people hooked on pornography for life. I also think that parents aren't doing enough to protect their kids from viewing it. It's a shame that our legislative system didn't approve of banning porn for those under 18. I don't know the reason why, but I'm assuming they took Freedom of Assembly to an extreme. Their way of saying, we know it's wrong, but it's "constitutional."

I think O'Reilly has plenty of reasons to rip the ACLU to shreds. They support NAMBLA, they want God out of our country, I could go on and on. I'm not sure O'Reilly is the best guy in the world to do it, but someone has to stand up against their Anti-Christ agenda.
Seriously where do you get this? Most liberals don't want what's best for their kids?! They want God out of the country?! And your porn thing, where is that coming from? Who's showing porn at their schools? How are minors not banned from porn?

It's like someone taught you that liberals are evil once and you just never questioned it.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-18-2004, 09:12 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
The Anti-Christ agenda is, in reality, an attempt to keep God out of our laws, as it should be. Not everyone believes in God, and even those who do believe do not always agree with each other. What may be viewed as God's law to one person may be simply a nice example to strive for to another, or a quaint idea to someone else. Once we begin legislating our religious beliefs into law, discrimination against those who don't share our beliefs will rise. It's already happening.
Diemen, a review of actions taken by the ACLU will show an inconsistent application of a "separation of church and state" standard.

In Los Angeles, they sued (or threatened to), to have a small cross removed from the official seal. What they blatantly ignored was the large portrait of the goddess Pomona that dominates the seal.

If there was some element of consistency on this issue, perhaps the ACLU would gain credibility.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 09:19 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 01:29 PM
We were talking about the ACLU in government class today. They have good intentions but they go too far sometimes.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 09:29 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
We were talking about the ACLU in government class today. They have good intentions but they go too far sometimes.
I agree, sometimes they are grossly unfair. They'll try to stop Christian Activity X in two seconds but won't do the same to a Hindu, Muslim or Wiccan act. If you're consistent you are either going to keep *religion* out, and that means all of them, or you're not going to keep any out, which means you'll display a Koran, the Ten Commandments, or whatever. You can't have it both ways.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 12:31 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Ohio Finds Double Votes, Count
From Associated Press

November 18, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Election officials in one Ohio county found that about 2,600 ballots cast in the presidential election were double-counted, and two other counties had discovered possible cases of people voting twice.

Prosecutors sought to determine Wednesday whether charges should be filed against a Madison County couple accused of voting twice. In addition, Summit County election workers investigated possible double votes found under 18 names.

In the other case, Sandusky County election officials discovered that about 2,600 ballots from nine precincts were counted twice, probably because of worker error, elections director Barb Tuckerman said.

Tuckerman believes the votes were counted twice when they were mistakenly placed alongside a pile of uncounted ballots.

The problem was discovered when Tuckerman found that one precinct showed 131% of registered voters had cast ballots.

President Bush won the election by taking Ohio with 136,000 votes more than Democrat Sen. John F. Kerry, according to the unofficial tally.

The couple who voted twice in Madison County cast absentee ballots in October, then voted in person on election day, county elections director Gloria Herrel said. The couple said election workers told them their absentee votes were lost, prosecutor Steve Pronai said.

In Summit County, typically the votes were made by absentee ballot or in person, and then a second vote was cast with a provisional ballot in another precinct, elections director Bryan Williams said.

Under Ohio law, people who vote twice could be charged with election fraud, falsification or illegal voting, according the secretary of state's office. The maximum
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 12:52 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:29 AM
If you really care about voter disenfranchisement, then those who voted multiple times should be punished.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com