Comments on: Dems Cancel Fox's Co-Sponsored Debate

Party Cites Fox News Head's Comments About Obama Rather Than Edwards' Boycott

[dallison7]

To coin a phrase, an "inconvenient truth" to the above argument is that the very same rich Republicans decried by Shurch, in general, got that way by building successful businesses, in the process creating countless thousands of jobs for others along the way. Like it or not, that's called "capitalism". And as such, those "intellectuals who are more inclined to be of the humanities" (read: liberals) want to "share the wealth" (read: Republican wealth, not theirs) with everyone. That's called socialism. If that's what you believe in, fine, just come out and say it.
Posted by erichsh


No nation can survive under either a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist social structure. Pure socialsim would require a totalitarian or communist leadership which are always corrupt and eventually self destruct. Pure capitalism would eventually amass all wealth to very a few indibiduals forming a two caste system of 'lords and serfs', which is also a recipe for self-destruction. The only successful 'distribution of wealth' is for a government to mandate that the basic needs of the less fortunate are met by taxing the more fortunate. The 'neocon' social model lets the 'very wealthy' keep all that they have and tries to place the burden of caring for the less fortunate on the middle class through charitable organizations. (Faith based, etc.) The basic concept is totally flawed because the very thrust of the concept (no taxation for the wealthy) will very quickly destroy the middle class.

[samrensho]

Wonder how many SUV's it takes to haul this guys chins to republican campaign briefings. All that's missing is the cigar.

[kaliveotin]

Fox is the furthest thing from an objective news organisation that our national corporate media has ever shoved down the throats of the wide-eyed innocent american public. It's sad that the
democratic leaders in Nevada gave us another example of the fact that "THEY JUST DONT GET IT."
I believe that that 2008 is thier last free pass with the middle and lower class americans. We deserve Health Care for all, justice for the poor and oppressed, true support for labor, and making the rich and corporations pay for what average americans have established for them. If the democrats don't begin to do what they've promised for the past six decades, we will begin going a different way.

[CBSTV]

How many more examples do we need to see that Fox is not a bona-fide news operation? Mr. Ailes and his colleagues have exposed their Republican agenda once again.

[CBSTV]

How many more examples do we need to see that Fox is not a bona-fide news operation? Mr. Ailes and his colleagues have exposed their Republican agenda once again.

[scott4261]

ericsh....naw, think I'll stay here and put the same label on you.....you sexual deviant jackass.
Foley.....hawksprings....erics
h.....you're all the same....pathetic....can't handle that the tables have turned....loser!
Posted by lucasnico at 12:48 AM
---------
--Now come on, lucasnico. I believe we need to stay within certain rules of engagement here. We can all debate the issues and have a civil discussion. And it is OK that we don't agree with everything. If you want to know what makes America great, one of the most important aspects is the freedom of speech granted to us through the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Why do you think I posted the Bill of Rights on a few threads a couple of weeks ago? It was because I want us all, across the politics represented on this board, to appreciate our rights and hopefully we will be able to preserve them before they slip away.

Point is, we can all treat is other with dignity and respect. Of course, I'm guilty of flying off the handle when I've had a few drinks or before my morning coffee (or when I'm checking the blogs at work), but I try to keep my temper down. A few conservative bloggers on here I respect a great deal. I would say that erichsh is one. I would say that Hawk might even have a grudging respect for me, as I do him. And then there are some who just **** me off. But then I used a neutered word like "wingnut" or "nutball," but I never try to be mean to anyone.

We can agree to disagree. And that's OK.

[scott4261]

Hey, Scott4261 - love your posts. keep on keepin' on, man.
Posted by fredegrar at 11:44 PM

--Thanks, man.

[lucasnico]

erichsh.....

Bob Burr, Republican Congressman, Georgia.... married 3 times, caught licking whipped cream off prostitutes and having *** with minors....

*** Armey....Republican Congresman, Texas... caught with child pornography and having *** with an under aged male

Randal David....Republican lobbyist.... caught having *** with pre teens

John Allen Burt.... Republican party chairman, Oregon.... caught with a 15 year old boy

Dan Burton.....Republican.... advocate of child protection services.....caught having *** with 14 year old boy

Ken Calvert, Republican, California.... caught with child pornography and having *** with minors

Howard Brooks, Republican, California.... caught with 12 year old boy

John Bolton.....caught having group *** (what group would have *** with him, must have been blind!)

Louis Beres..., chairman Republican coalition, Oregon.... caught molesting pre teens

Parker Benes.....Republican activist and Bush elector....caught with child pornography

And what do we do with Newt....having an affair while calling someone else out.

There is a huge difference between being conservative, and supporting the Republican party.....you idiot!

[erichsh]

Knock yourself out. The only losers are those who have to resort to juvenile name-calling because they don't have the brains to put together anything more cohesive than that. Besides, if your mindset is reflective of your political party, I don't think I want to go there.

[erichsh]

Hey lucasnico - you didn't single me out by name like you did lieber1811 and hawksprings - but I guess I'm a pedophile too, because I'm Republican?? Is this how you go about life, accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you of the vilest of sexual deviant behavior? If you had something intelligent to add to this discourse I might have some degree of respect for you, but otherwise - please - go play your pathetic name-calling games elsewhere.

[hawksprings]

alphaa10,
As if the Dems never stage anything.

[alphaa10-2009]

fredegrar said, "Dems aren't afraid. They just don't see the point in answering the right's 'tough' questions..."
---
It was the Democrats who initially agreed, so fear is not the explanation. But considering the reputation of Fox for handling the news truthfully, I am not sure why they invited or accepted the Fox hosting.

In any case, I would love to see pointed questions thrown at all candidates for 2008, of whatever party-- so long as the questions are actual questions, and not efforts to plant a message. We need to hear from the candidates, themselves.

Dodging a debate, however, is what Bush does as a standard policy. Why do you think so many of his speeches are delivered to military audiences? Were you aware of the accidental feed of a staged "interview" between Bush and Iraq-based American troops? The incident was a model of the Bush PR approach-- no dissenters, no shouts of protest, no signs, just beaming young faces, applauding on cue to well-rehearsed phrases and simulated dialogue.

Goodnight, all. Morning comes an hour earlier.

[alphaa10-2009]

erichsh said, "The answer to your post is real simple."
---

Not really. Your answer misses a lot about the significance of the election. You dismiss
Democratic gains as merely centrist power shifting allegiance, and you marginalize the Democrats as a party without a platform. In short, you deny most of what the polls are telling us-- things have changed in the very content of our country's debate about its future. That future is a political platform.

Instead of dismissing the polls, try reading the Gallup and Harris questions for content and possible spin. It is hard to escape the impression there is a sea-change underway among American voters-- this is exactly the data element a professional poll defines, and the major polls are remarkably consistent on many issues.

You may not be part of that voter change, though I do not suspect you of being Bush's buddy, either. But you are woefully misinformed about the rank-and-file Democrat who is together on social justice issues as well as the policy and problem Iraq represents.

You all too easily attribute Democrat gains to hatred, and end up ignoring the problem,
as well as the promise of the new approach taken by the Democrats. Yes, as a party, Democrats have their Liebermans and Millers, but en masse, the party stresses exactly the voter base to which Pelosi and others appeal. How can you account for the change of fortune in congress, otherwise?

[fredegrar]

Over the last few days, these are the two main points, as far as my small mind can comprehend, that the more conservative leaning posters here have made (excluding the more derogatory 'points' targeted at the lib posters, i.e. their ga_y-ness, weakness, nerd-ishness, brainless-ness, etc.):
1. the Democrats are being hypocritical in that they trumpet free-speech rights, but then they 'boycott' a debate sponsored and aired on Fox, thus limiting Fox's free-speech rights.

2. Democrats are apparently afraid of answering 'tough' questions proffered by Fox's 'crack' (and otherwise trade-marked), hard-hitting news team, and are therefore not worthy of one's vote.

On point one, I'd say refusing to show up at an event is hardly an infringement of the host's free-speech or free-press rights. You're free to host an event. I'm free to decline.

On point two, I think the dems are not interested in the votes represented by Fox's viewers at this point... at least not in PRIMARY season (a general election debate, I might feel differently). Dems aren't afraid. They just don't see the point in answering the right's 'tough' questions. They have to appeal to their base right now, as opposed to making the general case to the American eletorate as to why they desreve to be PotUS.

Sorry - hate to take everyone's time. Peace.

Hey, Scott4261 - love your posts. keep on keepin' on, man.

[alphaa10-2009]

stevex47 said, "For anyone to thrive economically, it's been the democrats bailing out the republicans. I think you may equate just being prosperous as socialism simply becuase republicans have proven to not prosper. They run surplus's into deficits, dismantle job forces, wreak havoc on housing markets and fuel prices."
---
Exactly. The most scandalous subtext of all for the past fix years of the Bush/Cheney regime has been the inside track given to corporate players on a field named after "free" enterprise.

The only thing free about it, unfortunately, is the largesse and public money lavished on captains of industry, if only, somehow, they will forget about their stock options, mansions, retirement plans, and work harder to return value for this investment-- in literal and figurative terms-- of public trust and treasure.

The same corporate bozos voting for Bush with their fat contributions never think of it as buying influence, surely, but how they resent it when people ask them, "Just what have you done to deserve such benefits from our treasury?"

When Bush is gone, all too many will awaken to the plunder of American industrial potential Bush has left in his stead.

[erichsh]

alphaa10 -

The answer to your post is real simple. Count me as one of those that's not crazy about Bush. If you specifically collar me and ask me in a poll about Bush and Iraq, I'm not in that 38% bracket. But does that make me (and millions more like me) fall into the moveon.org camp? Hail no. But the polls don't ask me that question.

All of you who live and die by these poll numbers, who think that somehow Bush is the be-all and end-all of Republican philosophy, are gravely mistaken. Consider that Democrats got in by the skin of their teeth in the last election - not the landslide you would have thought. This was only after months and years of constant Bush-bashing in the media (even including Fox), fueled, as it was, by Bush's inability to put together a coherent sentence, and the inability of some Republicans to stick to Republican principals.

It was an election based entirely by the Democrats on Bush-bashing and Republican bashing and a handful of ethereal, vague promises to "change things" that have already fallen flat. There was no demonstrable alternative agenda put forth. And now that the Democrats are in power, they can't accomplish a thing other than pass a toothless non-binding feel-good resolution (and at that, only in the House) because of all the intra-party squabbling. And Giuliani is pulling ahead of both Hillary and Obama in some of the early polls.

[sandycat2]

Your thinking is incorrect. Socialists want to have high taxes so they can give to everyone. High taxes smother the economy and prevent new jobs. France is a prime example of socialism run a muck. Their unemployment is at least 10%. The rest get a stipend from the government. If that's the life you want, move to Europe.

[alphaa10-2009]

nvhorseman said, "You may try and divide us with all of your strategies of "divide and conquer", throw mis-information at us, stack the courts with conservative judges, use fear to motivate the voter into voting for a false sense of security but you will not be able to keep the truth from flowing. And the truth shall set us free!"
---

Clear, pointed and well-said. Hope is hard to extinguish, and truth impossible to deny.

Try as they might, Bush, Cheney and his GOP minions cannot make the courts bark on command (though Thomas, Scalia and a few come close), cannot make congress a rubber stamp, cannot put enough reporters in prison for the same leaks they themselves commit, cannot tell enough lies to cover all the others they have left in their wake.

Americans have awakened to the realization a rank bunch of con-artists and political criminals has infested the White House, and they are on the warpath. Not for more Iraq, to be sure, but far less of it.

These are the end days for Bush, Cheney and their wicked little circle. As they struggle harder, the knot of their own misdeeds holds them all the more tightly.

[stevex47]

erich,
My take is a little different on:
"Like it or not, that's called "capitalism". And as such, those "intellectuals who are more inclined to be of the humanities" (read: liberals) want to "share the wealth" (read: Republican wealth, not theirs) with everyone. That's called socialism. If that's what you believe in, fine, just come out and say it."

For anyone to thrive economically, it's been the democrats bailing out the republicans. I think you may equate just being prosperous as socialism simply becuase republicans have proven to not prosper. They run surplus's into deficits, dismantle job forces, wreak havoc on housing markets and fuel prices. So, to sum up, to the righties...being succesful is socialism. Incorrect thinking.

[stevex47]

Hey erich,
"Typical of that mindset is a complete absence of any clearly stated alternative policy"

No alternative policy's are necessary to bash the other side for it's shortcomings.

That precedent was set when Limbaugh and the right wing machine went after Chelsea early on, Hillary, and Clinton for anything they could get their hands on. They couldn't get him for economy, war, corruption, CIA leaks, Pedophilia, Abrhamoff scandal, selling ports, heck swift boats even went after McCain, just too name a few.

So, to sum up, ha, all is fair, skip a beat and you are toast. Bush LLC has skipped more than a few beats.