The fix is in!  98% would make the Lenin, Mao, or Castro proud.  Who can honestly look at these figures and tell me with a straight face that they’re accurate!?

If you registered Libertarian BEFORE THIS YEAR, you are currently Unaffiliated.  Go re-register if you want the L next to your name - that 109 number looks sad, and it’s not at all reflective of the truth.  Thanks Raleigh!

Jimbo, when you break it down, it’s 51% Democrat, 47% unaffiliated, 2% Republican.  And that’s only NEW voters, not total, and in only one county.

Does anyone else think that posts like “Jimbo’s” are part of a paid promotion?

Jimbo: Can you honestly tell me, with a strait face,  Bush won in 2000?

Just for the record, this republican fanatic is another “Jimbo”. Dumb that the server allows people to register the same name.

Adding the word fanatic after Republican is nothing more than attempting to poison the well among your like minded fellows. It is intellectually dishonest.
I can easily state with a straight face in all sincerity and honesty that G.W. Bush won the Presidential election in 2000. The examination of the Florida results following the election made that fairly clear. Gore received the slimmest majority of the popular vote nationwide but we do not elect the President on a national ballot. We have an electoral college process that is a constitutional safeguard most informed persons are not willing to squander.

All of the Republican’s were probably already registered.  It seems the Dem’s are the party that has trouble getting their folks registered.

So why bother voting at all, if the electoral college makes the final decision…. and they could obviously care less what the MAJORITY of amuricans want?

It seems pointless.

Just for the record, this republican fanatic is another “Jimbo”. Dumb that the server allows people to register the same name.

While I agree with you that duplicate names ought not to be allowed, if the name isn’t underlined, it’s not registered. Of course, that means that the post in question had to pass through moderating and the duplication should have been spotted, but…

“All of the Republicans were probably already registered.”

Funny.

Gordon, you disagree?  I’m a registered indep, but have voted rep most of the time.  Whenever I move and the dmv asks me if I want to register, I say yes as do most folks with sense.  Having to round up registrations just isn’t necessary on the right.

It is pointless Trey, you might as well not vote.

Just kidding.  Here’s something to consider.  In today’s world, the electoral college gives the rest of the country a fighting chance against the few biggest cities.  The needs of the two are wildly different.  If the electoral college were scrapped, then you might as well really not vote because NY, CA, TX, PA and FL will decide the election every time.

RC’s inference:

Folks on the right have “sense”.

I think there are a lot of unregistered voters in Buncombe.  Maybe as many as 10,000 more than we’ve got now.  I think it’s unreasonable to suggest that all of those who might register Republican are already registered, yes.  Especially after seeing what this voter registration drive has yielded.

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/08/08/you-too-can-be-a-mindless-rewarded-mccain-campaign-troll/

Spread John McCain’s official talking points around the Web—and you could win valuable prizes!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080603589_pf.html

My intention with the dmv comment is the large number of people who pass on the dmv’s offer to register you right there and then don’t have sense in that respect on that issue.  Why pass up that offer?  We all have to interact with the dmv when we move or renew our licenses.

The stats from this drive completely support my point.  Only 2% registered rep.  That is a very small portion compared to the dem or indep voter.

Your notion seems a bit flawed. A “popular vote” would still go to the majority, right?

Or should people in Ohio get their vote to count twice, sense they are outnumbered by people in cities?

Dave - You don’t approve of the idea in those articles?  Obama did it first.  Did you approve then?

The Ohio comment didn’t make any sense - it didn’t apply to mine anyhow.  Count twice?  Who said anything about that?  Read up a little more on the electoral college and try again.

This election is historic and disturbing. It has clarified differences between voting groups like never before. Not based on politics, but on perceptions of reality.  That’s very scary.  What one person sees as simple fact, there are many who actually skip right over denial, and really “see” their own reality.

I’m not talking about opinion based issues, I’m talking about simple reality. Case in point; some are refusing to believe voter registration numbers like they’re open to intepretation. Many are also more than happy to continually run with complete innacuracies and campaign lies that have long since been proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt and with extensive documentary evidence.

Some of what is going on is seriously more disturbing than the folks who deny carbon dating, errosion, geology, etc. and insist that dinosaurs walked with man 4,000 years ago. There are people locked in sanitariums across this country who have done far less to demonstrate their mental illness. How did citizens of this country become so off balance? When did it become socially acceptable to reject reality and substitute your own?

Easy Jimbo - when the liberal media started ‘making’ and ‘shaping’ the news instead of reporting it.

Spread John McCain’s official talking points around the Web—and you could win valuable prizes!

Oh, please. I get at least ten spam emails a day from Obama surrogates, supporters and volunteers.

Reality Check—if you intend to live up to your moniker, you should check the ridiculous claim that there exists a “liberal” media bias.  Opinion shows, i.e. Olberman and Oreilly, express bias.  But they are not news shows, they are biased by design.  However, the overwhelming majority of owners of news outlets (Clear Channel, Fox/Wall Street Journal) are, in fact, conservatives.  If there exists any bias, it is conservative.  Perpetuating the myth of a “liberal” media bias is akin to the Republicans decrying A.C.O.R.N. for voter fraud.  When, Diebold and Republicans have the market on voter fraud cornered.  Poor, poor conservatives, now that there reign of terror is ending they want everyone to play fair—wahhh

I agree that opinion shows you mentioned don’t count.  Unfortunately, almost every news org now has turned into an opinion show.  The nightly news is an excellent example.  Why did the top 3 news orgs follow Obama all over Europe like groupies?  They didn’t do that with any other candidate.  Look at the stories they do and the angle they take.  Show me one story on Palin that isn’t a hit piece.  Couric almost jumped her on the set, but with Biden, she practically flirted. 

Ownership has nothing to do with the news content.  Regular Fox television has shows on all the time that hammer conservatives.  Watch Sunday night and every show does it.

The noted conservative bastion Harvard conducts a study every year that demonstrates media bias.  Who is always the most fair to the guests on the shows?  Get ready ... Fox News. 

I love to hear people try to deny the media bias.  I can sense the grin you have on your face while trying to convince me that up is down and left is right.

Go to http://www.newsbusters.org and http://www.mediamatters.org and compare the bias.  Two opposite sides of the spectrum.  Media matters spends most of their time on hammering the opinion shows and has to split hairs normally to find a story on other reporters.  It usually boils down to reporter ignorance and not blatant bias.  Newsbuster’s page isn’t big enough to handle all the obviously planned daily bias.

Diebold ... that’s like saying that 9/11 was W’s fault.  It lets the air completely out of your credibility.

“Oh, please. I get at least ten spam emails a day from Obama surrogates, supporters and volunteers.”

how’d you get on their mailing list? I dont get any kind of spam, certainly not political spam.

I’m just talking about the exact same Limbaugh talking points being harped on on every political blog in the country. I dont see nearly as many out there as for the Obamamtons. It’s too bad, too, because they lend a lot of discredit to anything resembling true Conservative dialogue.

“Why did the top 3 news orgs follow Obama all over Europe like groupies?  “

You dont think every major press agency showing up to take well-managed publicity photos for Palin’s little ‘Mctour de foreign powers’ is the same thing?

Unless your a third-party voter, its hard to see how you can make these arguments with a straight face. The McCain campaign engages in every practice they decry the ‘libs’ for participating in. The media most certainly has a noticeable bias towards Obama, but the McCain camp gets plenty of help in the entire mascarade, and to claim different is to really live in some altered, surreal reality, in my opinion.

Sarah Palin is a fraud, a characature, based on a Reality Show contestant with the IQ of the “average American” journalists are told to write for.  She is the product of Rovian politics, and represents a pandering to America’s lowest common denominator, while maskerading (with the media’s aquiecense) as rural populism. The good ‘ol boys I live next to dont even buy her stuff. I think her only real support is the fearful, the willfully ignorant, and the paid-to-promote.

Easy Jimbo - when the liberal media started ‘making’ and ‘shaping’ the news instead of reporting it.

So, I guess Fox news is now also considered ‘the liberal media’?  :-)

The Conservative voice is aired on one news channel.  You can hate on Hannity and O’Reilly all you want - those guys dive me crazy - but those are opinion shows.  You certainly can’t call the others - Hume, Wallace, etc extreme.  One Channel out of almost 2 dozen.  That seems too much for the far left.  1 against 20.  It seems the far left wants it to be zero out of 20.  Heck MSNBC is so far left, it needs 2 Foxes to balance the equation.

This is the disturbing alternate reality at work. Apparently, we are all to accept that the American news media in total is composed of one reputable news agency and 20 news channels that are clearly liberal biased agencies because they do not represent the views of the people who want a more conservative bias? And in this reality, there are no middle of the road news agancies, because “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” (Shiver) Could all of you people start wearing matching hats or something so we can see you coming.

Where did you get that opinion?  Its not posted above.  Just some balance would be nice.  All the news channels could improve there.

If MSNBC, (co-owned by GE and Microsoft, who cobined gave nearly 4 million to GW Bush in 2004) is the far-left, then most of the folks in asheville must be off the meter with their radical leftist ideology.

You cannot deny the content of their shows.  However hard you try.  Nice attempt with the distraction, but no cigar.

I “deny” the characterizing of their content as being from the “far-left”. This is an absurd claim. Leftist, sure. Absolutely. But “far-Left”? Come on, RC. Live up to your name.
Has the public’s understanding of the political spectrum really been dumbed-down to this degree, that the “middle” is represented by those on the far-right?

Me, I think the AGR might be characterized as ‘far left’. MSNBC. Middle of the Road. Fox news and Rush Limbaugh? FAAAR Right.

“One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America’s enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American “Right” to classify everything that they oppose as “Leftist”. After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as “Red,” thereby associating “Liberalism” with “Socialism”. It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being “Communists” or “Communist sympathizers”, a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.”

from http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

So you admit ‘leftist’.  That was all I was going for.  Almost all of the media is ‘leftist’.  Excellent admission.

MSNBC put Oberman and Mathews on the TV as their main anchors for election coverage.  If Fox had put O’Reilly and Hannity in the same role, can you imagine the hullabalu?  Those guys are the exact polar political opposites of O’Reilly and Hannity and I’ll throw in Savage as a comparison to Oberman.  That is where you are wrong about MSNBC.

BTW, Pew research just said that Fox is more fair in their interviews of politicians than any other network.  If Pew full of it?  Harvard says the same thing.  How about them?

I wish I had a TV.
Oh wait ... no, I don’t.

Spot on dave
Slap the commie label on anyone who dares to question and/or criticize.
And ... yeah, yeah guys, we know ....  they had same or worse tactics in those long gone red countries. But me no live in China.

RC-What you said was they were “far Left”, which is different from what you are claiming now. And If MSNBC gave millions to the Republican party, then I find it hard to see that as “far left”. Your attempt to characterize something that is pretty much centerist, perhaps mildly ‘leftist’ as “extreme” is silly. Obama isn’t Far-Left, any more than McCain or Palin are centrist. You are merely representing the simplification of political discourse in this country. Hillary Clinton isn’t a “Leftist”. Barack Obama isn’t a Socialist. And McCain is not a free-market capitalist. Both the Republicans and Democrats represent large corporations, bailouts for wall street, and a large Military Industrial Complex. That is not ideology of the “far left”. Is the sky green in your reality too?

MSNBC didn’t give the money.  You said that yourself.

Oberman and Mathews are centrist?  Give me a break.  They were the faces of that network during the convention.

Obama and Biden are the two most liberal in the senate.  That’s centrist?

McCain is closer to the center than either of them or most in his own party.  He’s been a thorn in the side of the far right his whole career.  His counterpart in the Dem party is Lieberman who is usually in dutch with the ‘far’ of his party.  Palin is far right.  I’ve voting for Barr.

I agree the most recent activities of both parties don’t represent the ‘far’ of either party.  They are saving their jobs ... at least they think they are ... which is why there should be term limits. No one is willing to throw themselves on the grenade of a cause anymore because they don’t want to risk their seat.  We may actually agree on that.

I also agree that using a broad brush is dangerous.  Its polarizing and sometimes over encompassing.  However it is difficult not to in the limited space available here.  Also, when you say far right, you have a pretty limited number of ideologies that are easy to lump together.  The far left is made up of a myriad of different causes.  Its kind of like herding cats. 

That’s why the right does better on radio.  Its easier to please the whole audience with the same message.  Air America has a hard time pleasing their entire base.  No matter what they say, part of that base will be mad.

If singing “Bomb bomb Bomb Iran” is “centerist”, then call me Emma Goldman from now on. :-)

Want me to start pulling quotes from Obama?  I can play that game too.  A bunch of them contain the word ‘marxism’. That is certainly not a ‘centrist’ term.  That quote from McCain was a joke.  A poor one, but a joke.  Way to take it out of context. 

You’re dragging down the discourse with your snippets and changes of subject.  When I make a solid point you can’t refute, you just change the subject or ignore my comment.

RC-What solid point have you made?  I must have missed it. Can you recap where you have left me refuted?
I’m not sure I see your point at all, actually. That MSNBC is “Far Left”? That you think the political spectrum is centered in your own beliefs? That someone as mildly Left as Obama is actually from the “Far Left”?

Please, supply us with those quotes from Sen. Obama where he preaches the gospel of Marx. I mean, other than the small, out-of-context snippet about ‘spreading the wealth around’ given as a response to a question from a person who misrepresented himself on every count.

-regards, Ms. Goldman

RC,

Go ahead.  Find “a bunch” of Barack Obama quotes with the word “marxism”. 

Channeling Joe McCarthy while complaining of “dragging down the discourse”?  That’s a rhetorical move that only a neocon could love.

Dave - You missed my points ... why don’t you read the posts I’ve made and respond directly to them instead of continually changing the subject.  If the only way you can respond is changing the subject, it tells me my points are good and you are having to move on.  I’ve responded directly to yours.  Did you ever take debate?  It helps you stay focused.

I would be glad to get those quotes, but based on your history, it won’t matter.  You will just move on like they don’t exist.  Are you saying they don’t exist?  That he didn’t seek out the company of Marxists for political allies?

One last time - are you saying that Oberman and Mathews are centrist?  That’s about the 3rd time I’ve asked.  Can you not concede even one point?  Blind partisanship is unhealthy.  I have issues with both parties and am not afraid to admit it.

Dave and GS - just so you don’t have to read my posts again.

Dave - you defined McCain as hard right by one quote.  ‘the bomb Iran’ joke he stupidly tried to make.  Has he ever said it again?  My Marxism response was a retort to your poor method of stereotyping.  I can do the same.  Does it help .. no it doesn’t.

The other point was that I’m saying is that McCain is more centrist than Obama.  How many times has Obama been a thorn in the side of the party’s leadership?  Ever?  Name one.  McCain has been a constant thorn in the side of his party’s hard right.  He favors cap and trade, embryonic stem cell research, has a soft abortion argument, he punished W on the war from the start.  He did vote for it, but was a vocal opponent of W’s methods.  Name a few topics where Obama has broken from his leadership.

I’ll wait for your responses.

I still can’t wait to hear you say Oberman is centrist again.  Did you ever say that?  It was hard to tell from your dancing.

When the Democratic Party has been voting against George W. Bush’s policies it is a virtue to vote with them.  Otherwise, Obama would have been siding with Bush just like McCain did 90% of the time.

Also - I see you’ve moved from ” A bunch of them contain the word ‘marxism’” to “seek out the company of Marxists for political allies”.  Why’s that?  Because your initial statement was wholly incorrect.  Your fallback position is more of the same hysterical fearmongering we’ve grown used to from McCainiacs.

Obama worked with Dick Lugar (R) on non-proliferation, and he led to get bipartisan ethics legislation passed as well.

RC-Do you or do you not hate puppies? Why are you dodging this question? It’s simple, really, either you eat puppies for lunch, or you don’t. John Mccain is a centerist and Obama represents the furthest left one can go on the political spectrum.

GS - Any one party isn’t right all the time.  You are only confirming my point.  Every vote that took place wasn’t a ‘W’ policy.  You are so partisan, you can’t even see it.

You are also biting on the school yard method that Dave was using of distorting one quote to pigeon hole somebody.  You are doing it too.  Since you seem to admire that philosophy, so I’ll have to play your symantics game and change the word I mentioned from ‘marxism’ to ‘marxist’.  The symantic difference there is insignificant.  But since you like to argue symantics instead of content, there you go.  Are you now going say that there is a significant difference between those two words?  That I can’t find a quote with it in there to misuse the way Dave did?

I can’t believe I’m even playing your guys ignorant game.  You both would completely fail debate class.

Everybody is for non-proliferation.  He really stuck his neck out there.  What bi-partisan legislation of any significance did he go against Harry Reid on?  McCain went against numerous core issues of his party.

So which Democrats are you voting for, RC?  You guiding light of bipartisan love.

The Bush policies have failed.  McCain has supported them and plans to continue most of them.

Obama is charting a new course based on job creation, affordable health insurance, energy independence, and restoring our place in the world as an honest broker.

You can roll out the hysterical rhetoric, but it won’t alter the facts.

GS, you certainly stick to your guns.  What about my questions?  Any answers?  I guess not.

I VOTED largly libertarian.  Obama and McCain are both bad options in my book.  I voted for Shuler.  I assume you are voting a straight party ticket?

Hysterical rhetoric ... interesting ... where was that? And don’t bring up the Marxism thing.  I was using that as a tool to show Dave how pitiful his misquote was.  I’ve used specifics in my discussions.  Your evade and escape tactics have yielded nothing but empty rhetoric.

I’ve addressed your questions.  Will you address mine? Or my points in my last 2 posts?  Your and Dave’s propensity to change the subject when you’re beat is getting tiresome.  It should make you question your beliefs.

What questions?  Which points?  You want to do the FOX News apologist routine, but aside from that and the hysterical “associations” meme that ignores 99% of Obama’s other “associations” with people like Ted Kennedy, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, and more, I can’t find any points you’re trying to make at all.

You asked for bipartisan legislation and I gave you two examples.  Those weren’t good enough.  Now you want more?  Would you please let me know which legislation is good enough for you, so I can leave out silly things like nuclear nonproliferation and ethics reform next time?

Fire away, dude.  I’ll do my level best.

RC-You have made me see the light. I now see that corporate television like MSNBC is “far left”, and politicians like McCain are “Center”. I am now going to move to France so I can be around more radical socialists like me, since my beliefs are so far left of MSNBC’s.

GS - you gave one example that both parties already agreed on.  That isn’t reaching across the isle.  That whole thing was a group hug. 

When did he cross Harry Reid?  Since you won’t answer, I will ... never.  That’s the whole point you keep dancing around.  I can understand your emotional rage against the right in DC.  They blew it when they had their shot.  I don’t blame your emotions for wanting to have an extreme left guy in office.  Just admit it.  It will make you feel better.  Saying that McCain is as far right as Obama is left is just plain wrong.

Nice distraction with Fox.  I was afraid you had strayed from your tactics and seen the light.  I already said they were right of center and that O’Reilly and Hannity are over the top.  O’Reilly and Hannity, however don’t represent their network for news the way Oberman and Mathews do for MSNBC.

BTW - the questions I asked you have question marks after them.  Go figure.

You’re a funny one, RC.

You brought Fox up. 

Allow me to walk you through the logic

1.  George W. Bush’s policies are agreed to have been a failure by over 70% of the American populace.

2.  Harry Reid was leading the Senate in efforts to slow or stop those policies. 

3.  Barack Obama, also recognizing that the policies were bad, voted with his leadership.

Voting for bad things in order to meet some weird McCainiac Mavricky bar doesn’t make sense.

What you haven’t answered is why siding with George W. Bush and his Republicans would have been a good thing.

I gave two examples of bipartisanship.  I get that you want to dismiss the nuclear nonproliferation piece.  It’s inconvenient to your argument.  However, outright ignoring the ethics legislation is transparently refusing to acknowledge that Barack Obama led that effort despite all the inertia against it.

It’s o.k.  I don’t expect you to shrug your shoulders and say, “Gee Whiz you’re right, Gordon!”.  But I’ll leave this argument with this comment knowing that, come Tuesday, we’ll have an entirely different context in which to argue it.

As I said before.  Not all votes are W policies.  Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is acting up.

The point I was making with dave that you jumped in the middle of was that McCain isn’t as far Right as Obama is Left.  One way to define that was to count how many times someone went against their party.  Simply that. Nothing more. You’re twisting it into another discussion. 

The ethics legislation was a joke.  More behind the scenes deals.  More Status Quo.  No transparency. More protecting incumbents.  That’s all it did.  They release their documents in pdf format just so you can’t search them for bs.  Pelosi and Reid totally dropped the ball there as did the Republicans.  Both parties broke promises to the American public.

There was not significant opposition to non-proliferation.  That’s why it was bipartisan legislation.

I didn’t start the Fox argument.  Ashevegasjoe, dave and PatD did.  Their Fox Derangement Syndrome was acting up.  Apparently, yours is too.

Actually, all i was ever taking exception to was you classifying MSNBC as “far left”. It was you who spun it into a lot of other things in the process of avoiding the topic. The thread is right there, you can read it for yourself.

Hi Emma.  MSNBC is the most left of any network.  How about I phrase it like that?  I can’t think of another that is more.  You had to love the Olbermann spoof on SNL.  I think they hit him right on the mark.  I hope O’Reilly is next.  He and Olbermann have to be twins that were separated at birth.  Both are completely off the chart and out to make themselves and their egos famous.

My threads may have seemed confusing to you, but I was responding to several folks comments at once.  Hard to not do with this format.

The only reason you can claim McCain as a “centerist”, is because he changes his views and votes so frequently.  Torture—against it, then for it, public financing against it, then for it, Jerry Fallwell and the religious right, against them, then “palling around” with them.  Being a flip-flopper doesn’t make you centrist—it makes you desperate and hypocritical.  His Iran song showed his hawk-like ideology.  He didn’t say it again because he caught so much flack for it, not because he doesn’t believe we should attack Iran. 
  And, finally, your claim that it is twenty liberal stations to one conservative doesn’t factor in media ownership as a whole.  Where there are 200 to 4 nationally on the radio in favor of conservatives, and the major news rags are corporately owned.  And contrary to your previous claim that ownership doesn’t matter, Clear-Channel and Rupert Murdoch are hell bent on pleasing their stockholders with a plethora of right-wing propaganda.  I think ABC, NBC, amd CBS show the same watered down, centrist stories at the exact time everynight(flip between the three and you will see).  MSNBC has left leaning shows, that only recently balance out FOX.  The facts are clear—the media bias is overwhelmingly centrist and center-right.  Obama is a centrist—Kucinich is left.  You guys have pushed the right so far right for the last thirty years, that you assumed the center moved right with you.  However, the majority of people in this country believe in environmental stewardship, education and healthcare for all.  That would make those “leftist” planks, actually the center.  R.C. come back to the light, the light is good.

And my Diebold stealing the election is hardly a conspiracy theory.  Why don’t they make their software that calculates the vote public record?  Why did they change the name of their company?  Why have they given so much money to the RNC?  And finally, why do the machines never flip from R to D?  In every documented case Democratic votes are “mysteriously” flipped to Republican— how odd??  I would think writing software to count would be easy and should be open to the public.  Wanting all votes counted acurately, is not “extreme” or “whacko”.  If we want to spread Democracy, we should start right here.

Obama is a centrist - Enough said - you clearly like the cool aid.  For the last time, I never said that McCain was centrist.  He’s closer to the center than Obama.  He was the most liberal Republican running.  Did you watch the news at all during the primaries?  Pretending otherwise is distorting reality.  That was my point.  Stop distorting it.

If there was a real story at Diebold, NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta JC, and the other media outlets would be all over it.  Are you saying they are in the conspiracy too?

I agree that there should be no electronics at all involved in voting.  NONE. EVER.  Screw the media and their need to call the election at 6:05 that night.

RC-I see the problem here. You think that network television is the end-all be-all for political discourse. So it makes sense that you would find a corporate news source like MSNBC as “Far-Left”, as you have previously stated.
I see where you are coming from now. I guess that’s why you had no idea who the AGR was, who I referenced as a real example of “Far-Left”.
Just to let you know, though, there are A LOT of folks out there who think corporate television in general is pretty far to the “right” of their own political ideology.
I, for example, dont watch television. If i do, it’s on youtube clips. I dont watch television because it seems so far right of my own radical leftist agenda, and I’m a Ron Paul guy. Get that?

well said: “You guys have pushed the right so far right for the last thirty years, that you assumed the center moved right with you”

Emma ... I was only talking about TV.  I realize the web has no end to either political spectrum and have no interest discussing that mess.  I never said you were far left.  I said MSNBC is the most left TV network.  Simply that and no more.  Confusion occurs when others retort by expanding that point.  This horse is thoroughly beaten.

“RC-I see the problem here. You think that network television is the end-all be-all for political discourse.”

You assumed what I was thinking and you were wrong.  You distorted my comments on TV news into some other discussion you wanted to have.  I’m not going there.

Really? Here is what you said: “The Conservative voice is aired on one news channel….  One Channel out of almost 2 dozen.  That seems too much for the far left.  1 against 20.  It seems the far left wants it to be zero out of 20.  Heck MSNBC is so far left, it needs 2 Foxes to balance the equation.”
Period. Exclamation point.

I stand by that.  MSNBC is the most left on TV.  Fox is right.  If you insist on discussing this again .. my main point was that MSNBC put their opinion guys - Olbermann and Mathews - left guys - on as the face of their network during the conventions instead of regular newsdesk guys.  Fox did not.  If Fox had O’Reilly and Hannity on as their mouth pieces, those that like MSNBC would have rioted in the streets.  I stand by the fact also that many would like to see Fox off the air because of O’Reilly and Hannity.  Many of those folks also talk about free speech.  Massive hypocrisy.

If you think some networks other than Fox lean right, who are they?  ABC, CBS, NBC news?  They followed Obama all over the world like puppy dogs. CNN?  PBS?  I’ll reduce the 20 to about 10 majors, but won’t increase the 1.

RC-Massive corporations are not “leftist” by definition.
20? 10? I only know of, and you only list 5. So who’s dancing around the issues?
And yes, I find everything except PBS (which isnt a “Major network”, BTW) as a lot more “right” of the above definition of the spectrum. They are all corporate media outlets that support both the Democrats and the Republicans financially. That is “Leftist”?
Let’s not forget the New York Times, who gets called “Liberal” all the time, despite the fact they parroted the Bush Admin’s lies connecting 9-11 and Iraq.
The American Media has moved so far to the ‘right’, that any self-respecting “leftist” would have to scour the internet for anything that is a corporate shill (massive corporations are not “leftist” by definition.) What you promote as being the only “right” perspective out there; Fox, is really just a parody of Social Conservative talking points. Hardly representative of the truly conservative ideals of the “Right”.

MSNBC put Olberman and Mathews as the “face of their network”, because THEY ARE THE FACE OF THEIR NETWORK!  Nobody knows anyone elso on MSNBC.  I like Rachel Maddow, but Mathews has had one of the top-rated political shows for over a decade, and Olberman was on that left-wing marxist ESPN show- Sportscenter.

enough said.

Name some dave.  Name some that are conservative.  Hinting for even one second that the NYTimes is not liberal is wack.

I’ll expand on my 20 number.  I admit is was an exaggeration in the number of ‘networks’  My brain was running more on network news shows and the astounding comment from ashvegasjoe that ‘most of them’ are right of center.  Counting the morning ‘news/gossip’ shows, which are equally left as their evening counterparts, it adds to 10+. 

When SNL ran that skit a while back on how Obama is getting treated this election, the main stream media was outed and they seem to be ok with it.

Dave ... voter fraud attempts again in Philly?

Who is doing it ... the Democrats

http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc

Interesting last paragraph:

The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened.

RC-What does that last partisan rant of yours have to do with the topic of MSNBC being part of the “far left”?

And yes, I do not think the NYT are “liberal” if they parrot the Republican Administration’s lies about 9-11 and the Iraq war. You are merely proving that you think anything that disproves your sheltered world view is “radical leftist.” That just isnt the case. The political spectrum is not that subjective.

Read the AGR sometime if you want an example of something you might be able to classify as “far left”. http://theglobalreport.org/

That is all I have ever brought up with you.

dave - I apologize - ashevegasjoe made the diebold comments, not you.

Looks like those 14,000 voters are what gave NC to Obama.