I guess it all depends on who you listen to on Fox. I think your "not very bright" comment shows little class. Nowhere in any of the articles that I read did they say that.
They said misinformed.
I did google what you said and most if not all where "pile on" left wing sites that were all too happy to get a study like this but wait......

Not so black and white as you would like to believe.

Anyone who watches fox news, to the exclusion of any other news outlets has to be misinformed. fox news is pretty much a propoganda organization for the right wing and therefore the information, and especially the opinions presented as fact, are slanted and therefore tainted. Some of the shows can offer a perspective that is valuable if one also consumes other points of view as well, but the far right has convinced their minions that anything other than the right wing viewpoint is the liberal media attempting to promote their socialist agenda. While the networks and cnn may occaisionally slant to the left, for the most part they are made up of journalists who try to get the story and let the chips fall where they may. msnbc is similarly tainted to the left wing perspective.

OK, I can accept that to a certain degree but you said "not very bright" and that in itself was misinformation and not helpful to any discussion.
It was added to incite and to dig at people you don't agree with.
I watch Fox and other news networks like CNN and sometimes MSNBC plus local major networks and I don't consider myself "not very bright"
Just because someone watches Fox does not make them dumb!

I just reread my post and I don't find, nor have I ever stated, "not very bright" to refer to anyone watching these shows. I agree that just because someone watches fox does not make them dumb.

OK maybe I am misreading your post but none of the articles stated "not very bright".
I was reading your post as you interpreting what the articles meant was not very bright.
If that is not what you meant then I apologize for inferring that.

The quote at the top was not from me, but from janmcn.

Oh my God. My age is starting to show itself. I got mixed up on my own post.
I stand corrected, sorry.

So all I said to janmcn

I hope that does not show I am not very bright!!!

Please accept my apology. I will try to pay more attention from now on.

No problem, I think you are quite bright actually.

Gingrich And My Plan
 

It's not likely that I'll change my view of Gingrich anytime soon.

Having said that, if he's the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. My thought process will likely be very much the same as I had for the 2008 election. I voted for Obama as the "lesser of two evils". Did I think he really represented "hope and change"? No. But after McCain sold out to the far right and his handlers, and even though he was a multiple incident cancer survivor picked an unqualified person as his VP running mate, he lost me. My thought at the time--and I said it here several times--was if Obama doesn't work out, I simply won't vote for him again.

The President isn't as bad as many here would have him, but still not a good enough leader for a country that desperately needs leadership. He's been hampered by a dysfunctional Congress, but I can't write off all that has been done or not done to that excuse. So I'll be voting for his opponent. And again I'll say--if that person (Mitt or Newt) is elected and doesn't work out, I'll be voting for someone else in 2016.

Very rational, and I agree with virtually everything you say. I am in hopes that making a choice between Obama and Gingrich is not one I am presented with.

Bull dingies!! Refute one thing I said. I double dog dare ya!! Women don't lie? How much compensation and trips and possible book deals are these women being promised? Do you know?

There's no evidence; none, nada, zippo. I reject your argument because you have no substantiation, and you can take your silly comments as to my behavior and you know what to do with them.

Obviously you're wrong or the media wouldn't have lynched this candidate with no hard evidence of any sort.

Losing your edge Richie? :laugh:

???????; sometimes you just have to backhand.

If Herman Cain had been the nominee, President Obama would be the luckiest man on earth. Almost as lucky as he was when Alan Keyes ran against him for US Senator from IL.

Where is Ann Coulter now saying "our black is better than their black"?

I think she would still be saying that. Of course to understand that you really should read her column. Just reading headlines doesn't tell you much.

Her latest column on the Cain lynching is even more educational. Of course, it would put to a question all your preconceived notions, so maybe it would upset you if you actually read it.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

OOOOOH, I've been backhanded by richie. Must have hit a nerve.

Good; you're paying attention. Now if you read back you'll see that all your previous Cain comments were purely emotional and not evidential. and then that your assessment of my comments were gratuitous and without substance.

I realize of course that you won't see this, but it's not ultimately important that you do.

Bull dingies- really? chilout Where did I say women don't lie? You ask one good question, how much compensation and trips and possible book deals ARE these women being promised richie? I reject your argument because you have no substantiation, and you can take your silly comments and you know what to do with them.

Cain was in fact a threat to Obama's ability to be the sole black candidate and carrying the majority of the black vote. Regardless the degree of threat or not, Cain would have pulled black votes away from Obama.

Cain would have completely negated Obama and his staff to use the race card for select issues.

To label Cain as a non threat is not at all accurate. A testimony to his threat was the expedient method in which all Cain's accusers, have hidden away satisfied with life until now.

Obama and the party have only one real reaction to Cains departure from the race (pun intended)........whew!!!! Thank GOD or whoever.

btk

Your self-righteous indignation is embarassing richie. I never said anything inflammatory about cain, other than my opinion that he was not a viable candidate. You got bent out of shape only because I challenged your self-aggrandized perception of your importance in chastising others on the board.

I think it's interesting that Gloria Allred was not there at Ginger White's side, salivating for camera time and money from Ginger, too.

Certainly a top-notch lawyer like Allred could uncover things like hotel, airplane and cell-phone records that show they were together for 13 years.....like the National Enquirer photos of John Edwards entering and leaving the hotel, pregnant Rielle, and later evidence of a fake plot to get Andrew Young to say he was the father of the baby, until it came time for DNA testing....

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/...6#.TtzmFWBHBMo

Although it's possible Cain did the things the women accused him of, there really isn't much proof of the lengthy 13-year affair with White at this point. The double standard could not be more blatant:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-30.html

Time will tell....but in the meantime, I think it's scary how the concepts of libel and slander mean nothing to so many on the left.

Cain to endorse Gingrich
 

The serial adultery wing of the GOP holds together. Herman Cain will endorse Newt Gingrich today.

All your comments indicated your support and acceptance of the witch hunt and that cannot be disputed. Your analysis of me is entertaining and imaginative. I'll criticize anyone who interprets gossip as fact. Here on this forum or right to your face; including the childish post right above this one.

I would have loved to see a debate between Cain and Obama. Repeated "999 I'm doing fine" versus an intelligent, well spoken individual. No contest.....Cain Train derailed. :sad:

beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholders....and wishful thinkers!!

You know what they say about opinions...eh?

btk

The PG was NEVER a serious contender for the nomination.

Expect to see Herb in TV very soon selling his book, which was always his motive.

PT Barnum was right.

our current POTUS bears out Barnum's cliche'.

btk

Osama Bin Laden would 'prolly disagree - you know, the guy Junior couldn't seem to find for 7 years....

IMHO Cain clearly was not prepared to run because if he had then the sexual harassment and 13 year affair would have been effectively addressed. Cain is a good motivational speaker and possess good corporate leadership skills but is that enough to deal with the partisan politics in Washington? His 9-9-9 plan was catchy but would have never ben implemented. However it did get other candidates to move in that direction to address our messed up tax system. Debating whether the allegations were true or untrue is a moot point.

As to the race isue I venture a guess and say I beleieve the country is pretty much over that issue because they discovered it only came back to bite them. I believe voters are focused more on issues and candidates detailed plans on solving this country's issues

Well stated rubicon! You make your case without trying to insult or belittle other posters, and make it well.

I'm on board with this. Ann has lots to say that I agree with, but the way she says it drives people crazy on both sides, for and against her. Again, I like what her message is ., but she delivers the message like a drunk X girlfriend on a rant.

Ditto: I voted for Obama and that was the first time in my life that I voted for a Democrat. I was set to vote for McCain until I heard Palin talk and jumped over the fence. Now, if Romney and Palin are on the ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney or Newt Palin would work. I know, I AM WISHY WASHY, but remember, I am in a very large group of folks that will vote the way I do.

Voting on perceived merit rather than following a party line like a sheep to slaughter is not wishy washy but intelligent independent thinking. As you may imagine, I too am in that group. :)

I agree and would like to add "voting on perceived motives". So often, people do not count the candidates' motives into the equation.

Is the candidate looking only for personal and then party power?

Or are they secure enough in themselves and their financial position that they are not on the track of "He can't get enough" (power and money).

A true leader possesses selflessness at the top of the list of character traits.

And I think it is selfish and LAZY to vote straight party line, as so many do on both sides.

I think the Party has to be taken into account when voting. All you have to do is look at the nearly locked in step party line voting in the Houses, of late. Once people are elected and begin to serve they soon find out who's in charge and what they have to do to rise in the ranks and further their careers and their fortunes.

Saying that, I haven't seen a name in the Democrat column, not counting very local contests, that I would have pulled the lever for in many a year.

Maybe when Reid and Pelosi are history, and if then the Democrat Party moves away from it radical leanings I will reconsider, but not until then.

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

When those tea party candidates begin to refuse to sign norquist's no tax pledge and refuse to attend his breakfasts, I will beleive they might be able to do some reforming.

You got to be kidding. Tea Party candidates cost the Republicans control of the senate in 2010: Christine O'Donnell in DE, Sharon Angle in NV, Buck in CO, one in WV (name escapes me), and they're going to cost the Republicans the White House in 2012. And don't forget that loser Joe Miller in Alaska who lost to a write-in candidate.