[quote=Loveithere;419621]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.

loveithere: I happen to agree with you. I also believe that Sarah Palin is both ethical and moral. In the past employees have come to me complaining about another employee. My advice to them was to address ow their complaint affected the division, company etc rather than making a personal attack on said employee. By this suggestion we reached the how and why we should address the issue. I apply that same technique in my personal life. If a politician, store employee, etc annoys me i ask myself how does that person' behavior affect the country, the store, etc. It may seem simplistic to some but to me it helps remove any prejudices and or biases that creep in keeping issue factual

[QUOTE=Loveithere;

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.[/QUOTE]

First I am not a liberal or left-leaning media, I am an independent voter and one of millions who will determine the upcoming election. Ann Coulter is intelligent, but she is spewer of venom second to none. If you get your news or form opinions based on her writings, you are hopelessly mired in the one-sided right wing ideology that threatens to ruin this country. For balance I would say the same for Keith Olberman on the left. I would suggest you try having an open mind and asking yourself what is really best for the mainstream in this country. The political discourse is so divisive and polarized that it is turning off people who seek solutions instead of rigid ideology and ad hominem attacks. The take no prisoners approach of both the tea party, and the occupy wall-streeters will neither lead to solutions nor electable, effective leaders. By the way the "left-leaning media" is largely a figment of the imagination of right wingers to use as an excuse to denigrate any legitimate criticism of their ideology or their figureheads. The media (not including Fox or MSNBC, both of which are spokespersons for their point of view) is largely simply looking for a story and will gladly skewer any politition on either end of the spectrum if it makes good copy.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

First I am not a liberal or left-leaning media, I am an independent voter and one of millions who will determine the upcoming election. Ann Coulter is intelligent, but she is spewer of venom second to none. If you get your news or form opinions based on her writings, you are hopelessly mired in the one-sided right wing ideology that threatens to ruin this country. For balance I would say the same for Keith Olberman on the left. I would suggest you try having an open mind and asking yourself what is really best for the mainstream in this country. The political discourse is so divisive and polarized that it is turning off people who seek solutions instead of rigid ideology and ad hominem attacks. The take no prisoners approach of both the tea party, and the occupy wall-streeters will neither lead to solutions nor electable, effective leaders. By the way the "left-leaning media" is largely a figment of the imagination of right wingers to use as an excuse to denigrate any legitimate criticism of their ideology or their figureheads. The media (not including Fox or MSNBC, both of which are spokespersons for their point of view) is largely simply looking for a story and will gladly skewer any politition on either end of the spectrum if it makes good copy.

It is the main problem of today that people do not see what the mainstream media is really about. The New York Times, where most media take their cue, is admittedly left leaning. Have you ever read their editorials. Come on. The Times have been accused of giving our enemies top secrets. They actually employ only one conservative opinion journalist.
As some here like to pigeon hole people, the days of only watching television and newspapers to receive information are over. I rarely watch news on TV and visit many news sites online. And I monitor both sides of the debate as I like to see what the other side is up to.
Maybe some are in denial about the left-leaning media as they have been brainwashed over many years and cannot see the forest from the trees anymore. I suggest that you mainstream addicts venture out from your comfortable recliners and read a little more from the vast amount of resources available.

Try to dig deeper and stay from your comfortable beliefs. You might be surprised at how your being mislead.

Originally Posted by Loveithere

It is the main problem of today that people do not see what the mainstream media is really about. The New York Times, where most media take their cue, is admittedly left leaning. Have you ever read their editorials. Come on. The Times have been accused of giving our enemies top secrets. They actually employ only one conservative opinion journalist.
As some here like to pigeon hole people, the days of only watching television and newspapers to receive information are over. I rarely watch news on TV and visit many news sites online. And I monitor both sides of the debate as I like to see what the other side is up to.
Maybe some are in denial about the left-leaning media as they have been brainwashed over many years and cannot see the forest from the trees anymore. I suggest that you mainstream addicts venture out from your comfortable recliners and read a little more from the vast amount of resources available.



Try to dig deeper and stay from your comfortable beliefs. You might be surprised at how your being mislead.

Just what are my comfortable beliefs, you seem so sure I hold? Rather presumptious of you methinks!
I feel I am pretty well read and try to be educated about important things, though I am obviously not as informed as you. David Brooks provides a pretty conservative viewpoint in the NYT, and I find him thought provoking. I realize there are some left leaning folks in the media as well as some right leaning folks. I would guess the predominance of executives in the mainstream news media are on the conservative side while the on-air personalities my lean slightly left in many cases. The thing is, that the true journalists, which I beleive predominate at the major networks and CNN, are committed to finding interesting and yes, sensational stories, and let the chips fall where they may. To quote a very right leaning intellectual "Try to dig deeper and stay from your comfortable beliefs. You might be surprised at how you('re) being mislead (misled)."

Being able to change their position on an issue after new information was introduced would be a really nice bonus as well. I don't understand why changing your mind after learning something new is seen as a bad thing.

Ladydoc,
I don't have any problem with someone changing their mind like you say, hell we all do that all the time.
My problem comes in when someone runs on something like it is burned into their soul, buries the other candidate running against them on that point because it gets them votes and THEN changes their mind. That burns me.
New information to change your mind, that's just being smart.

Give me a reason to vote for your candidate,

I can give you three reasons to vote for one of the rebubs,

2009
2010
2011
and I am afraid 2012

Originally Posted by notlongnow

I can give you three reasons to vote for one of the rebubs,

2009
2010
2011
and I am afraid 2012

Well, with all due respect, that is not a reason to vote for just any republican. I, for example, could not vote for herman cain, who has been bought and paid for by the most frightening pair of neo-cons in existence, the koch bros. That also is not a convincing argument that anyone else could or would have done any better, given the circumstances. Obama has made his mistakes, but no more than GWB did in my opinion.

Obama has made his mistakes, but no more than GWB did in my opinion.

So I guess then the question is, are you better off with Obama than you were with Bush? (Both have done a poor job overall) And if you don't vote for a republican then do you vote for Obama because he is at least as good as Bush or do you stay home.
Your argument is not a winner either.
By the way mine was not an argument they were reasons with way too much content to put in a post.
Also, a true independent would have to be honest about how poor a job the hope and change merchant has done.
I am one and I can see it.
By the way I did not say "just any" republican. I said one of them.

PS I am a Jay Hawk, born in Topeka. Been gone from there for years.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Well, with all due respect, that is not a reason to vote for just any republican. I, for example, could not vote for herman cain, who has been bought and paid for by the most frightening pair of neo-cons in existence, the koch bros. That also is not a convincing argument that anyone else could or would have done any better, given the circumstances. Obama has made his mistakes, but no more than GWB did in my opinion.

Are you serious? What is you humble opinion about Obama, who has been bought and paid for by the despicable George Soros? Man, Obama is the most corrupt President in history and the sheeples are so blind.

Where is your evidence or links to prove your statement that Koch is behind Cain. One must drift from MSNBC occasionally to maintain one's mental health.

Originally Posted by Loveithere

Are you serious? What is you humble opinion about Obama, who has been bought and paid for by the despicable George Soros? Man, Obama is the most corrupt President in history and the sheeples are so blind.

Where is your evidence or links to prove your statement that Koch is behind Cain. One must drift from MSNBC occasionally to maintain one's mental health.

Straying from Fox News and Limbaugh would also be good for one's mental health.

[quote=eweissenbach;419612]

Originally Posted by Guest

For those opposed to Newt Gingrich, you will savor Ann coulter's column in Sunday"s Daily Sun.
QUOTE]

The only way I would savor ann coulter is with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Good one!!!

[quote=Loveithere;419621]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.

It's hard to ignore a train wreck....

Originally Posted by notlongnow

Ladydoc,
I don't have any problem with someone changing their mind like you say, hell we all do that all the time.
My problem comes in when someone runs on something like it is burned into their soul, buries the other candidate running against them on that point because it gets them votes and THEN changes their mind. That burns me.
New information to change your mind, that's just being smart.

I agree with your differentiation. What burns me is when a candidate legitimately changes their position based on new information and then gets called a flip-flopper. Isn't there a saying like "consistency is a sign of little minds?" Changing their mind for a purely political reason or based on polling numbers is really bad, but all too common.

Newt does not have the morals to be President. George W. Bush was the worst President in the 20th and 21st centuries - but he was a moral man.

Newt on why he wanted a divorce from Jackie: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994

On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation.

Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections—the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans.[76] Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.


Now, do you honestly want a man like that as your President? I don't.

I finding it hard to have a conversation on this forum. I can't address a person directly? I can't critique a post? This is getting a little bit overreaching, isn't it?