trouble in Utopia? shoot the messenger !

http://www.politicususa.com/republic...-election.html

Well, hmmmmmm. Since Rush, Bill, Sean, Ann and the idiots on Fox'n'Friends are little more than water carriers for the hard right - or is it vice versa? it's vey confusing who's on first in that comedy routine - I'd have to say that it's a six of one and a half-dozen of the other chicken or egg dilemma.

It's hard to separate one from the other at present since Republicana has been overrun by the teawipes with their penchant for extreme reactionary tendencies, we can't really call it actually thinking, can we?

Couldn't hurt to put the messengers out of their misery, though - in a metaphorical sort of way (gotta be careful here, when I sarcastically suggested MASS SUICIDE in another thread, some of those humorless, uncritical-thinking parrotriots must have actually considered it, gauging from their reactions...of course, reactionism is sort of their "thing.")

you can bet Fox didnt air the story ...

snick

It's their backwards ideas that lost them the election. Granted, the politico shave to pander to the extreme right wing and the extreme right's media, but they could make a choice and not alienate women and minorities.

Besides, it has always been the practice of some to shoot the messenger. For whatever reason, it works sometimes.

but the irony of it all ....

It is. The Republicans are caught on a viscous merry-go-round. Honestly, I'm more conservative than liberal, but where I'm liberal, I'm really liberal. And it just happens to be where the Republicans are soooooo strongly socially conservative. They're dumb. The future isn't in fundamentalism and the oligarchs that buy them. It's in the middle class, and the vast majority of the middle class, which is by far and away the largest demographic, is - wait for it - in the middle of the bell curve politically, socially, morally and financially.

In the 1970's and 80's, the Republicans did all they could to appeal to the activist Evangelical Christians. That is now coming back to haunt them. The evangelicals are as theocratic as any group, although currently less violent. The Evangelical movement as a political army has essentially petered out as the churches become more self-centered, and less prone to a dispensational eschatology.

The Republicans didn't catch on to this. Those people aren't going to be there for them anymore, so they don't have to be so autocratic on social issues. In reality, they need to heed Rand Paul, and become more Libertarian, or they will cease to exist as a party. Which may not be a bad thing.

I remember the Moral Majority and Pat Robertson. I think the Contract with America did a lot to drive a wedge also. Ultimately, it is the idiotic Republican presses fault, but that's only because their handlers lost control of them. Personally, I think all TV news has gone Hollywood. I don't care what their "opinions" are. Just report the news, and then I'll make up my mind.

There is no free mainstream press anymore. Including FOX. They all just want to press their point of view, instead of just telling us what happened.

The "We Report, You Decide" slogan is a good one, too bad no network, including FOX, follows it.

You know, I'm reminded of the Weligious White and how they fell from grace with everyone who had a full mouth of teeth.

Fox done hitched its wagon to a SCAR and they're not going to shift to a different audience anytime soon. Might as well air bullshit. They're pros at it.!

In the 1970's and 80's, the Republicans did all they could to appeal to the activist Evangelical Christians. That is now coming back to haunt them. The evangelicals are as theocratic as any group, although currently less violent. The Evangelical movement as a political army has essentially petered out as the churches become more self-centered, and less prone to a dispensational eschatology.

The Republicans didn't catch on to this. Those people aren't going to be there for them anymore, so they don't have to be so autocratic on social issues. In reality, they need to heed Rand Paul, and become more Libertarian, or they will cease to exist as a party. Which may not be a bad thing. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Very true, but only a part of the Republican's problem.

They need to update their mssage, but also the mssenger. It's OK to have a belt tightening message if the person delivering the message doesn't come across as a fat billionare who's idea of belt tightening doesn't seem to have any compassion for the minimum wage guy doing everything he can and working 2 jobs.

The Rushes, Coulters, Hannitys, etc., ooze a message of "I've got mine, and if you don't have yours it must be you aren't working hard enough!"

One of the things that made Reagan successful at the polls was his message, but the other part was people really did believe there was some "compassionate conservatism) there. Even Bush-II was seen that way during his first election, until he bacame a puppet for Cheney & Rove.

Immage and message both matter.

In the 1970's and 80's, the Republicans did all they could to appeal to the activist Evangelical Christians. That is now coming back to haunt them. The evangelicals are as theocratic as any group well, all some of them need are rags wrapped around their heads, although currently less violent I suppose burning Korans and making a big deal about it, blowing up abortion clinics and threatening doctors don't count in your thinking. The Evangelical movement as a political army has essentially petered out as the churches become more self-centered, and less prone to a dispensational eschatology they are selfish because they have to keep the "evangelists" in jewelry, hair-dos, houses, planes and other trappings of a "successful" purveyor of "the word." If becoming a "player" in national politics is possible, look for them to be lined up around the block - again.

The Republicans didn't catch on to this. Those people aren't going to be there for them anymore, so they don't have to be so autocratic on social issues you're making an ASSumption here that is of whole cloth - slip down to your local baptist or non-denominational "happy church" and you'll hear the same theology that was being passed out 20-40 years ago. In reality, they need to heed Rand Paul, and become more Libertarian, or they will cease to exist as a party. Which may not be a bad thing. You can see how that's playing out. Look for the Teawipe Parrotriots to make their last stand in 2014. John Huntsman is all the Repubes have presently but, alas, he believes in evolution and trusting scientists when it cames to global warming. Good luck to him. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I remember the Moral Majority and Pat Robertson. You may mean Jerry Falwell, Idiot Pat is still kicking it up though it may not still be called the 700 Club. Then, there's always Ralph Reed lurking in the wings (he's the guy that made Jerry's vision go until he got wrapped up in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal) no worries, it's been about 8 years, you can look forward to his resurrection. And, don't forget about Young Dr. Graham, although he drew back a couple of stubs this time out, especially chiming in with Rush on "sluts" - he'll learn and get as smooth as his daddy was. I think the Contract with America did a lot to drive a wedge also Well, we did get Newt and Graham-Rudman out of it as well. Ultimately, it is the idiotic Republican presses fault, but that's only because their handlers lost control of them Some idealogues need handlers more than others. Personally, I think all TV news has gone Hollywood Actually, the non-right TV news has only increased their stridency in order to counterbalance all of the hair-on-fire, arm waving, writhing on the floor antics over at Faux. I don't care what their "opinions" are You should - on either side - because they cut the grass on the field where the game is played. Just report the news, and then I'll make up my mind The only medium that can report the news in what might approach enough depth are printed in form. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Radical religionists, like the poor, will always be with us. It's because they "know" that we can't think for ourselves and, therefore, need to be "saved from ourselves."

There has NEVER been any reporting of important issues, at any time or at any place, that didn't approach the story from some angle other than dispassion. And, there never will be. Why? Because all people are not capable of complete removal of their experiences and outlook. Big deal. Be prepared to put in the effort and time to be a responsible citizen instead of merely cutting and pasting useless horsesh*t of specious origin in order to generate whatever, COsFb, you seek to stir up.

Hell's-bells-cocker-shells, the "saintly" Founding Fathers were the biggest bunch of biased, self-serving pamphlet writers there ever was - much like the current guests on every political talk show. Each just used the most effective medium to reach the most people appropriate in their respective time.

Well put Randy

You may mean Jerry Falwell,

No, I meant the Moral Majority and their own AND Pat Robertson and his own. I have no use for any of them.

Well, we did get Newt and Graham-Rudman out of it as well.

I thought I was clear that I did not care for the Contract with America. It follows that I don't care for the contract makers.

Actually, the non-right TV news has only increased their stridency in order to counterbalance all of the hair-on-fire, arm waving, writhing on the floor antics over at Faux. I don't care what their "opinions" are You should - on either side - because they cut the grass on the field where the game is played. Just report the news, and then I'll make up my mind The only medium that can report the news in what might approach enough depth are printed in form.[/QUOTE]

I disagree Network News is a show. MSNBC is as biased as Fox. I don't have a TV. I deplore it, but I have seen it. I read the WSJ daily on line. I also have the NYT delivered which I scan. I have well balanced news not car accident news.

Radical religionists, like the poor, will always be with us. It's because they "know" that we can't think for ourselves and, therefore, need to be "saved from ourselves." Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I loathe religious uppity people just as much as I loathe uppity liberals. Both groups think they "know" what is moral and just.

There has NEVER been any reporting of important issues, at any time or at any place, that didn't approach the story from some angle other than dispassion. And, there never will be. Why? Because all people are not capable of complete removal of their experiences and outlook. Big deal. Be prepared to put in the effort and time to be a responsible citizen instead of merely cutting and pasting useless horsesh*t of specious origin in order to generate whatever, COsFb, you seek to stir up. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Excuse me? When have I ever cut and pasted anything, and I wade through my news looking for facts not other peoples' opinions because they are either A, wrong or B, not the same as mine. Very similar to how wrong your opinion is of my cut and paste or unthoughtout posts and my news sources.

Hell's-bells-cocker-shells, the "saintly" Founding Fathers were the biggest bunch of biased, self-serving pamphlet writers there ever was - much like the current guests on every political talk show. Each just used the most effective medium to reach the most people appropriate in their respective time. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

And? They were philosophers that had the clarity of thought to create an unheard of government that was just as well as for and of the people.

Have you ever read any of my posts or are you just working on some pre-conseived notion that all non-hard left liberals are ignorant and beneath your distain and projecting your feelings? Or were you so eager to show off your modern history and that, while you knew the events and things I was speaking of, you couldn't understand my position on the matters?

Uh, Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority and Liberty University, not Pukin' Pat.

The cut'n'paste remark was directed at COsFb, not you. However, it was a complex sentence in structure.

Actually, most of the FFs were wealthy and well educated members of the upper class. They also established a system under which you, Olivia, as a female would neither be allowed to vote nor directly participate in.