Harleyman Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 YaY Rolling Stone. Every once in a blue moon they produce proper journalism.. Even if its biased... As a life long democrat, I would have voted for the McCain of the late 90s. He was a brilliant politician back then. He didnt tow the party line and voted for both Democratic and Republican bills. He was more of a true Independent/Libertarian politician than he was a Republican. The McCain after the Bush election is a shell of the man he once was. Shame. I beg to differ as I explained in my post number 34 in reply to callippo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alternageek Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I beg to differ as I explained in my post number 34 in reply to callippo. Last time I saw him he was still towing the party line pretty hard. If he spoke out against all the crazy from the last few weeks, good on him. Sounds similar to the McCain pre-GW Bush I still hold him responsible for giving the world Sarah Palin, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Last time I saw him he was still towing the party line pretty hard. If he spoke out against all the crazy from the last few weeks, good on him. Sounds similar to the McCain pre-GW Bush I still hold him responsible for giving the world Sarah Palin, though. When the Democrats picked Obama over Hilary Clinton as their presidential candidate a lot of feminists in the Democrat party were highy disappointed and very upset with the choice. I believe McCain took a gamble that he could draw votes from this group to the Republicans by nominating a female state governor as his running mate. Hence Palin. Condoleeza Rice would have been a much smarter choice but I dont think she was interested in being a possible vice-president anyway and she was also carrying a lot of baggage from Geo. Bush As it stands now Palin has about as much chance of being nominated as Republican Presidential candidate in 2012 as me becoming Britain's next Prime Minister. Even more scarier than Palin is Michele Bachman and her fanatical Evangelist mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peas Maker Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525?page=1 It's a very long article, but if you have an interest in American politics and have a spare half an hour then I strongly recommend you have a read of this. It would appear that the recent revelations about Murdoch's influence over British politicians pale into insignificance when compared to the power of the Fox News propaganda machine. Fox is owned by mr murdoch right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithster Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fox is owned by mr murdoch right ? Correctamundo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fox News's reach is blown out of proportion by the liberal media. Just over 1% of Americans watch it on any given day. Not that many at all, compared to how much influence the BBC has in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Obama absolutely trounced McCain when it came to newspaper endorsements in 2008. Even Kerry got more than Bush in 2004. When the right wing complain about the liberal slant of the media in the US, they're not just making it up. More newspapers tend to go for the Democratic candidates than Republican, unless it's somebody out of the ordinary, like Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peas Maker Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fox is owned by mr murdoch right ? Well so we can agree that Murdoch has done far more devious things in the states than here . I also remember him once saying that he would like sky news to be more like fox , End of the day he who controls information controls power ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Murdoch has not done anything to influence the results of American Presidential elections and we can be sure at least that the influence of News International was one thing the Tories and Cameron could have definitely done without in 2010. The decision to have the televised debates was totally stupid, Cameron could have just told them no chance, what do you think I am, dumb or something. Cameron was ahead in the polls and when you're ahead in the polls, you don't do stupid things like having televised debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alternageek Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 When the Democrats picked Obama over Hilary Clinton as their presidential candidate a lot of feminists in the Democrat party were highy disappointed and very upset with the choice. I believe McCain took a gamble that he could draw votes from this group to the Republicans by nominating a female state governor as his running mate. Hence Palin. Condoleeza Rice would have been a much smarter choice but I dont think she was interested in being a possible vice-president anyway and she was also carrying a lot of baggage from Geo. Bush As it stands now Palin has about as much chance of being nominated as Republican Presidential candidate in 2012 as me becoming Britain's next Prime Minister. Even more scarier than Palin is Michele Bachman and her fanatical Evangelist mob. I agree with this entire post. Michelle Bachman is even more scarier than Palin (at least Palins husband does try to 'reform' gay people into being straight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.