Who do YOU think will win the Republican nomination?

[congressmanreality 1]

Don't get the love for Paul Ryan. Voted for TARP and the bailouts. Can't trust him to make the politically difficult votes or stick to conservative principles. Ron Paul >>>> Paul Ryan.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Republicans do stuff. Like run a business, build skyscrapers, and event things.

 

Democrats paint pictures, sing songs, act in plays, and write about the people that do stuff.

 

This is why the majority of the media leans left. HTH

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Republicans do stuff. Like run a business, build skyscrapers, and event things.

 

Democrats paint pictures, sing songs, act in plays, and write about the people that do stuff.

 

This is why the majority of the media leans left. HTH

 

Actually, that used to be true. These days, Republicans merely speculate on things to make money, inherit money from their parents, create ponzi schemes, export jobs overseas so they can build another mansion, etc.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Actually, that used to be true. These days, Republicans merely speculate on things to make money, inherit money from their parents, create ponzi schemes, export jobs overseas so they can build another mansion, etc.

Well, there's always that part too.

[MedStudent 56]

When polled, over 90% of jounalists say they vot Democrat. But no way there could be a tilt to the left by the media. Nope, no way.

 

Link?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link?

I'm on the phone. Google it yourself, Dr. Thumbs.

[MedStudent 56]

I'm on the phone. Google it yourself, Dr. Thumbs.

 

As I thought, another lie from jethro.

[Me_2006 14]

It'll be Mitt because he looks for the part for American Idol 2012.

 

 

We have good guys not running because they're too short, Ron Paul has more integrity than the rest put together but can't win because his voice is grating and he looks like a looney old man, so we'll let Romney and Obama stand and smile at us and decide which one is least likely to set the country on fire.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

As I thought, another lie from jethro.

 

no, I'm really on the phone. And I've neve done links on it cuz it's a pain in the arse. You said the same a week or so back.

 

I'm going off of memory, but if I recall the number for all journalists is in the 80s, but for political reporters it was around 90%.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

It'll be Mitt because he looks for the part for American Idol 2012.

 

 

We have good guys not running because they're too short, Ron Paul has more integrity than the rest put together but can't win because his voice is grating and he looks like a looney old man, so we'll let Romney and Obama stand and smile at us and decide which one is least likely to set the country on fire.

 

It will be interesting to see how the fundies deal with a mormon candidate!

[NewbieJr 540]

When polled, over 90% of jounalists say they vot Democrat. But no way there could be a tilt to the left by the media. Nope, no way.

Link?

[Me_2006 14]

It will be interesting to see how the fundies deal with a mormon candidate!

 

Mormon > Muslim

 

Trust me, I'm a registered Republican (those words have never been said before ) and live in a county that's probably 85% GOP, and among the crazies, fundamentalists, etc. that will care Romney is a Mormon, most believe Obama is a Muslim Socialist and will choose the white guy without the terrorist name.

 

The real issue will be how much the others attack him in the primary. They dont want to give too much ammo for the general election.

[nikki2200 4]

no, I'm really on the phone. And I've neve done links on it cuz it's a pain in the arse. You said the same a week or so back.

 

I'm going off of memory, but if I recall the number for all journalists is in the 80s, but for political reporters it was around 90%.

 

I googled and couldn't find any study except one reference to an actual poll. The rest that I found were conservative bloggers who just like to quote this percentage as fact without ever providing evidence of it's existence. SHOCKING.

 

In 1996, the Freedom Forum released a survey, conducted by the Roper Center, of 139 Washington news bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents. It revealed that 89 percent of Washington reporters responding said they voted for Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election compared to a mere 7 percent that voted for George Herbert Walker Bush.

 

So because in one pole 90% of the people interviewed voted for Clinton, therefore 90% of the media is liberal communist leftist hacks. Got it.

 

Also, I have asked several times and everyone refuses to answer my question... If the media, weak minds, people looking for handouts, campaign funding and every other excuse you can come up controls all the elections, how do you explain George W getting elected twice, once in 2000 then again in 2004? Anyone? Someone? Hello?

 

[Frank M 181]

no, I'm really on the phone. And I've neve done links on it cuz it's a pain in the arse. You said the same a week or so back.

 

I'm going off of memory, but if I recall the number for all journalists is in the 80s, but for political reporters it was around 90%.

 

journalism.org, from 2006

 

 

 

In the most recent survey, 40% of journalists described themselves as being on the left side of the political spectrum (31% said they were “a little to the left” and 9% “pretty far to the left”). But that number was down notably, seven percentage points from 1992, when 47% said they leaned leftward.

 

The percentage of “middle of the roaders” moved up slightly to 33% in 2002 from 30% in 1992. And the number of journalists identifying themselves leaning toward the political right also inched up to 25% from 22% a decade earlier (20% “a little to the right” and 5% “pretty far to the right”).

 

 

So, as to your assertion, not really.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Mormon > Muslim

 

Trust me, I'm a registered Republican (those words have never been said before ) and live in a county that's probably 85% GOP, and among the crazies, fundamentalists, etc. that will care Romney is a Mormon, most believe Obama is a Muslim Socialist and will choose the white guy without the terrorist name.

 

The real issue will be how much the others attack him in the primary. They dont want to give too much ammo for the general election.

 

Here is the campaign ad right here...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link?

First attempt to link from the phone. There are several with similar results.

 

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

[IGotWorms 3,302]

Romney seems to be their only credible candidate. Maybe Tim Pawlenty but I just don't think there is much there. Same could be said for Romney but at least he looks the part.

 

If the Republicans had anyone else credible then I think Romney would lose, because of the whole health care thing, the Mormon thing, and the fact that social conservatives don't trust him at all. But really, who else could pose an even halfway credible threat to Pres. Obama? Paul Ryan is waiting for 2016, as is any other serious Republican challenger.

 

So it's Romney by default.

[drobeski 3,061]

Gotta love the libs telling us who's viable and what not

You're opinions don't matter ...as proof by the 2010 election.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

journalism.org, from 2006

 

 

 

 

 

So, as to your assertion, not really.

 

 

I didn't assert they said they were lefties. I said they voted Democrat.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

My link backs my assertion up.

[IGotWorms 3,302]

I like Santorum, because he doesn't take BS. I do not like politicians who think that they can instill religious morays at the Federal Level.

 

It's "mores", you ignorant blowhard. I'm surprised you didn't already know that, you know, since you're in Mensa and all.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

As I thought, another lie from jethro.

 

 

Link provided.

 

And the only Jethro I know lived out in your state........had a cement pond and ate possum stew.

[MedStudent 56]

Link provided.

 

And the only Jethro I know lived out in your state........had a cement pond and ate possum stew.

Your link does not back up your claim.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Your link does not back up your claim.

 

Whatever you say, Dr. Oops!

[nikki2200 4]

Whatever you say, Dr. Oops!

 

 

Did you even read the link you posted?

[Greedo 13]

You too seem unable to grasp nuance. My point was a nod towards the universally understood truth of the media being tilted left. If you cannot acknowledge such a simple truth, we appear done here.

 

Every media outlet is tilted one way or another - not too many places to find "neutral" news, that I know of.

 

Well since the leftys on this bored loathed GW, if they have any principles at all there is no chance in hell they would vote for obama ....right ?

I mean the guy has done nothing but follow the same policies as bush for the most part.

 

Think of SCOTUS nominations, stem cell research, and environmental policy, and you might change your claim. If only to keep more schmucks off the high court that choose to misrepresent the meaning of the 1st amendment and continue to ruin our democracy like the current batch of 5, I'm pleased with the difference in policies.

 

Gotta love the libs telling us who's viable and what not

You're opinions don't matter ...as proof by the 2010 election.

 

You were referring to the US Senate results, no doubt?

[FeelingMN 273]

It's "mores", you ignorant blowhard. I'm surprised you didn't already know that, you know, since you're in Mensa and all.

 

I think he was referring to the Evangeliceels.

[MedStudent 56]

Whatever you say, Dr. Oops!

We'll give you a pass jethro. You must not have gotten to percentages in your 6th grade before you dropped out.

[kilroy69 993]

We'll give you a pass jethro. You must not have gotten to percentages in your 6th grade before you dropped out.

Its hard to carry the knot when your dealing with percentages

[Recliner Pilot 61]

My initial recollection was that it was around 90% for journalists convering politics, and a little lower for all journalists.

 

My link is right in line with those numbers. Even if I'm not dead nuts on in my original recollection, arguing there isn't a democrat bias among journalists is a losing position any way you slice it.

 

Feel free to bring a link of your own that shows there isn't a dem leaning among the media

[MedStudent 56]

My initial recollection was that it was around 90% for journalists convering politics, and a little lower for all journalists.

 

My link is right in line with those numbers. Even if I'm not dead nuts on in my original recollection, arguing there isn't a democrat bias among journalists is a losing position any way you slice it.

 

Feel free to bring a link of your own that shows there isn't a dem leaning among the media

You said over 90 percent of journalists. Looks like you were lying again. Nice try jethro.

[rholio 339]

It's extreme only to you. I'm a run-of-the-mill Christian (not extreme by any standard), and I believe in abortion until about the 15th day.

 

Those aren't extreme positions. They are only called extreme by those on the opposite end, as part of a strategy.

 

Part of what makes liberalism - and Centralism - so dangerous is that there will not and cannot be harmony amongst people. I cannot espouse my personal views here without so many lefties getting immediately downright nasty.

 

You've been conditioned to do so, because you're all so frightened that such views - views which are largely mainstream, but do not jibe with your liberalism - will become law over you.

 

You hate that, so you fight as nasty as possible to try to stop it. Nevermind how alien your entire POV would be to the vast majority of this country from as little as 40 years ago: that's for another conversation.

 

The point is that you simply do not understand how someone with such staunchly Conservative (fiscal and social) views would co-exist harmoniously with someone nearly Socialist (and you may not be, but others here definitely are): it happens through State's Rights.

 

I believe the candidate who can eloquently educate and carry the message of Federalism is a good choice right now. For that reason, I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat over any Democrat candidate, regardless what I think of his foreign policy.

 

Federalism. If you want to fock up a state with liberalism, do so. Just don't fock up where I want to live by growing Federal Government so big that it becomes the de facto law of the land in each State.

 

 

You do know this goes both ways, right? Someone can't come here espousing liberal views without the bored Repubs getting immediately downright nasty.

 

And, it's just as easy (and true) to say that the Republicans have been conditioned to do so, as to say the liberals have. Most of the posters with a strong party affiliation do it.

 

We agree on states rights though, and on Ron Paul... I'd vote for him over any candidate from any party. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination, I hope the Libertarians put his name on the ballot. He seems like the only one that will actually do what should be one of the two most important issues for the president- reduce the deficit. The other being the economy, which Paul reducing the fed should help with.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You said over 90 percent of journalists. Looks like you were lying again. Nice try jethro.

 

Did I specify a particular election, Mr. Specifics? Nope.

 

1964. 94% voted Democrat.

 

It was in the 80s every other Presidential election in the link. Like I saud, to argue there isn't a dem bias is as dumb as you are.

 

Thanks for playing.

[kilroy69 993]

Gotta love the libs telling us who's viable and what not

You're opinions don't matter ...as proof by the 2010 election.

While Im pretty sure you are not talking to me. I will give you my views as an Independent. I am also a realist. The fact is that it is exceedingly hard to unseat an incumbent president. Bush 1 and Carter are the only 2 since 1932. (fock ford he wasnt elected)

 

Go ahead and toss in the fact that the republican field all have major drawbacks and you are going to have a ###### of a time unseating him. Romney/gingrich would be the best chance you have to win. However Gingriches big head probably wouldn't fit under the romney banner and he cant win it the other way around.

[JT 137]

The guy who eventually loses to Obama.

[drobeski 3,061]

The guy who eventually loses to Obama.

scary thought

[MedStudent 56]

Did I specify a particular election, Mr. Specifics? Nope.

 

1964. 94% voted Democrat.

 

It was in the 80s every other Presidential election in the link. Like I saud, to argue there isn't a dem bias is as dumb as you are.

 

Thanks for playing.

You didn't say voted. You said vote which is current tense. So i knew there was no way you could back it up. And drilling you on specifics is what is called giving you a taste of your own medicine. it's so easy to own you, jethro!

[MDC 5,877]

You didn't say voted. You said vote which is current tense. So i knew there was no way you could back it up. And drilling you on specifics is what is called giving you a taste of your own medicine. it's so easy to own you, jethro!

 

Welchy: owned more than a cheap rental property.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You didn't say voted. You said vote which is current tense. So i knew there was no way you could back it up. And drilling you on specifics is what is called giving you a taste of your own medicine. it's so easy to own you, jethro!

 

 

So your whole position relies on the fact there isn't a real time election going on at this minute that I don't have data on.

 

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

 

You humiliated yourself here. Nice job.

[gocolts 300]

Both parties have a way of nominating the worst possible candidate. So I am sure Palin or Bachman will get the nod.

[MDC 5,877]

Both parties have a way of nominating the worst possible candidate. So I am sure Palin or Bachman will get the nod.

 

I can't see it. At least not Bachman.