Why Are Liberals Always Trying to Silence Those With Opposing Viewpoints?

[☭proletarian☭]

Why Are Liberals Always Trying to Silence Those With Opposing Viewpoints?

Marxism is a failed ideology and cannot tolerate open debate.

liberalism and marxism are mutually exclusive ideologies


care to try again, this time without the ignorant hackery?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Ya know, I think Kieth Olberman is a total tool, and then there's that Rachael Maddow person.. they spew hate day in and day out. I don't watch them. Problem solved.

Libs should learn to stop watcing people they don't care for. It is really quite easy.

Rachel spews hate?

 

[Rinata]

That's why liberals are so ignorant.

Sigh. Keith and Rachel always have proof of what they are reporting. They can quote news sources and they very often have video tapes of what happened or what was said.

Can you say that about Fox?? Your problem is that you don't like the truth about what they report. Anything conservative is perfect in your eyes. If you hate them they are doing their job!!!

Sadly, you just said that you have never watched Fox News before.No, you did not use thopse words, but there is no way you ever wtached fox news if you believe that they do not quote news sources (with names) and provide video.

Sure...you can respond that you HAVE watched fox news....but anyone who has watched knows you are lying as you were completely wrong with your assessment.[/COLOR
]
So that beiong said.....you feel you can make a statement about something that you have not actually seen before?

Now, before yopu answer...just remember one thing.....anyone who has watched fox news...even for one hour....knows what you said was quite inaacurate....

I can not comment on the Rachel and Keith stuff as I do not watch them nor have I ever.

But I have watched fox news and just about EVERY news story is accompanied by video and names of sources that support it.

So are you a liar or simply one that makes comments on something you dont know.Either way...it speaks volumes of your credibility.

I said one thing about Fox news in my post, and if was in the form of a question. The question was:

"Can you say that about Fox news"?

I have highlighted the other remarks you SAID I made. But I didn't say any of them. Can you highlight them for me, since only you can see them?? Also, where I lied. What was I lying about?? Go ahead. Highlight the remarks you said I made. I'm waiting, you dizzy bitch.

 

[Rinata]

But, I used to like Olberman when he did sports, and, when he occasionally comes back from outer space and does sports, I still like him... he's funny. Other than that... he's an ass.

Why?? Because he tells the truth and you cannot handle the truth??

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem I see with your perception is the claim that the "right more often than not just want a voice in the process." when on most of the "liberally biased media" sources they actually allow REAL dissenting voices where as a lot of foxnews programs bring on left leaning moderates such a colmes who cowtowed and played nice while being assaulted and foxnews pretends that these are REAL debates. The right has a voice they just want it all.

It reminds me of a discussion that I had on the msnbc boards. I was speaking with a republican from GA and despite the fact that every representative from his state and his district was a republican that he voted for, this republican tried to claim he had no representation all because his party was now in the minority. It's beyond ridiculous.

I also don't agree with your perception that the left wants to be the only voice. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, I believe that if you are going to make claims then you should have the facts to substantiate them. Getting called out for being dishonest or hypocritcal is hardly what I would call preventing someone from speaking their mind.

Most of the Tea Partier Republicans feel they have had little or no representation at all in Washington for some time now because many Republicans who go to Washington govern very differently than they campaigned. (As has President Obama.) And even when the GOP has been right, they have been too small a party in Congress to be able to get most amendments or bills out of committee, much less passed on the House or Senate floor. Since January 2007, very few quite reasonable Republican initiatives have a chance to even be debated, much less voted on. That way the Democrats can continue accusing the Republicans of 'having no ideas' and 'being the party of 'no'

Regardless of their personal voter registeration, the voters' views/wants/needs/hopes have little chance of being addressed if they aren't leftwing ideologues.

As for no opposing views being allowed on 'conservative' news sources, I beg to differ. You will see many MANY more leftwing views expressed on conservative programs and newscasts than you will see rightwing views (or even honest leftwing views) expressed on leftwing sources. And you will see many more leftwingers being invited to have their say in person on rightwing sources than you will see on leftwing sources. Further, if rightwing sources ARE invited on to leftwing programs, more often than not they will be of the looney tune extremist variety rather than from the mainstream. Conservatives don't do that to the left nearly as much.

Are you talking about the REAL tea partiers?? You know the ones that have been protesting and having meetings for years BEFORE minority republicans started coopting and funding their own version of tea parties?? If you are in fact talking about REAL tea partiers then yes they have felt that way for YEARS. The NEW phony tea partiers have only felt that way since their real party, the republicans, fell into the minoirty and they lost the WH. Their movement is one based on political expediency and nothing more.

I'm not even going to dignify such ignorance with an answer. As a Tea Partier myself, I can assure you that the Republican Party had nothing whatsoever to do with it, nor were all members represented by any means Republicans. Perhaps not even most. So why don't you try that red herring somewhere else. It won't work with me.

Only recently have republicans began to provide anything that could be deemed real. Their budget proposal was little more than a 17 page power point that mostly attacked the left. Then their first steps into the healthcare debate was little more than that. It had more pages (many were blank) and yet again most of what was in their "bill" was little more than attacks against the dems ideas.

No, you're wrong. They did it in 1993 and 1994 too, and accomplished a huge landslide taking both houses of Congress in like forever. If the GOP had stuck with the values and principles emulated by that group, they would be worthy of respect and honor now. They didn't, so they don't. They began acting much more like your side and are justifiably criticized for that. That doesn't mean they got everything wrong, either, any more than your side did. But good ideas are good ideas no matter who originates them and the GOP has offered some good ideas in the current debates. They have been shouted down or voted down or not allowed to speak at all on every side since the Democrats regained a majority in 2008.

The problem with the republicans is that they have an all or nothing mentality and are bent on seeing obama fail becuiase they see that as being beneficial to their party. In that essence they are the party of NO. The senate bill had compromises in it to try and get votes one of those was the removal of the public option and still not a single republican voted for it Was it out of fear that their own party would turn against them? RINOs LOL

And this just goes to show that you get too much info from the leftwing hate sites and have been paying no attention to what has really been happening at all.

Guess what? We have seen how republicans handled power when they had the WH and congress for SIX YEARS and based on that I would say that they have even less chance of being addressed when republicans are in charge. Republicans had the power to do something about healthcare back then and didn't anything of real consequence. Only AFTER it became apparent that the voting public wanted something done and obama started pushing for it did republicans start to pretend that they wanted to do something.

You should get a refund on your history/civics classes. The Republicans held power in both houses of Congress for 12 years. Did they drop the ball. Yep. And that's why they got voted out. By us. Not by you.

As for no opposing views being allowed on 'conservative' news sources, I beg to differ. You will see many MANY more leftwing views expressed on conservative programs and newscasts than you will see rightwing views (or even honest leftwing views) expressed on leftwing sources.

what a load of crap. oreilly and hannety shout down what little opposition is on their programs and usually there is only one left leaning moderate against 3 or more rightwing nutjobs and they never allow the "lefty" to finish their complete argument before the rightwingers interupt them and ask them another loaded question that they will not get a chance to completely respond to before they are interupted AGAIN.
BTW I never said NO opposing views were allowed on conservative news sources. but Thanks for inserting your opinion over mine so you could "call me out" for something I never said. LOL

If you watched once in awhile and had any clue about objectivity, you would know how wrong you are about that. And you would also know that the rightwingers get interrupted and shouted down as much as the leftwingers. Why? Because time is so limited and the guest would take it all given the chance. It's major annoying, I'll agree.

And you will see many more leftwingers being invited to have their say in person on rightwing sources than you will see on leftwing sources. Further, if rightwing sources ARE invited on to leftwing programs, more often than not they will be of the looney tune extremist variety rather than from the mainstream. Conservatives don't do that to the left nearly as much.

WOW Do you actually believe that? LOL I don't know about you but in my area foxnews, cnn and msnbc are right next to each other and I flip back and forth to catch a little of all when i choose to watch them. Although to my wife's disgust I probably watch more of foxnews than I do the other two because I like getting a heads up on the lame arguments I will hear from righties the next day. LOL Nearly as much?? That's hilarious.

Yeah, I believe it. And I'm right.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

YouTube - Inconvenient Liberal Thoughts

Wait...

about 2:30 in...


I've seen that speech...

I think you missed the point the movie was trying to make

 

[Foxfyre]

Here is a copy of the letter from the WMC (Women's Media Center)

According to them if you choose to have a baby instead of abort it you are anti-choice... WTF? Soggy was right, they are not pro-choice, they are pro abortion and this letter proves it....

Sorry libs... Check mate...


</title> <style> .targets { display:none; } #salsa{ padding-top: 90px !important; } h1{ margin:0px 0 10px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; } </style> <meta name="renderTime" content="711"/> <title>Stop CBS Attack on Choice

This letter is in response to the reported CBS decision to air an anti-choice advertisement during Super Bowl XLIV, sponsored by the controversial organization Focus on the Family. As united organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice, we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family&#8217;s agenda.

CBS has a well-documented history of prohibiting advocacy ads it deems controversial, rejecting ads from organizations such as PETA, MoveOn.org, United Church of Christ, and even ones that carry only an &#8220;implicit&#8221; endorsement for a side in a public debate. Last year, NBC made the prudent decision to not air anti-choice messages during the Super Bowl. CBS executives have indicated in the past that they would not air Super Bowl ads where &#8220;substantial elements of the community (are) in opposition to one another.&#8221; Abortion is a controversial issue and anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health service providers and their patients, including the murder of Dr. George Tiller during Sunday morning service at his church. We sincerely hope you do not want CBS associated with this brand of un-American hate.

Focus on the Family has waged war on non-traditional families, tried its hand at race baiting during the 2008 election, and is now attempting to use the Super Bowl to further ramp up the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding reproductive rights. By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will alienate viewers and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers. The decision to air this ad would be ethically, economically and politically disastrous for CBS. The content of this ad endangers women's health, uses sports to divide rather than to unite, and promotes an organization that opposes the equality of Americans based on gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and reproductive freedom. Focus on the Family&#8217;s ad is surrealistic in its argument that a woman who chooses not to have a child may be depriving the Super Bowl of a football player. It uses one family&#8217;s story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk.

The Super Bowl is an entertainment event that brings people together regardless of background, faith, ideology or political affiliation. Focus on the Family&#8217;s ad goes against the approximately 70% majority American view that reproductive decisions should be left up to a woman and her physician; against the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that such decisions are protected by a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy; and against the health needs of the 1 in 3 American women who will need an abortion at some time in her life.

Though women comprise only 9% of CBS&#8217;s board, they are a key constituency for the CBS network and 40% of Super Bowl viewers. If you contradict your policy and air this ad, you will be throwing these women under the bus. American values of privacy and freedom should be respected, not undermined during the Super Bowl. The last thing Americans need is CBS or its advertisers telling us how and when to have a family. CBS must take action now, by cancelling the airing of Focus on the Family&#8217;s ad.

Seems to me what you really want to talk about is abortion. Knock yourself up. Oops, out.

Not fair, Maggie. What those supporting the Tebow ad, assuming that it is as we understand it to be, is that it is a non-political, non moralistic pro life message. The way I understand it, it does not take a position pro or against legalized abortion. It simply illustrates one family's very difficult decision that had a happy ending.

I would not object to a Planned Parenthood ad that illustrated a family that also did not take a pro or against legalized abortion position, but simply told a story about a family's very difficult decision and that Planned Parenthood was there to help them make it.

And I bet CBS would have run that ad too.

But those who are so stridently pro abortion don't seem to want an alternate point of view expressed at all, at least where anybody might see it.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Tim Tebow comments about his pro-life Super Bowl ad - Campus Rivalry: College BCS Football News, Recruiting, Game Picks, and More - USATODAY.com Video

 

[Father Time]

Here is a copy of the letter from the WMC (Women's Media Center)

According to them if you choose to have a baby instead of abort it you are anti-choice... WTF? Soggy was right, they are not pro-choice, they are pro abortion and this letter proves it....

Sorry libs... Check mate...


</title> <style> .targets { display:none; } #salsa{ padding-top: 90px !important; } h1{ margin:0px 0 10px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; } </style> <meta name="renderTime" content="711"/> <title>Stop CBS Attack on Choice

This letter is in response to the reported CBS decision to air an anti-choice advertisement during Super Bowl XLIV, sponsored by the controversial organization Focus on the Family. As united organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice, we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family’s agenda.

CBS has a well-documented history of prohibiting advocacy ads it deems controversial, rejecting ads from organizations such as PETA, MoveOn.org, United Church of Christ, and even ones that carry only an “implicit” endorsement for a side in a public debate. Last year, NBC made the prudent decision to not air anti-choice messages during the Super Bowl. CBS executives have indicated in the past that they would not air Super Bowl ads where “substantial elements of the community (are) in opposition to one another.” Abortion is a controversial issue and anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health service providers and their patients, including the murder of Dr. George Tiller during Sunday morning service at his church. We sincerely hope you do not want CBS associated with this brand of un-American hate.

Focus on the Family has waged war on non-traditional families, tried its hand at race baiting during the 2008 election, and is now attempting to use the Super Bowl to further ramp up the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding reproductive rights. By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will alienate viewers and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers. The decision to air this ad would be ethically, economically and politically disastrous for CBS. The content of this ad endangers women's health, uses sports to divide rather than to unite, and promotes an organization that opposes the equality of Americans based on gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and reproductive freedom. Focus on the Family’s ad is surrealistic in its argument that a woman who chooses not to have a child may be depriving the Super Bowl of a football player. It uses one family’s story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk.

The Super Bowl is an entertainment event that brings people together regardless of background, faith, ideology or political affiliation. Focus on the Family’s ad goes against the approximately 70% majority American view that reproductive decisions should be left up to a woman and her physician; against the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that such decisions are protected by a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy; and against the health needs of the 1 in 3 American women who will need an abortion at some time in her life.

Though women comprise only 9% of CBS’s board, they are a key constituency for the CBS network and 40% of Super Bowl viewers. If you contradict your policy and air this ad, you will be throwing these women under the bus. American values of privacy and freedom should be respected, not undermined during the Super Bowl. The last thing Americans need is CBS or its advertisers telling us how and when to have a family. CBS must take action now, by cancelling the airing of Focus on the Family’s ad.

Seems to me what you really want to talk about is abortion. Knock yourself up. Oops, out.

Not fair, Maggie. What those supporting the Tebow ad, assuming that it is as we understand it to be, is that it is a non-political, non moralistic pro life message. The way I understand it, it does not take a position pro or against legalized abortion. It simply illustrates one family's very difficult decision that had a happy ending.

I would not object to a Planned Parenthood ad that illustrated a family that also did not take a pro or against legalized abortion position, but simply told a story about a family's very difficult decision and that Planned Parenthood was there to help them make it.

And I bet CBS would have run that ad too.

But those who are so stridently pro abortion don't seem to want an alternate point of view expressed at all, at least where anybody might see it.

It's not that I'm pro-abortion it's just that I REALLY don't trust Focus on the Family to make a non-political or moralist ad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems to me what you really want to talk about is abortion. Knock yourself up. Oops, out.

Not fair, Maggie. What those supporting the Tebow ad, assuming that it is as we understand it to be, is that it is a non-political, non moralistic pro life message. The way I understand it, it does not take a position pro or against legalized abortion. It simply illustrates one family's very difficult decision that had a happy ending.

I would not object to a Planned Parenthood ad that illustrated a family that also did not take a pro or against legalized abortion position, but simply told a story about a family's very difficult decision and that Planned Parenthood was there to help them make it.

And I bet CBS would have run that ad too.

But those who are so stridently pro abortion don't seem to want an alternate point of view expressed at all, at least where anybody might see it.

It's not that I'm pro-abortion it's just that I REALLY don't trust Focus on the Family to make a non-political or moralist ad.

Nor would I trust Planned Parenthood to take anything other than a pro-abortion stance that criticizes any other perspective.

But if CBS tells me the ad isn't political, and they have seen the ad, and I haven't, then who am I to say that the ad shouldn't be run?

 

[oreo]

I thought liberals preached tolerance and acceptance of all points of view?

Newsmax - Liberals Huddle Over Tim Tebow Ad

After all these years, the only LIberals that continually fight against reason--are the ones who the government writes a welfare or subsidy-check--gratitude from the rest of us.

IOW--THEY DON'T WORK, or PAY TAXES. They just want to justify screwing you.

This is America--LOL

 

[bodecea]

Ya know, I think Kieth Olberman is a total tool, and then there's that Rachael Maddow person.. they spew hate day in and day out. I don't watch them. Problem solved.

Libs should learn to stop watcing people they don't care for. It is really quite easy.

Rachel spews hate?

Embarassing facts = hate now. Didn't you get the Rush/Hannity memo on that?

 

[Article 15]

Ya know, I think Kieth Olberman is a total tool, and then there's that Rachael Maddow person.. they spew hate day in and day out. I don't watch them. Problem solved.

Libs should learn to stop watcing people they don't care for. It is really quite easy.

Rachel spews hate?

Embarassing facts = hate now. Didn't you get the Rush/Hannity memo on that?

I can understand Olberdouche but I am yet to see a clip of Maddow, "spreading hate."

 

[oreo]

Rachel spews hate?

Embarassing facts = hate now. Didn't you get the Rush/Hannity memo on that?

I can understand Olberdouche but I am yet to see a clip of Maddow, "spreading hate."

I guess you started watching MSNBC yesterday---

 

[Foxfyre]

Embarassing facts = hate now. Didn't you get the Rush/Hannity memo on that?

I can understand Olberdouche but I am yet to see a clip of Maddow, "spreading hate."

I guess you started watching MSNBC yesterday---

No, actually he's right. She doesn't use hate speech as conservatives define hate speech except on an extremely limited basis. She does use hate speech as liberals define hate speech, but because she is so liberal, she isn't held accountable for that by the left. The worst I've heard her say lately is 'tea bagger'. The old double standard and all that.

Rachel's problem is that she is so blatantly selectively biased and occasionally dishonest in her commentary to create as negative an image of the GOP or Conservatives ot Tea Partiers, etc. as possible, that it is difficult to take her seriously even when he is sometimes right. And because she is so shallow and consistently ragging on the right while providing little of substance to support her opinions, she also becomes exceedingly boring very quickly.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, if I might interrupt this love fest for some observations.

According to Pew, Mediaresearch, and some other studies, those on the left tend to view the media as mostly fair and balance (with the exception of conservative talk radio and Fox News). most of those on the right tend to view the media as tilted left or far left and that it provides little or no balance. They see Fox News and conservative talk radio as balancing out some (not all) of that radical left tilt.

Fox News generally wins or comes in near the top of polls re what news source is the more fair and balanced. (See a UCLA study analyzing that. I can provide a link if anybody wants one.)

The fact is, those on the right more often than not just want a voice in the process. Those on the left too often seem to want to be the only voice in the process and presume to shout down, marginalize, discredit, or shut up any voice that disagrees with them.

Such perceptions are what this thread is all about. Are the perceptions accurate?

I honestly don't think right wing media has historically been so radicalized, which is my only beef against Fox, Limbaugh, etc. It seems nowadays, they will pick some story as the lead-in just to get that GOTCHA moment. To be fair, MSNBC does the same thing. If I want ALL the news from all 'round the country and world, even the GOTCHA news, CNN is the only place to get it. They too have their political discussions, but CNN's reporting is rarely openly biased, which is why I think they dumped Lou Dobbs.

 

[MaggieMae]

YouTube - Inconvenient Liberal Thoughts

Wait...

about 2:30 in...


I've seen that speech...

I think you missed the point the movie was trying to make

American History X was one of the greatest movies ever made, in my opinion. I made all my nieces and nephews watch it, and that movie left a HUGE impression that hopefully will last their lifetimes. It's also one of the few movies that I will watch again.

 

[MaggieMae]

I thought liberals preached tolerance and acceptance of all points of view?

Newsmax - Liberals Huddle Over Tim Tebow Ad

After all these years, the only LIberals that continually fight against reason--are the ones who the government writes a welfare or subsidy-check--gratitude from the rest of us.

IOW--THEY DON'T WORK, or PAY TAXES. They just want to justify screwing you.

This is America--LOL

"They" is hugely overused by you and others. And that's why whenever you post something, your credibility sucks big time. Whenever I see your name, it's an immediate idiot alert.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can understand Olberdouche but I am yet to see a clip of Maddow, "spreading hate."

I guess you started watching MSNBC yesterday---

No, actually he's right. She doesn't use hate speech as conservatives define hate speech except on an extremely limited basis. She does use hate speech as liberals define hate speech, but because she is so liberal, she isn't held accountable for that by the left. The worst I've heard her say lately is 'tea bagger'. The old double standard and all that.

Rachel's problem is that she is so blatantly selectively biased and occasionally dishonest in her commentary to create as negative an image of the GOP or Conservatives ot Tea Partiers, etc. as possible, that it is difficult to take her seriously even when he is sometimes right. And because she is so shallow and consistently ragging on the right while providing little of substance to support her opinions, she also becomes exceedingly boring very quickly.

That's completely untrue. I don't watch her on a regular basis, but Thank God I did catch this exchange with Ron Paul. Rachel Maddow is consistently respectful (and doesn't talk over) anyone who appears on her program that makes sense. But she WILL smack down the lunatic comments and allegations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSZg9PX-liM]YouTube - Ron Paul - Rachel Maddow MSNBC 01/06/10[/ame]

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm not even going to dignify such ignorance with an answer.

and yet you did. Sort of. LOL

As a Tea Partier myself, I can assure you that the Republican Party had nothing whatsoever to do with it,

Are you actually trying to claim that despite the chairman of the GOP sending out a letter promoting the tea party and the GOP website having a page with a tea bag on it so viewers could send a virtual teabag to the WH, that the republican party has NOTHING to do with tes parties?? Thanks for proving how dishonest you truly are.

nor were all members represented by any means Republicans. Perhaps not even most. So why don't you try that red herring somewhere else.

How about you try and actually respond to what i wrote instead of posting a phony response to something I NEVER said. I NEVER said ALL members were republican so why be dishonest and pretend that I did??

It won't work with me.

Apparently it did and in fact it worked so well taht you felt the need to put words into my mouth and attack me for something I NEVER said. LOL

No, you're wrong. They did it in 1993 and 1994 too, and accomplished a huge landslide taking both houses of Congress in like forever.

Are you retarded?? I was speaking of CURRENT events when the republicans fell into the minority and lost the WH as was obvious to anyone not a complete hack based on the topics I was talking about, healthcare and the recent republican budget proposal. So once again you ignore what I actually said and choose to focus on your MISINTERPRETATION of what you believe I sad.

If the GOP had stuck with the values and principles emulated by that group, they would be worthy of respect and honor now. They didn't, so they don't. They began acting much more like your side and are justifiably criticized for that. That doesn't mean they got everything wrong, either, any more than your side did. But good ideas are good ideas no matter who originates them and the GOP has offered some good ideas in the current debates. They have been shouted down or voted down or not allowed to speak at all on every side since the Democrats regained a majority in 2008.

LOL nice partisan tripe. democrats have recently offered ideas that republicans once supported and the hyperpartisan republicans still vote against it because voting for it would give a victory to obama and the dems.

And this just goes to show that you get too much info from the leftwing hate sites and have been paying no attention to what has really been happening at all.

LOL and this goes to show that you have nothing of substance to offer to counter anything I said. Thanks for exposing yourself as a hack. LOL Who came up with the term RINO and applies to members of their own party?? Hmm? LOL

You should get a refund on your history/civics classes. The Republicans held power in both houses of Congress for 12 years. Did they drop the ball. Yep.

Hey moron, READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.

Guess what? We have seen how republicans handled power when they had the WH and congress for SIX YEARS and based on that I would say that they have even less chance of being addressed when republicans are in charge.

I was clearly referring to a time when republicans had BOTH the WH and the congress. So when did that occur?? You seem to be more interested in being dishonest and attacking me that you do actually debating the facts. I wonder why??

Fact is that republicans had both the WH and congress for six years and were fine with the status quo. Only after obama and the dems started pushing healthcare and polls showed that something needed to be done did republicans even attempt to pretend interested.

And that's why they got voted out. By us. Not by you.

So are you trying to tell me that your vote counts but mine doesn't?? WOW.

If you watched once in awhile and had any clue about objectivity, you would know how wrong you are about that. And you would also know that the rightwingers get interrupted and shouted down as much as the leftwingers. Why? Because time is so limited and the guest would take it all given the chance. It's major annoying, I'll agree.

I do watch and as I said I flip back and forth and watch some of all. In fact I watched part of hannity last night and lanny davis was on. That ONE soft spoken lefty was surrounded by TWO LOUD righties and uber righty hannity. Three against one. Is that what you call fair and balanced?
The blond to lanny's left was asked a question by hannity, lanny sat there quietly and let her give her full and complete response as she called obama a liar. Then hannity asked lanny a question and lanny started to respond but before he could get beyond the first sentence the blond interupted him and lanny said "exscuse me" in an attempt to be civil and get a chance to complete his thought. He tried to continue but then was interupted AGAIN and continuously by hannity and his two righty guests. It wasn't about time constraints and this is typical of how foxnews treats the opposition. So please don't pretend that it is any different.
Lanny barely got a chance to finish his first sentence before being interupted and this happens all the time on foxnews. So your dishonest spin on it is dishonest spin and nothing more.

Yeah, I believe it. And I'm right.

Merely believing something doesn't make it true and it damn sure doesn't make you correct.

Bushism: I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe...(LONG pause) I believe what I believe is right.