Republican support base

[livefree]

Could you please provide some examples of these outright lies that Fox News tells?

Out of the many thousands of examples, most notably having to do with weapons of mass destruction, here is one of the most recent ones.

On November 21, Fox News host John Gibson falsely claimed that the House of Representatives voted down a measure offered by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) calling for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq. In fact, the House voted on a counter-resolution sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) in response to Murtha's that bore little resemblance to the original. Murtha's resolution asked that U.S. forces be redeployed "at the earliest practicable date," while Hunter's resolution asked that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." Fox News host Sean Hannity also repeated the claim during the November 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, the third time he has done so.

Hannity made the claim twice on November 18 -- once during his radio show and once on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.

On the November 21 broadcast of The Big Story with John Gibson [Fox News], Gibson interviewed New York Post columnist and retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, author of New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy (Sentinel, August 2005), and asked, "Why, then, do you think Murtha's suggestion last week, voted down by the House, is causing so much trouble?" Peters responded that by "calling for an immediate withdrawal," Murtha was encouraging terrorists "to think their strategy is working."

But the House never voted on Murtha's suggestion (House Joint Resolution 73), which he announced in a press conference on November 17. Instead, the House voted on a substitute (House Resolution 571) that was introduced the following day by Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The vote occurred after a contentious floor debate, during which Murtha described the resolution as "not what I envisioned, not what I introduced."

Murtha's resolution, which cited polling data, the cost of the war, and the rising American death toll, called for the redeployment of U.S. forces "at the earliest practicable date," the maintaining of strategic military presence in the region, and continued diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Hunter's resolution contained a single line: "Resolved, [t]hat it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

But as the Los Angeles Times reported, Republicans forced a vote not on Murtha's idea but, rather, on a different proposal "intended to fail and aimed at embarrassing war critics." The Washington Post also reported that "[r]ecognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no."

(EXCERPT)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511220010

Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[livefree]

Your sarcasm didn't pass me unnoticed but evidently you missed mine

If you imagine that you were being 'sarcastic', then it is obvious that you still don't know what sarcasm means.

 

[stsburns]

Out of the many thousands of examples, most notably having to do with weapons of mass destruction, here is one of the most recent ones.

On November 21, Fox News host John Gibson falsely claimed that the House of Representatives voted down a measure offered by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) calling for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq. In fact, the House voted on a counter-resolution sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) in response to Murtha's that bore little resemblance to the original. Murtha's resolution asked that U.S. forces be redeployed "at the earliest practicable date," while Hunter's resolution asked that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." Fox News host Sean Hannity also repeated the claim during the November 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, the third time he has done so.

Hannity made the claim twice on November 18 -- once during his radio show and once on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.

On the November 21 broadcast of The Big Story with John Gibson [Fox News], Gibson interviewed New York Post columnist and retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, author of New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy (Sentinel, August 2005), and asked, "Why, then, do you think Murtha's suggestion last week, voted down by the House, is causing so much trouble?" Peters responded that by "calling for an immediate withdrawal," Murtha was encouraging terrorists "to think their strategy is working."

But the House never voted on Murtha's suggestion (House Joint Resolution 73), which he announced in a press conference on November 17. Instead, the House voted on a substitute (House Resolution 571) that was introduced the following day by Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The vote occurred after a contentious floor debate, during which Murtha described the resolution as "not what I envisioned, not what I introduced."

Murtha's resolution, which cited polling data, the cost of the war, and the rising American death toll, called for the redeployment of U.S. forces "at the earliest practicable date," the maintaining of strategic military presence in the region, and continued diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Hunter's resolution contained a single line: "Resolved, [t]hat it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

But as the Los Angeles Times reported, Republicans forced a vote not on Murtha's idea but, rather, on a different proposal "intended to fail and aimed at embarrassing war critics." The Washington Post also reported that "[r]ecognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no."

(EXCERPT)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511220010

Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

So you hate republican's? If you think this is bad, my state government has done the same thing. For years in my state, North Carolina, the Democrats have been trying to legalize gambling. One day they finally got their chance when the state house of representatives were taking a break, they forced the law in, and now I have to deal with gambling everytime I go into a gas station. Well I think I can sum it up like this. Republicans are no better Democrats, if anyone says any different, than you will quickly know who's side their on. :mrgreen:

 

[stsburns]

Cool. But this place is called "Debate Politics". I think you're looking for 'friendster.com'.
Here, I figured, I could speak what's on my mind and call a spade, a spade.

It's nice to see you making friends into enemines. A job well done. /sarcasm I would also like to state, I like to ally with those who believe my POV.
:wcm :cheers: Have a nice day.

 

[livefree]

It's nice to see you making friends into enemines. A job well done. /sarcasm I would also like to state, I like to ally with those who believe my POV.
Have a nice day.

It is not so nice to see that you are still posting twaddle rather than saying anything about the topic. Why don't you actually debate the issues rather than wasting everyone's time?

 

[stsburns]

ok livefree I will rise to your challenge, and congratulations on making 3 pages on your thread! Back to the issue you said:

It has become totally obvious that the Republican party elite has chosen to embrace as their primary support base, that portion of the population that swims up from the shallow end of the gene pool. The current divide in this country seems to lie mostly between those who are smart enough to understand the complexities of the world situation and see thru the lies and propaganda, and those who are too stupid, foolish and prejudiced to understand anything but slogans and spin-room talking-points. It's not just IQ type intelligence though. It is a kind of heart intelligence too, that includes compassion and empathy with even those who are very different from you. Those higher qualities don't develop in people who are so stuck in fear and greed that they condone and support aggressive war, torture and economic imperialism, if it feathers their nest. It's a shame really, because many of the simple people of moderate intelligence in America do have good hearts basically but they have been so terribly misled by false 'profits' and so bamboozled by fast talking political liars that they support atrocities and think that they are being patriotic. It is refreshing to see that so many people are starting to wake up from the neo/con spell and are starting to see the truth behind the lies and crimes of the BushCorp Administration.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

My response to your narrowminded point of view: "DON'T WANT TO BE A LIBERAL IDIOT!"-Green Bay /sacasm :mrgreen:

Trust me republicans are no better or worse than any other democrat!