Why do Republicans support Rush Limbaugh???

[RonaldReagansGhost666]

Because conservatives are mindless idiots who can't think for themselves.

[TaraJo]

I certainly hope so...we'll take back congress in the midterms.

You didn't pay attention to he 2012 elections, did you? Until the republican party realizes what they did wrong and corrects their mistakes, they aren't going to be gaining anymore political power.

Poll after poll after poll has said that the American people want taxes raised on millionaires, but the GOP won't have it. In fact, they'd rather have the sequester than go with Obama's plan which calls for over twice as much in spending cuts than it does in increases in tax revenue:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequest...dents-plan

And it wouldn't even be the first time I remember the GOP getting their ass kicked because they're ignoring the public opinion. I remember the 1998 election; before that, congressional republicans were obsessed with finding out what Clinton did with his pecker. The public was tired of it, everyone heard lots of polls about how tired we all were about it...... but they stuck with it and lost power in the election. Then in the 2006 election, everyone was sick and tired of the Iraq war and Dubya's apologetics for the war. They refused to listen to the polls that told them that and, again, they got their ass kicked in the elections for it. The only difference in the 2012 election was that they ignored the public in so many areas: repeated polls say we want taxes raised on millionaires, we support same sex marriage (or, at very least, that more people support it than there are people who are against it) and we don't want to talk about rape. Republicans have ignored the polls in all three of those areas and they've included a lot of quasi rasict talk when they go into immigration (which isn't helped by some of the far less subtle racism directed towards the president).

But I'd really like to hear what our friend A Theist thinks: why did the republicans lose the 2012 election and what can they change to win the 2014 midterms?

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, FOX news would be entertaining if retards didn't take their POV as fact rather than what it truly is: commentary. I'm going to say the same for MSNBC, if you can't watch the news without knowing it's skewed from one direction or the other then it's merely commentary. I watch neither of them..However, when a news outlet starts self-advertising it's protests against the White House: they're not news anymore. Name one time during Bush's term that MSNBC did half of the shit that FOX pulls regularly?

I am annoyed by people who don't understand FOX is commentary, but equally annoyed by left-wing people who refuse to admit that anything else is left wing commentary. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, even Walter Conkite have all come out as left-wing post retirement. Can you not see bias when it's your own opinion?

[Mystical]

Good point, you have one. But you quoted me in relation, and well--I don't see why. You said it yourself: they come out with their own politics after retirement. When they did do the news was not commentary. It was news. Real news unskewed. Not commentary under the guise of news. If there was any commentary it was in their closing statements which were known to the the commentary segment and were requested by viewers. Perhaps the reason I don't see the bias in my own opinion is because I have none. Anyone who takes a commentary as reality fact is indeed, a retard.

[CapnAwesome]

Good point, you have one. But you quoted me in relation, and well--I don't see why. You said it yourself: they come out with their own politics after retirement. When they did do the news was not commentary. It was news. Real news unskewed. Not commentary under the guise of news. If there was any commentary it was in their closing statements which were known to the the commentary segment and were requested by viewers. Perhaps the reason I don't see the bias in my own opinion is because I have none. Anyone who takes a commentary as reality fact is indeed, a retard.

I was just quoting to agree with you, and then add a little. I thought your points were good.

[TaraJo]

While pretty much all American news sources have some amount of bias, what sets Faux News apart from the rest is that they place political allegiance ahead of journalistic integrity. They've been caught lieing on multiple occasions, other times twisting the facts to support republican talking points or conveniently failing to mention facts that directly contradict republican policy. MSNBC, CNN and most other news sources are more than willing to let you know when Obama is wrong, but through 8 yeard of the Dubya regime, the only time they criticized him was just before the 2008 election when the GOP was doing everything in their power to distance themselves from a toxic name. The left, on the other hand, has been extremely critical of Obama.

It's also worth noting, I've actually seen one followers of one Republican biased news source call another Republican biased news source 'liberal' because they aren't conservative enough. Oklahoma has two major newspapers: The Tulsa World and The Daily Oklahoman. Both are pretty conservative; both supported Bush in both elections and McCain and Romney. The big difference is, in local elections, the Tulsa World sometimes supports democrats for mayor, congressional elections or for state rep seats. The Oklahoman is always straight ticket republican. And for that, the editorials page for the Oklahoman is often filled with letters complaining about that 'liberal' Tulsa World.

[Mystical]

Sorry Capn', I misunderstood your point

I agree TaraJo, the news is becoming more and more biased by the second. News stations didn't have to back in the day--organize it's political views and stances in order to deliver the news. I think there should be a clear line drawn between opinionated news and plain un-biased news. Unfortunately so long as those who dictate what goes on the air and what doesn't are human: we're going to have this issue unless some sort of guidelines for bipartisan fair unbiased news to be delivered, is found.

What's so hard about showing who is up for election--all of them--equally? Or what both sides of the coin have to say on a matter? I miss those days, a lot.

[CapnAwesome]

Sometimes I wonder if liberals who bash Fox news actually watch it. They were critical of George Bush from time to time during his administration. I don't see as what they are doing as distinct.

Here is Fox News defending the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't tell and making Rick Santorum look really really stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCXgFc5It5c

[Mystical]

Sadly, I used to watch FOX news. That was when I needed to be told what I believed though. Agreed, not every single news story they have is biased or un biased. But, the order they do their works, the people they had on as visitors, how much they let the visitors say, all of it was perfectly maintained to show a certain perspective. When I wanted to know what the 'liberals' had to say, I'd watch any other news channel. The only "unbiased" news I thought I was watching was FOX because I felt that FOX looked at the news through my Christian perspective. Bill Oreilly's segment on the "war on Christmas", is a small example of why.

[TaraJo]

There's a pizza place down the street that I eat at all the time. When I go there for lunch, they always have Faux News on their TV and I watch it simply because I have to keep my mind occupied while I'm eating. I guess I don't pay too terribly much attention, but I see enough to see the obvious bias in it. My boyfriend has said something similar. His family are the kind of people who voted for Santorum in the primary because they didn't think Romney is conservative enough and they made a point to watch O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Faux News in general. His opinion, now that he's seen both sides is that Faux News wasn't aways directly/intentionally deceptive, but they sure as hell only told half the story.