Prince W Baggett

Hagel is an idiot, and precisely what is wrong with the Republican party. .

This terse statement is nothing more than the equivalent of sticking your tongue out and saying... "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyahhh! You think you're so great! Pft! "

You may not like Rush or Hannity, but guess what? Some people don't like Al Franken and Keith Olberman! You may feel that Rush and Hannity spew empty rhetoric, but guess what? Some people think that's what Micheal Moore and Alec Baldwin do too! I hear Chuck Hagel say this, and I wonder, is this the precursor to The Fairness Doctrine? Is he about to lead the "bipartisan" efforts to do away with our 1st Amendment rights? Liberals may think it's a cool idea to silence talk radio, but let me assure you, if that is done, it will not stop there. Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, Oprah, The View, etc.... better be looking for a new line of work, because they will go down in battle as well. Have you ever read Orwell's 1984? If not, you may want to do so, before you go too far out on a limb supporting the madness of the Fairness Doctrine.

Brooks, Your comments are typical of people on the far right. Hagel criticizes Limbaugh and somehow you get that "this is the beginning of George Orwell's 1984 and an attempt to silence free speech." In this day and age that will never happen. I am a Democrat and The Fairness Doctrine is a terrible idea and it will never pass. You conservatives are going to have to figure out a different way to attract people besides the baseless statements that have no purpose other than to scare people . I'll agree that there are few on the far left that may have these views but they are small minority. I work in Radio and TV so I am telling you the "Fairness Doctrine" will NEVER pass. The reason Rush and Hannity are on so many stations is because they get ratings and generate REVENUE. The Democrats tried it with Air America and was a disaster. I will say this though, that Rush and Hannity started in the 90's when Clinton was in office, and blamed him for everything. He could have saved a woman's life by pulling her out of a burning car and they still would have something critical to say. For an entire decade all we heard from these guys, implied that if somehow The Republicans' could have total control of the government then we would be so much" better off". Well, unfortunately we saw what happened from 2001-2006 when the GOP did control all 3 branches and the majority of Americans' realized we were not "better off" which was validated by the outcome of the elections of 2006 and 2008. Limbaugh and Hannity still have great ratings but their numbers have been declining over the past few years because people are wising up to much of their baseless and divisive rhetoric. And I can tell you from someone that works in media, if their ratings continue to decline and the revenues from their programs decline, there won't be a need for a "Fairness Doctrine" to remove them from the airwaves. Brooks, I am still trying to figure out from Hagel's statements where you conclude that he is for the fairness doctrine because there is simply nothing there. imho your conclusion is no different than when people on the right demonize someone who is for "common sense" gun laws as "wanting to take away your rights to own a gun" . Try and come up with other arguments that actually make sense rather than the same old paranoid statements that have no substance!

Joe, To answer your question directly, I would have voted for McCain had he chosen Huckabee or Romney and I know a lot of people that feel that way.Palin's clear lack of knowledge on a many things scared a lot of moderates. She didn't even know what The "Bush Doctrine" was. I am a Democrat and I even know what it is word for word

" We shall not make a distinction between terrorists and the countries who harbor them"

The reason Palin imho was a bad choice HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER IDEOLOGY, it had to do with the fact that she was uninformed, and clearly in over her head when it came to anything outside of Alaska. I am sure many on this site that are conservative all know at least 3 strong conservatives that are far MORE QUALIFIED than Palin. I am a Democrat and I must honestly say that if Palin is truly the front runner for the Conservative Movement that is scary. I voted Republican before ,just to let people know, I supported George Allen and he would have been a great VP Choice, but the media crucified him for one wrong remark. One last thing Joe, you are right about Lieberman the Party was not to keen on him but in the end they did the right thing by letting him remain as chair of his committee and, Obama himself , requested that happen even after Lieberman actually campaigned against him. I am actually a registered independent but the reason I vote more Democratic is because I respect a Party that allows you to dissent from the platform, if it is what you truly believe in, without kicking you out or abandoning you. That is what makes it so difficult for me to be a Republican because if anyone disagrees on a SINGLE issue from the platform they are crucified by the Party as evidenced by Brooks' above comment about Senator Hagel.

Seriously, Brooks you need to tone it down a bit. Your comments are often extremely offensive and usually cross over that imaginary line. We are all trying to discuss intelligently, but that does not seem to be your agenda. If you want to go off on rants and call people murderers etc then please do us all a favor and go to another site. You don't make this an enjoyable experience. We all don't agree but at least once we have all agreed on something except for you. Personally, I would love to kick your racist, hate everyone who isn't like you ass, but that would be wrong and you would probably pull out a gun on me.

So please either tone it down and have some respect or leave because hate should not and will not be tolerated.

Joshua, I can tell you how our comments differ, I didn't personally attack anyone except Chuck Hagel, a Republican Senator, and she personally attacked me and slandered me in the process. Her reaction is typical of liberals... the 'rules' need to be strictly applied to those they disagree with, but not to them! ....There is a word for that... hypo.... hippo.... hmmm.... wish I wasn't an 'uneducated redneck' ...oh well, it doesn't matter, Gill is not that important anyway.

Brooks,

Why did I expect nothing less from you and your response, because you are transparent. I seem to remember you calling me a murderer etc during and abortion blog. Don't have the time or the energy to go hunting for it, so you threw the first punch. If caring about civil rights, human rights, women's rights, social issues etc make me a typical liberal then bring it on, but at least i care about the people around me and my community. No offense to the rest of you in Alabama, but Brooks do all of us here on the east coast and don't ever visit. We don't welcome your kind.

Ok, On a side note; here is the deal, Moderates and Liberal leaners tend to always brake for Democrats. By nominating a "moderate" pseudo liberal almost always guarantee defeat, in that Conservatives will not vote for our candidate as much as they will against the other guy, that always decreased our turn out..

I saw a vast difference in the stated policies of the two head liners (I was hoping McCain would go right).

Seriously if the co-star ruined it for you, that must mean you do not care about the differences in the two party lines, no?

Joe, Are you talking to me when you said "You do not care about the differences in the party lines?" If you are, did you not read what I wrote. I noticed that neither you or Brooks addressed the points that I made. Once again I'll say that it was Palin's clear lack of knowledge that turned off many voters' not her ideology. For some reason Joe you can't seem to understand that point!!! I'd be willing to bet that you a a conservative can name at least 3 conservatives who are more qualified than Palin. If you can't than that says a lot about conservative leaders. I sometimes get the impression that conservatives actually embrace "ignorance" And there are somethings that I agree with Republicans on and somethings I agree with Democrats on. I am proud that I think for myself and I am not a "mindless" partisan. Brooks' and most conservatives demonize me as and people like me as "not standing for anything". I clearly said above why I vote more Democratic than Republican so respond to what I said directly instead of responding with the usual conservative "spin". By the way, I know a lot voters that as you say "the co-star ruined it for".

Still it does not change the fact that nationaly if given Pepsi drinkers will prefer Pepsi, Coke drinkers will dispise "New Coke".

We need a new face and ad for the return of "Classic Coke".

Brooks,

Don't try to find me important, I am important as is everyone else in this world. Again, your apology came out in a negative manner, so maybe you need to think a little bit before you start typing.

I do not believe in abortion after 3 months but before then that is the choice of the woman. And since you do consider it murder, then in fact you are calling me a murderer because of the choice I made. Would I do it now at 33, no, but at 22 I wasn't about to ruin the future that I had spent my whole life working towards by having a child. I can barely take care of myself at 33 so at 22, it was the right choice and it was my choice, and I am glad that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman's right to choose.

"Then the question is do you think McCain was incapable of filling the cabinet slots to fill in the gaps"

Joe, The fact that he picked someone who even conservatives like George Will and David Brooks admitted lacked depth of knowledge on many important issues that a President must be able to deal with is the reason that many independent minded voters turned away from McCain. In fact I even hear the 2 mouthpieces of The GOP Limbaugh and Hannity critcizing Brooks and Will by calling them the "Pseudo-Intellectual Conservatives" as if that is a negative. Wow, an ideology that views being intellectual as a bad thing. You guys don't want to admit this but Joe ,you and Brooks seem to be stuck in the past and like Prince said above and I said on another blog, if your ideology continues to dominate within The Republican Party your Party will be irrelevant within 20 years. You said on another post that I "brought" race into the discussion when I was just stating FACTUAL DATA from the US Census Bureau about how the population is becoming more and more diverse and for a Party that is 95% White and seems to have no other way of attracting people other than making baseless statements such as Brooks' ridiculous conclusion from Hagel's comments that "Their gonna take away our rights to free speech". I know it bothers you guys but it is the TRUTH and the more statements that keep coming from the Limbaugh's, Hannity's and that wing of The Party will continue to turn people off. I am not suggesting that you compromise your values but calling people "idiots" because they don't agree with you on EVERY issue is probably not a very wise way to try and convince people that your ideology is right.

Listen, I said I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the race issue and apologized if I had read too much into your statement. But if I spouted off the Democratic party was the "Black Party" because 99% voted democratic it would be inflammatory, and serve no real purpose other than to perpetuate an image (which I think is not true, in either direction).

In the case of Palin I think factual data (knowledge of facts) is learnable, especially if she is as intelligent as I think she is. There are a ton of facts that Obama himself is not privy to he is just now learning in the transition. Maters of international affairs are the unique privilege of the executing branch of the federal government neither Senator Obama or Gov Palin has much in that department. I tend to look at the person, if they have values and ideas simmilar to mine I am more forgiving about the interviews. I think I can trust her judgment more than most politicos out there. Now of course we are talking about my opinion here.

While you may not have called her a "retard" (I was using an exaggeration) ther are many many posts I have read across the net calling her an "idiot" or worse, usually in the same sentence saying they would have voted for McCain. I in my minds eye cannot see that, the party lines are so different. Or was McCain that bad of a candidate is was indistinguishable for democrats?

Meh, I have been watching the cabinet selections, Obama is being shrewd, he is picking quite a few insiders and power brokers, he is going to more independent than Reed or Pelosi will want. If he pulls a couple more Senate Dems into the cabinet, Kennedy gets too sick to stay,there will be lots of new freshmen senators all looking to Obama as the defacto leader of the senate majority. I think he is a smart guy consolidating his power, I do not think he will blow it on gunning to re-introduce the fairness doctrine. He knows where that will get him in two years if he does that. That is something for the first year of his second term ;-)

We will not ever be irrelevant, for one many underestimate how many religious conservatives are out there, they simply are not welcome to express any religious view in the democratic party. Fiscal conservative like myself want less government spending, if we will never fit in with the left side of the democratic party of "tax-more spend more" nor the less-left side of the democratic party saying just "tax and spend".

y'all can keep the mantra of "religious intolerant gun toting old white guy" part up if you want, I bet you will be in for a surprise in two to four years.

Remember only one party is Right, we even label it for you ;-)

True but when your front bumper is hanging over the abyss you want anything but D. :-)

Joe, you can't compare the statements that if you said the Democratic party is the "Black Party" because 99% of blacks voted Democratic which is true, to the Republican Party being 95% white. Let me make my point this way. Hypothetically lets' suppose that when America was founded it was founded by blacks. And lets suppose that for the last 300 years our country was 95% black and 5% white. And the Democratic Party was 99% black and 1% white. The Republican Party during this time had 96% black and 4% white vote meaning 4 out of 5 white people voted Republican. And lets say that over the last 80 years our country saw an infusion of immigrants and by the 1960"s the country's demographics were down to 82% black and 18% Caucasian or Hispanic. Lets fast forward to now and make believe that our countries demographics were down to 62% black and 48% white and hispanic. And in this world, todays' Democratic Party despite the changing demographics is still 99% black and 1% white, and Hispanic. The Republican Party is now only 75% Black with a growing number of whites and hispanics 25% as self identified Republicans. By 2050 the US Census Bureau projects that by 2050, Blacks will actually be the minority in the US and there will be more whites and hispanics. I would say that in this example, that does not bode well for the Democrats who are still a 99% black party. The FACT is that The Republican Party is a "white party" and that is not my opinion it is a FACT. And Joe, just to let you know how I think, in this day and age I am AGAINST affirmative action. I agree that "a person should be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin" to quote MLK and IF we lived in a PERFECT WORLD that would be the case, But we live in the REAL WORLD and IT IS NOT PERFECT and everything I have stated in this blog is REALITY whether you or I like it or not. So your when I say The Republican Party is a "white party" I am not saying to be inflamatory I am saying that because it is a FACT!!!!!!! If I am wrong, then where are all the Black and Hispanic Conservatives and how come they are not more involved in The Republican Party Leadership? I would like to believe that The Republican Party is a diverse party but when all I see are predominantly white men and when I see Conservatives literally trash guys like Chuck Hagel because he disagrees with The Republican Party Platform on only 1 or 2 out of DOZENS of Issues and he gets' trashed by The Limbaugh's and Hannity's it becomes a difficult sell to the American People that The Republican Party is a "big tent party".

Joe, It is amazing to me how you don't understand my point. Those are actual US Census Bureau Numbers and I simply reversed everything to make my point. The fact that you think the demographic changes are "meaningless" just proves that you are in denial of reality. The Republican Party is predominantly a "white party" that is FACT NOT A FALSE IMAGE. If those figures make you uncomfortable maybe you ought to call The US Census Bureau. You just don't get it.

Actually DG, he refuses to get it, because once he accepts that it is fact then he has to start to rethink his values and god forbid that should happen.

Oh, and I am declaring again my conversion to Scientology and I can't wait to preach the words of L. Ron Hubbard the way you all preach the bible. This will be fun.

You don't have to declare it because it is already a well known fact Joe. I mean seriously, your mind is so closed that you can't even budge an inch on anything. I feel sorry for you actually. I would hate to live my life the way you do, it must be torture inside your head.

DG, I have come to the realization that trying to have a normal conversation with Joe, is just impossible and a waste of our energy and time. I am sick of him not getting the point, so let's just squash this now and be done with him. He isn't worth it, we know the truth he just refuses to accept it.

Yes you have and frankly I am so over the republican bullshit that I can't even deal with this site anymore this weekend. You all need to get a grip on reality and by that I mean actually travel outside of your little bubble and experience what life is like around the world.

The "right party" statement was a JOKE note the ";-)"

Finally, Joe we are on the same page. And for the record , you keep saying that "I" keep designating The GOP as The "White Party" when I am simply pointing out that , that is how many American's perceive the GOP even if it is false. Please don't tell me that I am attempting to brand the GOP as "white" when all I am doing is pointing out the perception problem they have with minorities. Don't twist my words around to imply I am saying something that I am not. And you did say "they simply are not welcome to express any religious view in the democratic party" which is total bullshit. And as far as my above talking points regarding the tactics of The GOP I was not saying that to characterize YOU PERSONALLY although your statement that "religious conservatives are not welcome in the Democratic Party" does fit in to exactly what I am talking about.

Politicians are the last people who should be expressing their religious beliefs to the public and using it as a platform. They are elected officials and preaching your faith knowing that not everyone believes what you believe is just wrong, hence the reason the Democrats don't do that sort of thing.

If elected officials want to express their faith they should do so in their chosen place of worship not on a public stage. That is why so many of us think the conservative right is totally insane. Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, are you kidding? That was and is one the dumbest ideas next to Creationism the extreme right has cooked up.

I am not saying adding their faith to their platform, it does not bother me if they express a belief in a particular faith, It would bother me if they did attempt to codify a ternate of that faith in government.

I was not attemting to further any controversy, just pointing out that both parties have their fair share of image issues with diffrent people for diffrent reasons.

I think 8 years in the Whitehouse, I think 2 maybe 4 in the Senate/House. It is the nature of the beast, nobody trusts one party with that much power for very long.

I am all for helping those in need -- those that truly need it, and depending on the ability of the public coffers to handle it. AIG and other Welfare scammers should not be milking the taxpayer in these times. I agree it is a very difficult time and it is going to be hard sometimes to differentiate the needy from the scammers.

I am spending this Thanksgiving season working with my friends to find employment with my new company. The company I just left lost their contract and lots of good people are uncertain about their future through the end of the year.