Today’s Republican is like a 1980s rapper: “School be uncool, yo. Put down the books and pick up a gun.”
Substitute “newspapers” for “books” in the case of Republicans, and that should start to make more sense. Or maybe I’m tired and the comparison sounds more clever to me now than it really is.
That’s all I got.
Furious D: Now where am I going to go to beat SEC football fans at their own picks game while hopped up on goofballs?
CJ: I tried to establish a hot dog stand this year and was advised by the Health Dept (Dekalb Cnty) and by a...
Tony: This is a bunch of crap. Where am I supposed to get all my University of Georgia football news now?
Jen: As soon as college football starts, he’ll be back. Book it.
Blue: Say it ain’t so, Russell Tanton? First it was “my pit stop on the information superhighway.”...
Georgia Podcast Network
As the resident Republican, I don’t agree. Yes, I believe that there are Republicans out there that might feel reading a newspaper is “subscribing to the left”, however I believe the majority of us read and see newpapers as another valuable source of input.
I think to make a statement that because a newspaper prints it, it must be fact is horseshit, and I do believe that there is a liberal bias to the overall media (FoxNews, and others are exceptions). However that does not mean you ignore it, that would mean that you pay even closer attention to it.
Forgive me for saying this, but how is one supposed to disagree with a position without knowing what the position is.
Hopefully, the “democrats” in this blog also belive in educating themselves and knowing all sides of an arguement. We all might find some opinions changing.
All that the non-RNC press and Democrats have in common is they look for real culprits instead of made-up bogeymen. The press (meaning your average newspaper editorial board) is usually pretty centrist, in that they are pro-business but also social libertarians generally. You know, where most of the country actually is.
The worst part about Fox News isn’t that it’s a right wing news channel. I could respect it if it were based on some consistent conservative ideology. The worst part about it is it’s a doggedly pro Bush Administration channel. I feel like I’m watching one of those 1980s anti-smoking ads when I flip the channel there.
I catch just enough Fox News in passing over the course of a day that I can usually assimilate the channel’s talking points. A good drinking game during Hurricane Katrina was to take a shot every time a talking head asked a question about Democrats “blaming the president” or when you heard the phrase “failure of all levels of government.”
I also wish I had access to some archive footage to see what the formal title for Bill Clinton was on FNC. I might be wrong, but I’d be willing to wager they refered to him as “President Clinton” rather than as “The President.”
Rusty wrote:
All that the non-RNC press and Democrats have in common is they look for real culprits instead of made-up bogeymen.
Except for the ones that say that the hurricanes were devices of the republicans to keep the poor and the blacks down…that is like saying the democrats are creating tornadoes to rid the world of right leaning trailer-dwellers.
I don’t think any Democrat said the hurricanes were a device to keep poor and blacks down. They did imply racism in the Bush Administration because of the poor response to the hurricane. And while I don’t think it was overt “let the niggers drown” racism, the more I think about it, the jury is out on just how that response could be classified. What if Katrina had hit, say, Boston? Shit, Cheney ordered the oil pipelines saved before there was any real rescue effort for people there.
Of course. I, for one, just feel like I have to look elsewhere than the U.S. press in order to successfully do so.
Yeah you noticed how on the ball Bush was this time with Texas in danger….no surprise really…they have oil.
Great response Patrick, everybody was more on the ball they weren’t going to let a second disaster take innocent lives. Unfortunately for New Orleans it was first. The second time around most people get better.
Not only was the federal government more precise, but the local governments wer much more active. Offering public buses for rides out of town.
I also have to say this, and this is not being mean to the people in New Orleans, but being real. Houston, not as corrupt, Texas as a state doesn’t have the same corrupt history Louisiana does, and Houston is much more modern, with more big business. I believe Texas was simply just better prepared.
And forgive me for saying this, but part of that “credit” goes to the local governments for staying on the ball. Past and present included.
Patrick wrote:
Yeah you noticed how on the ball Bush was this time with Texas in danger….no surprise really…they have oil.
Boy you are sooo right. Would you like to see the pictures of the refineries in the New Orleans area.
No and there is no corruption in Houston politics. I would say that there is just as much in Houston as in New Orleans, but Houstonians are better at hiding it. Come on try to argue this people.
OK so there could be corruption in Texas, but not like Louisiana. Louisiana has sent the last three insurance commissioners they have elected to jail following thier terms, and the public schools are so damn poor they can’t repair themselves.
According to people who have lived there, there is no more corrupt local government.
The public schools in Texas aren’t much better. I worked in one - it was a sad state of affairs.
“No child left behind,” my ass.
But I digress…
Texas has been one huge land grab since 1845. Astrodome, San Jacinto National Park, and the fact that like New Orleans, Houston was built on an area that is below sea level should raise questions. Why would the fourth largest city in America be built in an area that is so hazardous? Public schools are not great in Texas, but their is a high level of education taking place there. I would agree though…there are some very shady things going on in the public school systems in Texas.
Isn’t Tom Delay from the Houston area? I think that says it all.
dude, rusty, with 3:30 to go, is tenn gonna pull it off?
Joseph G wrote:
Isn’t Tom Delay from the Houston area? I think that says it all.
Tom Delay is from Sugarland, TX (so named because two very large sugar cane plants a there). Sugarland is a very conservative area in Houston. Very wealthy, and very old money in the area. While he is representing Houston in congress, you need to understand more about Texas and Houston politics before thinking that you have it figured out.
In recent memory The Bush Administrations have come from Texas, but if we followed your logic Joseph G then California must be a conservative state since Reagan came from there. Texas, before the Bush White Houses was the home of LBJ, one of the most liberal minded presidents in history, and Sam Rayburn was speaker of the house for 21 years, and Jim Wright was from 1987 to 1989. In the last 75 years, Texas democrats have held the position of U.S. Speaker of the House for 25 years, that is 1/3 of the time.
What most people fair to realize is that Texas is a big state, and Crawford is not next Houston. Since 1980 Houston has had democratic leadership in the mayoral position for 17 years with Kathy Whitmire, the first woman to be mayor and was from 82 to 91, I think, was a very liberal mayor. After Bob Lanier’s mayoral reign as a conservative (he left so that he could help bring football back to Houston), another Democrat came to office…ex Houston Chief of Police, ex Clinton Drug Czar (I love that term, I wonder if I can be the Czar of Maloneland, and if I can do I spell it as “CZAR” or “TZAR”), and the first African-American mayor of Houston.
Please before labeling my home state and city be aware of the facts that you are holding on to.
I worked in the Dallas school district (motherfuckin’ DISD, represent!), where a high school principal was indicted for embezzlement. (Not to mention the more plebeian problems like general lack of organization and miles of red tape.) Gotta love it.