Fox backed Hillary.

Therefore Fox must also be left-wing... ?

Was it a US television channel? If so, which commentator on Fox? The name of the person making the statement of support will let you know the political affiliation of that person.

Fox is one of very few networks in the US that clearly identify the political affiliation of the commentators on the network. They do not do the disingenuous little dance that ABC and others do of pretending to have no bias at all.

Fox backed Hillary.

Therefore Fox must also be left-wing... ?

Was it a US television channel? If so, which commentator on Fox? The name of the person making the statement of support will let you know the political affiliation of that person.

It was the New York Post and Fox channel 5 (WNYW-TV).

The name of the man was Rupert Murdoch.

---

Fox backed Hillary.

Therefore Fox must also be left-wing... ?

Was it a US television channel? If so, which commentator on Fox? The name of the person making the statement of support will let you know the political affiliation of that person.

It was the New York Post and Fox channel 5 (WNYW-TV).

The name of the man was Rupert Murdoch.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... But isn't Mr. Murdoch what may be called arch-conservative?
I'm just wondering...

---

Account frozen...

Correction unnecessary.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's been a very long shift, so SKSK and ZZZs for me.

---

You guys don't realize that Europe is a lot more socialistic than the USA.
So when Ninjadwarf talks about conservatives, he could be talking about some of our moderate Democrats. This makes him think that most of the USA main stream news sources are center or even conservative.

Just my observations!

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Arizona cops take the rap over no-ticket performance

Here in California littering can earn you a fine up to $1000. In Arizona it's $500. Given the fact these men greatly benefitted financially from this, was this a violation of their rights or is this a case of reverse discrimination?

---

me@rescam.org

You guys don't realize that Europe is a lot more socialistic than the USA.
So when Ninjadwarf talks about conservatives, he could be talking about some of our moderate Democrats. This makes him think that most of the USA main stream news sources are center or even conservative.

Just my observations!

Europe is more social-democratic than the USA, but also more right-wing. Socialistic doesn't fit really. So, IMHO what is called liberal in Germany (i.e. FDP) can be compared with the Democrats and what's called conservative (i.e. CDU/CSU) can be compared with the Republicans. Means, the Social-Democratic Party (SPD), and the parties further left are not "covered" by any influent party in the States (that's why I said that the left-winged have no influence) - but the further right-winged parties (like the German "Republicans" or NPD, which gained up to 15 percent in some counties) also have (fortunately) no influence there. And I know that there are some extremely right-wing organizations over there.
So when I talk about conservatives I mean the Republicans or those Democrats who can be confused as Republicans due to their talking.

---

Account frozen...

You guys don't realize that Europe is a lot more socialistic than the USA.
So when Ninjadwarf talks about conservatives, he could be talking about some of our moderate Democrats. This makes him think that most of the USA main stream news sources are center or even conservative.

Just my observations!

Europe is more social-democratic than the USA, but also more right-wing. Socialistic doesn't fit really. So, IMHO what is called liberal in Germany (i.e. FDP) can be compared with the Democrats and what's called conservative (i.e. CDU/CSU) can be compared with the Republicans. Means, the Social-Democratic Party (SPD), and the parties further left are not "covered" by any influent party in the States (that's why I said that the left-winged have no influence) - but the further right-winged parties (like the German "Republicans" or NPD, which gained up to 15 percent in some counties) also have (fortunately) no influence there. And I know that there are some extremely right-wing organizations over there.
So when I talk about conservatives I mean the Republicans or those Democrats who can be confused as Republicans due to their talking.

I have not read or heard much about Mr. Murdoch,other than that he is the owner of Fox and made the decision to have the network cover both sides of the American political spectrum. This was a sound business decision that did not necessarily have anything to do with his political positions.

As to his support of Mrs. Clinton, he must, at least, have leanings toward Commumist or collectivist politics because that is where she resides in her convictions.

I have not read or heard much about Mr. Murdoch,other than that he is the owner of Fox and made the decision to have the network cover both sides of the American political spectrum. This was a sound business decision that did not necessarily have anything to do with his political positions.

As to his support of Mrs. Clinton, he must, at least, have leanings toward Commumist or collectivist politics because that is where she resides in her convictions.

Quotes from wikipedia:
"Murdoch is seen as either a political neo-conservative or simply an opportunist, who will regularly back an expected winner regardless of principles... In the US he has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections."
"Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel has been criticized by many watchdog groups for being too politically conservative in its newscasts. They claim that it is not "fair and balanced" as the network's tagline claims."

And yes he supported Mrs Clinotn - but on the other hand he seems to prefer Republicans

---

Account frozen...

You guys don't realize that Europe is a lot more socialistic than the USA.
So when Ninjadwarf talks about conservatives, he could be talking about some of our moderate Democrats. This makes him think that most of the USA main stream news sources are center or even conservative.

Just my observations!

Europe is more social-democratic than the USA, but also more right-wing. Socialistic doesn't fit really. So, IMHO what is called liberal in Germany (i.e. FDP) can be compared with the Democrats and what's called conservative (i.e. CDU/CSU) can be compared with the Republicans. Means, the Social-Democratic Party (SPD), and the parties further left are not "covered" by any influent party in the States (that's why I said that the left-winged have no influence) - but the further right-winged parties (like the German "Republicans" or NPD, which gained up to 15 percent in some counties) also have (fortunately) no influence there. And I know that there are some extremely right-wing organizations over there.
So when I talk about conservatives I mean the Republicans or those Democrats who can be confused as Republicans due to their talking.

I lived in Germany from 1977 to 1991.
You can't compare Germany conservatives directly with US conservatives.
I know CDU/CSU are conservatives in Germany, but they compare more like moderate US Democrates in their views, because the whole political spectrum in the US is shifted to the right compared to the Germany.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

You guys don't realize that Europe is a lot more socialistic than the USA.
So when Ninjadwarf talks about conservatives, he could be talking about some of our moderate Democrats. This makes him think that most of the USA main stream news sources are center or even conservative.

Just my observations!

Europe is more social-democratic than the USA, but also more right-wing. Socialistic doesn't fit really. So, IMHO what is called liberal in Germany (i.e. FDP) can be compared with the Democrats and what's called conservative (i.e. CDU/CSU) can be compared with the Republicans. Means, the Social-Democratic Party (SPD), and the parties further left are not "covered" by any influent party in the States (that's why I said that the left-winged have no influence) - but the further right-winged parties (like the German "Republicans" or NPD, which gained up to 15 percent in some counties) also have (fortunately) no influence there. And I know that there are some extremely right-wing organizations over there.
So when I talk about conservatives I mean the Republicans or those Democrats who can be confused as Republicans due to their talking.

I lived in Germany from 1977 to 1991.
You can't compare Germany conservatives directly with US conservatives.
I know CDU/CSU are conservatives in Germany, but they compare more like moderate US Democrates in their views, because the whole political spectrum in the US is shifted to the right compared to the Germany.

Well you can find left, moderate, and right views within both US parties as well as within the German SPD, FDP, and CDU - often you even can confuse the membership of the speaker with another one... Unfortunately to be a member of a "left-wing" party doesn't automatically mean to actually think left-wing - so your observation, Richard, can be agreed - but only, because the former left Democrats indeed have moved much to the center within the last century -and most during McCarthy's regiment.

---

Account frozen...

The polarizing presidency

The executive branch has long mirrored our deep divisions

By Thomas E. Cronin and Michael A. Genovese. Cronin is the former president of Whitman College and currently holds the McHugh Chair at Colorado College. Genovese holds the Loyola Chair of Leadership at Loyola Marymount University.

All American presidents are polarizers. It comes with the territory. Politics is by nature both divisive and unifying, and as the president is the politician in chief of the nation, it is unavoidable that at times, presidents will divide the nation.

A president must serve as a national unifier, but also simultaneously as a national divider. As the symbolic representative of the nation, the president brings us together as a nation in ceremonial, political, tribal and almost religious ways. But as the head of a political party, the president must also serve partisan ends that inevitably divide us. Also, making tough decisions on the budget, war and peace and other controversial matters will in the end, divide. In most presidential decisions there will be winners and losers.

Pollsters, political consultants and pundits regularly note these days that the United States is a divided nation – red versus blue states, Democrats versus Republicans, left versus right, urban versus rural, religious versus secular, traditionalists verses modernists, liberal versus conservative, rich versus poor, Caucasian versus immigrant. We are a divided and diverse nation.

Ironically, President Bush, who in 2000 campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” who was a “uniter, not a divider” and as president who would tone down the partisan rhetoric and bring the nation together, has, since Sept. 11, 2001, been the most divisive and polarizing president in memory. “I'm the decider,” Bush recently said, and decisions cause cleavages. If you are the decider, you are often also the divider.

While President Bush is the most visible manifestation of the bitter polarization he is hardly its primary cause. The roots of division go back deep in our culture and have been exacerbated by political and social events for at least the past two generations.

Our current dilemma of division can be traced to the 1960s with the war in Vietnam and the gut-wrenching impact that war had on American politics and culture. It was here that the culture wars began, that the counterculture took to the streets and that the social movements of the previous decade came into full bloom. This era sent conservatives further to the right and liberals further to the left, as the anti-war protests tore the nation apart.

The tragedy of Vietnam was followed almost immediately by the scandal of Watergate. Richard M. Nixon, strategically smart but deeply flawed personality, came into office promising to “bring us together.” Instead, his was the most corrupt presidency in history, and he demeaned himself as he damaged the office of the presidency. The truncated impeachment atmosphere spawned a hypercritical press that began to explore new areas of the personal and private as it attempted to come to grips with the new age of investigative journalism.

Out of Watergate came a harsher, more partisan breed of political combat. Nixon saw adversaries as his enemies. An adversarial and hyperpartisan ethos began to infect our politics. Political competition became deadly combat and defeating the enemy wasn't enough – you had to utterly destroy them. Our politics turned uglier, more negative, and more personal.

Presidents Ford and Carter were different sorts of presidents. Possessing fewer rough edges than their two immediate predecessors, they attempted to lower the volume and put a halt to the ugliness plaguing our politics. But they governed in a presidency-bashing age and had only a negligible impact on the harsh politics of their age.

Ronald Reagan was a decider, too, and a forceful one. He reasserted presidential authority with a decidedly ideological edge. Revered by many of his ideological soul mates on the right, Reagan was disliked by the left, and he created deeper divisions in our politics. Reagan tried to take presidential power beyond the rule of law, as in the case of the crimes of the Iran-Contra scandal. While he was stopped in this venture, he managed to reinvigorate a cadre of loyal rightists who were on a mission to take ideological and political control of the government.

George H.W. Bush again tried to lower the political temperature, but he too proved inadequate to the Herculean task. A nation poised for ideological combat was not prepared to accept a more bipartisan political ethos.

When Bill Clinton became president, the right seemed ready for a fight. While essentially a moderate, Clinton's lifestyle choice riled the religious right and proved an irresistible target for conservatives, leading to his impeachment for lying about sex. The public was presented with a choice of Clinton versus Newt Gingrich, and as the former struggled to survive the latter imploded. It was a particularly personal, ugly and divisive time in American politics.

George W. Bush ran in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative” yet events soon transformed Bush's political situation and his presidency. The tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a door to power that President Bush did not hesitate to march through. As has been noted by many, Bush had a great opportunity to pull us together after Sept. 11. Instead, Bush ushered in what is almost certainly the most polarized era modern America has experienced. And while in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 tragedy, the nation was probably more unified than it has been at any time since the Second World War, this unity did not last, as the president squandered national unity for the purposes of achieving his controversial domestic and foreign policy agenda.

Sept. 11 gave Bush the opportunity to reshape politics in America, and Bush was not at all shy about imposing a new paradigm onto the American polity. With bold steps and a muscle-flexing assertion of presidential power, Bush at first unified the nation in the days immediately following Sept. 11. A “rally 'round the flag” effect ballooned the president's popularity to unprecedented heights, and the president was able to run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law.

“I'm a war president” was the president's mantra, and as such he instituted a bold, muscular brand of presidential leadership that threatened to eviscerate the separation of powers and rule of law. The president plainly had initial support for his action. Yet as the war in Iraq soured, as photos of U.S. torture of prisoners came to light, as memos defending torture and extralegal authority for the president were leaked to the press, as news of extraordinary renditions hit the airwaves, as the stories out of the U.S. detention center at GuantÁnamo Bay surfaced, as the president's plan for military tribunals and denial of Geneva Convention rights became known, as word of domestic surveillance emerged, the president was forced on the defensive. Could all these acts emanate solely from the executive? Did a president truly have that much unchecked unilateral authority?

The president was on the defensive, and the nation was torn apart. Never before has the gap between support and opposition for a president been so large, so deep and so passionate. President Bush evokes strong feelings and deep divisions. Today, we often seem to be two different, warring tribes, and less one nation.

Have our presidents led us down this polarized path, or have they merely reflected the divisions and cleavages percolating up in American society? Doubtless it is both. And clearly, we are poorly served by the partisan rancor and polarized posturing. Whatever the mix of policies and politics, our current divisions undermine this would-be noble superpower as we try to lead and guide an also divided and polarized world plagued by proliferating nuclear weapons and the divide caused by rising globalization.

What might be done? Can we come together as a nation? A nation at war with a spiraling debt can ill afford the deep divisions that separate us from one another. We yearn for leadership that unites and followership that empowers positive, constructive, democratic leadership and a culture of respect and comity. A tall order. We will need bridge-builders in both our polarized parties. It will take leadership that does not pander to the worst in us. It will take leadership that taps what is best in the American people. But we need leaders who can build consensus and coalitions across the partisan and religious divides.

---

me@rescam.org

S.F. loses Navy's warship ceremony

SAN FRANCISCO – The Navy has rejected plans to commission its newest and most powerful warship in San Francisco because of concerns that the city doesn't support the military.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter vetoed plans last week for a commissioning ceremony for the Makin Island in San Francisco, said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. J. Michael Myatt.

Instead, San Diego will host the ceremony.

Navy leaders were concerned about San Francisco's refusal to offer a home port for the retired battleship Iowa, which would be turned into a museum, as well as the school board's decision to abolish junior ROTC training at city high schools, Myatt said.

Associated Press

---

me@rescam.org

S.F. loses Navy's warship ceremony

SAN FRANCISCO – The Navy has rejected plans to commission its newest and most powerful warship in San Francisco because of concerns that the city doesn't support the military.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter vetoed plans last week for a commissioning ceremony for the Makin Island in San Francisco, said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. J. Michael Myatt.

Instead, San Diego will host the ceremony.

Navy leaders were concerned about San Francisco's refusal to offer a home port for the retired battleship Iowa, which would be turned into a museum, as well as the school board's decision to abolish junior ROTC training at city high schools, Myatt said.

Associated Press

Good!

---

S.F. loses Navy's warship ceremony

SAN FRANCISCO – The Navy has rejected plans to commission its newest and most powerful warship in San Francisco because of concerns that the city doesn't support the military.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter vetoed plans last week for a commissioning ceremony for the Makin Island in San Francisco, said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. J. Michael Myatt.

Instead, San Diego will host the ceremony.

Navy leaders were concerned about San Francisco's refusal to offer a home port for the retired battleship Iowa, which would be turned into a museum, as well as the school board's decision to abolish junior ROTC training at city high schools, Myatt said.

Associated Press

Good!

Congrats, Frisco! San Diego should have decided likewise!

---

Account frozen...

S.F. loses Navy's warship ceremony

SAN FRANCISCO – The Navy has rejected plans to commission its newest and most powerful warship in San Francisco because of concerns that the city doesn't support the military.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter vetoed plans last week for a commissioning ceremony for the Makin Island in San Francisco, said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. J. Michael Myatt.

Instead, San Diego will host the ceremony.

Navy leaders were concerned about San Francisco's refusal to offer a home port for the retired battleship Iowa, which would be turned into a museum, as well as the school board's decision to abolish junior ROTC training at city high schools, Myatt said.

Associated Press

---

I dream of a time when war is only a word to be found in some dictionaries, but not in our daily vocabulary anymore...

BTW: Still there are some tribes in the jungles who have no word for "enemy" - foreigners are only "friends to be met"...

---

Account frozen...

I dream of a time when war is only a word to be found in some dictionaries, but not in our daily vocabulary anymore...

BTW: Still there are some tribes in the jungles who have no word for "enemy" - foreigners are only "friends to be met"...

After they meet these friends who turn out not to be, they invent the word "enemy".

---

I dream of a time when war is only a word to be found in some dictionaries, but not in our daily vocabulary anymore...

BTW: Still there are some tribes in the jungles who have no word for "enemy" - foreigners are only "friends to be met"...

After they meet these friends who turn out not to be, they invent the word "enemy".

Don't think so. Enemy is a political invention - There are honest and righteous people on either side, and even the dishonest can be made to act honest if it's for their advantage.

---

Account frozen...

300

---

knightmare for Forum Admin
He sure has my vote.