The New Senate Minority Leader

[Yeahman]

This guy Harry Reid, Democratic Senator from Nevada, is pro-life, pro-war, and opposed to same-sex marriage. This guy's the new Democratic leader! He's even been accused of racism.

[Banana]

That sounds like a Republican.

[ism]

He has the most experience (of Senate procedure) being minority whip since 1999. Other than that, I'm not sure if he's the right person for the job. He is pro-life but doesn't want Roe overturned, so maybe he's one of those people that can separate religion and law. We'll see.

And that's Senate Minority Leader. Nancy Pelosi is the House Minority Leader.

[ism]

Well, I don't really see the point of ridiculing the party for his particular stances. I never really saw abortion, war, or same-sex marriage as being divided along partisan lines. They are really single-issues that divide certain types of voters. If that's the metric ye110man is going by, then he needs to ridicule the Republicans for the majority 73% of them who are pro-choice, including Ahnold, Arlen Specter, Pataki, Whitman, etc.. Ahnold and Pataki are even pro-gay rights. Kinda funny that some conservatives like to portray these issues as part of a "liberal agenda" rather than the moderate, non-partisan issue they really are.

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by ism

If that's the metric ye110man is going by, then he needs to ridicule the Republicans for the majority 73% of them who are pro-choice, including Ahnold, Arlen Specter, Pataki, Whitman, etc.. Ahnold and Pataki are even pro-gay rights. Kinda funny that some conservatives like to portray these issues as part of a "liberal agenda" rather than the moderate, non-partisan issue they really are.

The metric I'm going by for what?
The 73% is from the American Viewpoint poll.
The Planned Parenthood poll says 35%. Closer to the truth obviously considering the fact that nearly all polls find that less than half of Americans are pro-choice.
Latest CBS poll shows that 82% of Republicans want to either ban abortion or restrict it further. 52% of Democrats believe the same thing.
The majority of both Democrats and Republicans supported the partial-birth abortion ban.

So you're right, it is non-partisan. Non-partisan in favor of life.
Your reliance on dishonest polls is also the reason why the Democratic party had moved too far out of the mainstream during the last election cycle. The fact of the matter is that the American people, both Democrats and Republicans, are far more pro-life than the Democrats in Washington.

[ism]

I'm not sure why you think what I think is a reflection on the Democrats. I'm about as centrist as you can get. With that out of the way, first you're ridiculing the Dems for electing a pro-life Senate Minority Leader then blasting them for being generally pro-choice? I don't know what you're trying to say.

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by ism

first you're ridiculing the Dems for electing a pro-life Senate Minority Leader

When did I do that?

[DragonKnight]

Originally Posted by ye110man

When did I do that?

Originally Posted by ye110man

The New Senate Minority Leader - Are you serious?
This guy Harry Reid, Democratic Senator from Nevada, is pro-life, pro-war, and opposed to same-sex marriage. This guy's the new Democratic leader! He's even been accused of racism.

That can be assumed as ridiculing. Can you swear before God that it wasn't? I personally don't give a shit, but then some clarification might be asked of from other members of the audience.

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by DragonKnight

Can you swear before God that it wasn't?

Yes. It was a statement of shock or amazement.

[yoMAMA]

I don't think the dems are gonna win by "out GOP" the GOP.

[ism]

Originally Posted by ye110man

Yes. It was a statement of shock or amazement.

In that case, I suggest you avoid sensationalist sources like NewsMax. Had you read the same story anywhere else (and perhaps a more timely one, considering this happened some months ago, before NewsMax had a chance to spin it), you would have been informed enough to realize it's not a surprising move.

[yoMAMA]

Originally Posted by ism

In that case, I suggest you avoid sensationalist sources like NewsMax. Had you read the same story anywhere else (and perhaps a more timely one, considering this happened some months ago, before NewsMax had a chance to spin it), you would have been informed enough to realize it's not a surprising move.

LOL...newsmax.

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by ism

In that case, I suggest you avoid sensationalist sources like NewsMax. Had you read the same story anywhere else (and perhaps a more timely one, considering this happened some months ago, before NewsMax had a chance to spin it), you would have been informed enough to realize it's not a surprising move.

Actually it was the Dec 13th issue of Time (owned by Time Warner the largest media contributor to the Democratic party). Hope you don't feel stupid now.

[ism]

Originally Posted by ye110man

Actually it was the Dec 13th issue of Time (owned by Time Warner the largest media contributor to the Democratic party). Hope you don't feel stupid now.

I had meant to address that particular statistic you keep harping in the other topic but I suppose I'll do so now. Time Warner as a single entity did not (and cannot) make political contributions. Time Warner's PACs and individual employees did. Time did not back any particular candidate like the U.S. government did not back Bush -- the individuals who work for the entity statistically end up on one side of the fence. Time Warner splits more evenly than you portray if you decided to actually cite the contributions toward Bush, at a 2:3 ratio. That would also pale in comparison to the nation's largest television station owner Sinclair Television, whose CEO maxed out his contribution to Bush, and the VP maxed out his contribution to Bush while giving the RNC $175,000. Oh yeah, they also tried to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary which wouldn't be counted in the totals.

As for feeling stupid, no. Like I said, if you had read something other than NewsMax you would not have been surprised. Considering the Time article explained that the choice of Reid was "practical": he is an expert filibuster organizer, with "utter mastery of the rules" and a "reputation for honesty." I don't think I have to cite the rest of article since you already read it.

Whereas this NewsMax article from December 14 mentions the racist allegations (I didn't know any criticism of a Supreme Court Justice who happens to be black constitutes racism), and the Time article doesn't. Where was your source for that? Okay, it could have been WND or one of those other fine sources, but it certainly wasn't Time.

Oh, if anyone's interested in the Time article and is a subscriber you can access it electronically here: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...880225,00.html

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by ism

I had meant to address that particular statistic you keep harping in the other topic but I suppose I'll do so now. Time Warner as a single entity did not (and cannot) make political contributions. Time Warner's PACs and individual employees did. Time did not back any particular candidate like the U.S. government did not back Bush -- the individuals who work for the entity statistically end up on one side of the fence. Time Warner splits more evenly than you portray if you decided to actually cite the contributions toward Bush, at a 2:3 ratio. That would also pale in comparison to the nation's largest television station owner Sinclair Television, whose CEO maxed out his contribution to Bush, and the VP maxed out his contribution to Bush while giving the RNC $175,000. Oh yeah, they also tried to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary which wouldn't be counted in the totals.

You speak as though I'm a supporter of Sinclair and Bush. I opposed them both.
I get my TV through Time Warner cable and the only show I watch daily is the Daily Show. So if anything, I'm overwhelmed with liberal media bias. I don't get to see the conservative viewpoint. Online, I only read the AP.

Originally Posted by ism

As for feeling stupid, no. Like I said, if you had read something other than NewsMax you would not have been surprised. Considering the Time article explained that the choice of Reid was "practical": he is an expert filibuster organizer, with "utter mastery of the rules" and a "reputation for honesty." I don't think I have to cite the rest of article since you already read it.

Whereas this NewsMax article from December 14 mentions the racist allegations (I didn't know any criticism of a Supreme Court Justice who happens to be black constitutes racism), and the Time article doesn't. Where was your source for that? Okay, it could have been WND or one of those other fine sources, but it certainly wasn't Time.

Found that on Google news when I was looking for stuff on the guy. Just about every news outlet reported it.

Are you saying that nobody should be surprised reading in Time mag "Democrats—now caricatured as the party of elite secularists—find themselves led in the Senate by a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war, red-state convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."?

Apparently, those with more moderate viewpoints are not allowed to be surprised without criticism on this forum. I never even said I dislike the guy. I'm not crazy about him though because he was for the war. This thread could just have easily been created by a surprised liberal.