RNC gets POed at CNN and NBC...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Aug 17, 2013.

  1. macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    ...M-O-U-S-E...... :D

    Yes, in the latest mickeymouse move from the Republican National Committee, they have voted to ban NBC and CNN from taking part in any 2016 Republican primary debates.

    Which -- to me at least -- is a lot like telling a man who's just crawled out of the Gobi desert on hands and knees that he cannot have a peanut butter sandwich.

    This is, as you know, "punishment" for NBC and CNN deciding to produce a Hillary TV-movie and documentary, respectively.

    Now frankly, I'm not so sure I disagree with chairman Reince Priebus' position, that these programs might give the appearance of bias to the two networks. I know Hillary's not officially a candidate yet, but I also know that if I read that Fox was doing "The Marco Rubio Story", I'd think that was a little biased.

    Oh, and speaking of Fox...although they were willing participants in the NBC telepic, a lot of people noticed that they weren't picked out for condemnation by Mr. Priebus. Nevertheless, when they heard about the NBC/CNN ban, Fox couldn't back out of the project fast enough.

    I guess what bugs me most about this tactic of the RNC is not its bullying nature (although there is that), it's the hypocrisy...especially since Priebus himself has suggested the idea of Republican debates hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. :p

    I mean...really? Hey, if anyone runs against Hillary, can we have the Democratic primary debates hosted by Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington or Markos Moulitsas? :rolleyes:
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #2
    There goes a good portion of any swing vote they will need. I doubt the ban will stick. If it does, then stupid is as stupid does.

    What is more disturbing is how hard the GOP is making voting in NC. Voter disfranchising seems to be part of their M.O once again.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    Hillary is to Republicans what Palin is to democrats. Either way people will be called sexist.
     
  4. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #4
    But... but... but... I thought the Republicans were adamant about their Constitutional rights? Apparently that's only the 2nd amendment.. and they couldn't care less about the 1st.

    Now they're trying to blackmail news networks to prevent them from broadcasting what they want?

    These morons live in a fantasy world.
     
  5. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5

    This might just be the most stupid and uninformed thing I've read here for months. Apart from the similarities in their genitalia, how exactly are the two alike?
     
  6. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
    They have long hair?
     
  7. macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #7
    Republicans love the constitution! :rolleyes: This is why my republican friends have been posting the image below on Facebook. Obviously their vast intelligence doesn't allow them to see the glaring problem with this quote...(not sure if its an actual quote but its the picture going around).
     

    Attached Files:

  8. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #8
    I have an idea:

    Let Fox-Nuuus produce a movie about Sarah P. and let us see the outrage from the democrats.

    .



    .



    .



    .



    .
     
  9. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    Wouldn't that have to air on Comedy Central?
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #10
    /me allways thought Comedy Central was the same network that showed the Simpson & Futurama !!
     
  11. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #11
    They're like little children throwing a tantrum.

    You know they've sunk pretty low when they've resorted to getting their ill-informed point across by quoting a B-list actor who's only relevant now because of an internet meme.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #12
    Don't forget that the Democrats engineered Jim Crow voter disenfranchisement throughout the South, as they were the pro-segregation party and (still are) the pro-slavery party.

    And don't buy the NPR argument that requiring a drivers license or other state-issued ID to vote disenfranchises blacks. That's just so insultingly racist - as if we're somehow less able to get driver's licenses or other state-issued IDs because we're black. I mean come on, how condescendingly elitist can you be while simultaneously waving a "progressive" flag?

    >

    ----------

    They're both empty suits adopted by their respective parties to appeal to their female bases, one "blue-collar-traditional" and one "intellectual-progressive." Two different flavors admittedly, but the ice cream's the same.

    >
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #13
    No, actually, those were both on Fox TV.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #14
    Since when is believing in the limitation of government power as proscribed in the Constitution an ill-informed point?

    >
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #15
    His comment has nothing to do with that. He is saying the constitution is set in stone and should only ever be interpreted in the most narrow, literal way.
     
  16. ThisIsNotMe, Aug 17, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2013

    macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #16
    Huh, sounds like the progressives after Citizens United Vs. The Federal Elections Commission. You know, when Citizens United wanted to run ads for their movie Hillery: The Movie.

    SSSOOOO funny watching the liberals get their panties in a bunch over this.

    Then again, they don't stand for anything otherwise they would be marching on CNN/NBC for supporting a political candidate outside of campaign finance laws like they make a big dead out of the Koch brothers/ect.

    The Progressive - Political boycotts are OK as long as your boycott is on our approved boycott list.
    The Progressive - It is only free speech if your speech is on our approved free speech list.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #17

    I knew (plenty of FOX-refernces on those programs) ;)
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #18

    There is way more too it than that. You should Google what's happening in NC right now. I'm typing from phone, otherwise I would provide link myself.
     
  19. macrumors 68030

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #19
    Historically, you may be correct about it being pro-slavery and pro-segregation.

    Still are? You are so far from the truth that a blind person can see it better than you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    Educate yourself here, especially on how this strategy put Nixon in office and how the modern-day republicans seem to still have a vast amount of butthurt over civil rights.

    You never did answer the question of invalids or those not physically able to go to an official office to get an official ID. Yet they are citizens of the country and have a right to vote. How do you expect them to vote if they can't get an ID?

    You take your mobility way too much for granted. And who said this had anything to do with NPR?

    BL.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    If it wasn't a living document then there wouldn't have been new amendments added to it to change a previous amendment, set new powers/limits on government, or guarantee rights of people. If it was a set in stone document, what was stated in the constitution when it was first past would be it. There would be no 13th, 14th, 15th, etc amendment. Women couldn't vote. There wouldn't be a two term limit on Presidents, etc.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #21
    I know exactly what is happening in North Carolina right now, and I don't need Google to to know. I'm from NC, live there part time, and I'm black.

    >
     
  22. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Aug 17, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    Let me guess. You think that all taxes are "slavery"? Skip the Libertarian Religion lessons please. You know, in Somalia, with a few crates of AK-47 clones and a ton of ammunition, you, too, can avoid ever paying any taxes again. Sound attractive? I didn't think so. But, note that Federal taxation is a key element of the U.S. Constitution, and, one of the reasons why it replaced the Articles of Confederation.

    I think everyone here knows that between 1960 and 1980, the parties realigned, just as Lyndon Johnson knew they would after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights

    It definitely isn't your father's Republican Party any more.

    OK, admit it -- you do listen to NPR!! I listened to that same discussion on All Things Considered on my way home from work.

    Here is the transcript:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=212664895

    What you have is a large group of elderly, poor black citizens, whose identity and citizenship is clear, who are registered to vote, and who are not very mobile, most without cars. You think it is "elitist" to assume that an elderly population like that needs help to either vote early or vote on election day? Guess what-- you may be old someday yourself.

    The recent law was designed to make it harder for that particular demographic to vote, and, it will. And we know these laws were designed that way on purpose -- the Republicans who wrote these laws in several states bragged about it.

    I have to wonder whether Clinton has the stamina for the job -- look at the way her last few months in office played out. But, she certainly isn't an "empty suit".

    Sarah Palin is just an entertainer who missed her true calling. She should have become a comedian and appeared on shows like SNL.

    No comparison.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #23

    So you think this is right? .............

    http://colorlines.com/archives/2013..._harsh_voter_id_college_students_protest.html

     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #24
    I grew up in the Democratic South of the early 1970s, I know the history because I lived it, as did my parents and my grandparents, etc. My state's senator was Jesse Helms, and I know that Jesse Helms was a much bigger supporter of the black businesses in my community than any of the Democrats who had just a few short years earlier held rallies in white robes to burn them down. I also know that he was the only member of Congress to give James Meridith and opportunity to work on The Hill; none of the Democrats would.

    Southern racial and political history is much more complicated and nuanced than you will understand from a few Wikipedia articles.

    As to the modern stances of the Republican and Democratic Parties, while neither is truly a defender of my liberty, I find that my freedom is under FAR greater threat from the political stance of the Democratic Party than it is from the Republicans, which is not really all that different from the historical tendencies of the two parties. Just as the old Republican Party was basically formed to uphold the political conviction to free my ancestors from Plantation Slavery, so to the modern Republican Party - or at least the libertarian remnant that has remained uncorrupted by the Neo-Cons (who were originally Democrats) - is the last bastion of the political conviction to free me from Large Centralized Government Slavery.


    The question was never posed to me. But just as I would never (condescendingly) assume that people of any ethnicity would be particularly incapable of obtaining state-issued ID, I would accord the same basic respect to those with physical disabilities.

    The idea that there are legions of CITIZENS who are incapable of obtaining state-issued IDs is patently ridiculous and an obvious red-herring for some other agenda.

    >
     
  25. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #25
    So is the idea that there are legions of people committing voter fraud. So then you tell me why Reps in NC feel the need to make such drastic voting changes, if not for their own benefit?
     

Share This Page