Nonsense. MSNBC is much more biased than Fox News. Fox News has lots of programming that is not biased at all including 8 hours of hard news during the daytime. MSNBC is pretty much non-stop propoganda.

Balderdash! In the evening MSNBC does have shows such as the Maddow show, which do not attempt to hide the host's political biases. These shows are blatantly opinion shows and are not pretending to present the "news" but are an opinioned response to the news of the day. During the day the regular news casts are fairly middle of the road with the same heavy dose of corporate bias as seen on ABC, NBC, and CBS. Fox is the brainchild of Murdoch and is used exclusively as vehicle for Republican Party propaganda, directed by Ailes and Rove. That is why each day you hear all of the various "news providers" repeating the exact same phrase, which of course feeds the deconstructive humor of Jon Stewart as well as the reconstructive satire of Colbert. There is little hard news to be found on FOX during any 24 hour period that is not accompanied by extreme right wing political spin.

As for the issue of healthcare, there is clearly no better indicator that the issue that Republicans have with Obama is that he is a black man sitting as their president. What they call Obamacare comes from Romneycare which was derived from a plan written by the Republican based Heritage Foundation to force people to purchase insurance from the private sector. So the Republicans now vilify their own plan. Trust me, if it was a Republican promoting this same plan, they would be 100% behind this plan they now vilify. The only explanation for this lunacy is that the GOP is united to prevent the Black man in the White House from doing anything. For the ultra conservative core of the Republican Party, the issue has always been about race. And with the help of 24 hour propaganda from FOX news they have also brought on board other conservatives whose issues may not have been based upon the color of Obama's skin. Note how skillfully the GOP has shut down the voice of the extremists in their faux grass roots tea party during the campaign in order to bring on board the slightly more moderate conservatives and making sure to confine the fringe views of Paul Ryan to small venues in the south. But take note of the extreme hostility of the conservatives over Obamacare, their very own plan, and then try to explain the venomous response to anything other that overt racism. One of Obama's weaknesses is that growing up in a biracial family in Hawaii, going to Harvard, living in NYC and Chicago surrounded by Democrat activists he never really encountered any of the old extreme racist attitudes found in Dixie and to a only slightly lesser extent in the Midwest and did not know how to recognize it or know how to respond but instead lived in a fantasy world where he imagined he could compromise with it. But of course their is no more room for compromise here than between the Pope and the Grand Mufti over religious issues.

You know an interesting factoid about Fox News, have you ever checked out the bios of their truly impressive stable of beauties? They mostly all have advanced degrees, many have law degrees from impressive schools, and have similarly impressive career backgrounds. Given the fact, that these are beautiful, super smart, high achieving women who know that once they take a Fox job, and sublimate any semblance of reasonability or moderation they might have had to Ailes far right propaganda machine, they are pretty much piranha to any other legitimate news organization I wonder what motivates them? Modern Republican party values? Or do they pay outrageously more than any other news organization? They must have some great golden parachute employment contract clauses or something. It boggles the mind.

The only one who went somewhere major after leaving was Kirin Chetry, who flamed out of CNN soon after arriving and has not been able to find work for over a year now, and has been forgotten in what was otherwise a promising and prominent journalism career.

I'm sure we'll have the usual responses from the fox fan club on here. No matter how many intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable and [what used to be called conservative] people say this, it just doesn't get through.

As I expected, a lot is coming out about Chris Christie's bold moves.

Is Chris Christie throwing Mitt Romney under the bus?

When Christie was asked Tuesday on Fox News whether Romney might make a similar appearance, a frustrated Christie veered from the GOP script:

I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.

http://theweek.com/article/index/235619/hurricane-sandy-is-chris-christie-throwing-mitt-romney-under-a-bus

So much sound and fury yet so little content. You folks have been busy while I was out for dinner and now you are disturbing my "Dog Whisperer" segment. I'll be brief and am not going to look up links. Google is your friend but not mine tonight.

Romney's donation rally had a large banner in front of the speaker's stand for the Red Cross giving their telephone number and the fact they were requesting cash or blood only.

Did any of you ever stop and think perhaps canned goods were all many of the attendees at the rally could afford. The had a few extra cans of tuna fish, baked beans, etc, but after four years of Obama lowering their take home pay, they had little cash. Americans are traditionally the most generous people in the world. They gave what they could. Quit trying to bash the donors and the Romney campaign for trying to help out.

Obama has done something concerning the hurricane that he should have been doing for the past four years. Stop campaigning, stay in the Oval office and get out of the way and let the experts do their jobs. Micro managing doesn't work well when one is the most powerful politician in the known world.

Obamacare is going to turn into a massive drain on the economy. The bill was 2,000 pages long and NOT ONE member of Congress read it before they voted on it. January 1, 2013 will usher in the largest tax increase in our (I can say "our" since I'm a Yank) history when many of those new taxes take effect, and the great thing about the bill is the government collects 10 years of various taxes to pay for 6 years of service. What happens to health care after the six years of government cost eats up the 10 years of government income. Anybody thought that one through? The CBO has now raised their original estimate that Obamacare will lose $800 Billion by 2020 to the new estimate of $1.5 Trillion.

Somebody asked earlier why Clinton was campaigning for Obama. For Heaven's sake, look at the man's past history. He has never really liked Obama and, if Hillary wasn't interested to become the first husband-wife tag team in the White House, Bill would cut and run to his new found lady friends. He knows if Romney gets elected and does anything at all to get jobs and get some sort of control on government spending, unlike Obama, he will be reelected and serve 8 years. Obama can only serve 4 more years so Hillary can run for the Dems in 2016 and will likely win. She will be too old in 2020. Viola, Clinton swings for Obama.

As far as Fox News and MSNBC is concerned, I don't get either one and haven't for nearly four years now. I do keep up with all the news reports through the Drudge Report. I get CNN International (in the tank for Obama) and BBC (in the tank for Obama). All you inquiring minds out there have to do is get on YouTube and watch some of the newscasts from MSNBC and Fox. Go in with an open mind and discover for yourself which set of anchors you find the most aggressive and disgusting with their venom directed at the other side. One thing to watch is the makeup of their panel discussions. The Democrats will normally outnumber the Republicans by 3-1 when you count the anchor. Do a little analysis and see for yourself.

Now for all you apologists that keep saying everybody that is voting against Obama is really a racist. You need to get real. Most of the civilized world knows Obama was never qualified to assume the office he currently holds and the OJT program he has been on for four years bears out that opinion. It isn't racism that will take him down...it is his record during the past four years. It isn't exactly something he has been running on after all. All he has been doing is saying how hard his job is and how little time he has had to fix 'er up. He's been begging for another term and he doesn't deserve it.

As I said over four years ago...Obama is nothing more than a sleazy politician from the sewers of Chicago politics.

If you non-Americans don't understand Chicago politics, Google is your friend.

Now, back to the Dog Whisperer.

As I expected, a lot is coming out about Chris Christie's bold moves.

Is Chris Christie throwing Mitt Romney under the bus?

When Christie was asked Tuesday on Fox News whether Romney might make a similar appearance, a frustrated Christie veered from the GOP script:

I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.

http://theweek.com/a...ney-under-a-bus

One thing you might want to think about and I am outta here.

Which one is holding the blank, unsigned check. Who is the paymaster in this picture.

Obama or Christie?

As for the issue of healthcare, there is clearly no better indicator that the issue that Republicans have with Obama is that he is a black man sitting as their president.

This makes your whole argument seem just plain ridiculous. Of course some Republicans are racists as are some Democrats, but they are in the minority in 2012. The issue that the majority of Republicans have with Obama is his liberal viewpoint and his failed policies.

As for the issue of healthcare, there is clearly no better indicator that the issue that Republicans have with Obama is that he is a black man sitting as their president.

This makes your whole argument seem just plain ridiculous. Of course some Republicans are racists as are some Democrats, but they are in the minority in 2012. The issue that the majority of Republicans have with Obama is his liberal viewpoint and his failed policies.

Actually, racists are in the majority. Just saying:

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to express outright racial prejudice, 79 percent to 32 percent.

http://www.slate.com...nst_blacks.html

I agree the election isn't ONLY about race. It is a factor though. You can't really ignore how white the republican party is compared to the massive non-white support the democratic party can count on.

Edited October 31, 201213 yr by Jingthing

...

Did any of you ever stop and think perhaps canned goods were all many of the attendees at the rally could afford. The had a few extra cans of tuna fish, baked beans, etc, but after four years of Obama lowering their take home pay, they had little cash. Americans are traditionally the most generous people in the world. They gave what they could. Quit trying to bash the donors and the Romney campaign for trying to help out.

...

I will bash if the bashing is deserved. And for a man who supported trashing the federal nature of FEMA, send it's functions to the states, even privatize its functions (that is outrageous), who picked a VP whose bright Ayn Randian idea is fixed amount block grants to the states for FEMA functions representing massive cuts in potential aid, yes my opinion is that severe criticism is deserved.

As far as the staged donation show, now it is coming out (of course) it was all about the photo op (the same as Ryan's disaster at the soup kitchen) and the Romney campaign was worried there wouldn't be enough "stuff" to show a truck being loaded. So what these devious BS artists did was go to Walmart and buy a bunch of stuff, then they gifted people in the crowded, who then play acted giving the stuff for the truck loading. Obama is president. Romney is staging a low budget movie.

The bloom is off the Romnesian rose, right on time to pretty much insure the defeat of this PHONY man who still doesn't show his true self (whatever it is, who knows?) to the voters.

Edited October 31, 201213 yr by Jingthing

On Fox vs. MSNBC, yes both are clearly biased, but Fox takes the bias to an almost unbelievable extreme that MSNBC does not.

You mean like unbelievable extremes of bias like when Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that Obama gave him chills running up and down his leg and that it was his duty to get Obama elected?

This is pointless doing a point by point. I watch both widely and the overall impression there is no comparison. Fox is by far much more extreme, much more constantly and consistently. Anyway, it's hard to be scientific about such things, so let's just say it's a matter of subjective opinion and that is my opinion.

Just curious, do you even think it is bias for a journalist to claim that a certain candidate gives him a chill running up and down his leg and that it is his job as a journalist to see to it that candidate is elected? I would guess you don't if you think Fox is more extreme than MSNBC.

Let's keep the subject matter about the issues and candidates, not the posters here, shall we? Cheers.

I don't know if Fox have a lesbian on speed like Rachel Maddow, I doubt it, they aren't hot on the gay thing, are they?

Sheppard Smith.

As I expected, a lot is coming out about Chris Christie's bold moves.

Is Chris Christie throwing Mitt Romney under the bus?

When Christie was asked Tuesday on Fox News whether Romney might make a similar appearance, a frustrated Christie veered from the GOP script:

I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.

http://theweek.com/a...ney-under-a-bus

Just for fun, here's the rest of Christie's quote to put it in context. The man was right to say what he said...

I've got a job to do here in New Jersey that's much bigger than presidential politics and I could care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. I've got 2.4 million people out of power. I've got devastation on the shore. I've got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a dam_n about presidential politics then you don't know me.

I don't know if Fox have a lesbian on speed like Rachel Maddow, I doubt it, they aren't hot on the gay thing, are they?

Sheppard Smith.

Their more typical representative is Mike Huckabee, the man behind Chick-Fil-a (anti-gay) Appreciation Day.

Let's keep the subject matter about the issues and candidates, not the posters here, shall we? Cheers.

You posted an opinion and it is perfectly all right to discuss opinions including how they are formed.

I don't know if Fox have a lesbian on speed like Rachel Maddow, I doubt it, they aren't hot on the gay thing, are they?

Sheppard Smith.

Their more typical representative is Mike Huckabee, the man behind Chick-Fil-a (anti-gay) Appreciation Day.

Chik-Fil-a is a FANTASTIC chicken sandwich! Too bad they don't have those in Thailand.

I am not buying that spin.

The Salvation Army is a right wing evangelical Christian organization.

I think that depends on where you live. It's interesting to contrast the websites of the US and UK branches of the Salvation Army which actually started in London. I'm not much in favour of organised religion but Sally's Army in the UK are the absolute business. Whenever there's a disaster they're up front and centre - usually with a big urn of tea.

Well two things one Bobby Kennedy was not the president for a president to show favoritism towards the colored population would bring out a whole raft of closet bigots.

Fact number two that was a whole lot different America in those days. Why didn't you go all the way back to Lincoln

Actually as far as black peoples (also other minorities of course as well) over-representation in America's underclass, and most tragically it's prison population, America is really not all that different than it was in the days of RFK (who probably would have been president if not assassinated). Probably even worse on the prison front. I was responding to the entire article not just the snippet. We're only allowed to quote snippets rather than entire articles. Perhaps the more key point is "the look" that was described about RFK and what that intensity of FEELING in a leader has the potential to communicate to the public. You can't fake that or hopefully you can't. I wouldn't want Obama to fake it. I don't think he has it in him. It's not only about black people, it's about passion for a mission to address severe poverty and inequality. I never really felt that from Obama, though of course his ideology and policies are much more favorable for the underclass than the republicans. But the RESULTS are not very stellar and I wonder if a leader with real passion for those issues could do better.

Maybe the days of that kind of liberalism are over, for good, but when these horrible systematic injustices still exist, I don't think they SHOULD be over.

You do know that RFK worked closely with McCarthy chasing down Communists in the gov't? Some people would say a lot of injustice was done then.

No I did not know that. I do know that there was a lot of people hurt by McCarthy's paranoiac crusade.

So much sound and fury yet so little content. You folks have been busy while I was out for dinner and now you are disturbing my "Dog Whisperer" segment. I'll be brief and am not going to look up links. Google is your friend but not mine tonight.

Romney's donation rally had a large banner in front of the speaker's stand for the Red Cross giving their telephone number and the fact they were requesting cash or blood only.

Did any of you ever stop and think perhaps canned goods were all many of the attendees at the rally could afford. The had a few extra cans of tuna fish, baked beans, etc, but after four years of Obama lowering their take home pay, they had little cash. Americans are traditionally the most generous people in the world. They gave what they could. Quit trying to bash the donors and the Romney campaign for trying to help out.

Obama has done something concerning the hurricane that he should have been doing for the past four years. Stop campaigning, stay in the Oval office and get out of the way and let the experts do their jobs. Micro managing doesn't work well when one is the most powerful politician in the known world.

Obamacare is going to turn into a massive drain on the economy. The bill was 2,000 pages long and NOT ONE member of Congress read it before they voted on it. January 1, 2013 will usher in the largest tax increase in our (I can say "our" since I'm a Yank) history when many of those new taxes take effect, and the great thing about the bill is the government collects 10 years of various taxes to pay for 6 years of service. What happens to health care after the six years of government cost eats up the 10 years of government income. Anybody thought that one through? The CBO has now raised their original estimate that Obamacare will lose $800 Billion by 2020 to the new estimate of $1.5 Trillion.

Somebody asked earlier why Clinton was campaigning for Obama. For Heaven's sake, look at the man's past history. He has never really liked Obama and, if Hillary wasn't interested to become the first husband-wife tag team in the White House, Bill would cut and run to his new found lady friends. He knows if Romney gets elected and does anything at all to get jobs and get some sort of control on government spending, unlike Obama, he will be reelected and serve 8 years. Obama can only serve 4 more years so Hillary can run for the Dems in 2016 and will likely win. She will be too old in 2020. Viola, Clinton swings for Obama.

As far as Fox News and MSNBC is concerned, I don't get either one and haven't for nearly four years now. I do keep up with all the news reports through the Drudge Report. I get CNN International (in the tank for Obama) and BBC (in the tank for Obama). All you inquiring minds out there have to do is get on YouTube and watch some of the newscasts from MSNBC and Fox. Go in with an open mind and discover for yourself which set of anchors you find the most aggressive and disgusting with their venom directed at the other side. One thing to watch is the makeup of their panel discussions. The Democrats will normally outnumber the Republicans by 3-1 when you count the anchor. Do a little analysis and see for yourself.

Now for all you apologists that keep saying everybody that is voting against Obama is really a racist. You need to get real. Most of the civilized world knows Obama was never qualified to assume the office he currently holds and the OJT program he has been on for four years bears out that opinion. It isn't racism that will take him down...it is his record during the past four years. It isn't exactly something he has been running on after all. All he has been doing is saying how hard his job is and how little time he has had to fix 'er up. He's been begging for another term and he doesn't deserve it.

As I said over four years ago...Obama is nothing more than a sleazy politician from the sewers of Chicago politics.

If you non-Americans don't understand Chicago politics, Google is your friend.

Now, back to the Dog Whisperer.

Usual Republican dream world.

They forget that the country was in decent shape until they took over. To hear them tell it you would think that Bush had turned over the garden of Eden to Obama. What they did turn over was far from that two win less wars a world wide economy melt down that effected all countries. It was not just the States that was in trouble it was a world wide problem and no one country was going to get out of it alone.

Obama made promises he did not keep. Does any one who knows any thing about politics think McKane would have kept all his? Of course not. They both made promises they meant to keep but in practice were not workable.

The Republicans spent eight years getting the country into the position it was in when they handed it over to Obama and now they are whining that in four years he has not turned it into a garden of Eden.

When you walk in to the oval office cold turkey you find out you do not have the abilities you thought you would have. There is a beurocosie to deal with that can just about tie your hands. You have to deal with politicians who don't care what happens to the country just as long a they stay in their office with all the perks that go with it. Also there are the political party who only care about money. If people die that is OK with them.

Nonsense. MSNBC is much more biased than Fox News. Fox News has lots of programming that is not biased at all including 8 hours of hard news during the daytime. MSNBC is pretty much non-stop propoganda.

Balderdash! In the evening MSNBC does have shows such as the Maddow show, which do not attempt to hide the host's political biases. These shows are blatantly opinion shows and are not pretending to present the "news" but are an opinioned response to the news of the day. During the day the regular news casts are fairly middle of the road with the same heavy dose of corporate bias as seen on ABC, NBC, and CBS. Fox is the brainchild of Murdoch and is used exclusively as vehicle for Republican Party propaganda, directed by Ailes and Rove. That is why each day you hear all of the various "news providers" repeating the exact same phrase, which of course feeds the deconstructive humor of Jon Stewart as well as the reconstructive satire of Colbert. There is little hard news to be found on FOX during any 24 hour period that is not accompanied by extreme right wing political spin.

As for the issue of healthcare, there is clearly no better indicator that the issue that Republicans have with Obama is that he is a black man sitting as their president. What they call Obamacare comes from Romneycare which was derived from a plan written by the Republican based Heritage Foundation to force people to purchase insurance from the private sector. So the Republicans now vilify their own plan. Trust me, if it was a Republican promoting this same plan, they would be 100% behind this plan they now vilify. The only explanation for this lunacy is that the GOP is united to prevent the Black man in the White House from doing anything. For the ultra conservative core of the Republican Party, the issue has always been about race. And with the help of 24 hour propaganda from FOX news they have also brought on board other conservatives whose issues may not have been based upon the color of Obama's skin. Note how skillfully the GOP has shut down the voice of the extremists in their faux grass roots tea party during the campaign in order to bring on board the slightly more moderate conservatives and making sure to confine the fringe views of Paul Ryan to small venues in the south. But take note of the extreme hostility of the conservatives over Obamacare, their very own plan, and then try to explain the venomous response to anything other that overt racism. One of Obama's weaknesses is that growing up in a biracial family in Hawaii, going to Harvard, living in NYC and Chicago surrounded by Democrat activists he never really encountered any of the old extreme racist attitudes found in Dixie and to a only slightly lesser extent in the Midwest and did not know how to recognize it or know how to respond but instead lived in a fantasy world where he imagined he could compromise with it. But of course their is no more room for compromise here than between the Pope and the Grand Mufti over religious issues.

I occasionally will watch the fox news. It is not bad for entertainment. For news well that is another thing. Not sure if they know what news is.

Had to laugh at them. I have been thinking for quite a while about getting a e-reader. They had their expert on technology doing a review on readers. This was shortly after the new Nook (spelling bad) came out. He said in his opinion it was the best deal. Now I am not saying he was right or wrong. How ever two weeks later I turned it on and it was a rerun. I would have thought a real news channel would not run the same rerun for weeks.

There was some talk here earlier about Bobby Kennedy. The one thing he said that I will always remember was

With great wealth comes great responsibility.

It applies to any thing that a person has great wealth in. I wish we had poltins of that caliber today.

Fox News international as shown in Thailand is not the same as Fox News USA version. There is lots of repeat fluff in the non-U.S. version. Mark the date. I'm defending Fox News.

Edited October 31, 201213 yr by Jingthing

Fox News international as shown in Thailand is not the same as Fox News USA version. There is lots of repeat fluff in the non-U.S. version. Mark the date. I'm defending Fox News.

Ditto with the BBC. BBC World is a disgrace. The Beeb ought to be ashamed to have their name on it.

Just a few more days and it will be over! That's a good thing, yes? Something we can agree on perhaps.

Edited October 31, 201213 yr by Jingthing

Fox is by far much more extreme, much more constantly and consistently.

Nonsense. MSNBC is much more biased than Fox News. Fox News has lots of programming that is not biased at all including 8 hours of hard news during the daytime. MSNBC is pretty much non-stop propoganda.

I am certainly with you on this. Faux news is not biased and it is not meant to be since it is just a religious right propaganda machine. It would be like accusing the Catholic church of being a religious body.

I still think Christie has gone rogue and can't be controlled anymore. He may win re-election in N.J., but the only Presidential administration he'll be sitting in will be Hilary Clinton's.

You might be surprised. The big middle of America loves the straight talk of Christie. Romney is going to lose and after that the republican party will go through a lot of soul searching (generously assuming they might have a soul) and someone like Christie might be just what the spin doctor ordered.

It's not unusual for some Republican leaders to wax conscientious and a tad compassionate (and maybe even trust in real science!), and cross the aisle to the other side. Colin Powell comes to mind.

.....speaking of presidential material: did you see Michelle Obama's speech at the Dem convention? Probably won't happen, but it would be exciting (for me) to see her running for top spot after her husband's 2nd term.

Conservatives would go blotto, just contemplating 16 years of Obamas in the White House

They'd have to double up on their scotch and martinis.

Edited October 31, 201213 yr by maidu

Which one is holding the blank, unsigned check. Who is the paymaster in this picture.

Obama or Christie?

...upload failed

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by keemapoot

There was some talk here earlier about Bobby Kennedy. The one thing he said that I will always remember was

With great wealth comes great responsibility.

It applies to any thing that a person has great wealth in. I wish we had poltins of that caliber today.

I'm (mostly) a fan of RFK and I tend to believe that even beyond the obvious political posing he came to have a genuine social conscience, and that as ruthless and elitist as his clan is/was, they had some belief -- as FDR, another POTUS from a very rich and elite family, did -- and taught their kids to believe in Noblesse Oblige. So I think RFK may have held it to be true "with great wealth comes great responsibility", but when did he say it? I'd be sort of surprised if he publicly made reference to his great wealth (not that it was a secret of course but it's not the sort of thing a politician would typically address directly) and I can't recall any speech where he did. But if you remember it, I'd like to read it in context and maybe you can help me find it (I can't see it anywhere).

You know who HAS said that? Bill Gates. But it's a pretty standard cliche.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I still think Christie has gone rogue and can't be controlled anymore. He may win re-election in N.J., but the only Presidential administration he'll be sitting in will be Hilary Clinton's.

You might be surprised. The big middle of America loves the straight talk of Christie. Romney is going to lose and after that the republican party will go through a lot of soul searching (generously assuming they might have a soul) and someone like Christie might be just what the spin doctor ordered.

It's not unusual for some Republican leaders to wax conscientious and a tad compassionate (and maybe even trust in real science!), and cross the aisle to the other side. Colin Powell comes to mind.

.....speaking of presidential material: did you see Michelle Obama's speech at the Dem convention? Probably won't happen, but it would be exciting (for me) to see her running for top spot after her husband's 2nd term.

Conservatives would go blotto, just contemplating 16 years of Obamas in the White House

They'd have to double up on their scotch and martinis.

I thought Mrs. Obama's delivery of her speech was incredibly masterful. Blew me away.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

There was some talk here earlier about Bobby Kennedy. The one thing he said that I will always remember was

With great wealth comes great responsibility.

It applies to any thing that a person has great wealth in. I wish we had poltins of that caliber today.

Oh please. Bobby Kennedy was a an arrogant bully with limited integrity. This is the guy that was counsel for his father's buddy Joe McCarthy. Remember witch hunting Joe accusing everyone of being a commie? Bobby has been repackaged from a conservative into a caring liberal. The fact of the matter is that the Kennedys had more in common with many in today's GOP and the only reason why they were not promminent Republicans is the historical prejudice in Boston that precluded Irish catholics from rising in the GOP. The Boston Brahmin ruling class were protestant. The Kennedys and the Romneys, although very similar, will never ever be in the same party because of this historical aspect.

In fairness to Romney, his father was not a nazi sympathizer and his father didn't associate with orgnized crime, nor are there allegations of bootlegging. The director of the FBI wouldn't be able to threaten Romney if he was President because Romney is not a womanizer, nor a known associate of the criminal element. I also doubt that Romney would reach out to the Mafia to put a hit on a foreign leader.

Sorry, but as much as I dislike Romney, he has more integrity than the combined Kennedy clan.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by geriatrickid

I have been thinking for quite a while about getting a e-reader. They had their expert on technology doing a review on readers. This was shortly after the new Nook (spelling bad) came out. He said in his opinion it was the best deal. Now I am not saying he was right or wrong. How ever two weeks later I turned it on and it was a rerun. I would have thought a real news channel would not run the same rerun for weeks.

That is not part of the news. It is old clips that they run to fill in for commercial breaks on cable networks that do not advertise - like WETV in Chiang Mai. I am really tired of the one with the "Tiger Mom" and hope it goes out of rotation soon.