Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Freedom from the press?




(9 votes) (report abuse)
|
it'll be eight
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (8 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
I don't think it is a lack of respect for his opponents, I think it is a lack of respect for the most dishonorable of his opponents. I do not recall a President in my life who could fairly articulate the reasoning of his opponents. That is, of course, only where there is reasoning by his opponents. The "socialist" "kenyan" "communist", "nazi" attacks on Obama are not made by people with honor. Obama will win another term. He's dealing with the issues. Things take time, they are never perfect. If you want to hold him to such impossibly high standards, that is fine. Governing a people and country like the USA, with 300 million people and a balance of powers is difficult. Most people know that. He is governing from the center. You may be way to fringy to see it, but he isn't an ideologue. You can try to convince people he is because you believe it so much, but I don't believe the center of this country is going to buy that narrative. Your liberal media bias claim is bunk. |
|
|
RE: it'll be eight
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (7 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Does the word reality mean anything to you? It will be 4 or less. | ||
|
4 or less?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Could you please elaborate? Are you one of the wishful thinkers who believes the President should be impeached? |
||
|
RE: it'll be eight
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Belgrade, The viewership of all of the major news networks, with the exception of Fox News are down. The readership of the major newspapers (known for their liberal bent) are down. Why then do you think the viewers are turning away from the media? You say, "I don't think it is a lack of respect for his opponents, I think it is a lack of respect for the most dishonorable of his opponents." I am talking about people who once supported Obama. People who once watched the major networks and read the newspapers(which we can agree are more liberal than conservative). I am not really talking about his opponents but people who no longer approve of him but once did. You say, "The "socialist" "kenyan" "communist", "nazi" attacks on Obama are not made by people with honor." Agreed, but neither are the people who attacked Bush or anyone in his administration. Shouts of "Hate Bush" took place before he even took office. If my media bias is junk, then FOX news is fair and balanced. Peace |
||
|
RE: it'll be eight
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
People are turning away from traditional news networks. Fox is turning away from actually providing news. I think it is obvious people who watch fox want to hear their own opinions confirmed. Fox is actively and obviously promoting an agenda. That is simply not the case with the other networks. I don't agree about newspapers either, I believe in 04 more editorials support Bush over Kerry (written by the editors). The nice thing for you about watching fox is that your opinion is not challenged by real, in context information. So, no, I don't agree with you. There were a few over the top attacks on Bush, I agree. However, of the criticism that I heard by people in responsible positions, many of the criticisms were based on coherent, factual arguments. The "Bush knew about 9/11" was a baseless and over-the-top attack. But seriously, those arguments were made by fringe people, they did not get air time, they did not get serious discussion, they did not get repeated by Democratic officials. Most criticisms of Bush and his administration were about specific policies and behaviors that had a serious arguments behind them. Iraq War, deficit spending, patriot act, torture... Recall too, that Bush had a 90% approval rate because liberals and left leaning people supported this country and its leadership during an emergency. And for quite awhile after 9/11, you heard barely any criticism of Bush. It was after 9/11, after deficits jumped up dramatically, after the Federal Government made a big move into invading our privacy, that you started hearing disagreements with policy. All of that is fine and expected. Many liberals are unhappy with Obama's moderate stance, they make arguments why he should be more in line with their policies. From what I have seen, they are often valid arguments. I often don't agree with them, but I respect the basis upon which they make their claims. But from the right wing, it is just baseless attack after baseless, over the top attack. While there is some valid criticism, it gets lost in the forest of "Obama bowed too low", or "he's another Hitler/Mao/Stalin".... |
||
|
Freedom from the Press?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (9 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
As usuall, LD'S analysis is spot on,just my opinion ,of course but watching and reading the mainstream sources makes me want to put on the hip waders. I for one cannot stomach most of the media simply because they no longer report the news but instead insert their own spin. This includes Fox News,so the question is where do we go to get information about the world outside our own sphere? Oh, as an aside ,belgadepsc, do you really belive BO governs from the center? If so you might want to take a look at your meds cuz I suspect somthin is outta kilter.Cheers |
|
|
RE: Freedom from the Press?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (4 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
I am not sure where LD is going with this. "Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away. “ Wrench, you disagree with any of that? It seems pretty spot on to me. Again, I have no idea what the point is behind LDs post, it makes little sense to me. I also believe that Obama is trying to Govern from a slight left of Center direction. His proposals are NOT as far left as you or others would have anyone believe. Maybe it is time to examine where you stand within the political spectrum. |
||
|
Good analysis LD
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (9 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| Obama is an elitist and he will never get it, when people of varying opinions confront his idealogy he has to analyze it and them and put his foes into a box of lesser species. His state of the union speech was condescending and un-american he confirmed his lack of experience and knowledge of the way the world works. Obama has one goal, to continue socialize the the USA. | |
|
RE: Good analysis LD
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (6 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Thanks Sinbad, I guess ROL cannot understand comparative analysis. Neither ROL or Belgrade seem to remember that the Democrats controlled congress in Bush's last term. They seem to forget the regulation nightmares of Dodd and Frank. They seem to forget that Obama voted for the financial bailouts put forth by the Bush administration. They seem to forget 9/11. They seem to forget that Clinton cut the military to the bone and Bush needed to spend $$$ to get it back to par. They seem to forget that it was fine for Clinton to bomb Iraq for 75 days straight in operation blue dress. They seem to forget that Clinton started war in Serbia to stop a "might be another Nazi." Yet have a problem with Bush going after a brutal leader in Iraq that killed over 300,000 Kurds and was attempting to commit genocide against them. Yes they call us names, roll their eyes and question our intellect. I pity them, for that it seems is all they have. Peace |
||
|
RE: Good analysis LD
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (6 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Your comparative analysis isn't really a comparative analysis, and is all over the place and much of it is wrong. Comparative Analysis:Item by item comparison of two or more comparable alternatives, processes, products, qualifications, sets of data, systems, etc. Neither ROL or Belgrade seem to remember that the Democrats controlled congress in Bush's last term. (for 2 years of Bush's last term, and actually only 18 months) They seem to forget the regulation nightmares of Dodd and Frank. (Nope, Frank should go, Dodd is already leaving). They seem to forget that Obama voted for the financial bailouts put forth by the Bush administration. (how does this apply? The bailouts were a strategic plan to avoid a depression, maybe a depression is more palatable for you. At least you are honest enough to avoid blaming Obama for the TARP program, sort of. But if Obama gets the blame, he should also share the credit. We have thus far avoided a financial catastrophe. The jury is out as to whether or not that continues) They seem to forget 9/11. (what?) They seem to forget that Clinton cut the military to the bone and Bush needed to spend $$$ to get it back to par. (Guess again, I have repeatedly cited links that disprove this particular claim yet here it is again) They seem to forget that it was fine for Clinton to bomb Iraq for 75 days straight in operation blue dress. They seem to forget that Clinton started war in Serbia to stop a "might be another Nazi." Yet have a problem with Bush going after a brutal leader in Iraq that killed over 300,000 Kurds and was attempting to commit genocide against them. The rest doesn't even warrant a response, but you seem to want to get worked up so have at it. The President has had a good week. His SOTU speech was pretty good, his appearance before the GOP was even better. LD is worked up because of those facts and nothing else. LD would prefer that Obama fails, even if the country goes down the toilet to make that a reality. Unless I am missing something, no one has called anyone any names here and no one has questioned anyone's intellect or lack. However, if you wish for some good old down home name calling. You..... are funny. Peace. |
||
|
here's the thing...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (6 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
When seeing conservatives complain about liberals, one just has to keep in mind. GW Bush was the elected choice of conservatives with no doubt, the next coming of Reagan. His Presidency resulted in a massive deficit, economic collapse and the single biggest attack on American soil and of course, policies limiting personal freedoms. So to give you some perspective. Conservatives complaining about how Obama is governing, is like a guy going on an all night drinking binge, trashing the apartment, then criticizing how his roommate cleans up his mess. And that is very real. |
|
|
RE: here's the thing...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
A waste of time Bel The deep thinkers here have their minds made up. No amount of reason, facts or truth will dent that. Laugh at their silliness. Roll your eyes at their delusions. But don't try to appeal to their intellect. It is a waste of time. |
||
|
RE: here's the thing...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (6 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
You may be surprised at how many "conservatives" disagree with Bush policies. Truth is "liberals" want more government while everyone else wants reduced government. Opportunities have been shipped outside our borders i.e. NAFTA etc. Compare what we export to what we import and one begins to clearly understand that at one time our government served capitol now our capitol serves government. The deindustrialization of the USA leaves little room for real lasting opportunity and consequently and this leads to a dependency on government rather than creative initiative. We sold our soul to the devil when we elected Obama, his idea of hope and change is bigger government, he views himself as a modern day Robin Hood, steal from the rich and give to the poor. He does not understand that limiting opportunity outside of government reduces the tax base, but he does understand that limiting opportunity creates greater dependency on government therefore government grows and our culture gets socialized. |
||
|
RE: here's the thing...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
I agree with parts of your first 2 paragraphs. But; This country is not divided neatly between Liberals and Conservatives. Some liberals do want larger gov. Some would like less gov. Some Conservatives would like a small Gov. others want the Gov. to intrude into many portions of our otherwise private lives. "We sold our soul to the devil when we elected Obama, his idea of hope and change is bigger government, he views himself as a modern day Robin Hood, steal from the rich and give to the poor." Sorry, we will have to disagree here. We have some pretty large deficits this morning. The must be paid. The only $$$ that the President is proposing that he "steal" from the rich is money that was given to them in the form of an unfunded tax cut. That present was given by his predecessor. "He does not understand that limiting opportunity outside of government reduces the tax base, but he does understand that limiting opportunity creates greater dependency on government therefore government grows and our culture gets socialized." Again, sorry. I don't think the President is seeking a nation in which all of us work for the state. Peace |
||
|
Bush is apparently still in office. 9 years and counting...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Belgrade, You say, "If you want to hold him to such impossibly high standards, that is fine. Governing a people and country like the USA, with 300 million people and a balance of powers is difficult. Most people know that." Hey, Obama made the promises he is not keeping. He set the standards, not me. I made the prediction that the buck would stop at Bush's dust covered desk, it appears even the dollar has dust upon it. Charlie Rose a good interviewer? Now that's funny. Peace |
||
|
RE: here's the thing...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Conservatives either supported Bush's policies or they were deafening in their silence. With very few exceptions among conservatives I know, and among conservatives in office, and in the letters to the editor and the forums online. Bush and nearly the entire national Republican elected officials enacted the policies. It is rewriting history to state otherwise. | ||
|
RE: here's the thing...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Yes, Rose is a good interviewer. One of the best I have seen. The only qualification that he doesn't have, that perhaps is the only qualification you care about, is that he isn't a reflexively far right wingnut with an agenda to spin an interview to his narrative. I'm guessing your standards are only impossibly high whenever anyone doesn't agree with your alternative reality. |
||
|
AND THE PROBLEM IS?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
BIG- Big government, the federal gov. is expected to grow by 2.15 million employees in 2010. BIG- Big issues, why are there so many big issues? Are we a dysfunctional society? Are our illustrious leaders stupid? They are unable to run an economy, they cannot seem to get by without a war somwhere, since 1898 we have been at war,declared or not (mostly not)with someone somewhere. While the ole bait and switch works like a charm for the two parties, its not so good for America. BIG- Big Lie, Obama has around 40 lobbyists or insiders in his czar chamber, and other positions in his administration. So if he sees that as a problem, he has chosen to ignore it. BIG- Big crisis coming, and yes it will be to big to waste, the alarm is going off, time to WAKE up! |
|
|
RE: AND THE PROBLEM IS?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (4 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Please read more carefully and understand before you post. "BIG- Big government, the federal gov. is expected to grow by 2.15 million employees in 2010." NO! The Federal gov. will grow by 153,000 this year and will reach 2.15 million. It will not grow by 2.15 million. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/03/federal-governmen |
||
|
RE: AND THE PROBLEM IS?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Ooooh someone has a problem with it when you point out their trouble with facts. Pretty funny! |
||
|
Perhaps not the forum for this, but some perspective
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Hank Paulson was interviewed on Charlie Rose last night. CR is about the best interviewer I have seen. Hank Paulson was the Secretary of the Treasury during the "Bailouts" and the financial emergency that occurred in the last few months of the Bush Administration. No one who is familiar with Paulson seriously claims that he is anything short of an avowed capitalist. During the interview, and in his book and various other appearances, Paulson describes the events surrounding the sudden and necessary push for the bailouts, despite being opposed on ideological grounds. There was a serious need for the Federal Government to do something bold and decisive at that time. It is fine to object to the bailouts, or the way they were handled, etc... but in times of an emergency, bold and decisive leadership is often better than partisan posturing, ideological purity, or equivocating. I think everyone agrees that we should have never gotten to that point, and our system did little to prevent something like that happening. The alternative of not doing anything, though, had major, significant repercussions for the entire country. If there was a better alternative, let's hear it. But simply doing nothing was not an option, the American economy is in large part based on confidence in the American market. It is a good interview, anyone who opposed the bailouts should watch it, not to change their mind, but to give some more perspective on how and why things were done the way they were. Ideological purity is a fine discussion topic, but it never works well in the real world. There is simply way too much grey area where ideological purity can easily lead to disastrous results. |
|
|
RE: Perhaps not the forum for this, but some perspective
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs — the investment firm that received an estimated $12.9 billion from the AIG bailout. That makes me suspicious of a conflict of interest and that it might possibly have been a factor in the course he chose. | ||
|
RE: Perhaps not the forum for this, but some perspective
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
A fair point G. When I have time I will watch that CR interview, but Volker, Paulson, Bernake... They are all suspicious to me. |
||
|
RE: Perhaps not the forum for this, but some perspective
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
I agree gixa. There is certainly a lot of suspicion on my part as well. This is the second interview I have seen with him, the first one didn't impress me, the second one I thought my first impressions may have been of his style of talking that made me question him more. Here is the trouble with his GS connection. When picking someone for Treasury, anybody interested in the job, who has the connections and qualifications are almost always going to come from the financial industry or an industry that is considerably affected by Treasury policy. The impending AIG collapse would have severely affected many industries, including GS. Obviously, that was close to him and how much that affected his decision making is hard to gauge, certainly some room for suspicion. But he works in the financial sector of the economy, this was a vastly serious problem, and it was happening under his watch, I can see the reasoning behind a sudden need for government involvement. |
||
|
RE: Perhaps not the forum for this, but some perspective
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Just to state as well, I am not absolving Paulson of blame, or totally sure his decisions were based on sound reasoning, I'm just saying, he was in a hell of a bind, and I'm not sure what I would have done different under that circumstance. I agree of your first two suspicions, with the exception of Bernanke. I have an impression earlier of thinking he turned out to be the right man for the job. I can't recall what the criticism is on him, but that was the feeling I've been left with |
||
|
A link
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1431 | |
|
RE: A link
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
that is from 2004, here is last night's interview http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10842 Sorry, I could have included the link. Didn't think anyone actually might be interested. It is an hour. |
||
|
ROL, LOL funny.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
ROL, You post, 15 hours ago in 'RE: here's the thing...' "Laugh at their silliness. Roll your eyes at their delusions." Your post 7 hours ago in response to 'RE: Good Analysis LD', "Unless I am missing something, no one has called anyone any names here and no one has questioned anyone's intellect or lack." Seems your powers of observation escape even you. Peace |
|
|
RE: ROL, LOL funny.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Mighty thin skin you have LD. Again I roll my eyes, laugh at your silliness and say... you sure are funny. "I guess ROL cannot understand comparative analysis." That is not calling into question a persons intellect? Very very funny! Peace |
||
|
The sooner the election the better
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Some of us didn't vote for Obama the first time and certainly won't vote for him next time. |
|
|
The peoples singular voice of the collective intellect.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (6 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Belgrade, Public broadcast anything is just part of the liberal indoctrinated system. Get out of the box. National Public Radio-liberal propagandists for the emerging fascist, socialist regime. Red ants! Peace |
|
|
RE: The peoples singular voice of the collective intellect.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (6 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| And with that post, you prove my point. 80% of anti Obamaism is completely unfounded and based in a narrative divorced from reality. | ||
|
RE: The peoples singular voice of the collective intellect.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Ever taste ants? Kind of lemony. LD you are a crack up. Nothing left to write, sitting in the corner muttering to yourself. Very funny. |
||
|
It was in the dim corner of the house where he learned the mouse could speak.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
ROL With what you have written above it seems that it is you that has nothing left to write. At least reach for some form of creativity in your name calling. Let me see if there is something beyond the average, the mundane. People who call names often are simply reflecting what they think of themselves. Peace |
|
|
Name calling?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
You continue to amuse with your false indignities. "People who call names often are simply reflecting what they think of themselves." Hilarious coming from the chief name caller. Is it calling names to call someone a name caller? |
|
|
RE: Name calling?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
ROL, There seems to be a small glimmer of hope that you are beginning to understand the concept of blind hypocrisy. Peace |
||
|
RE: Name calling?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
"There seems to be a small glimmer of hope that you are beginning to understand the concept of blind hypocrisy." Your demonstrations of Blind Hypocrisy are enough to illuminate the concept to everyone. Thanks for that. |
||