A forum for comments about Naperville news and issues.

Does the tone of politics turn you off?

| 384 Comments | No TrackBacks

I was never really into politics until I got to college, where my spiritual and moral beliefs started to take shape as I learned more about the world and my place in it. As a traditional Catholic with strong pro-life beliefs, I was attracted to the Republican Party, and the 2000 election took on utmost importance in my life.

I remember watching the returns on Election Night, and the overwhelming sense of disappointment I felt when the cable news networks pronounced Al Gore as the winner in Florida. Then the elation I felt later that night when they reversed the call and gave the win to George W. Bush. Of course, even later that night they reversed the call again, saying it was too close to call. You know what happened next, as the recounts and court fights stretched into weeks and we all just wanted it to be over. I was firmly convinced Bush had won and I was really starting to hate Al Gore and his supporters for not conceding and for drawing the whole thing out.

Of course, Bush was eventually named the president, but some people could never let it go and never missed an opportunity to question his legitimacy. Then the war in Iraq started, and as time went on it started to become more and more unpopular, with widespread protests and criticism. But for many, it went way beyond simple criticism. Bush was an utter moron, many said. Or he and Vice President Dick Cheney were part of a diabolical scheme to help their friends in the oil industry. They were actually behind the Sept. 11 attacks. They lied. They should be immediately impeached.

At first, I would argue with these people, trying to point out how absurd many of these charges were, but arguing did no good because these people were just unreasonable. They knew how things were and there was nothing you could do to change their mind. It's not that I didn't think Bush had his faults, because I did, but these arguments were so over the top it just became ridiculous. Eventually I just became turned off by the whole situation and started to tune out of politics.

Then came Obama's presidency. I didn't vote for him, but seeing how happy everyone seemed to be on election night, I thought this would be a good thing for the country. Give him a chance to try out his ideas and see if he could fix some of these problems in the country.

But instead, politican debate is dominated by the same irrational distractions, only coming from the other side. People were saying Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy the country. He wasn't even born here and isn't really president. He is a socialist/communist and all his communist friends are trying to take over everything and ruin the country. He's going to take everyone's guns. It's the same crazy ranting that has little connection with reality, but millions of people are caught up in it.

I consider myself middle of the road politically, and I am completely turned off by the country's political climate. While some are foaming at the mouth over the encroaching socialist tide, I just can't make myself care anymore. These ideas seem so divorced from reality that they make the whole process ridiculous. I used to love talking politics, but it's harder and harder to do that now and keep it on an even keel.

Time magazine had a cover story this week on Glenn Beck and the rise of the angry voter. Is this the way American politics are destined to work from now on, with one side firmly convinced the other is the embodiment of evil on earth that must be stopped at all costs? Can we ever go back to the days when there was bipartisan cooperation on serious legislation and the two major parties disagreed but still respected one another at the end of the day? Does this kind of angry, fearful debate make you take more interest in the political process, or turn you off, as it does me?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/6658

384 Comments

I never understood the liberals' issues with Bush on stem cell funding.

Does anyone else remember that A)Bush did not ban stem cell research, just public (ie taxpayer) funding of "new" cells, and B)Bush was the first President to Ok ANY funding for stem cell research? Not Clinton, but Bush.

Yet, Bush got skewered, and the eventual results on adult stem cell research certainly validated at least some of his stance.

Indy,

You're delusional, man!

The libs were all over Bush. The Nazi stuff started before the first election, escalated afterward, and turned into effigies and the whole lot.

Were you sleeping, or what?

Independent:

Coincidence? I know this sounds crazy, but isn't it interesting, don't you find it interesting that when Glen Beck disappears so does Glock? Isn't it time we asked ourselves as a nation WHY THAT IS? (tee hee!)

Here's another tidbit of trivia for Glock when he returns. Seems his exalted leader sued someone for turning the tables on him and lost! The website was a joke all along and done mostly to annoy Beck, which it did. But Beck's "logic" that the website was mocking sounds a lot like Epi--if someone doesn't deny it, then it must be true! So now we know where they get it. Oy vey!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/glenn-beck-loses-claim-ag_n_351458.html


Hey What they ? ..... have you noticed that at the same time Glen Beck disappeared with his appendectomy, Glock stopped posting? You thinking what I'm thinking???? Maybe Glock IS Glen Beck! Or maybe Glen Beck is Glock!!!! lol......... Ok, just kidding of course, but I couldn't help making note of this coincidence!

Ken .... I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never got that feeling with the liberals and Bush. I know many people thought he was an idiot, hated MANY of things he did, be it Iraq or his stance on stem cell research and so on - but I never picked up on the kind of pure hatred I see with Obama. The socialist, Nazi, Marxist comments and such ..... it's just different - and that line is crossed SO often. It seems to me that once that envelope gets pushed just SO far, it does become a pretty short leap for someone to do something very wrong in the name of what they see as patriotism.

That ties in all too closely with the "purist" movement that What The ? was talking about too doesn't it? The lack of acceptance, or even tolerance, of even someone in their OWN party who might have a different point of view .... I see that much the same way What the ? does ...... it's just a tiny step from there to ONLY those like us have rights, ONLY those like us count .....

BUT then, on the upside ..... that test run in New York didn't go so well, and hopefully with time a more moderate viewpoint can prevail .... something conservative maybe laced with a bit of common sense? I would say the same to anyone trying to insist that ONLY a pure Liberal agenda was an acceptable course. There's a time and a place for all of it, but at some point, we have to hope that the rhetoric dies down, and a more grown up approach to differences might take over.

Sadly, I think just as many would stand up and cheer as they did then. Of course, if President Bush had been assassinated, how many liberals would have stood up and cheered? Either way, it's a sad commentary on how low some people have sunk.

Glock:

Just in case you're impatient, here's a better, direct link to the Beck ll/3 project segment without having to view the health care routine that precedes it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-5-2009/the-11-3-project

Just trying to be helpful. :)

Hey, Glock!

If you're reading this, I'm assuming that Glen Beck's Friday show that you said would "exceed my wildest expectations" did not happen due to his appendectomy. This may help alleviate your disappointment. Jon Stewart dedicated his Thursday, 11/5 show to Glen Beck in a parody titled "The 11/3 Project". As Stewart puts it: "I know that what I'm about to say may sound crazy, but isn't it interesting, don't you find it interesting that when we need Beck's post-election analysis the most, doctors said today 'sorry, Glen, you can't go on the air. We have to take out your appendix'. Isn't it time we asked ourselves as a nation why that is?"

My personal favorite of this segment: "This man, this good, hard-working television personality is under siege. His own organs have turned against him, or should I say, HAVE BEEN TURNED against him. The naysayers will say, "oh, Jon, organs don't have thoughts, they can't hatch a plan and get together and execute that plan!

Oh, really? Really?! They can't ORGANIZE?!"

May as well enjoy it, Glock. It's as close as you're going to get to your leader, except in reruns, for awhile!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Independent:

The "purist" movement seems to have really come to the forefront in the last six months or so and appears to be strongly connected to the tea party movement. My impression is the purists believe that as long as the Republican party is rebuilding itself, may as well build a party of people who are truly Republican in every sense and purge the party of the RINOs. To me this sounds like the ideological equivalent of only accepting people with white skin, blue eyes and blond hair; brunettes or moderates need not apply.

The purists butting into the New York 23rd district election is a prime example of their agenda. They considered Dede S. too liberal of a Republican to be a member of the club so they swooped in with a conservative candidate who toed the complete party line, who was actually so extreme right that he had declared Glen Beck his mentor--can you imagine?

The sad thing is Dede had been selected primarily because of her moderate stance. Those who knew the voters in that district, knew what the people of 23 wanted and would vote for in a Republican candidate, was discarded in favor of party purification. Like many Republicans, Dede was against cap and trade, gun control and ending the Bush tax cuts. But unlike many Republicans, she was pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage and had strong ties to organized labor. The purists were having none of that. It is a self-defeating movement, and this election proved that--they were defeated. The fact that Palin was at the head of this debacle, pushing for the purist stance, I think makes her too much of a wing-nut now to be considered for high office and I seriously doubt she will ever get that close again.

And sadly, I see we have another mass shooting in Orlando. Haven't heard much from Michele since yesterday morning, but as soon as the dust settles I'm sure she'll be calling once again for protesters to come out armed and dangerous. She's either not bright enough to make the connection between her irresponsible public remarks and the fact that armed and dangerous is not just a cliche, it really does happen in our society, or as Chris brought to light, she's hoping such statements will flip a switch in some angry, gun-toting nut job's head and she'll get lucky. It only takes one nut with a gun to change history.

Ok Ken, thanks for clearing that up. Palin not being ready to be President is something we can agree on, and that's something. There's a lot more to it with her, and many like her though. It isn't that I disagree with a fiscally conservative view point - that definitely has merit in MANY cases - it is her rhetoric that disturbs me so greatly. It's that shoot from the hip, say anything to win, pander to the lowest common denominator fear mongering she and others practice that, in my opinion, makes her not only not ready, but DANGEROUS in a position of leadership. What worries me most is that it isn't just her, somewhere along the line, a faction of the Republican Party, decided that this was not only ok, it was the way to win - and winning was all that mattered even if you had to sell your soul to do it. I'm not sure exactly when that happened .... I don't remember that being the case when the first Bush ran, and I don't really even think it was that prevalent the first time Bush II ran ..... but there is no doubt that by his second term, it was running in full force, and in the last election, it had a life of it's own! THAT is my biggest problem with people like Palin, Limbaugh, Rove and Cheney - they seem to EMBRACE this and feed the anger and division it creates. I can't really think of anyway to put that accept to repeat the word DANGEROUS!

Anyway, point being, fiscally conservative is a good thing ....... put up a candidate that is fiscally conservative and ethically grounded in reality, and I'll be right there - but I can't in good conscience even consider anything less, and what is being displayed so often by the Republican party right now is so much less!

AND yes too ..... What the ? - I don't know what whole "purist" Republican movement is hoping to achieve at this point either. The only explanation I can consider when looking at a group like that is that there will always be those who are SO INCREDIBLY afraid of anything they don't understand, that they will gather together and throw stones at anyone who isn't just like them. It is self defeating - thank HEAVENS .... because there are still enough people out there who are reasonable enough and thoughtful enough to recognize that a box that small can't possible accommodate enough decency or understanding to thrive.

What the, you may want to clarify your last post. If you really think that comparing the tea party people to a mass murderer is in any way justifiable, you are pretty messed up yourself. I would hope that Rep.Michele Bachmann would be as shocked and dismayed by today's events as any normal person would be. I would say that anyone who makes a statement like you did is not normal. Comparing the fiscal purist conservative movement to Hitler and Lenin shows the same bad judgment.

Independent, although I did not say that I thought the country needs a Republican like Palin, but she's not too far from what we need. She is obviously too inexperienced to hold the job of President, but in all reality not any more so than President Obama. Knock her all you want, but she was a pretty good governor. Seems the liberals complained more about her family than her. What I think the Republicans need to do is convince Newt Gingrich to run for president, but I don't think he has the fight in him that he had in '94. Either way, a true conservative like Palin or Gingrich is not a bad thing to wish for. They seem to be the fiscal purists that need to be put in office.

Yeah What the ? ...... if I were being bussed in to protest something I needed instruction on how to protest, I would definitely demand lunch! What is happening to the standards at tea parties these days!!!! At the very least, they should be serving those little finger sandwiches with their tea bags. Guess the recession is hitting everybody huh?

Wow.

It looks like Michele's tea party thunder was lost to the shootings in Texas; all the attention is there now. Ironic, isn't it, that after all of Michele's armed insurgency talk like how tea partiers need to come "armed and dangerous" and "see the whites of their eyes" that her media event would be upstaged by an actual mass shooting? Bet Michele is really pissed. Seems our extremists need to do a better job of coordinating their events.

Epi:

"You are a “budinski.”

Well, look at that! Another label! Here you are still telling me what I am in one post while denying you do this in another. I think you meant buttinski, tho, not budinski.

Call me whatever you want, but as long as you continue on in this childish manner, I have no interest in talking to you. You may not have any dignity, but I do. Your posts are an embarrassment to you and I am not going to embarrass myself by responding to them. This is the last time I will tell you this.


Wow Epi ...... I thought you were just another hard core Republican blogger who didn't have the finesse to make their point without appearing arrogant- I don't particularly like that style, but to each their own right? Judging by your last rant though, you are so much more - and none of it is worth the time it would take to explain to you how bad you make yourself and your opinions look. To say you are arrogant would be WAY too kind, and an insult to arrogant people everywhere.

Nothing you said to What the .... is worth the effort it takes to type this, so I'll just walk away from your ugliness. Clearly though, you need help .... and in your case, it really isn't a joke.

Independent:

Yes, Glock is definitely what one would count as an angry vote.

The NY-23 special election was interesting. Hopefully it shows that the extreme right and bombastic radio hosts may get a lot of media attention, but when it comes to the serious issues of governing, voters don't want them calling the shots.

I really don't get this whole "purist" movement by some Republicans. It seems self-defeating, especially at this time. In addition, the verbiage sounds creepy. These Reps want to create a sort of Republican Aryan Nation. Hilter wanted "purism", Lenin held "purges". To hear these terms being used by a political party here is unsettling. Whatever happened to the 'big tent of freedom'?

In the meantime, it appears we've got another supposedly grass roots movement at the capitol building today, this one called for by Michele Bachmann, supported by Americans for Prosperity with bus service provided once again by those anonymous donors. Am I the only one that sees the parallel of these protests to the government supported anti-American protests in Iran? The Iranian government called for protesters to come out, told them were to congregate, provided bus service, gave them a free lunch, told them what slogans to shout. The tea partiers are called out by a movement leader, are told where to congregate, provided with bus service, and are given talking points (in the last tea party protest in Washington, they were also given picket signs). The only difference is our tea partiers aren't getting the free lunch. Hey guys, you're getting gyped! Hold out for the lunch next time!

Oh well, at least it's entertaining viewing while I pack away my Halloween decorations.

If you really want to see an example of the ugly side of local politics, read the postings of the person calling themselves CIJ on other threads here. This rumors, insults and innuendos used bolster this person's agenda is unbelievable. It's like listening to the ranting of the most vicious national commentators on both sides of the aisle. No statement is too outrageous to make, no accusation too far fetched to throw down. No tactic is too unethical to utilize.

To: What the? on November 3, 2009 3:55 PM

What the?, please, don’t be so hard on yourself! You did nothing surprising, or insulting. Your agreement with the personal insults from Indee was a given. We are all aware of your hatred for things not gauche, your ignorance of facts, your overwhelming opinions shaped by a left agenda that blinds you to much of the world around you, and, of course, your personal attacks. The newsflash would have been if you didn’t agree! No need to continue down your prickly road, WT. Chilax.

Now, let me shorten & simplify it for the slower among us: You are a “budinski.”

THAT is my complaint on your attempt at cleverness in adding on to Indee’s post. That’s it. It has nothing to do with what you think, or who you like or dislike, or your limited thoughts on arrogance, or any perceived insult you think you may have perpetrated. It doesn’t even have to do with your hubris of ignoring data that does not support your dogma. It is all so much simpler: You butted with your left hand!

You seem to be very, very fixated on my thoughts here, wt?. I have to tell you, it certainly feels like you are doing some sort of stalking on me (and others who, in your imperial mind, don’t comply to your particular pink point of view) Are you a blogger stalker?

You can’t seem to shake the thought that I might display arrogance or that I might deny it Again, I will slow it down for you: everything is relative, and I fully understand I can be arrogant as the next human. No doubt. However, given your lack of ability to accept any facts that don’t add a pink tint to your personal, colorized world, I will also easily say your hubris dwarfs mine by a magnitude. Do you EVER look in a mirror, wt?

As usual, you cannot answer a simple question related to your lack of grasp on facts, so you deflect it toward direct and implied personal insults. How progressive of you! Your lack of grasp on facts (you only see the two of us on this blog? Is that the tunnel vision of a blogger stalker I referred to earlier?) again clouds your ability to answer even the simplest of questions, and in anger you lash out with an insult. How very unexpected of you! As you said, your close-mindedness ignorance is palpable.

I do apologize for being, at times. complex with you. Being well aware of your inability to follow the flow and accept or analyze data,, I should have been more compassionate and been slower and more literal.

I really love the way you dismiss with your biased attacks, then go on to thank me for the actual things (let’s call them data, shall we?) which I provided for you.

Hmmmmm? Get help.

Glock ........ Well, apparently we all know what it meant to YOU! Sadly though, only a ??? how did you put it??? "Marxist Moron" would take it upon himself to decide that anyone else should believe the same thing. I am quite sure you see things the way you do - good for you! Have at it! If it feeds your anger and gives you yet another reason to declare you are smarter than everyone else, that's great - enjoy! It just so happens, I don't agree with you, so don't tell me what I do or don't believe ok?

I have to say, I am worried for you though .... what are you going to do if a health care bill or something along the same lines passes, and the world doesn't come to an end and the country doesn't implode? You'd probably be wise to get to your Dr now and get some sort of sedative just in case ..... I only hope that manic anger can't be held out as a pre-existing condition, because if it can, you probably won't be covered. I'm sure you already had an episode with regard to the Dan Rather episode .... don't you think it might be time to move on from that?

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over which media outlets are or aren't biased. What the has already covered all of that with Ken and Epi etc., and she displayed a lot more tolerance than I ever could. I just have to ask though, were you REALLY trying to say that O'Reily is unbiased? Seriously??????

OH, and Ken? Are you REALLY saying that you think a Republican like Palin is what this country needs or is looking for? I sure hope I read that wrong. I agree with you when you say that the Republican party still has a future, but if they are looking to people like Palin to lead it, it is going to be a good long time before they will see what it looks like.

What is truly funny Independent was George Stephanopoulos on O'Reilly tonight proclaiming losing two state governors to republicans was not about Obama. His attempt to justify his position was hilarious and O'Reilly to his credit was having none of it. However George as disgraced former CBS front man Dan Rather have a standard to bear and if they do anything more than throw a jab at the party their bosses favor, they are replaced. Of course Dan fradulently producing "official" records on Bush to bear the standard left him out in the cold. He couldn't even win his $20MIL suit against CBS. Obama does not enjoy popular support. His popularity is at best 50% and he has exeperienced the biggest loss of electorate support since Hoover and mayber worse. Most people DO NOT believe this country is headed in the right direction. So last night said to traditional democratic candidates that if you let this Obama and his henchmen infect your local races, you at best get a 50% bang for the buck. As time goes on, the economy sours and the cost of government continues to excel, 50% bang is a bust. To sit there and write on this blog you do not really know what last night meant is not true. You know exactly what it meant.
Obama is a fraud. Now tomorrow people will come to DC, to the steps of the capital to protest Congress and their attempt to nationalize 1/6 of our economy and ultimately trash our system of private health care. Of course George, Katie, Brian and good ole Charlie will ignore it. Instead of showing some finess to fix problems with it, the marxist democrats will try to pass a 1,900 page bill that will be the runination of our economy...and any decent health care programs in this country. It will be the biggest single act of oppression against the citizenry of the country since Bush proposed the Patriot Act that got all of you democrats lathered up because the FBI was going to see what books you checked out of the local library.

Anyone with any common sense realizes that both parties play the game of saying whoever is in office is losing power when said president backs losing candidates. The difference here is that when President Bush backed losing candidates, the main stream media led newscasts and ran bold headlines proclaiming the "news". Doesn't seem to be the same now, when President Obama made numerous appearances for his choices. The media was a big part of why an endorsement by President Bush was a bad thing even though he is one of the few presidents who actually did what he said he would do.

It is obviously too early in President Obama's term to see if an endorsement by him does not carry the day. If he starts getting hammered by the MSM like President Bush did, candidates will shy away form him, just as Gore did from President Clinton. You can bet a few candidates will do so now because he obviously did not help out Corzine, even with five appearances and his insistence that he needed Corzine.

I find it amusing that anyone can say Palin's intrusion did not help Hoffman. He lost by 3%, almost unheard of for an independent (with a few notable exceptions). Palin's help was a boost to almost winning the election instead of being trounced by a major party candidate. If more people wanted moderate, or Republicans in name only, the "Republican" candidate would not have had to drop out of the race.

My take is the both parties can learn from these elections. The Democrats learned that just because you have the charismatic president on your side, you are not an automatic lock, especially since said president cannot advance his agenda despite having congressional majorities. I also think that the Democrats are going to have to realize sooner rather than later that they can only blame President Bush for everything for a certain amount of time, and that time is gone. It seems that more and more people are realizing that every day.

The Republicans learned that conservative candidates can win, with the right campaign. There are enough independents out there that will swing to the conservative or Republican candidate as long as they are not far right extremists. Despite the MSM bleating to the contrary, the Republicans have also learned what they really knew anyhow, that their party still has a future.

All in all, I think this will all make the 2010 election cycle a lot more interesting.

I've heard enough different spins on the Governors races that the only thing that is completely clear is that no one really knows what it means. That Obama campaigned for these guys, and they still lost, looks bad, especially if someone is like Glock and WANTS it to look bad. That said, the post race polling indicated that Obamas favorable ratings were still high in those areas, and that most people said they were voting local issues.

Mostly, I believe too much is made out of these things no matter who wins or who loses. I HOPE that the fact that the race in which the moderate Republican was forced out went to the Democrat means something. A moderate Republican platform certainly has merit in a lot of areas ..... it is something I can definitely see myself supporting dependent upon the candidate ...... that just isn't something I have seen enough lately, and the extreme (and in my opinion ignorant) views of people like Palin, Limbaugh, Thompson, and so on, I cannot IMAGINE supporting. To be that closed minded is, again in my opinion, dangerous.

I guess with that, I would say let those like Glock have their fun .... they can jump up and down and tell the world that it's the end of the world for all who support Obama...... it wouldn't be properly condescending to look at it any other way would it? The marxist moron comment is especially telling it seems .... truly funny, though I know the poor guy didn't intend it to be.

If I wanted to be more like those who blog blindly with conservative goggles on, I MIGHT point out that even though Obama did campaign for two Democrats who didn't win elections - at least these candidates haven't RUN from his endorsement the way most Republican candidates did after 8 years of Bush. After only one year, I honestly believe the jury is still out, but after 8 .... everyone KNEW what they were getting, and that endorsement was the kiss of death. Get back to me in another 7 years, and I'll give it over to folks like Glock if the situation is the same, but I don't for a minute believe it will be.

Sorry, when a so called popular president sticks his nose in state politics, gives speeches on behalf of his chosen candidates imploring voters in those states to continue what was started with his election you can only notice the emperor has no coat tails. Funny how where he campaigned for HIS candidates, they lost. In NY 23rd where he did not, the democrat won. Limbaugh, Palin, Thompson (for sure) are not bigger than your hero. And don't forget the idiot Gringrich backed the idiot republican who dropped out at the last minute but still garnered some of the repblican vote anyway. As I wrote previously, another year of high unemployment and little private sector economic growth will be like 1994 all over again. And I am only angry I have to endure another year of this marxist moron and his party some of you think as leadership.

Independent:

I've been attempting to sort out the spin from these elections all day. From the Dems claim that the Republicans are eating each other in NY to the Reps claim that Virginia proves the GOP has found it's voice again. Virginia has shown this weird pattern for 32 years; the Dems are claiming it's a local phenomenon while the Reps are ignoring the history and claiming it's all about Obama.

I've heard the Corzine/Christie election described as close (true?) and I've been blogging here long enough to know that when a Republican loses in a close election, the conservative bloggers immediately dismiss the loss with a list of excuses longer than your arm. But when a Dem loses, they claim it's a direct statement by voters to the White House. I think reactions like Glock's are mostly an "I've been down so long it looks like up to me" thing. I don't expect to see much else.

But all the same, I know moderates are unhappy because they feel Obama has gone too far left, progressives are unhappy because they feel Obama hasn't gone left enough, and conservatives are just plain unhappy. As an independent voice, what do you think these elections mean?

Glock is it? Got to agree, relax! Governors races on the east coast get you this excited, I can't imagine the damage something local or national might do to you! Oh, and if you are going to gloat over the Republican wins in those races, you really need to give equal time to the loss .....

"Owens defeated Hoffman despite a voter registration edge of 45,000 for Republicans and big-name endorsements for Hoffman from former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson and others."

Now, if the Governors races are a "statement" about Obama, then it must be a given that THIS race was a referendum on the "big name" Republicans like Palin right? Have to say, I HOPE so ..... voting Republican again becomes a very realistic option when people like Palin, Limbauh, Rove, and Cheney no longer represent the party, and that is an option I would love to feel I had.

Glock:

Geez, even when things are supposedly going your way you still sound sour, pissed off and miserable.

I think your problem is too much Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Take a couple of Prozac, suck on a lemon, and blog me when you feel better.

Now what the ?, tonights election results are hope and change for me. I hope to meet up with Ken at Neighbors later. You see, pundits and wags can say whatever they want about these elections today NOT being about this presidency of the first afirmative action president however when the man-child president campaigns for democrat candidates, especially Corzine and they loose he is exposed for the loser he is too. You simply cannot defend comments from the liberals claiming these elections ARE NOT about this administration. They most certianly are. Voters are rejecting him and the candidates he supports. And frankly, with all his efforts including three recent trips to NJ for Corzine, I think he looks rather stupid and impotent tonight. We can only wait for the 1994 style massacre during the 2010 cycle. And I would suggest you tune into Beck on Friday. He is going to have a show that will exceed your wildest expectations regardless of your political affiliation. By the way, drop a couple of tabs of Lunesta. I hope to see you NOT posting at 0300hrs because you are so ticked.

Epi:

I just realized something about this comment: "Also, my reference to “subtle” was directed at you, not Indee. YOU were the one trying to be cute with the inference of supporting Indee’s words (ie arrogant, self-serving) to make yet another personal attack on me and . . ." blah blah blah.

Wait a minute!, don't tell me!, no, it couldn't be--are you actually whining because I didn't come to your defense when Independent called your posts arrogant and self-serving? You're actually insulted because I singled out Anon ONE as not being arrogant but kept silent about you? And you're saying my silence served as a sort of "subliminal" personal attack on everyone else?! No wonder I had trouble following you; this is pretty twisted stuff, Epi.

So because I did not object, this meant I agreed, and you took that as an insult?

Let me straighten this out for you once and for all: I did agree. I had already made this abundantly clear in previous posts; how in the world could you possibly expect anything else? I thought I was doing you a favor by not piling on, I thought this would have been small of me. But it looks like you found a way to even make my absence of an attack into an attack. Inside your head is not a very happy place, is it?

And yes, a total of three agreed. Like I said, two, three, 50, doesn't matter, you'd still deny it, and you are.

"I ask you to please show THE REST OF US examples of all of these labels I have used for you, and you can’t find them. You have no data, so you try and kick it back to me! Of course, THE REST OF US know that they don’t exist."

Who is THE REST OF US? You got a mouse in your pocket, voices in your head? Are you playing to an imagined audience? I only see you and me here. Of course the comments are there, we have a written history of them on this thread. If any of "the rest of us" wants to verify this, they are free to go back and see them anytime. I know you won't, because your defense is to refuse to look so you can insist it's not there. But being willfully uninformed really isn't working for you. It doesn't strengthen your position, it makes you appear closed-minded and ignorant. So play this game with "the rest of us".

One other thing I've noticed: every time you talk yourself into a corner you come out with strange and twisty explanations like infer vs literal vs virtual and breaking down sentence structure. You know, life is really not this complicated, Epi. Most people directly say what they mean and mean what they say. But if you're always picking things apart, you're going to miss the message. Someone once told me sometimes a hamburger is just a hamburger. Remember that guy?

As fun as all this is, it's clear with all your parsing and denials that your side of the discussion has dissolved into nothing more than a defense of your ego. I'm sure you find this fascinating, but for me it's rather boring. And you may not see it, but it's also become an embarrassment. So it's time someone acted like a grown-up here. I'll go first and euthanize this thread. I'm sure Chris will be relieved.

But thanks for telling me about Brett Baier, and the guy who had the tea party idea, and encouraging me to check out Meet the Press and George S., so I've learned a few things. I'm sure I'll see you around!

To: What the? on November 3, 2009 12:50 AM

I am pretty sure I posted "about" 6 hours or so. I am aware that FOX does have some news on between midnite and 7 a.m., along with regular news breaks into other programs, so 9 hours is not only believable, I am sure it is correct

I would never be arrogant enough to tell any media outlet that they are wrong on their programming durations (there are laws to cover that!) or their description as a news channel!

Given your hubris, what the? perhaps you should drop them a line to let them know they aren't even a news channel?

To: What the? on November 2, 2009 8:45 PM

I agree ---- you DO attack and protest too much, especially about the wrong things! Perhaps if you didn’t have those pink lenses welded to your retinas…….

Again, there ya go! You still have the knee-jerk reaction need to jump in on other’s posts. You continue your losing streak of not understanding data and flow by writing “Clearly Anon ONE wasn't included in the mix”, yet AnonOne felt the need to post and correct Indee’s post! So clear!

Also, my reference to “subtle” was directed at you, not Indee. YOU were the one trying to be cute with the inference of supporting Indee’s words (ie arrogant, self-serving) to make yet another personal attack on me and others (all who disagreed with you, it seems). Yikes! Follow the bouncing ball next time, what the?

Gosh oh golly, what the?, I’m pretty sure I referred what I thought you thought as “IMHO”. Let me check….. yep! There it is, even in your post. Hmmmmm? Now, what the? doesn’t want to let others have opinions even when stated as such. How “Progressive” of you!

As far as my comments on Progressives, I stand behind them. Again, I really wish you could follow data and flow, maybe even use a dictionary at times. I clearly have let it be known what I think of Progressives, so why do you keep trying to bend it to try and give the impression that I somehow am denying it? If you were to break down the sentence structure of my last post, you would quickly see that I was referring to YOUR feelings/opinions/thoughts/etc on your being a progressive. I repeat: Say it loud and proud, what the?!

Just as I expected! I ask you to please show the rest of us examples of all of these labels I have used for you, and you can’t find them. You have no data, so you try and kick it back to me! Of course, the rest of us know that they don’t exist. Really, what the?, so transparent!

Geo S. --- Do try it. His show can sometimes be a good use of an hour. His roundtable includes people from around the spectrum of opinions, politics, etc.

There you go again, using the declarative to support your opinion! I understand that I disagree with you a lot and that I refuse to back down when you debase to your personal attacks (and, in fact, attack right back at times). If that makes me arrogant, so be it. I would suggest that you actually look up arrogant and see what it means. Then, as you look into that mirror……….well, see if you recognize the reflection!

Wow! Given you can actually count (I have suspicions), and assuming that the others aren’t you under a different monicker, there are three people who don’t like my posts. [Note: Is it just a coincidence that those same ones find all posts that strongly disagree with you to be arrogant?] Man , am I ahead of the game on that one! Whodda thunk it!

You know, what the?, you say things like “this isn’t a personal attack” before you actually attack someone personally, and you think this somehow absolves you from being guilty of making a personal attack. Then, when called on it, you decide that the one calling you on it is arrogant. That's quite a logic loop you have there ---- very self-serving.

Let us review, shall we: Every person who has disagreed with you strongly on this thread has been called arrogant by you?
Do you see the pattern here? Perhaps YOU should spend more time reviewing the past threads, looking at a dictionary, finding data versus opinion and understanding the difference, before you throw stones in your little glass house!

Just saying. Just an observation.

Anon ONE:

My computer has been spazing out a lot recently, so I hope this post doesn't get lost.

Anyway, I understand your reasons for pointing out Jarrett at the end. Stewart is not my source for Fox News, he is one of my sources for comedy. Fox News is my source for Fox News. The Daily Show segment was just a happy coincidence. I didn't bring up Jarrett because I didn't think it relevant to what we were discussing.

Regarding Cuomo, you said you brought him up because if it's bad for Fox to have their news people give opinions, you wanted to point out that it is also bad for ABC to do the same. I don't think this is quite the same thing. Cuomo is a field reporter who is also co-anchor of news on GMA, a morning talk show, and Primetime, a news magazine. I think it's fine for him to give opinion while on GMA, that's the format of the show--news, opinion and entertainment. It WOULD be inappropriate for him to give his opinion while doing an interview outside of GMA, like when reporting on Hurricane Katrina or some other important person or event or to misrepresent the facts of that report.

This is what I have seen members of the news team at Fox do all the time, and this was also highlighted by Stewart. With the exception of Smith and probably Baier, this is the norm at Fox. In addition, Fox allows its opinionists like Beck, Hannity and Cavuto to go into the field and act like reporters as well, and they often misstate facts to enhance their stories and get directly involved in promoting some news events, I've watched it done. THIS is the problem I have with Fox, it's overlap of opinion into news and vice versa, often making it difficult to distinguish one from the other. Even if they were a liberal station this would still be a problem. It would be easier for me to tolerate, but it would still be a problem.

At any rate, you're probably right that this discussion has run it's course, it is becoming redundant. Butt in anytime you see me here, it's OK. Hope to see you around. :)

P.S. I don't know anyone I agree with 100% of the time, and this is fine with me. Just think how boring that would be!


Epi:

Forgot to mention: I know you keep insisting that Fox shows 6 hours of news daily, but Fox says they show 9. You'd better let them know they're wrong.

Anon ONE:

Ok. Hope to see you around. :)

Epi:

Gosh oh golly? Seriously? You doth protest too much, methinks. I haven't seen this much denial stuffed into one post in a long time. C'mon, Epi, don't be a sore loser.

"Your post re: Independent and AnonOne were pretty clear: it was a not-so-subtle inference to those named, including me." Nothing subtle about it, Independent said you, Ken and Anon sounded arrogant and self-serving. Clearly Anon ONE wasn't included in the mix, but I didn't see YOU or the other two jumping forward to correct his impression. Misery may indeed love company, but Anon ONE is out of your league.

"IMHO, I thought you thought you were too cute to get busted, but Alas! Caught you were!" Here you are telling me what I think again. You are right about one thing, tho--I am cute.

"Why do you assume my calling you a progressive is an insult?" I didn't assume it was an insult, and I wasn't insulted. I only said I seriously doubted I was. If it floats your boat to call me a progressive, go right ahead. Whatever. This is just another hamburger, Epi.

Besides, aren't you the one who made the comment about "scroundrels and progressives"? And didn't you also said "Yes, I abhor the far left progressives, just like I abhor the far Christian right"? So I think any reasonable person would assume from these statements that you do not consider being a progressive a good thing. Are you denying this now too?

"Now, you say I have labeled you many things --- care to share?" Sure! Go back on this thread, they're all right there in your posts. Don't be lazy, I'm not going to sort through them for you.

OK, you meant George Stephanopoulos! I know who he is, but I've never seen his show. I'll try to keep it in mind.

"you default to the lowly standards of using a basically not provable personal attack (arrogance) to end your post! If by arrogant you mean I disagree with your tactics and condemnations, then I stand accused and guilty."

No, by arrogant I mean arrogant. This isn't a personal attack, just an observation, and one that's been supported by other bloggers. Actually, there have been three people on this blog who have said you sound arrogant, counting me. Go back and look. But I think we both know that even if there had been 50, you would still deny it.

WT,

Agree with your comments (mostly). I watch John Stewart a little, I was pointing out the Jarrett stuff because you only mentioned the Fox News stuff. I was using his comments about Jarrett as a little bit of a "sideways" comparison figuring that if Stewart was your source about Fox News, I wanted you and everyone to know what he said about Democrats getting caught in his cross hairs as well. Although I would say it is mostly Conservatives that get his vitriol I know he sometimes goes after liberals. (Not enough for my liking which is probably why I don't watch him as much).

I pointed out the NYT Brian Stelter stuff because he was used by Stewart as the source for the Fox information and you attached his link.(I know this info is available from a variety of sources, but You and Stewart used the Stelter piece). I was simply pointing out that if someone uses the NYT as a source I will also point out what else this person thinks and writes.

The obvious use of Cuomo in my post was to point out his inherent potential for bias, but to also draw attention to the fact that he is the "News" person on GMA who offered his "opinion" about John Stewart. If it's bad for Fox to have their news people give opinions I want to point out that it is also bad for ABC to do the same.

I am simply saying there are all kinds of conflicts and biases out there. I don't have a great answer why Fox always talks about "news" vs. "commentary", but since I believe a lot of what they say it isn't really a problem for me. I know it is for you.

I know you and Epi have a different discussion going on and I sometimes mix into it - something I did to you early on in this chain when I jumped into a discussion you had with someone else. I tend to jump on generalizations and also sometimes take things too personally so I think our time on this link is probably run its course. Perhaps there will be a topic that we can agree on 100%, but most likely something of a political nature will come up in the near future and we'll be back at it again! Oh well, I have to go. I think Hannity is about to start his "newscast" (feeble attempt at humor).

btw, I agree that if important decisions are made based on false information it is bad for everyone. My only hope is that people making these types of decisions make them based on the best intelligence and a compilation of information and not just on one source.

Anon ONE:

Forgot to mention:

ABC's Good Morning America is a TALK show, like MSNBC's Morning Joe and Fox News's Fox and Friends. GMA is a mixture of talk, news and entertainment, I see it from time to time. Isn't Chris co-anchor of this talk show? Opinion talk is commonplace in these venues.

The Rachel Maddow show is news commentary, or commentary on news, just like Fox's Cavuto, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and Van Sustern (did I miss anyone?). They all do the same thing, discuss whatever news they choose and give their opinions on it. But no one would ever claim these programs are just news, because they clearly aren't.

Besides, like I explained before, it doesn't matter who wrote the NYT article or even what paper it appeared in. The only thing that's important to my argument is that Fox made the claim about providing 9 hours of objective news a day. I can print it on the side of a milk carton and quote it from there, if you like, but Fox still said it.

Anon ONE:

You're two cents is more than welcome!

Of course I watched the segment to the end. I saw the Valerie Jarrett thing about MSNBC in other places as well. But Valerie Jarrett has nothing to do with our discussions about Fox News.

I don't need Chris Cuomo to tell me about Jon Stewart. I've been watching Stewart a long time and certainly realize he is left leaning, but he is not so left that he won't lampoon Obama or his White House when the opportunity arises; I've seen him do this many times. His treatment of Jarrett clearly shows this. If you're suggesting that Stewart is unfairly picking on Fox News because he's biased, you may want to become a little bit more familiar with his show. Go to thedailyshow.com and view past segments if you think so. You'll see what I mean.

It is of no importance who wrote the NYT article. The only part I cared about in it was the quote by Fox News that I singled out which said "Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective." That was a quote by Fox News, not by the writer of the article, and this is the only part I'm referring to. This is relevant because this is precisely what Epi and I have been arguing about all this time. Epi has claimed in previous posts--it's all right here on this thread in black and blue--that most if not all of Fox's programming is commentary and opinion except Baier and Smith, who are the 'real' Fox news people. It appears Fox itself has settled this argument. They claim to broadcast 9 hours of news a day, far beyond what Baier and Smith contribute.

In addition, Fox claims these 9 news hours are "objective". Epi would probably support this statement. I have always disagreed, saying that I have seen multiple instances where even basic news reporting is "peppered with unnecessary biased or conservative commentary, it's like they can't help themselves." It appears I'm not the only one who has noticed this; it's clear others have as well.

I have never claimed MSNBC commentary is not liberally biased, it obviously is. Everyone knows this, so it was dumb of Valerie to skirt the question. If you want to discuss MSNBC's liberal lean, fine. But we have been arguing what Epi has called Fox News's 'conservative edge'. I think saying Fox has a 'conservative edge' is as much an understatement as saying MSNBC 'leans left', don't you think?

You're analogy to Chicago team games is a good one. We all like having our beliefs and feelings validated by others, much like I'm enjoying having my perspective validated by Stewart right now. But the stakes are a lot higher when it comes to distortion in our media than it is with the outcome of a game. You have more than just winners and losers, there are real consequences to all of us when important decisions are made based on false information. So news manipulation and falsification is something we should all be concerned with, regardless of which team we're on.

To: What the? on November 1, 2009 2:03 PM

Gosh oh golly, WT, I never got angry. What a mean-spirited thing to say or imply. Why do you assume that because I take you to task for your errors that I am mad? I am actually trying to calm you down most of the time! Your progressive rhetoric gets a tad nasty at times and goes off on odd tangents which at times appears to have little to do directly with what I thought we were discussing!

Snarky comments on your child? Hardly! I was serious. Your previous posts indicated to me that she was quite bright and I was serious in saying she could explain the subtleties to you.

Your post re: Independent and AnonOne were pretty clear: it was a not-so-subtle inference to those named, including me. IMHO, I thought you thought you were too cute to get busted, but Alas! Caught you were!

I agree that AnonOne’s blogs are coherent and enjoyable. I meant it when I said Bravo!

[Note: Another Bravo! to AnonOne on the November 2, 2009 11:32 AM post]

What the?, why do you assume my calling you a progressive is an insult? I thought you had stated much earlier that you are proud of your beliefs. Am I wrong? If not, stand up proud and say it loud: “I, what the?, am a Progressive!”

As far as FOX goes, what the heck is so hard for you to understand? I NEVER stood behind or defended anything but the FOX News, and several times I have singles out Shep and Baier (there are actually about 6 hours of news, by the way).

However, you insist on turning our discussion into a partisan debate on the FOX SHOWS (key word there, yes? SHOW!) I do not watch the other stuff as much as you (in fact, rarely --- maybe one hour a week at most). Like all SHOWS, I consider them entertainment and opinions, etc.

Now, don’t get me wrong --- that isn’t necessarily bad. Using such a show to direct me toward data I can look up myself and make a determination on is a “good thing”. Why do others watch FOX? I really don’t care --- I only need to know why I watch it, and I watch it for the news on a regular basis. I like it because they are the only ones that provide differing viewpoints on the same events.

Hmmm? FOX giving voice to the extreme right? Certainly sounds like your biased opinion to me! I will expand it to include MY opinion: FOX, unlike any other outlet, provides voice to the extreme right, the right, the center, the left of center, and the far left progressives.

Now, before we all get itchy here, let’s point out a salient fact: Recently, the clever far left progressives have decided to NOT participate and to boycott FOX. Even our intrepid President and his henchmen are participating in this. Thus, we, the people, are deprived of SOME of the viewpoints from the far left progressives. Oh well --- their loss given they have decided to ignore such a large outlet.

Now, you say I have labeled you many things --- care to share? I used your posts to say you are probably a progressive. What other infractions have you imagined?

My bad on the typing --- I meant to type Geo S (George Stephanopoulos). I will note that the hosts of both shows are well-known for their left slant on things and events. Though I see it at times with them, I tend to enjoy Stephanopoulos’ show because he has a lot of heavyweights on AND he does a roundtable discussion, a lot like Baier’s.

When FOX has an anchor perform to the belittling and low standards that Rather did, I fully expect them to fire him or her. Of course, one hasn’t yet except in your biased mind. Your belief that these outlets just report the facts is not silly --- it’s sad. So sad, in fact. Again, you try to turn our discussion on the NEWS into one of shows. Shame on you!

Again, you default to the lowly standards of using a basically not provable personal attack (arrogance) to end your post! If by arrogant you mean I disagree with your tactics and condemnations, then I stand accused and guilty. If only two people on earth find me arrogant, I would consider myself way ahead of the curve.

I don’t see my posts as suffering from an abundance of overbearing pride. I do see yours doing so, however, especially in your declaratives and comments that others point out to be absent of fact (yet you keep repeating them! Pride defined. perhaps?)

Of course, pride itself can be a judgment call. I DO suffer from a strong case of disagreeing with your tactics and comments, especially your attacks on others and your dismissive comments relating to them. As I said, perhaps you just bring out the worst in me.

Irony defined: what the? trying to label anyone else as arrogant! Perhaps what the? should find that same mirror and gaze upon it?

I will close this with a quote from an excellent blogger: "That's about as strong as it gets - I don't think I'm going to convert you, nor you I."

Pax.

Anonymous ONE, I don't think anyone will argue that Fox News is not biased, just as every other news outlet is biased. Don't let what the? change her original statement, that Fox was not news at all. Since she has been resoundingly proven wrong, she is trying to change her claim.

WT, Since you addressed me along with Epi I wanted to put in my two cents. The John Stewart piece is funny, I'm wondering if you watched it to the end of the segment when he showed an interview with Obama Sr. Adviser Valerie Jarrett? She is asked by Campbell Brown if Fox is biased to which she responds, "Yes of course Fox is biased". She was then asked if MSNBC is also biased to which she responded, "I don't want to make any general statements about any stations"!! Classic. Stewart rips into Jarrett by saying, "Of Course MSNBC is not biased because you agree with them". Stewart says that she should have said, "Of course MSNBC is biased, but we agree with them". So once again I'm not the only one who see's some bias on MSNBC, John Stewart agrees as well.

ABC's Good morning america news anchor Chris Cuomo (son of former Democratic governor Mario Cuomo, and the brother of the state's current Democratic attorney general) said the following about John Stewart. "I'll offer you the other side. You gotta be careful of friends like these with Stewart. Clearly a lefty. Clearly pro-Obama. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/07/24/abcs-chris-cuomo-jon-stewart-clearly-lefty-clearly-pro-obama

Since Cuomi is called a "news anchor" I'm sure he is only delivering news - no opinion - so it must be true?
.

Your link to the NYT article is written by media writer Brian Stelter as referenced on the Daily Show. This is the Same Brian Stelter who wrote that Bill O'Reilly possibly had an effect or culpability on the whack job who killed the abortion doctor Tiller, and is the Same Brian Stelter who opined that the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC was a "left leaning news and commentary program". (In the Maddow case I would say it is a slight understatement! - Leaning?).

Dr.George R. Tiller had many critics, but arguably the one with the highest profile was Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News Channel host. Mr. O'Reilly, a vocal opponent of abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02blame.html?_r=1

More important for her bosses at MSNBC is that “The Rachel Maddow Show,” her left-leaning news and commentary program, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/arts/television/21madd.html

Here an MSNBC commentator is described as delivering "news and commentary". It must be true because it was written in the NYT?
.
So we once again find ourselves disagreeing (although I think we do agree) on the level of bias from either sides "news" programming. Let me draw an analogy. I am a big sports fan of the Chicago teams, I generally like them all. When I watch them on TV or listen on radio I like to listen to the "home team" announcers because they are rooting for the Chicago teams as well. They are supposed to just report the game, but they often comment and get upset when a call doesn't go Chicago's way, or point out the other teams blunders. They are often criticized as being "homers", but I love it. I want to hear criticism of the referees and umpires by my home team announcers when calls don't go our way. On national sports broadcasts I often turn down the tv and put on the radio just so I can hear the local guys. This is similar to my news watching. I like Fox News and generally agree with their news people and commentators - do they go overboard? Absolutely, they sometimes do. Do I agree with everything they say? No.

I guess I like to watch and listen to what I tend to most identify or agree with. Just because something is said on Fox doesn't mean I buy it hook, line and sinker, but I tend to side with them more often than not. I do understand that your argument is that Fox promotes themselves as "news" and their commentators drive you crazy - if I was a Democrat I would hate them as well. but since I'm not I guess I kind of like them. That's about as strong as it gets - I don't think I'm going to convert you, nor you I.

Daily show: not news. Yet another unbiased source provided by what the?. Again, not news.

Oops, a correction for the perfectionists out there:

"Also, didn't I just say in a previous post that Fox puts their NEWS and opinionists under the same umbrella?" (news and opinionists, not commentators and opinionists).

To Epi and Anon ONE:

Well, it seems the blue bird of happiness has landed on my shoulder and proven once again that timing IS everything. I missed this segment of The Daily Show that aired this past Thursday, Oct. 29, but found it when I went to their web site this evening to view shows I had missed. It doesn't get much better than this.

In this segment, Stewart takes on the "war" between the White House and Fox News. He begins by discussing the difference between Fox's news and opinion shows. He quotes this article in the NY Times where "Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html

Fox is claiming they air 9 hours of objective news a day. Fox's explanation conflicts with Epi's assertion that "most (if not all) of Fox besides Shep Smith and Bret Baier are opinion/commentary shows. This is how Stewart explains it:

"According to Fox, their weekday news programming runs from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., for a total of 9 newsy hours a day. The three hours that you spend with Fox and Friends in the morning--NOT NEWS! Your 4 o'clock to 5 o'clock Neil Cavuto break--NOT NEWS! The 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock emotional whirlwind and national group therapy session that is Glen Beck--NOT EVEN CLOSE TO NEWS! O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Sustern--NOT NEWS! This is according to Fox News! These people, the ones featured in promos about how fair and balanced Fox News is, are not news! These people, otherwise known as the only people you ever think of when you think about Fox News, are not news! They're Fox "opinutainment". Apparently, Fox "News" are these (other) folks, or as they're known, who the !@#* are these folks? THAT'S Fox News."

I have taken exception many times with Epi's assertion that all Fox's news shows are objective. I have said I have seen their news people "pepper news reporting with unnecessary biased commentary" many times. Next, Stewart goes on to show clips of Fox's news people doing--you guessed it!--peppering their news reports with unnecessary biased commentary. Check it out:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/253737/thu-october-29-2009-wanda-sykes

Also, didn't I just say in a previous post that Fox puts their commentators and opinionists under the same umbrella? Stewart explains it this way:

"The truth is, the news side of Fox and the opinion side of Fox are like the McDLT. The hot side stays hot and the cool side stays cool, but when you put them together and eat it, well, I think you know what ends up happening."

So there you have it. Watch the whole thing if you dare, it represents exactly what I have been saying on this thread all along, just in a much funnier way. Sure it's The Daily Show, but all the news and film clips Stewart uses are factual. Facts is still facts, right, Epi? And since you're so fond of claiming that I parrot left-wing taking points, keep in mind that I said it here first.

Enjoy! I've got more Daily Shows to watch.

For heaven's sake, Epi, here you go again making a big deal out of anything. A simple statement to another blogger becomes proof of insidious progressivism and a cause for snarky comments involving my child? And if I'm the one you insist is so full of hate--Fox hater, Bush hater--why are YOU the one always blowing a gasket?

It really is just this simple: Independent made a comment directed to, by name, you, Ken and Annon. Anon ONE thought it was made toward him. I simply informed him he was mistaken, added my opinion that his posts were not arrogant or self serving, and said we all enjoy his posts. I thought speaking for everyone with "we all enjoy reading them" was a safe bet given that Anon ONE's posts have been very well-received by bloggers here. Don't your words "Another super post--bravo!" indicate enjoyment?

That's all it is, or in your vernacular, this hamburger is just a hamburger. If you want to make it into progressivism or insults or infer vs literal or God knows what else, knock yourself out, but you're on your own.

Regarding your comment, "Baier and Shep ARE the main news on FOX", two hours of good news reporting does not make up for the other 22 that aren't. If Fox is 22 hours of "most if not all" (your words) editorials and opinion, wouldn't it be more accurate if they called themselves Fox Opinion rather than Fox News? And Baier and Shep may be the main news, but they are not what most viewers are tuning in to see. Isn't Fox's highest rated show Glen Beck, followed by Hannity or O'Reilly? It's the commentary shows that are drawing millions of viewers to Fox, not the news shows. Since anything goes on commentary, the higher the entertainment value, the higher the viewership. Nuttiness sells. So if you really believe "Any fringe extreme tends to distort democracy", shouldn't Fox giving a voice to the views of the extreme right be a concern to you?

And as far as you labeling me a progressive, ho hum. You've labeled me many things, you're always telling me what I am, what I think, what I believe, what our arguments are about. I've accepted this as your blogging style, so I tend to disregard it. I'm really not sure what beliefs make one a progressive, but my understanding is they are more extreme left than average Democrats. Given that there is much the Democrats do that I think are extreme, I doubt I'm a progressive. But if it makes you happy to apply the label, go right ahead. It's all a matter of perception anyway--didn't Anon ONE say that?

If my criticisms of Fox exactly parrot the far-left talking points which you hear so often on Meet the Press, Geo Ps show, etc., then I'm missing some things I should probably be tuning in to. I know of Meet the Press but don't watch it; in the past I've thought it rather dry, but I can give it another try. I don't know who Geo P is, but I can probably find out on google. It's nice to know I have kindred spirits in high places!

My statement that NBC, CBS, ABC, just report facts is silly? I don't think so. The instances you note were mistakes, people make them. Dan Rather paid for his. The CNN reporter paid for hers. I've yet to hear of anyone on Fox getting fired for this kind of behavior. Have you? Clearly CBS and CNN take their reputation for accurate reporting seriously. I firmly believe that compared to them, Fox tolerates and promotes a culture of news manipulation. I've seen it over time, and I think it's become even more pronounced since Obama's election. This doesn't apply to Smith and Baier, but it does for most of it's other 22 hours of broadcasting. The fact that you don't see this as a problem in a democracy that is dependent on a well-informed electorate astounds me.

You may not have seen the Fox "pumping the crowd" video, but I DID. I even read a newspaper article about it. This stuff is easy to find on the internet. That's what I do with things other bloggers tell me. Simply look it up if you doubt it. Unless being willfully uninformed serves some purpose for you, then that's a completely different discussion.

And if you're really interested in intelligent debate, it would help to take down your arrogance a few notches. I've told you this before. There have been two other posts on this thread calling your posts arrogant as well. So when you start hearing the same thing from multiple sources, you may want to consider there could be some truth to it. Just a suggestion.

Almost forgot, what the?, do you have any proof for your latest lie:

"Rush did not make that comment, but he made plenty of others like it..."

Otherwise, you are getting away with libel only because of the anonymity afforded you by the internet. The fact that you resort to libel shouldn't surprise me, as that is what your liberal media ilk do daily.

Yes, what the?, on and on it goes. Once again, you have implied that Fox News is responsible for the milk story, when your own source shows you to be a liar. Give it up; the only one who does not know that you have lost on your anti-Fox News crusade is you.

Anon ONE:

Yes, it's a circuitous argument with no resolution, agreed.

I'm not saying all of Fox is bad, that's overly simplistic. After all, I watch parts of it so I guess it can count me among its viewers. But I take very little I hear on Fox at face value, I don't consider it true unless it's substantiated elsewhere. That I don't trust much of their reporting is a result of watching them over time, not just one or two isolated instances. It's the whole picture, the fact that they're conservatively biased (sometimes rabidly so), the fact that they allow their commentators to act as journalists in the field and falsify facts to enhance their stories (like putting blasting caps in gas tanks on a continual basis), the fact that much of their ordinary news reporting is even peppered with unnecessary conservative commentary. I've seen it, it's like they can't help themselves. So yes, I believe there is definitely a culture of news manipulation at Fox that is not present anywhere else on such a scale. Add a bat waving Beck and an "Omen" playing Hannity to the mix, and Fox looks positively looney at times, which plays well to the far right fringe groups. I wondered for a long time how Fox could get away with it. When rags like the National Enquirer print false stories, they get sued. When I learned about the lawsuit, and how that trial determined that news falsification is protected under freedom of speech, it all made sense:

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox-owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle-blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not apply.

The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[1]

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

Okay, it's wikipedia, but you used it. This was a ground breaking case. Fox never claimed they didn't order Akre and Wilson to falsify a news report, in fact, they admitted they indeed did. Their defense was it was Fox's right to do so, because the FCC policy against news distortion was not a "law, rule or regulation", it was more like a set of guidelines, and therefore optional. They argued that news distortion was protected under the First Amendment and won on appeal. Seriously.

Anyway, it's all over the net. Just google Jane Akre and Fox News or BGH and Fox News for more. But Fox definitely made a statement about what kind of news organization they are. On this, I believe them.

As far as Rush Limbaugh goes, I think what happened to him recently proves the existence of karma. I don't know if CNN or MSNBC retracted the "slavery had its merits" story, they may have. I don't watch either of them 24/7. But I've heard them retract other comments made in error, so it's a distinct possibility. I did hear a radio station retract it. Rush did not make that comment, but he made plenty of others like it, so that's why the slavery comment was easily believable. You reap what you sow.

And what about Rush recently getting punked on that fake Obama thesis he read over the air? I heard his "retraction" was something like, "Okay, the thesis was a fake, but that's what Obama really believes anyway". And on and on it goes.

To: What the? on October 30, 2009 11:15 AM

I will note that you do not deny being a progressive!

Nope! No blue dog here ---- strictly a “Reagan Democrat”.

Yes, I abhor the far left progressives, just like I abhor the far Christian right. Any fringe extreme tends to distort democracy (IMHO).

Let’s be clear: Our argument is about YOUR clear hatred of FOX and your misleading statements about FOX News, NOT by “blessedness” of it. I see it for what it is ---- just a media outlet (hmmm, sometimes a hamburger is just a hamburger?).

I am pretty sure I have stated often that FOX ain’t perfect, just better than the others. You have both stated and inferred so many odd and nasty attributes to FOX that are incorrect and which exactly parrot the far-left talking points which I hear so often on Meet the Press, Geo Ps show, etc., that I have come to think you either have a secret crush on Roger Ailes OR you are actually working for the Democrat party!

You mention that you actually do like Baier and Shep. Newsflash! (pun intended) --- as I wrote originally, they ARE the main news on FOX! Most (if not all) of the other shows you cry about are just that --- shows! They are opinionists, editorialists, etc (yes, by the way, a journalist CAN be any of these things, but still not be a NEWS reporter).

It is quite sad that you can’t see the difference between an alleged reporter screaming at an interviewee holding an infant and a reporter who you state was “pumping a crowd” (whatever that means) somewhere. Unfortunately, I do not watch FOX enough to know what that was about (if anything), while I DID see the CNN screaming interview in Chicago (first hand, I will add).

As a general rule I TRY to only discuss things in detail which I get a chance to see myself and not just after hearing a second-hand account of it. One of my “likes” on FOX is all of the video they show of others, their speeches, and their events. It’s the next best thing to being there.

Your statement that NBC, CBS, ABC, just report facts is silly. Are you referring to the "facts" like Rather’s incorrect smear piece on Bush that got him fired? Or the smear pieces about Limbaugh (spelling?) that were based on previous lies? Perhaps you refer to the recent summer reporting on these channels that referred to a few hundred people showing up to TEA parties? You so quickly revert to the Lewinsky style of attacking the person trying to discuss with you instead of looking at the data. There have been numerous studies, polls, measuring of lines and coverages, that show beyond a doubt that the outlets you so idolize are, indeed, reporting from a left point of view. Your denial represents either your naiveté or your dogma. [note that instead of just saying "they lie", I actually providde some examples --- nice habit to get into!]


You also need to understand the difference between covering for another, and just writing. Let me elaborate for you: I lauded some earlier posts. Yes, bravo, great post! You, on the other hand, felt the need to jump in and cover/protect/provide for another post . In short, you directly supported and defended him and in the process tried to cleverly insult those he was posting with (or, as the case may be, inferring an insult ---- have your daughter explain the concepts of infer, literal, and virtual to you a few times so you understand how they are used!) You can refer to What the? on October 28, 2009 11:19 AM where your inference on both is apparent.

Yes, I stated doubts on someone I have never met and, as far as I know, never blogged with until the statement that drove my posting which you felt compelled to react to. I also never stated I expected to be taken, or not taken, at face value. I have no expectations of you, or others.

Of course, if you were to remove your pink-tinted glasses, you might see a clearer picture of your surroundings and be more open to an opposing point of view (I would offer the same comment to “independent”).

Again, we were doing fine until your snarky attacks which invited equally snarky reactions. Apparently our ability to intelligently debate has been compromised.

Although what the? holds Fox News to high standards, she obviously does not hold herself to the same standards. The "cow's milk" story she refers to was a news story on a local Fox station, not Fox News. A lie by omission is still a lie, what the?, something you cannot seem to understand.

I find it amusing that what the? is trying to split hairs to back her original claim too many posts back that Fox News has no news. She digs deeper and deeper, yet seems amazed the hole keeps getting bigger and bigger.

what the? on October 30, 2009 5:54 PM

______________________

Ok Wt,

Here is a correction to my previous post:

My Response: Unfortunately I call it "todays journalism" as exemplified by the MSM (INCLUDING FOX NEWS) (and not all the time by everyone, but at least some of the time). Better?

You know this is a circuitous argument, which by definition will never lead to a resolution. Fox misses on stories and so do all the news outlets. So you claim that everyone (for the most part) except for Fox offer retractions when they are wrong? That's quite a claim, but I don't have the time or inclination to try to uncover the evidence - I guess we'll accept your claim once again that Fox is bad and most of the others are good? (I know a little melo dramatic).

I am curious if any of the news outlets you hold so rightous offered a retraction regarding the Rush Limbaugh story where they claimed he said that "slavery had its merits"? This was a story carried widely and reported as fact by both MSNBC and CNN. (And yes, the report was during their "news" segments and not during commentary). The report has been proven incorrect and was attributed to some 3rd rate hack who printed it in a book that everyone claimed as a source. http://www.mrc.org/splash/TellTheTruth.htm

I'm fairly confident that neither MSNBC or CNN have offered a retraction to the obviously incorrect story. I don't know the cows milk story, but if were going back in history I do remember NBC putting blasting caps into pickup truck gas tanks to make their Dateline story more interesting. I'm sure they would have apologized on their own if they hadn't gotten caught.

Anon ONE:

Forgot to mention, have we ever seen Andy Rooney substituting for Morley Safer on 60 Minutes? Or Joy Behar substituting for Anderson Cooper on 360? That's what having Cavuto, Hannity and Beck "covering" news is like. Does any other news outlet allow their commentators to do news?

So since you claim the entire MSM does it, that makes it okay for Fox to do it? C'mon, you know that's a poor excuse.

All the MSM does it, I'm sure, but not all to the same degree. The majority of news sources take the responsibility of accurate reporting seriously. If they make a mistake, they will usually print or announce a correction or retraction. I've seen this on other news channels, I see it in the magazines I read. I haven't seen this on Fox, it's always brushed off as a we say/they say thing. Except for Shep Smith's apology of a day or two ago for a biased report on his show. He said if he had been in control, it wouldn't have happened. But he's obviously not in control, and it happens a lot. It seems to bother him more than others.

I must admit, tho, that I've been more critical of Fox since I learned of the cow's milk lawsuit years ago. You know, the one where two reporters sued Fox when they were fired for refusing to falsify a story? And the courts upheld that a news organization had to right to report falsely if they wanted, that news didn't have to be true to be reported? I think Fox, more than others, continues to enjoy that ruling to this very day. JMO.

WT? wrote: I call "stating as fact things that are not" falsifying the news. What would you call it?

My Response: Unfortunately I call it "todays journalism" as exemplified by the MSM.


I think that both the right and left, conservative and liberal, are guilty of this action of stating facts when they are more opinions. I'm sure we disagree on the level this goes on, but I think we agree that it does in fact go on? You believe it goes on more at Fox, and I believe it goes on more at MSNBC.

This is pretty simplistic, but I'm not sure we are going to get much more agreement than this?

Anon ONE:

I get your comparison to CNN. I thought of 60 Minutes and Andy Rooney, same idea.

I agree that MSNBC is a news source, except for their morning talk show and their evening commentary programs. I also agree their commentators are varying degrees of liberal, much like all of Fox's commentators are conservative. And I understand the name of the channel is Fox News, so I wouldn't expect them to take the word "news" off during the commentaries. But, yes, I do think this could be confusing to some people who are, to put this politely, intellectually challenged. But we can't fix stupid, so this is really not the problem.

The problem is when these commentators leave their opinion posts and move out into the field, like Beck, Cavuto, and Hannity did during the tea party protests. At these times, they act like journalists and often falsify the news. I have a clip of Hannity identifying himself as a journalist to, of all people, Robert Gibbs! But when the FCC or someone else complains, he hides behind his opinion desk and says he's just a commentator. Intentionally misleading, wouldn't you say? And like I mentioned before, I have a clip of Bernie Goldberg saying that Fox brings this criticism on itself by allowing their commentators to "pretend to be journalists" and "go out and state as fact things that are not".

I call "stating as fact things that are not" falsifying the news. What would you call it?

Epi:

You are a liberal, just not on fiscal matters? A Reagan Democrat? One could also call you a BLUE DOG Democrat, perhaps?

"Scoundrels and progressives"? Too funny. No need to ask you what you think of progressives!

"There is a pretty big difference (IMHO) between berating an interviewee holding a child (actually yelling, as I recall) and the perception by you that others were "pumping" the crowd."

This is a reoccurring theme with you. You always say there's a BIG DIFFERENCE between Fox's bad behavior and that of other stations. When the "other side" acts inappropriately, you call it a fact. When your blessed Fox News acts inappropriately, it's always a matter of "perception". Given that Fox said it reprimanded one of its employees for pumping the crowd, I think this was more than just MY perception. Sounds like Fox thought so too.

I get it. You love Fox News. You want to marry it. Go right ahead. Just don't expect everyone to attend the wedding.

Is it perfectly F&B? Hell no. Is it conservatively based? Without a doubt. Does it allow the viewer access to data, and then opinions from several areas of the political spectrum? Occasionally.

Does any NBC channel, CBS, ABC, etc, do any of this? If you're talking about their nightly news broadcasts, no, they just report facts. Are they left based and, more importantly, designing their coverage from that left base? That's what everyone on the right says, I don't think so. Do they allow us the advantage of several viewpoints along the spectrum? No viewpoints, just facts.

I simply disagree that Fox News is the end all and be all of fair and balanced. Except for programs like Bret Baier, which you got me watching, and Shep Smith, most of what they broadcast is one-sided and often crosses the line into news falsification and manipulation. I've seen it, and I consider this propaganda. What you call "several viewpoints along the spectrum" I call giving a platform to the lunatic right. If they gave some time to the lunatic left, THEN it would be more fair and balanced (see Anon ONE, for some this never gets old). It's apparent we'll never agree on this, so let's just move on.

Now for the stuff where you start sounding a little squirrelly:

"Your writings, however, paint you as a distinct progressive. Even your attempt to cover for another in post October 28, 2009 11:19 AM highlights this." Uh, what? My attempt to cover for another paints me as a progressive? Weren't YOU the one several posts back who posted this to Anon ONE:

By Epi-nonymous on October 22, 2009 3:46 PM

To: By Anonymous ONE on October 22, 2009 1:29 PM

Another super post --- bravo!!

What, you didn't mean that? Now you disagree?

"Of course, anyone who does not agree with you is "...arrogant or self-serving". Actually, I've only used the term arrogant. I've told you before that your posts sounded arrogant, this shouldn't come as a surprise to you now. Why should I complain when someone else agrees?

And your response to Independent was "Indee, you say? Sure!" If you're going to dismiss what other posters say about themselves, why should we believe what you say about yourself? What makes you so special that you're the only one who deserves to be taken at face value? You need to do better, Epi.

WT. You are probably right about the msnbc context statement, I misunderstood your comment. Believe it or not I'm not trying to make a case that msnbc is only news, but in my mind I have always thought of it as a news source. I believed, and still do to a point, that msnbc views themselves as a news source. And while Wikipedia is not always the best reference, I stand by their description that: "Msnbc.com, a separate company, is the news website for the NBC News family." I'm not an island here in believing this.

That being said, the name of the entire channel on fox is "Fox News" which is why the logo is always on the bottom. I'm not in agreement that someone watching "beck" would be duped into believing they are watching the news simply because of the logo. when you watched Beck and then made this statement: "In the corner was the Fox News logo This is news?", did you think that Fox was trying to manipulate you into thinking this was news?

CNN is the Cable News Network and when Anderson Cooper or Joy Behar are "commenting" on the news the CNN logo is in the bottom corner. I don't view either one as delivering anything other than a commentary - and the fact that the CNN logo is there doesn't make me feel like they are manipulating me into believing I am watching the news. (I know our discussion is about msnbc and fox yet I throw in a reference to CNN! don't mean to try to change the subject, but it's the only example I could think of quickly, but I hope you get my point?)

Um, what the?, what you see is a channel tag, used by many channels and is in no way a description of the current program. You are really searching to prove your point, which is obviously non-existent.

Independent, I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong. Problem is, your childish tactics have not proven me wrong, they have just proven you childish. What the?, on the other hand, never admits she is wrong even when she obviously has been proven wrong. To me, that is the height of arrogance, the same shown by her messiah and his lackeys.

I believe I have found the source of the confusion. My original comment was:

"But I do think Fox has a right-wing agenda and many of their commentators, one of which has called himself a journalist, do not hesitate to do this to further this goal. This is much different from MSNBC, which does not claim to be a news organization, which is commentary on news and is up front about being such."

It's clear here I'm talking about the COMMENTATORS, and this is what I thought you were talking about also, the commentary programs. Hannity and Beck as opposed to Olbermann and Maddow. I should have written "This is much different from MSNBC commentators . . ." then you would not have been able to pull this out of context.

Of course MSNBC broadcasts news during the day. I just saw a breaking news story about a shooting in L.A. And I already mentioned that I watched coverage of the tea party protest in Washington on CNN. Was this not news? When I google MSNBC, it goes to the website I linked above, where you get a menu of (choose one): U.S. News, World News, Business, Politics, Sports, etc. Geez, this is pretty simple stuff, ONE!

The commentary is not news, it is opinion on news. But the commentary on Fox is put under the same umbrella as the news programs. I clicked past Glen Beck the other day and paused there just long enough to see a somewhat unhinged guy waving a baseball bat and ranting about getting whacked by the federal government. In the corner was the Fox News logo. This is news? I could call it many things, but never news. Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow don't have an MSNBC News logo on the screen during their commentaries. They don't try to pass themselves off as news, they are up front about being commentary, "The Place for Politics". In addition, Fox commentators will leave their "commentary" roles and go into the field, call themselves journalists, and state things as true that are not. Do you need me to repost Fox's own Bernie Goldberg saying the exact same thing to Bill O'Reilly here? Bernie just articulated what many of us had been noticing for a long time.

Tell ya what, I'll hold MSNBC accountable for not putting "MSNBC Commentary" on the screen during their commentary programs the day Fox News starts putting "Fox News Commentary" on the screen during Beck, Cavuto and Hannity. Fair?

Epi, you're a bit paranoid. What The ..... does not need any help and does not need to pretend to be anyone else. Are you really SO arrogant that you don't believe anyone else could possibly disagree with you or find you arrogant and annoying? You and Ken should look up CIJ on a few of the other posts, you would get along famously since you all know everything and are never wrong! I guess the grow up thing was too much to ask for. What a shame.

WT, Ok, now it's my turn to practice my parsing (lol). When I type in msnbc to my google tool bar it uses autofill and comes up as: "MSNBC News" as the search parameter.

Once clicked the google description for the web site reads as follows:
Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports ...Oct 29, 2009 ... Msnbc.com is a leader in breaking news, video and original journalism. Stay current
www.msnbc.msn.com

Actually clicking on the web link opens up MSNBC.com where I agree the masthead doesn't say "News", but scroll to the bottom where the masthead logo(not sure if the bottom is called a masthead?), says: "MSNBC.com A Fuller spectrum of News".

I guess I was basing my comment on this - perhaps reading between the lines a little.

After your question I did search google more and found the following on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC

Msnbc.com, a separate company, is the news website for the NBC News family, featuring interactivity and multimedia plus original stories and video which augment the content from NBC News and partners.

Many observers of the network say that MSNBC has become increasingly politically liberal compared with other networks, particularly in its prime-time lineup.

I don't mean to split hairs, and using wikipedia after the fact is hardly sporting, but I don't believe I'm the only one who views msnbc as touting themselves as "news".

To: What the? on October 28, 2009 10:21 AM

I am quite liberal, just not on fiscal matters. Since fiscal requirements can drive social wants, well, fiscal wins. I am, specificaly, a Reagan Democrat. My votes and money support that claim.

Your writings, however, paint you as a distinct progressive. Even your attempt to cover for another in post October 28, 2009 11:19 AM highlights this. Of course, anyone who does not agree with you is "...arrogant or self-serving".

As stated, attacking those who disagree with you fits the bill. You really need to read and analyze better, what the? You write in such a dismissive, non-listening manner, than you get upset when others, such as I, react.

I cannot speak for the others the alleged "Independent" so childishly attacked with attempts at personal dispersions [and which you inferred support with by your October 28, 2009 10:21 AM post], but as for me I see such attacks, with no proof or base outside of biased opinion, as the first haven of scoundrels and progressives.

As the great RR said, I've seen the manure, now show me the pony!

To: By independent on October 26, 2009 6:54 PM

Wow! Using the Saul Lewinsky approach: hide teh message by attacking the messenger. Carville is a strong, and brilliant, master of this tactic.

Indee, you say? Sure!

To: what the? on October 26, 2009 6:00 PM

Please! It is clear from your post that you actually do NOT watch FOX news. Did you see the Pew Research results from the last election? The ONLY outlet that received a "Fair" rating was FOX. Of curse, next you will say Pew Research is a right wing conspiracy, right?

There is a pretty big difference (IMHO) between berating an interviewee holding a child (actually yelling, as I recall) and the perception by you that others were "pumping" the crowd.

what the?, you certainly are allowed your viewpoint. However, I strongly suggest your left agenda skews your viewpoint to only see what it is you want to, or are told to, see. I could be wrong. Again, it is only a suggestion.

As for me, I do not have a conservative or a liberal agenda. In fact, I don't even have an agenda! I DO like to debate, and I like to tak eon others when I believe they are being unfair or opaque. I freely admit (through my "capitalist" comment) that I am a Fiscal conservative, and that does paint my ideals and values. I am personally disgusted by pretty much ALL of our politicians, Dems & Republicans alike.

I have the opps to read & watch numerous news channels on a daily basiss. My clients say I am a very good analyst. It is with opinion, experience, and proof via data that I can unequivicolly state that FOX News is the closest thing we have available to fair & balanced news.

Is it perfectly F&B? No. Is it conservatively based? Yes. Does it allow the viewer access to data, and then opinions from several areas of teh political spectrum> Yes.

Does any NBC channel, CBS, ABC, etc, do any of this? No! Are they left based and, more importantly, designing their coverage from that left base? Definitley! Do they allow us the advantage of several viewpoints along the spectrum? Almost never!

CNN comes the closest to meeting FOX New's fairness level, except with a liberal base on less diverse opinions along a more narrow line of the spectrum.

[By the way, I was a diehard NBC fan (it was my main news outlet all of my life) until September 11, 2001. On that day, and those following it, I fully discovered the cable news channels. I began regularly adding Fox News to my viewing about 2 months afterwards.]

Per your comment on who paid for the buses that brought people to Washington: Remember, the Washington party was held once and was one of hundreds, so try not to limit your population when trying to extrapolate/validate a result. I cannot speak to all these buses, but there were two from the Naperville area and I know that one was paid for by the church that sponsored it and the second was paid for by the 40-some people who rode it.

I would suggest that many of the buses were paid for in the same way I describe the two from Naperville. JOMO.

Anon ONE:

The earliest I could get to a TV this a.m. was 9:30, which was past the morning show time, but MSNBC said the same thing it does in the evenings-- MSNBC: the Place for Politics, no news label.

I really think you are confusing MSNBC with NBC. MSNBC has Morning Joe, which is a talk show. NBC has the Today Show on in the mornings, with Matt Lauer, Meredith Viera, et al., which is news and talk. I know Today does interviews because I've seen them. I've never watched Morning Joe, so I don't know if they include interviews in their format. Which were you watching, Morning Joe or Today (or neither)?

If you insist, tho, I'll try to catch a few minutes of MSNBC and NBC around 7 a.m. tomorrow and compare the two.


Only what the? could look at the link she provided and claim MSNBC is not passing itself off as a news organization. Seems that MSNBC uses the same format as Fox News, but, as usual, what the? is in liberal denial land.

Anon ONE:

I don't watch MSNBC in the morning, just sometimes in the evening, and it's usually Maddow. I have a similar visceral reaction to Olbermann as I do Hannity, just not as bad. I don't like to watch programs where the commentator is on an intense rant about ANYTHING. The only way this gets worse is when the commentator is on an intense rant about total BS.

I just went onto the MSNBC website at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/. I don't see the word "news" anywhere, just MSNBC across the top, and if you scroll to the bottom, it says MSNBC.com. Where do you see it say news?

I watched a little bit of Maddow Monday night, and last I looked, the evening commentary programs don't say news, just MSNBC in the lower corner. Perhaps the morning programs are news programs, but the evening commentary definitely is not. That's why Olbermann and Maddow don't advertise as news. Their advertisement is "MSNBC: The Place for Politics."

Take another look, and post a link to the website you're going to that says MSNBC News. I'll check it out as well. Meet you back here tomorrow!

Hey WT,

Didn't read close enough, I saw the "Annon" and my mind read "anonone".

I'm tired, and not looking to keep beating this (but) one of your posts included the following line, "This is much different from MSNBC, which does not claim to be a news organization".

Admittedly I don't watch msnbc a lot, but do watch Olbermann and Maddow until I can't take it any more, and they drive me crazy(Probably like your opinion of Hannity on Fox?). But this morning I put MSNBC on and they in fact call it MSNBC NEWS, and even had an interview with Brian Williams! I went to their web site and saw the same description, MSNBC NEWS, so I believe that they believe they are delivering the news! They do have a lot of commentary programs that I agree are touted as such, but until they call themselves MSNBC Commentary, I submit that they believe they are reporting the "news".


Nice of you to point out the difference between you and me, What the?. I will admit that the "from my viewpoint" statement by me cuts both ways. You do not seem smart enough to realize that, and show it with your approval and use of childish tactics that try to pass as debate from liberals. When all you can do is denigrate those that have proved you wrong numerous times, you have obviously lost the argument.

Anon ONE:

Independent's post wasn't directed at you. It specifically stated "the arrogant self serving posts of Ken, Epi and Annon". Your posts are neither arrogant nor self-serving; they simply reflect your thought and opinion. We all enjoy reading them.

Forgot one thing.

By Epi-nonymous on October 26, 2009 2:39 PM:

"I think in our polarized world we have reached a point where every argument is binary. Did FOX insist the TEA parties were not organized? No, from my viewpoint, they did not."

Oops, Epi, you used the phrase "from my viewpoint". Ken says that makes you a liberal. Welcome, we're glad to have you!

WT, us "Independent" thinking conservatives are use to seeing things like what independent wrote above - it doesn't phase me at all, it's typical. No one could really read this thread and think that this has been a one sided argument - there has been quite a bit from both sides don't you think?

The thread is going dead because there really isn't much else to say is there? How many times do we have to say we like to watch Fox and you have to say you dislike Fox (at least certain commentators)before it gets old?

Not much is going to change.

Well, it appears Independent's admonishment effectively shut down this thread. I guess you all decided to grow up. Except Ken, of course.

Two typically liberal statements that explain the liberal attitude:

"From my viewpoint..."

"That said, if the only information I had to go by was the arrogant self serving posts...so I won't let the childish approach I see here affect my opinions in the future. Grow up boys, you're embarrassing yourselves."

The first shows that a liberal is unwilling or unable to accept another viewpoint. The second shows the liberal habit of attacking the messengers as their only viable option as they don't have any defensible positions.

I consider myself an independent ...... and I often can see both sides of an argument when political policy is being debated. That said, if the only information I had to go by was the arrogant self serving posts of Ken, Epi and Annon above, I would never vote for another republican as long I lived. Thankfully, I know some very good and decent conservatives, as well as democrats, so I won't let the childish approach I see here affect my opinions in the future. Grow up boys, you're embarrassing yourselves.

Epi:

Fox DID cover the gay rights event? Sure, I heard they gave about 2 minutes to it, about the same amount of time the MSM networks gave to their tea party protests! So when the MSM gives Fox-promoted events 2 minutes of coverage, it's called turning a blind eye and "how did everyone else miss this story?". When Fox gives other events this amount of time, it's called COVERAGE. C'mon, Epi, are you serious?

And you have said many times that Fox "DO & DID include comments from the other side of the argument in their coverage". I see very little of this on Fox. Maybe there is one show that does this, but one hour that appears to be "fair and balanced" does not compensate for the other 23 that clearly aren't. I do watch Fox, aside from Hannity and Beck who I steer clear of, and I see precious little of this equal give and take that you're always insisting is there. I see it occasionally, but rarely.

And about the CNN reporter who lost her way, berated an interviewee and tried to put words in his mouth, then got intellectually "crushed" by him, and then got fired? I remember seeing this interview, I don't remember her getting intellectually "crushed" in return but if that's your opinion, fine. If you say she got fired, then that should tell you a lot about CNN and the standards they uphold as a news organization. I remember seeing videos of two Fox employees pumping up the crowd for their cameras, one male, one female. Fox said the female employee was new and did get a talking to (she was not fired) and I heard nothing about the male employee taped doing the same thing.

Of course you're not going to hear me complaining about Code Pink during the Bush administration because I wasn't blogging here at that time. I haven't paid much attention to Code Pink. Is this the group that, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, insisted the U.S. government give each and every Iraqi citizen $1M dollars in compensation? If it is, then I dismissed them as nuts long ago.

From my viewpoint, Fox did promote the view that the tea parties were not organized by anyone other than by the people who attended them. I never did hear who paid for all those chartered buses that brought people to the Washington rally. Again, from my point of view, Fox tolerates and promotes manipulation and falsification of news to an extent the MSM or CNN doesn't. But if I supported a conservative agenda, I'd probably defend Fox also. And if Fox were a liberal station, you'd be rabid with the unfairness of it all. Don't you think?

what the?,

The gay march wasn't even close to the attendance at the TEA parties --- you need to double check yourself. The TEA parties occurred twice over scores of cities. There was no comparison. I will add that event, along with various Sheehan/Code Pink events and the Million Man march advertised as grassroots movements (which does not negate the thought that something can be organized!)

Note: FOX did cover the Gay rights event. In fact, I have yet to see a news event that FOX didn't cover, including breaking news that often hurt the Republican party (like the allegations against Bush the week of the election)


TB has nailed it on the coverage’s of events. When Sheehan & Code Pink dominated our papers and media news for 5 years, I did not here you or others who opposed Bush complain.

I attended a Code Pink gathering in Chicago, and the signs were far more insulting than anything I saw at a TEA party (Bush hanging effigies, Bush with devil horns, swastikas, etc). Yet, I never saw a CBS/NBC/ABC coverage calling them rowdy, dangerous, etc., and I never heard of the Bush admin labeling them as threats to national security (Like Obama's did to the TEA attendees).

Now, with FOX, though it is a conservative channel, at least when they cover things, like the TEA parties, they DO & DID include comments from the other side of the argument in their coverage, something I never saw with the others. That is their "shtick".

TB, the difference in the coverage’s is simply because the other outlets blew it. See the NY Times for some great comments by THEM that they and everyone else were out scooped and out covered by FOX news.

Sorry, what the?, but there really is no defending the non-FOX outlets on this one, and though you can easily find fault with FOX if you want, fairness would mandate you first eviscerate the others.

It's like the old saying about capitalism ---- it the worst system EXCEPT for all the others! That is exactly how I feel about FOX, and I watch just about all of them (FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC) on a very regular basis.

I think in our polarized world we have reached a point where every argument is binary. Did FOX insist the TEA parties were not organized? No, from my viewpoint they did not.

They DID spend a lot of effort to counteract the other outlets, and the Democrat party, that were insisting the attendees were not "real" and were only there as part of a covert event organized by devious far right wingers trying to collapse the Obama government! If I recall, Pelosi called the attendees Nazis and un-American, and the official administration declaration was that they were a national security threat just like "returned servicemen".

I can't speak for TB or others, but I was fairly impressed by the extent of knowledge that was shown at both the TEA parties AND the town halls. Much of the media did their best to try to show the attendees in a bad light (like the CNN reporter who lost her way, berated an interviewee and tried to put words in his mouth, then got intellectually "crushed" by him, and then got fired!)

The lesson? One does not have to be an ideologue to accept competency from others.

So, What the?, just because a grass roots movement becomes organized, it loses it grass roots beginnings? That's some twisted reasoning there just to try to validate your line of thought. By the way, have any links showing Fox claiming protests they had planned to cover for over a week were not in any way organized?

T.B.--

No, it doesn't matter if the tea parties were organized. But it matters if they were organized and the news outlet promoting it (Fox) claims they weren't. That is the problem, because now they are not simply reporting news, they are creating it and manipulating it's image, and that crosses the line from news into propaganda.

The Million Man March WAS organized, of course, but they didn't claim to be a "grass roots movement". Same for the immigration reform marches, which were widely supported and broadcast by hispanic radio stations, but again, they didn't claim to be anything else.

I think news manipulation and falsification is a threat to our democracy, no matter which political party does it. But I do think Fox has a right-wing agenda and many of their commentators, one of which has called himself a journalist, do not hesitate to do this to further this goal. This is much different from MSNBC, which does not claim to be a news organization, which is commentary on news and is up front about being such.

The rest of the networks did not turn a blind eye, as you claimed. I watched their coverage of it. Even CNN spent too much time on it for my liking. I didn't mind the protests, it just got redundant hearing about it all day. World News Tonight reported on it, I watched it. The other networks claimed they did the same. So I don't see why many tea party supporters keep insisting everyone else "turned a blind eye". Does reporting of an event have to be a 24-hour news stream to qualify as coverage to you?

And what about Fox turning a "blind eye" to the recent gay rights march, which I heard was a lot bigger than the tea parties? Isn't this biased non-reporting, but no Fox supporters here are complaining about that. I think Fox ignored it because they did not want to offend their largely conservative base. Again, this is news manipulation. I think all the other networks should have gotten together and run an ad in the Washington Post with a picture of the gay rights march and the caption "How could Fox News have missed this story?" That would have been amusing.

And I do think it's great that so many people got off their butts to be involved. I just think it was sad that so many didn't seem to know what they were doing there. But I've seen this before with "man on the street" interviews at protests. Like with the anti-war protests before the U.S. went into Iraq. Many protesters just parroted the saying "it's our policies abroad that are the problem!". Well, what policies are those? I would have loved to have seen just one interviewer ask a protester this question. I bet you dimes to donuts they wouldn't have known!

To Anonymous on October 23, 2009 11:23 AM:

I don't know if this is you, Epi, forgetting to post your moniker or if this is the other anon who likes to answer for you. This could explain why some of "your" posts don't sound like you at times, I suspect they're not.

I'm only responding to posts that bear your moniker from now on, and hopefully anonymous won't hijack your name to stay involved.

To: What the?, Epi, and Anon ONE –

I have a question…does it really matter if the TEA partiers were organized? Does it really matter if any protest is organized?

The Million Man March was organized and that was never an issue. The immigration reform (legalization) marches were organized and that wasn’t an issue. So why is the organization or lack of organization of the TEA parties even an issue?

Assuming that What the? is correct (I don’t agree, but let’s assume), isn’t the real issue still that so many people got off their lazy butts and did something? Isn’t it good to see people expressing themselves and making their thoughts and fears known? Why is someone criticized and mocked for doing nothing more than exercising one of their protected civil rights?

What the?, can you explain why there’s a difference in media coverage between liberal and conservative (loose definition of the terms) events? An anti-war demonstration is immediately grass roots, but the TEA parties are somehow fake. Heaven forbid someone shout something at a town hall meeting against health care take-over/reform, yet Code Pink is lauded for their interruption tactics against the war. Fox covers the TEA parties, while the rest of the networks turn a blind eye.

Could it be that Fox was on the money in their coverage? Could it also be that the other networks’ refusal to cover the TEA parties and their mocking of them was also “news” in its own right?

Just wondering,

T.B.

Anon ONE:

"By independent I mean that it is my choice to read, learn and try to understand the issues without being "dictated" to by the RNC. Perhaps I do have blinders on, but I would like to think that all people should claim a certain amount of independence."

No, this means you have definitely taken the blinders OFF. Good for you!

I agree the media does portray Americans as deeply divided, as either being on one side or the other. The "liberal" media, and by that I mean MSNBC's Olbermann, Maddow and Garofalo, was very derisive about the tea party protests, but they're very left wing, so I expected as much. But still, what they did was nothing less than what Fox does to "liberal" interests on a daily basis.

But the way I see it, the rest of the media simply wasn't fooled. They were reporting what it was, and it WAS heavily promoted by Fox, FreedomWorks Richard Armey and his anonymous funders was and still are heavily involved, there was much talk about it not being an authentic grass roots movement, and it was, as you said, "a lot of pomp and show with Repubs/conservatives fighting for their/our party," regardless of Fox's insistence that it was first a "cross section of America" and later "all independents". I think the heavy promotion by Fox could have hurt the movements credibility more than it helped.

I register as a Democrat, but there's a lot about the Democratic Party that drives me nuts and that I don't support. Remember when Blago authorized the use of public taxpayer money to subsidize low interest home loans for illegal immigrants? Our taxes here in Naperville had just taken a big jump, and I'm listening to a Dem politician getting all misty on how, thanks to Blago, the illegals will now have a shot at the American dream! I about LOST MY MIND. If they want the American dream, fine, then let them become Americans. Legally. But to reward illegals who break our laws by giving them taxpayer funded low interest loans to buy houses? I think this kind of blatant enabling needs to stop. And this is a much more "conservative" view than other Democrats have!

To: What the?,

What is a “crowing” post??? If you mean my affirmation to the posts of others who finally decided to add to our posts, well, there you are!

As for you, your left slip is showing so much you might be arrested for indecent exposure!

I have no problem with either the rich or privileged --- I am a capitalist through-and-through. I DO have problems with people like yourself who are so caught up in their partisan doctrine that they can't see the world in front of them yet insist on attacking and attempting to demean the rest of us who don't see it exactly your way.

I note you had no issues with Anderson's lack of grace or manners, just your usual biased (and incorrect) opinion of what you thought my beliefs were.

You writings could be taken directly from the Dem Party website. You have obviously drank all the kool-aid they could pour down you, and now you are in a kool-aid haze of repeating far left canons in the robotic manner of the truly possessed.

Let’s be clear on the data since you insist on consistently attacking me and putting words and meanings to my writings that just does not apply. More people showed up at the second wave of TEA parties ---- check any source, even your coveted NBC, Huffington or KOS. So, my alleged declarative on that one is correct. As far as the horror, again I have my own data.

AS I wrote, I attended two TEA parties. I am also involved with many of the local (Illinois) politicians, and I was told several times, first-hand, that many of them (my Dem pol friends) were horrified by the increased turnout and the fact (their words, not mine) that it was more than just Republicans attending. Indees were mentioned by group several times. This also matches my own experiences. Sure, this involves some opinion, but it also involves a lot of facts and anecdotal info gathered from people I trust and believe.

So you see, What the?, some of us get off of our butts and gather data. We particiapte and not just watch. Others only listen and assume what they hear is gospel, and repeat it 100 times in the belief that like Carville says, it then becomes fact.

I would submit you ARE that gullible --- just reread your posts. You verbatim repeat Dem talking points. A little newsflash for you: Your denial of anything you disagree with does not make you correct on the facts, just ignorant of them.

[By the by, any chance you noted two big events over the past 40 hours? First, the entire Whitehouse pool stood up for FOX as a news outlet; Second, the NYT has a great article on how they, and others, have been missing the news and have been scooped by FOX, who is leading the pack on real breaking news this fall? Check it out.

Seems that What the? does not get the simple truth that other news stations did not cover tea party events because it went against their liberal programing. Now, if it was someone like Cindy Sheehan waging a one woman protest against a republican official, they would be all over it. I guess in the liberal mind, if their favorite biased station does not cover an event, it did not happen.

Epi:

You used the term "weedhopper". This sounds adorable, tho I doubt it is. What it is?

Epi:

You were right about the tea parties originating with Rick Santelli or whoever he is (I never heard of him or his show until now). I googled his name and "tea party" and up it popped! I love this kind of thing, this is one of the pay-offs of blogging for me, I find out stuff from other bloggers that I wouldn't have otherwise known. So thanks for that info.

HOWEVER, and this is in all caps for a reason, just because I didn't know about the Santelli connection does NOT mean I'm wrong about everything else for the rest of my life. Such as Fox promoting the tea parties. Folks who lean left tend to agree with this, just like many conservatives, like you, deny it. People with different frames of reference and values seeing the same "facts" and coming to very different conclusions, as we discussed before. A big difference between you and I is that I recognize that people do this, you deny it. You think that "facts is facts" and your interpretation is the only one that is correct, everyone else be damned.

I followed Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC on the tea party stuff throughout the summer. There was a definite difference with Fox that the other stations didn't exhibit--Fox was totally into the tea party stuff, big time. It was mentioned several times EVERY DAY on their station, like a count down to Christmas, "10 days until the rally in Washington, 9 days until the rally in Washington" etc. etc. And the day of was a constant stream of reporting, with Fox people there stirring up the crowds. This definitely crossed the line into promoting. I witnessed it first hand, so don't try to sell me your revisionist version.

And I would like to continue our blogging, but I've noticed a definite change in the tone of your posts since our European disagreement. It seems like you have a bug up your butt you didn't have before, and your tone has become obnoxiously self-righteous, like you're still trying to settle a score. I mean, three crowing posts in a row? I haven't seen this from you before.

Tell ya what--you may think I'm wearing left-lense glasses, but I think you've got your head so far up the rear end of Fox News that you can see daylight at the other end. So I'll wipe off my glasses if you pull your head out, then maybe we can have a productive exchange again.

Until then, don't waste my time with your assessments of "declarative" statements. You do the exact same thing, such as in "To their dismay, it only brought out more, but to their horror, the new attendees included a large number of independents." What conservative article did you pull that statement out of? You have absolutely no definitive proof of who, if anyone, was dismayed or horrified, of who was there for what reason beyond the few you spoke to, and you certainly cannot prove that there were a "large number of independents" there. This is all conjecture, anecdotal remarks and right wing parroting. I know because I heard the same BS coming from Fox and ONLY Fox. So spare me the self-righteous commentary. You're only fooling yourself with this, I'm not that gullible.

And it's obvious you have a hard-on, as you like to put it, for Anderson Cooper. Your comment "I guess that is the type of grace and manners one gets growing up priviledged and rich!" says it all. Sounds like you have a problem with people you think are privileged and rich.

To: By Anonymous ONE on October 22, 2009 1:29 PM

Another super post --- bravo!!

What for?, you need to take off the two-left-lensed glasses. You agan use the declarative ("..tea parties for what they really were: an astro turf movement that was the brainchild of Fox" in referring to the events.

As posted earlier, you are wrong on the facts as to whose brainchild it was, and the astro-turf comment is a parroting of the left wing talking points. I fully understand that you are stating your opinion, but it is normal for an opinion to have some reason behind it (ie some facts, data, or personal experience, etc.)

Do you really believe that all those people that attended these events were "not real"? That would be a bizarre analysis.

To: By Anonymous ONE on October 21, 2009 3:59 PM

Agreed with all --- great post.

At the time, the sequence of comments you list added to the speed at which everyone picked up on the vile insult intended by the slur. As "Ken" posted, your sequence helps to highlight the left bias by the media.

I like the way Todd ended up looking like someone who "phones it in" without getting first hand data.

ABC's Harris did a great job of not saying it was not grass roots, but attributing that attempt at invalidation to where it originated ---- critics on the left.

If I recall, CNN's Roesgen was fired (or demoted).

You missed one truly "inspiring" version with the Vanderbilt guy (Cooper Anderson?). He got a big kick out of himself on his program by dashingly staring into the camera, talking about those attending the TEA parties by the slur, and smirking, shaking his head, adding a giggle, and repeating! Way to go, Coop. I guess that is the type of grace and manners one gets growing up priviledged and rich!

To: What the?

I am pretty sure I wrote “If you are actually trying to defend these "teabagger" comments…”. It was not yet an accusation! Read closer, weedhopper! The “knee-jerk reaction” comment goes back atcha!

On a serious note, it was meant as a warning that I think anyone who defends the comments cannot be taken seriously. The term, as currently used in time and context, is vile and intended as an insult. I don’t care if an interviewer did not take someone to task on it, we all now how and why it is being used. ‘nuff said.

Now, for a significant fact you have wrong, what the?:

The TEA parties did NOT originate with FOX.

They actually were started by Rick Santelli (spelling?) from the finance channel Next, just because FOX covered them (remember, the mainstream tried very hard to ignore them), does not constitute promotion. Eventually, CNN, CBS covered them --- does that mean they promoted them? Nope!

Thus, your assumption/analysis/logic that if FOX covers it, it must be attended by people who watch FOX, thus they must be conservative, is flawed. As you should know, about 50% of FOX watchers are made up of non-Republicans, specifically indees and Dems. Having said that, I agree that well over half of the attendees were surely non-left, non-far liberal, and probably were center to right of center. I would NOT agree that they were predominately far right if that is your proposal. Are we in danger of almost agreeing?

Yes, to answer your question I did attend two TEA parties. I attended them over the two major cycles in which they occurred, and attendance increased from one to the other. In both, the turnout was very high. As I stated, they were well-represented by many walks of society, I personally talked to many, many non-Republicans (like myself), many people of different religions and colors, and, astonishingly, I saw NO violence or hatred or raw anger! I DID see a lot of people with questions on policy, especially financial policy, with a lot of questions and disagreements with both Bush & Obama.

I agree with your comment on polls! Finally, we agree on something (though I suspect you do not take it to the level I do). I will take it further and say that ANY information gathering action, such as a poll, where a human is asked for info with no proof, is flawed. To add to your thread, when someone is polled and say they like the health plan, they are Dem or Republican, etc., they easily can be lying. There are many reasons to lie, including trying to pump up a base, mislead money contributions, scare others, etc. That is why I believe in first-hand data gathering whenever possible (a main reason I attend so many different political events, including debates whenever I can). That way, I get to see the context, the body language, the pitch of voice, etc. Fallible, but no more so than reading a poll.

WT?,

I think a broad brush has been used to label Republicans as "conservatives" and Democrats as "liberals". If you look at the definitions of each it opens up a wide range of debate, but in general these terms have been hung on each group.

It can also be a semantics issue, because even though I have always voted Republican (gee I thought I had kept this a secret) I believe that I am "Independent" in my thinking. By independent I mean that it is my choice to read, learn and try to understand the issues without being "dictated" to by the RNC. Perhaps I do have blinders on, but I would like to think that all people should claim a certain amount of independence.

That being said, I think that a Democrat or Republican can be either conservative or liberal in their thinking. Again, it depends on how you define the terms.

I believe there is tremendous agreement in America on many issues, but IMO the media seems to portray us all as deeply divided, or sharply divided. (Sorry Chris, but that's the way I see it when the media is involved). You can have a conservative who has liberal views (abortion ok in certain cases), and liberals who are conservative in their views (Death penalty ok in certain cases).

I think the Tea Parties were a lot of pomp and show, but Repubs / conservatives are fighting for their/our party and want to show strength. IMO the "liberal" media portrayed the participants in a very poor light, and some of the examples I posted previously showed that they also made fun of them. When these same MSM portray protests involving democrats about things like war, abortion, death penalty, or other liberal (there's that word again) views my impression is that they give them favorable coverage and take their protests more seriously. The tea parties really took life when the MSM made it about Fox News, and the Obama administration is keeping this alive with their current protest against Fox.

Didn't mean to write a book about this, but labeling of groups based on politics is an issue I tend to follow. And if you follow the open topic thread you will see that CIJ called me a genious so I must be right??? (Laugh Out Loud!)

Anon ONE:

I don't know the difference between a conservative and a Republican, but I've heard some make this distinction about themselves, so I'm just acknowledging their point of view, whatever that is. But from my experience, most independents are progressives who don't want to call themselves Dems, but they can be anyone who doesn't relate to either dominant political party. But generally, those in the mainstream saw the tea parties for what they really were: an astro turf movement that was the brainchild of Fox and heartily promoted by them as such, attended by mostly conservatives opposed to just about anything the current administration stood for. Fox promoters called it many things: a grass roots movement, first a cross section of America then later all independents, yada yada. Mainstream American didn't buy it, hence all the derision. Fox and their supporters fooled no one but themselves.

Hey, What the?

1) When Bush took office the Taliban ran Afghanistan and protected Al Qaeda. Should we have reached out to the Taliban then and tried to make them like the US more? Would that have mattered?
2) You’re correct that the hijackers who flew on 9/11 didn’t like the US, but they started their training well before Bush took office. So was Clinton responsible for their dislike even though he was adored overseas?
3) Yes, we’re safer with allies, but you can’t make everyone like us. And what good are allies when they’re like our NATO friends Italy and Germany who send troops to Afghanistan but refuse to let them get into harms way?

My personal opinion is that this idea that US needs to be liked around the world is overblown. Yes, we need friends and cooperation, but multilateralism has its limitations, too. These would include the Iranian situation where Russia continues to balk at tougher sanctions against Iran even as they help the Iranians build a nuclear power plant; and also the N. Korean situation where China wields immense influence but refuses to use it.

Friends and allies are nice, but in the end they’re going to be looking out for their own best interests and not our own so we need to do the same. I don’t think our allies share or sense of urgency regarding nuclear proliferation, for example, because they know that if a terrorist gets their hands on a nuclear bomb the most likely target would be in the US (or Israel) and not in the middle of Italy, Germany, Poland, Mexico, etc.

T.B.

Wow. Another rare instance that what the? and I agree; great post Anonymous ONE. Your links and quotes clearly show the MSM and liberal bias that passes for news on the left.

Anon ONE:

Great post, thanks!

What the? on October 21, 2009 12:50 AM
I didn't hear the mainstream media speculate on the political affiliation of the participants

Epi-nonymous on October 19, 2009 4:26 PM
To be clear: The summer parties were called TEA parties --- it was an acronym (Taxed Enough Already).The summer’s TEA party hooplah involved something way more devious than snickering ---- it was straight-up insults of the American people by elitists (mostly from each coast). The "teabagger" comment comes from juvenile far left progressives who early on thought demeaning them would ensure no one showed up.
______________________________

EPI and WT?, there was a lot of talk by the MSM about the makeup of the Tea party. I believe that a majority of the people at these events were identified as either conservatives / republicans (If there is a huge difference). I cut and pasted some comments from MSM sources where they indicated the make up was "right wing", along with ridiculing them. It was obvious from many of the interviews that the people at these events had never heard of the alternate definition of "tea bagging". I call myself "worldly", but I hadn't ever heard the term before either.

1. ABC's Dan Harris: “Cheered on by Fox News and talk radio, the hundreds of tea parties today were designed to protest the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and President Obama's budget....But critics on the left say this is not a real grassroots phenomenon at all, that it's actually largely orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests....

2. NBC's Chuck Todd wrote off the protests for Today show viewers on April 15: “There's been some grassroots conservatives who have organized so called ‘tea parties'” around the country. “But I tell you, the idea hasn't really caught on.”

3. (CNN) Susan Roesgen, who rudely interrupted and argued with two protestors in Chicago as she slammed the event as “anti-government,” “anti-CNN” and for being “highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox,” as well as “not really family viewing.” In an anguished tone,” she implored one interviewee: “Why be so hard on the President of the United States?”

4. OLBERMANN: Congratulations, Pensacola tea-baggers. You got spunk. And despite the hatred on display, few of you actually violated the penal code. But tea-bagging has now petered out. It ain't what it used to be. And when you coopt the next holiday, Fourth of July, try to adopt a holiday food that does not invite double entendres, like, you know, franks and beans. On a more serious note, we're now joined by actor and activist Janeane Garofalo. Good to see you.
JANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you. You know, there is nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite sure what he's saying. It sounds right to them, and then it doesn't make sense, which -- let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about.

Garofalo scurrilously charged: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.” Denigrating the Fox News Channel, she asserted the right-wing has “no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear” which FNC has exploited: “Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that's their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox News goes down the toilet, very, very fast.” FNC, she stumbled into alleging, has cornered the “Klan with a k demo.”

5. David Shuster's crude and juvenile sexual innuendo: “For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It's going to be tea-bagging day for the right-wing and they're going nuts for it.

links 1-5: http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/teaparty/welcome.asp

6. However it got started, it's clear where it's headed: to an honored place within the mainstream Republican party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/tax-day-tea-parties-offic_n_186788.html

7. The tea party protest has been met with derision from many on the left,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/main4946264.shtml

8. it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1

Epi:

Now who is having a knee-jerk reaction?

I went back over my post, I wrote nothing that indicated to me that I was defending the teabagger term. I was simply explaining where I thought it came from. You may want to think twice before jumping all over someone if you hear this term used. Not everyone knows the sexual reference to it. I didn't before early this summer, and then I forgot and used the term here and other bloggers jumped all over me for it. So you may want to rationally inform people rather than attack them if you hear this term used, they simply may not know.

In fact, I was listening to a radio station just last night in my car--I don't know who it was--but given the subject, it sounded like a conservative announcer interviewing a progressive about the tea rallies among other things, and the interviewee used the term teabaggers in the discussion several times and there was nothing derogatory about it and the announcer didn't object either. So I think the term may be coming into casual use sans the sexual reference.

I remember you mentioned in a previous post that you went to town hall meetings this summer where you talked to people of all backgrounds, ethnicity and political affiliations, but I thought we were talking about the tea parties, which were different from the town hall meetings. Like the one held in Washington, D.C. Did you attend an actual tea party? And how could a reliable poll be taken of thousands of people in that kind of a setting? I don't consider an announcer going around asking random people their political affiliations a reliable poll, anecdotal evidence, sure, but not a poll. For all we know they were conservatives just saying they were independents or democrats. There's really no way of knowing. And given that the tea party idea originated with and was promoted by Fox, my guess is the people there were overwhelmingly conservative, with probably some independents as well. One doesn't have to be a Republican to be a conservative!

what the?,

I have two reference points:
First, I saw many interviews at the second wave of parties across the country, and there was a plethora of attendees saying they were there because of the fuss over "the extremeist reaction from the far left" ----- the "teabaggers" comment was oft mentioned, as were the numerous charges of "racism". They said they came to see for themselves.

Second, I attended two such parties. At both, I spent my time talking to people and listening. I had conversations with people of pretty much all colors, several religions (Christian, Jew, Muslim), and at least 4 political affilitaions(Republican, Democrat, Independent, & Libertarian). At the second, many, many folks claimed they were there (in bigger numbers, in this case) because of "the extrmeist reaction by the far left".

Anecdotal, perhaps. Data? Yes.

If you are actually trying to defend these "teabagger" comments, by the way, then we really have nothing left to blog together on. The comments were vile, they blew up in their face, and I suspect (yes ---- an opinion!) it had more than a little to do with the eventual turnouts at the town halls (were, if you attended one, you very possibly would have heard many references to the TEA parties and the extremist reactions to them from the left --- I did.)


Yes, there were polls/interviews taken at the TEA aprties throughout the country, and the most surprising result was the number of non-Republicans attending them. The independent turnout was large and, I assume, unexpected. Kinda like FOX News, where close to half the audience is non-Republicans.

Epi:

Regarding the tea party stuff, I have no idea where the term teabagger originated this summer. I assumed it was a result of many of the people who attended these events adorning themselves and their signs with tea bags. I remember seeing a picture of one woman who was wearing a wide rimmed sun hat with tea bags hanging off of it. Naive, perhaps, but I thought this was why they were called "teabaggers". I don't remember hearing them referred to as "tea partiers".

One question, tho. You said "The "teabagger" comment comes from juvenile far left progressives who early on thought demeaning them would ensure no one showed up. To their dismay, it only brought out more, but to their horror, the new attendees included a large number of independents."

How do you know this? Basically, that demeaning them was done to ensure no one showed up. Perhaps they just couldn't resist the sexual teabagger reference and were poking fun at them just because they could. How do you know the ridicule brought out more participants rather than not having an impact at all, that they were horrified there were new attendees, rather than not caring either way, and that a large number of these new attendees were independents? How would anyone know, unless they took a poll of all who attended these rallies, and from what I know this wasn't done?

This is, after all, a very declarative statement. I saw coverage of the rally on several stations, and the only one I heard make declarations on the political ties of the ralliers was Fox. First they claimed the ralliers were a "cross section" of America, which I didn't believe at all, then later they had a guy on saying ALL the ralliers were independents. I didn't believe this either. I didn't hear the mainstream media speculate on the political affiliation of the participants, so I'm just wondering what was your source for this.

Epi:

"My issues with you were/are you quickness to condemn all who write here and disagree with Obama as insane, nuts, far right, too conservative, wrong, etc."

I don't believe I have called other bloggers insane, nuts, far right, too conservative, wrong, etc., at least not recently. I have responded to COMMENTS this way--"Rush nuts", "far right", "this must be driving you insane"--but that is my opinion. Other bloggers have said the same things and worse about my comments. I started reading this blog about two years ago, and I noticed that the majority of those WHO POST HERE, not who live in Naperville, have conservative viewpoints. I'm definitely in the minority here.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the direction of a President and his admin. Tt's the crazy stuff--my opinion again--that bugs me, the inflammatory rhetoric and mindless trashing which serves no purpose. That's the stuff I challenge, and it's sadly the majority of what appears here.

It's okay if you don't want to acknowledge my Bush articles as ridicule. It's not important what we think. My whole point was it's important to the French. They did consider it ridicule. I also said earlier that the majority of this ridicule came not from Bush, but from his administration and supporters. Remember the freedom fries thing in the House and the boycotting of French wine? Remember the abuse heaped on the German government by members of the Bush administration when Germany sided with France on Iraq? Obama can't simply dismiss this as irrelevant like you can. That's part of the history with them that he now has to deal with.

I don't understand this "link" thing you keep going back to. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "the botton line is you said it, and you said it was there. I went over it several times."

In my Oct. 12 post, I explained why I did not want to edify my comments for you, because "I could spend hours pulling up all kinds of articles from folks who SEE THIS AS I DO, but you'd still disagree so there's no point." I then wrote: "I will show you an OPINION piece I ran into just today that reflects MY OPINION ON THIS very well."

The opinion link was the only one I posted in regards to this topic; I did not claim to have linked any others or posted any "facts" about it. So you've lost me on this one.


To: what the?,

To be clear: The summer parties were called TEA parties --- it was an acronym (Taxed Enough Already).

The summer’s TEA party hooplah involved something way more devious than snickering ---- it was straight-up insults of the American people by elitists (mostly from each coast).

The "teabagger" comment comes from juvenile far left progressives who early on thought demeaning them would ensure no one showed up. To their dismay, it only brought out more, but to their horror, the new attendees included a large number of independents.

As to our little argument, I believe there are only one facts --- the facts! Truth CAN be malleable based on perspective and I acknowledge that. Let’s not parse on the “link” thing: the botton line is you said it, and you said it was there. I went over it several times.

My issues with you were/are you quickness to condemn all who write here and disagree with Obama as insane, nuts, far right, too conservative, wrong, etc. I will submit that there is nothing wrong with being either conservative or liberal ---- it is the farther ends of the spectrum that give me the willies! Disagreeing with the direction of a President and his admin is neither unpatriotic or an indication of one's voting record ---- my experiences with politicians is that it is often an indication of the superior intellect and/or grasp on reality of the voter over the politician!

The fact is that declaratives tend to be interpreted as statements of fact from whomever is uttering (or writing) them. Thus, I took exception to several of your declaratives as facts when they were really opinion. It might sound like parsing to you, but given your quickness to attack I consider it much more than parsing. I understand that is an opinion!

You are spot-on when you write that folks can look at the same events and have very different impressions of those events and attach different meanings to them. I totally agree with that statement (thus the use of observations, opinions, etc). I guess I just disagree with you that facts differ based on impressions.

Examples: we either invaded Iraq or we didn’t. Saddam either had 12 + years to get in line or he didn’t. Terrorists (not disenfranchised freedom fighters) either attacked American soil or they didn’t. Obama either racked up a 1.44 trillion dollar deficit in his first 10 months or he didn’t. Bush either ran up a 450 bil deficit or he didn’t.

Now, complex opinions would include statements like “We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because the U.N didn’t want us to” (fact: U.N didn’t want us to, but opinion we shouldn’t have because of it.) A simple opinion would be something like “Obama is a military genius”, because though he may be, he has yet to do anything to show it, Until then, it is a simple opinion.

I will stand by my statement that Bush never, ever ridiculed the Europeans. Your examples are not ridicule in any "book" I read, and I have yet to find anyone to agree that it is ridicule besides you. I understand your belief that if the Europeans believe or say it is ridicule, it counts, but that argument to me falls short of reality. If I say I am 6'8" and play power forward for an NBA team, does that make me one no matter how hard I believe it? I understand you and I will never agree on this one, so let's just let it rest, shall we?


Finally, as far as those who post here ---- I suspect the distribution of conservative to liberal is much closer than you think [you wrote “..since most posters here tend to favor conservative views,”] Naperville I snow about 50% Democrat based on actual voting last election, and I find that the posted comments on these blogs, though not 50/50, are much more liberal than they would have been even 3 years ago. I understand that this is open to interpretation and opinion, but……….

Jeez, Epi, calm down:

"On October 15, 2009 5:55 PM you post “..I did not post any links. This part is correct. But I did not say that I did”. Yet back on October 13, 2009 1:59 AM you posted “I said Bush DID ridicule other nations, and the link I posted said it also.”

Yes, the OPINION PIECE was the one I was referring to, it was the first link I posted. You didn't get what you demanded, you got something else, and I explained why. Go over it again.

Yes, I wrote in the declarative. This is MY TRUTH, my overall impression of the Bush years. You have a different impression of the last eight years, so your truth is different. Opinions are often written this way, like in the opinion piece I linked, like in your last several posts. But I did not call it fact, you took it as being presented as fact. And even after I clarified this for you, you ignored it and continued ranting.

"You would be stupefied if you actually knew the politics of some of us who post here."

You would be stupefied if you knew mine too. My viewpoints are not as straight-forward as you think, but I understand that all the stuff you're going on about--telling me what I am, what I believe, what I think--is simply your opinion, you have no way of knowing what is fact. For instance, I've never voted a straight Democratic ticket in my life. But since most posters here tend to favor conservative views, I get this all the time. I'm used to it.

"You folks" meant you and Ken, the only two who responded, not all conservatives on the face of the earth. And the Bush bashing France links may be lame, but YOU are the one who made the statement that Bush had NEVER done this--EVER. The fact is he did, however lame. YOU are the one who makes such a big deal about relying on FACTS. I think when you casually throw out those that challenge your position, you lessen your own argument, not anyone else's.

This is why I said initially that I didn't want to get into a discussion of the Bush years, because folks can look at the same events and have very different impressions of those events and attach different meanings to them. It doesn't matter what I "edify you" with, you will still disagree, so it's pointless. I've been through it enough times to know, and I just went through it again with you. Look at the argument we are in over just the last few days of posts. Can you imagine what kind of argument would have developed over the last 8 years of Bush? No, thank you!

As to the hamburger comment, it sure sounds like a rip-off of the Freud cigar saying, which is not so much yesterday as last century. This is not unusual; pop culture often draws it's inspiration from classic themes. But I would hesitate to lump the hamburger comment in with the likes of Picasso and O'Keeffe. All pop culture is certainly not created equal. The snickering over the "teabagger" label this summer, which is a term I hadn't heard before, and I would bet most conservatives hadn't either or they probably would have chosen a different name for their rallies, is a prime example. That, too, could be considered "pop culture", but knowing that certainly hasn't enriched my life. I can live without the hamburger reference as well.

To: What the?,

Where oh where do we start?

Okay, let’s first clear the air! We get it! You hate Bush and conservatives and you love liberals and want to have Obama’s baby. Now that we have that out of the way, can we kibbitz a little?

Back to our little running argument involving your rampant use of opinion stated as facts:

First, your inability to stand behind your own written words. It is really sad that you can’t even correctly recall your own posts to me!

On October 15, 2009 5:55 PM you post “..I did not post any links. This part is correct. But I did not say that I did” . Yet back on October 13, 2009 1:59 AM you posted “…I said Bush DID ridicule other nations, and the link I posted said it also.”

So which is it, what the? Either you posted the link, or you didn’t. As I said, you bend the facts to try and support whatever your current argument is. We are all left with a dilemma: - should we believe you or our lying eyes?

Second, Yes, I like to be right. However, it is even more important to me to clarify and correct when someone else is grossly wrong or unfair (like yourself). You write in the declarative, then get pissed when I call you on it as being presented as a fact. Can’t have it both ways.

Third, as I wrote earlier, you would be stupefied if you actually knew the politics of some of us who post here. Your assumption that since we (or I ) correct your shortcomings we must be far right conservatives in invalid and lacks intellectual scrutiny. It is no indication of who or what we vote for. Mature up a little and take off your glasses with the two left lenses!

Fourth, your intolerance does not become you. Shame on you for your angry use of phrases like “you folks”. Such palpable bias and narrow mindedness, though typical of a knee-jerk liberal, is expected.

To actually believe that the lame links you eventually provided show any ridicule at all indicates, IMHO, that you lack the ability to filter data, noise, and events and arrange them correctly in your mind. To go further and infer that they are on par with the rancid comments made by other countries against a President of the United States (you claim to respect the position, yet all you can do is trash Bush) exhibits either a lack of analytical ability OR an overbearing political bias (or both!)

Sixth, you are so paranoid in your sightings of a conservative bogeyman behind every comment that you now attribute your own personal condition (see “insane”, above) to others! Many of us, left and right, don’t have such an obsession on whether or not the Europeans “really, really like us” as you do. Many of us are more concerned in ensuring that the correct things get done to protect us and the earth as a whole, and being “liked” isn’t the highest point on our list. You continue your rabid fascination, and keep bringing up, the Nobel Peace prize. Seriously ---- are you okay?

Seventh, It is VERY impressive that you feel you can go to your 13 yr old daughter for advice. It is clear she gets her open-mind and willingness to look beyond herself from her other parent. As she probably knows, pop culture has it’s strongest roots in the mid-20th century (it was started earlier, but burst on the scene in the very late 50s, and the 60s movement, often identified by artists & writers like Warhol, Steinbeck, O’Keefe, Picasso, Dylan, Kerouac, Paschke, etc.). Many open minds out there consider these major contributors to pop culture’s roots as classics. Perhaps you need to expand your knowledge base?

Let me add that Pop culture is often in conflict with both the elitist culture and the folk culture of the lower classes. Which are you? Elitist or folk? I would vote elitist based on your writings.

So, are we having fun yet? Have I taken your declarative writings to be presented as facts? Yes I have! Have you taken ANY writings of doubt about our President to be some kind of personal attack that you, and only you, can compensate for? Yes you have! Have you shown a palpable and distinct hate for past President Bush and shown a leaning toward globalism over nationalism? Yes you have!

I would submit that if you did not include me in your blanket and biased condemnations of all things far right (which I certainly am not), assume and put words in my mouth that radiate from yourself, and generally open your mind to the thoughts of others, I (and possibly others) would be less inclined to scrutinize your writing to such a degree.

Epi:

I always seem to leave something out:

I had to smile at the way you claim to be so FACT based then immediately turn around and run a list of your opinions under this label. Out of all of what you are passing as facts, only one comes close:

"Fact: I read ALL the previous posts between me and you-- there were no links. Please quit inferring that you supplied them in OUR correspondence and that I somehow missed them----I didn't!"

No, I did not post any links. This part is correct. But I did not say that I did. You demanded them (edify me!) but I did not comply. Instead, I explained to you why I was not complying, because I did not want to get into this kind of pointless argument. I did, however, post a link to what I said was an opinion piece that reflected my own views pretty well. If you wanted to pursue this, I said you could get this writer to edify you.

I did not say my comments were fact. YOU gave it this label in your Oct. 12 post "All in all, you are correct in that you are repeating your opinion, calling it fact . . ." I think I may have written it in a way that made it sound like fact to you (I am pretty sure of myself), but I did not say it was. I clarified that this was my opinion in my next post, but by this point you were not receptive to reason, you were only intent on proving yourself "right". As I have seen many times with these kinds of disputes, someone claims to have "all the facts" when it's obvious, sometimes embarrassingly so, that they are indulging in pure conjecture.

And we ended up having precisely the argument I knew we would.

Again, what the?, President Bush was just stating the truth. Calling this "trashing" France is a stretch at best, an out and out lie at worst. France did say one thing and do another, making President Bush's observation valid. Facts are facts, and you, as usual, have none to back you up.

Epi:

Well, the conservative fur is flying! Looks like I really hit a nerve.

So this is all about YOU being right. This explains a lot.

"Do you REALLY think a single comment [during a debate 4 years after taking office, years after the Iraqi invasion, years after deliberate, ongoing, and truly insulting comments from the French and others (personal attacks, I may add),] of "...countries like France" constitutes ridicule, then I will submit that is is my opinion you have an elastic sense of value that you skew to your liberal theology."

Looks like you chose b) this isn't ridiculing, with a smattering of a) France trashed Bush so he was just giving back what he got, as your rebuttal. Ken chose d) Bush wasn't ridiculing, he was stating a fact and he's right. This is how predictable you folks are. You demand facts, I give you one, you throw it out. This is precisely why these arguments are a waste of time. You engage in them for the sole purpose of bludgeoning others with your dogma.

And just so you know, this wasn't a single comment. Here's another: Bush Takes Another Swing at France:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123729,00.html

Now you have TWO. I am also aware that the majority of the France and Germany bashing came from Bush's administration and supporters, not directly from him, but you're the one who claimed he never bashed the Europeans--EVER. I've given you proof that he did. "Facts is facts" works both ways.

However, this discussion has served a useful purpose. I now know definitively why Obama's Peace Prize has conservatives absolutely rabid. You don't object to it on ideological terms, really, even though you make this argument. The truth is you can't stand it that Europeans trashed Bush up one side and down the other FOR YEARS, with the image of shoes being thrown at him broadcast around the world, when 9 months into his term, Obama is honored by the Europeans with a Nobel Prize basically for just being who he is. I do understand. This must be driving you INSANE.

P.S. Thanks for clarifying the hamburger comment. I don't spend much time with pop culture, my tastes run more in the classics. But it's good to know that if I ever have a pop culture question and my 13-year-old isn't around to explain it, I can always ask YOU.

To: What the?

Facts is facts. You can try and twist your writings after the fact, you can assume I read every word written by you elsewhere, but the end result: Facts is facts, and I am right. Read it all again!

Do you REALLY think a single comment [during a debate 4 years after taking office, years after the Iraqi invasion, years after deliberate, ongoing, and truly insulting comments from the French and others (personal attacks, I may add),] of "...countries like France" constitutes ridicule, then I will submit that is is my opinion you have an elastic sense of value that you skew to your liberal theology.

Fact: I read ALL the previous posts between me and you-- there were no links. Please quit inferring that you supplied them in OUR correspondence and that I somehow missed them----I didn't!

Fact: So you agree Bush did want to work with the other countries. Thanks for agreeing with the rest of us.

Fact: I never tried to set the standard for truth for another nation. It is clear to all but you that I DID state facts, pesky though they be, that did not agree with your opinion-based argument. Again, read the actual posts and not your wish of what the post coulda been!

Fact: Your post declared Obama the Peace President. You never said it was your opinion. Now you argue it is your opinion. I can accept it as an opinion, but NOT as a fact. You see, what the?, facts require proof of some sort. Hope is not proof, or a strategy.

Fact: You pepper your posts with declarations derisive of Bush (and any posts with a conservative thought), and lauding Obama. You try to restate them as facts when you want to argue, then change them to opinion when you get caught with bad "facts"!

Great example: The Peace Pres. comment, above. Another? You posted "....the president who ridiculed the Europeans and used brawn before diplomacy to a president who regards Europeans as equal partners with an equal responsibility for maintaining peace."As we all know from the facts, the U.S. had a policy of regime change in Iraq, the U.S gave Iraq over 12 years to comply with the surrender agreement from Gulf I, the U.S gave Iraq almost 2 years to comply with the above and to quit shooting at our planes and choppers, and the U.S gave Iraq 6 months as a final warning to come forward and simply fulfill the requirements of the surrender agreement before we would bomb them. This is QUITE a series of diplomacies prior to brawn!

Fact: Your hard-on for Bush is palpable. To paraphrase Sting, it is evident in "every word you write, every insult you type, you'll be hating him!" A little advice: Try to let it go and move on --- it's a new age, baby!


It is just my opinion that you should definitely take your arrogance down more than just a few notches. You see a right-wing bogeyman at every corner, you are dismissive of anyone who doesn't accept your opinions (which you oft state in the declarative, thus inferring them as facts), and you are blinded by a liberally-skewed viewpoint that dpes not allow yu to ever see teh views and points of others. Your impulse then becomes one of attempting to insult and attack the others who post with you, despite starting your threads as somewhat even-minded and fair (two traits which you quickly throw out the window!)

In short, what the?, I love debate on different perspectives. I dislike debating with others who declare "facts" to push their agenda, in your case a very liberal one.

JOMO.

{Note: "Sometimes a hamburger is just a hamburger" is a little bit of pop culture. Freud is so "yesterday"]

Does the tone of politics turn me off?

Yes.

Nearly as much as the tone of this blog turns me off. Look, we're all going to disagree about things, and politics is one of those things, always has been. How about something as simple as this: before sitting down to type a reply disagreeing with someone, picture yourself at a bar about to disagree with someone who is nearly twice your size?

Of course, What the? leaves out the real reason why President Bush wouldn't wait for France's approval. She conveniently omits the fact that France was one of the countries involved in violating the oil embargo against Iraq before the war. As the old saying goes, with friends like that, who needs enemies? France is also the country that denied use of its airspace for President Reagan's attack on Libya. So while liberals might consider truth and facts as ridicule, President Bush had good reason for his statement.

Good grief, Glock, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you? I should borrow Glen Beck's board and draw you a picture, THAT you would get:

1) Obama is striving to improve U.S. relations with other nations. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are terrorist organizations. They don't count AS NATIONS.

2) It is preferable that people like us rather than hate our guts. The hijackers who flew the planes into the World Trade Center weren't exactly showing positive regard for the U.S., were they?

3) We are safer as a nation if we can form stronger, mutually beneficial ties with other countries. In other words, if our allies are truly our allies.

I realize now I confused you by bringing up too much at once. My bad, I thought you could handle it. Perhaps Epi is right, I probably do give you way too much credit. From now on I will stick to one topic at a time, with smaller words and shorter sentences.

And I still crack up every time I read your "middle finger, hearty F.U." comment!!

Epi:

I will admit I am probably "liberally sensitive". But I think that comes from dealing with many folks on this blog who are "conservatively self-righteous", like you're acting right now.

I fully explained why I chose not to get into this with you. You should heed your own advice about reading carefully. Go back and review my previous post. But I will throw you one little tidbit: After Debate, Bush Ridicules Kerry, France:

Bush somewhat promised to work with U.S. allies and the international community, "But I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto BY COUNTRIES LIKE FRANCE."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/02/content_379470.htm

Ouch. Just because this isn't ridicule to you doesn't mean it isn't to others. In this case, a whole country of others. I'm encouraging you to be more opened-minded here.

I didn't call you arrogant for pointing out my "factual inaccuracy", as there wasn't one. I called you arrogant for thinking you could set the standard for what are considered truths for another nation of people.

So now that you have the link above, go ahead and make the rebuttal that I know is coming. Circle the correct response: a) France trashed Bush (which they certainly did) so he was just giving back what he got, b) this isn't ridiculing, the French are overly-sensitive, c) just because someone wrote an article calling what Bush said "ridiculing" doesn't make it so, d) Bush wasn't ridiculing, he was stating a fact and he's right, e) all the above.

You can see why this kind of discussion goes nowhere fast. I'm not wasting any more time on it.

Plus, I don't need "facts" to support that I think Obama is a peace President. This is my impression of him and it's my opinion. My previous post said, verbatim, "As far as your other comments about not agreeing that Obama is considered a peace president, that the Bush admin often ridiculed and dismissed European partners and preferred brawn over diplomacy, THEN THAT'S YOUR OPINION. THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE MINE." What part of this are you having so much trouble with? If you think I stated this as fact, then that's your mistake, not mine. Work on your comprehension.

And since we're sharing, I think you could benefit from not being so judgmental and dismissive towards those who have a different perspective than yours. This just contributes to divisiveness and discord. If all you want to do is bludgeon others with your point of view, then this is working for you. But if you're actually interested in broadening your understanding, it would help to take your arrogance down a few notches.

Just my opinion.

What the ? You are the one writing about if people don't hate us, they are less likely to fly planes into our buildings. Then you write two groups are not nations but terrorist groups so they don't count. Are you nuts? Of course they count. Following your logic, not only must nations like us but terrorists must like us if we don't want them flying planes into our buildings. Finally, Obama the dim witted one knows as much about foreign policy as you or I do. Remember, he was a state senator from a ghetto district in Illinois before the machine slated him to Senator and then the party with the help of the media selected him as their choice for president. There are many of us who were cheated in the process and do not agree he is our president much the same way you people always portrayed Bush as the illegitimate president after he won two elections. I will write it until I am blue in the face. If ABC News, where fewer people are getting their news outed Edwards for the cretin he is, most of his supporters would have gone for Hilary and Obama would have been second banana. Instead they sat on the story for months. If I have to stomach a democrat, a liberal democrat is better than a marxist democrat. But at least the recession has bottomed out. Never mind we are laying off two more on Friday.

Epi, haven't you realized by now that What the? is the typical liberal, posting opinion as fact, and no matter how much you point this out, she will ignore it? If she acknowledges this fact, the whole house of cards that represents her 'beliefs' will collapse. Those pesky little things called facts are a danger to her, and she will never acknowledge them or any who use them.

To: what the?

You again go off on tangents of liberal defense that indicate to me, anyway, that you don’t read what others are writing.

My post was a response to some of the inaccuracies you had posted (by inaccuracy, I mean items you posted as facts but which were only opinions).

Your October 13, 2009 1:59 AM response? You attribute some kind of “they were it first” motive to my post. Listen carefully: there was no motive, just an effort to highlight to all readers, yourself included, that what you had posted was not a fact but an opinion.

You go on to refer to me as arrogant for pointing out your factual inaccuracy. Where you got this I do not know, as I would think that pointing out facts and opinions, their difference, and which is which is never arrogant! I never indicated that their feelings weren’t hurt, In fact, I never approached that scenario. I DID point our that your posts were wrong on fact, though. You stated that BUSH ridiculed the Europeans, and you were wrong (in fact, as I pointed out, it was the reverse).. As it is, again in the search for accuracy, you NEVER referred to any links in the October 10, 2009 2:23 PM post which I was responding to. Now. if you had said the French FELT Bush ridiculed them, I might have let it pass. But, I will again state it loud and clear: Bush did not ridicule the Europeans! I DID often hear Europeans, though, ridicule him. Case closed.

You ask me why I feel the need to beat the Nobel thing to death? Are you serious? You keep bringing it up and I respond to it (check the SOE) --- why do YOU keep beating it to death? I simply state the obvious: IMO it was not deserved and was premature. You went on to defend it and refer to Pres. Obama as the Peace President, and I pointed out that there are no facts to support this, just opinions (and, of course, hope)

I do believe that you don’t read close enough and that you are “liberally sensitive” (ie you see a hard right bogeyman behind every comment and react with an immediate liberal response, often defending the indefensible just, seemingly, because it is a Dem/Liberal involved).

As for me? I am off to have a brewski.

Pax.

Anon ONE:

"Is this the same Chris Matthews who claimed to get "A thrill going up my leg", when he listened to Obama?"

One in the same!


Glock:

This is great:

"Rather the Islamic fundementalists get my middle finger, a hearty F.U. and some 12GA. slugs as fast as my Binelli semi auto can launch them."

I literally laughed out loud at this. The only way it could be better is if Rush Limbaugh is over on the Taliban side giving them his "atta boys" when you send the message!

Just one thing, tho: groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not nations, they are terrorist organizations. So they don't count. All the same, other nations are less likely to turn a blind eye to their activity if they have a vested interest in the U.S., so international ties and joint cooperation does help to curtail their activity. Also, no one has ever suggested foreign policy be a popularity contest. Obama has made it clear to NATO that the U.S. will pursue terrorists who threaten our security and that protecting the American people is his first priority, as it should be.

Aside from that, any time you want to give them the middle finger, a hearty F.U. and some 12GA slugs, let me know. I'll pass the ammo.

Epi:

I think the phrase is "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Sigmund Freud said it. I'm sure you know what it means.

And really, butt in anytime you want. It's the nature of blogs. If one has a public debate, one should expect the public to get involved. PLEASE speak up if you think my facts are wrong. I know it's unthinkable, but I'm not perfect and I do make mistakes (collective gasp!).

You said you offered facts instead of opinions. You're going to have to clarify for me which were facts and which were opinions. However, I'm not really interested in getting into a debate with you on our differing interpretations of past events. You know how individual historians can study past events and still interpret those events very differently? That's were we are now. I've done this before so I know how it goes. I post a lot of links in support of my opinion and you respond with comments such as "That may be true, but you overlooked THIS" or "Yes, so-and-so did say that but this is what he really MEANT" or "Maybe we did do that, but it was in response to what so-and-so did or said 10 or 20 years ago" and on and on ad nauseum. There is never any resolution. What may seem dismissive or derisive to me, Obama and the French people may not seem dismissive or derisive to you, and even if you agree it was, then you'll claim they deserved it anyway because they dissed us first, or second, or whatever, it really doesn't matter. If all people saw events as they really were in the same way, we wouldn't have all this discord and disagreement. So I'm not avoiding these issues, I just know the fruitlessness of arguing them.

Case in point: you commented "You refer to Pres. Obama’s speech and how the French “got it”. Are you referring to the same French who severely ridiculed and verbally attacked both the Bush administration AND Bush personally" and "I also think I remember the then head of Germany also piling on with the insults, along with the non-European Canadian government at the time."

See, you're there already. Yeah, maybe we WERE jerks, but they were jerks first and they did this and that to Bush and on and on. I'm not interested in doing this.

I'm also not in the business of telling other people what is and isn't valid to them. I was amazed when you stated, "Just because the French say it and write it, and just because Pres. Obama gives a speech on it while in France, does NOT make it a fact ---- still an opinion with real, significant facts that may render it questionable or even inaccurate!"

Seriously? Are you really arrogant enough to think you can dictate to the people of other nations what is the "right" way for them to feel about something? If other nations feel they were ridiculed by Bush, who are you to tell them they weren't? That their feelings are not real?

Here's a news flash for you, Epi: despite what you think, whether you believe their feelings are based in fact or not, those feelings are still VERY REAL TO THEM. To them it IS fact. It would be a serious mistake to dismiss other nation's feelings as invalid. Wars have been started on less.

I didn't state my opinion as fact. I owned it as my opinion, period. I added a link to another opinion to show you I wasn't alone in thinking this, that's all. I said "here is a different VIEWPOINT", not "here is a fact". I think you are the one not paying attention to what is written and being too quick to assume a deeper, evil meaning.

And I don't understand your comment, "You specifically said BUSH ridiculed the Europeans, and I disagreed. I am very glad that you now agree with me as he did not ridicule them ---- EVER!"

Huh? I didn't say this, Epi. Let me be clear: I said Bush DID ridicule other nations, and the link I posted said it also. You need to revisit this. You may be misunderstanding these comments in the same way you first misunderstood my comments to Glock. Like I said before, Obama didn't pull these ideas out of thin air. Upon hearing him say, "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive," the French people didn't look at each other and say "What the hell is he talking about?", did they?

And why do you feel the need to beat the Nobel prize thing to death? You stated your opinion, doing so over and over again DOESN'T make it fact. Everyone agrees that the prize was awarded prematurely; Obama himself admitted this and stated he didn't deserve to be in the same category with previous winners. What the hell more do you want? You keep stating: "he (Obama) has YET to do them! When and if he does, then THAT is the time to consider an award for peace."

Another news flash: it's already a done deal. Obama has already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. There are no do-overs. You are not a member of the Nobel committe, nor are you the person with the authority to decide whether Obama deserved it or when he should get it. Yet you go on about it as if you were. If your opinion were fact, O wouldn't be sitting on the Nobel Peace prize now, would he?

All I am saying is I have read the Nobel committee's explanation and I have read Alfred Nobel's guidelines for awarding the prize. I think you should, too. And I, like many others including Obama, realize it was premature but understand why this was important to the Nobel committee FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. They have a duty to follow Alfred Nobel's guidelines in selecting a winner, NOT YOUR GUIDELINES. So LET IT GO, for God's sake. If you want to carry on about this, write a letter to the Nobel committee and tell them you know how to do their job better. But stop beating me over the head with it.

Enough. It's late and I'm cranky. I'm having a cookie and going to bed.

Why are you blogging at 3:05am What the ? Seriously, it seems to be some sort of mania. Is it? Secondly, foreign policy should be predicated on what is best for the country. It should not be based on a popularity contest predicated on people of other nations liking us. Third, just so you understand, the people who would fly planes into our buildings are the same people who will cut your head off and post it on the internet if you give them any chance. And this is the key point; they will do so regardless of whether Bush is president or if Obama is president. They do not like Obama and you know they do not like Bush. They want YOU wearing a burka and they do not want you or your daughters going to school, having jobs or being in the same room with men. They want you to adhere to their law and bow to them. So go right ahead and worry about what other nations think of us. I'm not growing a beard because they want me to. Rather the Islamic fundementalists get my middle finger, a hearty F.U. and some 12GA. slugs as fast as my Binelli semi auto can launch them.

Anonymous on October 12, 2009 3:05 AM
Chris Matthews and the rest of the political media talking heads embarked on hours of breathless commentary about how regal and wonderful the spectacle was and how proud they all were to be Americans.

_____________

Is this the same Chris Matthews who claimed to get "A thrill going up my leg", when he listened to Obama?

Co-anchor Chris Matthews: “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My — I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.
”Co-anchor Keith Olbermann: “Steady.”
Matthews: “No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.”
— Exchange during MSNBC’s coverage of the Virginia, Maryland and Washington D.C. primaries, February 12.


So tell me Anonymous, was this an exchange between two "Journalists" or between two "Commentators"?

Actually, given the tone and arrogance of some of the posts What The is faced with, I think she shows great restraint.

To: What the?,

The last one was from me.

To: What the? October 12, 2009 3:05 AM

I now understand your ongoing debate w/ Glock. I will do my best to butt out EXCEPT when I strongly believe, or know, you are incorrect on the facts (even then, I will try!). I did not know it was a Rush comment as I do not listen to the show.

Now, to OUR little debate: I offered facts instead of opinions, so please don’t try and paint them as anything less.

Pres. Obama can give al the speeches in the world, but until he actually implements something, and peace starts to break out, it is void. You specifically said BUSH ridiculed the Europeans, and I disagreed. I am very glad that you now agree with me as he did not ridicule them ---- EVER! I am thinking that your reference is to Rumsfeld (?) referring to “old” Europe. If so, and that is it, then I would suggest that this is certainly not ridicule on its face. I understand you and I can disagree on this.

You refer to Pres. Obama’s speech and how the French “got it” . Are you referring to the same French who severely ridiculed and verbally attacked both the Bush administration AND Bush personally? As I recall, the French guy (he was a right hand man, a real aristocrat, name started with a “V”, I think) regularly heaped insults our way because he (and France) simply disagreed with taking action after 12 years, and another 6 months of severe warnings. I also think I remember the then head of Germany also piling on with the insults, along with the non-European Canadian government at the time.

All in all, you are correct in that you are repeating your opinion, calling it fact, when at most it is repeated rumor & opinion. I say this not to demean you, but to put it al into it’s most accurate light. Just because the French say it and write it, and just because Pres. Obama gives a speech on it while in France, does NOT make it a fact ---- still an opinion with real, significant facts that may render it questionable or even inaccurate!

I don’t know how many times we need to rehash the “deserving: aspect! It is simple: While Pres. Obama has given a lot of nice-sounding speeches where he says things should be done, he has YET to do them! When and if he does, then THAT is the time to consider an award for peace. So far, the most he has done to doing any of the things laid out by Al is to replace Bush, yes? If you really think this deserves a Nobel Peace prize (ie getting elected against a guy who could no longer run, and giving sometimes great speeches as to things he might do in the future (yet, I will add, is significantly behind his own timelines), then I guess we will never have a meeting of the minds.

I think I mentioned it is their prize and they can do whatever they want. As has been the case for years, they went political, and again, it’s their choice. I think I also said it was a honor to give it to an American, even though I disagreed as it was premature.

My observation on you, strictly from my readings of this blog, is that you tend to react to every question toward Pres. Obama as an evil, right-wing attack. I can only say that you might be amazed at the politics of some of us/those who blog. Having a vote, either way, does NOT make any of us brain-dead to the facts around us!

I would encourage you to read the words that are written and not always assume some evil, deeper meaning. Don’t be so quick to repeat what we all read and hear on the blogs (Huff & Kos) and liberal media and try to demand it is a fact. To put it bluntly, just saying you don’t like someone, or just saying someone is dumb or evil or a warmonger or a peacenik, does not make it a fact even if the person saying it is a mullah, French,a prime minister, or even a President!

In short, sometimes a hamburger is just a hamburger, what the?!


[Note: Given he was nominated less than 2 weeks into his presidency, I suspect that 50 years from now we will all be aghast at where it came from.]

Well, well, look what I stumbled across on You Tube. I just love this kind of stuff.

I know I've had discussions with some on this blog about the relevancy of some of Fox News's "commentators" such as Hannity, et al. Many of you who defend such "commentary" claim they are not journalists, say they call themselves opinionists, entertainers, whatever, but not journalists, so therefore are not held to any semblance of impartiality or accuracy since they are merely giving their "opinions".

Well, looky what I found yesterday. I'd forgotten this post-debate debate last October 8 between Sean Hannity and now White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Hannity tells Gibbs he is a JOURNALIST. "This is my answer to you. I'm a journalist who interviews people I disagree with all the time." In his own words, right here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hannity+gibbs+debate&search_type=&aq=0&oq=hannity+gibbs

But Fox claims Hannity is a commentator, and so do a lot of you. Which is it?

Remember this clip from the O'Reilly Factor where Bill and Bernie Goldberg are discussing this very issue. Bernie called Hannity a "commentator who pretends to be a journalist", and Bill replies "How can you pretend to be a journalist when you say you're not?" Bernie replies:

"I just told you. Don't pretend to be objective... Don't go on the air and say these tea parties are a cross section of America. They are not a cross section. Don't pretend to be a journalist if you're not a journalist. . . The commentary part is totally legitimate. But to give false information . . . They go on the air after their opinions and then state as facts things that aren't facts at all."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztDUgCqXSc

Bernie should have just showed the clip of Hannity calling himself a journalist instead.

So it appears on some days Hannity is a journalist, on others he is simply a "commentator". No wonder so many Fox viewers are confused!

Epi:

I was not upset about what Glock said, I was talking TO Glock about my response to something RUSH said. I was offended by Rush's comment about siding with the Taliban. I don't care if Rush and the Taliban simply like their coffee the same way. If the Taliban was responsible for the death of someone close to me, I wouldn't want to hear about Rush siding with the Taliban in anything. I thought this comment was disrespectful to our troops and insensitive to the families of service men. If you have 5 people in the military and this doesn't bother you, then fine. It bothered me.

Also, Glock and I have been sparring on this blog for I don't know how long. There's a history to my comments that you may not understand, but Glock does. 'Nuff said.

As far as your other comments about not agreeing that Obama is considered a peace president, that the Bush admin often ridiculed and dismissed European partners and preferred brawn over diplomacy, then that's your opinion. The above statements were mine. I could spend hours pulling up all kinds of articles from folks who see this as I do, but you'd still disagree so there's no point. Suffice it to say you sound like a smart guy who knows how to use the internet. If you wanted to look into these comments I'm sure you'd know how to do it yourself. But I will draw your attention to one obvious statement right here: Obama's speech in Strasbourg, France where he stated "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Obama didn't just pull this out of thin air. The French knew exactly what he was talking about, and so did many Americans.

I will show you an opinion piece I ran into just today that reflects my opinion on this very well. Ask this writer to edify you:

"The cynical and sordid response in America (to Obama's Nobel win) raises a few questions: Have we lost the ability as a nation to accept something good when it comes our way internationally? Have we become so traumatized by the belligerent Bush-Cheney-Bolton unilateral militarism of the previous eight years, with its attendant hatred for the world and its people, that we are incapable of recognizing the simple fact that it is much better for America to have a president who is admired and respected in the world than one who is despised and feared?

What's missed in the deafening cacophony of right-wing noise and chatter is that Americans should use this Nobel Prize as yet another Obama-inspired "teaching moment" to come to terms with just how much George W. Bush's foreign policy scared the hell out of the rest of the world. And we should understand how the world is relieved Americans came to their senses and looks to us for global leadership.

To illustrate this point one only has to compare the media coverage of Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln off the San Diego coast on May 1, 2003. Chris Matthews and the rest of the political media talking heads embarked on hours of breathless commentary about how regal and wonderful the spectacle was and how proud they all were to be Americans. G. Gordon Liddy even spoke admiringly of the bulge in President Bush's codpiece. Masculine virility and macho militarism was fused with the national symbols of the flag and the military.

Europeans have seen this before. When we were engaged in our little rah-rah rally, the rest of the world was absolutely horrified . . . What Bush did was shift the posture of American foreign policy toward militarism and unilateralism. President Obama, in less than ten months, has reset American foreign policy more toward multilateralism and a mature engagement with the world."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/reaction-to-president-oba_b_316385.html

And if it's your opinion that President Obama has done nothing to deserve the Peace prize and it insults both the prize itself and those who deserved it yet did not get it, then that's fine too. Here's a contrasting viewpoint:

"Everyone on the Right says President Obama hasn't earned the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It's as if they have set themselves up as its sole arbiters. Some on the Left even echo this sentiment. Jesse Berney, writing on Huffington Post, states that the Prize "should be the culmination of a career devoted to the cause of building a better world."

The "culmination of a career?" Says who? Not Alfred Nobel, and he ought to know.

In his own will, written at Paris in 1895 and reproduced on the official Nobel website, he laid out the standard to be applied in annually awarding each of the five prizes (physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, peace). For the Peace Prize, he wrote that it should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

There are some years where the prize may best fit an individual who has spent decades in the trenches without the full imprimatur that such an international accolade bestows. A "lifetime achievement award," so to speak. In other years, it may best apply to efforts from the preceding 12 months. To repeat: it's an annual prize.

The committee of five that names the winner each year reflects the various political factions composing the Norwegian Parliament. The choice of Obama was unanimous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/alfred-nobels-last-will-a_b_316055.html

If you had been on the Nobel award committee, your opinion would have counted. But you weren't, so it doesn't. No one's does. It was their prize, Obama was their choice, and it was awarded following the guidelines as set forth by Alfred Nobel. If it doesn't mean anything to you, fine again. But I choose to be a little bit prouder because of it.

Glock:

I'm pretty sure Ghandi was nominated. He may have won had he not been assassinated. The Nobel committee awarded a prize posthumously only once, and then for whatever reason they changed the rules to say a candidate had to be alive to win. So it could be he may have won had he lived.

And I think it is preferable that other countries have a favorable opinion of the U.S. rather than hating our guts. If people don't hate us, they're less likely to fly planes into our skyscrapers and such, so I think it's a good thing. But the White House certainly doesn't care about Zarkozy's supposed off the record comments. These comments have not been verified as true and probably never can be, so there's nothing to be done about it. France is committed to what's on the record, that's what counts.

What the ?: Thanks for showing me the error of my ways. However in your correction you make the award more ludicrious that it was given to someone like Obama and not to Ghandi. And I like Zarkozy because YOU told us how important it is for some reason that other countries like us. He is a trade up from for example Jack Chirac. SIC on purpose. The remainder of your 11:09 post we agree on. Green, brown. I like em all.

Anon:

Here is the transcript from the town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France. Here is the part of the speech that sent the right wing media into a tailspin:

"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.

So let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040301519.html

But if you got your information about this speech from, let's say, Hannity on Fox News, the first paragraph is the only one he aired. He left out the rest and went on a serious rant about how Obama was "apologizing" for America. View the broadcast here:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904040003

Again, read the whole speech and make up your own mind. Do you detect a common thread running through the three speeches I have posted here so far? (And no, it's not Hannity's "blame America first" crap). Here it is: that we are all each other's keeper. That in the new global economy, what one country does effects others, that no country can turn inward and only care about it's own interests at the expense of others. That we are all intertwined and therefore must cooperate for the good of all.

Let me know if you want more.

To: By What the? on October 10, 2009 2:23 PM

You confuse me a bit --- sometimes you appear open-minded and rational, sometimes you come off as a left wing nut whose only goal is to trash conservatives!

I think you give Glock way too much credit. He was simply ranting and repeating --- I think that was the extent of it, yes? I have 5 family members over there, and I was neither offended nor encouraged by his comments. Apparently Glock is not a fan of President Obama. That is okay with me as it is his free choice.

You mention or infer that Bush ridiculed Europe? I guess I missed that, and I watch world events pretty closely --- could you edify me?

You mention Obama is a peace President --- again, I missed that. It seems to me he is continuing Bush’s policies in Iraq and is going to accelerate the war in Afganistan. Please edify me as to where he is a peace President outside of speeches?

You mention Bush used brawn over diplomacy --- again and again! Edify me, because if I recall the events correctly (and I usually do), the USA had a national policy of regime change that was developed under Pres. Clinton. This policy was inherited by Bush.

The USA, and the U.N., had spent approx. 12 years negotiating with Iraq, allowing them to continually break their peace accord that resulted from Gulf War I, and they continued to fire upon U.S. planes and choppers. Then after 9-11, and after HOW much warning (I can easily be off here, but I think Bush gave them around 6 solid months of “I mean it, I’m coming to get you if you don’t toe the line”, before he invaded. I don’t know about you, but this seems like a lot of diplomacy to me!

I agree that the world did have a hard on for Bush –I will also add that it did not help that the Democrats fought him, insulted him on the world stage regularly, and did everything they could for 8 years to screw him. I’m sure (based on guess and conversations with my family and friends in Europe) that this treatment by his own country had at least a marginal affect on the world’s opinion of him.

I will repeat what I wrote earlier: President Obama has done nothing to deserve the Peace prize and it insults both the prize itself and those who deserved it yet did not get it.

Last week on this chain we were treated to an article by Thomas Friedman of the NYT. Many on this site applauded his piece, and declared it to be true. This week Friedman weighs in on the Nobel Prize being awarded to Obama, and I wonder how many agree with him this week?

In part, Friedman says, "The Nobel committee did President Obama no favors by prematurely awarding him its peace prize. As he himself acknowledged, he has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award — and it dismays me that the most important prize in the world has been devalued in this way."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1&em

I also saw in the NYT that the Pope Canonized 5 new Saints. It's a shame that one has to be dead to be Canonized as I'm sure Obama qualified for this one as well. Other than not being Catholic, (or dead) I am sure there are those who feel he meets the qualifications.

(For those offended, I am just joking about the canonization - but hey, if he can get the Nobel prize without doing anything he may as well become a Saint!.)

Anon:

It's easy to find the speeches online. All I did was google 'Obama speech Cairo' and got the full transcript and video. Since this speech was directed toward Muslims, it doesn't address the European issue. But here's some good ones from that speech:

"But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known."

"In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html

I've read this speech more than once; there's nothing in here that sounds even remotely apologetic to me. To me Obama directly states, "This is what I believe, this is the direction I seek for my country and the world, you can either choose to be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem, it's up to you."

This speech was given this past June. The Nobel Peace Prize committee mentioned this as being representative of the kind of world community to which Obama aspires. They admired it a lot.

Here's his speech in Berlin when he was still a candidate:

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.html

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth . . ."

"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.html

Many on the right were outraged that Obama said the U.S. had "made our share of mistakes" and "has not perfected itself". Well, we HAVE made mistakes, and we AREN'T perfect. So what? But the Republicans believe the U.S. should never admit we are either wrong or imperfect. This doesn't make sense; no one likes people who act this way, why would we expect the rest of the world to like a country that did? Yet out of the whole Berlin speech, this was the part on which the right wing media focused. Read the whole speech and judge for yourself.

The one that really chapped a lot of conservative heinies was the speech given in France. This is a lot of reading for now, so I'll post that one later when I have the time.

What,

Post the links you think are relevant and I will watch the speeches for the second time to see what I missed.

When Obama supports US interests, forcefully if necessary, he has had my support and that of the vast majority of Americans. There is nothing Obama can say the will mollify the European left which typically runs 15-30% Communists, re-branded as the Greens.

Without a sound economy, which Bush and his father withered with their insane spending and social programs, the US cannot defend its vital interests. Gingrich fixed economy with Clinton's acquiescence, Bush 2 laid waste to it within months of taking office with insane spending and cheap labor polices written at the Chamber of Commerce aka slave traders.

I hammered both Bushes constantly, voted for Perot and want a sustainable government that will stop driving the citizens and the country into the dirt. I don't listen to any of the talking heads on the radio and do watch Beck since he, Stuart Varney and Lou Dobbs are the only ones that realize that the economy is approaching a death spiral.

The already collectivized Teachers and public service unions will be sadly disappointed when the money runs out and both their pensions and their jobs are gone, both are useful idiots.

Obama's deep Marxist history and ongoing ties don't bode well for the country since our economy will collapse on its current course. If you think Europe or China will help to pick us up, you will be sadly disappointed.

They will step on our faces on the way over the corpse of our economy without looking down or breaking stride.

What,

Post the links you think are relevant and I will watch the speeches for the second time to see what I missed.

When Obama supports US interests, forcefully if necessary, he has had my support and that of the vast majority of Americans. There is nothing Obama can say the will mollify the European left which typically runs 15-30% Communists, re-branded as the Greens.

Without a sound economy, which Bush and his father withered with their insane spending and social programs, the US cannot defend its vital interests. Gingrich fixed economy with Clinton's acquiescence, Bush 2 laid waste to it within months of taking office with insane spending and cheap labor polices written at the Chamber of Commerce aka slave traders.

I hammered both Bushes constantly, voted for Perot and want a sustainable government that will stop driving the citizens and the country into the dirt. I don't listen to any of the talking heads on the radio and do watch Beck since he, Stuart Varney and Lou Dobbs are the only ones that realize that the economy is approaching a death spiral.

The already collectivized Teachers and public service unions will be sadly disappointed when the money runs out and both their pensions and their jobs are gone, both are useful idiots.

Obama's deep Marxist history and ongoing ties don't bode well for the country since our economy will collapse on its current course. If you think Europe or China will help to pick us up, you will be sadly disappointed.

They will step on our faces on the way over the corpse of our economy without looking down or breaking stride.

P.S. to Glock:

Now you care what Zarkozy thinks? No one on the right cared what the Europeans thought of Bush all those years, you simply dismissed and ridiculed their criticism. NOW what Zarkozy thinks is the end all and be all for the Obama admin? In your dreams.

You can repeat your doomsday scenarios that "Obama will fail" all you want. Keep your fingers crossed! You'll certainly feel dumb if he doesn't.

And if you like brunettes in the 45-55 category, then you'd probably like ME. Yep, I'm a brunette in this age range, except that I have goldish highlights and green eyes. You sound like the type of guy who prefers brown eyes, tho. Oh well, can't win 'em all.

It sounds like your blood acidity level is getting low again. You need more lemons.

Glock:

It appears the lemons worked. You sound a lot calmer now; perhaps your acidity levels were out of whack.

If you oppose Obama getting the Nobel prize because you consider him "merely another politican who I believe has done nothing to earn it", that's fine. He hasn't. Pretty much everyone agrees on this, even Obama himself. But the Nobel committee felt he deserved it nonetheless. Obviously there was something about how he has conducted himself in office so far that resonated with the Nobel committee. Maybe it's something that we, as Americans, just don't get. But all the hate from the American opposition is what's astounding. The fact that many Americans can be so ugly about someone else honoring their President is something the Europeans probably don't get. Too bad more on the right can't be like John McCain. His response was truly classy. I knew I was right for liking the guy.

Just a couple corrections, though. I seriously doubt Mother Theresa and Ghandi abhor Obama for receiving the Prize. Ghandi never won the Nobel Peace Prize and was assassinated in 1948. Mother Theresa did win the prize but died in 1997. Even if they were alive, from what I've learned about them, it doesn't sound like either of them would abhor anyone.

And you needn't worry that the validity of the prize was compromised when they started awarding it to politicians instead of doctors and scientists. There are six Nobels awarded each year in the areas of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Economic Sciences, and Peace. Doctors and scientists are still awarded Nobel Prizes, just usually in other categories. Just days ago three American doctors were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. One of them, Elizabeth Blackburn, had been a member of the President's Council on Bioethics in 2001 but was fired by W. over her outspoken opposition to the White House removing from the council's consideration the discussion on the ethics of research on embryonic stem cells.

One last thing: you said you "will not consider any comments you or the liberal left lunatics want to make about siding with the Taliban." Uh, Glock, the liberal left didn't. The Rushman did. He was very vocal about his support of the Taliban trashing Obama's win on Friday's show. I'm surprised you missed it:

"I think that everybody is laughing. Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910090029

It was thoughtful of him to speak for ALL Americans. I'm sure the Taliban and Iran appreciate the show of support.

Anon:

"everyone running for public office in the USA from now on should fly all over the world trashing the US and Americans!"

This is what comes from having your nose up the rear end of the right wing for far too long. No one has done a better job at trashing the US and Americans than people like you.

If you had bothered to listen to any of Obama's European speeches rather than getting the edited versions from right wing TV and radio, you would know that O didn't give the Euros a pass for their previous behavior of relying on the U.S. to do all the fighting and then criticizing us for it later, or for resenting not being treated like equal partners while allowing the U.S. to take all the responsibility for defense. O told them this, along with their insidious anti-Americanism, had to change if they wanted better relations with the U.S. Of course, the right wing media edited out those comments so they could market Obama's speeches as an "apology tour" to irritate the clueless, and it looks like they succeeded with you.

If you prefer to watch Glen Beck or Dancing with the Stars instead of the American President's speeches to other countries, that's certainly your choice. But please spare the rest of us the chore of having to wade through your misconceptions.

I'm not biting that one What the ?. I did not bat an eye because I do not agree with everything Rush says. I probably will not agree with his beauty pagent selection as I prefer burnettes 45-55yrs as opposed to he who prefers young blondes. I have also found over a decade of listening to him he likes to make impact statements and see where the dust settles. Obama knows nothing about military strategy and not talking to YOUR top military commander, someone HE selected for about 4 months could be considered more official misconduct by the emporer. It is right to question Obama as a commander in chief. But the far lefties will put more out of Afgahnistan pressure on Obama and we can just sit back and watch that train wreck. Obama will fail because he will do nothing to make the lives of ordinary Americans better. In 2011, people are going to be asked how has the last 4 years of rule by the big eared emporer been for you? And I should suspect about 20Mil unemployed are going to have a new agenda you can believe in. That is what we call HOPE. Don't worry about a talk radio host. Your problem is not Rush, Hannity, Fox, Haliburton...Your problem is Obama. You forgot what Zarkozy said recently about your president. He is not impressed and does not consider Obama an equal partner. I recall I read the French press indicated it was time for an American president to be led. And this president is the one they shall lead.

What,

I totally agree, everyone running for public office in the USA from now on should fly all over the world trashing the US and Americans!

We are so backwards, provincial and impulsive; bombing people who are trying to kill us. What are we thinking?

To beef up their international credentials, Putin, Chavez, Castro and the Mullahs can join our new age politicians on stage and take turns one upping the trash talk. I feel a rap song coming on. Maybe they can twitter their comments via crack-berrys as they chant them for that extra cool effect.

At the BBQ afterwords, they can roast marshmallows over burning American flags ignited with Napalm!

Yeah Baby!!!

PS Many of the Western Europeans will not help to make the meal, pay for the food or help with the clean up. But they will eat all the free food they can get; then spend the next 60 years bitching about how the Americans served it. Left alone, they would talk about how to make the meal until they starved to death.

===============================================================

By What the? on October 10, 2009 2:23 PM
"From a president who ridiculed the Europeans and used brawn before diplomacy to a president who regards Europeans as equal partners with an equal responsibility for maintaining peace. From a president who was hated and had shoes thrown at him to a president who is so admired he gets the Nobel Peace Prize as a show of support. That's a helluva change for America."

Epi:

It was meant to be offensive. Notice that Glock didn't even bat an eye in its direction. This isn't that far out of the realm of possibility for the Rush nuts.

If I had lost someone I loved to either Afghanistan, 9/11, or any Taliban sponsored act of terrorism, Rush's comments about siding with them against the American President in ANYTHING would have sent me off the deep end. I found THAT incredibly offensive and an insult, NOT to Obama, but to every American who has been killed or maimed in these conflicts. Yet notice that the folks on this site are so deranged that they don't even flinch at it. Anything to help our President fail. This is seriously sick stuff.

It doesn't matter what any of us think about the Nobel committee's choice. It's their prize, their decision. Sure it's premature. But it's also an endorsement of the direction Obama is taking our country, and this obviously resonated deeply with the Nobel Prize people in a way that we can't appreciate. Maybe it is the "Obama is not Bush" effect. If so, then Americans severely underestimated the negative opinion the world community had of our last President. We've gone from a war president to a peace president in less than a year. From a president who ridiculed the Europeans and used brawn before diplomacy to a president who regards Europeans as equal partners with an equal responsibility for maintaining peace. From a president who was hated and had shoes thrown at him to a president who is so admired he gets the Nobel Peace Prize as a show of support. That's a helluva change for America.

And it's a change that many Reps and conservatives are uncomfortable with. I listen to conservative talk radio, I hear the attitudes of many of these people. "We're the big dog. No one tells us what to do. We don't take crap from nobody!" Sound arrogant? That's exactly the kind of attitude that led us to 9/11, and Bush was the personification of this. We've become so accustomed to being disliked that if other nations suddenly like us, Republicans are certain we're doing something wrong.

Yes, it is an honor for our President and by extension, all of us. The losers can sit around and bitch all they want. But for the first time in years, when we go to Europe this spring, I'm going to be a little bit prouder to say I'm an American.

Ok, I sucked some lemons and feel better now. Seriously, in my opinion the decision and precedent to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was a dreadful one. The validity of the prize was compromised when they started awarding it to politicians instead of doctors and scientists. The politicizing of the prize delegitimized the prestiege of the honor I think anyway. And giving the award to a person who claims one war over another is "The Good War" is the kind of thinking that makes truly great people such as Mother Theresa and Gandhi, two prior winners abhore the current recipient I should rather suspect. Yes, I do not like Obama but except for a few like What the ?, most people cannot name anything he has done to earn the prize. So you see, its really not sour grapes because someone I don't like won the award. Its merely another politican who I believe has done nothing to earn it. And HOPE for the future? Name me some other prize, anything, that is handed out on the basis of hope for crying out loud. Talk about not doing crazy!

Yet another prime example of what liberals think is good political commentary:

"Your gun-toting compadres are wasting their time packing at town hall meetings. Why don't you all take your guns, fly to Afghanistan, wrap towels around your heads and join the Taliban. Maybe you can even pick off a few U.S. soldiers for Rush. That would do him proud."

I don't know how conservatives can expect to win the support of people when liberals post such wise and insightful political commentary.

Glock:

Sour, sour, sour. Like I said, Reps and conservatives have been in a tailspin, it's been a hoot. Look at all this stuff "Obama's the 'Manchurian candidate'", the affirmative action president who has now had an "entitled" life, who cares what five people from Norway think, etc etc. This is why the main stream media doesn't report his stuff. They don't do crazy.

If you guys run out of sour grapes, I've got some lemons you can suck on.

By the way, Glock, the Noble committee made their decision fully aware the U.S. is currently involved in two wars. Duh.

Anonymous ONE:

True. Fair enough! :)

The beauty of the news yesterday was government media is fawning all over the award. Then the next story was Obama is meeting with his advisors discussing war strategy in Afghanistan. (something else he knows nothing about) That ladies and gentlemen is what I call making a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize. You are awarded the peace prize and hours later discussing war strategy with your war advisors. Prima facie example the the hypocricy you must live in to be a liberal. Seriously, do you see the incongruency? This also reminds me of the time in 2007 when the winner was attending a Womens Peace conference in Dallas and upon being notified she won, mentioned she wished she could kill Bush during her acknowledgment speech. And by the way What the ?, I will not consider any comments you or the liberal left lunatics want to make about siding with the Taliban. YOU people were hoping for failure in Iraq for years even to the point of voting to stop funding troops on the ground there. And my favorite from the utterences of morons: "We support the troups but not the war". It makes us Viet Nam era people remember that and the fact that is how democrats support soldiers. Remember???? So don't think you own any moral high ground because this affirmatvie action president who has accomplished nothing as a leader in his entire entitled life to date happend to win some prize. He is no winner.

Why the Nobel Prize?


Obama is the Manchurian Candidate, our first Marxist President.

Of course every one of our enemies and the self-extinguishing, morally and intellectually inferior Western Europeans are going to do everything they can to diminish the USA; and at the same time give Europe a competitive advantage by helping Obama and his adherents to destroy our economy and the fabric of our country as he pushes Marxism into our government institutions.

1. Destroy the economy and currency causing a complete collapse of Capitalism, the crisis. Implement government allocation of vital resources during the crisis and the bureaucracy to make it happen. The goal of the insane spending is to pump up the collectivized workers at the Universities and the Unions, always the backbone of the socialists, anarchists and Marxists and to destroy the "property owning classes" which includes the middle class who will side with the "rich" since they both own property.

2. Nationalize industries and control the jobs which go to party loyalists and the allocation of output.

*Banking, completed.

*Auto Industry, completed.

*Health Care industry, almost completed.

*Energy Production and Distribution, almost completed with Cap and Trade and "Green Jobs". Obama's Czar for Green Jobs, Van Jones was forced to resign by heat from the media as some of his Marxist statements and affiliations became public.

*Media and Information, well under way at the FCC with Net Neutrality, various bail out schemes in the works for the far left print media, plans to tax talk radio out of existence and transfer ownership of broadcasters to "minorities". Obama has apparently loaded the FCC with open Marxists who have openly stated that the media needs to be put to work as a tool for socialist indoctrination.

*Break the Military, which is typically conservative, introduce open homosexuality in the Military to destroy unit cohesion and drastically decrease unit moral and effectiveness. The military usually steps in and stops the Marxists from destroying most countries like Honduras just did. Unfortunately, Obama, Chavez and Castro are driving Honduras into the ground to force a Marxist leader on the country. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution and not the President or the Congress.

*Silence Free Speech and end Freedom of Association, almost completed with the unconstitutional separate and unequal "hate crimes legislation" which Judy Biggert sponsored and is now loading onto the Defense Appropriations bill since it can't pass on it's own.

To: By What the? on October 10, 2009 12:30 AM

WT, your post is pretty offensive as you appear to "redline" anyone who owns a gun or is a conservative? Please take into account that almost all the violence at town hall meetings has been committed by leftist protestors who were either opposing simple disagreement with our elected officials or physically trying to break them up (remember the bit finger?)

I, though thinking it IS an honor for our President to win the prize, think it is not only premature but also very undeserved at this point. I see it as another "he's not Bush" recognition.

There are many other Americans alone who have actually done things recently to deserve the prize.

I am surprised that Pres. Clinton, or Pres. Clinton & Bush 1, did not win as they (especially Bill) have been doing GREAT work to help the world's underpriviledged over the past several years. The last time I checked he had fundraised over one billion for the efforts.

I also add to my short list of just Americans: George Clooney and his father for their efforts in Africa and exposing to the world some of the atrocoties; Brad Pitt for his efforts not only in rebuilding the gulf coast but also his group's solution to flood areas (ie the floating houses); Pres. Reagan for his efforts to end the cold war (to bad we spent the next 20 years blowing it!); Gen. Petraeus for his humane efforts and design to bring Iraq under some semblance of control.

The list of names from around the world, especially all of the dissidents, freedon fighters, and those who actually put their lives on the line in the name of fairness and world peace (see Africa, China, ME, Indonesia.....),is quite impressive.

It is their award and they have the right to give it to whomever they want. I do think they blew it big time, and greatly diminished the prestige and reputation of the award, by going in this direction. When the entire world starts to reward hollow words over action, we know we have problems of epic sizes at the institutional level!

I heard a good analogy yesterday: Don't award an Oscar to a director who talks about making a great movie someday, award it to one who made a great movie!

What the? on October 10, 2009 12:54 AM
_________

WT, I stand corrected. From reading the Sweet article in the Sun Times I took it to be that a final decision had to be reached by Feb 1. It lessens it slightly for me, but they still had to find a reason to nominate him by Feb 1, and the only reason seems to be "in hopes" he would follow through with his plan.

Using this same logic I declare the Bears to be superbowl champions! My reason is that I "Hope" they follow through on Lovie Smith's promise to do so.

"But it just goes to show how much Obama is admired throughout the world. It's nice to be feelin' the love for a change."

No, it shows the political slant of five judges sitting in a room. True his popularity aroad is much greater than here at home. But ultimately these are the same types of people who picked Al Gore and Arafat. Not that I think Reagan or Bush give a hoot about what the Nobel Foundation thinks but it is interesting thinking about how many people they liberated from communism and opression and yet someone like Arafat or Gore wins.

And GJC - they are mostly liberal judges. Google any article to find see their sland and look at the past winners. There is nothing conservative about any of the past winners. They are all from Norway - a very ultraliberal state in its own right. Why anyone really cares what five people from Norway think is beyond me.

Anonymous ONE:

Just one correction: Candidates had to be NOMINATED by Feb 1, but the winner was not selected at that time. The committee made their decision sometime within the past two weeks. So O won the award 9 months into his presidency, not 3 weeks.

Yes, it is premature. I think everyone recognizes that, even Obama himself. But it just goes to show how much Obama is admired throughout the world. It's nice to be feelin' the love for a change.

Hey, Glock:

I was waiting for you to weight in; figured you couldn't resist. All the sour old Reps have been in a tailspin all day, it's been quite amusing. Did you hear what your esteemed leader Rush had to say about it, that he was siding with the Taliban on this one? Now THAT'S a true American patriot!

Your gun-toting compadres are wasting their time packing at town hall meetings. Why don't you all take your guns, fly to Afghanistan, wrap towels around your heads and join the Taliban. Maybe you can even pick off a few U.S. soldiers for Rush. That would do him proud.

"Obama now has the responsibility to live up to this honor". Some honor. Did anyone also hear the collective gasp in the room when the anouncement was made? There was no cheering or clapping. Everyone was looking at each other wondering WTF? I think actually most people are befuddled and wondering how something like this is justified? THAT seems to be the consensous of opinion. Frankly, I am not impressed with Obama until Pope Benedict pronounces him Emperor of Rome. I am bashing Obama. Anyhow, smart people know what a political joke the Nobel Peace prize has become. It has nothing to do with honor or integrity. The Nobel members deminished it when they gave that little rat (Arafat) the prize IMO.

Chris,
The Nobel Committee is made up of 5 people - mostly conservative, within their own governmental framework, but people nonetheless. No more and no less. I'm sure that they take the charge seriously, but they could have chosen any number of people. They didn't, for reasons of their own.
In my opinion, it's far too early to begin a judgment, but if Homer Simpson had been nominated, they could have chosen him, if the 5 of them chose to.
The Nobel is often given a great deal more cachet than it really deserves. The Lit prize, for example, is no longer consider to be realistic or useful. Some of the science prizes are the most important ones in those fields. The Peace prize may simply be diluted.
But, again, 5 relatively normal human beings in a room. They made their choice.
So be it.

Sun Times had a myth / fact article by Lynn Sweet. Given the fact the award was decided last February, it has obviously been given to Obama in the hopes that he follows through on his promise for peace. Obama following through on his promises is something we hope for as well - although we haven't seen it yet. The Nobel committe deciding on this award just 3 weeks after Obama took office is awfully premature.


excerpts from the article:

Myth: Candidates can be nominated until the last minute.

Fact: The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1.

Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

Fact: More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1815804,nobel-prize-myths-facts-100909.article

Chris,

There are no standards on any kind regarding the Nobel prizes. Here are some recent winners of the Peace prize in the past 20 years.

Kofi Annan
Yasser Arafat
Al Gore
Jimmy Carter

Carter is a national joke. I can see how he might get the award as he had paraded around the world bad mouthing and apologizing for America every chance he had. That is popular with world perception after all. See Obama. But the other three. I think that just proves that there are zero standards in determining who gets the prize. Todays award did not deviate from their standards too awfully much.

Chris:

I LOL'd at your comment about it perhaps being a slow year in international peace. I thought the same thing while listening to the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC--oh well, maybe it was a slow year! But I've been listening to this for the past two hours, and the consensus seems to be that the prize was awarded as a show of support by the international community for the new direction and attitude Obama represents for America and how much this means to most of the world, except, of course, the Taliban, Hamas and the GOP. Ok, that was a cheap shot, but it is true that so far the Taliban and Michael Steele have come out with the most scathing criticisms on Obama's win. Someone needs to tell the GOP that this is NOT good PR. Obama now has the responsibility to live up to this honor.

Anonymous on October 9, 2009 9:36 AM:

My comment was meant for an Anon (maybe you?) that days ago made a big deal about O's approval ratings being proof that most of Americans didn't approve of the course we were on. I said it was too early in his term to take approval ratings seriously. Case in point: now O's approval rating is up 6 points from last week, despite the new deficit numbers. So much for approval ratings.

And how about that Nobel Peace Prize?!

Per the 10/08/09 post at 2:07 pm:

If I read your post correctly, the stability of the United States economy is less important than the poll numbers of an individual?

Are you "That Guy"?

To Anonymous on October 8, 2009 4:05 PM:

It appears lack of comprehension goes both ways. I am not on the record clearly stating the Republicans were in charge for 8 years. I said they were in charge for 6. You said 4. We disagree on 2.

This whole thing began with your comment "In fact, if you note the recent elections in Europe you will see that they are FINALLY starting to see things clearly and are getting more conservative in expectations for economies (lower taxes ) and world relations (quit taking crap from nutcase world leaders)."

I never denied new conservative governments in Europe were lowering taxes, even though you got quite shrill about this.

My whole point is that it is erroneous to think that Europeans are becoming more American, more like us (or in this case, you) because they are FINALLY starting to see things clearly by adopting our policies of lower taxes and attempting to bully rogue countries into submission, which you call "not taking crap from nutcase world leaders." I agree that they're nutcases, but that's beside the point.

Europeans are not becoming more American; European and American conservatism is extremely different. You cannot connect the two and say from one rises the other. That's why I said before that the conservative party in Germany is very different from the one here. Just because they use the word "conservative" doesn't make it the same as conservatism in the U.S.

Most European conservatives support economic growth policies, regulation of markets, action on global warming, national healthcare and a safety net for the poor. Sounds more like our Democrats. Compare this to the U.S. conservative/Republican party that supports deregulation of markets, laissez-faire capitalism, denial of global warming, and denouncing of national healthcare and safety nets for the poor as unAmerican.

I found this article about what your original post sounded like, the "crowing from the right wing" about the German elections:

"That's especially true when people try to translate European election results into the American political language. You're going to hear a lot of crowing from the right this week about Angela Merkel's unsurprising re-election in Germany this week, the latest evidence that Europe's old-line socialist parties are in utter disarray. That's undoubtedly true, but don't expect to hear a lot of chatter here about what Europe's "anti-socialism" actually looks like, because the Latter-Day Saints of Ronald Reagan would not approve:

Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/European_conservatism_sounds_a_lot_like_US_socialism_to_me.html

Sure, you get the lower taxes, but you also get all the other stuff that U.S. conservatives would call socialist. If one just focuses on the tax thing and says, hey, they're finally seeing things clearly!, that would not be accurate. They still see things differently.

Here's another. Some of the language in this is inflammatory, so in the interests of fairness I've taken that out:

"It probably won’t surprise anyone for me to say that American conservatism is a wholly different animal from how the rest of the world understands the term, but now the difference is coming to a head as conservative leaders worldwide are “treated” to James Inhofe showing what American conservatism is like vis a vis global warming.

No doubt Inhofe’s appearance will embarrass the Obama administration and irritate environmentalists. But nobody will be more frustrated and perplexed than the European conservatives who are hosting the conference in Denmark and whose governments in Germany, Sweden and France have made the most sustained progress toward the energy and carbon reduction goals set out in the original Kyoto agreement. Those leaders cannot understand why their ideological comrades in the United States refuse to acknowledge the gravity of the problem — and insist that “conservatism” is synonymous with freedom to pollute and ruin."

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2009/09/27/conservatism-american-and-european/

The EU is mostly an economic construct used to make the flow of people, goods and capital easier among the member countries. It is not intended to make member countries look or act like a single entity for economic or any other reasons, Europeans deny this. Even the Euro currency was created to avoid the complication of different exchange rates in each country, but using this isn't mandatory and a lot of countries choose not to.

Just the bickering over the euro design illustrated this. The euro almost didn't happen, all the countries were so nationalistic they couldn't agree on what country's heads of state or landmarks would be on what note or coin, whose would be used first, second, etc. It was a nightmare, but they eventually worked it out. Sameness was never in the plan.

Most Americans aren't aware of this. If I didn't have a connection in Europe, I wouldn't either. Just sayin'.


what the?,

Never said I know it all, bucko. However, your progressive dogma apparently keeps preventing you from actually reading and comprehending my words!

As wiki, and any source will state, the EU was created so the members have freedom of movement across borders of people, goods, services,and capital with common trade policies, etc., and in many cases a single, COMMON currency!

Gosh oh golly! That certainly sounds like they are banded together to look/act like a single entity for economic purposes.

I NEVER said, or indicated, that they gave up sovereignty ---- you did!


If you really have a Bro, and he realy uses this stuff as you describe for his class, then you are both shortchanging his students and our country. If you do have any grace you should also send him my oft-stated comment that I did NOT state or imply the Euros were not sovereign or nationalistic! Shame on you ---I NEVER said Euro was a single nation!

You have endlessly tried to put that into my words, but you would again be wrong --- do you have an agenda you would like to share with us?

Again, (how redundant!) you continue to fixate and misude my words to some perceived advantage of your dogma. I stated clearly, twice, that w/o a veto over-ride NO one is in charge! The RINO was, and continues to be, an add-on. You, however, are on record as clearly and erroneously stating the Republicans were in charge for 8 years. Your deflection to attack me to cover your mistake is juvenile.

Look, read, and comprehend before engaging mouth (or fingers, in this case)--- you're doing yourself no favors here. As I said, facts is facts!

What the?, maybe you can email your own posts to yourself to find out how little you know about how congress works. While the Republicans had a simple majority, they never had a super majority like the Democrats did the first two years of Clinton's presidency, and do now. So you can claim that the fact that the Republicans were in power for six years yet ignore the fact that they didn't have total control as the Democrats had and do.

As you stated, facts are facts, and you can't disregard the ones that don't work out for you.

NEWSALERT!

We should all be so very proud!

Our President can add yet another record to his list of achievements:

The U.S. deficit has now hit 1.44 TRILLION dollars, which is 3x the previous record of 459 billion!

Booyah!

And his approval rating has just jumped 6 points!

Go figure!

Booyah!

Anonymous on October 8, 2009 12:28 PM:

I almost copied that same description to post to you, but I felt it wasn't descriptive enough.

Each European country is still it's OWN SOVEREIGN NATION. The political part it speaks of is that every 4 years each country elects its representatives to represent them in the European Union. The European Union is not a political body that supersedes each country's individual political autonomy--there is no elected "President" of the EU, just a chairmanship that rotates between each country on a predetermined schedule.

If your knowledge about the EU does not exceed Wikipedia definitions, you certainly don't know much.

My brother has lived in Germany for 20 years and teaches American government to German students at Heidelberg University. He certainly knows tons more about the German political structure and the EU than any beer drinking tourist. That's why I know more about the German government than I have ever wanted to know. I have listened to him complain about it for YEARS.

So throw a hissy fit if you want and keep claiming you know it all. You're doing yourself no favors here.

FYI, I copied your series of posts about the EU and emailed them to my bro. He loves this kind of stuff, he likes to use it in his classes to illustrate to his students how Americans see Europe through the lens of our own system and how that contributes to confusion on both sides, as the Germans do it too. He emailed back that he knew his students would go nuts over your statement "the Euros have banded together to look like/act like a single entity?" Germans are very nationalistic, much more so than Americans. He knows that will start a spirited discussion!

And the fact still remains, no matter how you try to revise it, that the Republicans were in power 6 out of 8 years. The RINOs don't count as non-Republicans, however much you want them to. The Dems have the Blue Dogs (or DINOs), but they're still counted as Dems, both parties have this problem. You make a lot of noise about FACTS, but you also tend to disregard those that don't work out for you. FACTS ARE FACTS, whether you like 'em or not.

NEWSALERT!

We should all be so very proud!

Our President can add yet another record to his list of achievements:

The U.S. deficit has now hit 1.44 TRILLION dollars, which is 3x the previous record of 459 billion!

Booyah!

Anon ONE:

I had this thought earlier about the czar thing. If you look at the chart I linked awhile back, maybe an argument could be made for the number of czars a president has as being a reflection of the challenges his administration faces. Perhaps I'm being too generous, but if you look at FDR, which was quite large, he was dealing with the Great Depression, the New Deal, WWII. W. Bush had 9/11, an increased terrorist threat, Iraq War and Afghanistan, O has the economic crisis, stimulus and bailouts, Iraq War, Afghanistan and the nuclear nutjob wannabes in North Korea and Iran. Compare that to Ronald Reagan who only had one, the drug czar, during the conspicuous consumption 80s. Just a thought.

By Anonymous on October 7, 2009 10:49 AM

I"Of course, I am guessing (hoping?) that you are aware that there is an EU where from a financial view the Euros have banded together to look like/act like a single entity?"

You couldn't be more wrong when you say this. Also very incorrect was your previous statement:

"In fact, if you note the recent elections in Europe you will see that they are FINALLY starting to see things clearly and are getting more conservative in expectations for economies (lower taxes ) and world relations (quit taking crap from nutcase world leaders)."

These are common misperceptions made by Americans about the EU. The recent election you must be referring to is the Sept. 25 election in Germany where Angela Merkel won a second term. This was a German election, not "elections in Europe". Each country in the EU is A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, with their own government, political system and political parties. The purpose of the EU was not to create a bunch of countries that look like/act like a single entity and they certainly are not the same politically or culturally.

The conservative party in Germany is very different from the one here. Just because they use the word conservative doesn't mean it is the same as conservatism in the U.S. There is no German equivalent to the U.S. political structure. Here we have two main political parties, in Germany there are 5. If we divided our Republican party into two parties and our Democratic party into three parties, that would be a closer comparison to the German system. By American standards Angela Merkel's center to right would be considered extremely left. So to interpret from this that Germans, much less Europeans, are starting to "see things clearly" and becoming more conservative like Americans illustrates how much you really don't know about Germans in particular and Europeans in general, regardless of how much beer you've had there.

And if "the recent elections in Europe" refers to the conservative parties that have been elected in some European countries like France, Italy, Spain, etc. in the last several years, then you're also not aware that this drive towards conservatism has less to do with wanting lower taxes and less government and more to do with fears that countries are losing their cultural identity to uncontrolled immigration. The various Socialist parties in Europe have a history of not caring about immigration issues or working to stem its tide. Germany has a large Turkish population with which Germans are very uncomfortable, and we all know about the problems France and Britian are having. Remember the bombing in Spain which is credited with changing the outcome of their last election? And just days ago Greece ousted its conservative party for a socialist one. That's how it goes.

What the? on October 6, 2009 12:26 PM

WT?,

I agree, I think the term "czar" is a loaded term that from what I read is more of a media adopted name given to people a president hires as an advisor.

For some reason we praise managers in the business world who surround themselves with advisors, consultants and /or specialists who are able to advise them on matters within their field of expertise. It seems we don't allow Presidents to do the same.

Not that you said it, but I recall liberals criticizing Bush for having Czar's/advisors and claiming it was because he was too stupid. The natural response, as seems to be the case, is that conservatives will make the same claim of O. (good for the goose, good for the gander, etc.)

Appointing a Czar is easier to do, and is a way to skirt the vetting / congressional confirmation process. (Van Jones may disagree, but he was pestered by media). I would claim that Bush did it because the dems would obstruct the Congressional approval process anyway, and you would probably cite the same with Clinton.

what the?,

You again parse.. Obama paid out the auto money, period! You can try to balme Bush, but Obama cut the check, Obama ownes GM (and gave the largest part to his union buddies). Disagree all you want, but those are the simple facts. As an aside, I disagreed just as strongly with Bush giving GM $$$ as I do Obama --- they are both wrongminded!

I repeat for the hard of hearing (or reading in this case) ----the Republicans were realistically in charge for maybe 4 years because of the inability to overcome a veto and the RINOs. Again, you conveniently neglect the major point so you can repeat thos all important Left Talking points!

The bank crisis IS the financial crisis. Okay, so you know someone who lost a job--- one of only 3.5 million since Obama took office (I know, I know --- you blame it on Bush and youDON'T blame any of the job losses in Buish's first year on Clinton ---- we get it! It's a single edged sword for you progressives!). Great anecdotal info. I guess people only lose jobs in a financial crisis?

Listen closely to the admin ---- they have already stated there will be at least 40,000 troops staying beyond 2010 (like advisors in Viet Nam?)regardless of "safety".

Bottom line on deficits? Bush okay'd 700 bil, 125 has been paid back already, Obama sits on about 1.2 trillion. Hmmmm?


Your little attempt at a geography lesson is tedious --- I don't believe I ever said Euro was a single country (nice try at deflection -- did you get that from Carville?) Of course, I am guessing (hoping?) that you are aware that there is an EU where from a financial view the Euros have banded together to look like/act like a single entity?

I am also hoping that you are aware that over the past year or less elections have significantly turned conservative (or at least opposite of liberal) for France, Germany (you say you are so familiar with them --- I'm surprised you didn't know this), etc.

My comment on only believing what you are fed has no relevance to your life experience --- I never asked about or questioned it. Pretty much everything you write has been written or said before by progressive left wags and are almost verbatim talking points from the current powers that be. I don't need to know your history to know you are repeating their points.

The "America is weak" comments was clearly implied NOT to Euro but to the Middle East as we were talking to the ME when I wrote it. It is a very accurate description of their views back in 2001 and, to a lesser but growing extent, now.

By the way, if you are so Euro-centric, why did you not also mention jealosy when you were referring to the Euro attitudes toward the USA? Over a beer even they admit to that one!

Finally, if you have traveled there enough you recognize that they are just as arrogant as we are, just on different items and sets of thought. If not, you really haven't experienced them enough ---- go back!


To Anonymous on October 6, 2009 12:16 PM:

I forgot to address this comment in my last post to you:

"OBL did say what I posted above. I have traveled often in Europe prior to the Bush years and the attitude that you and many liberals describe has been there since I started in 1988 (it did not start with Bush). In fact, if you note the recent elections in Europe you will see that they are FINALLY starting to see things clearly and are getting more conservative in expectations for economies (lower taxes ) and world relations (quit taking crap from nutcase world leaders). You prefer to ONLY believe what you are fed about who feels what, when!"

I ONLY believe what I am fed about who feels what, when? Really? That's a pretty cheeky comment from someone who knows nothing about me or my life experiences.

I too have traveled to Europe many times, starting in the late 1980s. I've been to France, Germany serveral times, Italy and The Netherlands several times as well. And we've entertained friends, family and associates from England, Australia and Germany in our home. Bush didn't cause the anti-American sentiment, it has existed for years. It was present when I was traveling around Europe. And it was NOT based on a view of the U.S. as weak and scared. It was based on an impression of the US as doing whatever it wanted regardless of what the world community thought and never admitting screw ups when we made them. The word arrogant does apply, I've heard it myself from Europeans.

I know OBL said what he said, but that doesn't make it true. Of course he's going to denigrate the U.S., he's not going to say the U.S. is srong and omnipotent. I know propaganda when I hear it.

Also, you might want to realize that Europe is not a country, it's a continent consisting of individual countries. When you talk about their elections, you need to specify the country. Elections in one country are not illustrative of opinion and trends in the others. I'm very familiar with the German system of government in particular and how their political parties work, and it is VERY different from how we do things in the U.S., which is in turn different from France's and Italy's, etc. So it's not correct to look at one country and assume the same is true of everyone else. In fact, Europeans resent Americans doing this. They're all very nationalistic.

Anon:

I haven't seen the report but would like to. Could you post a link to it here? thanks!

Did anyone else see the report including film clips of the meeting that the SEIU held at their headquarters to develop a strategy for selling Obama Care?

White House staffers attended and participated in the meeting.

The sales pitch that the SEIU and the White House came up with was to call anyone opposing Obama's policy a "racist", wow.

I recall Bill and Hillary were surprised when they became racists during the primaries. Good thing Obama lets his surrogates handle the personal assaults and character assignations for him.

Calling the opposition racist is certainly change even in DC, or should we call it Cook County East?

By Anonymous on October 6, 2009 12:16 PM:

Well, that's the beauty of opinions, isn't it? That people can look at the same situation and come to different conclusions based on their values and beliefs. I think on a lot of these issues there is no definitive right or wrong, just different perspectives.

"I said realistically" in charge, 4 Reps were "Republicans in name only". Now YOU are parsing, dismissing what you don't like. Don't make excuses, the Republicans were in charge for 6 of their 8 years, period. And they had no interest in health care reform. Period.

There is a withdrawal agreement with the Iraqi gov’t on pulling out by 2010. This is subject to change if things in Iraq start to go south, of course. The Iraqis want us out, but they'll tolerate U.S. troops there rather than do all their own fighting. But a deadline is still a deadline.

I sure differ with you on this point: the financial crisis and the bank bailouts are NOT the same thing. To say so focuses on the effect of the crisis on the banking system only. There is a lot to the financial crisis that has effected average Americans, continues to effect average Americans, even while some banks are back on their feet and have been able to pay back TARP funds. Try telling a friend of mine whose husband has been unemployed one year this November that the financial crisis and the bank bailouts are the same thing.

And W. Bush bailed out the car industry BEFORE he left office. He approved funds for both the banks and the car industry. Here's a refresher:

"The US government has said it will provide $17.4bn (£11.6bn) in loans to help troubled car makers General Motors and Chrysler survive.

President George W. Bush said allowing the US car industry to fail would not be "a responsible course of action".

The government will use part of the $700bn originally pledged to rescue US banks."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7791999.stm

So like I said before, only the stimulus was Obama's. The rest was in place before he arrived. He chose to keep them going.

And regarding the Afghan War, you say "Obama campaigned on it, he took it" Yes, he did. But he didn't start it. Iraq is his also by virtue of his winning the election, but no one refers to Iraq as Obama's war. Same logic applies to Afghanistan. Period.

I can just as easily make the case that you're seeing things from a clearly conservative point of view, which is made apparent by your frequent use of the words nutso and nuts to describe those you disagree with. Obama is very left of center to you, but not everyone. And I would hesitate to dismiss those on the left wanting immigration reform and equal rights for gays as nuts.

You have been fairly loud in saying we have lots of problems and that you do not agree with the direction we are taking --- including that which was taken for the past 3 years by the prior admin. But opposing just keeps you in the same place. What do you propose?

Anon ONE:

I didn't see the DNC video, but I did see coverage on the czar issue on CNN. They did claim W. Bush had forty-something individual czars working in 35 positions, making it clear there were multiple holders of the same position. Obama has 35 individuals in 32 positions, which makes it clear that 3 of these people have doubled up somewhere. All the same, and it's the same kind of parsing both sides use, W. Bush still holds the record in appointed czars, if not czar positions. I'm sure when Obama defenders bring up czars, they talk about the number of individuals W. had. When Bush defenders talk czars, they bring up the number of positions O has. Either is misleading by itself, which is why both are relevant.

I thought about the difference in time in office as well. O is only 9 months into his administration and he already has as many czar positions as Bush did. But let's wait and see if O actually matches or surpasses the number of czars W. hired before we start stating it as fact and criticizing him for it. Who knows, this may be all there is. But I don't see how anyone can look at W.'s use of czars and think that the Republican's reaction to Obama's is anything but extremely hypocritical and dishonest.

Having said that, I read Byrd's statement to O, and he does make a point. W. Bush never promised more transparency in his administration, in fact, by the way he ran his White House, by the number of times he invoked executive privilege as a way of telling the American people that what he was doing was none of their business, he clearly couldn't have cared less. Byrd's memo seemed to be reminding Obama that he did promise transparency, and if the use of czars is getting in the way of this within his administration, that's something O should take seriously. After all, O set the bar, it's his responsibility to meet it.

what the?,


You can dismiss stuff you don’t like, but the facts are still there:

• The medicare prescription plan was the largest change to the program in decades, period!

• I said republicans were “realistically” in charge because you need 60 votes to avoid a veto, AND because 4 of the Republicans were RINOs.

• The debt IS skyrocketing under Obama – there is no way around this fact. Bush left a deficit that has already been increased by a magnitude. Note of clarification: the bank bailout and the financial crisis are the same thing AND over 20% of the bank bailout money has been paid back. The stimulus AND the car bailout are BOTH on Obama.

• I guess the conservative view on Afgan can be varied and mixed with the Republican view. I have heard several times from several sources that we should either do as the military says and be in it to win it, OR we should pull our guys out and go home. [I would be interested in hearing from other posts on this]

• I see no indication and no news from Obama that all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2010. I am to understand that there is a withdrawal agreement with the Iraqi gov’t on pulling out, but it is safety-based as I recall.

• OBL did say what I posted above. I have traveled often in Europe prior to the Bush years and the attitude that you and many liberals describe has been there since I started in 1988 (it did not start with Bush). In fact, if you note the recent elections in Europe you will see that they are FINALLY starting to see things clearly and are getting more conservative in expectations for economies (lower taxes ) and world relations (quit taking crap from nutcase world leaders). You prefer to ONLY believe what you are fed about who feels what, when!

• Yes, Afgan IS Obama’s war --- Obama campaigned on it, he took it, and now he is at a decision point where he will royally piss off someone with his eventual decision. So far he seems somewhat frozen on that decision point. It will be interesting to see which route he takes: One will cause his appointed General to resign, the other will add more foam to the rabid froth on the lips of the progressive left. I wouldn’t want to be him!

• As Americans, it is easy to agree that having an avowed commie on a President’s close advisor’s list is nutso, and having another even closer who believes animals can sue humans is even moreso (and I am a huge animal lover) ---- isn’t it?

• I do have data and I understand Obama is not left enough for the nuts. So what? Obama is still way left of center! I guess your argument is I should be appreciative that he is a sow queen?

• I think I have been fairly loud in saying we have lots of problems and that I do not agree with the direction we are taking --- including that which was taken for the past 3 years by the prior admin. If you missed that in your partisan zeal to stand up for the far left, well………

The number of special czars in each presdiential administration stayed pretty consistent until George W. Bush. He had 46 czar appointees in 35 positions. Obama has 35 appointees in 32 positions. So if you want to complain about the use of "czars" by a president, W. still beats Obama. You should be complaining about Bush's.
_________________________

The statement is correct, but just to clarify - according to fact check: "The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media." http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/#

Bush had 46 different people handling 35 positions in his eight (8) years as President. O has 35 already (32 positions)in his 9 months. It's not a stretch to believe he will surpass Bush by a fairly wide margin over the next 3 years. Perhaps this is parsing, but no more so than what has already happened here.

It's not just me that thinks this "Czar" stuff is overboard. Former KKK member Robert Byrd (Democrat, W Virginia) sent the following to O questioning the use of Czars. http://byrd.senate.gov/2009_02_25_pr.pdf

Anon 5678:

Actually, I was speaking of the progressive voters, the electorate, not those in government. Those progressives that don't want to call themselves Democrats register as Independents. These are the people who you said voted for Obama in 2008 but are turning against him now.

Not so. They are plenty irritated at him with all this bipartisan nonsense, but they will not ever abandon a Democratic president. Progressives understand that there is NO WAY they can ever hope to advance their agenda when Republicans are at the helm. Gays are not happy campers either, at least right now, but they also understand that conservatives will never be their friends. So yeah, O's approval ratings have taken a slide because a lot of these supporters are frustrated that he is not left enough. But they'll never change to the right.

I wouldn't put too much importance on approval ratings this early in the game.

"Also, the Republicans were in charge for 6 out of 8 years, not 4. And the Medicare prescription plan was NOT health care reform. It was only a benefit added to Medicare. Kinda pathetic, really, when adding a prescription benefit to Medicare is considered such a big change to our system. But this doesn't matter. The status you give it as the "largest single change to health care in decades" will evaporate once Obama's bill goes through."

That might be true, but unless a party has 60 votes in the senate, they are not in charge. Right now the Dems have 58, Bernie Sanders (I) and (NUTS), Joe Lieberman (I) as well as Olympia Snowe (depending on which day is is) and the other senator from Maine. The dems can do whatever they want right now.

For the most part, I think we can all take progressives out of the equation. I think there are about 80 or so in the Progressive caucuss on the house. That is about 1/5th of the representation of congress. My God that is pathetic when you think about it. Surprise Surprise. Most all are from the inner cities where they firmly believe that someone else's money is their money. As long as the progressives (a disease in its own right) are unhappy, that is good for the rest of America. Look at some of the names on this list. Some of the most unethical people who have ever been in congress and keep getting reelected too.

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

Anonymous on October 4, 2009 7:16 PM:

>>>"You assume that when I make an argument against Obama/far left that I am supporting Republicans."

No I don't. I assume you are supporting a conservative agenda.

>>>"Bin Laden had several of his little videos where he, and other AQ jerks, outright said that their attacks were based on a weak, scared paper tiger known as America."

So now you accept the words of a nut like Bin Laden as gospel? Since when do you put so much importance on propaganda? The US has done a lot of good for other parts of the world, but it's also true we have had an arrogant "We're the big dog, no one tells US what to do and we are never wrong" attitude. And other countries have felt this as well and responded with anti-American sentiment. We haven't earned ALL this warfare, but we definitely contributed to some of it. I don't need the left to tell me this, I've witnessed it over many years myself. You're not taking your info from the horse's mouth. It's his other end you're listening to.

>>>"You are right that Obama said he would support Afgan during the campaign. He also said he would end Iraq."

Right. And won't all troops be out by 2010? Isn't this an end?

>>>"most violent place is HIS war, Afgan"

It's Obama's war by inheritance, he didn't start it like Bush started Iraq. And the fact that things have eroded over there has nothing to do with O's policies, as you previously insisted. It would be the same no matter who was in office.

>>>"It is the guys in charge of the war ----- the military and its leadership---- that want more troops. Don’t try to deflect on this one. As you would guess, the conservatives support the military leaders in this."

I don't know what you mean by "don't try to deflect on this one". You can explain further, if you'd like.

>>>"the conservative view on Afgan is that we should either do as the military says and be in it to win it, OR we should pull our guys out and go home."

My impression of the conservative view of Afghan is that it's a war we have to "win", however that's defined. To withdraw would be to give a psychological boost to the enemy and paint ourselves as a nation that won't follow through when the going gets too long and hard. But I do think you're right in that the decision is whether to get out now or get in deeper, and that's what Obama has to decide.

>>>"National debt has skyrocketed under Obama ---- period. No lame excuses, no blaming Bush. It is on Obama."

I can't agree. The reality is that the Bush administration left behind a huge deficit. They had one hell of a good time, didn't they, acting like Democrats, as they put it. And yes, Obama has added to that by what he sees as necessary under the current situation. Obama is responsible for the stimulus package, that was entirely his baby. But everything else was started before he came in--the bank bail-outs, the car industry bail-outs, the financial crisis, etc. Those were firmly in place when he arrived.

Also, the Republicans were in charge for 6 out of 8 years, not 4. And the Medicare prescription plan was NOT health care reform. It was only a benefit added to Medicare. Kinda pathetic, really, when adding a prescription benefit to Medicare is considered such a big change to our system. But this doesn't matter. The status you give it as the "largest single change to health care in decades" will evaporate once Obama's bill goes through.

The "nutso demeanor" you refer to is clearly a subjective label. It's not nutso to many other folks. In fact, to them it's not nearly nutso enough.

Knowledge of what the progressives want from Obama is clearly missing from your side of the discussion. That's how I know you get your information largely from right wing sources, it shows. You think everyone on the left is unquestioning pro-Obama. If you really knew your "data" the way you claim, you would be aware that progressives are not happy with Obama either. They're not happy he hasn't forced a public option through. They're not happy Obama cares so much about bipartisanship; they couldn't care less what the Reps want. Hispanics aren't happy that he hasn't addressed immigration reform yet. Gays aren't happy that he hasn't taken up the cause of same sex marriage or gays in the military, and on and on. You think what Obama is doing now is SO far left of center, when in reality, you haven't SEEN far left yet.

It's very easy to oppose the ideas of others, it's something else entirely to come up with ideas yourself. If you want change, you have to do more than oppose. You have to offer solutions. Opposing just keeps us stuck right where we are. To not disagree with the way conservatives are going about this would make me apathetic, un-American, and certainly not a patriot.

what the? ---You assume that when I make an argument against Obama/far left that I am supporting Republicans. That would be incorrect and that is one of the reasons the country is so polarized. I can disagree with something without supporting it’s polar opposite!
We agree that the apathy knows no party – it is everywhere (kinda like creeping socialism).

Your memory is short: Bin Laden had several of his little videos where he, and other AQ jerks, outright said that their attacks were based on a weak, scared paper tiger known as America (my words ---- theirs were more severe). I will spin this to you and say it is you that are being influenced, and it is by the far left. The far left is the group saying we somehow earned all of this warfare by being “arrogant, colonial, etc”. I will take it from the horse’s mouth on this one.

National debt has skyrocketed under Obama ---- period. No lame excuses, no blaming Bush. It is on Obama.

You are right that Obama said he would support Afgan during the campaign. He also said he would end Iraq. He and the far left also fought for access to pictures of caskets when soldiers were shipped home (remember that?) Of course, now that the most violent place is HIS war, Afgan ---- Oops! No pics (by the way, I agree there s/b no pics). It is the guys in charge of the war ----- the military and its leadership---- that want more troops. Don’t try to deflect on this one. As you would guess, the conservatives support the military leaders in this.

In fact, let’s call it “straight up” as Jeanine the Jerk is so fond of saying: My understanding of the conservative view on Afgan is that we should either do as the military says and be in it to win it, OR we should pull our guys out and go home.

Again, the influence of the far left on you is showing in your understanding of support for Obama. You, as the far left has told you to say many times, say it is all based on misinformation. Perhaps you should talk to a few ex-AARP members – it goes way beyond that and includes a general disagreement with the far left of center tacking Obama has taken on pretty much everything. The nutso demeanor of some of his czars is my point, not that he is the first to have them. There is NO explanation of Van Jones and Sunstein, as examples, or perhaps even Jarret at this point.

Now let’s approach when very large inaccuracy that the far left keeps repeating and you have been duped into carrying the water on: The conservatives were NEVER in charge for 8 years. Hopefully you are aware that the government is made up of the House, Senate, and Prez. The only time one party is in control in when they have all three. Bush certainly did NOT have this for 8 years! I think it was realistically more like 4 of the 8 years, and the prescription plan DID happen during the 8 years (so you are wrong in saying nothing happened for 8 years). Again, this does not mean I support the program, only a statement of fact that it occurred, it occurred under Bush, and it was the largest single change to health care in decades.

Last, you say I am in a fear-induced tailspin and have accepted defeat. You are wrong. I do disagree with the Obama policies as they have been presented, and I do believe they are way to far left, and I am speaking up in the hopes that they will change and come back to center. To NOT do so while in disagreement would make me apathetic, un-American, and certainly not a patriot.

Your sign-off t infers that to not accept Obama’s policies means I want no change. Such logic on your part is at best rudimentary and at worst inflammatory swill.

Too funny. This:

" Now you sound like every other dittohead running around screaming the sky is falling."

Followed by this, in the same sentence:

"So much for high-minded objectiveness."

As usual, and illustrated by the above ironic sentence, liberals want what they don't give. In this case, objectiveness, in other cases, a respectful debate on the matters of the day.

Anon 5678 and Anon:

Ok, lighten up and have a few laughs on us.

This is why I dispute your claims that Obama is WAY LEFT OF CENTER. If you spent any time being exposed to sources that were anything but conservative and right-leaning, you would know this. The progressives are spitting mad at Obama for NOT BEING LEFT ENOUGH! Have been for months. While it is typical of people to want results immediately, they definitely have a point with health care reform.

These are skits by SNL and John Stewart. Keep in mind that I found these on the the uber-liberal newspaper site Huffington Post. I go there mainly for the Comedy 24/7 section to catch things I've missed, and that's where I found these. This is comedy, but like most parodies do contain an element of truth. My favorite line: Obama has accomplished two things in office so far--jack and squat. Enjoy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/04/snl-obama_n_308979.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/stewart-destroys-dems-for_n_305948.html

What the?,

That wasn't me that wrote that. Someone else. I just happen to agree. So address that person.

And By Anonymous on October 3, 2009 11:22 PM . I posted one link to a Fox News clip from Greta, who is hardly a right winger. Did you watch the video? It is an interview with a guy who worked in both republican and democratic administrations. And Greta doesn't even really ask any questions. Watch it before you judge or don't judge period.

I've got words for you too. You sound like every other brainwashed Obamaite. So much for high-minded objectiveness. Come back to the plate when you have something to offer.

Correction: Bush had 46 czar appointees in 31 positions, not 35. But who's counting?

Anon 5678: I thought Anonymous on October 3, 2009 4:49 PM was you. I seemed another Anon answered instead.

But you respond by posting 2 links to Fox News videos, with the words "this is scary when you think about it".

Seriously? That's disappointing. Now you sound like every other dittohead running around screaming the sky is falling. So much for high-minded objectiveness.

Anonymous 5678:

Whoa, there! You don't need to scream in bold print, I can read.

>>>"No, we didn't vote for those things when we elected Bush."

Of course you didn't, just like I didn't specifically vote for the excessive spending of the ARRA and single payer health care, but I knew they were a possibility when I cast my vote.

>>>"We also didn't vote to be attacked as a result of a worldwide perception that we were weak and afraid."

I've never heard 9/11 described as a result of a worldwide perception that the U.S. was weak and afraid. If anything, it was a result of a worldwide perception of the U.S. as a bully that meddled in the affairs of other countries to our advantage.

>>>"the Democrats couldn't find a decent candidate to run against him (Bush), thus we were stuck with him for a second term."

Agree. I didn't want more of Bush but I didn't want Kerry, either. I didn't vote in 2004.

>>>"First, his 54% of the vote does not even hit 50% of eligible voters, so we AGAIN had an election determined partially by Apathy."

And the same can be said of the votes McSame received. Apathy influenced votes on both sides, just not Obama's.

>>>"Second, the country voted for change to the policies, especially the %^&*$-up growing national debt and the war, that we were following. The result after 9 months? The national debt is increasing at a Malthusian rate and we are increasing our war in Afghanistan. Huh!"

Yes, the debt is higher now. The Bush administration ran up huge deficits and left us no cushion for the economic crash. But like you said, we're only 9 months into a recovery. Debt does not disappear overnight. And yes, the war in Afghanistan is increasing. Obama said he would support the Afghan war during his campaign. The Reps want tens of thousands of more troops sent, and they're freaking out Obama isn't immediately complying. So I'm confused--are you saying this is a good or bad thing? And I don't see how Obama has added to the war. Which one are you referring to, Iraq or Afghanistan?

But I do agree he is losing support among independents and the elderly, not because he's so left of center, but because the oldsters are being scared silly by the misinformation circulating about health reform, and independents are being turned off by the partisan bickering on both sides that is stalling progress. Obama needs to stop this focus on bipartisanship before he losses control of a lot more. He still has time to turn this around, we'll see if he does.

>>>"Health Care - If I recall, he (Bush) added the Rx component to Medicare (way too expensive), which was the first real change to national health in decades. Be clear: absolutely NOTHING occurred under Bush 1 or Clinton (some minor things, mostly in the tax code, occurred under Reagan)"

No, nothing happened to reform health care under Clinton, but it wasn't for lack of trying, as I remember. But we do know that Republicans, after successfully killing reform then, did absolutely nothing about it for 8 years they were in power. You're also ignoring the fact that the the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, designed to entice elderly voters, also disguised a massive subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry which in turn channels millions back to Republican and conservative causes. Which brings us to the last point: crony capitalism.

I said CRONY CAPITALISM flourished under Bush 43. Can you seriously deny this? All the no-bid contracts that went to Cheney's favorite company Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root during the Iraq war, the no-bid conracts that went to Fluor Corp and Bechtel to rebuild after Katrina, the Bush administration's cozy and mutually beneficial relationships with other companies such as Eli Lilly, Enron, General Dynamics, Worldcom, Countrywide, to name but a few, several of which later fell into scandal.

And the "czar" thing is a dead giveaway that you're being influenced by right wing fear. Here's a list of presidential czars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

As you can see, this list starts with FDR. The number of special czars in each presdiential administration stayed pretty consistent until George W. Bush. He had 46 czar appointees in 35 positions. Obama has 35 appointees in 32 positions. So if you want to complain about the use of "czars" by a president, W. still beats Obama. You should be complaining about Bush's.

I think you're in a fear-induced tailspin. We're just 9 months into this and you're claiming failure already and campaigning for something different. Let me guess--back to the same old same old? What else is there?

By Anonymous on October 3, 2009 4:49 PM

Thank you for your post. It will fall on deaf ears.

I wonder if you will get called unobjective which is typical liberal just like racist, sexist, etc. What the? has already accused me of racism and unobjectiveness by simply pointing out reality. Apparently that is a crime when talking to or debating a liberal.

Lawrence Eagleberger who was Sec of State for Bush 41, and also served under Nixon, Carter and Reagan , was on Greta last night. And it is not like Greta is a hard core righty intervewed but rather a very fair interviewer.

Anyway, this pretty much sums up Obama, everything I have been saying about him since 2007. And this is scary if you sit back and think about it, especially the really bad that could come out of it. I've known since long before he was elected we have the wrong person in charge. And more and more people are coming out every day thinking the same thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=10308799&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

what the?,

No, we didn't vote for those things when we elected Bush. We also didn't vote to be attacked as a result of a worldwide perception that we were weak and afraid. Whether you like it or not, Bush fixed that in his first 2.5 years. After that, he showed that he was what he was (like his dad) -> not really a very conservative Republican.

The real big news during the 8 years was that the Democrats couldn't find a decent candidate to run against him, thus we were stuck with him for a second term.

As Obama goes, you are entirely INCORRECT in saying a majority voted for his current policies and actions.

Why do I say this?

First, his 54% of the vote does not even hit 50% of eligible voters, so we AGAIN had an election determined partially by Apathy.

Second, the country voted for change to the policies, especially the %^&*$-up growing national debt and the war, that we were following. The result after 9 months? The national debt is increasing at a Malthusian rate and we are increasing our war in Afghanistan. Huh!

Third, the election was determined, as always, by demographic groups. In order of magnitude, independents & to a lesser extent, overwhelming minority support catapulted Obama in (while in an odd event he severely lost the "old" vote"). We know from current polling that Obama's grasp on independents has eroded greatly, the oldsters he had are abandoning him, and some (not much) of his minority support has eroded. The reason is that his policies in practice did two things: He went WAY LEFT OF CENTER on so many things, and has added to the war.

You really need to look at the data instead of blindly following the far left talking points. Some of your "issues" on Bush are pretty far off.

Example:
>>Health Care - If I recall, he added the Rx component to Medicare (way too expensive), which was the first real change to national health in decades. Be clear: absolutely NOTHING occurred under Bush 1 or Clinton (some minor things, mostly in the tax code, occurred under Reagan)

>>Deficits - see above. Current adds to deficits are breathtaking and already 8 years of Bush in jusr 9 months

>>Cronyism -- Are you kidding me? Have you even looked at Obama's cabinet, his czars, his advisors, his C of S, all the PAC people he is surrounded with, his policies..........

Try to think broadly and open-minded. Defending the current policies is insane. Questioning them & trying to influence change to them does not make you a traitor to the Left or a racist, just someone with possible a better grasp on data and reality then the administration!

To Anonymous on October 2, 2009 8:51 PM and October 3, 2009 9:03 AM:

It sure sounds like you've got something stuck in your craw, given the derisive nature of your last two posts. Maybe this will help out. Go here and look under Featured Legislation:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

There are currently 13 acts of legislation listed there. I fully expect you to deride every single one (except Lily Ledbetter, which you like), so go right ahead.

And c'mon, we're all adults here, supposedly. Do you really think a 24-hour trip to Copenhagen was a "debacle of olympic proportions"? Do you really think something like this could be one of Obama's worst days? I think 9/11 qualifies as a worst day, not Chicago losing an Olympic bid. And do you really think the leader of the free world, who has such weighty matters as Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, Iran and an economic crisis in his own country to deal with really gives a fig about the success or non-success, either way, of a tell-all book by a political rival? Who he left in the dust last year? Especially since he has already penned, not ghostwritten as Palin did, two best-selling books of his own years ago? You need some serious perspective.

I didn't read Lynn Sweet's article. But if I trust your interpretation of it, I don't think the kind of cheerleading she's doing is necessary. From what I read and heard, Rio was always the leading contender, and I'm sure the Olympic Committee made the best choice. Many heads of state were in Copenhagen supporting their bids, just not Obama. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was there to support Rio. Spanish King Juan Carlos and the major of Madrid were there to support Madrid. And newly-elected Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama was there for Tokyo. So I never saw how Obama making a quick appearance there was such a big deal in the first place.

And I think it's just as well. If Obama hadn't gone, Chicago losing the bid would have been blamed on him. If Chicago had gotten the Olympics and it had not worked out well, that would have been blamed on him. Best that it just end here.

I bought the Sun Times today for HS Football coverage. (Redskings beat North last night. North isn't even ranked anymore.) Anyway, Lynn Sweet was in full damage control on behalf of Obama. Did you know Chicago only received 18 of 94 total votes in first round? But of course she writes Obama has not wasted any of his political capital in the debacle of olympic proportions. Really Lynn? I truly believe yesterday was one of the worst days for Obama. No Olympics, more unemployment and 100,000 more jobs lost in September than predicted, more troops to Afghanistan for the good war. Sarah Palin book #1 in preorder sales noted above. I'm inclined to believe someone who previously posted Obama is going to have this country down deeper than Carter succeeded in pulling it down and faster. Some of you belittle Palin because late night T.V. perverts and abusers think she is ignorant but she could be just the iconic politician in a few years that Reagan was in the late 70's. And first Dude quit his oil platform job with BP. There was a story about that in the paper reporting his income stream over the last two years. WTF? Who cares about his income stream? What is with the liberal negative preoccupation of the Palins anyway? I'd like to know what these two are up to. I'm thinking they are going to move to position themselves to take on the Obamas in the lower 48. What a breath of fresh air she would be. With the exception of the historic Lilly Ledbetter law, it would seem Obama is accomplishing little. If I am wrong, can someone list his accomplishments over the last 8 or 9 months.

Ken:

I thought we agreed it was a waste of time to debate each other. So let's not. If you want a good beating, find someone else.

What the?, the only relevant thing you said was "...on Greta's show...", which tells exactly what Greta's slot on Fox is, entertainment. Same as O'Reilly and Hannity. They are opinion shows, not news broadcasts.

I do remember Dan Rather making false statements about a sitting president on an actual news program, on a network that is a large part of the msm. Is that what you are referring to when you make a statement like this:

This is why we never hear this kind of thing in the mainstream media. Not because the MSM is biased against the right, but because they are responsible stewards of the public trust. Most broadcasters strive to report truth."

If that is responsible stewardship of the news, I'd like to see what you consider irresponsible. Oh, that's right, anything Fox says. Yet you try to give others tips on how to appear to be objective...too funny.

So whay did Obama blow the Olympics? In the first round? I don't get it. I thought we were in the dawn of a new era. A new attitude and direction for our country. Hey world, look at us! Meanwhile, David Letterman is a troll. (multiple sexual encounters with female staff) I wonder what OWVU and What the ? think about their funny man. Isn't that kind of behavior inappropriate? Don't you two have some "ism" that defines men in power having sex with subordinate women? And he sits in judgment of Sara Palin. Pathetic! (by the way, her book number one on pre-sale list now)

Glock:

"I have read at other sites Zarkozy after meeting with Obama at the UN considers Obama inexperienced, naieve and egotistical."

I had to look into this. I found some of Glock's "other sites" and they were all linking to a video by--you guessed it--Fox News! Here it is, and it sounds like something straight out of the National Enquirer:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/29/french-president-sarkozy-obama-is-incredibly-naive-grossly-egotiscal/

This is Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Greta's show making these comments. Kelly is a writer for Pennsylvania's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and a nationally syndicated columnist. He is controversial in that "Kelly can be counted on to recycle half-informed (not to mention half-formed) arguments from the right side of the blogosphere, and dutifully march forth to make the GOP sanctioned argument of the week":

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jack_Kelly

You can check out his history of Obama bashing articles in his archives at this link:
http://www.post-gazette.com/search/archive.asp?cCat=373

This explains why he was on Fox News. And typical of these kind of "reports", Kelly is stating as fact unsubstantiated comments from unidentified sources. "I have a friend who has, uh, one friend who is close to Sarkozy and another who is a member of the France's External Intelligence Agency." There's no way of knowing if this is true or not, so of course Fox airs it.

This is why we never hear this kind of thing in the mainstream media. Not because the MSM is biased against the right, but because they are responsible stewards of the public trust. Most broadcasters strive to report truth. Fox will settle for tripe.

Yeah, Glock, very reliable, first-class info here. National Inquirer journalism. Inquiring minds want to know!

Anon 5678:

"54% voted for him, doesn't mean that we all want the "serious nutty" stuff."

But that's the way our system works, Anon. Majority rule. You are incorrect in stating that MOST OF AMERICANS don't want what Obama is doing. MOST OF AMERICANS put him in office, and that in itself was an endorsement of his agenda. Your way of rationalizing Obama's win sounds more like an attempt at diminishing his victory. And no, Americans didn't have to vote for either McHope or McSame. Not voting was a choice as well.

When I voted for Obama, I voted for his agenda, in whatever form that would take over time. I'm willing to follow it through and see where it goes, if a change from the same old same old will actually improve this country. We know what the same old gets us, and that's clearly not good enough anymore.

When you voted for Bush,

--Did you really vote for the excessive spending and large deficits run up by his administration?
--Did you vote to go to war in Iraq?
--Did you vote for absolutely no action to improve our health care system?
--Did you vote for the crony capitalism that ran amok in Washington for eight years?

So what if Obama's approval ratings are at 50%? I would expect lower, given all the craziness going on in the oppositional media. We still have another three years in this term to go. He's not going to quit or radically change course just because his approval ratings aren't as high as they once were. Did Bush?

And a lot of what you refer to as the "serious nutty" stuff is precisely what Obama spoke of during his campaign. You probably weren't listening as you had already made up your mind for McSame. But I listened very closely during the campaign, and I've had very few surprises since. Yes, I knew a single payer or public option was a possibility. I knew more spending was a possibility in light of our financial crisis. YOU BET I wanted an end to the war in Iraq. And I fully expected O to bring some people he had worked with and trusted as a senator with him. Your description of this as "the Chicago machine in his cabinet" is typical fear speak. You may want to phrase this differently if you're trying to appear objective.

"Anon. on October 1, 2009 7:33 PM" is not listening (or in this case reading) very well, now is he?

"Ken's" point is crystal clear: Pelosi & Reid, et.al., have been consistent and continuing in their viscious attacks on conservatives of this country.

These attacks by Pelosi and her cohorts have NOT been limited to elected conservatives

We all remember Pelosi's attacks on town hall meeting attendees and TEA party attendees.

As I recall, she called them, at various times, Nazis, KKK members, un-American, etc. Reid was right behind her (Ugh! What a horrible view!)

Now, you progressives out there are outraged when conservatives give it back to them! Unintelligently, you try to connect it back to the Bush years, but WAKE UP! It is continuing to happen daily, right now.

This is not "eye for an eye" behavior, this is "Get of my freaking back and respect my views, too!" behavior.

People are mad as hell and are tired of taking it. Over the years, only the progressives spoke up (I marched at Grant Park in '68, and fought in the union wars in the early 70s). Now, those with a conservative nature are speaking up and you find it upsetting?

Tell you what ------ talk YOUR politician's into respecting ALL points of view and perhaps we will be less outspoken. Do not turn this into a fringe argument ---- I am anything but the fringe.

I AM tired of elected politicians trying to dismiss me, trying to ignore my say (see any poll on gov't spending, gov't healthcare, etc), and believing that the apathetic voter turnout of this country with it's fragmented domains gives ANYONE a mandate to ignore so many for so long.

Until the Pelosi's of our country lose their stranglehold on the process, we will continue to have this polarization.

My only quibble with Anon's posted article by Friedman is that Friedman glosses over the fringe left's treatment of Bush (he uses it in "total" but neglects specifics) while concentrating on specifics of the fringe right's treatment of Clinton & Obama.

Otherwise, it is really hard to disagree with his premise ---- the same one Chris had when he started this thread!

What the?

We've already been through this before on the previous link. Remember - only two candidates to choose from. 1/3 libs, 1/3 conserv and 1/3 independent. And we had to choose either Hope (Hype) or McSame. Remember? Just because 54% voted for him, doesn't mean that we all want the "serious nutty" stuff. You have to vote for one or the other, right? I'm assuming you are caught up in that 1/3 lib category.

Did you really vote for this kind of excessive spending?
Did you vote to end the war in Iraq?
Did you vote for single payer health care?
Did you vote to have the Chicago machine in his cabinet?

What exact change was it that made you vote for him?

You are right. On November 4th, 54% of the nation voted for him. You are wrong to think that the people in this nation want to be taken as far left as it appears he would like to take us.

Take good look at polling numbers that aren't conducted by the NYT or Time magazine. As I type on RCP right now, his average approval rating accumulating all the nutty polls with the serious polls is 51.8%. Subtract the nutty polls and you have right around the 50% line. And he just got started. Wait until it starts getting closer to reality on the nutty stuff. He will give W and Carter a run for their money on how low will it go.

I refer to him as "this administration" and "president" occasionally. Tough to do though when you see a guy who I think could really bring us in to some very bad places domestically and internationaly.

Anon 5678:

You're glad "we" are calling O out for what he is? What exactly is he, in your opinion? In reality, he is the democratically elected 44th and current President of the United States. What do YOU call him?

And this is something I don't get. You call the path that Obama has us on as "serious nutty". In a previous post you stated, "Most of America doesn't want anything that looks like it is heading this far left."

Really? How can you claim that when MOST OF AMERICA voted for Obama, that's how he became Commander-in-Chief. And he campaigned and won on the very issues that you are calling "serious nutty". So are you trying to convince us that MOST OF AMERICA voted for him but now are having second thoughts because he's doing exactly what he said he would do if elected?

MOST OF AMERICA wants the changes they voted for. It's the opposition, the minority in this democracy, the losers in the last election that are yelling and rallying and opposing the change the majority of the American people endorsed with their votes.

For people like Ken, it definitely is all about payback and will never be anything but. But for those of us who put Obama in office, it's about a much bigger picture, a new attitude and direction we want for our country. And that is what MOST OF AMERICA wants.


Obama was elected because people were hoping for better? The Japanese have a saying: Guessing is not a strategy and hope is not a plan. So when you guessed Obama was the strategy and offered hope as his plan, you should not be surprised when all of the things causing the lustre wearing off Obama in the polls to continue. (Growing government taxing the shrinking economy, continued job loss and interesting, various leaders around the world testing his leadership ability which is tenuous to say the least. I have read at other sites Zarkozy after meeting with Obama at the UN considers Obama inexperienced, naieve and egotistical. (Rather describes the quintisential lawyer doesn't it?) He should be lead and is not a leader. Those of you who think we are now held in high esteem around the world are going to find even our allies asserting themselves as leaders of the free world and the U.S./Obama can follow them for a change. Ken hit the nail on the head. The incivility started with the left against Bush. You see they never got over the fact and still simmer that Clinton in addition to being a former two term democratic president is also an impeached, disbarred lawyer and perjuror. I firmly believe that people like What the ? are crazy mad about that and on occasion go of the deep end on people here. I know it is not nice to laugh at people shall we say who are challenged or even politically correct but there is just something about people like that makes those of us who are not politically correct raise our tone for the rather amusing result.

Anon., maybe you missed the first part of my statement. I agree that it is not the best course of action. I have posted here, in this very discussion, that I agree with some of what Obama does. In that matter, you are wrong, as it has started with me, and it makes no difference. By the way, your comments indicate that you have no interest in continuing my effort to debate without casting aspersions, so the effort definitely does not start with you either.

Improving the climate on our level does not make any difference if politicians don't do the same. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have all made it clear they only want the Republicans to roll over, and that they have no interest in real bipartisanship.

Maybe since you have voted for the Democrat in the last two elections, you have no problem with that, but I do. I want the Republicans to perform as an opposition party, not as lapdogs as they have in the past. Maybe if the Democrats had acted better during the Bush years, they would get the same in return. But as they have shown they cannot be gracious even in victory, there is no reason for the Republicans to roll over as they used to.

Anon.

I hear what you are saying. And I agree that we shouldn't just be fighting because Clinton started this and then Gingrich got him and the Bush, Pelosi, etc. etc. etc.

But do you honestly think that is it. I really think this is the most serious nutty stuff on the path that Obama wants to take us. And I for one hope everyone does fight it who believes the way I do. I don't think it is payback. They dems have 60 senators, 60% of the house and the most left presient any of us have ever seen. They can do whatever they want. Minus the Facebook type of stuff, I am glad we are calling O out for what he is.

An eye for an eye, eh Ken? Is that the strategy? Let's keep it up so that nothing can ever be accomplished? No problems ever solved or made better? No issue discussed honestly? Lets do it to them before they do it us?

There are a great many people who hope for better, Ken. That is part of the reason I think Obama was elected -- people were hoping for better, and for many people, Obama offered that hope. (No doubt you and many others on this blog do NOT think that he offered hope, so please, we dont need any comments on THAT.) The fact is that for many people, he did.

Improving the current climate needs to start somewhere, and with some group, or maybe just someone. You have made it clear that it will not start with you.

Anon., glad to see you are able to understand that what is written isn't always a clear cut statement in and of itself. Obviously, the written word has many different meanings, and choosing that meaning sometimes takes a little thought instead of a knee jerk reaction.

You wrote:
If you believe Bush was ill-treated over his 8 years, do you think the best course of action now is to do the same with Obama? Isnt that really the question Chris has asked us?

I would agree that it is not the best course of action, but as it is the course of action Democrats like Pelosi and Reid are still using towards the Republicans, it is the course of action that will be used. It is amusing to me that people like Friedman call for civility towards Obama, but have no problem with Pelosi's or Reid's incivility.

The answer to Chris' question is that no matter how tired we are of the tone, it will not change as the Democrats proved that tone worked starting with Clinton. Now that the Republicans are finally fighting back in the same tone, people like Friedman think it should change. The hypocrisy is funny, but not unexpected.

T.B.:

Hey, there's an idea! Rupert Murdoch could purchase the entire Rockefeller Center in NY and have it declared his own little country, Foxistan. They could appoint Glen Beck their supreme leader, which would satisfy the crazy dictator requirement. All that would be left to do is pursue the development of nuclear weapons. Then Obama would HAVE to deal with them, you know, in the interests of national and world security and all, whether he wanted to or not. Brillant!

“Fox News, and especially Chris Wallace, were just stung because Obama would not legitimize them by granting an interview. And why should he? Why would he be interested in legitimizing a station that has done nothing but try to delegitimize him from the beginning? If you intentionally step on toes, don't expect to be asked to dance.” – what the? 09/30/09 @ 4:19 PM

And yet BHO wants to engage the world’s dictators and legitimize them.

T.B.

Hey Glockster:

I heard also that Palin's book is selling like Kiwanis Club pancakes. Well good for her, it's about time she experienced success at something. I mean, after losing the campaign and quitting her job and not getting that many speaking engagements, she was probably sweating it there for awhile. And having a book, even a ghostwritten one, is a lot more dignified than putting yourself up for auction on eBay for cash. So I say you go, girl! Now maybe she will have more time to do what she said she really wanted to do, like advocate for all those issues of importance to her such as energy independence and national security and stuff. We'll all be waiting with bated breath.

The Friedman article is very good. I read him frequently and find myself agreeing and disagreeing with him on different topics. He is one of the columnists I read to help balance my conservative side. It's too bad he didn't write the article 7-8 years ago because it would have been just as true then as it is now. (obviously changing the names around).


And lest anyone forget about Friendman's liberal side or his love of Obama, here is a commentary from Brent Bozell about him:

No one takes himself more seriously that Times columnist Thomas Friedman, and if he were dictator for a day, we’d swear in Presidents on Thanksgiving – perhaps at the Macy’s parade. "If I had my druthers right now we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day." The country needs Obama to replace Bush so badly, according to Friedman, that he compared it to the urgent need to swear in Lyndon Johnson after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20081209.asp


So while I like Friedman, keep in mind he is a liberal columnist for the NY Times.

Ken:

I don't even know how to respond to your last post. I honestly do not understand your thought process, how you can look facts directly in the face and still arrive at the conclusions that you do. I'll let Anon's post serve as my final word on this.

Ken,

No, I will not pardon you. It is my opinion. You are free to have your own. But I do not pardon you for dismissing mine. (To be honest, I dont think you really want me pardon you. I think you are using a sarcastic, rhetorical device.)

I am not part of any 'ilk' so I also reject your boxing me in with anybody. I have my own views, some of which may agree with yours, some with What the? and others with neither of you. I voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Obama. I am of the opinion that makes it difficult to cast me in any 'ilk' in which you might think I belong.

People have opinons. They dont agree with each other. I dont want my health care benefits taxed to pay for health care for others, so I disagree with Obama on that (and many other issues). But I am up for a logical debate which brings in options for what needs to be done and is based on facts. That is largely missing at the moment. And Beck and Limbaugh and OReilly are not doing anything to help fill the void. And frankly neither are Madow or Mathews.

Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central. That is where they belong. Maybe the five listed above belong there too? Except that none of them are very funny! Maybe we need a channel called The Opinion channel where people can go to have their own views validated by noisy commentators who will not ask them to think logically or rationally? Then we can let the news channels concentrate on reporting.

If you believe Bush was ill-treated over his 8 years, do you think the best course of action now is to do the same with Obama? Isnt that really the question Chris has asked us?

What the?,

The term I should have used was “localism”, a vague rule within the FCC.

In January, 2008 the FCC issued a 97-page report, rule-making report which mentioned eight times that they would like to initiate mandatory programming advisory boards for every radio station in America. I think we can both agree that any such move would provide a great platform for community organizer groups to create content, and we both know the progressive groups are much stronger and prevalent in most of America.

If my memory serves correctly, the current head of the FCC is a very strong proponent of this “localism”.

Chris,

I as well can't agree more with Friedman's article today. If I may engage in a bit of fair use for those that aren't registered at the NYT's website, here is a bit of the article.


Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work.

Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.

I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.

We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable.


Anonymous 7:06pm was obviously me.

Anon., not a surprise that you think so as you and she obviously share the same view, so you'll pardon me if I don't take your partisan support seriously.

By the way, do you think that what the? will point out the obvious lie in the column you linked to? And why were there no impassioned columns by Friedman when the same thing happened to President Bush concerning assassination? Funny how you and your ilk think we should all support the president no matter what our political views now that your party is in power. Where was that bipartisanship fervor for the last eight years?

Anon. I read that article.

Do you think Obama and left loons (Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Kerry, etc., not people like Evan Byah but the really truly dispicable whack jobs) bring any of this current rhetoric upon themselves?

Eventhough many on here blame Bush and are going to blame Bush til they die without realizing the cast of characters I just mentioned had just as much to do with we are right now as any other cast, most of America doesn't want anything that looks like it is heading this far left. And thus the voicing of opinions. My point is there is a tremendous amount of distrust building by Obama and his cronies actions and I feel they bring this on themselves.

Ken,

What the? may or may not be "exceedingly clever." But in THIS debate, she is beating you like a rented mule. Really.

Quit while you're ahead.

Good news What the ?. Care to guess which new book is #2 at Amazon and Barnes and Noble for pre orders? No, not the Nancy Peolsi book. (remember that rag?) Actually #2 is Sara Palins new book out the middle of 10/09-Going Rogue. Looks like her $7 million deal will happen. By the way, saw this on O'Reilly tonight so I am sure it is true. He is watching out for the folks. Ever notice how books by conservatives seem to sell better than books by liberals? Look at O'Reilly's recent book. I think 45 or 48 weeks on the NY Times best seller list and they do not even review it. (They don't need to) Why would a book by Sara Palin sell more in pre orders than a book by Nancy Pelosi that has been in print about 6 months now? Something I heard recently reminded my of something my dad used to say. You know you are on target when you get a lot of flak. Given the level of hatred of this woman by you lefties, she must be ready to drop one right on your head. I somehow suspect that the pre sale success of this book is just the bomb you did not expect.

Sigh...What the?, what I meant we agreed on was it was a waste of time debating each other.

You missing that point, made all on its own in a separate paragraph explains a lot, though. It explains why you missed the point of "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?" (Direct quote, nothing about not covering the event). It explains why you missed the points O'Reilly made refuting Goldberg. It explains why you don't get why Obama really is saying insurance executives are bad people even when he claims otherwise(By the way, I agree with Obama on this). It explains why you don't get that Wilson, while wrong in shouting out "You lie", was correct in his assessment.

Mostly, you continually missing the point explains why we agree that it is a waste to debate each other. I thought you might be capable of intelligent debate, and you think you are exceedingly clever. Obviously, we were both wrong, and I have no problem admitting that.

Hey, Anon:

The Sanchez link wasn't there for you originally, it was there for another purpose. I just thought it was sort of relevant in acknowledging that there is animosity between the two networks. So I don't think CNN is following Fox's lead in the sense that they are following up on what Fox thinks is relevant news. The two stations styles are very different. If there is something that doesn't put this administration in the most favorable light, YOU BET Fox gets to it first, that's their raison d'etre. CNN will get those as well, but reporting stories that trash Obama is not their first priority like it is at Fox. To me, that doesn't make CNN less on the ball, it makes them less biased.

"Ken has a point about the story behind the story, but that really has nothing to do with the ad in the Wash Post." Thank you! That was my point.

"I'm sure by Obama not showing up on Fox's network a couple weeks back, it is only going to get worse from Fox's perspective." What does this mean, like NOW Fox is really going to be out to get Obama? Please! Nothing between Fox News and this administration could possibly get worse. Fox News, and especially Chris Wallace, were just stung because Obama would not legitimize them by granting an interview. And why should he? Why would he be interested in legitimizing a station that has done nothing but try to delegitimize him from the beginning? If you intentionally step on toes, don't expect to be asked to dance.

What the?,

Great youtube post (your last one, not the Sanchez one). Obviously I lean right. Goldberg is always right on the money in his analysis. Good for calling out Beck and Hannity. Being a conservative, those two drive me nuts, especially Hannity, as they can give us a bad name.

What the?

OK I clicked on the link. Does that prove that CNN did not follow Fox's lead. I don't get your correlation. Or did you just want me to watch Rick bellow about a Fox advertisement. I'm just looking at this objectively. Didn't Glenn Beck start this whole thing? So, nautally if he started this particular news story, I would think and probably know as I respect Fox and CNN more than any other source out there, that Fox probably reported on it first. Watching both stations pretty regularly, in my estimation, if there is something that doesn' put this administration in the most favorable light, Fox gets to it first. CNN reports on if for sure most of the time, Fox just gets to it first. I'm sure by Obama not showing up on Fox's network a couple weeks back, it is only going to get worse from Fox's perspective. Ken has a point about the story behind the story, but that really has nothing to do with the ad in the Wash Post. Kind of like the youtube thing you posted has nothing to do with CNN following Fox's lead.

Chris Magee......come on man. Jump in. This is fun. Well not really. Like I said before, it is very hard to keep people on point. See above. Obama is a secret Muslim, huh? I didn't know that.

Sara - Context. I don't even know where to begin.

A terrific and relevent op-ed piece from Friedman in the NYT today. Suggest all the 'regulars' here read it. You too Chris.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

(Dont know how much NYT content is available to non-subscribers. If you cannot follow the link, I can post the article here if people request.)

Correction: I meant to say Goldberg is a STAUNCH defender of Fox News, not starch. Starch is what these guys have too much of in their shorts. Freudian slip.

Ken:

Well, timing is everything! Listen to what was discussed on Bill O'Reilly last night. Bernard Goldberg, a media critic who often appears of O'Reilly's show and is generally a starch defender of Fox News, said the network itself is responsible for some of the criticism it receives, particularly during the promotion of the Tea Parties. Goldberg stated:

"Sometimes Fox brings on the criticism itself. There are some programs on Fox that are not only not fair and balanced - they're commentary shows, they don't have to be - but they brag about how fair and balanced they are. They don't cover rallies and tea parties; they cheerlead rallies and tea parties. And as a journalist I am totally against that. And to that extent the criticism is legitimate."

He goes on to say that commentators like Beck and Hannity are "commentators who pretend to be journalists":

"Don't pretend to be objective... Don't go on the air and say these tea parties are a cross section of America. They are not a cross section. Don't pretend to be a journalist if you're not a journalist. . . The commentary part is totally legitimate. But to give false information . . . They go on the air after their opinions and then state as facts things that aren't facts at all."

Watch the exchange here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztDUgCqXSc

If you disagree with my take on Hannity, it looks like you can also take it up with Goldberg now.

Glock:

Yes, I think my oldest has a good shot at a 6 figure income. She was accepted at Northwestern in a select program that only admitted around two dozen freshmen this year. And she got a $16,000/yr scholarship from them as well. Her future is so bright I gotta wear sunglasses. We're very proud of her.

Ken:

I don't see any agreement here. I post proof that Fox News had run a false ad about its competition. You respond with "bring out your next "lie", this one's a non-starter". How does this indicate agreement?

You stated, "Fox News never claimed the various organizations didn't cover the event, they claim they missed the story behind the event."

No, the AD claimed very directly that the other news organizations didn't cover the event. I'm talking about what the AD specifically said, you're talking about what Fox says it "meant". This is a pant load, Ken.

The amount of time Fox News gave to the rally as compared to other news stations is a direct result of Fox's involvement in promoting it. Sanchez was correct; I watched this unfold too on Fox and several other news stations throughout the day. The other stations reported the event, but Fox News spent a disproportionate amount of that day's broadcasting time on it. On Fox it was almost a continual stream of the "big event" they had been promoting for days.

Also, you're probably not aware that most of the other stations claimed Fox misrepresented the number of people at the rally as being MUCH LARGER than it actually was. The fact that Fox could have exaggerated this number never occurred to you, did it? It's always everyone else who is lying.

For your enjoyment, here is one of Hannity's most recent events. This is one of those situations where he fabricates a story and then goes on a serious rant about it. And the dittohead with him launches right into his prepared statement as well:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909100006

This really was bizarre. He shows a clip of Obama clearly saying "insurance executives don't [treat their customers badly] because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable."

He then immediately rants "Obama called insurance executives baaad people." WTF?!

Ok, now you can explain what Hannity really "meant".

And, yes, I have the grace to admit when I may be wrong. Do you?


What the?, anyone with any understanding of journalism knows the difference between coverage of an event and telling the story of an event.

Once again, you and I agree. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with you after your apology, but it is a waste of time. You seem all too comfortable with the shrill type of reply that you decry in conservative talk show hosts which smacks of hypocrisy. Sadly, you don't seem to realize that you are what you claim to abhor.

HEY CHRIS MAGEE -

"Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy the country."

Seriously? As moderator, you should have a little more sense than to offend Muslims and state things that just aren't true!

Even if you don't agree with his politics, do you honestly think Obama WANTS TO DESTROY this country? Read what you write before you spread misinformation.

You should not be allowed to moderate. Wow, it's been a while since I've seen so much blatant bigotry.

Joe: I am in agreement with NO auto bailouts. And I am repulsed by the cash for clunkers program including the timing. Government manipulation in the market has ruined the roll out of and demand for the 2010 models. Our government has not responded competitively in a global economy for decades. We have created environnmental, employment, tax law and consumer laws to name a few that have chased jobs out of this country for decades and now the chickens are only starting to come home to roost. One frequent poster on this blog thinks her kids are going to get 6 figure a year jobs. Yo, What the ?, if Obama nationalizes health care, doctors will not earn 6 figures. What do you think your kids will be doing for figures? You better get used to double digit unemployment for probably years to come. The thinking with democrats is that you need government to regulate everything to keep business honest until they can take it over if it is too profitable. One problem is the media and electorate are not regulating the government and keeping it honest. Government is a drag on business and the economy with ecessive spending and taxing. Tax receipts by state released today show AZ down 27%, California and Florida down in the range of 17% and 12% respectively. Democrats have never mastered economics 101-more taxes = a smaller economy. Lets hope our city council understands this before they run off with more local sales tax. If they do not, big government has to take it directly out of the pockets of the taxpayers. And much to my enjoyment What the ?, I did hear former CBS News frontman Dan Rather has lost his $70mil federal lawsuit today. (I thought he was a loser) It was dismissed in its entirety. The only way that jag can restore his credibility is with an appeal. Go for it Dan, you know the truth. (you were eased out by CBS because you and Mapes are lying mopes or kudos to Bush, he brought down Rather) By the way What the ?, I heard it on Fox. I watched the big three and CNN and heard nothing about it. As I would expect.

Ken:

Ok, here we go again.

Fox can "explain" the ad after the fact anyway they want, but their explanation wasn't in the ad. The ad that was run simply stated "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?" showing a picture of the Washington rally. Not "How did they miss the larger story behind this", just "how did they miss THIS story." Very clear and straight-forward to anyone with half a brain.

This is a waste of time. You are so totally brain-washed by BS, this is like talking to a dining room table.

Sorry you have to read this, Chris.

Hey Chris,

How do you think the discussion here going so far? Seems to me that all we have here is more of what you dis-like on the national scene.

Epi:

Re: a re-invention of the fairness doctrine. Are you sure it's called local content? These are the definitions for this that I found:

Local-content scheme is a government policy that requires manufacturers of a particular product (e.g. cigarettes or fruit juice) to obtain domestically a specified minimum percentage of their basic agricultural input (e.g. tobacco or fruit) from domestic producers.

Of or pertaining to the number or percentage of the components of a product, as an automobile, that are manufactured in a specific country: Local-content laws say 90 percent of the components of the car must be made in the U.S. or import restrictions will apply.

Also, just heard on the car radio that Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS has been dismissed.

What the?, the NYT and CBS only got rid of Blair and Rather after it became obvious to them that keeping them would be a liability to their respective organizations.

Your next bit is a classic example of the left claiming a lie that just isn't there. Fox News never claimed the various organizations didn't cover the event, they claim they missed the story behind the event. From your own article:

"Fox's view is that the ad refers to the other networks' missing the larger story, not failing to cover the demonstration itself"

Pretty clear what the viewpoint of Fox was, and pretty funny how Rick Sanchez avoids that claim. He shows clips of coverage, but no clips of the story behind the rally. In fact, one of the clips he does show, he clearly illustrates the bias shown by a CNN reporter against the crowd. I watched the local CBS 2 news on the day of the event, and they covered the event in about 20 seconds. Hard to get the story in that short amount of time. They also worded the estimate of the crowd to make it seem smaller than it was.

Seems to me Rick Sanchez and his ilk are telling the a lie, not the ad Fox took out, especially when they have to resort to word games to make their claim. Bring out your next "lie", as this is a non-starter.

Anon 5678:

"They take the lead from Fox quite often". I wouldn't say so. Click on the Sanchez link above. There is no love between Fox and CNN. But I'm not surprised you see it this way.

By Anonymous 5678 on September 29, 2009 9:45 AM
CIJ,

I'm pretty sure GM did not file for bankruptcy.


========================================================================================================================================

GM filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and reorganized. They did not file Chapter 7 which involves dissolving a company.

Shareholders were wiped out and the stock symbol of GM is gone off the ticker tape at CNBC and elsewhere. The new symbol of the reorganized company is MTLQQ.

I am 100% sure of that as I am an investor and watch CNBC every day while blogging away and waiting for stock opportunities.

Had a good day today as over half my portfolio is Walgreen's and they were on fire. Did not predict but I was very lucky.

I will take Lady Luck any time she comes my way.

CIJ

========================================================================================================================================
To the Zionist Blogger,

Only a Zionist would call me an Anti-Semite....lol... They are notorious for doing that in the defense of the Zionist Racist State of Isreal. Try a different tactic....really...that one is so OLD and WORN out.

Anon 5678 and Anon:

Thanks for the links, I'll look into it when I have time. Right now I'm into this FCC/Fox News lawsuit thing and don't have time to spend with it. Anon 5678, you're right, the original post belonged to Glock. I should have known the minute he started quoting Limbaugh.

what the?

I didn't post it. Glock did. But here it is. I'm not sure what your reference to Limbaugh is for or if it is directed at me. Are you suggesting I listen to Limbaugh? If so, don't let that Olbermann and Huffington Post and Ed Schultz mess with you too much. That stuff is bad for your health. Full disclosure, the only times I have heard Rush is when he was on ESPN and on the Leno show the other night. Pretty funny guy actually. And mabye a few interviews he has been on over the years. No radio though. No idea what station he is on.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html

I have to give Kudos to CNN. They have been calling out this administration pretty well too. They take the lead from Fox quite often but they have been doing a pretty good job after basically routing for him to become president just a few months back.

What the?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html

I did some investigation on this last night. But to be honest I was just too tired to review all the problems I had with the article.

A good source for the info on the companies themselves is their website - in particular press releases pages. You have to look at one of the FAQs on Teslas site to find out that the mechanicals of their car are made by Lotus in the UK. That is pretty burried.

I didnt do an exhaustive search, but couldnt really find anything very interesting about the companies themselves....but there is plenty about the cars.

-------------------------------------

But read it and judge for yourself. You can decide how 'yellow' you think the WSJ journalism is, and/or the re-reporting of it here on this blog.

Anon 5678:

Could you post a link to the WSJ piece and any other info you have on it. I heard about this on CNN but didn't get all the details. I'm not going to let Limbaugh make the judgment call for me, I'll look into it and decide for myself. Thanks.

Ken:

I see you're up blogging in my time slot. Don't let Glock catch you.

I know about the Dan Rather lawsuit and Blair being fired for a false reporting, but the Fox lawsuit is considerably different from these. It was a ground-breaking ruling, the first of it's kind. The local station in Tampa was a Fox affiliate, run by Fox executives and defended in the lawsuit by attorneys paid for by Fox News. It was a Fox News station. The reporters had been hired by Fox to do investigative reporting at that location.

The NYT fired Blair for falsifying a story. They have set journalistic standards about reporting the news honestly. In the Fox case, the reporters were ordered to falsify a story and were fired for NOT doing so. And the court upheld the firing based on the fact that there was no law in place requiring Fox or any news organization to report honestly. Falsification of the news is protected under the First Amendment. Seriously.

And Fox News still carries this proud tradition today. It happened just last week. Did you hear about the full page ad Fox News ran in the Washington Post about coverage of the 9/12 Washington rally? Here it is:

"Over photos of protesters gathering for an "anti-tax" rally in Washington last Saturday, the ad asked: "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?"

The problem with the ad is that the other networks indeed covered the protest, which -- like similar demonstrations across the country -- were heavily promoted by Fox, especially talk show host Glenn Beck.

But wasn't this ad arguably false? "Fox News was expressing its opinion on how its competitors covered the story in an ad to promote itself," Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti said.

ABC's Schneider, however, told the newspaper in a letter that The Post exercised "zero due diligence" in assessing the truth of the ad and that it "should have been rejected according to your professed standards."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801102_pf.html

But there's no legal recourse for any of these stations against Fox for running these type of ads, as falsification of the news is protected under the First Amendment. All they can do is run their own ads in response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igZZzs3MR7Y

This was fun, I saw this when it first aired. Rich Sanchez of CNN unloaded this rebuttal, informing Fox of the difference between "reporting" and "promoting" the news:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/09/cnn-rick-sanchez-fox-news-video-.html

I truly believe the culture of an organization is set by those at the top and seeps down to those who work for it. Hannity is a good example of this. I understand that not all the broadcasters for Fox choose to do this, but it's certainly tolerated within the Fox organization if they want to.

I've got more if you're interested, let me know.


To: By Ken on September 29, 2009 1:35 AM

Ken,

Thank you for a very measured, accurate, and professional response.

There is a major difference between a naltional news outlet and a local station. As yu so acutley pointed out, FOx was just beginning and trying to use that to paint them now is a terminally debased argument. Others seem to miss the distinction.

So, the botton line is that Akre lost the suit on appeal and a bunch of folks out there are upset?

To: By Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Again, YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG ON THE FACTS!

No matter how may times you repeat it to yourself, hater, the FACTS are that the entire civilized world, and their intelligence groups, deemd Saddam has WMD.

Again, that is why President Clinton and the U.S. Congress created an official policy of regime change.

It was NOT just Israel and the U.S. Do some basic research, dude. Your ignorance slip is showing.

You are an anti-semite (for whatever reason) and you appear to depend on the lowest common denominator as fact, in this case using your opinion, and that of the nut-case left, as fact.

Impress us all ----- try using some facts!

Your denial is palpable.

Anon. on September 29, 2009 8:46 AM
Keep in mind the WSJ, National Review, Washington Times, and the Drudge Report dont really count as providing a viewpoint which might balance the one provided by Fox news!


xxxxx

what do you think balances fox's viewpoint anon? what do you read that is the counterpoint to fox?

CIJ,

I'm pretty sure GM did not file for bankruptcy. They took enough money from the government to keep the unions alive and well. The government then forced them to do something. Thus four brands now. Chrysler did and was purchased by Fiat, I believe.

Glock and OJ are right. They all should have had to file for bankruptcy and reorged just like any small business would have to. GM could have rid themselves of their disastrous union contracts. The only one from they way I understand it that would have really messed us up if they went under was AIG as they are intertwined with way too much. Other than that, the rest of them should have had to file and reorganize.

Great post Glock on the WSJ reference. I did not know that. Assuming that is true, is that cool with you lefties?

CIJ,

That was a lot of broad sweeping over-generalizations to stuff into one sleep inducing post, my hat is off to you.

As to the whole Saddam thing, I have revised my opinion of the historic events and believe the US made a gigantic strategic mistake in fighting the first gulf war.

Instead of telling Saddam we would not intervene if he attacked Kuwait, we should have told him to leave Kuwait alone and we would not intervene if he attacked "our friends the Saudis" who are at war against the US with their proxies Bin Laden, the Taliban and company.

We should have given Saddam the green light to use every weapon in his arsenal against the Saudis, and use their oil wealth to fund his hobbies.

The Iraqi people could still walk down their streets with zero crime, most of the Saudis would be underground, and the heart of world terrorism would be cut out.

What a giant strategic blunder by the US.

We should have used our military to invade Iran, occupy, dismantle and demilitarize their country and leave a bunch of little tribal countries in its place.

Too bad the Bush's are the dogs of the Saudis.


By Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Ken

I would point out a significant difference in the cases you cite. That being, Jayson Blair was fired and disgraced and the NYT appologized. Dan Rather was forced to retire, others were fired, the network news division was disgraced, and CBS appologized.

Can Fox say the same?

(And as an aside, you say you read from a variety of sources. Keep in mind the WSJ, National Review, Washington Times, and the Drudge Report dont really count as providing a viewpoint which might balance the one provided by Fox news!)

Fox has the Akres, and CBS has Dan Rather, the New York Times has Jayson Blair, etc. That's why I listen to and read from many different sources. I don't believe something just because someone reads it off of a teleprompter to me. Also, in all fairness, or to be fair and balanced, the story you refer to came from a local station in Tampa, not the national cable news station that was in mere infancy, not the ratings behemoth we all know today.

By Original Joe on September 28, 2009 11:01 PM
Glock22,

They should have just let the automakers go through normal bankruptcy like every other company who can't pay their bills. Same thing with all of the banks.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe they did. GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. GM has already reorganized and is out of bankruptcy. I am not sure if Chrysler is out yet.

Ford was more sound financially and survived the downturn without bankruptcy. I am sure of that. I bought Ford shares at $1.25 and sold them at $6.25. I bought Ford at a $1.25 instead of GM as this was all public knowledge. Yet there are fools that were buying GM instead of Ford. I really don't know what they were thinking! They lost all their money....all of it if they bought GM.

Chrysler is private and did not have any issued stock. Basically it had no public investors....just private investors.

Glock22,

They should have just let the automakers go through normal bankruptcy like every other company who can't pay their bills. Same thing with all of the banks.

Just Pontiac and Saturn workers thrown under a bus? Throw them all under the bus and let business take it's normal unforgiving self.

Anon, Ken and Epi-nonymous:

Regarding the study results and the conclusion that "Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions", this may explain why:


In December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

Under pressure from Monsanto executives, Fox and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." The Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. FOX ATTORNEYS DID NOT DISPUTE AKRE'S CLAIM THAT THEY PRESSURED HER TO BROADCAST A FALSE STORY, THEY SIMPLY MAINTAINED THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO (all caps mine for emphasis).


This is a synopsis of the case that I pasted together, so there is no direct link. An abbreviated version can be found on the Wikipedia link below. For further information about this case, simply google "Akre Wilson Fox News lawsuit". It's all over the net.

Basically, Fox News claimed it was within their First Amendment rights to lie over the public airwaves if they wanted to, because there were no laws prohibiting it. Indeed, the FCC does not have any laws against falsification of the news, it just has guidelines upheld by an honor system among broadcasters. There is no legal recourse against a broadcaster that has no honor.

This is why I take very little I hear on Fox News at face value. I do not consider them a trustworthy source.

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

By Anonymous on September 28, 2009 4:09 PM
To: By Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 27, 2009 10:10 PM

It is amazing how sure you are of your opinion.

NEWSFLASH, whiz: The Entire world's intelligence sources stated that Saddam had nukes and other methods of mass destruction.

========================================================================================================================================

Hey Anonymous,

People like you believe what is repeated as fact.

The bottom line is we occupied Iraq. We had have hundreds of thousands of troops there for over 5 or 6 years. Not one shred of physical evidence has been found to indicate there were any nuclear programs to build atomic, hydrogen or nuclear bombs. We found a bearded Sadaam living outside underground and looking a lot like Mr. Scott Huber with a white beard. While Huber claims the NPD and CIA stole 2 million, Sadaam can claim the USA ARMED FORCES and CIA stole 20 palaces worth 100 million. Of course Sadaam stole the money from the people to build his palaces.

Sadaam was obviously into building palaces and having a secret harem of women in each one that his wife did not know about. He had no interest in nuclear weapons. He wanted woman, money and wine like most American men but did not believe in working towards his goals. He believed in pilfering. He was a thief.

The only other crazies besides Bush and his Gang who believed Iraq had nuclear weapons was nutty Israel. Nutty Israel is a racist Zionist state as defined by the United Nations. Nutty Israel is an occupying that has violated every UN Resolution against it. Only American Vetos have saved its rear end. When Obama refuses to give the next Veto, Israel may have to deal with a world boycott. Israel which truly has 200 nuclear warheads may be the one we need to attack and annihalte before it attacks the world with its nuclear arsenal as it told the Russian leader last week. An Israel nuclear bomb expert revealed Israeli secrets to the London Times. He was later kidnapped by Israeli agents and sentenced to 18 years in jail for whistle blowing on his own country. He revealed the nuclear production facility was Dimona in the Israel Desert. If we want to attack countries with true nuclear weapons, we should be attackng Israel and not Iraq and Iran who do not even possess them. It shows you how strong the Israel Lobbying Group AIPAC is in this country. It shows you how the average American was brainwashed by Bush and Cheney. And now Limbauagh continues brainwashing the herd of sheep with his constant lies and distortions 5 days a week. Listen to the BBC if you want the real news and truth. The BBC is not influenced by the Zionist Propaganda Machine in this country.

Yes, Israel wants to attack Iran because it believes Iran may be developing a peaceful nuclear program that has military capabilities. It told Russia if it or any other country dared attack it for attacking Iran it would unleash its nuclear capability. How hypocritical that a country which posseses nuclear weapons wants to attack another one for trying to harness peaceful energy! How hypocritical a country that has nuclear weapons and threatened to use them feels it has a RIGHT TO PREVENT ANOTHER COUNTRY from acquiring them! And we support this rogue racist nuclear Israeli State. No wonder we are not very popular in the United Nations and the world. No wonder we were disliked by most peoples and leaders of the world under the Bush Administration. Nowadays even Chavez of Venzeula and Qaddaffi of Libya like us because we elected Obama. It seems like we have no more enemies. It is nice not to have enemies for a change and start unnecessary wars where are youth are slaughtered for meaningless causes.

The bottom line, Anonymous, is you are disputing the facts. Even Bush said he was wrong and there was no nuclear program in Iraq. Some American Ambassador to an African country who investigated alleged Iraqi purchases of uranium from Africa found that they were without foundation and absolute lies. His wife Valerie who worked for the CIA came to the same conclusion. But Bush and Co. were determined to let out their frustration because of 911 which has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq and it people. I believe this Amabassador and his CIA wife are suing Cheney for the lies he told about them and the nuclear capability in Iraq. Hopefully, they expose Cheney as Bush's Brain since Bush has no Brain.

The only thing wrong with Iraq was a madman was ruling it. The Americans should have located him and fired a remote contolled hellfire missile at him directly and assasinated him even though that violates UN Rules and Regulations. And truly freed the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator who was torturing his own people to maintain his Kingly Dictatorial Sicko Status. But to go and attack an entire nation over a pretext of nuclear weapons is about as idiotic as can be. And then to later claim Al-Qaida is there after they realize there were no nuclear weapons is just as idiotic.

It seems like you are one of the 25 million brainwashed sheep who worships Limbaugh.

And please don't call me RABID OR DUDE. I find both words OFFENSIVE especially coming from someone who can not differentiate facts on the ground from dirt on the ground.

Let us keep this thread civil without name calling as the Moderator has recommended numerous times.

CIJ

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


PS. If you are going to start name calling please use a handle so I can have the opportunity to shred your credibility and reputation. Using Anonymous while name calling borders on sissiness and wimpishness.

From the 9/25/09 WSJ-A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000. Start up Fisker Automotive will build the Karma sports car. This follows on the heels of a $465 million U.S. government loan to Tesla Motors Inc. who will build a $109,000 British built roadster. To all you champions for Obama, I resent my tax payer dollars going to foreign start up car makers with my government providing venture capital. During the campaign, you may remember Obama talking about how he was going to stop the flow of jobs out of this country. He just spent almost $1 billion to fund jobs in Finland and England and you hear hardly a word about it. Limbaugh seems to have captured the liberal imagination here. What is the matter with you people? Why does Obama get away with this without a word of objection from any of you? He takes over GM, throws Pontiac and Saturn workers under the bus and his government spends a billion dollars overseas. UFB! If GWB had done this, you would be on your high horses. Let me help you digest it: Gore is the new Cheney and Fisker Automotive is the new Halitburton. Get it now? Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups. You are right, I did and because of you we have Obama.

Apology accepted, what the?. The fending off attacks thing goes both ways. Maybe if we just debated our opinions, the tone of political discussions would change.

To: By What the? on September 28, 2009 11:32 AM


What The?,

Not so fast! There is a current movement to replace the Fairness Doctrine with something called "Local content" (I think I have the name right).

It would have the exact same overall effect.

Pax.

CIJ:

I can't believe I didn't know that, or maybe did at one point then forgot. Obama Sr. received a master's degree in economics from Harvard in 1965. So Obama was both a legacy and an affirmative action applicant. Sounds like he couldn't miss.

Glock:

That really shoots down your theory about O Jr. not being able to make the grade without affirmative action. Looks like he would have been in anyway. Too bad.

Anon:

The stats you posted pretty much confirm what I have heard about the demographics of Limbaugh listeners. It did leave out what areas of the country most of these people live, but I think we've already established that.

So the typical Limbaugh follower is a white male over the age of 40, not very well educated with an income of around $50,000/yr. What is the most revealing is the level of education of these folks. 40% have only a high school education, but another 40% are drop-outs? That explains A LOT. No wonder they need someone telling them how the world works. That could be why radio as a medium has been so successful, I wonder how many of them actually read well enough to understand a newspaper or a magazine. That also explains all those misspelled signs at the Washington rally and the goofy ones that read "keep the government out of Medicare". Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Scary.

To: By Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 27, 2009 10:10 PM

It is amazing how sure you are of your own opinions!

Let me see if I have this straight: you HEAR it for 8 years from your far left progressive influences, and now you spew it as fact?

Have you ever re-read, or listened, to yourself? You border on rabid, dude!

NEWSFLASH, whiz: The Entire world's intelligence sources stated that Saddam had nukes and other methods of mass destruction (it is a FACT that they had poison gasses, since he used them on his own people). It had nothing to do with Cheney whispoering in his ear.

Oh, yeah, one more thing: Prez Clinton stated the same --- that is why under his Presidency the U.S. developed a National policy of regime change in Irag.

Sorry to confuse you with those pesky facts!

That last one was from me, What The?


What The?,

It has been my observation that it is only the left that referes to Limbaugh as the head of the Rep party ---- it is one of their attempts at a talking point that can be used to cause harm later. it was developed as a strategy specifically by O's Chicago connection.

Your thought out response helps to highlight the issue at hand (is politics to partisan?) As we debate and argue (all of us, not just you & I), we tend to begin the polarization process.

Arguments become a zero sum game (ie the pie is made up of O and GWB ---- to make O better , you need to tear down GWB, to make GWB better, you need to tear down O).

As you know, the fallacy is in assuming it is a zero sum game! The real problem is that our entire country is now at this defcon level ZS (zero sum) and that this move is headed by our wonderful elected idiots of all types and parties! Yikes!

So, I I had no "conversation" with Ken so I was ignoring him. I was oicking up soime tone, if you will, that warned me that you were moving in a polarized direction and I thought that I would let you know (as a rule, your arguments are coherent and, whether I agree with them or not, usually have some heft of data behind them.)

There is always specualtion about legacy issues, and there always will be. The real point we all need to accept is THAT THERE IS NO DATA TO EITHER SUPPORT IT OR REFUTE IT for either O or GWB Your comment that "it has been acknowledged for years that GWB got in on legacy" is still, no matter how you paint it, speculation and not fact. Just because it is said 100 times does NOT make it the truth (no matter what Carville and Begala say!)

Your dismissiveness of State schools (Texas Law) is not a valid comment, and even less so when you are comparing entry into a law school (much smaller) versus a business school (huge at TX).

We all have our ideas and beliefs, of course, and I imagine that there is someting to ALL of them. Yes, I suspect GWB was aided by his name (3, 4 gens?), and Yes, I suspect O was aided by his color and family status (single mom). That was, and is, the way of the world. I believe based on the available info (grades, etc) that BOTH took great advantage of their education as both of their lives prove it out.

Note I was not defending GWB ---- I was trying to put the argument back into the realm of data as everyone seemed to be going off on conjecture.

P.S. to Ken:

It appears my reaction was somewhat of a liberal kneejerk. I'm so accustomed to fending off attacks on this blog I don't expect much else most of the time. Apology extended.

From a University of Maryland study:

An in-depth analysis of a series of polls found:

- 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found,

- 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq

- 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq.

The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below.

Fox - 80%
CBS - 71%
ABC - 61%
NBC - 55%
CNN - 55%
Print - 47%
NPR/PBS - 23%

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions.

I've found the "smaller" the issue the more likely it is people will ignore party lines and together simply try to work out possible solutions.

Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 28, 2009 1:03 PM

PS. I do agree with the comment that 20-25 million out of 305 milion who listen to Limbaugh are a bunch of brainwashed idiots.

xxxxx

305 million listen to Limbaugh?

Sorry....for some reason the formatting got messed up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is Rush so popular? I dont know. Maybe his audience demographics can help explain.

Age%
0.8 25 and under
8.5 26-35
19.2 36-45
30.4 46-55
41.1 56+


Education %
39.1 less than High School Graduate
39.0 High School
16.3 Bachelors Degree
5.5 Advanced Degree

Income %
31.0 less than 50 K
45.7 50-75 K
19.1 75-125K
4.2 125K+

Ethnic Background
97.9 Caucasian
0.8 African American
0.9 Asian/Pacific Islander
0.4 Hispanic

Sex
78.7 Male
21.3 Female

One thing all bloggers are OVERLOOKING is Obama had both LEGACY and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION going for him when he applied to Harvard University.

Obama's father who came directly from Africa, actually was accepted in the Harvard Law School and graduated. He returned to Africa and was killed in a car accident at the current age of his son, the President, or about 47 years old. Possibly 46 years of age! As most bloggers know, I write strictly from memory most of the time.

Besides having LEGACY and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION going for him he did graduate with honors in the top 20% of his class and was President of the Harvard Law Review.

On a side note, it is too bad any father does not live to see his son become President of the United States. Especially when his son amounts to a second generation immigrant from a tiny village in Africa.

The Obama Story is truly a story of rags to riches that should make us all proud. He also came from a a broken home and was educated in third world countries like Indonesia for part of his young life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. I do agree with the comment that 20-25 million out of 305 milion who listen to Limbaugh are a bunch of brainwashed idiots. I heard him once on Larry King and thought he could be the Mother of 25 milion Idiots. Apparently he is. Idiots do enjoy each others comfort and company. Misery does like company...apparently lots of company!

Ken:

This is the answer?

"You and I do agree, even though your kneejerk liberal reaction to everythng I post blinds you to that fact. Our drunk, your pothead, our legacy president, your affirmative action president. It's a wash, and only worth mentioning to people like you and CIJ as you try to denigrate President Bush."

This doesn't directly answer the question I posed, which is what is the difference between a legacy and AA admission, since you seemed to have a problem with one but not the other. But if it's as close as we're gonna get, then ok. At least it's a balanced assessment.

An opinion is still an opinion, regardless of the paper or the standards. The author made a statement of fact about something that he has absolutely no way of knowing; that, in fact, no one knows, at least at this point in time. That's what makes it an opinion.

T.B.

The Fairness Doctrine is no more, it's not making a comeback. Obama did away with it shortly after taking office. Conservatives were freaking out that he would reinstate it once he took office, even though during his campaign he said he would not. Don't worry, it's gone.

And the issue was between a legacy admission and an affirmative action admission both at the same school, Harvard. U of I admitted unqualified students whose parents were politically connected, which is a little bit different. Legacies and AA admissions are above board; I think what U of I was doing was not.

To: Anon. on September 28, 2009 9:26 AM
_______
I guess when you factor in all the Liberals that listen to Rush it brings the numbers down huh?

Again: If liberals are so convinced that Rush is a non factor, and only listened to by idiots, why do you spend so much time talking about him?

Hey Glock,

I guess you have an answer after all to the question of why 20-25 Million people listen to Rush.

"20-25 million of them are idiots"

Yet another reason the Tone of Politics turns me off. The poster did forget to add: "Dumb, White and Southern" to the litany of the rant.

Glock 22 on September 27, 2009 10:04 PM
I'm simply try to elicit an answer from What the ? but she does not seem inclined to explain to me why the Limbaugh has 20-25 million listeners

_____________

Glock,

I wouldn't hold out for an answer. It's clear that when Liberals finally get in too deep they simply take their pail and shovel and go home.

It's always the same stuff from the liberals.
"Bush is stupid" (along with the rest of the conservatives), yet they can't seem to explain how he stayed in school with a higher gpa than their presidential wanna-be John Kerry. (CIJ seems to think there is some sort of under handed effort to keep the legacy students in. I guess this is something professors know about, yet have kept it secret for years?)
"Limbaugh and Hannity are radicals that the MSM don't pay attention to" - yet a majority of their posts seem to reference them. So which is it? Either no one pays attention, or everyone does.


Now that the Democrats have their fillibuster proof majority again in the Senate (Thanks to Massachusetts liberals changing the law - again - talk about political tones!!), we'll see how O leads the lemmings. He couldn't organize them a few months ago, let's see if anything has changed.

And as for Obama's grades - he refuses to release them, but the way liberals spin things it would be a great story. His travels from Occidental to Columbia, and then his apparent affirmative action acceptance to Harvard show the true liberal thinking. He excelled at Harvard (Magna Cum Laude) and was the president of the law review. This is a rags-to-riches story that I'm surprised they haven't exploited more. I can see it now: "Poor underpriviledged kid overcomes poor grades, drugs, to become harvard graduate and president of the law review". This is liberal gold - must be some other reason for secrecy? Remember the last time the democrats touted an intellect, rhode scholar Clinton, he turned out to be a serial adulterer.

Why is Rush so popular? I dont know. Maybe his audience demographics can help explain.

Age%
0.8 8.5 26-35
19.2 36-45
30.4 46-55
41.1 56+


Education %
39.1 39.0 High School
16.3 Bachelors Degree
5.5 Advanced Degree

Income %
31.0 29 45.7 50-75 K
19.1 75-125K
4.2 125K+

Ethnic Background
97.9 Caucasian
0.8 African American
0.9 Asian/Pacific Islander
0.4 Hispanic

Sex
78.7 Male
21.3 Female

Glock:

"An AA admission as we suspect with Obama means he did not meet the appitude requirements and special consideration and LOWER apptitude standards allow AA students entry."

What?

Glock, both legacy and affirmative action applicants are handled the same way. Points are added to an applicant's SAT score and these points are generally enough to make an otherwise unqualified applicant qualified. With a legacy admission, points are added based on family history at that university. With an affirmative action admission, points are added based on ethnicity. Same system, different names.

We'll never know how either W. or Obama got accepted to Harvard since schools do not make their selection records or process known to the public. But we do know how both men came out of Harvard. W. graduated, which was good. But Obama excelled, graduating Magna cum laude. I went to the Harvard website under honors, and to graduate Magna cum laude you must be in the top 20% of your graduating class and have a GPA no lower than 3.721. This in additon to being president of the Harvard Law Review. That says it all.

And I will do you the favor of answering one more question. Why does Limbaugh have between 20-25 million listeners? Because out of a population of roughly 305 million, 20-25 million of them are idiots. Anything more you want to know you'll have to answer for yourself.


Is it that hard to admit you are wrong, What the? I posted the answer on 9/27 at 12:43am, paragraph three.

If you don't realize the difference in journalistic standards between a newspaper and an open forum, I can see why you posted some no name organization as a source. While a paper may lean right or left, they still have standards for reporters and guest columnists. Even the NYT fired Jayson Blair for making up stories, as papers realize they have to have some standards no matter what their bias.

On Planet Ken, I demand honesty. Maybe you should try that on Planet What the?. It would be refreshing.

CIJ,

If you want to know who ran the show and what their agenda was during the Bush years simply do your homework into the members and wanted policy direction of the group: Project for the New American Century. Their site has been 'cleaned' since the *ahem* hit the fan but some people have all their published works in archive and you might be able to also find them on http://archive.org

By Glock:

"Joe: at some point in time you have to pick a side. You cannot sit on the fence forever noticing the dung stinks on both sides. You will have to decide which side of the fence the dung stinks LESS. There are no winners or losers in politics. Everyone stinks, espeically democrats"
++

Maybe YOU have to pick a side, but I've always found a better path to take is to look at everyone, the company they keep, their history and many other things and take each election as it is with party set aside. For example, I did vote for GWB in 2000, in 2004 I wanted a change and voted for JK, in 2008 I voted for Bob Barr.

Picking a side just means you have closed yourself out to anything someone decent might have to bring to the table simply because they are not a member of 'your side'. That's a very bad state to be in as a country and again is just another illustration of what I have said from the first post in this thread.

When you let a 'side' control and dictate your vote, you have given up and handed over your ultimate responsibility as a citizen of this country.

My own two cents…

I think it’s clear that, whether through message or messenger, the GOP has been more successful than the Dems at getting their views across via the radio waves. The sad part is that after failing to compete on the open market the Left feels the need to try to level the playing field via a revival of the “Fairness Doctrine”. This is symptomatic of the Left…can’t compete in the market…just change the rules because they “know better” than we do.

As for the W legacy vs. U of I admission issue…it depends on whether we’re talking about a private or public institution. A private institution can do what they wish, while a public institution is there to serve (and answer to) the public. There’s a big difference.

T.B.

I do believe legacy students such as the sons of Presidents are guaranteed to pass Harvard and Yale. Those schools have billion dollar portfolios that come as a result of their legacy and well connected alumni. They are not about to upset them by failing their children

Football schools also make sure their football players pass their classes and graduate. It is really the same difference.

I don't think Bush could have made it through Dupage or Joliet Community College without help and personal tutoring. I think his advisors pressed all his buttons. Most people believe V.P Cheney ran the country. He is the one whom told Bush to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe Rumsfeld expressed an opinion backing Cheney to further influence Bush. Cheney is the one that planted the seed in Bush's brain that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program....even had Al-Qaida terrorists despite the fact that the Evil Dictator Sadaam would chain their legs and wrists and dump them off 3 story buildings to their death in front of large crowds. The video of these tortured deaths are really beyond shocking. I wish they would have thrown Sadaam off one of those buildings with both his arms and legs in handcuffs. Hanging him was just to humane of a death for him. The son of a gun probably thought they were bluffing so he never really suffered, flinched or panicked the moment before the hanging. No one is that "brave."

That really shows you how small minded Bush was to believe the lies Cheney told him. Anyone who reads any non-American newspaper would know Sadaam tolerated no opposition of any kind...even in his own Baath Party. This guy would kill his mother if she cussed on him. I am sure he is going to let Al-Qaida terrorists roam his country freely. He had huge murals of himself on every street corner that he expected people to worship as if he was the only god and there was no Allah. Iraqis have always joked once they were out of Iraq that cussing out God was safer than cussing out Sadaam in Iraq....I guess they were not really joking if you think about it. ( I also heard from Jordanians that if you cuss King Abdullah out you will be executed....but if you cuss on God nothing happens to you.)

When Sadaam first took power he executed about 20 legislators in his own Baath Party just to make a statement that he was the boss and put the fear in the other legislators. It worked. Everyone was frightened to death of him in Iraq. Even suicide bombers were afraid of him as he would kill their entire extended families if they dared attempt such a feat....followed by imploding their homes.

I guess Bush's intelligence of Iraq was about equal to his brain's intelligence.....around ZERO!

I'm simply try to elicit an answer from What the ? but she does not seem inclined to explain to me why the Limbaugh has 20-25 million listeners. Of course many of his listeners are from your side of the political spectrum. He is obviously more thought provoking than for example the most ignorant Jeannine Garraflo was. We really do not know how Obama arrived at Harvard because that information is being withheld. (it is embarrasing to him?) A legacy admission still requires meeting entrance requirements. An AA admission as we suspect with Obama means he did not meet the appitude requirements and special consideration and LOWER apptitude standards allow AA students entry. You know, its what you liberals call " minority life experience" and the overwhelming need to diversify is worth a grade point. I also would like to know What the ? thinks about $565 million US taxpayer dollars going to Al Gore and his consortium to build the green sports car in Finland? Just what does it take for you to be critical of poor democratic leadership?

Glock:

And I believe you're still spoiling for fight.

After years of having everything explained to you by the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world, I realize you're used to having other people do your thinking for you and give you all the answers. If you think the liberal media fails when left on it's own and you want to know why, look it up yourself. I'm not going to enable your lazy behavior. Learn to find the answers on your own; it will be good exercise for you. I'm going to watch Mad Men. But feel free to post the answer here when you figure it out. Thanks!

Ken:

Nope, you haven't answered my question. Not here. Maybe you left it on Planet Ken. So here it is again:

My question to you, Ken, is what exactly would be the difference between a legacy admission for W. and an affirmative action admission for Obama, if indeed this is what got him in?

And an opinion from a reputable source is still an opinion. Tell ya what. I'll post an Open Forum essay saying that Bush and Cheney planned 9/11 and you can run with that, too. Deal?

What the?, maybe you should just try reading what is written instead of making up things that other posters said. Get back to me when you take the time to read my answer to your question, posted 12 hours before your reply accusing me of lying. I know it is hard for a liberal to deal with facts instead of lies, but please try. It is funny that you conveviently missed my answer to your question, but railed against my source for my prior claim. You can cry op ed all you want, but I still quoted from a reputable source...unlike you.

Based on your penchant for charactor assasination based on lies, I'm not to worried about you 'keeping me honest'. You obviously could not recognize the truth if it bit you in the nose...instead of another location as it obviously does here.

What the ?: It was fun but I under estimated how wet it was. Yes, I believe you were complaining about the doctrine and would like to see it resurrected to combat the influence of what people want to hear on the radio (Limbaugh who has been a hit since 1983) compared to what you libs WANT people to hear. And just like a lib, everything MUST be equal. Only with bad government do people seem to always get what they don't want. Have you ever noticed that? And I am still waiting for your answer: why does liberal media always fail if left to complete on its own? That goes for Air America, CNN, and MSNBC, NY Times, Newsweek, Time etc. I am curious as to your perspective on that subject. CIJ- remember there is nothing wrong with AA programs when you need brain surgery. You see with socialized medicine, the incompetent will be promoted to medical schools driven by a larger demand for doctors and giving more people as you call it breaks rather than promotion by ability. The trial lawyers will be further enriched. Joe: at some point in time you have to pick a side. You cannot sit on the fence forever noticing the dung stinks on both sides. You will have to decide which side of the fence the dung stinks LESS. There are no winners or losers in politics. Everyone stinks, espeically democrats.

What the? on September 27, 2009 12:12 PM

And the MSM doesn't bother with fringe broadcasters like Hannity and Limbaugh. They don't recognize them as legitimate, so they're a non-issue.

____________

No WT?, that seems to be where your specialty shows through with your constant references to them.

I'm wondering how such a moron like Bush actually stayed in school? Do you suppose that Yale and Harvard have a policy in place that "legacy" admission students are also guaranteed to pass their classes? I'm sure the liberal Ivy League professors are more than happy to keep this secret. I did not attend an Ivy League school but I would imagine that getting in to the school is only the beginning of a fairly grueling curriculum. No?

Glock! So, was the firing range good for you? Must have been, cause you are definitely pumped up and ready to rumble!

I am not complaining about the Fairness Doctrine. I simply stated for the benefit of those who didn't know that the Fairness Doctrine was why equal time used to be given on radio to opposing points of view. When this ended in what, 1987, then conservative talk radio took off. Who knows why, you can answer that better than me, you're a fan. But given that Limbaugh, Savage, et al are considered the extreme "fringe" along with their listeners, they are not given the legitimacy of the MSM. Bummer.

Also, Glock, everyone knows you're not looking for any "honest" answers, you're looking for a fight. You may want to go shopping today. I think you need a bigger gun.

Ken: Read what I said to Epi about your "source". It's not the San Franciso Chronicle which is the problem, it's the fact that you quoted an article written in an OPEN FORUM, for heaven's sake. It's an opinion piece, dude! Read it again--the author, Cecil Brown, a professor, clearly states that Obama has no idea if he benefited from Affirmative Action or not, so how in the world could Brown? This guy can draw whatever conclusions about O's life that he wants, doesn't make them true. If you are too dense to figure this out, you really are beyond hope.

And the MSM doesn't bother with fringe broadcasters like Hannity and Limbaugh. They don't recognize them as legitimate, so they're a non-issue. Which makes the far right nuts and drives their claims of a biased MSM. Though I can remember an article a couple of years ago about a court case where Fox was sued by an employee who was fired because she wouldn't report something that wasn't true, and Fox won. The court ruled that news did not have to be true to be reported. I'll try to find it for you.

Someone has to keep you honest, Ken. May as well be me. Are you able to answer the question I posed? Can you?

Ken,
I don't have a problem that Obama got into Harvard due to an Affirmative Action Program.

This indicates to me it was successful in geting African Americans off the streets and into the Oval Office.

No one probably thought this program could be this successful.

A-As were enslaved and discriminated against for a long time. What is wrong with them getting a break?

Unlike many of the Hispanics who cross our border illegally, they were dragged across our borders forcefully and against their will. Let us give them a break. I see nothing wrong with un-doing the injustice done to them with Affirmative Action Programs.

Epi:

I think you need to review all the posts in their order of appearance rather than just focusing on mine. The triggering events are all right there in black and white (and sometimes blue).

You said you don't watch Hannity. That day I did. 25 minutes into his show he used the Qadhafi quote in the context of what he was discussing, which was that Castro had said he liked some of Obama's comments on the environment and Gadhafi "did you hear that? He called Obama "our son", and this was proof that Obama was appealing more to the dictators of the world, that if Castro and Gadhafi liked him, he had to be doing something wrong. Yes, Epi, I would call that taking the bait.

I must admit, however, that Gadhafi is more of a pariah than I realized. Not even the birthers have responded and they've been going crazy all summer. I was impressed that O'Reilly or Shep or Brett didn't go there. I've been trying to catch them a lot lately, on your recommendations, and I would so far say you are right. They discuss Obama, will even disagree with him, but they don't trash talk, and that makes all the difference.

Which leads me to my next "trigger": God bless Hannity and Limbaugh?? Was Samantha serious?! You also say you don't listen to Limbaugh. Again, I have. I spent a lot of time in Florida this summer and Rush rules there. And Rush, like Hannity, will not hesitate to bend the truth to fit the spiel of the day. I've heard blatantly false things from both of them so many times that it astounds me that there are actually folks out there who are, literally, dittoheads. Based on what I know, people who follow Hannity and Limbaugh without question are either being played for fools or already are.

Next up, "Creating issues out of non-issues is a non-starter. Does anyone out there really have an issue with Geo having once been an alcoholic?" No Republicans seem to, which is precisely my point. This is obviously an issue for Ken as he posted that Obama is a pot-head for having used marijuana in the past and he thinks this should matter a lot now. I was informing him of the fact that not only did his beloved G.W. also smoke pot--in addition to using cocaine in college, which I left out--but he also had a serious problem with alcohol in his past. Not all presidents have a DUI and suspended license on their driving records, this is somewhat special. If one wants to claim Obama's behavior as a young man is significant, then so was G.W.'s, and Republicans, including Ken, didn't have a problem with his. The hypocrisy is obvious to me, it should be to you as well.

Same with Ken's claim that Obama got into Harvard due to affirmative action programs. You got caught up in defending W. and missed the point. Ken's assertion, which I've heard from him before, is that Obama did not "earn" his place at Harvard on his own. That he would not have been accepted there if not for affirmative action, and he posts a link to an op-ed piece as "evidence". This is pure conjecture by the writer based on the fact the Obama's mother was a single parent without resources, so the assumption is there had to be affirmative action help. In reality, there's no way the author or anyone else can possibly know this. Due to privacy laws, Harvard won't say and Obama himself has no way of knowing either. So yes, it is pure speculation that affirmative action helped Obama into Harvard, not fact. You're missing the racial undertones in this as well. Of course a black man couldn't have made it into Harvard by his own merits, he had to have help from affirmative action! But we'll let that lay and just focus on the hypocrisy.

This is where W. Bush's legacy admission becomes relevant. Go back and review what I said to Ken. Bush's legacy admission to Yale is not speculation, it is a fact that has been widely acknowledged for years. What IS speculation is how W. got into Harvard Business after that. Again, due to privacy laws, Harvard won't say. But it is a fact that he was rejected at a much lesser STATE school, the University of Texas Law, due to his poor performance at Yale, but got into Harvard once Bush senior became the head of the Republican National Committee. That's a huge leap, Epi, from state school rejection to Ivy League acceptance when nothing changed but his daddy's job. Speculation, sure. But you connect the dots. It happened at U of I, I'm sure it happens everywhere.

Now that you know all this, you can appreciate the hypocrisy of Ken's statement. Maybe you can answer the question I posed to him, because I doubt he will. Legacy admissions, which all Ivy Leagues do, have always been considered affirmative action for the privileged. Ken doesn't have a problem with a Republican president definitely getting into Yale on a legacy and perhaps getting into Harvard on the political connections of his family, but he sure has a problem with a Democratic president who might have been helped by affirmative action. And this kind of help makes Obama less deserving of his credentials, but not W. Bush. Aside from the fact that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, a level of academic distinction. Are you seeing my point here?

This is getting way too long and I'm sure Chris feels like plucking his eyes out by now. Go back and review it all again as I suggested. Mull it over. We'll talk more later. But I've admitted that I have no patience for BS. It tends to bring out my nasty side, and unfortunately, I do this well. But I try to save this for the truly deserving.

BTW, my "miss" on the head of the Republican Party was intended as a slam against those who were complaining that Obama appeared on Letterman. The Republicans had their leader on late night also, didn't they? Rush has been called the de facto head of the Republican party since O took office, which attests to how ineffectual Steele has been in his role.

What the ? Why are you complaining about the lack of a fairness media doctrine? Why does conservative talk radio thrive and liberal talk radio is a failure? Given the choice, why do people prefer conservative talk radio rather than for example "All Things Considered" that has to be subsidized by the government? (Looking for an honest answer) While on topic of subsidies, why is Al Gore's green company getting $100's of millions of your tax dollars What the ? to build a green sports car in Finland that will sell in the U.S. for $89,000? (Again, looking for an honest answer)Do you think building a car at a plant in Finland with YOUR tax dollars is Obama meeting his self set criteria of creating new green jobs? Will the Obama regieme say they are canceling this plan and blame Van Jones for its approval before Hannity exposed him as another example of incompetence promoted by minority set aside programs if people start to object? Meanwhile, the local news today is you 204 taxpayers need to answer the SB 204 request for people to help them with financial suggestions to close the $8mil projected 2011 deficit (I predict will actually be well over $10mil). Clue: raise taxes in 2010 or get some of Al Gore's money. Hmm Hmm Hmm. Mr. Obama is nirvanna. Hmm Hmm Hmm, please pass the kool aid.

Yet again, another of the countless examples of one side thinking their dung doesn't stink as bad as the other and somehow that makes them better or the winner.

Thanks everyone for demonstrating what I have been saying.

What the?, the 'source' for your Limbaugh bashing is laughable. They have no sources for their claims of Limbaugh's lies, and your description of them is right from their home page. If you are going to denigrate my source from a major newpaper, you should have impeccable sources for your claims. If Limbaugh, Hannity, et al lied as much as you claim, the msm would have a field day printing those lies. Seems like you need to find new real sources to back up your claims...

Sorry you wasted your time posting all the known information on President Bush. Anyone who paid attention to the 2000 election has already read about all of that. That's pretty much the point I made to CIJ, that it was all well known for both candidates.

You and I do agree, even though your kneejerk liberal reaction to everythng I post blinds you to that fact. Our drunk, your pothead, our legacy president, your affirmative action president. It's a wash, and only worth mentioning to people like you and CIJ as you try to denigrate President Bush.

Once again, you have proven my point about the liberal policy of personal destruction, whether it is a politcal candidate, or a poster on a forum. Thanks, and keep up the 'good' work.

As several predicted earlier, and I refused to believe at the time, What The? has turned expectantly ugly in both tone and attitude.

In fact, What The?, your tone is exactly why Chris wrote the original question for this thread!

It appears that you have an overwhelming need to blindly defend Obama and trash Bush as often and as you can. I'm sure you arfe aware that this is the mode of Obama and his administration, though he is 9 months into his term. Perhaps by re-election time he will finally take some responsibility.

Some analysis tips for you:

>Putting quotes on your repeating of an article that itself involves opinion and speculation does not make it a fact.

>Trashing the character and/or intelligence of those you debate with does not elevate you or diminish them. I would submit that it often has the opposite effect.

>Speculating on issues none of us has any knowledge of, such as how someone got in college, is a fool's game. Fine, the Bush family attended Yale, and fine, Bush got better grades than Kerry and Gore. Those are the facts. The rest is speculation. One other factoid: Young Geo was the family black sheep and it is easy to SPECULATE that the old man would have done him few, if any, favors. By the way, do you, or anyone out there, know what Geo's grades were in H.S.? Are you so sure his grades didn't qualify? Finally, if grades were the only determinate, there are a lot of college grads out there who would never have attended in the first place.

>Creating issues out of non-issues is a non-starter. Does anyone out there really have an issue with Geo having once been an alcoholic? Really? With all the alcohol our Presidents have downed, we are going to single out just the one? Does anyone care that Obama did some joints and, if I recall correctly, a little coke in the past? Is there not a reason they call it "the past"?

>If you are going to make statements of fact on major issues, you should really try to be factually correct. Your miss on the Republican Party head was sophomoric.

>You should be careful of where you set partisan traps, as you may step in them yourself. In this case, you appear to be following the progressive school of thought that any black American who is a conservative is either a fool, a dupe, or not very "black". In short, your stance appears to be in solid line with the progressives in seemingly believing that being a liberal is the litmus test for being a true black American.

>In our capitalist society, businesses are dependent on revenues and income to stay alive. Radio (with the exception of NPR) in included in this equation. Your analysis that talk radio is predominately conservative is probably true (as I stated earlier, I don't listen to it and never heard RL). The reason? Once the gov't got out of the way and removed it's socialist governor valve (the fairness doctrine), the radio stations were open to "hunt for revenues", and they found it aplenty with said shows. In other words, for thos who don't understand capitlaism, the market place spoke loudly. So, the analysis lesson is that when change occurs, it is a good thing to try and find out why. If the change is good, you can then repeat it. If change is bad, you can then overcome it.


Dude, your behavior has been increasingly rude and boorish. Perhaps I missed the triggering event --- if I have, enlighten me so I can read-up on it to understand your rudeness.

What the?,

Did you notice the other diddy they sang. You know, the one that was done to the music of the Battle Hymn of the Republic?

No, the progressive nuts don't just treat him like a deity, they think he is one!

What the?,

Put down the cup and step away from the kool aid!

I never said it was intentional ---- that is the tragedy of it! They are just that freaking stupid and/or arrogant!

I would never expect it to be on the newscycle 24/7, since for the most part our media thinks Obama can do no wrong. Doesn't make it right, though. Brains,like ethics, ain't situational.

I don't watch Hannity, but as you describe it I would not say they took the bait (as you predicted). I heard no mention of it elsewhere.

Hey, Glock:

I completely understand that you can't appreciate Obama's speeches. I'm sure he's a little too high-brow for you, which is why you all preferred Bush's method of gaffes and misspeaks. Now THAT you could get!

Enjoy your day on the shooting range! Unlike you, Glock, I don't need an arsenal of weapons to compensate for what I feel God didn't give me. I'm sure you'll be real pumped up when you return! ;)

Hi, gang! Here's the link to my quote. I would have provided it before but I wasn't sure anyone would be interested:

http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/

This comes from the same article and I loved it:

"Limbaugh's impact on America has been huge. Talk radio was a very minor niche when his program was first syndicated, and stations that aired a conservative-tilted program almost invariably balanced that with a liberal-tilted program." (That's when we had the Fairness Doctrine, for those of you who don't know). "Now, talk radio is almost exclusively conservative, and Limbaugh has spawned many imitators, including Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and Tony Snow -- all of whom got early exposure guest-hosting on Limbaugh's program. In 1994, Limbaugh was widely credited as Republicans were elected to control of Congress, with several newly-elected Congressman openly calling themselves "the Dittohead caucus."

This certainly explains why Hannity fabricates a lot of his info--he learned it from the Master. But I didn't know you all had a club name for yourselves: Dittoheads!! Ditto means to repeat the action or statement of, and it's perfect! No need to think for yourself, Samantha, you can just parrot whatever you hear on Hannity and Limbaugh. Who cares if a lot of it isn't true, the stuff sounds great. And they know their target audience doesn't bother to check out anything they say anyway. Critical thinking really isn't their thing.

Ken, you'll love the source I used on Limbaugh. It's great for developing conspiracy theories:

"NNDB is an intelligence aggregator that tracks the activities of people we have determined to be noteworthy, both living and dead. Superficially, it seems much like a "Who's Who" where a noted person's curriculum vitae is available (the usual information such as date of birth, a biography, and other essential facts.)

But it mostly exists to document the connections between people, many of which are not always obvious. A person's otherwise inexplicable behavior is often understood by examining the crowd that person has been associating with."

You don't need a link, folks. Just google NNDB for more.

Also, Ken, Obama wrote about his marijuana use in his book Dreams from My Father and has never minced words about it. Keep in mind George W. Bush also admitted to using marijuana, but not directly. His quote was a classic W. slip-up:

"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried," Bush said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48042-2005Feb23.html

Compare this to Obama's candor. Here's the video in case you need a refresher course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jLaCfrpZGc

In addition, W. had quite a history of alcohol abuse culminating in this proud moment:

Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple episodes of alcohol abuse.[35] In one instance, on September 4, 1976, he was arrested near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, was fined $150 and had his Maine driver's license suspended until 1978.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

But you don't seem to hold any of this against Bush, do ya, Ken?

You also need to post a source for your "Obama got into Harvard on Affirmative Action" statement. I haven't been able to find anything about this that isn't just chatter on conservative blog sites or speculative op-eds written by conservative publications. This isn't Limbaugh or Hannity, Ken, so you can't make it up as you go along just 'cause it sounds good. Try to find something legitimate.

But we all certainly know how Bush got into Yale. Both W's father, Bush41 and grandfather, Prescott Bush, went to Yale, so W. was admitted based on his family history, known as a legacy admission. His grades certainly wouldn't have qualified him to get in on his own. You may not know this, Ken, but legacy admissions have for a long time been considered affirmative action for the privileged classes. Look it up on the net, there's tons of information available about this and W's legacy admission to Yale is widely known and acknowledged.

But since the Bush family was a bunch of Yalies, how did W. get into Harvard Business School? Like Obama's admission to Harvard, there's only speculation. What is known is that W. first applied to the University of Texas' law school and they rejected him because of his poor performance at Yale. But by the time Bush applied to Harvard, his daddy, Bush 41, was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Coincidence?

So my question to you, Ken, is what exactly would be the difference between a legacy admission for W. and an affirmative action admission for Obama, if indeed this is what got him in? I'd like to hear it, because nothing else I've read or heard on the subject supports this line of thought. In fact, everything written and debated on the subject acknowledges they are one in the same.

You're in a big glass house, Ken. You should take the time to educate yourself better before you throw any more stones.

Obama is an articulate eloquent speaker? Give me a break, anyone can read a teleprompter. Try listening to him without the teleprompter and his expressiveness is gone!

I heard never heard somone say so little with so many words as I did on the news yesterday afternoon when Obama spoke (and Fox preempted Beck) about all the wonderful things he has accomplished at the G-20 summit in Pittsburg. CIJ-Obama may have a very polished delivery as long as it appears on a teleprompter, but he cannot string a thought together if it entails more than 10 words that must originate between those ears. Joe the plumber had him mumbling when they were face to face. And after careful consideration, it would seem Obama has accomplished little at either the UN (which falls into perfect alignment with everyday activity there) or the G-20. Exactly what I would expect from a Harvard grad who is the product of a set aside studies track. But I am glad you and What the ? are impressed. Just wondering, what do you think about Olbermann? He the man? Or is it Howie, Jimmy, Terry and the crew?
You know, I'd like to see Frank do an Obama impression. Odds are it would be hilarious. Ok What the ?, we are off to Ottawa for some Hogans Alley combat shooting at the quarry range there. Too bad Limbaugh is not on Saturday. I could listen for an hour or so. Want to come and spot targets if you are man enough? Its XD-45 Tactical pistol and Sig Sauer P-220ST today. You could bring your .22 for laughs. Plus, I have never seen anyone shoot a .22 there before. In fact, cannot recall seeing any .22 brass on the ground there either. We are going to make some noise this afternoon baby.

What the?, do you have a source for your Limbaugh information? I know one of the statements is an outright lie, so I would be interested to see the source.

CIJ, Obama got into Harvard because of affirmative action programs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/04/EDBF15NADG.DTL

If you want to go by past actions, Obama is a former pothead. Funny that you have no problem with that...and maybe that's why he has problems collecting his thoughts without a teleprompter.

Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 26, 2009 12:05 AM
Obama is an articulate eloquent speaker.

Bush was a former drunk with the vocabulary of a middle school kid. He got in Yale or whatever college he attended due to his Dad's connections...not his brilliance.

__________________

CIJ, Getting in to a college and staying in a college are two different things. If Bush was so stupid how did he STAY to complete his education? Did all of the professors receive word that they must pass this "golden boy" in all of his classes? Was there an effort to pass him even though it was undeserved? And then the conspiracy continued didn't it? After graduating from Yale (with a higher gpa than Kerry), how in the world did he con Harvard into letting him in to complete his Masters? As liberal as the Ivy League is do you really think they would pass this guy because they were told to do so?

What the? on September 26, 2009 1:30 AM
This should float your boats:

"Limbaugh backs conservative causes without any exceptions -- he supports capital punishment, opposes abortion, claims that global warming is a lie, etc. Callers are pre-screened; few who disagree with the host are allowed on the air. For three hours daily, five days a week, Limbaugh weaves his opinion with a sense of humor, sarcasm, and a confident voice that sounds accurate and authoritative, even if the facts he recites are often far from correct.

He has claimed, for example, that no-one was indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal (14 were), that America has more forest land now than in 1492 (according to US Forest Service estimates, about 250,000,000 acres have been cut), that 75% of Americans who earn minimum wage are teenagers on their first job (in reality, the vast majority of minimum wage workers are over the age of 20), on and on. He has also given occasional credence to fringe conspiracy theories, claiming, for example, that Vince Foster was murdered instead of committing suicide, and that the crime took place in an apartment leased to Hillary Clinton."

_________________________

hey what the?, Just curious. The cut and paste I provided above from your post is in quotations so I am assuming you copied it from somewhere? Can you please give us the citation?

thanks

Glock:

Sounds like you've got a good start on the indoctrination exercises. You've got 7 more years to perfect it. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

Michael Steele is a hapless schmuck. He seems like a decent enough guy, but he allowed himself to be used as a token by his own party trying to cash in on the wave of Obama's popularity. He's an ineffective leader and a puppet for any powerful Republican who pulls his strings, as Limbaugh has done many times. I do feel sorry for Steele, but everyone knows he's not in charge of anything. The Republicans stupidly thought all they needed was their own black guy. They've found out there's a lot more to it than that.

I think you all should nominate Limbaugh as the 2012 Republican candidate, since he's so undefeatable and all. He's already got the uneducated, lower middle class voters. Though it is pretty pathetic when you consider the best the Republicans can do is a radio jockey. Or Palin. Or Romney. On second thought, Limbaugh looks pretty good.

This should float your boats:

"Limbaugh backs conservative causes without any exceptions -- he supports capital punishment, opposes abortion, claims that global warming is a lie, etc. Callers are pre-screened; few who disagree with the host are allowed on the air. For three hours daily, five days a week, Limbaugh weaves his opinion with a sense of humor, sarcasm, and a confident voice that sounds accurate and authoritative, even if the facts he recites are often far from correct.

He has claimed, for example, that no-one was indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal (14 were), that America has more forest land now than in 1492 (according to US Forest Service estimates, about 250,000,000 acres have been cut), that 75% of Americans who earn minimum wage are teenagers on their first job (in reality, the vast majority of minimum wage workers are over the age of 20), on and on. He has also given occasional credence to fringe conspiracy theories, claiming, for example, that Vince Foster was murdered instead of committing suicide, and that the crime took place in an apartment leased to Hillary Clinton."

If you add "capitalism doesn't see need" and "I don't care about the environment" to this, you've got the perfect Republican candidate! He doesn't have to really know what he's doing. As long as he SOUNDS like he does, you and Ken and Samantha and millions of other simpletons are jazzed. Truth is overrated anyway.

God bless Limbaugh!

Obama is an articulate eloquent speaker.

Bush was a former drunk with the vocabulary of a middle school kid. He got in Yale or whatever college he attended due to his Dad's connections...not his brilliance.

Obama earned his way into Harvard and his billiance is ever so obvious.

It is a breath of fresh air to have a President who can put a full sentence together.

I am sure a lot of Americans who can not put a sentence together are behind the political overtones and undertones regarding Obama.

If you judge him by the content of his character, he scores a 10 with me.

Joe: The ones not in charge need only wait a mere 12 months. The ones not in charge need not come up with any solutions now anyway. Its not like they can enact any of their solutions legislatively. No, just sit back and relax. Enjoy the trainwreck and watch the ones in charge fight among themselves and implode. Kind of like Illinois government isn't it? Nothing but one group in charge for 10 years now and look at this sorry state. What the ? thinks her kids are going to be on their way to 6 figure a year jobs. BTW What the ?: Mike Steele is the head of the Republican party. Limbaugh is a $150 millon high school educated personality who the ones in charge cannot seem to defeat. But of course you are very bright and knew that. Now lets go Joe and What the ?. Stand up from your computers, bend your knees, rock back and forth waive your little hands left to right with index fingers extended chanting: Hmm Hmm Hmm. Barack Husein Obama. He sees black, brown, yellow and white. Every one is equal in his sight. Hmm Hmm Hmm. LMFAO.

Glock and friends:

So it seems Republicans have been in an uproar recently over video footage of children at a New Jersey elementary school singing the praises of President Barack Obama. The outrage has been fueled mainly by--who else--the conservative media.

"Friend," RNC Chairman Michael Steele wrote, "this is the type of propaganda you would see in Stalin's Russia or Kim Jong Il's North Korea. I never thought the day would come when I'd see it here in America."

Well, it appears Michael has inserted his foot into his mouth yet again. Back in 2006 children from Gulf Coast states serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the President, Congress, and Federal Emergency Management Agency for their response to--if you can believe it--Hurricane Katrina! Read all about it in this Washington Post article and get the song lyrics too:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/

How's that foot taste, Mike?


Epi:

No, I'm sure it was intentional. I can see O and Gates huddled together and snickering, hey, tomorrow is the 70th anniversary of the crushing of the Poles by the Russians! Let's announce it then. Won't that be FUN?

And this is obviously such a HUGH DEAL to everyone that it's being repeated non-stop in the 24-hr news cycle. It is all over the news, isn't it? The 70th anniversary thing? No? You mean no one really gives a flip? Well, except you, of course, and the guy who originally said it. Alert Fox News! They've missed a major Obama bashing opportunity! Polish Americans unite! March on Washington and demand an apology!

Speaking of Fox News, Hannity took the Gadhafi bait. He and his groupies called Gadhafi a "wingnut" but still couldn't resist quoting him. He used Gadhafi's comments as proof that Obama was appealing to the dictators of the world. And how could the birthers have missed this? I know they're not the brightest bulbs in the pack, but don't they know that Libya is on the continent of Africa? Like Kenya? The nut jobs are never around when you need one.

Anonymous 4:40pm was me.

Ken

Ken:

"Thanks for proving my point. . .again." You're welcome!

Another gem from What the?:

"Hey, did any of you catch the leader of the Republican party on Jay Leno last night? The fat man has lost 82 lbs., he actually looks somewhat human now.

Thanks for proving my point...again. You are unable to make a political post without denigrating someone, yet you claim my ego gets in the way? Too funny.

What the?,

If it was by accident it is even MORE scary! That means BHO and his handlers are ignorant, to boot (I mean that in teh real sense of the term, not as a childish insult).

Hey, did any of you catch the leader of the Republican party on Jay Leno last night? The fat man has lost 82 lbs., he actually looks somewhat human now. Of course, once he starting bloviating on the virtues of pure, unbridled capitalism, he sounded less so.

At one point Jay made the point that a small percentage of Americans at the top owned the majority of the wealth, and it was getting worse with time. "It used to be millions, but now these people are taking billions, hundreds of billions, while others have nothing. How much pie can one person really eat?"

And Limbaugh stated simply "Capitalism doesn't see need". Yep, pure and simple, too bad for you, I got mine and that's the way it works. "Capitalism doesn't see need". Take that, you loser liberals, you suckers who actually think about anyone beyond yourself!

And capitalism doesn't care about the environment, either. Rush said so when Jay was stuffing him into that little electric car. "I don't care about the environment". What a guy! Of course he doesn't! $400M can buy a really really big boat, big enough to keep to him high and dry while all his followers along the coast are treading water.

Yep, thank God for Limbaugh. A true American.

Samantha,

The liberals are not the ones who are scared. They are the ones in charge. The ones not in charge are scared and scrambling trying to figure out how they lost the power and what do they have to do to get it back; because they thought what they were doing would have kept them in power. They don't even have a solution to put forward to move ahead other than calling people socialists and marxists.

Olberman, I recall when they put him back on to comment after football games a few months ago.

He ruthlessly trashed a player for making a mistake calling him either an idiot or a moron and a bunch of other denigrating stuff.

The two sports anchors looked on in horror as Olberman ranted against the guy, who blew the play, with personal insults that have become the trademark of the elitist arrogant left.

The real surprise is that the player, who probably has a family to support, didn't look up Olberman and knock his lights out or at least a few teeth. It would have been well deserved.

In the last year I have come to hate our government. Not one politician in government can be trusted to do the right thing. Politicians are worthless and only look out for themselves. No doubt, a revolution is coming in my lifetime. Citizens are feed up with our leaders and tired of being dominated by an out of control government and change is coming.

I think it's great and shows true gratitude that Obama chose Letterman's show over Jay Leno, Conan or any of the other late night shows including Saturday Night Live.

If they had done their part in trashing Gov. Palin's daughter with outrageous sex jokes implying Palin's trailer trash status, they all could have had Obama appearances.

Obama knows how to reward his friends.

Thank goodness for Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

What is happening in our country is truly scary. Obama has surrounded himself with radicals - pure and simple. His agenda is radical and possibly corrupt. The mainstream media is either so in love with him or their waiting for a bailout to save themselves so they can't report the truth. There is no integrity in the mainstream media.

What's happening now is that many are catching on. So they trot out Jimmy Carter to call the opposition racists. Then the rest of the media follows suit with their lectures on civility (where were those lectures when Bush was President?) This is followed by lots of negative spin about Limbaugh, Beck and others.

Why? Because Obama's poll numbers are falling. The liberals are scared. Obama is losing his lustre and people are beginning to question him. Uh oh.

The conservatives in this country (which leans center right) are going to rise up and take our country back.

We elected a marxist.

Hey, Glock:

Just read your last two posts--we'll call you butter 'cause you're on a roll!!

I wasn't defending Olbermann. I couldn't care less what you think about him. I was just giving you the facts you obviously didn't have when you first posted. I'm pretty sure you had no idea what his resume was when you trashed him for being on the sports desk and you needed to know before you kept going and looked like a complete hack--you know, like many of those uninformed folks who went to Washington last week not having a clue what they were protesting. If you want to remain an armchair sportscaster denigrating the accomplishments of REAL SPORTSCASTERS because you don't like their politics, go right ahead. That won't deter them from being successful, collecting their awards and accolades and acknowledgment from others in their profession while you're just a sour little nobody in the background saying "color me unimpressed". I really doubt that a very successful person cares about the grumblings of someone who isn't.

You and Ken are very alike, Glock. Your ego gets in the way of your objectivity. I may not have agreed with John McCain's politics during the campaign, but I still recognized him for being an outstanding American and patriot. You and others are too small in spirit to do this.

One last biased media thought. Jimmy Carter, seaching for relevance pronounced those of us who do not like Obama dislike him because of his race. The network media picked up on that and amplified it many times over as you know they would being the little chimps that they are. Obama, to his credit rejected the contention officially anyway. Beck said something today that sums up our feelings about Obama. There was this guy years ago who was like Obama. He was a black man and had two little girls, charisma and a large following. He was disliked by Democrats all over especially in the South. In fact the Democrat president at the time wanted the FBI to spy on him as they considered him subversive because he did not agree with them. They wanted dirt on the guy including promoting the belief he cheats on his wife. Anyway he gave this speech that made a lot of sense to this 15 year old at the time. One of my favorite parts was he hoped some day he lived in a country where his daughters would not be judged by the color of their skin but rather the content of their character. Well he did not live to see it but that time is here. And many of us do not care about the color of the current presidents skin. We object to the content of his character. We object to the content of his character (and that of his friends and hoddlum associates, both black and white) with extreme predjudice. For the media to suggest otherwise is just another example of how they are no longer an objective component in political discussion.

Glock22,

When you cut through all the detailed crap, yes, at the end of the day both sides have dung that stinks.

When the parties themselves have the 'media' folks (you know, the ones you blame for the current problems) speaking at their conventions and some of these 'media' folks are even being called the defacto leader of their party. The party has a problem, and the party IS the problem.

If people would turn off the boob tube and stop listening to the radio crap your 'media' wouldn't be around to pick sides. (Bye Bye advertising dollars) But no, people like choosing a side and the crap perpetuates and spirals out of control because they have to prove they're right and someone else is wrong; facts and reality be damned because someone not too long ago said they can simply create the reality they want to live in. (Paraphrasing Karl Rove).

It's the PEOPLE who have squandered their civic duty and sold themselves out to one side or the other by picking a 'side'.

If no one listened to nor watched any of these media you mention there would be no more problem.

Dan and What The ? may indeed rally around their MSNBC anchor the same way you circled the wagons and rallied around Glenn Beck.

In case you missed it: there's a perfect example of the problem from both sides as I've been pointing out... but usually one is in denial about 'their side' and it's the 'other side' with the problem because 'their side' is right, of course.

Dan and What the ?: Thanks for nothing on the Olbermann bio. Color me unimpressed as he is boring. But I expect you to rally around the MSNBC anchor. You always please me for some reason. (I never would think of you being beneath the tea bags) Whoops, sorry. Dan, I prefer Jimmy, Howie and the boys. They have football way over Olbermann. And most viewers apparently agree. Finally Joe, the parties did not create us vs. them. It was the media choosing sides and promoting one party over the other rather than being the objective reporters they should be. The parties are supposed to promote themselves and they do. The media is supposed to be un-biased in a democracy. Because they are not, there is no voice of reason and no one holding one party accountable for misdeeds and abuse of power. Now you see the electorate not only positioning themselves with parties, they now position themselves with the media supporting their parties and political thinking. I prefer Fox because they exemplify my thinking. Fox is outraged that you cannot sing Christmas carols in the government school during Winter Holiday but you can sing "mmm mmm mmm, Barack Husein Obama" in the Burlington NJ schools during indoctrination class. Fox is outraged you liberals are offended at the abuse of power and curtailing of liberty under the Bush patriot act but you have no problem with Obama taking over your freedom of choice for your own medical care. What is pathetic Joe is we live in a country of founders that established a constitutional government with a separation of powers that considered the press so important in the process of maintaining integrity of government that they gave the press the FIRST constitutional protection from government that they have recently squandered away for political favor. And you can only argue both sides have dung that stinks?

anon 7:58

you are right.

very hard to stay on point with some of these people.

Anonymous 5678 on September 24, 2009 5:41 PM
Who stated people will not watch Obama on Letterman? Highest rated Letterman show in 4 years with over 7M viwers


I don't know. Who did?


A5678, I think you were asking who on this blog said/wrote, "people will not watch Obama on Letterman?". I didn't see it from anyone either.

Obama not in debt to special interest groups and lobbyists?? Can use say far left liberals? Amnesty for Illegal Aliens? Government mandated health care? Nope - no special interests or lobbyist connected wihit any of those agendas

To Anon 5678:

I did. I was one of those 7M viewers. But that probably goes without saying on this blog.

Epi:

"As I said, Obama is the Prez, not Gates. His job is to take advice, but to make the decision himself."

And he has.

Sure the timing reeks. But I doubt this was intentional, more like happenstance. The 70th anniversary of the Soviet crushing of Poland is significant to Poles but not something that is common knowledge to Americans. If someone on Obama's team had noticed this they probably would have waited, but that is hardly a good enough reason to not go forward.

We'll see if this turns into a blunder. Depends on what follows. And keep in mind that Poland hasn't been left hanging out there. Poland and the Czech Rep are both part of NATO. Georgia wasn't, which is why the Russians felt free to assert themselves there.

Re: the Teabagge--I mean--the Tea Parties. Lovely. Thanks for the memory. It took me all summer to forget that and YOU put it back in my head. And you think the use of "that term" is beneath me? Why thank you. It is.


Who stated people will not watch Obama on Letterman? Highest rated Letterman show in 4 years with over 7M viwers


I don't know. Who did?

Oh like Republican's do not sling mud?! Right!

Who stated people will not watch Obama on Letterman? Highest rated Letterman show in 4 years with over 7M viwers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/media/23ratings.html

CIJ,

That is kind of what I thought I would get. WOW!!!!!

We'll agree to disagree on Obama. But I have to say one thing. I don't disagree with you on a few other points you made. That's for sure.

Honestly, I don't think the Republican party is threatened by him at all. Conservatives know they screwed up over the past four years. Besides, why do you think Obama wants bi-partisan support on any of these bills? Too hard to go through major overhauls like healthcare and cap and trade alone. If they fail, which 3200 would be an abysmal failure, then they look awful. And then the pendulum swings too far back the other way.

I think you are giving Obama way too much credit for the stock market coming back. It should have never been that low to begin with. Remember, just like Bush, he sat and tried to scare you, me and every other American that the world was coming to an end if congress didn't pass his 800 bil spending bill. Gotta take advantage of a crisis. Thank God they have built these big green signs that say Courtesy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment act all over the roads so I know exactly where the money is coming from. There is nothing stabilizing about any economic data coming out. Top line growth on these companies is dead. They have stripped all cost. Bottom line is going to have a hard time improving anymore until people and companies start spending. And that isn't happening anytime soon, especially with the uncertainty of Barry's policies (well, taxes).

You obivously like Obama. This is one of the funniest things in my opinion. And maybe you can answer. How do you measure that "my plan saved or created x million jobs" (I forget what the final number was as it changed by the day when he and Biden were lobbying for the "Stimulus" package)? That is not measurable. And so many people give him credit for that.

Why is it that the “Truthers’ who question 9/11 are virtually ignored (Charlie Sheen et al) while the “Birthers” who question where BHO was born are portrayed on the news as if they’re the new face of the Republican party? They’re both crazy, yet one group gets more TV time than another.

Also, why are the Tea Party folks criticized for their protests yet the anarchists and anti-capitalist protesters at the G-20 summit in Pittsburg are just “expected”, as if this is something to be accepted from the Left?

These are just examples which lend credence to the theory of unequal treatment afforded the political parties by the press. This doesn’t help the current tone of politics.

T.B.

By Anonymous 5678 on September 24, 2009 10:34 AM

CIJ - I'm Obamaed out. Didn't hear his speech. Heard analysis on both sides. What did you think based on your comments above?


========================================================================================================================================

I think President Obama ia a great leader who thinks out of the box. The Republican Party is threatened by him as they really have no one who can challenge him in 2012....thankfully!

When I see McCain or Hilary or hear them utter a word, I say THANK GOD for Obama. Has anyone seen the bags under Hilary's eyes the last few weeks. I just got HD TV and she not only sounds terrible but looks terribe. She seems to be a bitter woman under stress. A defeated and hopeless woman. She seems to be rolling through the punches wondering why she is not President instead of attempting to produce for the President. He just appointed her as Secretary of State as a favor for her husband. He needs to oust her soon.

Just for the record, I would rather have seen McCain be the President before Hilary. I will support any President whether he is Republican, Democrat or Independent as long as he is a good leader, is not beholden to lobbyists and can think out of the box. I don't unfortunately think McCain or Hilary can think out of the box.....I think they are simply to ESTABLISHMENT.

Obama is very diplomatic. For example, from friends of mine who knew him while he was in Chicago, he is very very Pro-Palestinian and attended many Palestinian functions as a State Senator. But he knows that will get him nowhere to come out and express those feelings suddenly and in this national climate. He is working very very slowly to promote the just Palestinian cause. He knows if he spoke bluntly about his feelings, the 535 Senators and Representatives would find a way to impeach him for flirting with a non-sexual non-reproductive donkey.

The political undertones or overtones against him this early on are ridiculous. In his UN speech, he was not cocky towards the rest of the world. He did not make Bush like statements, "such as you are either with us or against us." He asked the world to help him solve all the problems and expressed that America can not go at it alone.

Even the radical and apparently crazy Qadaffi who rambled about 101 issues including the Kennedy and Luther assasinations(in his 1 hour and 38 minute speech at the UN with a world stage), and could not find anything positive to say about this world, had a lot of praise for Obama. He even wished Obama could be re-elected President forever. This is amazing when you consider at one time Qadaffi was our worst enemy. JFTR, Qadaffi, has halted his WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, unconditionally and voluntarily. On the other hand Israel has a phenemonal WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM and told Russia they would use it against the world, if the world interfered when it attacked IRAN for its peaceful nuclear program for electricity. (no evidence exists that Iran is buidling a nuclear weapon except for paranoid Israeli propoganda machine to justify an attack that will engulf the USA in a war against Iran as if Iraq and Afghanistan is not plenty already for our brave troops.)

It is in my opinion, important that the remaining 190 countries in the UN, like, appreciate and trust our President. If they feel there is hope that they can communicate with the USA, I believe terrorism not only in the USA but all over the world will subside gradually but surely. Terrorism does not develop for no reason....it usually has some root causes many that are just causes. (JFTR, I am against all forms of violence including state violence such as unnecessary wars.)

Bush made the world feels hopeless and helpless. Terrorism actually thrived under him. I think the Palestinians actually trust Obama and certainly want to give him a chance. Since Obama was elected, there has not been one serious incident of violence in the West Bank. In Gaza, maybe only an incident or two but no deaths on the Israeli side. Since they know Obama is a man of conscience that you can reason with, they are willing to show him that we can cease and desist from all violence against the occupation, and Israel will continue to colonize and settle the land they steal and continue to steal. They will cooperate with Obama and make it very easy to expose Israel to the rest of the world for the ROGUE RACIST STATE it really is. They will allow him to expose their propaganda that is based on lies and deception.

Obama is clearly seeing this. As long as the Palestinians know Obama is fair, seeing and hearing, I believe they are going to be very peaceful and show Obama who the real culprit in the Mid East Crisis is. Who really wants peace and prosperity and who has interest only in prosperity but no peace....

Under Bush, there really was no hope for the Palestinians or any other oppressed group in the world. Since Bush was not listening and only saw things in black and white his way, he really was the root cause of increased terrorism in the world. He literally poured gas on the flames of terrorism. Imagine there was no Al-Qaida in Iraq before the invasion and now Al-Qaida is widespread in Iraq.

I believe Obama is going to bring us a peaceful world....at least a much more peaceful world. He really gives the world a lot of hope.

On March 6, 2009, our economy was about to crash to 1933 depression levels. Obama had fortunatley appointed the right advisors in his administration to stop the collapse. I personally had lost 2/3rds of my stock portfolio. Thankfully because of him, I have recovered all my losses and about 10% more. Of course I did not own any banks, investment houses or brokerage firms. So I am really happy with this President from more than one angle.

I did read a very depressing article in Time Magazine last night while in the sauna of Life Time Fitness. It stated that unemployment in America, may remain in the 9-11% range for many many years to come. The article did make sense and it convinced me. So it will not be all rosy from here forward. The old 911 may be behind us, but if you look at those unemployment numbers carefully, a new 911 may be ahead of us.

Glock:

What do you have against Olbermann and football?

I hope you are just being silly and not just plain unknowldegable. 'Cause if it is the second, then you might want to do some reseacrh before attacking NBC for "giving him a crack at football." Now if you think Olbermann has never known his sports, then I'll leave that incorrect opinion to you.

I suspect Keith's ratings were higher when he was sitting next to me full time, before heading off to a "real" media outlet and being stuck covering MonicaGate for 6 months straight.

DP

Politics is really very simple if you keep one thing in mind—they all lie. Politics and pandering have become one and the same.

Does the tone bother me? Yes, gone are the days of Tip O’Neill & Co. where politics and positions were debated all day on the floor of the House and then the participants would go get a drink together. You know…civility.

There have been a few letters in The Sun recently which seem to claim that the Right is becoming too boisterous, overly-vocal, and rude. The writers seem to forget why it is we know all know names like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink. And just why is it that Sheehan garnered so much attention when Bush was in office but her continued protests aren’t covered now that BHO is in office? She suddenly became an uninteresting story because she was a liability to BHO.

No, civility in politics is gone and neither side can claim the high ground. Anyone who tries is a hypocrite.

T.B.

P.S. A little off topic but as for Afghanistan…BHO only needs to decide whether the fight is worth it or not. If the fight’s not worth it, get out. If the fight is worth it, give the generals what they ask for and need. We don’t need the war to be decided by great generals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. We’ve made that kind of mistake in the past and I don’t think the outcome was pleasant.

To the Anon who I've been talking to about Fox News:

I thought your handle used to be Epi-anonymous? You were easier to find then.

I've left a response for you on the previous "president's speech" thread. Since you're a data guy, you might be interested in the links I've posted there regarding Olbermann and Beck. Let me know what you think.

Glock:

Also found something else out. Regarding your comment:

"Olbermanns TV ratings are in the tank. So what does NBC do? Lets give him a crack at football. Politics and football. Two things that elude Olbermann."

Apparently Olbermann wasn't put in sports because NBC is trying to find something for him to do. He started his career as a sportscaster. All I did was google Keith Olbermann bio:

"Author / sportswriter / radio commentator / TV pundit Keith Olbermann's first book, "The Major League Coaches," was published when he was 14. He began his career as a play-by-play announcer for WHTR while he was still in high school. . . . In 1984 he became a sports anchor in Boston at WCVB-TV, then went to Los Angeles for KTLA-TV and KCBS-TV. While in California he received 11 Golden Mike Awards for Best Sportscaster and Best Sportscast, and was voted Sportscaster of the Year three times."

Just so you know.

GF,

My point is we can all hear Obama until we are blue in the face. He has provided no more details than he first did. It is just one marketing piece after another. Law of diminishing returns. And I would say the same thing if Bush or Reagan or Clinton or Carter spoke 4,000 times within the first seven months. At some point in time, I hope he does the job of president and not the job of Leo Burnett. Either come up with real details or let it lie.

In my memory, there never has been a bill that has been more scrutinized, thankfully I might ad. Of the 535 people that we elected as our representatives, I highly doubt a majority of them have the skill to break down an 1100 page bill. If we haven't learned what this bill is by now, we are not going to. We can have all the town halls we want, we can ask our congressman and senators all we want, but all it is is a sales pitch. It is up to the individual no matter how skilled or unskilled they are to figure out what side of the fence they are on.

The geniuses who wrote this bill knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it. Make it long, laborsome and ever so confusing. Anyone know who really wrote this bill?

What the? Citizen's arrest. Plagarism. I had that copywritten. :)

CIJ - I'm Obamaed out. Didn't hear his speech. Heard analysis on both sides. What did you think based on your comments above?

To: By What the? on September 23, 2009 3:10 PM

As I said, Obama is the Prez, not Gates. His job is to take advice, but to make the decision himself.

Do I think Gates turned into a liar? Of course not.


Do I think he really could have changed his mind? Of course I do.

Do I think WE have seen any data that shows it is a good or right move? NO!

Did the timing reek? YES!

Was it a major foreign affiars blunder? YES!

What the?,

That last one was from me


---- Epi

To: By what the? on September 23, 2009 2:55 PM

So many things to talk about! I will attempt to go in order of your presentation:

>The missile defense shield goes back way before Gates. The Poland agreement did FINALLY get done under Gates, but he just happened to be SecDef when it was “signed”. Having said that, I don’t really know how many Republicans agreed with him or nor, but they clearly agreed with the agreement as it went forward. I also do not truly know if Gates was a proponent or not, as it was all but a done deal before his time. Anyway, whether or not Repubs agree with him, then or now, is not my issue: I don’t agree because A) We left Poland hanging out there and B)The timing was a juvenile mistake by the Prez.

I have read/seen no data on this alleged “better solution” and am being asked to blindly believe it coming from a group that historically has trashed the idea. Doesn’t seem to pass the “smell test” does it!

>Oprah - FOX news on Saturday? I suspect you were watching a “show”. Anyway, for the most part other outlets didn’t even mention the ratings drop. I did not see the segment you refer to, but I would be surprised if it was a “politicized conservative point of view” talking ONLY because it sounds like a poll result in the way you describe it. I could easily be wrong ---- I never said they were perfect, only that they were better than the others (Queen of the Sows?).

I will point out that with the info you heard, you could google and see if there was any data to back it up. With the alternatives, I never heard Oprah was slipping, so I had no reason to even look for data.

>I agree that there will be those that will jump on the “Prez forever” comment, especially. I heard 8 years of the same crap regarding Bush, and 8 years before that on Clinton --- unfortunately, that is the political environment we live in.

Can it change? Perhaps with term limits and a real alternative of other parties.

I will add that I have NOT heard any “hay” on FOX NEWS on it, but I would be surprised if a conservative guest or talker does not approach it. I fully believe that they will also have a liberal on at the same time to counter it (that is the beauty of FOX, unlike CNN, NBC, etc.)

>”TeaBagger”:
---- I am truly disappointed in you What The?. First, TeaBagger is an extremely childish (fifth grade?) sexual reference that the far, far progressive left came up with to try to undermine the TEA parties. Cooper Anderson, Jeanine Garafola, etc, were giddy with it in early summer. It was SO effective that attendance at the second round of TEA parties increased significantly. I would have though the use of it was beneath you.

---I attended two TEA Parties in Lisle this summer. I had great conversations with Dems, Libertarians, Repubs, Jews, Christians, one Muslim, and folks of pretty much all colors. I never, not even once, heard angry shouting or even the slightest “feel” of violence. Have there been some nuts at other gatherings? I’m sure ---- just like the Sheehan nuts and Code Pink, as examples, that DID border on violence at times and who regularly carried signs showing Bush as Hitler (sound familiar?), Bush hanging, etc. , etc., etc.

The lesson to take away? We have a lot of nuts on BOTH the far right and far left, they both are idiots and should be ignored, and if we acknowledge one we must, to avoid being hypocrites, acknowledge the other. Face it: for every McVeigh, there is an Ayers!

[little factoid: the only true violence this summer occurred at town halls and involved the left causing injury to the right --- the most famous case is the person who got their finger bit off!)

[Note that I am pretty SURE you will NEVER hear Cavuto, nor any of their anchors, saying Obama is not a citizen. Never heard Limbaugh, don’t plan to.]

What the?,

I have noticed the same things. However, I have also noted one major difference:

When Republicans get "caught" in a big enough scandal (say, with their pants "down" so to speak), the party does tend to ask them to step down (think Sanford, but also Delay, Lott, guy with foot tapping, etc). They don't always step down, but at least the party itself is fairly consistent.

On the other hand, when Dems get caught in a scandal, the party tends to gather around them and protect them (examples: Jefferson would be the main one, but add Rangel, Dodd, Frank, etc). I find this disturbing.

Pax.

Anonymous 5678 ...

"They have had the chance to watch TV, read the internet, read a paper, etc. for way too long now."

Not necessarily. If you can't trust over 50% of what you watch/read/etc., how can you learn? How many people have the opportunity and the skill to objectively break down an 1100 page healthcare reform bill into a clear understanding of how it will affect them? Then, if you ask the wrong questions, you're a hater. But who can you trust to do it for you?

There's this "fog of war"-like din of unsubstantiated statistics, opponent's ulterior motives, and closet skeltons. All analysis is slanted. It's damn hard to stay objective and informed, and focused on the issues.

Hey there, Glock!

First of all, I've been meaning to mention to you that I was incorrect several days ago when I said that Obama had made a statement that he was cutting all ties to or no longer had any affiliation to ACORN. I heard something to this effect while listening to CNN, but it had to have been a commentary, not an official statement from O, as I didn't hear it again and wasn't able to verify it anywhere. So you were right, Obama did not make an official white house statement about the ACORN scandal.

This is off topic, as usual, but I don't think anyone would say that Dems are better in the family values department than Reps or vice versa. But I do think what drives liberals nuts is the fact that conservatives tend to wrap themselves in the word of God and the teachings of the Bible and the sanctity of marriage while leading a sordid double life on the side. And they have no problem living with this hypocrisy until they get caught, and then they'll use God as a shield from the consequences, like Jimmy Swaggart in his famous televised repentance speech, and Mark Sanford, comparing himself to King David and saying he won't step down because God wants him to stay in office to become a better man. Which is really just a self-serving load of crap. Liberals can be just as sleazy, of course, but at least they are more honest in that they make no pretense of being holier-than-thou in the first place.

Oops, look at the time!

I find Mr. Beck to be an egomaniac hypocrite who is just out for whatever publicity he can find no matter whose rights he steps upon. Every year Mr. Beck rightfully complains about the secularization of the Christian Holy Season of Christmas. However, now he has no qualms in attempting to secularize the Jewish Holy Season of the Days of Awe and Yom Kippur. Whatever advances his agenda is ok. It doesn't matter if he politicizes the most holy day of the year for a portion of our population.

Chris,

The anti free speech line is that if you agree with Obama you are enlightened and anyone that disagrees with Obama's policies is a racist. This is a non starter for polite discussion.

As to the media, no one is forced to watch, read or listen to anyone. The products that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and a lot of the magazines and newspapers are producing are simply not what the market wants. They are all chasing the same 23% of the voters leaving a clear field for the 77% of the market that no one was serving until talk radio and FOX came along.

University students are forced to sit through the left propaganda that their teachers spew daily, unfortunately the same propaganda is now being pushed in K -12 with increasing regularity.

Lets review some policy decisions:

*When Obama stepped up the attacks inside of Pakistan against our enemies, did anyone complain?

*When Obama recently canceled several weapons programs including the absurd Presidential helicopter and F22 programs, did anyone complain?

*When Obama order our sailors to kill the pirates and free the American Captain off of Somalia, did anyone complain?

*Did 75% of the voters tell their legislators NO twice on amnesty when Bush was President? Is Obama getting ready to attempt to ram Amnesty through in spite of what we want?

*Did 75% of the voters tell their legislators no bailouts for Banks and Auto companies when Bush was President? Is Obama continuing and expanding the same polices as Bush? Goldman Saks made out like bandits with the tens of billions going in the front door of AIG and out the back door to Goldman.

*Obama has acknowledged that since Teddy Roosevelt, nationalized health care (20% of our economy) has been attempted many times, and always rejected by the voters. The more people look at it, the less they want it. The fantasy is that money will rain from the skies to pay for every treatment for everyone. From a Bankrupt government that has to print the money to make their payroll? Nationalized Health Care means that the 50% of the population that pays no income tax will make the other 50% pay for their health care, another massive redistribution program.

*Obama's "carbon tax" is just that, a gigantic stiffing tax that will kill the economy and the revenue will be redistributed to demographics likely to vote Democrat. The trillion dollar "stimulus" could have been used to build so many nuclear reactors that electricity would be free in the US, what are we getting for the trillion, walking around money for the next election cycle?

There was a good letter to the editor in the Sun today which summarize it nicely. The voters are now awakened and holding their legislators feet to the fire on what are gigantic issues. The clowns in DC have bankrupted the country and our children are going to pay dearly when the bill arrives.

It's unfortunate that our new President is doing everything in his power to accelerate the bankruptcy, not prevent it.

Glock22,

Both 'sides' have dung that stinks. One does not smell any better than the other.
Re-read the first post. A large part of the problem is the "Us versus Them" mentality that the two parties create/perpetuate. At best, the American People have a choice of "Which one do I think sucks the least currently?" Honestly, that's beyond pathetic.

Olbermann in my opinion never made a rational argument about anything. Frankly I think he does not have sufficient mental composition or perhaps corrupton in the Bush administration did not rise to the corruption level of Obama, allowing Beck to be more impressive with his analysis. Olbermann is someone who is promoted because he thinks the party line. That is how the big networks operate. George Will will never have his own show or be anything more than a panelist at ABC. The only token thought and voice from the other side. Olbermanns TV ratings are in the tank. So what does NBC do? Lets give him a crack at football. Politics and football. Two things that elude Olbermann. Make common sense a third. And for one of my stuck on liberal friends, I shall never know of a man lower than John Edwards. So if you think Democrats are better than Republicans for family values, just remember John Edwards and exactly what he has put Elizabeth through. However it is her bed, she made it. Joan Kennedy is another one. I know Ted is dead but if you know anything about her life with Ted, you would have little respect for that troll, be he dead or alive. My favorite is Ted having a 20 something year marriage producing a couple of children with Joan annulled. A real family oriented ogre he was.

"I'm sorry what is the grand total right now of conservative republicans spouting "family values" who have been found to be cheating on their wives etc."

OWVY- This is the conservative double standard. There is no evading it. I've tried for too many years. Doesn't work.

OWVY,

"Anonymous 5678...

You know it doesn't help to be on Letterman? Everything has been said & everyone understand? RIGHT! That is why the elderly think they are going to be killed off. That is why people still think the govt is going to take away any existing coverage or doctor choices you have now. Ugh. Question is how many of those people who do not understand actually do watch Letterman but..."


I honestly can't really follow you. Take no offense. Is there anyway you can either do point/counterpoint instead whatever you are doing in the example above? And complete sentences please? I think you were trying to rationalize why he was on Letterman and not too worried about making some decisions on Afghanistan. Is that right? It sounds like you are defending the uninformed. If one is still uniformed about the health care, then they really don't need to know. They have had the chance to watch TV, read the internet, read a paper, etc. for way too long now. Obama is not lacking media coverage. He craves it. Again, not sure what your point was. I'm just trying to guess.

Ken - that is the liberal double standard. There is no evading it. I've tried for too many years. Doesn't work.

Glock22,

Just because someone gives the establishment a hard time doesn't mean they are worthy of praise or are not a pinhead. Keith Olbermann gave the Bush admin a hard time and "... sometimes he made important points questioning the direction of the administration and its fundamental plans for changing this country" but I highly doubt you'd consider him "refreshing" for that reason.

Beck is cut from the same brick of sour cheese and just happens to wear stars upon thars. (Yes, a Dr. Suess reference)

Even though a broken clock might be right twice a day, it's still a broken piece of junk.

OWVY wrote:

"I'm sorry what is the grand total right now of conservative republicans spouting "family values" who have been found to be cheating on their wives etc."

Thanks for proving my point, OWVY. Just as What the? did:

"Then we'll be less likely to call the next Washington protest a "million moron march". Seriously."

Liberals are unable to have a rational debate without flinging mud, as our two resident liberals where quick to show...

To Anonymous on September 23, 2009 10:07 AM--

Forgot one thing: Did Obama do a flip-flop? Sure, call it that if you want. He changed his mind based on information and advice given by his expert advisor, the Secretary of State. Unlike other more recent presidents, Obama doesn't ignore the advice of those he appointed to advise him; he doesn't stay blindly focused on one path just because it's what HE wants. Who do you think he is, Bush?

Anon:

"Why not defend the anniversary of opening of Aushwitz by selling missiles to Hamas?" Too funny, this cracked me up! Love the dark humor.

So let's get this straight--Republicans agreed with Gates when he was working for Bush and supporting the missile defense system, but now that he's working for Obama, his advice doesn't matter and Obama should ignore it?

This is precisely the point O'Reilly made--that conservatives can claim that Obama, and Dems in general, have always opposed the missile defense system, have misled the public on its efficacy, have always claimed it is too unreliable to be worth its hefty price tag. But here's the kicker--why would Gates lie? Has he joined the liberal conspiracy to kill the missile defense system, or has he suffered a major brain drain since Obama came on board and so now doesn't know what he's talking about? Or could it really be, since the simplest explanation is often the correct one, that changes in technology and the nuclear situation in Iran no longer support pursuing a 20 year old missile defense plan? That there are actually better, more accurate and cheaper solutions to defend against the actual threats Iran poses now rather than focusing on threats it may pose at some point in the future?

If Gates had recommended to Obama that the missile defense program should stay and Obama ended it anyway, then I would agree with you--this looks like Russian appeasement at the expense of our allies. But that isn't what happened.

As for the Fox News thing, I am really trying to work with you here. I am giving Fox a lot more air time than usual and trying to push aside my biases to listen to the message rather than the messengers. But Fox isn't making this easy.

I tuned in to Fox Saturday morning like I have done many times to listen to the news and was assaulted by someone giving her opinion on a news piece. It was a dumb topic, they were reporting on how Oprah shut down the Magnificent Mile to tape something for her season premiere, and it was mentioned that she's trying harder because her ratings have been dropping, which is true enough. Then they posed the question, why have Oprah's ratings dropped? Other news sources would simply state the fact that her ratings have dropped and leave it at that. But not Fox. True to style, they pose the question and then show a clip of someone--I have no idea who--answering it from a politicized conservative point of view. This person was practically shouting, which is why I said I felt assaulted, that the reason Oprah is seeing a ratings drop is because she alienated a lot of her base by supporting Obama in the election instead of Hillary Clinton, and now she is paying the price. And the news anchor simply said something like, "Well, thank you, so-and-so, for clearing that up". WTF?!?!

This isn't just news, this is news punctuated with biased commentary. I've been following Oprah for years, and I am very aware that her ratings started dropping the year before the campaign. Her ratings showed the first drop before Obama hit the national stage, while he was still just that senator with the funny name that no one knew. I know, because that's when I stopped watching her show a lot, and it had nothing to do with politics. It had everything to do with the kind of shows she was doing. But this is typical Fox spin. Maybe it's just so pervasive that you don't notice it anymore, but I do. And once I detect BS, I stop listening. I watched CNN news that day.

Here is a challenge for you. I was on the phone with a travel agency this morning working out a European itinerary and was put on hold quite a few times. During those times I watched Gadhafi give his rambling, conspiracy theory-ladened address to the U.N. He talked of many conspiracies, about how the U.S. drug companies release viruses on people so they can profit by selling vaccines, the Kennedy assassination, MLK Jr., threats of previous U.S. presidents to "and I quote, release the dust storms, the clouds of lightening, the poisoned rose to the children of Lybia like they did in Iraq". Yeah, right, G. That's definitely how American presidents talk. What a loon. I don't see how the U.N. council kept a straight face. I caught one shot of Obama, he had a grin, he wasn't even trying. But Gadhafi did say one thing that the conservative right is going to be all over, and it was this: he called Obama "his son, his child of Africa" and that "if Obama was president forever, Lybia would be happy."

Do you doubt, Anon, that Fox News isn't going to exploit these two comments for all they're worth? I haven't been to Fox yet, but you know I'm right. These comments, the rantings of a loon, will be isolated from all his other looney comments and played and replayed on Fox News as gospel. I can hear Hannity, Beck, Cavuto, and countless Fox news anchors now "See! We TOLD you Obama wasn't one of us! We TOLD you he wasn't a true American. The leader of Lybia admitted this in front of the whole U.N. today!" And lets not forget Limbaugh. My God, Gadhafi just gave him his material for the rest of the week.

And the next time the teabaggers have a rally, you'll see picket signs that say "Send Obama back to Lybia" "We want an AMERICAN president", blah blah blah blah blah.

If I'm wrong, I'll buy you lunch.

By Glock 22 on September 23, 2009 12:55 PM
CIJ taught me that we need to always challenge the establishment less we become the establishment. Now easy there CIJ. Don't go off on a tear.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have no FEAR, I will not go on a TEAR!

But let us continue challenging the ESTABLISHMENT as you have learned ever so well. I really could use some help.

I can not imagine ever being part of the ESTABLISHMENT.

It seems some of the folks on this blog are emulating the political "spin" we are bombarded with from our elected elites. Am I fed up with the tone? Well it seems to me that the bare faced lies, the time released lies and most dangerous of all, the lies salted with truth are the things I dislike coming from our elected officals.

I listened to Obama give his address to the UN this morning. I was not spoon fed a summary by my media or your media. I can summarize it if you did not hear it as the work of an imbicile. Is anyone besides me tired of hearing him denegrate our country everytime he can? This president many of you are infatuated with consistently denegrates our nation to the applause of representatives of some of the most corrupt nations in the world in the headquarters of the most corrupt organization in the world, sits down, gets that nose up in the air adulating himself as a prestegious world leader. He wastes precious time with this UN side show and does not get the strategy in Afghanistan under control as a priority. That is something that continues to twist in the wind while our sons and daughters are in harms way in a country no nation on earth has been able to tame. Then people on this blog are talking Microsoft end user agreements that Beck hit a foul ball on. Come on Joe! Only a schlep for Obama is going to say Beck has not done a credible job questioning the lack of ethics and actual agenda of the Obama administration. And I do not believe you are a schlep for any administration. Rather you may not like his abrasive delivery system but he has made important points questioning the direction of this administration and its fundemental plans for changing this country to Obamas social justice utopia. I find Beck refreshing because he at least is adversarial to the political establishment.
You are going to get no objectivity from the ABC news network that broadcasts its product from the west wing are you? CIJ taught me that we need to always challenge the establishment less we become the establishment. Now easy there CIJ. Don't go off on a tear.

Let me add that the far left has ALWAYS been against the concept of a missile shield, they have ALWAYS
mis-led the public abut it's success rate in testing, and they have have worked against it for two decades. From day one (Reagan years) they harped about the cost (this was before there was even an analysis of the cost!)

Imagine my suspicion when a new President gets in, one who is widely considered from the far left (don't question me, question his voting record as a State and U.S. Senator), and he oddly changes the plan in mid-stream.

As your links point out, it clearly is a flip, and the inserted use of the key phrase "cost effective" says it all for me.

It is a flip-flop!

My mistake on the minister ---- It was meant to be part of the "company he keeps" sentence. Cut and paste, cut and paste....

The President is Barrack Obama, not Gates. The shield was developed and proposed before Gates ever got the job. Gates is partaking in some revisionist history there. The fact that Gates was in the job under Bush means nothing. It appears you believe strongly in partisanship (Gates was Bush's, thus I should believe in him?).

I am Polish American and I stand by MY comment thatit was an unbelievably boneheaded move (both the move and the timing of it). Trying to defend the timing is impossible ---- why not defend the anniversary of opening of Aushwitz by selling missiles to Hamas?

Before you assume I, or anyone who disagrees with the move, are following any elected idiot in America, perhaps you should pick up a phone and talk to some ordianry people in Poland. My family can tell you firsthand ----- they are freaking outraged at us, period!

By the way ---- I watch FOX, NBC and their bretheren, CNN, I catch Olberman, Gregory, Mallow, O'Reilly, I listen to Miller ----I can assure you that unoike most I have encountered I am exposed to the gamut of media. Based on that, I prefer the RESULTS from FOX because they actually report news and give me data.

It is pretty tough for FOX to give the viewer just their version of the answer (per your opening comment) when as a general rule they offer someone from both sides of the political aisle to answer! It is rare when they have a hot issue that I don't get to hear from the left (say, Powers or Bechtel(?), AND from the right (Krauthammer, some elected official).

I cannot find this regular service anywhere else on TV.

By the way, do you disagree that the main media kneels to Obama?

Do you disagree that FOX questions pretty much everything?

Do you disagree that FOX was tough on BUSH (admittingly, they were tough only on data, on not on stuff Iheard from other channels. You know, hardcore journalism like "Bush is stupid!")?

Anonymous 5678...

You know it doesn't help to be on Letterman? Everything has been said & everyone understand? RIGHT! That is why the elderly think they are going to be killed off. That is why people still think the govt is going to take away any existing coverage or doctor choices you have now. Ugh. Question is how many of those people who do not understand actually do watch Letterman but...

Ken...

"Conservatives have no choice but to respond in kind as it is clear that the liberals will continue using lies and deceit to remain in power."

I'm sorry what is the grand total right now of conservative republicans spouting "family values" who have been found to be cheating on their wives etc. Right just the "liberals"!

And what "legitimate war" was started? Was the the Weapons of Mass Destruction one? The one that "The mission is complete" war?

CO...problems is "whose values & integrity"? Those are defined by the individual & cultures, religion etc. Heck, your own folks did not disagree with your values? Or grandparents, neighbors etc.

What The...I agree on your sign part. That is sooo true!

To Glock 22 on September 22, 2009 6:33 PM,

Beck isn't a pinhead? really? He reads an End User License Agreement on a Govt. website with verbiage that has existed for at least the last decade and a half by all sorts of companies, including Microsoft and freaks out thinking it's some Obama conspiracy to own his data? He's an ignorant bonehead.

He did not "discover" this interesting "Terms of Use" on his own and decide to report upon it. If he would have read the ones existing through the Bush Admin, the Clinton Admin and when he "Agreed" to run Windows he would have read verbiage to the same effect.

Read the ones here on this site for giggles: http://www.suntimes.com/aboutus/terms.stng

Which says: "You grant to Company the unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual and royalty-free right and license to host, cache, store, use, copy, distribute, sell, re-sell, display, perform, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, reformat, translate or otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media or medium now known or hereafter developed and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed. You further agree that Company is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in any User Content you send to the Web Site or Company, for any purpose whatsoever, including, without limitation, developing, manufacturing and marketing products using such User Content. You also grant to Company the right to sub-license and authorize others to exercise any of the rights granted to Company under these Terms and any Additional Terms; and each such third party will be entitled to benefit from the rights and licenses granted to Company under these Terms and any Additional Terms. You further authorize Company to publish your User Content in a searchable format that may be accessed by users of the Web Site and the Internet."


Oh No, Alert Glenn Beck!!!!! He needs to put a stop to this heinous crime!


He was fed the "story" and ran with it because he is too ignorant to have known better. Sorry, but that constitutes a Pinhead.

America would be better off to turn off the "Boob Tube" and radio and just get out and interact with their neighbors once in a while instead of being spoon fed what to be upset about on any particular day.

To Anonymous on September 22, 2009 3:18 PM:

If all Fox News did was question Obama and his policies, that would be great. The problem with Fox is that they do a lot more than question; they give their own versions of the answers as well.

In regards to your comment on the missile defense system where you stated:

"They (Fox) question his double talk on foreign affairs, such as the missile shield in Poland. Back in April he compliments Poland and the Czech Republic for taking the missle defense system, and said America would always be there for them. Now, in one of the most moronic, unsypathetic, boneheaded moves on American foreign affairs history, he changes his mind on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet crushing of Poland! Worse, it appears to be for political reasons related to Russia!"

Whoa, there! Not even Bill O'Reilly was this harsh. Obama reversed his position on the missile defense strategy at the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (remember him, he was Bush's Sec of Defense also?) and other members of the national security team and senior military leadership. Here's an excerpt from an article I've linked below:

"In a op-ed response in the New York Times, Secretary of Defense Gates said it was he who recommended the change. The missile defense plan that included a long-range missile defense shield in Poland was "the best plan based on the technology and threat assessment available" at the time Gates said he recommended it to Bush in 2006. But based in part on new intelligence, Gates said, he and other members of the national security team and senior military leadership decided on a "more suitable approach" to deploy "proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles -- weapons that are growing in capability -- in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe."

"This will be a far more effective defense should an enemy fire many missiles simultaneously -- the kind of attack most likely to occur as Iran continues to build and deploy numerous short- and medium-range weapons," Gates wrote. . . ."We are strengthening -- not scrapping -- missile defense in Europe," Gates concluded.

The article is a bit wordy but covers all areas of this controversy, Obama's apparent flip-flop on it, the Poles and Czechs reaction to it, Russia's paranoia, etc.:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/did-obama-flip-whether-he-would-continue-pursue-mi/

It also includes this comment by a Republican rival:

"Only a year since Russia invaded Georgia, and 70 years to the day since the Soviet Union invaded Poland, the Obama administration is continuing its policy of appeasing adversaries at the expense of our allies," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference."

(That sounds a lot like your quote, Anon. Is this maybe where you got it?)

Here is another good nonpartisan article about the missile defense system, it's strengths and short-comings, and the controversy surrounding it. The article's conclusion sounds similar to Bill O'Reilly's comments last week:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112909735

So take a look and then tell me what you think. I think your previous opinion is a result of getting all your info from one source.

Also, you wrote:

They (Fox) question the appointments he has made. These include a self-proclaimed communist (Van Jones), a nutjob (see Sunstein), along with a racist minister and a known terrorist.

I don't think you meant to say Obama has appointed a racist minister and a known terrorist to his administration, do you?

And:

"All FOX does is remind us that Obama said to judge him by the company he keeps."

It seems Fox likes judging Obama more by the company he kept.

By Fed Up with The Noise on September 22, 2009 6:31 PM
It is my opinion that CIJ continues to expound on AIPAC because he hates Israel. We never hear anything from CIJ about the pro Arab lobbyists.

========================================================================================================================================

If there are any Arab lobbyists they should be outlawed. I don't want our Congress influenced by their policies. I don't want them taken bribes from anyone.

I do not hate Israel....I hate its policies of discrimination and racism. Imagine it wants to be a Jewish State. Imagine America wanting to be a Jewish State, Christian State of Muslim State. Who would tolerate it?

I think Saudia Arabia discriminates against woman. Last I checked they did not let them drive, did not let them vote, and force the woman to hide their faces behind a veil while the men can show their faces. Obama should sever all political ties with Saudia Arabia.

There afre 23 Arab States. I don't want to tell you how I feel about each one or I will be legitimately accused of hijacking this thread. We will have to wait for the appropriate thread.

It's not the anger that bothers me in today's debates. We saw this and much worse during the 60s, and the anti-Vietnam war protests were truly a grass roots movement unlike the mostly organized protests we're seeing now. What bothers me is the ignorance that's on display at so many of these events.

I don't mind so much seeing posters that read "Thanks Fox News for keeping us infromed" or "No pubic option!" These are simply funny and we all make spelling errors, even though one would think that if someone were writing it on a picket sign for all the world to see, they would take extra care to get it right. What makes my head spin is seeing signs that say "Don't steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine". You would think at least one person out of a couple hundred or thousand would tap this person on the shoulder and say, 'uh, you know, Medicare IS socialized medicine, so you may want to use a different slogan'. But this doesn't happen, most likely because none of the other brainiacs at these events have a clue either. I've seen many picket signs and heard many comments from protesters that clearly prove a lot of them have no idea what they're talking about. And we all know where they're getting this information.

If you don't agree with Obama's politics or policies, that's fine. Get angry and protest your little hearts out; that's what Americans do. But at least protest for the right reasons and know WHAT you are protesting. If you have time to listen to Rush Limbaugh three hours a day, you can spare a few minutes to google 'Medicare history' and learn that the Medicare you love is indeed socialized medicine before you go out and yell 'down with socialized medicine!' Learn that Hitler was a fascist who opposed communism before you display your ignorance on a picket sign showing Obama as Hitler and calling him a 'Nazi communist'. Find out what the real problems with the public option are and argue those, rather than endlessly parroting statements on fictitious death panels and pulling the plug on grandma.

Then we'll be less likely to call the next Washington protest a "million moron march". Seriously.

Beck is not a pin head. He is mostly rational, thoughtful and articulate. He has a rather signifcant audience between his radio program and television show. I find him thought provoking and I find it concerning that for example people at the NEA are talking to people in the White House telling artists and others seeking NEA grants that they must create art supporting Obama IF they want taxpayer dollars. That "support" Obama is exactly what originally triggered objections to the address to the schools. And it forced Obama to take a more generic student focused and less Obama focused message. Beck is concerned about the direction the county is moving with the current regieme in D.C. Growing numbers of us share his concern. We are pushing back against Obama and his supporters. We do not like corrupt thug politicans that came with Obama acting like hoodlums. The government cannot simply grow and spend money to the extent it is growing and spending without serious repercussions. There is nothing wrong with demonstrating and vocalizing your dissatisfaction with politics and politicians. This is like 1968 all over again. What is peculiar is people who were protesting, disrupting or organizing communities in protest (Ayers, Obama, Van Jones)during the Bush years are now are bothered by the same things they were doing before they won the last election cycle.
But I think someone above made a good point. The shabby treatment of Bush and Cheney by the left really has personally made me disrespectful of politicians and the press. I think people standing up and protesting and getting right up in the grille of some of these politicians is as American as all get out and I envy those who do that.

It is my opinion that CIJ continues to expound on AIPAC because he hates Israel. We never hear anything from CIJ about the pro Arab lobbyists.

Well,
you all begin to prove moderators thesis after less than 20 posts.
Agree with whomever you want, disagree with whomever you want. People have always done that, and should. A year or two ago, there was vociferous opposition to the Bush administration policies, now the opposite camp object just as vociferously to Obama's policies.
I think one of them is a poor example of a President, but which one has no bearing on my own contention. That is, argue all you want, but if you can't remain civil and if you can't show some semblance of an open mind, I begin to ignore you and your message is lost. Not because I think you can't convince me, but because debate and discussion must be rational. If you are so utterly convinced that you (or your candidate, or your president) are right on every topic with no room for discussion or no ability to agree that we're talking about fallible human beings, I lose all interest in hearing your point of view.
I learn from all sorts of people, some on tv, some off. I listen for reasonable arguments from reasonable people. I think that Obama makes a reasonable argument for many of the elements of the proposed health care bills; but that doesn't mean I agree with all of them, just that the suggestions are reasonable, and seem to be made in good faith. Counter arguments on this one specific topic don't convince me. In other areas, it's exactly the opposite. The only politician I would ever, could ever agree with 100% would be myself, and I have far more sense that to take up that profession.
And so.
Agree, disagree. That's all up to you, but listen, learn and figure things out with the help of the talking heads on your television, not in blind obedience to any of them.

Incredulous,

Your allegation of me hijacking a thread amounts to Kindergarten Chatter. Please grow up.

I am right on topic. I believe AIPAC more than any other organization in this country corrupts our political system. I am actually pretty sure of that.

Are you not aware that almost every Senator and Representative in the country receives AIPAC money? Do you think they take this AIPAC money so they can vote their conscience on political issues? They vote for causes that contribute to their campaigns. The entire United Nations can vote against Israel but the Congress will almost vote unanimously on the same exact issue for Israel.

Why do you think that is the case? Because Israeli lobbyists contribute millions upon millions to our Congressmen annually. They stuff their wallets with campaign contributions and sometimes even under the table cash. Did you hear about the Congressman that had 90,000 dollars of cash stuffed in his freezer that he obtained from bribes?

I really can not believe how naive you and some others can be, not to understand how our political system is intertwined with and controlled to a great extent by the lobbyists in this country.

Why do you think our Congress allows the production of cigarettes in this country which amounts to pumping poison in our lungs? Why do they not outlaw cigarettes which do nothing but create cancer? You guessed it because Philip Morris and R.J Reynolds pump tons of money into the pockets of our Senators and Representatives. Yes, for money, those traitors will vote to poison our youth. If they had a conscience they would vote to abolish the production of cancer sticks immediately. Maybe if we can eliminate these cancer sticks, we can make the health costs in this country affordable.

Citizen Investigative Journalist on September 22, 2009 11:59 AM
Moderator Magee,

I am probably twice your age and if you have been around long enough, you begin to understand how it is all intertwined
+++++++
Some get wiser with age. Some just get older.

CIJ,

You're referencing Michael Moore??? Seriously???

Please stop trying to hijack the thread and stay "on topic".

CIJ,

WOW! What a shock! Obama says FOX does not kneel and pay homage to him! WOW again!

He's right ---FOX does NOT blindly kiss up to Obama and declare him a deity.

Unlike the main media (especially NBC) FOX questions Obama and his policies.

They question his incalculable debt.

They question his double talk on foreign affairs, such as the missile shield in Poland. Back in April he compliments Poland and the Czech Republic for taking the missle defense system, and said America would always be there for them. Now, in one of the most moronic, unsypathetic, boneheaded moves on American foreign affairs history, he changes his mind on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet crushing of Poland! Worse, it appears to be for political reasons related to Russia!

They question the appointments he has made. These include a self-proclaimed communist (Van Jones), a nutjob (see Sunstein), along with a racist minister and a known terrorist.

All FOX does is remind us that Obama said to judge him by the company he keeps.

They question him on his understanding of taxes, the economy, cap and trade, government ownership of major companies and industries.......

In other words, FOX questions. What a better informed society we would be if all (heck, even any!) of the other alleged news outlets did the same.

They did the same during the Bush and Clinton years. The major difference is that FOX was not on the anti-war side of the ledger (though many of their commentators were), and thus are vilified by the far left.

Your comments on FOX reek of subject-matter ignorance.

If you had any experience or data related to FOX outside of what you read on the Daily os or hear on CNN, NBC, etc, you would be aware that FOX was fairly brutal on Bush. In fact, FOX is the one that broke the Bush/drunk/coke story on the eve of his first election.

The difference is that FOX actually RESEARCHED the issue once it broke to get actual data, to find the TRUTH, and resolve it.

Now, if CBS and Dan Rather, among others, had done the same, they would all still be employed, wouldnm't they?

What opinion would you have me try to prove CIJ? My opinion that your use of the word traitor, with regards to our congress and senate members, is inflammatory and over the top? You believe that Bill O'Reily is mentally ill? I cant speak to that - but you didnt say that originally. Your comment about Fox was "that mentally ill Fox News Station"


To: By Anonymous on September 22, 2009 9:00 AM

I would like to say that I can't believe anyone even listens to Keith Olberman or Rachel Mallow or David Gregory's crazy, hateful, nutjob right-wing conspiracy theory nonsense, but unfortunately, I have good reason to know that some people are just that stupid.

By Fed Up With The Noise on September 22, 2009 11:18 AM
Here we go again! The lack of civility abounds not only in politics but in every day discourse. CIJ currently exemplifies this in his latest post, calling most of our politicians "traitors" and deeming an entire news channel as "mentally ill".


========================================================================================================================================

Fed Up With the Noise,

A few years ago, Michael Moore, interviewed directly or indirectly all 535 Senators and Congressmen to ask them if their kids were in the armed services. Only one had a child in the armed services. And yet they were quick to declare a war against Iraq for possessing enriched uranium when in fact they had none. They were quick to declare a war on Iraq for harboring Al-Qaida when the vicious dictator Saddam would hang anyone in oppostion including Al-Qaida. He would throw those who opposed him off high rise buildings while handcuffed, both hands and legs. I have seen the pictures on American TV in prime time. Anyone who would believe Saddam would allow any kind of opposition has to have loose screws. Bush lied to the American people to start a war. Fox News backed him up all the way.

I am not the one singling out Fox News as being anti-Obama. Obama himself singled them out. Fox News is a biased news station that reports the news from a 100% Republican perspective and angle. Any news station that can not report the news fairly and without bias in my opinion is "mentally ill." O'Reily, their star showman, is a known women abuser. Anyone who abuses women is mentally ill.

BTW, when I am simply expressing an OPINION on this blog site. I am not required to provide proof. Before asking others to prove their OPINIONS, why don't you try to prove your own OPINIONS, Fed Up With The Noise. Take a stab at it and lets see if you can put your money where your mouth is.

Moderator Magee,

I am probably twice your age and if you have been around long enough, you begin to understand how it is all intertwined.

AIPAC officials are not dumb. They are not going to orchestrate a camapaign in direct support of Israel which is un-American. They are doing it INDIRECTLY in hopes of not being detected.

But going to Obama from Bush was a diaster for them. Bush gave them everything. He rubber stamped everything they did. He kissed their behinds. He spoiled them.

Obama is really just trying to be fair. They can not stand that he is neutral. They want him defeated and ousted by the next election. They fear him having a second term where they could not control him. In a second term he can wreck havoc on Israel as he will not need the Israeli Lobby to help him get elected to a third term as there is no third term. They may not have the power to elect a President, but they do have the power to defeat a President if they choose. They did not think Obama could be elected so they did not attempt to defeat him this time. Next time, watch out. They will come with both barrels blazing. You will be amazed.

You asked for the tone of politics of this country. I am giving you my viewpoint in matters I am familiar with. You should not have to agree with my opinion to post it.

I think you need to keep your blog site FREE and allow us to express our feelings and opinions without attempting to exercise so much control as long as we are in the ball park of your subjects and topics.

If I did not feel it was related and wanted to blog about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just for the h@ll of it, I would go to one of your open threads.

However, I feel strongly there is a relation. Let us see if any other bloggers can see a relation between the undertones in this country by AIPAC to make Obama into an incompetent president so they can get another Bush in office who will worship them.

Remember this is my personal opinion. I can be wrong. But I think it is only fair that you let me express my personal opinion as I feel it relates to a topic.

Thank you,
CIJ

========================================================================================================================================

PS. Keep in mind I did not blog even once on the President's broadcast to the schools as I did not feel it was related to anything I had to say. I only blog when I feel I can contribute. My angle may be different than the norm, but it is still an angle to the situation. And I beleive AIPAC was even behind the Tax Protest against Obama to make him look bad. They will make him look bad on any issue as a cover to the real issue. They want him out of office, so Israel can have its way and wreak havoc in the world and UN as it has done for 61 years. If I did not believe what I was saying, I would not say it. Keep in mind Obama now controls the VETO POWER in the UN that has allowed Israel to be a rogue state. If he does not veto anti-Israeli resolutions as all his predecessors did, Israel can be isolate and boycotted by the members of the UN. He does not need Congressional approval for a veto. So we have a very nasty situation as far as Israel is concerned and its supportes are attacking Obama on national issues to make him look like a bozo even though he is a highly educated and wise Harvard Lawyer.

I think both sides of the aisle are made up of good and bad. There is no way to say one political party is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'. I consider myself middle-of-the-road, and I am not loyal to one particular party since each one has its own share of mud-slinging and dishonest behavior.

I would want to see ALL political parties work together for the good of our country and our citizens instead of the ridiculous he said-she said and trash-talking that is regularly done by both sides regardless of who is in office. I would love to see a 'we're all in this together' attitude, but unfortunately that's a pipedream since each side wants to lay blame on the other for any wrongs and take credit for any good.

I think the job of the media should be to report the facts in a non-biased manner. Period. 'Facts' and 'non-biased' being the key words. I don't think ANY media can claim that to be their method of reporting. People need to do their own research and take the issues seriously instead of getting their 'facts' from narcissistic celebrities or biased networks or reports. Just look at one of Leno's Jaywalking' clips and you can see some of the mentalities that have no business going anywhere near a voting booth. It's scary.

If all politicians spent more time trying to tackle the real issues and attempting to reach a resolution for the problems without any considerations being given to the special interest groups and the good-ol'-boy network, we would all be much better off. We need term limits and we need to go back to 'doing the right thing' and working to better the future of our country for our children and ourselves. If politicians would be held accountable to the public, as well as to each other, if values and integrity were practiced regularly, then they might become the respected and revered leaders they once were. Now they are mostly self-serving, egostisical individuals one seat closer to satisfying their own adgenda.

Here we go again! The lack of civility abounds not only in politics but in every day discourse. CIJ currently exemplifies this in his latest post, calling most of our politicians "traitors" and deeming an entire news channel as "mentally ill". Please provide some proof of your statement that "This is the root cause of this newly organized hatred towards Obama. It is orchestrated by Israel and the AIPAC Lobby". Do you have any proof - not just your own opinions but some real, credible, documented proof that AIPAC is creating a hatred of the president?

I think the answer to your question can be seen on these blogs, Chris. The liberals started the policy of personal destruction with Clinton, and have never strayed from that strategy. You can see that here when liberal posters denigrate conservatives by claiming they ride the short bus, their news sources are all lies (With not proof of that claim), etc. The main stream media's bias, with people like Dan Rather making up stories, just fuels the fire. Conservatives have no choice but to respond in kind as it is clear that the liberals will continue using lies and deceit to remain in power.

A good example is the liberals discarding the canard that politics stop at the water's edge. When President Clinton bombed aspirin factories to distract the nation from his personal actions, the Republican's, for the most part, backed him up. When President Bush started a legitimate war, the Democrats voted for the war but then fought the Bush Administration in public and private to make the war fail. They didn't care about presenting a united front to the world, they just cared about regaining power.

So, in answer to your question, no, it will not change in our lifetime, as many posters here will show in the discussion of this subject.

I think the Zionist Israel Lobbying group known as AIPAC is outraged with President Obama because he is demanding Israel stop settling the Palestinian Occupied Territories as UN Resolutions 242 and 338 have called for....as most civilized countries agree.

Israel and its supporters simply want to steal the land and evict its Palestinian native inhabitants as they have been doing for 61 long years. They continue to terrorise the occupied indigenous poplulation even when it is extremely docile waiting for a peaceful resolution that never comes. Israel, is probably praying and hoping a Palestinian suicide bomber would act irrationally so they can use this an EXCUSE to get Obama off their backs and end the peace negotiations that requires sacrifice from all parties. Let us hope all young Palestinians know better and contain their frustration and let Obama do his magic which he is very capable of. He is really fed up with this racist, Nazi, Zionist state known as Israel which is the root cause of most of our international problems.

Obama is not going to allow Israel to derail the peace process for the umpteenth time as he is a man of conscience who understands the plight of the abused, occupied and victimized.

This is the root cause of this newly organized hatred towards Obama. It is orchestrated by Israel and the AIPAC Lobby which have massive influence both in the US Media and in Congress, both in the Senate and House of Representatives. AIPAC practically pays off every Senator and Representative in order to buy their vote. Imagine we give Israel 3-10 billion dollars annually while 47.5 million Amercians do not have health insurance. Most of our politicians are TRAITORS to our flag and country. They in essence take bribes from AIPAC and give our hard earned tax dollars to a racist Zionist Entity.

Go Obama! Be strong and stand up and expose your opposition and that mentally ill Fox News Station. I commend you for your bravery in standing up to Israel and the AIPAC lobby.

I would like to say that I can't believe anyone even listens to Glenn Beck's crazy, hateful, nutjob conspiracy theory nonsense, but unfortunately, I have good reason to know that some people are just that stupid.

I don`t like politics shoved down my throat. Especially these automated phone calls that you get at dinner time or shortly thereafter. You should be able to put yourself on a no call list for these annoying calls like other telemarketers. If I want some advice or want to give advice, let me call them at home when they are relaxing for the evening.After a hard days work, I don`t feel like jumping up to answer the phone only to hear a recording suggesting who to vote for...

Thank you for starting a new thread. The thread on the president speaking to the children turned into a big political conversation.

I'll go back to what I originally said. There is a tremendous amount of distrust for this president and it is growing by the day. It's not because of Glenn Beck. It is not because of racisim. Like he said on Letterman last night, he was still black before the election. It is solely the their agenda. I'll even provide and example. BO went on his marketing world tour yet again this weekend. Last night he went on Letterman. Given the leak of news regarding Afghanistan yesterday, might you have canceled your appearance on Letterman and maybe strategized on how to handle Afghan? Obviously he doesn't realize this is a big job. The public has heard all they want to hear about this health care thing. Going on Letterman and belaboring it isn't going to help anymore.

Long and short, I think it is good if not great that we have some in the media who are trying to keep this administration honest. Most of the media aren't. The disturbing thing is we knew all this stuff we knew before he was elected. It is just now coming out in full force.

Read Henry Giroux's "The Spectacle of Illiteracy and the Crisis of Democracy". Best article I've seen on the utter chaos found in both parties' "thinking"...not too kind to the citizens, either, but truly worth a read. You'll find it on Truthout.

Beck and all the other pinheads on both sides of the aisle are just that. They are clouded by the goal of "We're right and you're wrong" and the truth and reality gets lost along the way.

Both "sides" suck as they have both lost their way entirely by forgetting that the goal of society is to move forward as a whole through work and cooperation.

Leave a comment

Naperville Potluck

The Sun invites you to share opinions about news and issues. Have a question? E-mail us.  

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Chris Magee, moderator published on September 21, 2009 10:26 PM.

Are police ticketing policies fair? was the previous entry in this blog.

City considers adding sales tax is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.