Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:54 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
Willton wrote:
Bob in Boston wrote:
Don't just toss that allegation out there, Ollie. Tell us how you know.

As for the "corporate media" you speak of, to the degree that they can influence the voting, they're shamelessly in the tank for Barack Obama, not John McCain. But unless Obama stops digging the hole he has put himself in – and soon – you are right on one score: McCain will win, and probably in a landslide. Not even the media will be able to save Obama.

So far, he and Joe Biden are conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime. The nation deserves better.

I fail to see where this claim holds water.


Willton, do you really want to go there? Because you'll still be trying to tread water on Election Day from the H2O that can be poured on that argument.

You're the one making the conclusory remark that Obama and Biden are "conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime." While I don't know how old you are, I'd really like to know what your definition of "amateurish and undisciplined" is with regard to a presidential campaign, and how you think Obama's campaign is somehow more within that definition than any other election campaign in your lifetime.

So yes, open the floodgates and let's see what comes out. (Hopefully doing so won't leave a trail of dead, endangered fish in Oregon. See http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/c ... index.html)

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:16 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Better be careful, this is how we started out on the "Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin" thread. You've only got 10 more pages to go................


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Bob, nice to hear from you again.

Does the fact that news departments of the major networks (exception is NBC) are controlled by corporate America have an impact on slant of the news. It is very clear to me that it does. ABC, CBS, and CNN all are at a minimum neutral, leaning Republican. And let's stop the ridiculous fair and balanced BS of Fox. They don't even attempt to hide their bias for everything Conservative. Any time of day you get a steady stream of your stuff.

Radio is probably 90% conservative.

So, that leaves newspapers. And while I read many of them, few other Americans do. Hate to down your source of a pay check, but you know very well how subsriptions are consistently falling. So, if the are for Obama somewhat, it matters much less today then yesterday. They are of less import today and it will only lessen in the future.

So, the perception the the media is librel no longer hold your water. No, my friend (McCain's favorite phrase), if anything it slants your way, the wrong way.

Now, don't get all fired up, let's try to keep it light.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:13 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Substitute2 wrote:
Bob, nice to hear from you again.

Does the fact that news departments of the major networks (exception is NBC) are controlled by corporate America have an impact on slant of the news. It is very clear to me that it does. ABC, CBS, and CNN all are at a minimum neutral, leaning Republican. And let's stop the ridiculous fair and balanced BS of Fox. They don't even attempt to hide their bias for everything Conservative. Any time of day you get a steady stream of your stuff.

Radio is probably 90% conservative.

So, that leaves newspapers. And while I read many of them, few other Americans do. Hate to down your source of a pay check, but you know very well how subsriptions are consistently falling. So, if the are for Obama somewhat, it matters much less today then yesterday. They are of less import today and it will only lessen in the future.

So, the perception the the media is librel no longer hold your water. No, my friend (McCain's favorite phrase), if anything it slants your way, the wrong way.

Now, don't get all fired up, let's try to keep it light.


Substitute2, don't take my word for it. Here, check what Hillary Clinton's ex-chief strategist, Mark Penn, told a CBS News interview posted just this morning. You'll have to scroll down to the fourth and third questions from the end, but I urge you to do so and then tell me whether you still think the nets "all are at a minimum, leaning Republican."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/politicalplayers/main4442492.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Or, if you have a problem with where he's coming from, try this exchange from "The McLaughlin Group" on Aug. 31:

Quote:
Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift: "[McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin] is not a serious choice. It makes it look like a made for TV movie. If the media reaction is anything, it’s been literally laughter in many places across news-"
Host John McLaughlin: "Where is that? See that?"
Clift: "In very, very many newsrooms."


Still not persuaded? National Public Radio reported in late July:

Quote:
All three network anchors and dozens of other reporters followed Barack Obama on his whirlwind tour through the Mideast and Europe this week, sparking humor-infused complaints from the John McCain campaign. Project for Excellence in Journalism Director Tom Rosenstiel says there's nothing new about hating on the media, but that Obama has in fact enjoyed a disproportionate amount of coverage.


Here's the full study in question, if you'd like to read it:
http://journalism.org/node/12009

Or, if you'd prefer a foreign perspective: Under the imprimatur of MacLean's magazine, which is Canadian, blogger John Parisella wrote:

Quote:
Is this media bias in favour of the new darling, Obama? If one analyzes volume of coverage, it is clear Obama is favoured. Some of it has a lot to do with the tight Democratic race against Hillary Clinton, which lasted many months and packed all the suspense of a movie thriller. Some of it can be attributed to the nature of his candidacy: he’s the first African-American nominee and he’s got a compelling narrative to boot. Perhaps a lot has to do with change-and the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, sees Obama as the better agent of change.
Is McCain correct to complain that he is a victim of media bias? There is no doubt that Obama has captured the imagination of the media, and his stellar performance overseas may actually reinforce that fact.


Thank you for the welcome back.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Willton wrote:
So yes, open the floodgates and let's see what comes out.


Barack Obama's campaign has made at least three decisions or calculations that underscore its amateurism and indiscipline and already are paying big dividends for John McCain. They will continue to do so unless they're reversed, and two of them are irreversible:

1. The news media turned Obama into a political rock star, and he sat back and basked in it. This, despite the fact that his resume may be the thinnest of any major presidential candidate in American history. He rode that aura to the Democratic nomination, never bothering to spell out a definitive plan for the change that he has been saying is so needed. Now there are 52 days left to the election, voters finally are paying attention to the campaigns, and he's yet to be heard from. All most people know so far is that, if elected, he intends to raise taxes on Americans earning at least $250,000, slap a "windfall profits" tax on Big Oil, and continue to oppose drilling for our own oil and natural gas.

It leads him to say laughable things such as -- and I paraphrase: We could save as much oil by inflating our tires to the proper pressure as we could get by drilling.

There's an emerging buyers' remorse among Democrats that he's blowing it. The Politico.com website, hardly a conservative news outlet, reported in a Sept. 10 piece headlined "Autumn Angst: Dems Fret about Obama":

Quote:
he let a narrative take hold in the news media and among many of his own supporters that led to expectations that he should be far ahead, leading to disappointment when he isn’t.


Here's the URL:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html

With so thin a resume, he figures to be tested severely in the debates, the first of which is coming up in just two weeks. They'll be watched heavily, maybe by more viewers than in any previous presidential campaign. Absent a TelePrompTer, it will be a minor miracle if he doesn't say something regrettable, especially when the questions turn to defense policy and foreign affairs.

2. The campaign was so sure of itself and so flush with cash that it announced it wouldn't accept federal funding. Now, if its poll numbers continue to drop and Democratic donors decide they don't want to pour their resources into what may be another losing candidate, it's too late to ask for the federal $$$ after all.

3. The Obama campaign has dissed women voters -- and women generally -- and split the Democratic Party. First, by not putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket and then compounding it by turning to her to try to rescue him from the backlash over the assault on Sarah Palin.

His indiscipline also has led him to call a woman reporter "sweetie" on at least one occasion. She didn't like it, and said as much on TV. Women increasingly are taking over the ranks of news reporting, and his victory isn't so certain that he can afford to pi$$ off the sisterhood. Here's the URL for that one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/obama-calls-reporter-swee_n_101754.html

Now that Joe Biden is embarrassing himself almost daily -- his most recent being an unforced admission that Hillary Clinton may have been a better choice for the No. 2 spot on the ticket -- Obama can't replace him without appearing to have panicked.

Another Biden gem: boasting that an Obama-Biden administration would prosecute Bush "crimes." Yeah, that'll really charm the Republican voters they'll need, especially in the swing states. It assumes that all other Americans hate Bush as much as the Democrats and the media do. They don't. They're disappointed in him, but they don't hate him, and they don't want to see him hauled into court (figuratively speaking).

Another Biden gem: self-righteously questioning why Republicans, if they care so much about developmentally disabled children, don't support embryonic stem-cell research. Oh, that one went over big with mothers who've given birth to Down syndrome children.

Still another: telling "Meet the Press" last Sunday that while he believes life begins at conception, it would be "inappropriate" to impose this "religiously based view" on anyone else. That earned him an immediate, stinging rebuke from eminent Catholic clergymen, and he's a Catholic. He and Obama are going to need Catholic votes, too.

And another: calling on Chuck in the wheelchair to stand up and take a bow at a campaign appearance in Columbia, Mo., earlier this week. He recovered from that one nicely, but the episode exposed poor work by his advance staff and has earned him huge scorn nationally.

The campaign also has shown its amateurism by targeting Sarah Palin rather than McCain. She's No. 2 on the Republican ticket, guys, not No. 1. As columnist Karl Rove (yes, that Karl Rove) noted in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, that's a classic mistake that Democrats going all the way back to Adlai Stevenson in 1952 have made, and every candidate who has done it, lost -- big.

And have I mentioned Obama's repeated use of 'hood dialect and inflection at campaign appearances? In his now-famous putting-lipstick-on-a-pig remark earlier this week, he strung out the word "policy" at least three times: e.g., "poli-sayyyy." Doing that is turning off white voters. One of them: the eminent feminist, liberal intellectual, academician, and unabashed Obama supporter Camille Paglia. She has written twice now in her last two columns for Salon.com that he needs to stop it.

The most recent:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin

Obama obviously is articulate; he doesn't need to speak that way. It isn't presidential. So why does he? He has got to know that the black vote is already in his pocket, and probably most of the youth vote, too -- such as it is.

Notice that I'm only now mentioning his choice to go to a gym and work out while on his celebrated tour in Germany this summer rather than visit wounded US troops. Way to solidify the military vote, Barack! And his hubris at requesting to deliver his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, where only heads of state (JFK, Ronald Reagan) previously have spoken, and then using the occasion to slam his own country. And displaying a fake presidential seal for himself, as if he'd already been elected. And dodging the question at the Saddleback Church debate on when life begins by answering, "That's above my pay grade." And his campaign's dumping hundreds of unused American flags into the trash after his acceptance speech at Invesco Field. Shows a high regard for his country, eh?

There's so much more, I could go on for hours. But perhaps this is enough for now.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Let us all listen to the debates, my friend. I'm certain that you will see them as John McCain Day. Try to be a little less Rushish and more realistic..
Because you quote the only liberal on The McGlochlin group, you can't claim the show has a liberal bias. My God check out his panel. I know you have no respect for anyone else's mind but come on, stop the insults. Half truths cost the arguer credibility with any other statements, don't you think?
Can't we start dealing in facts, my friend?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:02 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
85,000 at his acceptence speech was not caused by the press asking them to be there. Your boy couldn't draw that many if he promised money at the end of his speech.

That my friend is America telling your party that they want serious change. You guys and your hate politics of devision may work again, but would John McCain want the Presidency at the expense of his nation? Her always brags that he doesn't want that, yet there he is out there doing the divide and conquer thing that Bush used. Let's use Religion, sexism and make sure we are seen as the victim, and we'll win. Straight out of the Bush/Rove play book. It worked then and may work now but what about our country? Do we lose again?

Make sure it works by doing the big lie, over and over. The suckers will believe it, they did when Bush swift boated Kerry. Let's see-- we'll make him a Muslim, just look at his name, Let's say he hate women, hey let's tell them he follows a way out preacher's every word, and on, and on, and on... It works for Bush and may work for McCain.

What about what's left of our country? Do you give a shiiiit?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Substitute2, I'm having difficulty understanding how you can use that language with me and still address me as friend.

I have insulted you only in your own mind. I have not sought to force you or anyone else to see politics my way. If you don't find my efforts at debate reasonable, that is your problem. And I do deal in facts. It is you, sir, who seem to persist in delusion.

You and I apparently never will agree. So rather than risk this discussion taking on a tone that would not do justice to this board, as Jeremy (I believe it was) once said to me, it has come to an end as far as I am concerned.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:25 pm
Posts: 630
Location: Ede, The Netherlands
Argentum wrote:
Better be careful, this is how we started out on the "Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin" thread. You've only got 10 more pages to go................


is there a limit for a thread?? mmm.. WOW my first!!

_________________
If You Ain't Dutch, You Ain't Much!!

New Amsterdam was a Dutch settlement est. at the southern tip of Manhattan Island which served as seat of the colonial government in the New Dutch territory. It was renamed New York in honor of the then Duke of York.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:19 am
Posts: 1504
Forget everything you've ever learned.

As I spout off about secret societies many of you will label me a nut. Just think for yourself, guys. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by the media, our school history books, and tradition. The outcome of our presidential elections are totally predictable because our government, media, and bankers are headed by members of high level free masonry. They all scratch each other's back (media moghuls in cahoots with politicians while the Federal Reserve keeps creating obscene wealth for the elite from thin air.)

Basically you can't trust any politician who belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. Obama and Clinton clearly helped Mc Cain. Kerry helped George II. All these elite types belong to the same country clubs. Everything you see on TV is garbage. None of these people have allegiance to the United States.

We don't have a two party system so much. Both are capitalists so the working class will always be exploited. The Illuminati control both the Republican and Democratic parties, so no matter which candidate wins the Illuminati rule and continue their agenda. Each nation has its own branch. CFR is America's branch. The Illuminati finances all the wars in the world and control the majority of elections (of heads of state.)

Some politicians are good folks, but look out for those in the CFR. They have no morals. Republicans are seemingly for family values, but they only use conservative minded people to get elected. Democrats exploit the working class. Obama and the Clintons don't want us to have universal healthcare. He's a liar. He wants to keep poor people in the slums.. that's how Democrats stay in office.

This may sound far fetched, but ask yourself why we don't have a central bank? The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the U.S. government. This is ludicrous. They can do whatever they want. They are the real terrorists. Our leaders and international bankers are orchestrating a financial collapse that could destroy the U.S.A. and other countries in the world. I believe we are headed for another Great Depression similar to 1929-32.

The world is basically controlled by thirteen families, among them the Rockefellers, Duponts, Rothschilds, Onassis, Van Duyns (Bushes are in that bloodline.) There's even a Chinese family among the thirteen. These families are vastly richer than Bill Gates. Anyone who is very high in freemasonry has a connection to one or more of these families (this includes almost all the presidents in the previous century.)

Pease gentlemen.. even if you don't buy the secret society stuff do some research on the Federal Reserve, on our involvement in wars around the world. Look at the all seeing eye on the back of a one dollar bill.

Anyone who really wants to learn more should, in my opinion, start reading the work of Dr. Michael Parenti. He is a world historian who states the facts. He's not a nutcase. He doesn't talk about the Illuminati. He himself voted for Bill Clinton in '04 (like many he voted for the lesser of two evils.) He is a great social activist, a real American hero. In his words “Globalization is an attempt to extend corporate monopoly control over the entire globe." www.michaelparenti.org


Attachments:
G8meeting.jpg
G8meeting.jpg [ 126.8 KiB | Viewed 254 times ]
Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 517
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Substitute2 wrote:
Bob, nice to hear from you again.

Does the fact that news departments of the major networks (exception is NBC) are controlled by corporate America have an impact on slant of the news. It is very clear to me that it does. ABC, CBS, and CNN all are at a minimum neutral, leaning Republican. And let's stop the ridiculous fair and balanced BS of Fox. They don't even attempt to hide their bias for everything Conservative. Any time of day you get a steady stream of your stuff.

Radio is probably 90% conservative.

So, that leaves newspapers. And while I read many of them, few other Americans do. Hate to down your source of a pay check, but you know very well how subsriptions are consistently falling. So, if the are for Obama somewhat, it matters much less today then yesterday. They are of less import today and it will only lessen in the future.

So, the perception the the media is librel no longer hold your water. No, my friend (McCain's favorite phrase), if anything it slants your way, the wrong way.

Now, don't get all fired up, let's try to keep it light.


Your subsequent post to the above indicated that you were the "fired up" one as you quite unnecessarily, in your librel (sic) way, abused Bob who had posted a reasoned summary of the situation. Further proof, if proof were needed, that the left cannot sustain reasoned, and reasonable, argument.
However, I actually wished to address the quoted post which uses a rather strange argument, and the quaint- seeming but actually totally disingenuous phrase - "if they are for Obama somewhat". Are you implying that the newspapers are not left-biased by virtue of the fact that (you claim) hardly anyone reads them? Perhaps they don't read them precisely because of their political bias.
I guess we will all find out which is the "wrong" or "right" way come November.

_________________
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - William Shakespeare


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5762
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bertie wrote:
Further proof, if proof were needed, that the left cannot sustain reasoned, and reasonable, argument.


As someone who will be voting for the Obama/Biden ticket in November and not the McCain/Palin ticket, I take great umbrage to this ill-reasoned overgeneralization. There are pros and cons to both parties' tickets and anyone who cannot acknowledge this suffers from myopia. I have heard the ramblings of some that the US will become a communist or socialist country if Obama wins and I shrug that off to pure stupidity. However, I would never attempt to generalize everyone on the right as holding tight to those beliefs.

As for the media, I my news channel of choice is to watch CNN and listen to CNN on my XM radio. The next time that I hear Glen Beck say anything positive about the left side of the aisle will be the first. Lou Dobbs appears to be an equal opportunity criticizer. John Cafferty is certainly not adverse to going after both Obama and McCain. There are some that appear to lean one way (Campbell Brown certainly seems to favor the Obama ticket) and those that appear to lean the other side.

In baseball, I tend to tune out those fans who constantly complain that their favorite team gets screwed by the referees or the umpires. Yeah, there might be a bad call or two that goes against there team but it goes both ways. Frankly, I find the complaining about the media to be in the same vein. I'll give you an example of one of the many reasons I feel that way. In the last election cycle, I was having dinner with a client of mine who is the CFO of a international corporation HQ'ed in Europe and with offices in the US. He was going to vote for Bush again and acknowledged that he was doing so mainly because he was a Republican and that he did not particularly care for either ccandidate. However, he admitted that he found the accusations of "liberalness" in the media to be amusing. If you recall at the time, the media was bashed by Bush/Cheney/Rove as being unfair in their coverage of Iraq. The CFO told me that the coverage in Europe was far more critical of what was occuring and that Americans were getting a very sanitized version. If the media was simply a mouthpiece for the "Liberal Left," then why is the coveraged sanitized? I honestly can't compare because I've not spent any time in Europe (other than a 10 day vacation in Ireland/Scotland in '05). I just found it interesting that this individual who is Republican and spends significant time in Europe made that observation.

I also tune out those in the media who constantly tell me that they know "the TRUTH." Anyone who has to caveat what they say as being "the TRUTH" is, IMO, attempting to hide something. I try to learn the facts and reach my own conclusions.

My leisurely reading material on the bedstand is The Economist and The New Yorker. If you want some good market based analysis of presidential candidates, The Economist provides some good reading. The New Yorker also provides some well-researched and extremely well-written articles on the political landscape. Its about all I have the extra time for. I'd welcome the opportunity at any time to get into a reasoned, rational debate with anyone about the upcoming elections and I plan on voting from the left.

And, for what it is worth, I find Barack Obama's refusal to choose Hilary Clinton as his running mate to be a far more "maverick" decision than John McCain's selection of Sara Palin. If Obama had selected Clinton, I would have been leaning towards McCain because of the four years of vitriole that we would have with a Clinton so close to the White House. That being written, McCain's selection of Palin may very well have caused me to jump back over to an Obama/Clinton ticket - although I am 99.9% certain that McCain would not have selected Palin if Clinton was Obama's running mate.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 517
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
So why did they find it necessary to indulge in their usual character assassination tactics? What has that got to do with your perfectly reasonable assessment?
Socialism is all smoke and mirrors. One could laugh if it were not so detrimental to one's personal level of accomplishment.

_________________
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - William Shakespeare


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:47 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6266
Both sides use character assassination as a tactic. It is the slimy side of politics. Heck, George Bush did it to McCain, a fellow party member in 2000. Remember South Carolina?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Bertie-- just for the record, you don't really think that the political slant of newspapers has anything to do with people no longer reading them, do you? What is clear even to the Nuttings is that they have to deversify or no longer make money. They own many papers and they all have a very conservative editorial position. They are losing so many subscriptions that they now have bought Seven Springs and their pet money maker, The Pirates.

No, this generation has decided not to waste (in their minds) their time reading papers when they see other easier and faster ways of getting information. So, as Bob from Boston could atest, newspapers have less and less influence today.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:57 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
We can all see if we choose to, that each of us will interpret the news of the day through our own filter. Each person's views are colored by his own positions. No need to argue about it. As I always like to say, you are perfectly correct on expressing your incorrect ideas and opinions.

I know that I'll never get some of you to see the light.

Let me leave you with one more beauty. Carl Rove has yesterday said the McCain has been going to far with the lies and exaggerations about Obama. WOW, how bad does it have to be for him to say that. he is as we all know, the master of the negative. With him making my point, I don't need to add to it.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:01 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
And Rove said that on Fox, who employs him Don't they?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
What gets me is the constant claim that a candidate is apparently "elitist." Look, if the presidential candidates don't think that they are better than us, then what the fuck are they doing? My God, I would hope that the President is smarter and "more elite" than I am. I don't want a president that would have a beer with me; I want a president that knows what's best for the country.

Unfortunately, being "elitist" is apparently bad in this country, and the GOP apparently uses this to attack Democrats. Apparently, calling out the GOP for issuing untruths labels you a preachy know-it-all and an elitist. Who knew that being smart was a bad thing?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5762
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bertie wrote:
So why did they find it necessary to indulge in their usual character assassination tactics? What has that got to do with your perfectly reasonable assessment?


In all seriousness, to which political party are you referring? If you are suggesting that the Democratic Party has a monopoly on the character assassination game, I could not disagree with you more. Both sides play it with impunity.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4199
Location: Zelienople, PA
I do find the "Your guy sucks, mine is great" whines to be hilarious. If only because it IS POTUS hunting season. Gotta have a tough skin to take the job.

Can't go with Obama/Biden. In all seriousness, I don't believe much in the "preparation" arguement for POTUS, or VPOTUS. And, if you listen closely to past POTUS', you will hear them all say the same thing. You can't prepare for the Presidency. You simply must react, learn, deal with it as it happens.

So, to me that means a candidate with some core convictions and hopefully some demonstration of those core convictions under fire in the past. What made Reagan so popular, and hated by the left, was his ability to actually do most of what he promised he would do. What killed King George the 1st, was his flip flopping on a big promise.

So, that said, while I certainly don't believe that Obama will blow up a police station, vote for infanticide, or is a racist, he certainly seems comfortable enough hanging out with those kinds of folks and calling them friends.

In a campaign based on "judgement", that kind of judgement is scary. Rather than espousing his core principals, Obama seems a man intent on muddying what they are by hiding behind "nuance". And, frankly I for one, don't understand Obama-speakyet . Tho' my brother professes to doing so.

His economic policies that he cites as change, at least as I understand them, are nothing more than old, tired, rehashes 1960's "tax your way to prosperity" combined with some serious income redistribution. Again, while I don't find him to be a communist, he certainly is comfortable taking is economic cues from folks who avowadly do believe, strongly, in Marxist/Socialist tenants. What does that mean in a Pelosi/Reid congress? It means my taxes will be going up, way up, and no way do I make $250K.

McCain on the other hand, at least has a history of crossing the isle and bucking his party. Its not fake, its not contrived. He's done it. I don't like some of what he's done. His attempt at Campaign finance reform is downright unconstitutional to my thinking. But, he at least demonstrates an ability to get something done.

Finally, and this isn't necessarily my position, but a take on the country as a whole, the election will come down to one of two outside influences. Either 1) the economy will continue to bumble along, which is great for Obama and Dems in general. They can always run out the "worst economy ever" line, with effect, or 2) Russia continues to flex its newly found muscle, and we have to decide who can best stare Putin in the eye without blinking. That is definately not an Obama favorable.

Meh, we'll see. It might come down to how much it rains that day, and how many dead people can vote in Philly and Chicago! :D

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits