Who is Barack Obama?

[Zero Tolerance]

Is America ready to pay reparations for slavery?

Well, it could happen if Barack Obama lands the White House.

You might say, Doesn't Sen. Obama oppose reparations for slavery?

Well, no. He doesn't.

In fact the reparations crowd in Washington and Chicago is salivating at the prospect Obama might stumble into the White House and put them on track for a reparations gravy train.

To tackle the topic, first, a simple question: Is Obama opposed to reparations? Indeed, the question is not so simple. Nothing is ever simple and straightforward where Obama and words come together.

Obama's pirouettes on the question of reparations would enchant any balletomane; his position always depends on who is asking and who is listening. And who is watching.


Read more...

Believe me. This guy isn't going to be the President.

 

[MonsterMark]

Quite the splash jumping into the pool for the 1st time.

Welcome aboard and great post.

I'm trying to wake these guys up. Thanks for the hand.

 

[MonsterMark]

2) That's because you've swallowed the bullsh!t from the right-wing wacko press.

There's a right wing press? News to me. 2% is hardly overpowering, eh.

3) Does that mean the two-thirds of Americans who also think Iraq was a huge mistake are Muslim sympathizers too?

Back in '03, 80% of Americans thought it was a great idea. So what are you saying. It took the press 4 years to brainwash the public into wanting defeat. What a shock.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

Thanks. I signed up just for you..

I wish you luck but you have an entire country of media brainwashed sheeple against you. The majority of this country, right now, is of European anscestry. We've built an awesome country. For the most part, we're a country of good, civilized people with mostly the same customs and beliefs. However, as this country becomes more diversified - in many cases - our country is being taken from us. This is where we were born. This is our home. If you come here from another country, you should change to blend-in. After all, it's our customs and beliefs which have made this country better than the one you're coming from.

Unfortunately, most outsiders are coming here and making us change - ie. not learning the language - and one day, this will be a third world country because of it. Any president that's not 100% American with 100% American customs and beliefs - is only going to bring us closer to that third world scenario faster...

</rant>

Quite the splash jumping into the pool for the 1st time.

Welcome aboard and great post.

I'm trying to wake these guys up. Thanks for the hand.

 

[Jibit]

And what ever happened to wanting someone who can "unite" the country? Bush hasn't exactly done a smack-up job on that front.

I totally disagree with this statement. He united a lot of people in this country..........to hate him!

 

[MonsterMark]

I totally disagree with this statement. He united a lot of people in this country..........to hate him!

Yeh, and Clinton did such a knockup job doing the same eh.

Oh, and so did Carter.

Face it, there are 2 camps, about 40% on each side with 20% in the middle.

Put an R next to someone name and 40% will hate him/her. Fact of life.

I remember back in 1991 during the election, I hired some temp workers that had been laid off from their union jobs. First thing they did was to tell my people they had to vote Democrat in the election even though they knew I was a Bush supporter. According to them, it didn't matter who was running, just pull the D lever.

And then they tried to start a union in the place. Brought in a union steward guy and all. Had my employees not tossed all 3 of them out on their asses, I would have beaten the union guy to a pulp and sold the business. The lies they tell the uneducated is deplorable.

Democrats are the party of hate, hypocrisy and all that is wrong with America. Plain and simple.

 

[MonsterMark]

I totally disagree with this statement. He united a lot of people in this country..........to hate him!

The same 40% of the losers in this Country that hated him when he was elected still hate him now. Wow, what a revelation.:shifty:

Btw, Bush's approval rating is higher than the Demcratically led Congress. Go figure.

 

[Ricks90billblass]

Damn Diatribes

Ok ladies, enough of the political crap... What does Obama think about cars? After all, that is what this site is for??? Did he vote for crusher bills? Pollution credits for big business? I dont know much about Obama but I will research more about him and the other canidates, just like I would when looking for a project car.
FYI I do not vote a party line, I vote for who I think who will do the best job for the country and its citizens.
Good day All, Rick

 

[Frogman]

This is the Politics forum, so...:lol:

 

[Joeychgo]

Btw, Bush's approval rating is higher than the Demcratically led Congress. Go figure.

Hmm -- All below 40%
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Congress has some above 40%
And still a vast improvement over congress' ratings pre 01-07
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

 

[Marcus]

I'm awake and alert Bryan. My eyes are wide open, thank you very much.

There's a right wing press? News to me. 2% is hardly overpowering, eh.

I qualified it with the word "wacko". That would include such web sites as NewsMax, WorldnetDaily, Newsbusters, Media Research Center, CNSNews, FreeRepublic, InsightMag, just to name a few off the top of my head. Sure, there are plenty of liberal wacko web sites as well, but you asked.

Back in '03, 80% of Americans thought it was a great idea. So what are you saying. It took the press 4 years to brainwash the public into wanting defeat. What a shock.

No, it took 4 years for it to finally sink in that the war has been run by a bunch of incompetent boobs, whose every moves have ensured that defeat. With dozens of people being killed daily (the equivilant of at least one Virginia massacre every day), what exactly do you expect the press to cover?

I don't want to get off on a tangent, but the fact that they cover the "bad news" is hardly surprising. Violence and mayhem sell, it's as simple as the bottom line. I would argue that the MSM tends to follow the mood of the people, not the other way around. For example, I remember during the buildup to the Iraq war, MSNBC was going hawg wild with the stars and stripes on all their graphics, accompanied by patriotic music, etc., in a vain attempt to mimic FOX. They even went so far as to fire Phil Donahue and hire extreme right-wing screamer Michael Savage because Donahue was riling up a lot of viewers and God forbid he might make the network appear unpatriotic. Of course the idiocy of the idea is that they assumed they could pull viewers away from FOX by pretending to be FOX. But FOX had already established itself as the voice of the right-wing, and most intelligent people saw the attempt for exactly what it was.

If nothing else, I have to hand it to FOX News for sticking to a formula that works. By building their entire network around conservative ideology, they were guaranteed a somewhat fixed segment of the marketplace. Oh sure, they employ a tiny minority of nominally "liberal" guests and commentators just to have someone for the stars to bounce off of, but I defy any of you to claim with a straight face that FOX isn't dominated by conservative hosts, commentators and guests. I would maintain that, even if the staffs of the other networks are predominently liberals, at least they make an attempt to be objective, whereas FOX News is the only network to have a DELIBERATE political agenda.

I guess I really did get off on a tangent. If anyone wants to retort on this particular topic (and I know you do), please feel free to start another thread.

My original assertation meant to be that the MSM's primary motivation is ratings, above all else, and that the "bias" of the news follows the mood of the viewers (customers), not the other way around. Something else to consider is that more and more people are abandoning the MSM completely and going to the web for their news, so the MSM must try to compete with that by giving people what they want (Michael Jackson, Terri Schiavo, school shootings, screaming talk show hosts, and yes, violence in Iraq) rather than what's actually important. That lowers the standards even further, which adds to the distrust Americans have of the MSM. It's a self-perpetuating loop, and it can only get worse. This is indeed a frightening prospect and BAD for democracy.

But to blame the mood of Americans solely on the "media" is too easy. It's a chicken and the egg thing, and I believe a valid case can be made either way.

 

[MonsterMark]

Hmm -- All below 40%
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Congress has some above 40%
And still a vast improvement over congress' ratings pre 01-07
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

Oops . Real Clear Politics which averages all the polls has Congress up a point this week over Bush. My bad. We'll have to wait another week for that to flip I guess.

 

[MonsterMark]

If nothing else, I have to hand it to FOX News for sticking to a formula that works. By building their entire network around conservative ideology, they were guaranteed a somewhat fixed segment of the marketplace. Oh sure, they employ a tiny minority of nominally "liberal" guests and commentators just to have someone for the stars to bounce off of, but I defy any of you to claim with a straight face that FOX isn't dominated by conservative hosts, commentators and guests. I would maintain that, even if the staffs of the other networks are predominently liberals, at least they make an attempt to be objective, whereas FOX News is the only network to have a DELIBERATE political agenda.

Ya know, when ya look in the mirror, ya get a reverse image.

That is exactly what this paragraph is. An exact reverse. Fox is by FAR the fairest network on the air and that is why people watch it. They are the only network to allow both points of view. It is not Fox's fault for demonstrating that the conservative is almost always superior to the liberal view.

Man, I can't believe you wrote that. The major networks make absolutely no attempt to hide their bias. That's OK too because the major networks are losing their grip on the average Americans daily intake of news.

Conservatives need to move into the wire services where the news is created and then you'll see a ground-swell of conservatism as people get the real news, not the fluff the MSM dishes out daily.

 

[Marcus]

Oops . Real Clear Politics which averages all the polls has Congress up a point this week over Bush. My bad. We'll have to wait another week for that to flip I guess.

Congress's approval ratings have traditionally been abysmal, no matter who's in charge. This is nothing new.

 

[Marcus]

Ya know, when ya look in the mirror, ya get a reverse image.

That is exactly what this paragraph is. An exact reverse. Fox is by FAR the fairest network on the air and that is why people watch it. They are the only network to allow both points of view. It is not Fox's fault for demonstrating that the conservative is almost always superior to the liberal view.

I could go into a long essay on why "allowing both points of view" does not equate with "objective", but I don't have the time tonight. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement. I will pose this question though: Would it be considered "fair and balanced" to pit a Grand Dragon of the KKK against a Jewish Rabbi on the topic of Holocaust reparations? That's an extreme example, but it just goes to show that there can be myriad "points of view", not to mention a wide range of qualifications, on any given topic. Attempting to boil an issue down to "both sides" is just plain ignorant, and serves no one, especially if the one picking the representatives has an agenda.

By the way your last sentence carries about as much weight as me saying to someone, "it's not my fault your mom's a whore". It's a childish taunt, nothing more.

Man, I can't believe you wrote that.

Well I did, and like I said, I stand by it.

The major networks make absolutely no attempt to hide their bias.

An example?

That's OK too because the major networks are losing their grip on the average Americans daily intake of news.

Conservatives need to move into the wire services where the news is created and then you'll see a ground-swell of conservatism as people get the real news, not the fluff the MSM dishes out daily.

So from your point of view, trading one bias for another is good for everyone? Joe Goebbels would have loved you.

 

[Frogman]

Damn, are you two still going at it?
Yes, I know! STFU N00B! this is the Politics forum.

 

[MonsterMark]

Damn, are you two still going at it?

What can I say. TommyB has the innate ability to make my blood boil.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

I don't think most people realize that it's only a matter of time before the "R" and the "D" mean absolutely nothing at all.

 

[MonsterMark]

I could go into a long essay on why "allowing both points of view" does not equate with "objective", but I don't have the time tonight.

I understand the whole 'not tonight dear' thing pretty well.

I'll stand by my point that the major news media, from the wire services to the major networks make absolutely no attempt to be balanced. If fact, since the advent of the Internet, they have become even more brazen, kind of a 'catch us if you can' mentality. The problem you have is your mindset. Liberals can't see what's right in front of them. If you had my ideology, you'd see this stuff (bias) everyday and it would drive you mad.

Nevertheless, I stand by my statement. I will pose this question though: Would it be considered "fair and balanced" to pit a Grand Dragon of the KKK against a Jewish Rabbi on the topic of Holocaust reparations? That's an extreme example, but it just goes to show that there can be myriad "points of view", not to mention a wide range of qualifications, on any given topic. Attempting to boil an issue down to "both sides" is just plain ignorant, and serves no one, especially if the one picking the representatives has an agenda.

Show me another network that allows liberals and conservatives to go at it besides Fox? Keith Dobamine? Nope. Chris (drool) Matthews? Wolf (I'm) Blitzered? Nope. Couric, Schieffer, Williams? You must be kidding.

By the way your last sentence carries about as much weight as me saying to someone, "it's not my fault your mom's a whore". It's a childish taunt, nothing more.

It is in reality a fact. Conservative always win the argument on the merits. That is why you guys never want to debate.

An example?

Need I go any farther than RatherGate? Please. How about the way every article is created at the Associated Press? They trip over themselves to write bias. It must be somewhere on the employment contract.

Here, this should help to inform you....
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
http://www.umich.edu/~newsbias/links.html
I can provide lots of educational opportunities for you should you prefer.

So from your point of view, trading one bias for another is good for everyone? Joe Goebbels would have loved you.

No, I would prefer that both points of view be put on the table and let the viewer decide. Every issue should have a point/counterpoint without a bias to the story. Just the facts as BOTH sides see it and then the viewer, not the writers, draw the conclusion. If we actually did that, liberalism would be dead, as people would see it as nothing more than a money grab.

Case in point. Global Warming (snicker). All the libs on one side, all the conservatives on the other.

Liberals - put government in charge to fix and mandate it.
Conservatives - let the free market solve the problem. Provide the incentive and get the hell out of the way.

 

[TheDude]

I don't think most people realize that it's only a matter of time before the "R" and the "D" mean absolutely nothing at all.

Unfortunately the 'R' is becoming too far right and the 'D' is becoming too far left and our candidates have to pander to either religious fanatics or socialist tree huggers.

 

[Calabrio]

Unfortunately the 'R' is becoming too far right and the 'D' is becoming too far left and our candidates have to pander to either religious fanatics or socialist tree huggers.

I'll agree that the "D" is moving too far left.

But you say the "R" is too far "right."
So which Presidential candidate is more conservative than Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, or Calvin Coolidge?

Specifically, on what issues do you think that the "R"s are too extreme on?

I do think that the Republican candidates this year are actually more mainstream conservative than most people are giving them credit for. I think that it's an impressive field. Rudy, Romney, McCain, Hunter, possibly Thomas, ect.- that's a strong group of candidates, and I'd support any of them if they got the nomination. In contrast, look at the horrible lot of candidates the Democrats have put forward. Hillary or Barrack. Too junior senators, with no real world experience, no executive experience, and Hillary can't even function in a situation that isn't tightly scripted.

 

[TheDude]

I'll agree that the "D" is moving too far left.

But you say the "R" is too far "right."
So which Presidential candidate is more conservative than Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, or Calvin Coolidge?

Specifically, on what issues do you think that the "R"s are too extreme on?

I do think that the Republican candidates this year are actually more mainstream conservative than most people are giving them credit for. I think that it's an impressive field. Rudy, Romney, McCain, Hunter, possibly Thomas, ect.- that's a strong group of candidates, and I'd support any of them if they got the nomination. In contrast, look at the horrible lot of candidates the Democrats have put forward. Hillary or Barrack. Too junior senators, with no real world experience, no executive experience, and Hillary can't even function in a situation that isn't tightly scripted.

Not the candidates are too extreme themselves, that they have to pander to extremist sides.

 

[shagdrum]

Unfortunately the 'R' is becoming too far right and the 'D' is becoming too far left and our candidates have to pander to either religious fanatics or socialist tree huggers.

Define "religious fanatics" please. I can never get a clear definition besides "someone the left-wing press doesn't like". I need a more vivid definition of who this group is, what power they exert and how they exert it.

 

[shagdrum]

I could go into a long essay on why "allowing both points of view" does not equate with "objective", but I don't have the time tonight. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement. I will pose this question though: Would it be considered "fair and balanced" to pit a Grand Dragon of the KKK against a Jewish Rabbi on the topic of Holocaust reparations? That's an extreme example, but it just goes to show that there can be myriad "points of view", not to mention a wide range of qualifications, on any given topic. Attempting to boil an issue down to "both sides" is just plain ignorant, and serves no one, especially if the one picking the representatives has an agenda.

I agree with the idea that allowing both (or all) points of view does not equate "objective", but it is a close as u can get in news. While there may be a multiple points of view, they all fit somewhere along the political spectrum (which in this country is defined by liberals on one side and conservatives on the other). So your beef with the idea of "both" points of view is groundless and just further confuses the issue, because the idea is to allow both sides of the political spectrum to be heard.
As to FOX news, they do cater to a conservative audience, but this doesn't mean they have a conservative bias. The mainstream national media caters (and has catered for years) to the limosine left in NY, DC and LA. They do this by only presenting one sided points of view and one sided sets of "facts". For the longest time, when a "consevative" point of view was heard it was typically a distortion of the real conservative point of view, and was only presented to be trashed. Much of the rest of the nation was fed up with this bias, and a market of non-leftist was availible for FOX (among others) to capitalize on. Fox actually presents an accurate conservative point of view that is on equal footing with the liberal point of view. Only in comparison to the mainstream media can they be considered to have a "conservative bias". They don't distort the news in a conservative fashion, unless u consider that fact that they r a "patriotic" news station a sign of conservative bias.
In an earlier post, u list a number of more conservative news sources (newsmax, drudge, ect..) I assume to point out that they are not credible. I would hope u realize that bias has nothing to do with credibility. Accuracy has to do with credibility. If this news sources lied, distorted, ommited or otherwise use intellectually dishonest tactics, then yes they would lose credibility. That fact is these intellectually dishonest tactics r typical of most left wing (mainstream) news sources, not so much right wing news sources. A comparison of Michael Moore and Ann Coulter is a prime example of what I am talkin' 'bout. Michael Moore is famous for his itellectually dishonest tactics. Lies, distortions, hack edit jobs, and taking things out of context are all par for the course for Mr. Moore. Michael Moore logically has no credibility due to these tactics. Ann Coulter does have credibility. While people try to claim that she lies or distorts, they r never able to back up such claims. The main way the media tries to attack her credibility is by changing the standard for credibility away from accuracy, and put it on her character, which they then proceed to attack and try to marginalize her.

 

[Calabrio]

Not the candidates are too extreme themselves, that they have to pander to extremist sides.

Honestly, I don't see that happening.

What extremists are being pandered too or what policies are the result of "extremist pressures" on the right?

I'm confident that you believe this, but I don't think you've ever really had to think about it. While the left is pushing the Democrat parties policies into the extreme (regarding foreign policy, social policy, fiscal policy, ect.) can you think of a some examples where this is happening on the right?

Who is the "extreme right" anyway? The very nature of being on the "right" means that you DO NOT want government activism.