Tonamel on 19/9/2008 at 18:31
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
But not a reason to vote for him, especially since Gov. Sarah Palin put the State of Alaska's "checkbook" on line when she took office and she & Sen. McCain have pledged to do the same if elected in January.
Which is when everybody jumped on them, saying "It's a great idea. So good, that Obama already did it."
Quote:
It's also scary that the Obamas get invited on talk shows and get asked fluff questions, and McCain gets much harsher treatment on these same shows. It is also scary that the media bias is so blatantly pro-Obama that SNL makes fun of them.
I wonder how much of this is McCain actually getting harsher treatment vs his (and Palin's) inability to answer softball questions. I mean, "What specific experience does Palin have in national security?" is hardly an unexpected, mean-spirited question, but I've yet to see them even try to give a worthwhile answer to it.
Quote:
Silly me - I thought the media was supposed to
report the news, not be the unpaid spin outlet for the political parties. (Side question: is such behavior grounds for revoking their FCC broadcast licenses? And does it exempt them from First Amendment protection? IANAL, so I would like an opinion here.)
After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, broadcasters can say whatever the heck they want.
Starrfall on 19/9/2008 at 18:37
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
So Obama is responsible for that website?
Well, others helped. It's interesting that you add the "if true" as if this is something uncertain. It's very much a fact.
Quote:
But not a reason to vote for him, especially since Gov. Sarah Palin put the State of Alaska's "checkbook" on line when she took office and she & Sen. McCain have pledged to do the same if elected in January.
The checkbook is online already. You can find it at (
http://www.usaspending.gov/)
And of course it's a reason to vote for him. The reason what Palin doesn't stand as a reason to vote for her is because she's a sleezy incompetent.
Quote:
You're right, it IS scary.
What's scary is that you don't care enough to spend five minutes on the internet finding out yourself. What's scary is that you're relying on the media to give you all of your information when you know they're no good at it. What's scary is that despite relying on the media for your information, you've nevertheless managed to blind yourself to the months and months of shit Obama has taken from the media. What's scary is that you think it's bad to talk about plans for the future instead of trying to coast by on past accomplishments.
Quote:
As I've said, I believe a politician should not be afraid in crossing the aisle to get things done. You seem to state that if McCain gets elected he can't possibly get things done. This of course means that you believe if Obama gets elected, things will get done. And you're probably right. So if you value partisanship over bipartisanship, I believe a vote for Obama is the right one for you.
Do I spy a horribly mangled attempt to make the "well if congress is going to be democrat than president should be republican because that's fair!" argument?
(Anyways you're still missing the point that Obama has
in fact crossed the aisle, and you're also missing my implication that even if congress were to be republican Obama would be better at working with them than McCain would be if congress were democrat)
heywood on 19/9/2008 at 18:38
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
Silly me - I thought the media was supposed to
report the news, not be the unpaid spin outlet for the political parties. (Side question: is such behavior grounds for revoking their FCC broadcast licenses? And does it exempt them from First Amendment protection? IANAL, so I would like an opinion here.)
Thankfully, no. The FCC abandoned the fairness doctrine in 1987.
Exposing people to a greater diversity of viewpoints is a good thing, don't you think?
Stitch on 19/9/2008 at 18:59
Quote Posted by Tonamel
I wonder how much of this is McCain actually getting harsher treatment vs his (and Palin's) inability to answer softball questions. I mean, "What specific experience does Palin have in national security?" is hardly an unexpected, mean-spirited question, but I've yet to see them even try to give a worthwhile answer to it.
Well, while irving_forbush is frankly delusional if he thinks the media has been going easy on Obama--apparently they don't get Fox News in his neighborhood--but the media has begun to turn lately on McCain's campaign, which is good as McCain is running on a platform of utter lies. This is called the media simply doing its job.
Starrfall on 19/9/2008 at 19:49
Excerpts from Obama on the economy today. (
http://thepage.time.com/obamas-prepared-remarks-in-miami/) link to full
Quote:
First, we cannot only have a plan for Wall Street. We must also help Main Street as well. I’m glad that our government is moving so quickly in addressing the crisis that threatens some of our biggest banks and corporations. But a similar crisis has threatened families, workers and homeowners for months and months and Washington has done far too little to help.
----------------------
In the same bipartisan spirit that is being shown with regard to the crisis on Wall Street, I ask Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families – a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, spark job creation through repair of our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes, and provide retooling assistance for America’s auto industry.
----------------------
The second principle I would like to see in the emerging plan from the Treasury and the Fed is that our approach should be one of mutual responsibility and reciprocity. It must not be designed to reward particular companies or the irresponsible decisions of borrowers or lenders. It must not be designed to enhance the personal gain of CEOs and management.
----------------------
Third, this plan must be temporary and coupled with tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions, and there must be a clear process to wind down this plan and restore private sector assets into private sector hands after restoring stability to the system. Taxpayers must share in any upside benefit that such stability brings.
Fourth, this plan should be part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20. This is a worldwide issue, and while the United States can and will lead in stabilizing the credit markets, we should ask other nations, who share in this crisis, to be part of the solution as well.
One last point. We did not arrive at this crisis by some accident of history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it will end if I am President of the United States.
irving_forbush on 19/9/2008 at 20:47
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Do I spy a horribly mangled attempt to make the "well if congress is going to be democrat than president should be republican because that's fair!" argument?
No - I'm saying I don't trust either side with enough power to do what THEY want. I also don't trust anyone that thinks they're always right & the other side is always wrong.
Stitch on 19/9/2008 at 20:56
On that we agree. Having one party in command across the board tends to breed arrogance and corruption.
Queue on 19/9/2008 at 23:36
I'm just avoiding this thread like the plague, and not posting.
Wait a minute...
Damnit!
While I'm not posting, and speaking of the wonder that is Fox News (it really makes one wonder when they scream about a "liberal media") did anyone catch Bill Maher slapping Rover and O'Riley about the noodle with their own words recently? It was the funniest damn thing.
Ko0K on 20/9/2008 at 00:52
Democrats are in control of the Congress? Oh, so that's why they could never get enough NeoCons to vote with them to achieve 2/3 majority. Get the fuck out of here...
(edit) In case it isn't obvious, I'm actually doing some fair amount of trolling in here to, you know, stir up shit.
Ko0K on 20/9/2008 at 01:31
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Trust me. I knew exactly what you were alluding too. I was trying to point out what might have been another reason.;)
Short of being a mind-reader, who can possibly tell what that "another reason" may be? Just to be fair, I know there are a lot of Democrats who are only voting for Obama without any consideration for his policies because 1) he is on the Democratic ticket and 2) they're fed up with the NeoCons. I dare say that more than half the voters on either side is going to the polls this year despite having no real opinions on major issues simply because they can't stand losing against the other side.
I honestly believe this divided state being so similar to that experienced in Germany during the Great Depression era is no coincidence. There would be no traceable facts to support such a belief if whoever planned for and designed it did their homework and covered up their tracks, but this reeks of a political agenda, as far as I can tell. I'm just curious as to what kind and magnitude of an event would be required to drive us over the edge and go to an all-out war on each other, but if this was back in the 1800s, we'd be chopping each other's heads off by now.
