Not A Big Obama Fan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lepplady, Nov 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hossenpepper
    Offline

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    And wrote a book about how he had been duped into childish thinking for many years and what made him see how off base it was. Be a good read for you. You can write rebuttal comments in the margins as you peruse it. :)
    Tery and Lepplady like this.
  2. hossenpepper
    Offline

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    Well there is a difference between debate and targeting stuff to hide behind so that when you are proved dead wrong you don't have to answer to the real analysis of how it was wrong. And "I disgaree... No, No, No that's not true" with nothing else to back it up except your insistence isn't a counter. It's an admission that you lost. Saying something posted is a personal insult, when it's responding to one's opinions with an opposite opinion or evaluation that isn't related to them as a person, but rather their actions or statements or general concepts, is an old way of spinning the conversation so the actual debate of reality can't continue. It's also a sign of someone who knows they lost.

    Please understand that these were general comments about things I have experienced at other places. I wasn't referring to anyone here who may or may not do that. It wouldn't be so obvious as anyone with a 2nd grade or higher education could see it clearly. :)
    Tery, FlakeNoir, Shasta and 1 other person like this.
  3. Lepplady
    Offline

    Lepplady The incredible shrinking woman

    The guy makes a career out of stirring the political hot pot so he can write about it and make some money. He's got way too much of a personal profit incentive for anything he writes to come across clean facts. Show me something unbiased and I'll take notes on that.
    :)
    Walter Oobleck likes this.
  4. hossenpepper
    Offline

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    I think Tery tried real hard to explain this, but I will try again. First off, it is impossible for the most part for anything a human says to be "unbiased" as it will always be delivered in the fashion in which they write or speak. So if that is your standard, congrats you found an endless loophole of circular logic that precludes you from having to take anything you don't want to as a "fact". A bit back I posted two stories from the Fox website. One about Anthony Wiener, one about Rep.Radel from FL. If you objectively look at these two stories, you can clearly see the different way they are presented. This clearly illustrates what I am saying. The writers at Fox slant right. I am guessing you wouldn't disagree. So because they slant right, so does their reporting. That may be unconscious, or it may be in a nefarious attempt to skew "facts". Who can really say if you get down to it? However, we all KNOW when we see this happen. I can buy your assertion that this guy slants. And thus so will his writing. BUT, does that negate the facts presented on which he then expounds? Is the fact that you interpret them differently NOT make them facts. Because sometimes, if you accept facts, either proving a theory on the left or the right, they make it impossible for you to skew them back to your personal slant. This is exactly what has happened here. You've refused to accept facts by either ignoring them or discredting the source because you don't like the slant they take AFTER the facts are presented. Basically, you're saying if it's a liberal slanting organization, they simply make up lies, but neocon ones, they only tell the truth. I mean it's worth an honest asking: do you REALLY believe that? I just don't see how anyone who cares abotu the truth could, regardless of left or right.

    In the case of the Fox example, do the actual facts presented about the Wiener scandal have no truth to them? No, of course they are true. They did present facts, but it's the way and the expansion and inclusion of opinion that makes it suspect. I wasn't to try to say that left wing places don do that too, Of course they do. But, the difference in your response to those is right slanted writers who do this just do it because their slant is "reality" to you and the left slanted ones do it because of a litany of manufactured opinionated reasons you cite. If Fox is doing the same thing as this guy,why aren't you upset with them? Or the other right slanted places and people you've cited? Why aren't they suspect for skewing the conversation away from the real truth?

    So the point is this: if you're gonna say the left slanted people and places are suspect because they slant, then you have to hold Fox and others to the same scrutiny. Maybe you have somewhere, but I missed those posts if you did. What I've seen is towing the Fox News line so far.
  5. Shasta
    Offline

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    Thank you for this post.
    Tery and FlakeNoir like this.
  6. DiO'Bolic
    Offline

    DiO'Bolic Mr. Man


    Good information, thanks for all the work you did. I must admit I wasn’t aware of all that.

    But (or as I call it ‘yabut’ ;)) Hillary Clinton has resigned as SoS. No action was taken against her, and none will be. Should she have been reprimanded is a matter of contention. The bi-partisan Senate intelligence committee report repudiates just about every White House and State Department talking point in the aftermath of Benghazi tragedy. The report is therefore a recognition of the administration’s negligence and lack of honesty.

    The only consequences Hillary will suffer will be in the court of public opinion as it relates to the 2016 election, for a perceived failure of leadership. We can argue nuances and technicalities, but what difference would it make in the big scheme of things? Nuances don’t win elections; pithy slogans and non-binding promises win elections. It will be up to the people to decide if her actions, or inaction in the matter are serious enough in their minds to affect her chances. Right or wrong the people will have the notion that at 3am the phone rang and she couldn’t be bothered, and Barack Obama was more concerned with a upcoming fundraiser in Las Vegas. A wrong picture of the facts perhaps, but how deep does the average voter go in looking for the truth? The democratic faithful will exonerate her in the matter of Benghazi, and the republicans will castigate her. The real question is what will the Independents think? Will "Hillary Lied, People Died" be all that the voters remember when they cast their votes?

    You watching President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight? I haven’t missed one in decades. Everyone right now is talking about his threat to raise the minimum wage by Executive Order (well for government contracts that is, as it is the only power he has by EO to affect the minimum wage). But here’s something to remember: Does he have budgetary authority to do this? It’s Congress who authorizes spending levels. The executive branch can negotiate contracts only within their authorized spending levels. President Obama can issue an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for government contracts, but it doesn’t give him any more money to spend. Not until Congress authorizes more money that is.
  7. FlakeNoir
    Offline

    FlakeNoir Beta/Moderator Moderator

    Oh I (and most people here) am eyes wide open, don't you worry. :)
    hossenpepper and Sundrop like this.
  8. hossenpepper
    Offline

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    Yeah I will watch it... I always do. I see both sides on the minimum wage argument. Though economic theory can show you it doesn't have a wide effect on inflation, we all know it does. Even if that is via perception. If your question is if Obama's action will be seen as constitutional, this guy is slick Barry when it comes to that. I think peopel keep forgetting his resume and how well he truly understands what does and doesn't pass muster. At the very least, even if you disagree with him, you have to at least be glad he IS thinking about that aspect before he acts. Whether you choose to see the intentions thereof to be figuring out how to skirt it, or to truly respect and evolve our understanding and application of it, is a personal choice.

    In regards to Hillary, you're spot on. In the end it's perception that build a voter's truth for the most part. I suppose I am a Madisonian when it comes to voting, but by that standard we'd only have about 100,000 people able to vote with the rest eating Cheetos and watching Duck Dynasty (cry pardon if anyone reading this likes that show... but it's stupid as hell). I do take exception to the instant spin on the right to immediately say it was a scandal BEFORE any real facts were public. It's kinda been my point in here. The right just pounces this guy before he even does anything and they have since he decided to run the first time. The "Hillary lied, people died" thing is so disingenuous. It implies that her lies about something caused the death, to the lemming mind. And WTF is with all the damn rhyming phrases and "whatever-gates"? So silly when the media or anyone else does that. It belittles the tragedy and the facts involved.

    But to wrap it with Benghazi... It was a tragedy that maybe could have been avoided. But even if they had doubled security, most likely that wouldn't have been enough. What we do know for sure is NO ONE could've predicted the intensity and strength of the attack, so taking the Goldilocks and 3 Bears approach that this wasn't enough and this would've been just right, doesn't really hold much water. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose it what I am saying. And I give the Bush admin that credit for 9/11 and see no reason this shouldn't be treated the same.
    Tery, Shasta, FlakeNoir and 2 others like this.
  9. Lepplady
    Offline

    Lepplady The incredible shrinking woman

    Actually, I pretty much avoid Fox news. I tend to stick to more reputable sources like CNN, CNBC, BBC, the NY Times, Reuters, the Washington Post, even Snopes. Unlike Fox, they do a fair job of presenting facts without slant. Maybe, as you say, no source is completely without some measure of bias, but the ones I mentioned do a much better job of toeing that center line. Not perfect, maybe. But much better.

    I think there's a misconception that I'm a right wing Republican because I don't support Obama. This couldn't be further from the truth. I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican. I am simply American. I don't support the bipartisan system. People pay more attention to party than politics, and that takes the focus off of the issues that should be front and center. If a Republican President does a bad job, I'll be just as fast to flame them for it, too.
  10. Tery
    Offline

    Tery Moderator Moderator

    Sure Shasta. Maybe DiO'Bolic can read it, too. Since he seems to think Condi didn't blow off Richard Clarke. (She did)

    National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
    Shasta likes this.
  11. Tery
    Offline

    Tery Moderator Moderator

    You must have missed the other names on that book. David Brock is just one of several authors. Ari Rabin-Havt is a well-respected journalist. Several staff writers for Media Matters also contributed. So, dissing the author might seem like it's a good way to avoid the facts. But it's not.

    Did you read the reviews? From pretty unbiased sources, too:

    Again, I urge you to splurge and read this book. Hell, I will even pay for it! You can't beat that deal, eh? Facts are priceless. ;)
    Lepplady and Shasta like this.
  12. Shasta
    Offline

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    Tery likes this.
  13. Lepplady
    Offline

    Lepplady The incredible shrinking woman

    Not only the material inside a book can be severely slanted (no matter how many names are on it), but the reviews can be, too. I'll pass on this one, thanks.
    Walter Oobleck likes this.
  14. DiO'Bolic
    Offline

    DiO'Bolic Mr. Man


    Okay I’ve read a lot of it. I’ve noticed in the piece of warnings from Clarke over numerous time periods of possibilities of impending threats in a bunch of different places around the world, and I read about actions taken to address them. Yikes, seems like according to Clarke there was a new and serious terrorism threat somewhere in the world every week. Please point specifically to where in your supporting data that Rice "IGNORED" Clarke’s warnings that something was imminent (to the point specific actionable measures could have been taken), and going to happen in New York and Washington. Thanks in advance.
  15. hossenpepper
    Offline

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    O...K... But, you post links and pics from the super right leaning sources and say things that read like a Tea Party manifesto, so... :hmm: :confuse: :ft::nope:

    the idea that you were far right wing came from your comments, pics and links that you chose to post. I never said republican. I don't focus on that. I rate things based on liberal and conservative. I don't like either extreme. I dislike PETA as much as I dislike the Tea Party (because people are animals too, meat is yummy & money isn't all life and government are about, and I don't hate progressive thinking). I am harsh on immigration and very liberal on social issues like gay marriage and misogyny.

    For me, the prez sets the drum beat and gives speeches. That, and is our true ambassador to the world. If that image is negative around the world, then they are not doing their job. As far as the domestic perception, well people love to assign way too much direct effect to that office and ultimately blame the prez for thing snot really in their sphere. From that perspective, Obama is doing a great job. The rest of it, he makes suggestions and advises legislation. In the end, though, congress makes the laws and holds the checkbook. So most of the time when we gripe about this or that with the gov't, it's congress that should be the focus, not the prez.
    Tery and Sundrop like this.
  16. Lepplady
    Offline

    Lepplady The incredible shrinking woman

    This might be the first thing we agree about.
    Walter Oobleck and Sundrop like this.
  17. hossenpepper
    Offline

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    :shock:

    Weather report from hell: Temps dropping like brimstone, ice forming on outer rings. Cerberus requested sweater.
    FlakeNoir, Sundrop and Lepplady like this.
  18. Shasta
    Offline

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    I'm a card carrying member.
    Sundrop, hossenpepper and Lord Tyrion like this.
  19. Lepplady
    Offline

    Lepplady The incredible shrinking woman

    And also that meat is yummy.
  20. Lord Tyrion
    Offline

    Lord Tyrion Well-Known Member

    Peta goes a bit far sometimes, but they do excellent work. Sometimes they're the only ones doing anything about animal torture. Unlike the Tea Party, Peta is contributing to the world.
    Tery, Sundrop and hossenpepper like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

A Good Marriage