View Full Version : Is Obama a Socialist?
That's rich. Obama and his administration are the one's who overreacted!
Yep....as I said, fools
steelish
08-03-2010, 09:53 AM
Yep....as I said, fools
I quite agree. Instead of watching the entire speech and realizing she was telling the story of her "Aha" moment, they reacted to a single portion of it.
Even listening to Obama's entire speech to the Hampton grads doesn't explain what he said! He's telling them that there is TOO MUCH INFORMATION out there. That there's too much to process. That there are liars out there. (Well, duh) He's practically implying that they're too stupid to process the information themselves and come to their own conclusion.
Whether you agree with him or not is moot. The point being, in America you can believe what you want, whether you're right or wrong and it's your right to listen to whatever source of information you want to, whether it's your XBox (what a joke) or your iPod or a newspaper...and for a President to tell young adults that this is wrong is ridiculous.
chuck
08-03-2010, 11:30 AM
it's your right to listen to whatever source of information you want to, whether it's your XBox (what a joke) or your iPod or a newspaper...~sigh~ a newspaper (also... "what a joke").
steelish
08-04-2010, 06:03 AM
~sigh~ a newspaper (also... "what a joke").
I agree as most newspapers (and news channels) nowadays are very biased and it's difficult to find news sources that report things from an unobjective standpoint.
chuck
08-04-2010, 09:39 AM
I agree as most newspapers (and news channels) nowadays are very biased and it's difficult to find news sources that report things from an unobjective standpoint.Objective or not, it would help if they reported and asked questions about topics I think are important. All forms of media will have a bias... it's unavoidable. It's when they exclude information and distort other views that it changes from being a news outlet to a propaganda outlet.
TantricSoul
08-04-2010, 11:01 AM
... It's when they exclude information and distort other views that it changes from being a news outlet to a propaganda outlet.
I completely agree with you here chuck, so called "card-stacking" is rampant in today's media no matter which direction one turns.
In any event I can see that any other participation by myself in this paticular thread will be utterly useless...so in the words of perhaps one of the last principled journalists to ever grace the airwaves ...
"Good night, and good luck".
I agree, dipped in briefly and can see that this is a dialogue of the deaf, people are not going to let their beliefs be confused by facts.
The really sad thing is that these people's fears have not changed substantially since they were saying the same things about the New Deal or the Kennedys.
"He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water."
Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed.
denuseri
08-04-2010, 12:57 PM
Ok I lied..I have returned...not to debate anything...only to thank leo for his words of wisdom and Tantric for his moderation.
One should study history so that one does not repeat it.
DuncanONeil
08-07-2010, 04:59 PM
In America the "ruling" class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist,greedy, and above all stupid. ... The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey." (Angelo M Codevilla Professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston U.)
How is it "out of context" to point out that Obama says if you want to know how he thinks and feels, look at who he surrounds himself with. I then point out that he surrounds himself with Chavez and Mao Zedung supporters and believers. He surrounds himself with people who were American terrorists in the '60s. He surrounds himself with people who believe that Capitalism is a joke and political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water.
This is not stuff that is untrue. It's simple facts that can be found by research. They don't hide their beliefs. They state them openly. There are video clips of some of them saying this stuff in their own words and can be found on YouTube!
And what the hell is this speech really about? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I6DpDhw8i4) Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."
None of this raises red flags for you?
DuncanONeil
08-07-2010, 05:01 PM
It fits in again, perhaps more appropriately;
"In America the "ruling" class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist,greedy, and above all stupid. ... The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey." (Angelo M Codevilla Professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston U.)
I quite agree. Instead of watching the entire speech and realizing she was telling the story of her "Aha" moment, they reacted to a single portion of it.
Even listening to Obama's entire speech to the Hampton grads doesn't explain what he said! He's telling them that there is TOO MUCH INFORMATION out there. That there's too much to process. That there are liars out there. (Well, duh) He's practically implying that they're too stupid to process the information themselves and come to their own conclusion.
Whether you agree with him or not is moot. The point being, in America you can believe what you want, whether you're right or wrong and it's your right to listen to whatever source of information you want to, whether it's your XBox (what a joke) or your iPod or a newspaper...and for a President to tell young adults that this is wrong is ridiculous.
DuncanONeil
08-07-2010, 05:02 PM
I agree as most newspapers (and news channels) nowadays are very biased and it's difficult to find news sources that report things from an unobjective standpoint.
Anyone wonder if they are being paid by the DNC?
DuncanONeil
08-07-2010, 05:05 PM
You mentioned facts. Then I am to presume that; "Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed." was meant to be facetious?
I agree, dipped in briefly and can see that this is a dialogue of the deaf, people are not going to let their beliefs be confused by facts.
The really sad thing is that these people's fears have not changed substantially since they were saying the same things about the New Deal or the Kennedys.
"He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water."
Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed.
DuncanONeil
08-07-2010, 05:06 PM
Only one thing wrong! Leo9 is studying movies not history!!
Ok I lied..I have returned...not to debate anything...only to thank leo for his words of wisdom and Tantric for his moderation.
One should study history so that one does not repeat it.
You mentioned facts. Then I am to presume that; "Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed." was meant to be facetious?
Inasmuch as one has to laugh about these things so as not to start screaming. And yes, as it happens, I was aware that he was a fictitious character: I was also aware that he was a not very exagerated satire on a very real and widespread scare among the right wing of the time. I followed it in its day with wonder and incredulity, which is why I was so fascinated by its new incarnation.
One should study history so that one does not repeat it.
Speaking of history, it strikes me that this single theme of panics about drinking water would be material for a thesis. I recall that in the Middle Ages, one of the recurrent excuses for pogroms against the Jews was the claim that they were causing the Plague by poisoning wells.
The fact that the more recent versions have so much involved threats to men's fertility and potency suggests the Freudian association between water and sexuality.
It also offers the familiar spectacle of the Right pointing its guns in exactly the wrong direction, since the real and well documented threat to men's fertility in the developed world is the prevalence of oestrogen analogues in factory-farmed meat and milk. And the same people who fear the government secretly medicating them would rise up to defend industry from regulation to prevent its free-enterprise hidden medication.
"In America the "ruling" class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist,greedy, and above all stupid. " (Angelo M Codevilla Professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston U.)
Amazing. What could possibly give them such a totally groundless and unsupported impression? Don't they watch the news?
Anyone wonder if they are being paid by the DNC?
Ever wonder if Fox is being paid by the RNC? As right wing as they are, I highly doubt that
steelish
08-13-2010, 06:35 AM
Ever wonder if Fox is being paid by the RNC? As right wing as they are, I highly doubt that
You're right, they're not. However, NBC is owned by General Electric - a company that heavily funds the Democratic party. (Gee, imagine that.) ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Company - I'm sure poor Walt is turning over in his grave right now. He was heavily anti-Communist and against many of the policies the current administration is backing and ABC is reporting on as "good". CBS is owned by Sumner Redstone - a Democratic supporter.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch - an Australian-born American who has many British holdings. He has (big shock) Conservative leanings. The real difference here though, is that the Fox news programs encourage people to investigate what is being reported. ABC, CBS and NBC do not do that.
TantricSoul
08-13-2010, 09:20 AM
"NBC is owned by General Electric - a company that heavily funds the Democratic party. (Gee, imagine that.)"
Actually according to this information
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125
one can see the GE funded the GOP more so than the DNC between 1996 and 2008. Seems as though they "heavily fund" whichever party is in power. As do most major political contributors, because thats what corporations and large donors care about ... power, they don't really care who wields it just as long as its used in the donors favor.
As far as whether Walt is upset about politics in the afterlife, I'll leave that for the psychics to determine.
Fox news "fair and balanced?" ... heres an interesting section from Rupert Murdoch's wikipedia page:
In early summer 2008, a "tentative truce" was brokered during a once secret meeting between Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes (President of the Fox News Channel) at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Obama had initially resisted Murdoch's propositions, despite senior News Corp. executives having recruited the Kennedys to act as go-betweens. Obama resented Fox News's portrayal of him "as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist", while Ailes, according to American journalist Michael Wolff, said, "it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand."
Roger Ailes has been very close to the GOP, involved in several Republican administrations, as can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes
But seriously folks if you are caught up in left vs right fight.
liberal = good/bad or conservative = good/bad ...
you are falling for the distraction.
You are just like the citizens of Rome, watching the games while the Empire dissolves.
Forty four percent of members of congress are millionaires ... millionaires represent one percent of the US population.
Wake up!
Respectfully,
Tantric
DuncanONeil
08-14-2010, 09:36 AM
"a very real and widespread scare among the right wing of the time."
I do not believe it was that limited. I lived through most of that, including the Atomic Bomb drills. I even was taking cover when the cities weekly test of the alarms was activated.
Just in case there is an inclination, I grew up in Chicago in the family of a worker for the CTA and related to Richard J Daley.
DuncanONeil
08-14-2010, 10:01 AM
(F)amiliar spectacle of the Right pointing its guns in exactly the wrong direction,
Again I am perforce required to view this as an attempt at an allegory. But you must agree that taking it only as written is intended to imply that all the guns belong to the right. Presuming that real guns are those referred to, since the right does not currently have the power of Washington, does it not seem silly to suggest that some 40% of the population owns 100% of the guns?
"The number of guns owned by civilians in the United States is between 238 million and 276 million, ..., the study by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva" The US gun stock: results from the 2004 national firearms survey
"38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners." (Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)
This works out to around four guns per owner. However if we apply the statistical data that about 40% of the population is Conservative these figures now become 22.8 million conservatives owning 238 million firearms, with 10.5 firearms each. The second seems quite preposterous.
Yes I know Gun ownership is not evenly spread.
DuncanONeil
08-14-2010, 10:03 AM
(T)he real and well documented threat to men's fertility in the developed world
I have not heard this could I get some citations for review?
DuncanONeil
08-14-2010, 10:05 AM
Amazing. What could possibly give them such a totally groundless and unsupported impression? Don't they watch the news?
Sometimes it is hard to tell, without being able to see expressions and hear tones of voice, if you are serious or not.
If not could you include a (tic) with your comments?
DuncanONeil
08-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Ever wonder if Fox is being paid by the RNC? As right wing as they are, I highly doubt that
No I do not! But then again I do not see the totality of Fox operating in a manner anywhere near the manner of the likes of the people I mentioned.
"Fox's 1.3 million prime-time viewers: 52 percent are conservative, 30 percent moderate and 13 percent liberal. ... The liberals' media favorites are slightly less lopsided. "NewsHour's" audience is 22 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate and 27 percent liberal. NPR's audience is 31 percent conservative, 33 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal." (Robert J. Samuelson June 28, 2004 Newsweek). These numbers provide evidence that one side of the political spectrum is less biased that the other. The numbers show that conservatives are more inclined to listen to both sides of an issue while liberals are not so inclined.
steelish
08-18-2010, 07:24 AM
You are just like the citizens of Rome, watching the games while the Empire dissolves.
I have been saying (over and over again) that the problems in Washington are not partisan, they are equally corrupt!
No I do not! But then again I do not see the totality of Fox operating in a manner anywhere near the manner of the likes of the people I mentioned.
"Fox's 1.3 million prime-time viewers: 52 percent are conservative, 30 percent moderate and 13 percent liberal. ... The liberals' media favorites are slightly less lopsided. "NewsHour's" audience is 22 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate and 27 percent liberal. NPR's audience is 31 percent conservative, 33 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal." (Robert J. Samuelson June 28, 2004 Newsweek). These numbers provide evidence that one side of the political spectrum is less biased that the other. The numbers show that conservatives are more inclined to listen to both sides of an issue while liberals are not so inclined.
Bit of an assumption you've drawn there.
steelish
10-14-2010, 07:59 AM
Bit of an assumption you've drawn there.
Not really. I watch NBC, CNN and read the daily paper in addition to watching Fox News. Fox News is a conservative station, to be certain. What I find amusing is how Glenn Beck shows his sources and encourages his viewers to "not take my word for it...DON'T blindly believe what I tell you. Investigate. Make your own decisions." People ARE now investigating things. That much is obvious. Have any liberals specifically sat and watched Fox, or do they simply agree with what the other stations say about Fox News without actually seeing for themselves, that is the question.
Heh. I have yet to see NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, etc. tell their viewers to "not take their word for it" to "investigate all their claims".
Heh. I have yet to see NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, etc. tell their viewers to "not take their word for it" to "investigate all their claims".
Perhaps they credit their viewers with sufficient nous to investigate on their own initiative.
Not really. I watch NBC, CNN and read the daily paper in addition to watching Fox News. Fox News is a conservative station, to be certain. What I find amusing is how Glenn Beck shows his sources and encourages his viewers to "not take my word for it...DON'T blindly believe what I tell you. Investigate. Make your own decisions." People ARE now investigating things. That much is obvious. Have any liberals specifically sat and watched Fox, or do they simply agree with what the other stations say about Fox News without actually seeing for themselves, that is the question.
Heh. I have yet to see NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, etc. tell their viewers to "not take their word for it" to "investigate all their claims".
Beck described himself on the View as a commentator as opposed to a journalist. Anyone who thinks him as a journalist has been misled. So yeah, check his facts.
And I was replying to Duncan's assertion that by a few statistics, you can't assume one side is more biased then the other. I can pull out a whole bunch on stats based on teen pregnancy, education rates, crime rates, etc and show you how Red States are behind then blue states, but it's not a fair assumption I can make without actually researching into the topic, figuring out social and other aspects in it.
Hopefully I haven't done this, (If so please call me out) but generalizing isn't helping any discussion. I know and deeply admire some people with politics that vastly differ from mine, but that doesn't mean either of us is ignorant, or biased. Senseless name calling dumbs down the discussion rather then promote solutions.