|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 20, 2008 8:13:29 GMT -5
lofigator -- your problems are that you reflexively label everyone and you fail to actually digest people's points before spewing garbage. That is why no one takes you seriously. You sound like a freshman in college, freshly popped collar and coifed hair, reciting for an audience what your daddy said around the dinner table for years while railing against "dirty liberals." And yes, I meant that to be insulting. elvade -- clearly, you're the luckiest man in the world for having had the enlightenment to elucidate such an erudite point. At least Obama can read off a teleprompter. All -- raise your hand if you've ever run for office of any kind since turning 18? It SO easy to criticize those who run for elected office, but a lot harder to actually do it. I think we should cut both candidates some slack for the small stuff and focus on their philosophies of the office of the president, their positions and intentions with regard to issues of national significance (including their ideologies), and their histories on such issues. Objectively---not influenced by any political bias (as an Independent)---Barack Obama whips John McCain going away. After reading his issue papers, listening to his stumps, tuning in to his philosophies, and taking in his prescient position on the conflict in Iraq, Obama is---in my mind---the goods. John McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, who---to his misfortune and in an incredible act of heroism---suffered as a POW for five years, got hitched to a rich lady, rode Barry Goldwater's coattails, and has been in bed with the privileged ever since. His stances on the economy are disastrous at best (this comes from many, many experts in the field, including his buddies at the Economist), a roadmap to the end of the American way of life at worst. He also cannot see past the war philosophies of the cold war. He's hardly different from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Gonzalez-Ashcroft neocon crowd in that, and other, regards. He's only seen as a "maverick" because he's taken stances to reign in some of their absurdity. He would be an excellent secretary of defense. I do not want him as my president (but would gladly take him over our current president). Barack Obama grew up without his natural father. His mother died of cancer at the age of 52. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in one of the toughest neighborhoods in America. To even suggest that he has led a charmed life is cowardly. Many of his stances are ethereal, true. He is relatively young and does not have formal, political leadership experience, true. But his stances on the issues I care about are more in line with what I believe than his competitor's are. Simple as that. And I believe I'm right. I make no apologies for how arrogant that sounds. I'm tired of being attacked for what I believe, derided and labeled for the stances I take (which are almost 100% based on available and objective fact, as opposed to a particular interpretation of an ancient document that has been translated several times from its originating languages), and then told that---even on the issues on which I have been PROVEN (such as pollution=bad) to be correct---told that my solutions fall into some ideological category that that rich and privileged find undesirable. So go ahead and attack me. I'm just a poster on a message board. But do not be condescending as to simplify a presidential candidate to a single word. It's that kind of thinking and actions that have led us to where we are today. I'll reiterate: how about we cut both candidates some slack for the little things and focus on issues that matter, like energy, water, armed conflict, the economy, the dissolution of the middle class, the massive problems facing the federal budget, and unprecedented secrecy and deceit from an Administration more interested in pushing its ideology than dealing with reality.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 20, 2008 8:30:08 GMT -5
Or his answer clearly demonstrated that without his trusty teleprompter, he is the empty suit I've always believed him to be. Harvard Law Review and a U. Chicago law professor? You may not like what he says, but the man isn't an idiot. Look, both McCain and and Obama are interesting, smart men with a lot to say. I see no reason to bash the individuals when there's plenty of substance to focus on. Oh, and explain this to me -- why is it okay to bash Obama as an "empty suit" when for eight years we were constantly reminded that our current Commander-in-Chief shouldn't be judged by his public speaking skills?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 20, 2008 8:33:49 GMT -5
Whoa Coast! Let it out man! You've been holding that in for a LONG time, trying to bend over backwards to be reasonable, giving the other guy more than the benefit of the doubt. But now you are letting it rip with how you really see things! BRAVO!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 20, 2008 8:36:42 GMT -5
Objectively---not influenced by any political bias (as an Independent)---Barack Obama whips John McCain going away. After reading his issue papers, listening to his stumps, tuning in to his philosophies, and taking in his prescient position on the conflict in Iraq, Obama is---in my mind---the goods. John McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, who---to his misfortune and in an incredible act of heroism---suffered as a POW for five years, got hitched to a rich lady, rode Barry Goldwater's coattails, and has been in bed with the privileged ever since. His stances on the economy are disastrous at best (this comes from many, many experts in the field, including his buddies at the Economist), a roadmap to the end of the American way of life at worst. He also cannot see past the war philosophies of the cold war. He's hardly different from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Gonzalez-Ashcroft neocon crowd in that, and other, regards. He's only seen as a "maverick" because he's taken stances to reign in some of their absurdity. He would be an excellent secretary of defense. I do not want him as my president (but would gladly take him over our current president). This is objective? I have said many times that the reason I oppose Barack Obama for President is because of his policies, not because of his history or character. I stand by that. But if you honestly think that Presidential elections are not character contests -- and haven't ALWAYS been and won't ALWAYS be -- then you had probably just get used to being disappointed and angry for the rest of your life. Americans will elect a number of government officials on policy alone, even up to the level of Congressmen and Senators. We will never elect a President based on that alone, without taking history, character and other issues some might call tangential into account. I do think this is appropriate. And before you get too comfortable up in the saddle, please consider that these character attacks come from both sides. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow accuse John McCain of being senile on an almost nightly basis. Online, the strain that John McCain cannot be elected because he left his first wife is all over the place. Or because Cindy McCain is a drug dealer. I could cite a number of other similar attacks that have nothing to do with issues. It's not for lack of effort that these smears against McCain are not gaining traction, believe me. There is SOME benefit, after all, to having a 30+-year record of public service. I'm happy to get into an issues discussion, but don't pretend that character is all a one-sided attack, or even that it doesn't have a place in Presidential politics. On one final note, Obama's criticism of Clarence Thomas was not a good idea. He has already gotten criticism from at least one prominent supporter for questioning that he wasn't a "strong enough jurist." The bigger mistake was that he didn't catch himself in time and even though he didn't say the whole word, I think the whole world knows that he was about to say that Clarence Thomas wasn't "experienced" enough.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 20, 2008 9:02:13 GMT -5
lofigator -- your problems are that you reflexively label everyone and you fail to actually digest people's points before spewing garbage. That is why no one takes you seriously. You sound like a freshman in college, freshly popped collar and coifed hair, reciting for an audience what your daddy said around the dinner table for years while railing against "dirty liberals." And yes, I meant that to be insulting. elvade -- clearly, you're the luckiest man in the world for having had the enlightenment to elucidate such an erudite point. At least Obama can read off a teleprompter. All -- raise your hand if you've ever run for office of any kind since turning 18? It SO easy to criticize those who run for elected office, but a lot harder to actually do it. I think we should cut both candidates some slack for the small stuff and focus on their philosophies of the office of the president, their positions and intentions with regard to issues of national significance (including their ideologies), and their histories on such issues. Objectively---not influenced by any political bias (as an Independent)---Barack Obama whips John McCain going away. After reading his issue papers, listening to his stumps, tuning in to his philosophies, and taking in his prescient position on the conflict in Iraq, Obama is---in my mind---the goods. John McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, who---to his misfortune and in an incredible act of heroism---suffered as a POW for five years, got hitched to a rich lady, rode Barry Goldwater's coattails, and has been in bed with the privileged ever since. His stances on the economy are disastrous at best (this comes from many, many experts in the field, including his buddies at the Economist), a roadmap to the end of the American way of life at worst. He also cannot see past the war philosophies of the cold war. He's hardly different from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Gonzalez-Ashcroft neocon crowd in that, and other, regards. He's only seen as a "maverick" because he's taken stances to reign in some of their absurdity. He would be an excellent secretary of defense. I do not want him as my president (but would gladly take him over our current president). Barack Obama grew up without his natural father. His mother died of cancer at the age of 52. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in one of the toughest neighborhoods in America. To even suggest that he has led a charmed life is cowardly. Many of his stances are ethereal, true. He is relatively young and does not have formal, political leadership experience, true. But his stances on the issues I care about are more in line with what I believe than his competitor's are. Simple as that. And I believe I'm right. I make no apologies for how arrogant that sounds. I'm tired of being attacked for what I believe, derided and labeled for the stances I take (which are almost 100% based on available and objective fact, as opposed to a particular interpretation of an ancient document that has been translated several times from its originating languages), and then told that---even on the issues on which I have been PROVEN (such as pollution=bad) to be correct---told that my solutions fall into some ideological category that that rich and privileged find undesirable. So go ahead and attack me. I'm just a poster on a message board. But do not be condescending as to simplify a presidential candidate to a single word. It's that kind of thinking and actions that have led us to where we are today. I'll reiterate: how about we cut both candidates some slack for the little things and focus on issues that matter, like energy, water, armed conflict, the economy, the dissolution of the middle class, the massive problems facing the federal budget, and unprecedented secrecy and deceit from an Administration more interested in pushing its ideology than dealing with reality. What he said.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 20, 2008 10:41:09 GMT -5
Objectively---not influenced by any political bias (as an Independent)---Barack Obama whips John McCain going away. After reading his issue papers, listening to his stumps, tuning in to his philosophies, and taking in his prescient position on the conflict in Iraq, Obama is---in my mind---the goods. John McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, who---to his misfortune and in an incredible act of heroism---suffered as a POW for five years, got hitched to a rich lady, rode Barry Goldwater's coattails, and has been in bed with the privileged ever since. His stances on the economy are disastrous at best (this comes from many, many experts in the field, including his buddies at the Economist), a roadmap to the end of the American way of life at worst. He also cannot see past the war philosophies of the cold war. He's hardly different from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Gonzalez-Ashcroft neocon crowd in that, and other, regards. He's only seen as a "maverick" because he's taken stances to reign in some of their absurdity. He would be an excellent secretary of defense. I do not want him as my president (but would gladly take him over our current president). This is objective? I have said many times that the reason I oppose Barack Obama for President is because of his policies, not because of his history or character. I stand by that. But if you honestly think that Presidential elections are not character contests -- and haven't ALWAYS been and won't ALWAYS be -- then you had probably just get used to being disappointed and angry for the rest of your life. Americans will elect a number of government officials on policy alone, even up to the level of Congressmen and Senators. We will never elect a President based on that alone, without taking history, character and other issues some might call tangential into account. I do think this is appropriate. And before you get too comfortable up in the saddle, please consider that these character attacks come from both sides. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow accuse John McCain of being senile on an almost nightly basis. Online, the strain that John McCain cannot be elected because he left his first wife is all over the place. Or because Cindy McCain is a drug dealer. I could cite a number of other similar attacks that have nothing to do with issues. It's not for lack of effort that these smears against McCain are not gaining traction, believe me. There is SOME benefit, after all, to having a 30+-year record of public service. I'm happy to get into an issues discussion, but don't pretend that character is all a one-sided attack, or even that it doesn't have a place in Presidential politics. On one final note, Obama's criticism of Clarence Thomas was not a good idea. He has already gotten criticism from at least one prominent supporter for questioning that he wasn't a "strong enough jurist." The bigger mistake was that he didn't catch himself in time and even though he didn't say the whole word, I think the whole world knows that he was about to say that Clarence Thomas wasn't "experienced" enough. As a conservative leaning Independent (my guess, C2C, is that you would be the liberal leaning version), I disagree that Obama is objectively the better choice. I like Obama. I like some of his ideas, I hate others (I feel the same way about McCain). Under other circumstances, I would consider voting for him. Under the current circumstances, I'm not going to. I don't want to see what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could come up if they had Obama to work with. I do want to see what they could come up with if they had to work with John McCain, who, unlike President Bush, will have to actually work with them (not that I've been against Bush's hardline stances on every issue) in order to accomplish anything. And Boz is right--neither side has the right to complain about the other sides dirty tactics. Just because the Republicans do it, doesn't make it ok for the Democrats to do it (though that seems to be the common refrain now, which is especially annoying in Congress, where Democratic leadership isn't living up to their promises about being an "Open Congress" but I digress). Both sides do it, both should stop. Whoever gets around to actually carrying out their promises to fight fair and not limit debate will get my support, regardless of their politics, because I trust a good idea to stand on its own if it's allowed to.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 20, 2008 11:51:43 GMT -5
Or his answer clearly demonstrated that without his trusty teleprompter, he is the empty suit I've always believed him to be. Harvard Law Review and a U. Chicago law professor? You may not like what he says, but the man isn't an idiot. Look, both McCain and and Obama are interesting, smart men with a lot to say. I see no reason to bash the individuals when there's plenty of substance to focus on. Oh, and explain this to me -- why is it okay to bash Obama as an "empty suit" when for eight years we were constantly reminded that our current Commander-in-Chief shouldn't be judged by his public speaking skills? Being smart and being and "empty suit" are not mutually exclusive. You're throwing out a red herring - no one is attacking Obama for being dumb. The criticism, by and large, is that there's no substance to him. In other words, where's the beef? The guy is running for the most powerful office in the world and I (and a lot of other people) feel as though we have no idea what this guy is made of. Sure, he can give a great stump speech, and really elucidate his positions on certain topics. But what has he ever fought for? His positions change week by week (or, more precisely, he takes both sides of an issue). I'm not saying a politician cannot change his mind (Emerson, hobgoblin, blah blah blah). I simply expect them to give me a reasoned basis for why they changed their minds. McCain changed his position on drilling, for example, but has a answer for doing so. Obama's sitting on both sides of multiple issues comes across as a matter of political expediency to me. So no, it's not simply a matter of public speaking skills. It's what is inside that counts. Style over substance, or the opposite - take your choice.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 20, 2008 12:05:29 GMT -5
lofigator -- your problems are that you reflexively label everyone and you fail to actually digest people's points before spewing garbage. That is why no one takes you seriously. You sound like a freshman in college, freshly popped collar and coifed hair, reciting for an audience what your daddy said around the dinner table for years while railing against "dirty liberals." And yes, I meant that to be insulting. elvade -- clearly, you're the luckiest man in the world for having had the enlightenment to elucidate such an erudite point. At least Obama can read off a teleprompter. All -- raise your hand if you've ever run for office of any kind since turning 18? It SO easy to criticize those who run for elected office, but a lot harder to actually do it. I think we should cut both candidates some slack for the small stuff and focus on their philosophies of the office of the president, their positions and intentions with regard to issues of national significance (including their ideologies), and their histories on such issues. Objectively---not influenced by any political bias (as an Independent)---Barack Obama whips John McCain going away. After reading his issue papers, listening to his stumps, tuning in to his philosophies, and taking in his prescient position on the conflict in Iraq, Obama is---in my mind---the goods. John McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, who---to his misfortune and in an incredible act of heroism---suffered as a POW for five years, got hitched to a rich lady, rode Barry Goldwater's coattails, and has been in bed with the privileged ever since. His stances on the economy are disastrous at best (this comes from many, many experts in the field, including his buddies at the Economist), a roadmap to the end of the American way of life at worst. He also cannot see past the war philosophies of the cold war. He's hardly different from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Gonzalez-Ashcroft neocon crowd in that, and other, regards. He's only seen as a "maverick" because he's taken stances to reign in some of their absurdity. He would be an excellent secretary of defense. I do not want him as my president (but would gladly take him over our current president). Barack Obama grew up without his natural father. His mother died of cancer at the age of 52. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in one of the toughest neighborhoods in America. To even suggest that he has led a charmed life is cowardly. Many of his stances are ethereal, true. He is relatively young and does not have formal, political leadership experience, true. But his stances on the issues I care about are more in line with what I believe than his competitor's are. Simple as that. And I believe I'm right. I make no apologies for how arrogant that sounds. I'm tired of being attacked for what I believe, derided and labeled for the stances I take (which are almost 100% based on available and objective fact, as opposed to a particular interpretation of an ancient document that has been translated several times from its originating languages), and then told that---even on the issues on which I have been PROVEN (such as pollution=bad) to be correct---told that my solutions fall into some ideological category that that rich and privileged find undesirable. So go ahead and attack me. I'm just a poster on a message board. But do not be condescending as to simplify a presidential candidate to a single word. It's that kind of thinking and actions that have led us to where we are today. I'll reiterate: how about we cut both candidates some slack for the little things and focus on issues that matter, like energy, water, armed conflict, the economy, the dissolution of the middle class, the massive problems facing the federal budget, and unprecedented secrecy and deceit from an Administration more interested in pushing its ideology than dealing with reality. Boy, what a pompous post, even for an internet message board. You criticize another poster for coming across as a "freshman in college" and yet you post this self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou crap. You're the one who comes across like a high school debater who's full of himself. All the classic signs of an immature person who can't stick to issue of substance: - You childishly change the names of other posters
- You fill your post with words fresh from the thesaurus to demonstrate your alleged superiority ("prescient position" "ethereal") How you typed the phrase "the enlightenment to elucidate such an erudite point" without gagging is beyond me
- You falsely paint yourself as objective, independent and "not influenced by any political bias" and then go on to trash one candidate while slurping the other
- And most egregiously, in putting down McCain and elevating Obama, you focus solely on the so-called "small stuff" and ignore completely the issues you claim should be the focus of the campaign.
So keep patting yourself on the back for being better than everyone else, keep putting down the Bible, and keep wondering why Obama is still tied (or even behind as of today) in the polls. Attitudes of people like you are why lots of people in fly-over country are put off by the Dems and liberals, and why the Dems may yet blow this election when they should be cruising to victory.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 20, 2008 12:06:46 GMT -5
Harvard Law Review and a U. Chicago law professor? You may not like what he says, but the man isn't an idiot. Look, both McCain and and Obama are interesting, smart men with a lot to say. I see no reason to bash the individuals when there's plenty of substance to focus on. Oh, and explain this to me -- why is it okay to bash Obama as an "empty suit" when for eight years we were constantly reminded that our current Commander-in-Chief shouldn't be judged by his public speaking skills? Being smart and being and "empty suit" are not mutually exclusive. You're throwing out a red herring - no one is attacking Obama for being dumb. The criticism, by and large, is that there's no substance to him. In other words, where's the beef? The guy is running for the most powerful office in the world and I (and a lot of other people) feel as though we have no idea what this guy is made of. Sure, he can give a great stump speech, and really elucidate his positions on certain topics. But what has he ever fought for? His positions change week by week (or, more precisely, he takes both sides of an issue). I'm not saying a politician cannot change his mind (Emerson, hobgoblin, blah blah blah). I simply expect them to give me a reasoned basis for why they changed their minds. McCain changed his position on drilling, for example, but has a answer for doing so. Obama's sitting on both sides of multiple issues comes across as a matter of political expediency to me. So no, it's not simply a matter of public speaking skills. It's what is inside that counts. Style over substance, or the opposite - take your choice. What about McCain's positions on torture, the Bush tax cuts, the religious right, et al. Considering that his shifts on these issues are so large, isn't McCain the one who's saying anything to get elected?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 20, 2008 12:37:53 GMT -5
Being smart and being and "empty suit" are not mutually exclusive. You're throwing out a red herring - no one is attacking Obama for being dumb. The criticism, by and large, is that there's no substance to him. In other words, where's the beef? The guy is running for the most powerful office in the world and I (and a lot of other people) feel as though we have no idea what this guy is made of. Sure, he can give a great stump speech, and really elucidate his positions on certain topics. But what has he ever fought for? His positions change week by week (or, more precisely, he takes both sides of an issue). I'm not saying a politician cannot change his mind (Emerson, hobgoblin, blah blah blah). I simply expect them to give me a reasoned basis for why they changed their minds. McCain changed his position on drilling, for example, but has a answer for doing so. Obama's sitting on both sides of multiple issues comes across as a matter of political expediency to me. So no, it's not simply a matter of public speaking skills. It's what is inside that counts. Style over substance, or the opposite - take your choice. What about McCain's positions on torture, the Bush tax cuts, the religious right, et al. Considering that his shifts on these issues are so large, isn't McCain the one who's saying anything to get elected? That's up for you to determine. I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 20, 2008 13:15:06 GMT -5
lofigator -- your problems are that you reflexively label everyone and you fail to actually digest people's points before spewing garbage. That is why no one takes you seriously. You sound like a freshman in college, freshly popped collar and coifed hair, reciting for an audience what your daddy said around the dinner table for years while railing against "dirty liberals." And yes, I meant that to be insulting. elvade -- clearly, you're the luckiest man in the world for having had the enlightenment to elucidate such an erudite point. At least Obama can read off a teleprompter. All -- raise your hand if you've ever run for office of any kind since turning 18? It SO easy to criticize those who run for elected office, but a lot harder to actually do it. I think we should cut both candidates some slack for the small stuff and focus on their philosophies of the office of the president, their positions and intentions with regard to issues of national significance (including their ideologies), and their histories on such issues. Objectively---not influenced by any political bias (as an Independent)---Barack Obama whips John McCain going away. After reading his issue papers, listening to his stumps, tuning in to his philosophies, and taking in his prescient position on the conflict in Iraq, Obama is---in my mind---the goods. John McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, who---to his misfortune and in an incredible act of heroism---suffered as a POW for five years, got hitched to a rich lady, rode Barry Goldwater's coattails, and has been in bed with the privileged ever since. His stances on the economy are disastrous at best (this comes from many, many experts in the field, including his buddies at the Economist), a roadmap to the end of the American way of life at worst. He also cannot see past the war philosophies of the cold war. He's hardly different from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Gonzalez-Ashcroft neocon crowd in that, and other, regards. He's only seen as a "maverick" because he's taken stances to reign in some of their absurdity. He would be an excellent secretary of defense. I do not want him as my president (but would gladly take him over our current president). Barack Obama grew up without his natural father. His mother died of cancer at the age of 52. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in one of the toughest neighborhoods in America. To even suggest that he has led a charmed life is cowardly. Many of his stances are ethereal, true. He is relatively young and does not have formal, political leadership experience, true. But his stances on the issues I care about are more in line with what I believe than his competitor's are. Simple as that. And I believe I'm right. I make no apologies for how arrogant that sounds. I'm tired of being attacked for what I believe, derided and labeled for the stances I take (which are almost 100% based on available and objective fact, as opposed to a particular interpretation of an ancient document that has been translated several times from its originating languages), and then told that---even on the issues on which I have been PROVEN (such as pollution=bad) to be correct---told that my solutions fall into some ideological category that that rich and privileged find undesirable. So go ahead and attack me. I'm just a poster on a message board. But do not be condescending as to simplify a presidential candidate to a single word. It's that kind of thinking and actions that have led us to where we are today. I'll reiterate: how about we cut both candidates some slack for the little things and focus on issues that matter, like energy, water, armed conflict, the economy, the dissolution of the middle class, the massive problems facing the federal budget, and unprecedented secrecy and deceit from an Administration more interested in pushing its ideology than dealing with reality. Boy, what a pompous post, even for an internet message board. You criticize another poster for coming across as a "freshman in college" and yet you post this self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou crap. You're the one who comes across like a high school debater who's full of himself. All the classic signs of an immature person who can't stick to issue of substance: - You childishly change the names of other posters
- You fill your post with words fresh from the thesaurus to demonstrate your alleged superiority ("prescient position" "ethereal") How you typed the phrase "the enlightenment to elucidate such an erudite point" without gagging is beyond me
- You falsely paint yourself as objective, independent and "not influenced by any political bias" and then go on to trash one candidate while slurping the other
- And most egregiously, in putting down McCain and elevating Obama, you focus solely on the so-called "small stuff" and ignore completely the issues you claim should be the focus of the campaign.
So keep patting yourself on the back for being better than everyone else, keep putting down the Bible, and keep wondering why Obama is still tied (or even behind as of today) in the polls. Attitudes of people like you are why lots of people in fly-over country are put off by the Dems and liberals, and why the Dems may yet blow this election when they should be cruising to victory. Classic! It's because I am the walrus ... ... or was it the carpenter?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 20, 2008 13:29:45 GMT -5
HiFi.. Dan Rather-- left CBS 3-4 years ago Tom Brokaw -- retired Peter Jennings -- Dead Barbara Walters -- does a coffee clatch with a bunch of girls talking about nothing, hasn't been a serious news reporter/anchor in decades Was there a time when the mainstream media leaned a little left, possibly. But no , I don't think today's media is liberal at all. Not even close. Fox "News" is not a slightly right leaning organization. It's entire business plan is based on being a mouthpiece for the Republicans and the Admin -- just the way Republican Party Insider and Fox News President Roger Ailes and Newscorp CEO Rupert Murdoch drew it up. There is nothing remotely balanced about it. Their approach is to mock and belittle everything the Democrats say or do, right down to endorsing the misuse of the name of the party. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat party. I will say this, the business plan has been carried out exceedingly well and very profitably, if shamefully cynically. But that doesn't make it a news organization. Suggesting it is a little to the right, as CNN used to be a little to the left, is not in the least bit accurate. The whole "media as liberal" argument isn't even worth a response anymore. Just because a network does not republish the Rove talking points for the day under a different title and author does not make a network/organization liberal. The media's job, as it always has been, is to report the truth. Ambassador, do you really believe that? Not do you believe that is what their job is and should be, but do you honestly believe that is all that they do? My point was to identify a steady stream of head anchor people through the years from the "major" 3 networks -- at least as they used to be known -- and point out that to a man/woman, they were ALL mouthpieces for the left. They are ALL admitted democrats and they were ALL contributors to the DNC -- not one or two of them, but all of them. With regard to that particular angle, Brit Hume is in my opinion fair and balanced. The majority of the rest of the network is admittedly conservative. I never denied that, although they have continued to hire leftists to somewhat balance out the debates. First it was people like Geraldo Rivera, then later Greta van Susteran. They also frequently have (WRETCHED) Susan Estrich on as well as the well known liberal counterpart to Sean Hannity. I think you know who I mean. In any case, I wasn't denying a rightward bias to Fox. What I did point out is that one factor in why they appear to lean to the right is that we are so accustomed to seeing things through the liberal eyes of the rest of the media. On the larger scale, I am just flabbergasted anytime I run into a liberal who tries to deny the liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. It is, by their very own admission, true. There is a reason why good news from Iraq is rarely covered and then primarily in an off hand sort of way. There is also a reason why the opening story of almost every night's National news show is some version of a negative view of the right. If you honestly deny that then you are brainwashed beyond all reason. Lastly, you said as "CNN used to lean to the left." Are you going to sit there and with a straight face try to suggest that CNN isn't still leaning to the left? Really? Be careful. Watch out for lightning.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 20, 2008 13:42:16 GMT -5
c2c, I just caught your diatribe and I presume that was meant as humor. If so, then I will give it an "A" for effort and a "B-" for execution. If for some inexplicable reason, that was actually meant as a serious post, then you are in my prayers. You obviously need some help.
To strummer/bando and the rest, you guys are going to separate your shoulders patting each other on the back like that.
Tbird, as best as I can tell, your position most closely mirrors mine from what I have seen everyone say.
For the record, I don't hate Obama in any way. If he would get on the right side of the Capital Gains issue and select a true moderate as a running mate, then I would give him serious consideration.
Lastly C2C, your vision of future America is downright scary. You actually sound like you believe all of that crap coming out of your mouth. It's that kind of shallow, utopian feel-good-nonsense that is downright scary.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 20, 2008 14:31:20 GMT -5
Inspiration, thy name is John Kennedy Toole.
Thanks to SirSaxa and hifi (well, mostly...only a B-??) for picking up the hyperbole. The Hook-Line-and-Sinker Award goes to kchoya.
And don't worry hifi....my vision of future American is far more shallow and feel-good-utopian than that.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 20, 2008 15:05:03 GMT -5
Inspiration, thy name is John Kennedy Toole. No more bites? Anyone? Anyone? So much for my crude attempt to pull a BuffaloHoya. Sorry, but this thread was becoming exactly like the others and I wanted to stir it up a little. Thanks to SirSaxa and hifi (well, mostly...only a B-??) for picking up the hyperbole. The Hook-Line-and-Sinker Award goes to kchoya. And don't worry hifi....my vision of future American is far more shallow and feel-good-utopian than that. My opinion hasn't changed. You're still a pompous ass.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 20, 2008 15:12:08 GMT -5
C2C wrote:
And don't worry hifi....my vision of feel-good-nonsense is far more shallow utopian than that.
There. Fixed it for you.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 20, 2008 22:38:58 GMT -5
OK, so at this point, I've sort of shimmied my way over to the Obama side of this whole thing. If you look back at my posts as recently as 2-3 weeks ago, I really was undecided.
I promise right now that I will vote for John McCain if anyone on this message board can explain to me how high gas prices are Obama's fault. McCain's ad (the one with the "...gas prices are out of control, and who's to blame? Obama! Obama! Obama!") was so painfully desperate and laughably false that I couldn't believe it was on tv.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 21, 2008 16:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Aug 21, 2008 17:13:57 GMT -5
I woulda gone with this guy, but that's mostly because I don't trust Mexicans. (not true)
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 21, 2008 17:27:53 GMT -5
I woulda gone with this guy, but that's mostly because I don't trust Mexicans. (not true) Hey, at least B.A.G. played with Babyface- the man has some skills. But at this point Fox > Alba, I will grant you that.
|
|