Brainwashing Propaganda, or Morality Lesson?

[kandrathe]

I'm sure you read *stuff*. But when what you're linking tells a totally different tale than the one you're telling, I'm never quite sure what your intent is. This is not the first time your links flatly contradict the point you're apparently going for. Are you just trying to make sure I'm awake?

I don't only post links that purely support my argument, I supply links that I hope reveal the truth. My interpretation, and reading between the lines may be different than the reporter, or yours. I have to weigh the source, and how well you might value the sources opinion. What I try not to do is cite a source who's credentials then becomes the focus of the debate.

The point I was making is that President Obama gets a level of press pampering that GWII never received. And... It's been 200 days and we are still in Iraq, escalating the war in Afghanistan, and contemplating bombing camps in Iran. Where are the fricken anti-war protesters now? Where is the daily death count (dun dun da)? Where is the list of campaign promises kept / broken? Oh, that's right, he can't get anything done because of the aholes. But, we've appointed a couple dozen Tsar's to rule over us without congressional vetting or oversight. Unemployment is still crazy because its Bush's fault. Biden has the gall to get on the tube and declare that the trajectory has turned around, and the TRILLION dollar stimulus package a success. When do we swallow the $4 trillion dollar budget wake up call? Bah. Who is holding THESE clowns accountable?

[Vandiablo]

The reason I am replying to you and not SM, is b/c you are not a total idiot.

Wow! The Award for Not Total Idiot!

You don't see ferners win THAT very often! Especially for self-admitted Leftists "whose dues are all paid up"!

Jester! You've just won an ANTI! What are you going to do now?!?

(Silly me, I've wasted so much time replying to total idiots, including those that see everything about the world in black and white. Ironic, that they can't stomach a president who is black and white.)

-Van, T.I.

(p.s. Ashock, thank you for letting me know why I will never deserve a response! I never would have figured it out on my own!)

[Swiss Mercenary]

The point I was making is that President Obama gets a level of press pampering that GWII never received. And... It's been 200 days and we are still in Iraq, escalating the war in Afghanistan, and contemplating bombing camps in Iran.

An Iraq withdrawal plan, put off till 2011 by the big stick of reality is a bit different from the Hundred Years War. I don't recall too much anti-war wailing and gnashing of teeth during the invasion of Afghanistan (Which, ironically enough, is the hot topic in Canadian politics - brought up by the parties that all voted for it), but I could be wrong. I've apparently been ignorant on the subject of Iran.

As for unemployment, the TED spread's back to normal, and unemployment tends to lag behind it. I don't know enough about how much the rest of the stimulus spending did, but the financial markets seem to be getting back in shape.

[Vandiablo]

The point I was making is that President Obama gets a level of press pampering that GWII never received.

LOL!

And... It's been 200 days and we are still in Iraq, escalating the war in Afghanistan, and contemplating bombing camps in Iran. Where are the fricken anti-war protesters now? Where is the daily death count (dun dun da)?

Weren't conservatives saying that a quick withdrawal, what they called "cut and run", would destroy any positive influence that has been made? True enough. But please don't try to have it both ways. It's very unbecoming. Very aholish, in fact.

Where is the list of campaign promises kept / broken? Oh, that's right, he can't get anything done because of the aholes.

Weren't conservatives complaining about how quickly he put out several Executive Orders in the first couple weeks? Congress is designed to take longer, and it is. "He hasn't done anything" vs. "he's trying to shove stuff through". Both ways again.

But, we've appointed a couple dozen Tsar's to rule over us without congressional vetting or oversight.

I've heard some other whining about "all these czars make us sound so socialist!" Heh -- well who killed the Czar and his family? But here in <strike>Amerika</strike> America, the first czar was the "energy czar", appointed by ... (drum roll) ... Richard Nixon.

Unemployment is still crazy because its Bush's fault.

Well, Bush wasn't hysterical, but I'd lump him in the crazy pile. (You can't serve an evil master for eight years without some negative effects.)

But yes, unemployment has many factors, and many of them had nothing to do with Bush. I'd go more with Gingrich tops, Reagan next, and shortsighted corporations and shoppers third.

Certainly it's Bush more than Obama, at least here at the 225 day mark.

Biden has the gall to get on the tube and declare that the trajectory has turned around,

He must have read the Wall Street Journal, which I've heard today (yesterday?) printed that the stimulus is working.

Of course, I'm sure the WSJ is too liberal for you to consider it a credible source.

and the TRILLION dollar stimulus package a success. When do we swallow the $4 trillion dollar budget wake up call? Bah. Who is holding THESE clowns accountable?

Yes, but even many conservatives said that spending that money was more prudent than having another depression.

(That's another "both ways" BTW, since inaction would have drawn the "weak" criticism. Also, the various stimuli were started during the Bush Admin.)

Maybe we could ask China to forgive our debt. All they could do is say no, right? And take all our stuff, and our land, and our political offices that seem to be for sale most of the time...

-V
T.I.

(edit: Forgot an apostrophe, which sometimes is the Crux of the Biscuit.)

[eppie]

Link.

Usually, FoxNews has a tendency to exaggerate the truth, so unless I see it posted on more than one news site, I am hesitant to post my finding here,

We need more hesitation from you on this one. Please stop posting these fox news flashes on a serious internet forum like the lounge.
Fox news does not exaggerate, they make their own news.
They should all be put in guantanamo bay for a few years, with daily waterboarding sessions. You might be suprised to see how many of the world problems would just disappear when evil morons like O'Reilly would be of the air for a while.

The cretin is again on war path against Amsterdam's liberal policies on drugs and prostitution, the fact that there is far less crime, far less drugs use (and probably even far less prostitution) than in his beloved (fill in some redneck city) of course doesn't matter to him and his followers (who probably have never been outside their county once in their whole life).

So what's next....do we also have to start discussing Kim jong Il's speeches here on the lounge? Or Amhadinejads speeches? (O'Reilly is of course much sadder than these two because he doesn't even own his own country)

[kandrathe]

LOL!

And? Your contribution to conversation is...? Glee?

Weren't conservatives saying that a quick withdrawal, what they called "cut and run", would destroy any positive influence that has been made? True enough. But please don't try to have it both ways. It's very unbecoming. Very aholish, in fact.

How long is your quick withdrawal? 4 years? 6 years? Eight years?

Weren't conservatives complaining about how quickly he put out several Executive Orders in the first couple weeks? Congress is designed to take longer, and it is. "He hasn't done anything" vs. "he's trying to shove stuff through". Both ways again.

No. Get stuff done means you work it out, not shove them out of the way, or sneak stuff through before people can read it. You seem to be confusing me with a Republican. I'm talking about press coverage, and accountability, or the lack of it. Not, the perennial battle between the D's and the R's.

I've heard some other whining about "all these czars make us sound so socialist!" Heh -- well who killed the Czar and his family? But here in <strike>Amerika</strike> America, the first czar was the "energy czar", appointed by ... (drum roll) ... Richard Nixon.

Good role model. He wasn't power hungry now was he?

But yes, unemployment has many factors, and many of them had nothing to do with Bush. I'd go more with Gingrich tops, Reagan next, and shortsighted corporations and shoppers third.

And, the logic here is...? Because Newt's influence from a decade ago when he was in Congress had such persistence? You might as well blame the Beatles while you are at it. Then Reagan... Yes, everything was peachy (Georgian in fact) until Reagan screwed it all up back in the 80's? It must have been the "Just say no" thing that totally screwed up the economy. We lost out on 30 years of weed taxes.

He must have read the Wall Street Journal, which I've heard today (yesterday?) printed that the stimulus is working. Of course, I'm sure the WSJ is too liberal for you to consider it a credible source.

No, the WSJ is usually not liberal, but Deborah Solomon usually is.

Yes, but even many conservatives said that spending that money was more prudent than having another depression.

They too have sold out future generations for fluffy pillows and re-election coffers. Both ways... No. Weak? No. The real leader would have told people straight up that the government screwed up by A) letting the housing bubble get out of control, B) pressuring banks to offer sub-prime lending, C) engaging in endless frivolous unproductive spending, weak trade negotiations, repressive regulations, and anti-business legislation sapping their nations competitiveness, driving the bulk of industry off shore, and D) not paying down the deficit while the sun was shining. I think real leaders grab the bull by the horns, and face the situation head on. Everything that has been done so far is only temporary. Unemployment figures look good, because they don't measure half the unemployed. Home sales look good, because 30% of them are foreclosures being sold at rock bottom price. The stock market has bounced up and down, because there are still mutual funds that the sharks have not fully chewed up yet. This forecast hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. The past 10 years or so of "productivity" in the US economy were due to first the illusory tech bubble, and then the illusory derivatives bubble due to housing. Real growth can only come when we transform from being consumption driven, to being production driven. And, if you are truly "GREEN", then you wouldn't want to push consumption as the economic engine either.

Maybe we could ask China to forgive our debt. All they could do is say no, right? And take all our stuff, and our land, and our political offices that seem to be for sale most of the time...

Or, do what we usually do, start another war.

[kandrathe]

Wow. Those kind of criteria were looking a little passe in the time of Charles Dickens. Do you expect them to hold doors for ladies as well, and say "heck" instead of "hell"?

I do quite a bit of speaking to large groups of people, and I've never had the occasion to label any group of people as aholes. I'm sure that if I did, I would lose my job in a minute.

[kandrathe]

They should all be put in guantanamo bay for a few years, with daily waterboarding sessions. You might be suprised to see how many of the world problems would just disappear when evil morons like O'Reilly would be of the air for a while.

Wow. I see you DO have some admiration for the Cuban way. Would you call it the Gulag, or just re-education camps?

[eppie]

Wow. I see you DO have some admiration for the Cuban way. Would you call it the Gulag, or just re-education camps?

The american way has too long been ''' you can do and say what you want, as long as you say 'I love america' we wont bother you'''. Same goes for all those patriotic armies that are training in the forests for when the big evil communist US government tries take away their right to bear arms. Even though most real terrorism experts know that the chance of terrorist acts from these groups is much higher than that from islamic groups.

People like O'reilly, Limbaugh etc. misuse the freedom of speech given to them by better men to spread their filth damaging the US society more then you will think. Just because they hate the government like you do, and keep screaming they love the US it might be fine for you but to me these people ar plain political criminals.
Freedom of speech is fine, but you should be able to back up your verbal vomit with facts.
I many countries these people would be brought to court......not because you have more freedom but because in secret many americans like their right wing slander, are scared because Obama is black, and really do believe the government is out to get them.

And in answer to your question; we can just label them terrorists and bring them to Guantanamo bay.....chances are quite high that even after 5 years more than half of the people still believes it is good they are there.

[Jester]

I don't only post links that purely support my argument, I supply links that I hope reveal the truth. My interpretation, and reading between the lines may be different than the reporter, or yours.

Sure. But if you're reading things "between the lines" that contradict what's actually in the lines themselves, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to follow your interpretation. Finding a neutral, factual source that backs up your claims is part of the whole idea. If it isn't neutral, or it doesn't back up your claims, then it doesn't help other people understand why your argument is valid.

I have to weigh the source, and how well you might value the sources opinion. What I try not to do is cite a source who's credentials then becomes the focus of the debate.

And you are to be thanked for it. But the source still has to actually say what you're saying it's saying if it's going to be convincing.

The point I was making is that President Obama gets a level of press pampering that GWII never received.

Sure. The Bush administration never got any press pampering. Nosiree. Certainly not in the leadup to any wars I could think of. Certainly all the major newspapers, networks, talking heads and so on didn't just parrot administration talking points, rather than taking seriously the (correct, as it turns out) criticisms that the war would be needless, long and costly. That certainly never happened.

And... It's been 200 days and we are still in Iraq, escalating the war in Afghanistan, and contemplating bombing camps in Iran. Where are the fricken anti-war protesters now? Where is the daily death count (dun dun da)? Where is the list of campaign promises kept / broken?

He didn't start the war in Iraq, he's promised to end the war, and he's stuck in the trenches on health care. Obama, contrary to the accusations of some on this forum, is not actually a dictator. His will does not automatically solve all problems in his favour.

As for Afghanistan, he never said he was going to end that war. There are a lot of international allies whose own troops have been holed up there for some years now, hoping the Americans might divert some power over there. It's also going quite badly, all things considered. Maybe you shouldn't be there either, but it's certainly less clear-cut, and also not one of Obama's campaign promises.

Oh, that's right, he can't get anything done because of the aholes.

Well, yes. Do you doubt that Obama wouldn't have achieved a much more full-blooded package of liberal reforms if he wasn't having to use his political capital "compromising" with Republicans who have made it clear they have no interest in any compromise at all? With "moderate" Democratic industry shills who take nearly half their campaign money from lobbyists who want reform legislation stalled, killed and discredited?

But, we've appointed a couple dozen Tsar's to rule over us without congressional vetting or oversight.

Perhaps this is a structural issue, but it can hardly be laid at Obama's feet.

Unemployment is still crazy because its Bush's fault. Biden has the gall to get on the tube and declare that the trajectory has turned around, and the TRILLION dollar stimulus package a success. When do we swallow the $4 trillion dollar budget wake up call? Bah. Who is holding THESE clowns accountable?

Well, there is this opposition that's having an all-caps freakout about everything he does, from the largest stimulus package to the smallest speech for schoolkids. They even have their own major news station. What do you want, an emergency recall election? A congress of foreign creditors with veto power over the US budget? An armed insurrection? You get your next shot at electing a new congress in 2010, and a new president in 2012.

-Jester

[eppie]

The point I was making is that President Obama gets a level of press pampering that GWII never received.

If you have a moron who obviously lacks by far the abilities and intelligence to lead a small company let alone a country and he gets elected not once, but twice in a country like the US that is all about image and media coverage, and you dare to suggest this man didn't get any media 'pampering' I am seriously wondering where you have been the last 10 years.

Of course, when the first yellow chicken media boys finally dared to criticize GW (because the first few years you would have been insulted, threatened and assaulted by 'nice patriotic Christians' (my , those people are foul mouthed) just like happened to the dixie chicks, the tides changed and it became more accepted to speak the truth about the worlds biggest mistake in politics.
But, you have to earn respect......we all know that the media have treated GW far too good for far too long.
That Obama is not directly able to deal with the mess that is not his fault to begin with should be no reason to think that he needs to be sabled down by the press.

I have said this before; maybe as an american you don't realize this but the damage that the Bush administration has inflicted on internal relations has been huge. Support from Europe and the middle east for his actions would have been a lot higher if he would have been a capable person, instead of George's son.

[kandrathe]

And in answer to your question; we can just label them terrorists and bring them to Guantanamo bay.....chances are quite high that even after 5 years more than half of the people still believes it is good they are there.

So let me get your position correct here...

You are saying that if the government disagrees with anyone who broadcasts or publishes, or feels they are distorting the truth, or actually lying to us, then we should brand them a Domestic Terrorist and ship them of to a prison camp to be tortured for 5 years. And if we silence the opposition, then things will be better.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I love this place :lol:

It's been 200 days and we are still in Iraq, escalating the war in Afghanistan, and contemplating bombing camps in Iran.

You must have an extremely high opinion of Obama to think that he could clean up, in 200 days, what Shrub and The Texas Oil Gang took eight years to screw up. And he'd probably done it, too, if they hadn't put Kryptonite in the Lincoln Bedroom. :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

You must have an extremely high opinion of Obama to think that he could clean up, in 200 days, what Shrub and The Texas Oil Gang took eight years to screw up. And he'd probably done it, too, if they hadn't put Kryptonite in the Lincoln Bedroom. :whistling:

If only he repealed the second law of thermodynamics. Then fixing things would be just as easy as breaking them!

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

If only he repealed the second law of thermodynamics. Then fixing things would be just as easy as breaking them!

I think that takes a 75% majority in both houses. :lol:

--Pete

[Taem]

We need more hesitation from you on this one. Please stop posting these fox news flashes on a serious internet forum like the lounge.

Before I comment on your thoughts, I would like to say that I found that piece I quoted from Fox News to be of personal concern and worthy of discussion in and of itself without all the trash-talking about which network aired it. I had a similar experience when I started the "Is the US headed towards a socialist government?" thread a few months back; initially, almost everybody on these boards disagreed with me, but I wonder if current events have softened their views on the subject?

Having said all that, it has been clearly established by the majority here at the Lurker Lounge that news articles and commentary from Fox News is unacceptable reading material, and not to be tolerated. It is because I have much respect for the members of this board that I will refrain from showcasing their works here on the Lounge from now on. I think we can all agree on this?

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . it has been clearly established by the majority here at the Lurker Lounge that news articles and commentary from Fox News is unacceptable reading material, and not to be tolerated. It is because I have much respect for the members of this board that I will refrain from showcasing their works here on the Lounge from now on. I think we can all agree on this?

Nope. While I have little or no use for anything from Fox, I defend your right to use that material at any time in *any* relevant discussion. Please, use anything you want to enable or defend a discussion. Don't let 'the tyranny of the mob' silence you.

--Pete

[Jester]

Having said all that, it has been clearly established by the majority here at the Lurker Lounge that news articles and commentary from Fox News is unacceptable reading material, and not to be tolerated. It is because I have much respect for the members of this board that I will refrain from showcasing their works here on the Lounge from now on. I think we can all agree on this?

It's not beyond the pale for discussion, or "unacceptable" in the sense that you're not allowed to post it. But much of what comes out of Fox is unsubstantiated, hysterical, and spun all to hell. You're probably going to get told as much every time you use Fox as your basic source. If you're happy to pay that price of admission, then by all means, go ahead.

If you're more interested in a discussion of an interesting issue, then you might want to at least find something in addition to the Fox material from a different source that does not share the same biases. That way, it's easier to tell that there's some meat on the bones of the topic, rather than one-sided material that (more often than not) is little but propaganda.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You must have an extremely high opinion of Obama to think that he could clean up, in 200 days, what Shrub and The Texas Oil Gang took eight years to screw up. And he'd probably done it, too, if they hadn't put Kryptonite in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Hey! What good is being Commander in Chief, if you don't get to order troops around.<blockquote>CLINTON, Iowa – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama this afternoon called for an immediate start to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq -- with a goal of full removal by the end of 2008 -- as he suggested the nation has lost its way because of the war. "We're not going to be truly united and resolute as Americans until we can stop holding our breath, until we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end this war that has cost us too much," he said. Obama's plan, outlined before an audience of about 500 at Ashford University, calls for the complete pullout of troops by the end of next year by bringing home one or two brigades each month. "Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now." Other Democratic candidates have also called for the immediate start of a troop withdrawal. While Obama's speech added some new details, it did not offer any dramatic new insights about his position on the war. "The American people have the right instincts on Iraq," Obama said. "It's time to heed their judgment…I will be a president who listens to the American people, not a president who ignores the American people."</blockquote>He seemed to believe we could pull them out in 2008, so why are they still there?

This article on Alternet hits toward what I'm talking about. Progressives to Gather at Tides Momentum Conference with Frustration with Obama on Their Minds. My other socialist and progressive friends are ready to dump the democratic party altogether. I've always though we have more than two parties anyway, because my dad was a democrat, and he believes very little of what Pelosi does. He was a life long union guy, but also a social conservative (Blue Dog). My mom is a Republican, and a Christian, but she is miles away from the insane and intolerant stance of someone like Pat Robertson. We aren't that far apart on fiscal views and getting to the smallest possible government, and she is a live and let live kind of person. I think we really have Green, Progressive/Socialists, Social Democrats (union middle left), Moderate Republicans, Libertarians, and Christian Conservatives. It is always strange to me when the extreme left goes so far it joins up with the extreme right.

My mom is a hawk though, and I'm really not. I have a hard time asking American soldiers to die for Afghan, or Iraqi freedom. Even if the strategic goal is regional stability, its way outside our constitutional system to pimp ourselves out as the worlds defender of freedom and democracy. I was remarking to someone the other day, that it's ironic that the US set up the Bundesautobahn in post-war Germany, but allowing an unlimited speed limit could never happen in the US.

[Jester]

He seemed to believe we could pull them out in 2008, so why are they still there?

He has actually set up a plan for withdrawing the troops. I believe the end date is August of 2010. As for the delay, perhaps his enthusiasm for a very quick withdrawal has been tempered by the information he now sees as president. Or maybe what he said in late 2007 would have applied to beginning then, but what was possible by early 2009 was very different. There are all sorts of consideratons. I support ending the war, but even I don't think a total, immediate withdrawal would be a good plan.

But, you seem really eager to find something, anything, everything wrong with Obama, so why don't we just run with it. Obviously, he's an incompetent, hypocritical liar who is betraying the electorate, his country, and the principles he once claimed to stand for. The sooner he is run out of office, the better.

That about right?

-Jester