or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool - Page 7

post #241 of 383


3 DAYS. 3 Hrs. 37 Min. 19.2 Sec....
post #242 of 383
Rahm will be on Meet The Press this Sunday.

Sorry though, as there will be no Obama, no The Bus, and no Throw or Thrown or Throwing.

Since, as we all now know, the liberal elite MSM is in the business of going out of business 247 and would never even dare think of asking Rahm some tough questions about busses or some such.

Monday morning followup headline?

Rahm guilty of talking.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #243 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Since, as we all now know, the liberal elite MSM is in the business of going out of business 247 and would never even dare think of asking Rahm some tough questions about busses or some such.

Of course there will be the inconsequential questions regarding the topic of this thread.

I hope there will be questions regarding his stance on the Israel/Gaza massacre.

I really do. I don't give a shit about Teh Hair, I give more of a shit about this.
post #244 of 383
Thread Starter 
Yes Frank, we all know how supportive you were of any other political figure not speaking to the press for a month.

Let's see if they are willing to "waste" a question on it or if they will follow up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #245 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes Frank, we all know how supportive you were of any other political figure not speaking to the press for a month.

Let's see if they are willing to "waste" a question on it or if they will follow up.

Let me ask you an honest question trumptman...

Which do you give a shit about more, his involvement with Teh Hair or what is stance is on the Israel/Gaza massacre?

Emmanuel is Obama's "gatekeeper" in the White House, the so-called "The Second-Most Powerful Man in Washington".

His stance in 2007:

Quote:
In June 2007, Emanuel condemned an outbreak of Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip and criticized Arab countries for not applying the same kind of pressure on the Palestinians as they have on Israel. At a 2003 pro-Israel rally in Chicago, Emanuel told the marchers Israel was ready for peace but would not get there until Palestinians "turn away from the path of terror".

Sobering now to say the least. Yes, I have problems with this and with the whole fact that AIPAC has had all of Washington DC by the balls for so many years.

Could you associate Emmanuel's behavior with Teh Hair issue with regard to Israel? You very well could, except I don't think there is anything tied to Emmanuel strong enough with Teh Hair issue to make this claim. I very well would agree there is with Israeli policy though.

So what is more important to you? You haven't seemed to express your opinion regarding this crisis either. What gives? Over a thousand civilians killed, mostly children, from weapons bought by Israel from the US.

I certainly don't want a whole ethnic group of people "thrown under the bus" either. So I can have doubts just like yourself. Just on the wrong issues (if there was one with Teh Hair to begin with).
post #246 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Let me ask you an honest question trumptman...

Which do you give a shit about more, his involvement with Teh Hair or what is stance is on the Israel/Gaza massacre?

Emmanuel is Obama's "gatekeeper" in the White House, the so-called "The Second-Most Powerful Man in Washington".

First, This Week had Obama on for half the show last week and as he has done all along, he won't answer the question since there is only one president at a time.

Unless Emanual is just an undisciplined boob(which he isn't), he isn't going to pop off and spill something contrary to what Obama wants.

Quote:
Sobering now to say the least. Yes, I have problems with this and with the whole fact that AIPAC has had all of Washington DC by the balls for so many years.

Could you associate Emmanuel's behavior with Teh Hair issue with regard to Israel? You very well could, except I don't think there is anything tied to Emmanuel strong enough with Teh Hair issue to make this claim. I very well would agree there is with Israeli policy though.

Personally I think discussion that a guy named Rahm Emanual is going to convince a guy named Barack Obama to toss the Middle East under the bus is sort of ironically funny.

Quote:
So what is more important to you? You haven't seemed to express your opinion regarding this crisis either. What gives? Over a thousand civilians killed, mostly children, from weapons bought by Israel from the US.

I certainly don't want a whole ethnic group of people "thrown under the bus" either. So I can have doubts just like yourself. Just on the wrong issues (if there was one with Teh Hair to begin with).

The best way to get away from Pax Americana is to make sure we don't have to police the world. Whenever someone thinks that because one country is dropping bombs on another, we need to pull off our glasses and reveal our cape, they are enabling the problem.

Remember bring the troops home Artman? It isn't just a campaign slogan and it isn't just from Iraq. It is something we need to do worldwide. We aren't post-anything. We aren't police-anything. We need to take care of our own and if others don't want to bare the responsibility of ensuring their own well-being, we need to let the world be the world and let what may happen occur.

Russia can build more nuclear power plants in England and we can't build them here. Support whatever gets us off oil and we will bleed this problem dry.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #247 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First, This Week had Obama on for half the show last week and as he has done all along, he won't answer the question since there is only one president at a time.

Which was good on his part. But he did say this in his AIPAC speech:

Quote:
Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Quote:
Unless Emmanuel is just an undisciplined boob(which he isn't), he isn't going to pop off and spill something contrary to what Obama wants.

Yes, but immediately after Obama's speech at AIPAC. Rahm Emmanuel personally endorsed Barack Obama. Much to Hillary's disappointment at the time.

Quote:
Personally I think discussion that a guy named Rahm Emmanuel is going to convince a guy named Barack Obama to toss the Middle East under the bus is sort of ironically funny.

Why not? As I stated above, Emmanuel seems to have gotten a clue as to who was getting into the White House. Now that Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, she doesn't seem too disappointed either. Couple this with Joe Biden's love-fest with Israel, you have the sense that there are plans ahead.

Quote:
The best way to get away from Pax Americana is to make sure we don't have to police the world. Whenever someone thinks that because one country is dropping bombs on another, we need to pull off our glasses and reveal our cape, they are enabling the problem.

Remember bring the troops home Artman? It isn't just a campaign slogan and it isn't just from Iraq. It is something we need to do worldwide. We aren't post-anything. We aren't police-anything. We need to take care of our own and if others don't want to bare the responsibility of ensuring their own well-being, we need to let the world be the world and let what may happen occur.

Russia can build more nuclear power plants in England and we can't build them here. Support whatever gets us off oil and we will bleed this problem dry.

If this is what you believe, then I am seriously starting to feel the same way on this issue of World Police. But it isn't an issue of Republican or Democrat, it is a significant push within Washington DC (via AIPAC) to finish this crisis once and for all at the sacrifice of millions of people.

Just as it was with Iraq. Because you know who also said what you stated about not being the World's Police.

Quote:
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

But a "New Pearl Harbor" did change all that.

Now we have a crisis in Israel/Gaza. There are two things that could happen, the very likely one that a cease fire will be in place before January 20th and/or the escalation continues. The latter would be catastrophic.

But as you, I have concerns now that Obama's foreign policy is flawed. It may not have been all his doing. Certainly you have to take the fact that Bush destroyed it to begin with.

So I have concerns just as you on certain issues with the fledgling Obama administration as well. It has just been the Israeli/Gaza massacre that has made it evident.

We. Will. See.
post #248 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Which was good on his part. But he did say this in his AIPAC speech:

Yes, but immediately after Obama's speech at AIPAC. Rahm Emmanuel personally endorsed Barack Obama. Much to Hillary's disappointment at the time.

Why not? As I stated above, Emmanuel seems to have gotten a clue as to who was getting into the White House. Now that Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, she doesn't seem too disappointed either. Couple this with Joe Biden's love-fest with Israel, you have the sense that there are plans ahead.

Of course there are plans ahead. Remember my sig about those wanting us out of Iraq but in Darfur? Remember my claims about a neo-con position being the old liberal position and finally that if you take Truman Doctrine and change the word communism to terrorism, that you have followed what every president, Republican or Democrat has done since it was enacted?

Quote:
If this is what you believe, then I am seriously starting to feel the same way on this issue of World Police. But it isn't an issue of Republican or Democrat, it is a significant push within Washington DC (via AIPAC) to finish this crisis once and for all at the sacrifice of millions of people.

Just as it was with Iraq. Because you know who also said what you stated about not being the World's Police.

But a "New Pearl Harbor" did change all that.

As you note, it isn't Republican or Democrat. I'm not trying to be crass but Bush didn't work alone or differently from Clinton. Likewise Obama will stick our nose into policing the world as well. The argument will become about how Bush did it wrong and Obama will do it better but hopefully at some point the argument will be "better" is only relative and we ought not be doing it at all.

When that question does come up, if there can't be discussion because neo-cons and liberals like described above get to discredit the other side using -isms and caricatures, then whoever doesn't stand against that will have helped continue and contributed to the continuation of war/world police policy.

We don't have to engage the ideals of Cheney, he is a monster. We don't have to engage the ideals of Bush, he is a retard. We don't have to engage Palin, she is a bimbo.

We need to stop the short cuts in thinking no matter the side. That doesn't mean one cannot draw conclusions, but caricatures are not conclusions.

Quote:
Now we have a crisis in Israel/Gaza. There are two things that could happen, the very likely one that a cease fire will be in place before January 20th and/or the escalation continues. The latter would be catastrophic.

But as you, I have concerns now that Obama's foreign policy is flawed. It may not have been all his doing. Certainly you have to take the fact that Bush destroyed it to begin with.

So I have concerns just as you on certain issues with the fledgling Obama administration as well. It has just been the Israeli/Gaza massacre that has made it evident.

We. Will. See.

I have no doubt there will be a cease-fire but what does that really mean since it has happened dozens of times before now. Does it really mean we stop fighting until new tunnels are built and new rockets and bombs are built or bought?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #249 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Of course there are plans ahead. Remember my sig about those wanting us out of Iraq but in Darfur? Remember my claims about a neo-con position being the old liberal position and finally that if you take Truman Doctrine and change the word communism to terrorism, that you have followed what every president, Republican or Democrat has done since it was enacted?

Well, then it's agreed that whomever is elected into office is more or less one who will do more harm than good for it's people? I believe your claim regarding Clinton is true, but we as a people were not affected economically or diplomatically as much as the Bush administration's military option to "policing" or enabling four Middle Eastern countries at the same time (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Israel).

Quote:
As you note, it isn't Republican or Democrat. I'm not trying to be crass but Bush didn't work alone or differently from Clinton. Likewise Obama will stick our nose into policing the world as well. The argument will become about how Bush did it wrong and Obama will do it better but hopefully at some point the argument will be "better" is only relative and we ought not be doing it at all.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz and others were the writers and followers of the interventionist Project for the New American Century. Bush was just along for the ride. We all know that it wasn't for what they claimed but only for profit and gain within their neoconservative views. Though I should suggest Clinton had one of his own, one that Eisenhower warned would come and what would be another controlling and dominate factor with every other president. The military industrial complex he had to abide to (and yes even profit from). That's another syndrome that has gone out of control with this previous administration.

Quote:
When that question does come up, if there can't be discussion because neo-cons and liberals like described above get to discredit the other side using -isms and caricatures, then whoever doesn't stand against that will have helped continue and contributed to the continuation of war/world police policy.

The overall framework of our government has been in a shambles and the system has been gamed completely out of whack from many leaders and politicians. Again, this last administration has shown how far one can go, farther in my opinion than Nixon did. My vote for Obama was the only course I believed this country should have to take after such abuse. We won't know what course it will be until he is sworn in. I have evidence now that the existing corrupt system in place will not make his job or our lives any easier. But that shouldn't fall on his shoulders unless he fails.

Quote:
We don't have to engage the ideals of Cheney, he is a monster. We don't have to engage the ideals of Bush, he is a retard. We don't have to engage Palin, she is a bimbo.

We need to stop the short cuts in thinking no matter the side. That doesn't mean one cannot draw conclusions, but caricatures are not conclusions.

Well, I honestly believe all three of those claims. Sorry, but over time and some thorough research brought me to that conclusion.

Quote:
I have no doubt there will be a cease-fire but what does that really mean since it has happened dozens of times before now. Does it really mean we stop fighting until new tunnels are built and new rockets and bombs are built or bought?

I believe a cease-fire will be in place on or after January 20th because the Israeli government used the transition period to their, Bush's and AIPACs advantage. Blow up and kill as many innocent people and infrastructure as possible and rally their people on their political parties for their next election.

Israel's government is like a rotten step-child that needs to misbehave when the parents aren't home. They have been enabled to do this by our government for decades. Unfortunately they are never punished for this. In my opinion they should.

You want to have America stop being the World Police? Then the first step would be stopping Israel's government from creating more atrocities and tensions in Gaza and the Middle East. Absolute removal of economic and military aid.

I know, ain't going to happen.
post #250 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Of course there are plans ahead. Remember my sig about those wanting us out of Iraq but in Darfur? Remember my claims about a neo-con position being the old liberal position and finally that if you take Truman Doctrine and change the word communism to terrorism, that you have followed what every president, Republican or Democrat has done since it was enacted?



As you note, it isn't Republican or Democrat. I'm not trying to be crass but Bush didn't work alone or differently from Clinton. Likewise Obama will stick our nose into policing the world as well. The argument will become about how Bush did it wrong and Obama will do it better but hopefully at some point the argument will be "better" is only relative and we ought not be doing it at all.

When that question does come up, if there can't be discussion because neo-cons and liberals like described above get to discredit the other side using -isms and caricatures, then whoever doesn't stand against that will have helped continue and contributed to the continuation of war/world police policy.

We don't have to engage the ideals of Cheney, he is a monster. We don't have to engage the ideals of Bush, he is a retard. We don't have to engage Palin, she is a bimbo.

We need to stop the short cuts in thinking no matter the side. That doesn't mean one cannot draw conclusions, but caricatures are not conclusions.



I have no doubt there will be a cease-fire but what does that really mean since it has happened dozens of times before now. Does it really mean we stop fighting until new tunnels are built and new rockets and bombs are built or bought?

Quote:
I'm not trying to be crass but Bush didn't work alone or differently from Clinton.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #251 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Well, then it's agreed that whomever is elected into office is more or less one who will do more harm than good for it's people? I believe your claim regarding Clinton is true, but we as a people were not affected economically or diplomatically as much as the Bush administration's military option to "policing" or enabling four Middle Eastern countries at the same time (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Israel).



Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz and others were the writers and followers of the interventionist Project for the New American Century. Bush was just along for the ride. We all know that it wasn't for what they claimed but only for profit and gain within their neoconservative views. Though I should suggest Clinton had one of his own, one that Eisenhower warned would come and what would be another controlling and dominate factor with every other president. The military industrial complex he had to abide to (and yes even profit from). That's another syndrome that has gone out of control with this previous administration.



The overall framework of our government has been in a shambles and the system has been gamed completely out of whack from many leaders and politicians. Again, this last administration has shown how far one can go, farther in my opinion than Nixon did. My vote for Obama was the only course I believed this country should have to take after such abuse. We won't know what course it will be until he is sworn in. I have evidence now that the existing corrupt system in place will not make his job or our lives any easier. But that shouldn't fall on his shoulders unless he fails.



Well, I honestly believe all three of those claims. Sorry, but over time and some thorough research brought me to that conclusion.



I believe a cease-fire will be in place on or after January 20th because the Israeli government used the transition period to their, Bush's and AIPACs advantage. Blow up and kill as many innocent people and infrastructure as possible and rally their people on their political parties for their next election.

Israel's government is like a rotten step-child that needs to misbehave when the parents aren't home. They have been enabled to do this by our government for decades. Unfortunately they are never punished for this. In my opinion they should.

You want to have America stop being the World Police? Then the first step would be stopping Israel's government from creating more atrocities and tensions in Gaza and the Middle East. Absolute removal of economic and military aid.

I know, ain't going to happen.

I don't things in the world would be the same under Clinton. He didn't do everything I like but Bush really takes the cake.

Quote:
You want to have America stop being the World Police? Then the first step would be stopping Israel's government from creating more atrocities and tensions in Gaza and the Middle East. Absolute removal of economic and military aid.

I'm in total agreement here. I really don't know what we're doing helping thiese guys when they cause half the problem.

Quote:
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz and others were the writers and followers of the interventionist Project for the New American Century. Bush was just along for the ride. We all know that it wasn't for what they claimed but only for profit and gain within their neoconservative views. Though I should suggest Clinton had one of his own, one that Eisenhower warned would come and what would be another controlling and dominate factor with every other president. The military industrial complex he had to abide to (and yes even profit from). That's another syndrome that has gone out of control with this previous administration.

In agreement here also. Much like the Cylons " They have a plan ".

Sorry I watched BSG last night. Great episode and great show.

Quote:
That's another syndrome that has gone out of control with this previous administration.

I don't think they counted on how inept this administration would be. The possibility of a McCain / Palin one would have finished us off. Pretty scary if you ask me as things are bad enough.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #252 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I don't things in the world would be the same under Clinton. He didn't do everything I like but Bush really takes the cake.

My assessment with Clinton is that he was as naive as Obama going in (remember the two enter(ed) the Oval Office very young and both are(were) just as idealistic), and became what many presidents have become part of the system of power they at first despised, and unwilling or unable to change. But I think Clinton had far more of a grasp of who pulls the strings on any president during his second term and learned to manipulate a few for his own gain. But his dick got the better of him. Still a good president in many ways. One we know that Obama will confide in the next four years.

There has been a system, a thread maybe is a better term, of power and influence, coming from many previous presidencies (Reagan's was one and Bush I certainly, maybe even before Reagan) that continues to sway and influence policy from the house and senate all the way into the CIA, FBI, the Pentagon and it is a mixture of ideological and religious to corporate (Wall Street and banks especially in the last 95 years). I don't think one needs a tin hat to know this. G. W. Bush didn't have much to worry about pushing policy for this very reason, anyone opposite of that will either capitulate or fight the hard fight.

You would believe though that Obama would have slight advantage with the inner workings being a senator in Chicago and then in DC. Whereas Clinton was not. This is why I don't always think a governor is always a good choice IMO....

Quote:
I'm in total agreement here. I really don't know what we're doing helping thiese guys when they cause half the problem.

Well, my prediction seems to be true. Seems to be. Israel declares ceasefire in Gaza. But after what Hamas has endured, Hamas will vow to fight on until their demands are met. Which Hamas is doing... They will keep doing so. Namely, until Israeli troops completely leave Gaza.

Israel must lift the blockade. Israel isn't lifting it during the ceasefire for a reason. And if it doesn't lift it now, Hamas will keep firing rockets, giving Israel more pretext to launch more strikes on or into Gaza... again.

So whether Israel believed they could invade Gaza and wipe out an entire population in three weeks before Obama takes office was feasible, they were wrong.

Really, thanks Israel for creating an international incident beyond even Bush to start things up again. Thanks.

Quote:
In agreement here also. Much like the Cylons " They have a plan ".

They may still do.

Quote:
Sorry I watched BSG last night. Great episode and great show.

Is it really that good? This coming from the old-school BSG where even then I thought it was a rip-off of Star Wars... I'll have to check it out, after I finish watching Firefly...

Quote:
I don't think they counted on how inept this administration would be. The possibility of a McCain / Palin one would have finished us off. Pretty scary if you ask me as things are bad enough.

McCain has his good points, but I realized with his choice of Palin, it was a last ditch attempt to become president before it was too late...or too old. Another reason why I chose Obama.

For me, the scales still tip in Obama's favor. But the issues (and that system/thread I discussed) outweigh the chance of a smooth course for change or much less hope. But I guess we'll see.

Obama didn't create the word hope.
post #253 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I don't think they counted on how inept this administration would be. The possibility of a McCain / Palin one would have finished us off. Pretty scary if you ask me as things are bad enough.

I think whoever is pulling the strings behind behind him was counting on GW being inept, and thus we had the Palin nomination: they need ineptitude in the WH to let them run the game as they will.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #254 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Is it really that good?

If you take The Wire, The West Wing, Firefly, Buffy, and Damages and roll them all together, you're getting close to how good BSG is.

Seriously.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #255 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Well, then it's agreed that whomever is elected into office is more or less one who will do more harm than good for it's people? I believe your claim regarding Clinton is true, but we as a people were not affected economically or diplomatically as much as the Bush administration's military option to "policing" or enabling four Middle Eastern countries at the same time (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Israel).

Obama as you know (because I sent you the link when I didn't have time to get to it and btw thanks for posting it) has already made statements with regard to clear military options for three out of those four, has made strong statements on a fifth (Iran) and we can't guarantee those troops in Iraq will come home.

As I loved pointing out before the election, "redeployed out of Iraq" isn't home. As the link notes and as I noticed in his statements, he has pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan (his own surge) and I believe I specifically started a thread on the fact that he wouldn't rule out preemptive war as an option.(Pakistan)

All president, no matter what the pledge cannot control all the factors that happen on their watch. As you noted, Bush sounded more isolationist, but attacks on our own soil changed that. It has to make you wonder and worry when the guy that people perceive as being for peace really is more hawkish than they seem to understand. I've snarked at it by noting the tearing down invisible walls and protecting the bloggers of Iran but the reality is that his statements talked about much more than preemption of fighting. They talked about an intolerance of many more factors and the desire to preemptively address those factors. That Berlin speech has some incredibly broad calls and if you read the transcript without looking at the pretty face saying them or (heaven forbid) if you imagined someone like Cheney reading those words, it would scare the crap out of you.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.


Remember what I said about taking Communism and replacing it with Terrorism. Obama here is calling for NATO, a defensive organization to become an offensive organization that will go to war worldwide to end terrorism. People complained about Bush acting without the U.N. to address Iraq and somehow turn a blind eye to Obama demanding NATO preemptively go to war with any elements worldwide associated with terrorism.

Quote:
The overall framework of our government has been in a shambles and the system has been gamed completely out of whack from many leaders and politicians. Again, this last administration has shown how far one can go, farther in my opinion than Nixon did. My vote for Obama was the only course I believed this country should have to take after such abuse. We won't know what course it will be until he is sworn in. I have evidence now that the existing corrupt system in place will not make his job or our lives any easier. But that shouldn't fall on his shoulders unless he fails.

I think the frameworkd of government is in shambles in part because starting with Nixon the media realized they actually have as much power as many of the officials who are elected. Some like to put forward the notion that the media doesn't serve Democratic interests but instead serve their own interests. There is truth to that statement but only if you realize that they serve their interest and their interests are to the left of even the Democratic party.

This is why Bill Clinton can go from being the "First Black President" to being practically Jim Crow himself when running against Obama who was seen as being to the left of his wife. One of the reasons Obama can appear so tranquil and to the high road is because the media is rendering the attacks for him and they desire to do so.

We will watch this play out with Obama as well since the media is now already proving cover for him with regard to his Pax Americana actions. We've seen a sudden influx of stories about how "hard" it will be to close Gitmo and how "dangerous" everyone there suddenly happens to be. We've heard about how he will end torture except for loopholes and of course this will be fine.

The time Obama will fail is when he fails to follow the precise way in which the media is liberal. If there are types of Democrats, bluedog for example, the Obama must surely be the best Media Democrat.

Quote:
Well, I honestly believe all three of those claims. Sorry, but over time and some thorough research brought me to that conclusion.

Perhaps you should look into how the media has attempted to discredit every Obama opponent and how the media now reduces anyone they don't want elected down to a caricature.

Here is a good one, when Obama was running for Senate the media went to California and got the divorce records of his opponent unsealed so they could air claims by his ex-wife and effectively end his campaign. You said you believe the caricature of Palin and on what would that be based? She is a mother of five and has been married to the same man since her 20's. How does that make her a bimbo?

In the meantime the media went after anyone and everything associated with her. Obama didn't have to lift a finger. What does it say when the governor with an incredibly high job satisfaction rating can watch it begin to plummet not because of actions she took as governor, but because the media decides to create and keep fabricating dirt to fling for months on end.

Obama was elected by the media. They came off the sidelines in ways that Clinton supports, Palin supports, anyone but Obama supporters can easily understand. The feelings may be soothed for a while, but it will be interesting to see what happens when Obama does something the media doesn't already endorse.

Quote:
I believe a cease-fire will be in place on or after January 20th because the Israeli government used the transition period to their, Bush's and AIPACs advantage. Blow up and kill as many innocent people and infrastructure as possible and rally their people on their political parties for their next election.

Israel's government is like a rotten step-child that needs to misbehave when the parents aren't home. They have been enabled to do this by our government for decades. Unfortunately they are never punished for this. In my opinion they should.

You want to have America stop being the World Police? Then the first step would be stopping Israel's government from creating more atrocities and tensions in Gaza and the Middle East. Absolute removal of economic and military aid.

I know, ain't going to happen.

Obama could just as easily press the case against their actions when he takes office. He will do the bidding of the media since for now, they happen to match his aims.

BTW, I watched MTP this morning and sure enough, Rahm was asked a couple yes or no questions about Blago. I think one was the media narrative and a couple straw men to knock down. If I asked yes or no questions to fourth graders I'd be fired for not activating their critical thinking.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #256 of 383
Oh oh! Rahm wasn't under the bus this morning! He was on " Meet The Press "!

I didn't even see any tire tracks.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #257 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh oh! Rahm wasn't under the bus this morning! He was on " Meet The Press "!

I didn't even see any tire tracks.

Is it possible that MTP is under the bus?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #258 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

My assessment with Clinton is that he was as naive as Obama going in (remember the two enter(ed) the Oval Office very young and both are(were) just as idealistic), and became what many presidents have become part of the system of power they at first despised, and unwilling or unable to change. But I think Clinton had far more of a grasp of who pulls the strings on any president during his second term and learned to manipulate a few for his own gain. But his dick got the better of him. Still a good president in many ways. One we know that Obama will confide in the next four years.

There has been a system, a thread maybe is a better term, of power and influence, coming from many previous presidencies (Reagan's was one and Bush I certainly, maybe even before Reagan) that continues to sway and influence policy from the house and senate all the way into the CIA, FBI, the Pentagon and it is a mixture of ideological and religious to corporate (Wall Street and banks especially in the last 95 years). I don't think one needs a tin hat to know this. G. W. Bush didn't have much to worry about pushing policy for this very reason, anyone opposite of that will either capitulate or fight the hard fight.

You would believe though that Obama would have slight advantage with the inner workings being a senator in Chicago and then in DC. Whereas Clinton was not. This is why I don't always think a governor is always a good choice IMO....



Well, my prediction seems to be true. Seems to be. Israel declares ceasefire in Gaza. But after what Hamas has endured, Hamas will vow to fight on until their demands are met. Which Hamas is doing... They will keep doing so. Namely, until Israeli troops completely leave Gaza.

Israel must lift the blockade. Israel isn't lifting it during the ceasefire for a reason. And if it doesn't lift it now, Hamas will keep firing rockets, giving Israel more pretext to launch more strikes on or into Gaza... again.

So whether Israel believed they could invade Gaza and wipe out an entire population in three weeks before Obama takes office was feasible, they were wrong.

Really, thanks Israel for creating an international incident beyond even Bush to start things up again. Thanks.



They may still do.



Is it really that good? This coming from the old-school BSG where even then I thought it was a rip-off of Star Wars... I'll have to check it out, after I finish watching Firefly...



McCain has his good points, but I realized with his choice of Palin, it was a last ditch attempt to become president before it was too late...or too old. Another reason why I chose Obama.

For me, the scales still tip in Obama's favor. But the issues (and that system/thread I discussed) outweigh the chance of a smooth course for change or much less hope. But I guess we'll see.

Obama didn't create the word hope.

Quote:
Is it really that good? This coming from the old-school BSG where even then I thought it was a rip-off of Star Wars... I'll have to check it out, after I finish watching Firefly...

It's really that good! It's like the old BSG in name and some of the appearance only. It's much deeper and more convoluted. If you haven't seen it yet you kind of have to watch it from the begining to appreciate all the changes in character and storyline. The last one had me hanging my mouth open at one point I was so shocked at what I just saw on the screen to a major character. Great effects, Edward James Olmos ( the other actors are good also ), and a really engaging storyline that while they've been giving alot more information as of late somethings still have to be played out ( and only 9 more episodes until the end now ).

When it's that unpredictable I love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HgfVctM3eU

I've watched all of " Firefly " and have viewed that scene before. Pretty funny!

That's a show that really didn't get a fair chance from FOX.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #259 of 383
Blame the media? Check.

Blame the Democrats? Check.

Blame the Boomers? Check.

Blame the goobermint? Check.

Quote:
Obama was elected by the media.

Geez, you finally, after all this time, have finally been able to actually just go ahead and just say what you really believe.

What took you so long?

Teacher, the media ate my homework.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #260 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

Battle of ideas. Dry up well of extremism likely doesn't mean "make a bunch of new Martyrs For The Cause".

Quote:

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.


Remember what I said about taking Communism and replacing it with Terrorism. Obama here is calling for NATO, a defensive organization to become an offensive organization that will go to war worldwide to end terrorism.

No, he's saying that we need to win in Afghanistan. NATO is already in Afghanistan. I hope that Obama does not view it as "War on Terror" as much as "War against Taliban and al Qaeda". The first is unwinnable and too broad...a significant mistake on Bush's part. The latter is constrained and focused on entities that have actually attacked us.

Also, military action is only one element of that sentence that includes "develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation". This would help "dry the well".

Quote:
People complained about Bush acting without the U.N. to address Iraq and somehow turn a blind eye to Obama demanding NATO preemptively go to war with any elements worldwide associated with terrorism.

Only in your interpretation. Are you saying that 9/11 was not a casus belli? Is there a reason we cannot and should not invoke NATO treaty obligations for Afghanistan?

Quote:
I think the frameworkd of government is in shambles in part because starting with Nixon the media realized they actually have as much power as many of the officials who are elected. Some like to put forward the notion that the media doesn't serve Democratic interests but instead serve their own interests. There is truth to that statement but only if you realize that they serve their interest and their interests are to the left of even the Democratic party.

Old rich guys interested in making mo' money is to the left of the Democratic party?

Quote:
We will watch this play out with Obama as well since the media is now already proving cover for him with regard to his Pax Americana actions.

Well jeez, if he wasn't doing "Pax Americana" actions you'd be whining that he was weak and the media was covering for that.

Quote:
We've seen a sudden influx of stories about how "hard" it will be to close Gitmo and how "dangerous" everyone there suddenly happens to be.

Yes, complicated situations defy instant responses.

Quote:
We've heard about how he will end torture except for loopholes and of course this will be fine.

The first step is a good one. Whether loopholes will exist remain to be seen but the article certainly outlines the risks and negative aspects of such a loophole.

Quote:
...media conspiracy stuff deleted...

UFOs and 9/11 "demolition" folks are not the only conspiracy theorists around I guess.
post #261 of 383
Quote:
MR. GREGORY: You haven't talked about your role with regard to the communications between the Obama team. You haven't talked about it publicly; I know you've obviously cooperated with everybody who, who's asked you. And there was an internal report which specified that you had two calls with Governor Blagojevich and four calls with his chief of staff, John Harris. This had to do with who might succeed the president-elect in his Senate seat. What was the nature of those conversations?

MR. EMANUEL: As described in the document we made public, we talked in general about the, the right type of people that could be served as U.S. senator. And those are the conversations you would have with the chief of staff, and they're all the appropriate conversations.

MR. GREGORY: At any point during those discussions with either Governor Blagojevich or with his chief of staff, did you get the impression or the distinct impression that he wanted something in return for exceeding...

MR. EMANUEL: No.

MR. GREGORY: ...to the recommendation of the president-elect?

MR. EMANUEL: No.

MR. GREGORY: Nothing at all.

MR. EMANUEL: No.

MR. GREGORY: In the criminal complaint, it indicates that Blagojevich said that he knows that the president-elect wants a certain Senate candidate for the Senate seat, but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation." Expletive "them." Why would he say that if there would--hadn't been some discussion about whether he'd get anything besides appreciation?


MR. EMANUEL: Well, I--you know, I--if you need to, we can always make sure that Governor Blagojevich gets on the show. You need to ask him.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

This is what Majority Leader Harry Reid said on this program two weeks ago.

(Videotape, January 4, 2009)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that's pretty clear.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Do you agree with that?

MR. EMANUEL: Well, you know, first of all you got to--the U.S. state--rather, the state Senate in Illinois is now in the middle of their impeachment hearings. You have an ongoing investigation. That's what the grand jury and the jury is going to decide, if it goes to trial.

MR. GREGORY: But...

MR. EMANUEL: It would, it would be wrong, it would be wrong for me to make any judgment like that. You know, there's a...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. EMANUEL: There's a governor who is obviously in the middle of impeachment hearings that are going to be...

MR. GREGORY: You're going to withhold judgment.

MR. EMANUEL: No, it's just--it wouldn't be appropriate right--I have my own personal views, and that's not what I'm here to show--share with you.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

MR. EMANUEL: OK?

MR. GREGORY: Should Harry Reid have with, with, withheld judgment, do you think, as majority leader?

MR. EMANUEL: No, I'm not going to--that, that's for Harry, that's for Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. He expressed his role. I have a different position as a former--I mean, David, it's self-evident, I have a different position as a former member of Congress from the state of Illinois. He was, he was the governor when I was a member of Congress, he use to hold the seat. I'm now chief of staff to the president. I'm not going to do that. That would be crazy.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #262 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


Really sad about Tim Russert isn't it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #263 of 383
Wait. Does that mean that Rahm is now under the bus?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #264 of 383
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #265 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Obama was elected by the media. They came off the sidelines in ways that Clinton supports, Palin supports, anyone but Obama supporters can easily understand. The feelings may be soothed for a while, but it will be interesting to see what happens when Obama does something the media doesn't already endorse.

.

YES. YES, Nick! PUT THIS ON YOUR BLOG, as often as you can. Obama was elected by the media. He absolutely was. It's far more important that you spend time attempting to convince people of this clear truth than addressing the shortcomings in your party, Sarah Palin's competence, John McCain's consistency, manifesto and campaign and taking any responsibility for the last eight years, which you voted for and defended again and again and again.

Obama was elected by the media.

Just like Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Abraham Lincoln.

www.howobamagotelected.com

Read all about it here.
post #266 of 383
Trumpt, is it your position that David Gregory is either

a) part of a media conspiracy to get Obama elected ad help Obama and cover up any misdeeds?

b) if not a part of, complicit in said conspiracy?

c) in some way "in the tank" for Obama?

If yes, which of those choices do you think applies to David Gregory?

What questions should David Gregory have asked, instead?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #267 of 383
But the real question is whether Obama was elected by the liberal media.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #268 of 383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh oh! Rahm wasn't under the bus this morning! He was on " Meet The Press "!

I didn't even see any tire tracks.

Well as you can see from the quoted interview the "harsh" interview consisted of helping him iron out the inconsistencies of his own story and not questioning it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Is it possible that MTP is under the bus?

I think they are the bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Blame the media? Check.
Blame the Democrats? Check.
Blame the Boomers? Check.
Blame the goobermint? Check.
Geez, you finally, after all this time, have finally been able to actually just go ahead and just say what you really believe.
What took you so long?
Teacher, the media ate my homework.

You are so good at caricaturing, you ought to consider becoming a cartoonist.

Watching all these bubbles pop, why anyone who would suggest that there can be a mass delusion that we wake up from and face reality, they clearly are just deluded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Battle of ideas. Dry up well of extremism likely doesn't mean "make a bunch of new Martyrs For The Cause".

Oh, is that what the talking points say? Last I checked a western power in an Islamic country was what created new martyrs and the solution was leaving, not winning.

Quote:
No, he's saying that we need to win in Afghanistan. NATO is already in Afghanistan. I hope that Obama does not view it as "War on Terror" as much as "War against Taliban and al Qaeda". The first is unwinnable and too broad...a significant mistake on Bush's part. The latter is constrained and focused on entities that have actually attacked us.

Also, military action is only one element of that sentence that includes "develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation". This would help "dry the well".

How exactly is "winning the peace" in Afghanistan going to be any different. Everything you describe is what we are doing in Iraq. The delusion is believing that you can impose democracy and build a nation. It isn't a Bush or Obama delusion, it is just a straight up delusion, period.

Quote:
Only in your interpretation. Are you saying that 9/11 was not a casus belli? Is there a reason we cannot and should not invoke NATO treaty obligations for Afghanistan?

We can protect ourselves within our borders. The apparently now forgotten claims regarding 9/11 are that it occurred because America is spread all over the world like an empire and we don't leave countries to themselves. Is this forgotten much like the first WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole attack, etc all were when Bush was in office. Are we not back to having to kick their ass on their own soil to stop them instead of bringing troops home because we have a Democrat in the White House?

Quote:
Old rich guys interested in making mo' money is to the left of the Democratic party?

I didn't bring up Ted Turner or George Soros, why did you?

Quote:
Well jeez, if he wasn't doing "Pax Americana" actions you'd be whining that he was weak and the media was covering for that.

No I'd say it was right but then the media would declare that anyone not supporting Pax Americana is just racist and hates brown people since we aren't acting in Darfur, controlling the price of tortillas in Mexico, etc.

Quote:
Yes, complicated situations defy instant responses.

Justifications don't require any response ever since all action is excused.

Quote:
The first step is a good one. Whether loopholes will exist remain to be seen but the article certainly outlines the risks and negative aspects of such a loophole.

What first step? This is what is being "floated" by the media to help gauge the public response to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Wait. Does that mean that Rahm is now under the bus?

No. We have to wait longer. Anyone who put 1/18/09 on the betting pool lost.

Quote:
MR. GREGORY: In the criminal complaint, it indicates that Blagojevich said that he knows that the president-elect wants a certain Senate candidate for the Senate seat, but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation." Expletive "them." Why would he say that if there would--hadn't been some discussion about whether he'd get anything besides appreciation?


MR. EMANUEL: Well, I--you know, I--if you need to, we can always make sure that Governor Blagojevich gets on the show. You need to ask him.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

Mr Gregory: Let me hit you with something that doesn't make sense and a bit of information that makes your story fall apart.

Mr. Emanual: These are not the droids you are looking for.....(waving hand)

Mr. Gregory: Ok.

Look at how "smart" and "competent" that Rahm Emanual is when answering questions. I mean I know that if Sarah Palin said, "Don't ask me, ask that other guy" the media response would be "okay" with no follow-up.

You guys are apparently happy with this.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #269 of 383
I would like to see more politicians forced to answer questions about what other people are thinking.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #270 of 383
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #271 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think the frameworkd of government is in shambles in part because starting with Nixon the media realized they actually have as much power as many of the officials who are elected. Some like to put forward the notion that the media doesn't serve Democratic interests but instead serve their own interests. There is truth to that statement but only if you realize that they serve their interest and their interests are to the left of even the Democratic party.

I don't know. John F. Kennedy was attacked constantly by the media by right wing for his ineptitude with Castro and the Bay of Pigs and even with what they perceived at the time, his administration's dealings with the Soviet Union. Mostly in print media. Editorial cartoonists were drawing him under a guillotine and with a target on his back. Some even wished upon his death. Which very well, may have helped make it come about.

He was television's first political star, and that's where I believe where you are getting at with the media and I would agree. So was Reagan on television, but in many cases the press was livid with their hatred towards him, same as Kennedy, which again may have prompted the attempt on his life. Pretty much after that the press stepped back and gave him a free pass to say and do whatever he wanted. Something that still exists today, though the media was multi-pronged, whereas today there are only four. And those four are owned by even larger, more politically powerful corporations. Which in my opinion is wrong.

But Nixon was sufficient at the time for an attack by the media. He was committing thousands of troops into what is called an illegal war. He was illegally bombing another country and eventually, thanks to the media revealed to have illegally broke in to the opponent's offices and with that tried to rig the election, which he did and may have also done in 1968.

So again, it works both ways. Yes, the media can be evil, but it can do what is right too. No surprise there.

Quote:
This is why Bill Clinton can go from being the "First Black President" to being practically Jim Crow himself when running against Obama who was seen as being to the left of his wife. One of the reasons Obama can appear so tranquil and to the high road is because the media is rendering the attacks for him and they desire to do so.

You seem to forget totally FoxNews and their constant 24/7 attacks on Obama sometimes don't you?

Quote:
The time Obama will fail is when he fails to follow the precise way in which the media is liberal. If there are types of Democrats, bluedog for example, the Obama must surely be the best Media Democrat.

We have become American Idolized. A sad fact. Remember, I don't have television constantly blaring on ears and eyes as 90% of everyone else here. I tended to get what I needed or wanted through my own "channels" via the Internet. From segments of the mainsteam media to the lowly video reporter with no agenda at all. I watched more interviews with Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and others just sitting at a card table or standing in a parking lot before a rally than you have.

Quote:
Perhaps you should look into how the media has attempted to discredit every Obama opponent and how the media now reduces anyone they don't want elected down to a caricature.

Again, sorry to say this, but you are wrong in this case. You have to thank the people I mentioned for that. Those people who capture moments that politicians don't want anyone to see. From McCain's "Bomb, Bomb, Iran and "100 more years" to Palin's idiotic, hate filled rally goers, it was all there to see. You think the media gave Obama a free pass, I'll say that though no one's perfect, he survived because of his poise and yes, his instinctive nature. That guided him through the shark pool that the media is. Here's a lesson all politicians should learn, don't be an ass anytime during a campaign, it will be bitten in the end.

Quote:
Here is a good one, when Obama was running for Senate the media went to California and got the divorce records of his opponent unsealed so they could air claims by his ex-wife and effectively end his campaign. You said you believe the caricature of Palin and on what would that be based? She is a mother of five and has been married to the same man since her 20's. How does that make her a bimbo?

Don't defend this woman trumptman. At least not with the argument that she was chum on a hook from the beginning. She was a model of ineptitude and contradiction. Yet, if given to the "right" media outlet, FoxNews let's say and given softball questions, she comes off as the Virgin Mary.

Works both ways...

Quote:
In the meantime the media went after anyone and everything associated with her. Obama didn't have to lift a finger. What does it say when the governor with an incredibly high job satisfaction rating can watch it begin to plummet not because of actions she took as governor, but because the media decides to create and keep fabricating dirt to fling for months on end.

Again, it's best just to let this one go. She had just as many supporters now than she has critics. Give her time and she will be back. The media (Fox and right radio) will be counting the days...

Quote:
Obama was elected by the media. They came off the sidelines in ways that Clinton supports, Palin supports, anyone but Obama supporters can easily understand. The feelings may be soothed for a while, but it will be interesting to see what happens when Obama does something the media doesn't already endorse.

Uh, most politicians/presidents since the 1800's have been in bed with the media. So in many ways the media does help elect a president. They also, as I have pointed out, have destroyed presidents.

It's there job. Our job as people is to be educated, but we all know that that has been the problem for many these days to begin with.

Quote:
Obama could just as easily press the case against their actions when he takes office. He will do the bidding of the media since for now, they happen to match his aims.

With the media, all presidents get a free pass. Until they stumble. Then as with all previous elected ones, they enter the shark pool. Obama will be no different. Guaranteed.

Quote:
BTW, I watched MTP this morning and sure enough, Rahm was asked a couple yes or no questions about Blago. I think one was the media narrative and a couple straw men to knock down. If I asked yes or no questions to fourth graders I'd be fired for not activating their critical thinking.

Was he asked what the new Obama administration and himself will do about the Israeli genocide?

Guess not. That's more pressing to me than a meeting Rahm may have had with an asshole.

Shit this typing is killing me. Done for now...\
post #272 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Look at how "smart" and "competent" that Rahm Emanual is when answering questions. I mean I know that if Sarah Palin said, "Don't ask me, ask that other guy" the media response would be "okay" with no follow-up.
.

Absolutely. Rahm Emanuel and Sarah Palin are genuinely comparable in their interview technique, articulacy and acuity. When Rahm answers a question and you don't like the answer, it is because he is avoiding the question.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

PALIN 2012
post #273 of 383
Well, if it had been Palin in the position that Rahm is now, and she had been asked about phone calls, she would have said:

"You know, when it comes to phone calls and candidates and whatever position the voters have entrusted me with, there, I think it's very important to be very clear with the American people with regards to how they communicate, and when there is some question as there is there we've just got to do a better job of avoiding even the appearance of any wrong-doing, there, and I think that's what's happened, so, you know, I have faith that the American people will know what's right and we'll continue to work to put this country back on the right path with job creation and tax cuts, there."

And there would have been no followup question because lingering in the vicinity of such is too depressing, even for reporters.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #274 of 383
Also.
post #275 of 383
There.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #276 of 383
Wink!
post #277 of 383
You betcha.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #278 of 383
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #279 of 383
I am the future of the Republican Party.
post #280 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Absolutely. Rahm Emanuel and Sarah Palin are genuinely comparable in their interview technique, articulacy and acuity. When Rahm answers a question and you don't like the answer, it is because he is avoiding the question.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

PALIN 2012


Oh please let her run! Oh please, please, please, let it be her!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool