Originally posted by Q5echo
until when? whatever:rolleyes:
anyways, you have some fairly lacking assumptions about a lot of things, espescially the media.
until you decide to participate in actual discussion and/or debate rather than your petty game of reactionary short responses to the opinions of others. opus might entertain them but thats his prerogative
i really hope the next 8 years are infinitely more frustrating for people with your assumptions than the last 8 years were for people with mine.
Q5echo
all i pointed out was how utterly sureal the irony has become this political season and your "petty", baseless media assertions that, apparently, you can't even defend.
cry me a river Josh. cry me a frikken river.
quote:
i really hope the next 8 years are infinitely more frustrating for people with your assumptions than the last 8 years were for people with mine.
i'm an adult.
Q5echo
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
until when? whatever:rolleyes:
anyways, you have some fairly lacking assumptions about a lot of things, espescially the media.
Yeah, lots of assumptions. You bet. I especially like this last line in the Politico/Drudge article:
quote:
It is not an easy balance. It is not reporters’ job to promote the opposition’s story lines — especially dubious ones like the suggestion that because Obama does not favor flag pins on his lapel it reflects adversely on his patriotism. But nor can serious reporters avert their gaze from the fact that questions about how well candidates connect personally and culturally with voters matter a lot — they were decisive factors in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Yeah, reap what you stupid ing people in the 51 percent Bush-vote sow, at least the ones who are complaining now. That's the one thing that gets me - people who were warned about the Bush was going to bring down on this country for the next 4 years, yet they bought into the Swift Boat bull and "don't change horses in the middle of a race" line anyway. Oh but of course things are so terrible now, with Mister Bush having some 28% approval, the economy is tanking, we see nothing but red and $9 trillion in debt, our image across the world is a pile of dung heap, and those stupid ing people have the gall to complain.
Because, well, Bush connected better than Kerry. I'll always grant that Kerry had his faults, and he most certainly could have handled his adversity better, but these arguments for the collectively stupid dips deserve a big, fat, giant, mothering
"GIVE ME A ING BREAK!"
Reap it, twits. You want to ignore the issues and go after Drudge-like Swiftboat character smears, despite the fact that Bush was a ing war-dodging in his own right with a giant hole in his own ing military record, be my guest. Just don't complain when things continue down the road of hell. Either sit on your support for Bush with the remaining 28% or shut the up, because you were too horribly blind, ignorant, or dumb not to see exactly what kind of Presidency and Administrative policies we were going to get.
quote:
Gibson and Stephanopoulos handled this balancing act responsibly.
Yeah, imagine a Drudge cheerleader like Politico siding with the media attacking the Democratic frontrunner. Shocking. Utterly shocking.
quote:
They asked tough questions of both candidates. In the wake of the debate, it is time for Obama’s cheerleaders in the media to ask some questions of themselves.
Good question. I think I should probably start asking if these items that those stupid dyanamic duo nutsacks for ABC seemingly failed to ask and consider, such as, oh, I dunno:
1.The financial crisis
2.The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
3.Afghanistan
4.Health care
5.Torture
6.The declining value of the US Dollar
7.Education
8.Trade
9.Pakistan
10.Energy
11.Immigration
12.The decline of American manufacturing
13.The Supreme Court
14.The burgeoning world food crisis.
15.Global warming
16.China
17.The attacks on organized labor and the working class
18.Terrorism and al Qaeda
19.Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance
And, oh yeah, barely touching on Iraq for a few minutes doesn't quite qualify that item very well covered either.
But anyway, yes, I have to ask myself if I care about these things, instead of a ing flag pin made in ing China that neither Obama nor McCain ever wears and should not even be a ing thought of consideration for a topic of debate.
Nor is a guilt by association bull, to which hardly any Republican candidate could ever wipe their ing hands clean of the association messes they've had in the past:
I hope all the wingnuts who plan to beat up on Barack Obama because he served on the board of a community foundation with someone who did something horribly disgusting in 1970 and said he wasn't sorry for it in 2001 are absolutely certain that they have no similar contact with anyone involved in supporting or facilitating:
1. The terrorist campaign to maintain racial domination in the South. (That would include virtually the entire political and law enforcement leadership of the whole region.) For example when William F. Buckley wrote:
quote:
The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
he knew very well that "such measures as are necessary" included lynching. He eventually changed his mind about racial superiority. But did he ever make apology, let alone reparation, to the scores of people who were murdered in defense of the segregationist cause while he continued to adhere to it? And of course Strom Thurmond as Governor of South Carolina must have been much more directly involved in promoting and protecting terrorist violence. Yet no one has suggested that sitting on a charitable board with Strom Thurmond constituted retroactive support for terrorism.
2. The terrorist campaign directed by anti-Castro organizations in South Florida against other Cuban-Americans and against independent media, including the successful effort to make it impossible to distribute the Miami Herald in Cuban Miami through the use of systematic violence, including firebombing, against newsdealers who failed to comply with the boycott called by the Cuban-American National Foundation. Like the segregationist campaign, this couldn't have continued without at least the passive connivance of the rest of the Cuban-American political establishment of Miami and of federal and local law enforcement agencies.
3. The largely successful terrorist campaign to shut down clinics that offered abortion services.
I have no brief for William Ayers. I wouldn't have put him on a foundation board, and I'd be disinclined to shake his hand. But the notion that the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party somehow introduced violence into a previously non-violent polity doesn't pass the giggle test. The American Right has infinitely more blood on its hands in this regard than does the American Left.
And of course the whole stupid Wright controversy was flogging a dead horse into the ground, to which the perspective of McCain's endorsement by the extremist, anti-Catholic, evangelical nutbag Rev. Hagee was largely ignored. And, of course, Stephanopolis, a former member of the Clinton Administration asking if Obama loves his country more than Wright, a man who gave up his life to fight in the Marines, who may have a wee bit of patriotism in him as well, how the hell that could ever be a worthy question is beyond me.
But yeah, I don't want to know about how and where our candidates stand on those 19 issues listed above + Iraq. No, I want to know when the next time Obama feels compelled to where an American flag pin made in China will be.
Or if he's ing black enough.
Or if he's white. What is his race, and why does he hate the opposing race so much, whichever one it may be?
Or if he has pierced nipples.
Or when he's FINALLY going to come out and tell people he's a Muslim extremist who's in leagues with bin Laden, or Saddam since he shares the same name.
Or when the last time the man had a hard on. Because we really need to know if he's in control of himself and his obviously raging hormones. These are things we have to know.
And I need to know them right now, despite the fact that our country is going into the ter, despite the never ending war that you Republicans plan to keep us in over in Iraq, despite the absolute eagerness you ing neocons have for attacking Iran whenever we blink or look the other way, despite the never ending borrowing and spending habits that this Administration has incurred that puts a ing birth tax on every baby born today who will have to pay for your ing bills later.
The bottom line is this, and you know this to be true - you can't talk about those 19 issues + Iraq above, because you will get your ing asses handed to you on a platter. Those are issues that the majority of Americans clearly side with the Democrats, and they are the most pressing issues today that are collectively bending us over. But those are hot-button issues that your GOP strategists are telling you to stay the hell away from, because they know where the majority of Americans stand on them. Bush has given us his giant rod right up our asses, and he didn't even bother to hand us some lube. McCain is slightly to the left on some of those issues, and more to the right on others, but by and large he is exactly what you Republicans stand for - more of the ing same. More Iraq, more tax cuts and supply-side economics during a time of war that will continue to throw our economy out the window, more fiscally insane policies, more denials of global warming by paid oil company consultants, more screwing over our kids with NCLB-like policies, more complete lack of accountability, more ing of our 4th Amendment rights and liberties and illegal wiretaps, more torture, and more of a big ing black eye that the rest of the world looks at in horror and sadness of the once great country we used to be.
Because instead, you want the shift on guilt by association and a ing flag pin on a jacket. I guess you'll have to pardon me for wanting a bit more out of the discussion in the coming months. I'm sure I'll be disappointed, because it's well-known that our darn "librul" media is run entirely by Drudge and the bull he yaks on his website, but a tiny push-back has started to occur and it's not simply because we're a bunch of "Obamabots" defending our candidate. While I admit I am a bit disappointed with the one-sided attacks on Obama, that's not to be too terribly unexpected considering he is the front-runner.
But this is larger than one candidate, and it has everything to do with our mainstream news media cycle and their complete lack of ethics and demonstrable intellectual laziness. It's become more and more pathetic over the years, and that debate only culminated exactly that point but just in a more compact 1-hour manner. Our media was anything but biased towards Obama. They were nothing but ing lazy lapdogs, and today's NYTimes story exhibits that very well:
Journalistic integrity and investigative journalism have completely gone by the wayside for the O'Reilly/Faux News-like "gotcha" moments. It's like watching a trainwreck, you can't take your eyes off of it but you're disgusted that you're watching it. Well there's a bit of a push-back that's happening, and this issue is not what Americans clearly want or need in their lives.
Of course Faux News and the GOP Right Wing Noise Machine will do their darnest to make sure people watch the "gotcha" instead.
josh4
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Yeah, lots of assumptions. You bet. I especially like this last line in the Politico/Drudge article:
Yeah, reap what you stupid ing people in the 51 percent Bush-vote sow, at least the ones who are complaining now. That's the one thing that gets me - people who were warned about the Bush was going to bring down on this country for the next 4 years, yet they bought into the Swift Boat bull and "don't change horses in the middle of a race" line anyway. Oh but of course things are so terrible now, with Mister Bush having some 28% approval, the economy is tanking, we see nothing but red and $9 trillion in debt, our image across the world is a pile of dung heap, and those stupid ing people have the gall to complain.
Because, well, Bush connected better than Kerry. I'll always grant that Kerry had his faults, and he most certainly could have handled his adversity better, but these arguments for the collectively stupid dips deserve a big, fat, giant, mothering
"GIVE ME A ING BREAK!"
Reap it, twits. You want to ignore the issues and go after Drudge-like Swiftboat character smears, despite the fact that Bush was a ing war-dodging in his own right with a giant hole in his own ing military record, be my guest. Just don't complain when things continue down the road of hell. Either sit on your support for Bush with the remaining 28% or shut the up, because you were too horribly blind, ignorant, or dumb not to see exactly what kind of Presidency and Administrative policies we were going to get.
Yeah, imagine a Drudge cheerleader like Politico siding with the media attacking the Democratic frontrunner. Shocking. Utterly shocking.
Good question. I think I should probably start asking if these items that those stupid dyanamic duo nutsacks for ABC seemingly failed to ask and consider, such as, oh, I dunno:
1.The financial crisis
2.The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
3.Afghanistan
4.Health care
5.Torture
6.The declining value of the US Dollar
7.Education
8.Trade
9.Pakistan
10.Energy
11.Immigration
12.The decline of American manufacturing
13.The Supreme Court
14.The burgeoning world food crisis.
15.Global warming
16.China
17.The attacks on organized labor and the working class
18.Terrorism and al Qaeda
19.Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance
And, oh yeah, barely touching on Iraq for a few minutes doesn't quite qualify that item very well covered either.
But anyway, yes, I have to ask myself if I care about these things, instead of a ing flag pin made in ing China that neither Obama nor McCain ever wears and should not even be a ing thought of consideration for a topic of debate.
Nor is a guilt by association bull, to which hardly any Republican candidate could ever wipe their ing hands clean of the association messes they've had in the past:
he knew very well that "such measures as are necessary" included lynching. He eventually changed his mind about racial superiority. But did he ever make apology, let alone reparation, to the scores of people who were murdered in defense of the segregationist cause while he continued to adhere to it? And of course Strom Thurmond as Governor of South Carolina must have been much more directly involved in promoting and protecting terrorist violence. Yet no one has suggested that sitting on a charitable board with Strom Thurmond constituted retroactive support for terrorism.
2. The terrorist campaign directed by anti-Castro organizations in South Florida against other Cuban-Americans and against independent media, including the successful effort to make it impossible to distribute the Miami Herald in Cuban Miami through the use of systematic violence, including firebombing, against newsdealers who failed to comply with the boycott called by the Cuban-American National Foundation. Like the segregationist campaign, this couldn't have continued without at least the passive connivance of the rest of the Cuban-American political establishment of Miami and of federal and local law enforcement agencies.
3. The largely successful terrorist campaign to shut down clinics that offered abortion services.
I have no brief for William Ayers. I wouldn't have put him on a foundation board, and I'd be disinclined to shake his hand. But the notion that the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party somehow introduced violence into a previously non-violent polity doesn't pass the giggle test. The American Right has infinitely more blood on its hands in this regard than does the American Left.
like i said the air is thick with irony, but regardless...
so Opus, you don't think American voters should consider "character" when they go to the polls, that they should only focus on "issues" that you or others like you care about? i see a slight disconnect there, but youre entitled to your opinion.
if you honestly believe American voters don't consider character above the issues, espescially when dealing with a man with as little accomplishment and legislative record and personal dealings with the characters he has chosen to associate with as Obama has, then explain John Kerry to us.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
like i said the air is thick with irony, but regardless...
so Opus, you don't think American voters should consider "character" when they go to the polls, that they should only focus on "issues" that you or others like you care about? i see a slight disconnect there, but youre entitled to your opinion.
if you honestly believe American voters don't consider character above the issues, espescially when dealing with a man with as little accomplishment and legislative record and personal dealings with the characters he has chosen to associate with as Obama has, then explain John Kerry to us. [/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are too dumb to consider anything but character in the president. The only character we should focus on is criminal character. Otherwise, as Opus said, the guilt by association, and "gotchas" is just BS politics. If they did something criminal in their past, fine, ask, otherwise ask something which actually matters...
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
like i said the air is thick with irony, but regardless...
so Opus, you don't think American voters should consider "character" when they go to the polls, that they should only focus on "issues" that you or others like you care about? i see a slight disconnect there, but youre entitled to your opinion.
Q, I think questions of character are perfectly legitimate questions that should be asked. I don't deny the importance at all, but the problem I have is that the questions being asked about Obama are not really even about his character, at least in the way they're asked. As John Aravosis explains on CNN yesterday:
Asking a person if their pastor loves America? Asking Obama, "Do you love the American flag?" I agree with John here - what kind of ed up Right Wing garbage is this? Does that have anything to do with character, as you subscribe? And if so, where are the limits? Do you honestly believe we've seen the same garbage thrown at McCain at all, despite his rather interesting past? Because if such lines are thrown, then the following questions to McCain are equally important:
quote:
1. Adultery. McCain reportedly was seeing his second wife while still married to his first wife. And, then we have the issue of the blond lobbyist who looks like McCain's second wife. America deserves answers.
2. Does John McCain require his mistresses to wear a flag pin?
3. McCain working for the enemy. If a US soldier made propaganda tapes for the enemy (like John McCain did), then went on to run for president as a Democrat, the Republicans would eviscerate that candidate. I want George Stephanopoulos to ask John McCain if he loves America as much as soldiers who didn't make propaganda tapes for the enemy while in captivity. Oh, and in case you think I'm kidding, here are McCain's own words:
quote:
Later, I made a second, feebler attempt at suicide. On the fourth day, I gave up. I signed a confession that "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pilot".
The guards ordered me to record my confession on tape. I refused, and was beaten until I consented.
Well, I'm sure a POW has never been beaten before, so it's totally understandable why McCain betrayed his country during his "hero" years in Vietnam. (Or are we to assume that all American POWs betray their country while in captivity, right?)
4. Old age. John McCain is old, everyone knows it. I love my parents, they're in their late 70s, they're great people, but they probably shouldn't be president at this age. John McCain would be the oldest new president EVER if he gets elected (and we all saw what happened to Reagan in his second term). I hope we'll be seeing some hard hitting questions about McCain being simply too old.
5. That enormous thing on the side of McCain's face. McCain had skin cancer a few years ago. He now has some enormous thing on the side of his face that no one is talking about. I want to know why we shouldn't be worried that John McCain is going to get sick and die in office.
6. Cindy McCain's drug addiction. What message does it send to America's children to have a drug addict, who actually stole drugs, as first lady?
7. Would John McCain quit a church that had his wife as pastor?
8. Is John McCain going to jail for 5 years? McCain has illegally pulled out of the public campaign finance system. That's a crime punishable by 5 years in prison. Is Stephanopoulos going to break media silence on this issue and ask John McCain whether he's too old to go prison?
9. Will McCain make propaganda tapes while he's in prison?
1. You know as well as I that such questions would never be asked to McCain, despite the exact same "importance" of "character" that they bring as the ones thrown at Obama. Stephanopolis, Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, absolutely NO ONE has grilled McCain on character in any way. In fact, I would argue the media has done nothing but showered him with love in comparison, which I think is a bit undeniable.
2. I don't want to know these things about McCain, just as I don't want to know about whether or not Obama loves the American flag despite him not wearing a ing pin on his suit. We needn't ask such unbelievably asinine questions because they pertain to absolutely nothing of relevance about true "character", and if they did so then our media and our nation has sunk down the toilet to unreachable levels. I want my country and my media to focus on the issues more than this.
So to get back to your question, yes character questions are important, provided they are asked in a fair, unbiased manner to ALL candidates, and are ones that are not so ridiculously stupid to be asked in the first place like the ones I mentioned above. And while I share the importance of those character issues, our country and the President who serves our country and the people should not be one that's driven by character, but by his policies and beliefs in those policies accordingly.
You see, I don't care how much a New Englander who's had failed businesses everywhere he's touched pretends to be a Texan and a pretend-ranch and a pretend-chainsaw where he pretends to chop wood, nor do I care about a New Englander who's in a ing speedo and loves to windsail and ride on yachts. Both are spoiled ing brats and have plenty of character issues. I do want to know what they plan on doing about our situation in Iraq, our economy, our falling dollar, our health care, FISA legislation, and so on, and my vote was weighted much more heavily on the issues accordingly versus "character."
The issues are what drives our country in a particular direction, either forward or off a cliff, not character. Character is either the smile and a handshake or a black eye and bloody nose to compliment those issues set forth.
quote:
if you honestly believe American voters don't consider character above the issues, espescially when dealing with a man with as little accomplishment and legislative record and personal dealings with the characters he has chosen to associate with as Obama has, then explain John Kerry to us.
But that's the problem here, none of those "character" questions (aka "scandal" questions) were really about Obama's lack of accomplishments and legislative record. In fact I would argue that is a misnoner to begin with considering he has plenty of legislative accomplishments in both the Illinois Legislature:
There's plenty of contention there for the GOP and the media to go after, if they so choose. The problem, however, is that this is not what they choose to do. Call it laziness, call it avoidance, inattentiveness, whatever the reason, this is not what our Drudge-controlled media lapdogs will go after. I guess it doesn't produce the "gotcha" bull they crave so much, I suppose.
As an extra tidbit, Huffington Post did a little analysis on this debate versus the last debates, and found that this ABC debacle was a bit more biased and scandal-prone than any others:
Originally posted by Krypton
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are too dumb to consider anything but character in the president. The only character we should focus on is criminal character. Otherwise, as Opus said, the guilt by association, and "gotchas" is just BS politics. If they did something criminal in their past, fine, ask, otherwise ask something which actually matters...
the candidates are on one big job interview through the campaiging process. when someone is on a job interveiw one of the more important things an employer looks at is that person's character. Since you can't know everything about a person, you can try and anticipate how someone will act based on his character / personality. It would be extremely unwise to vote for a president without considering character. As a matter of fact, obama is only winning because of his character. Considering that he has an almost non-existent congressional record, most people are so keen on him because he is very charasmatic, he is a wonderful public speaker, and he doesn't seem like an ordinary politician. Conversely, Clinton is losing because people are irked by her for some reason. People think she is too abrasive, scripted, etc...
With all that said, positions are certainly more important.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are too dumb to consider anything but character in the president. The only character we should focus on is criminal character. Otherwise, as Opus said, the guilt by association, and "gotchas" is just BS politics. If they did something criminal in their past, fine, ask, otherwise ask something which actually matters...
two things. first, mindboggling ignorant and insulting generalizations will get you absolutely nowhere in LIFE, much less taken seriously anywhere in politics.
second, don't ever, ever, bring up ANY politician's character in this forum then if they don't have a criminal record.
thats most absurd thing i've heard this week from you. take another hit.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
the candidates are on one big job interview through the campaiging process. when someone is on a job interveiw one of the more important things an employer looks at is that person's character. Since you can't know everything about a person, you can try and anticipate how someone will act based on his character / personality. It would be extremely unwise to vote for a president without considering character.
It would be even more unwise to hire someone without knowing exactly where they stand and where they will take the business based on their policies and past record. Anyone can bull a character trait. Hell that's pretty much a requirement to be a successful politician in America. But you can't bull what you've voted for and where you've stated the direction you want to take the country.
Why is it so difficult for Republicans to discuss their ideas on policies at all with Americans, especially in comparison to a Democrat? I guess we'll all get to see that debate soon, at least I hope as opposed to character assassinations.
quote:
As a matter of fact, obama is only winning because of his character.
Of course he is, because us Democrats and Obama supporters have never examined his record or his stance on policies and agree with them.:rolleyes:
quote:
Considering that he has an almost non-existent congressional record,
Let's nip that one in the bud right now. Once again, a story on his Illinois State Legislative record:
most people are so keen on him because he is very charasmatic, he is a wonderful public speaker, and he doesn't seem like an ordinary politician.
And that's a bad thing? Do you honestly think that's the primary rationale for his success and being ahead in the polls, delegate count, and popular vote?
quote:
Conversely, Clinton is losing because people are irked by her for some reason. People think she is too abrasive, scripted, etc...
Corrupt, shrill, full of , heavily influenced by lobbyists, typical DLC-Washington more-of-the-same politics of ignorance, etc. etc. Plenty of other reasons out there.
quote:
With all that said, positions are certainly more important.
Well I'm glad we at least agree to that.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But that's the problem here, none of those "character" questions (aka "scandal" questions) were really about Obama's lack of accomplishments and legislative record. In fact I would argue that is a misnoner to begin with considering he has plenty of legislative accomplishments in both the Illinois Legislature:
i can see your point, however i believe your problem (the Dems problem with this) begins with the fact that both candidates aren't that far away from each other on the "19 issues".
remember, you're still in the nomination process. you're not up against the RNC Imperial Star Destroyer yet.;)
