Sarah Palin was worse than we thought...

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
You are breaking my heart! LOL!

You would not recognize a fact unless it were presented by a fully naked Helen Thomas.
ewww...

Still, you're characterization of Barack Obama is based on a few snippets that are widely circulated in Republican circles, and everything else about him, you just ignore.

What you say is true. The examples you give are sound.

However, it does not explain the response to Sarah Palin. She's a politician and she played her part and attacked the Chosen One in the course of the campaign. The onslaught began before the Left knew anything about her. Remember the hoax about the baby?
If by "the left" you mean random ranters on the internet, I assure you, those howler monkeys come in all colors. Some people just like attention, and will say whatever they need to to get it. A lot of people were afraid of her because we've had 8 years of a dim-bulb president, and the potential of an even dimmer bulb becoming president was horrifying. I mean, Bush was no genius, but at least he could name a periodical he read, or a Supreme Court case he disagreed with.

It does not explain away calling Condoleeza Rice 'Mammy.'
That was uncalled for, but I don't know who said it. Was this person black? If so, they could maybe get away with it. I'm not saying it's respectful or considerate, but then who is these days?
 

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
Sarah Palin's foriegn policy experience....:mrgreen:

[youtube]nokTjEdaUGg&hl=en&fs=1[/youtube]

I'm Just Part of the Gotcha Media with their concern about words and the order they come in.
 

panhead

Well-Known Member
That would be a really stupid reason to elect someone.

It's something Beavis and Butthead would be all for.

"Huh, huh, huh, she has boobies, huh, huh, huh, maybe if we elect her she'll get naked, huh, huh, huh, you said naked, huh, huh, huh"
Who said anything about being elected,sheesh,you guys take this politics bullshit way too seriously,especially since none of them have OUR best interests at the forefront of their agenda's.
 

Picasso345

Well-Known Member
Sarah Palin's foriegn policy experience....:mrgreen:

I'm Just Part of the Gotcha Media with their concern about words and the order they come in.
This model is fixable. She looks good enough and actually appears to buy the GOP nonsense and can say the various words fine, they just need to get her programmed better. Most politicians on the national level don't actually think during these interviews, they just spout their soundbites.

You just need to get this one trained better and she will do fine. Like in Bull Durham when Costner teaches Robbins how to rattle off those cliches during interviews - like that.

Alas though I don't hold out much hope. I sense a software meltdown before the next four-eight years. She runs a little too hot. Wired too tight. Strung a little too taut. If'n ya know what I mean.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
ewww...

Still, you're characterization of Barack Obama is based on a few snippets that are widely circulated in Republican circles, and everything else about him, you just ignore.

If by "the left" you mean random ranters on the internet, I assure you, those howler monkeys come in all colors. Some people just like attention, and will say whatever they need to to get it. A lot of people were afraid of her because we've had 8 years of a dim-bulb president, and the potential of an even dimmer bulb becoming president was horrifying. I mean, Bush was no genius, but at least he could name a periodical he read, or a Supreme Court case he disagreed with.

That was uncalled for, but I don't know who said it. Was this person black? If so, they could maybe get away with it. I'm not saying it's respectful or considerate, but then who is these days?
If what you say is true, we have something in common. We both ignored things about Barack Obama. Which is key to my argument. Barack Obama and Joe Biden did not receive the same scrutiny that Sarah Palin endured.

The Washington Post admitted it.

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism showed a bias.

This graph demonstrates a marked difference between McCain and Obama coverage.



Winning the Media Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

The disparity in coverage has been my point this entire thread.

Thus far, not one Obama supporter has even acknowledged it.

A complicit news media is a very dangerous thing. Liberals/Democrats/Progressives seem okay with that. This frightens me.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Tone of their Ads too.
Typical deflective response from you. I honestly did not expect anything else, NWB.

We are not discussing campaigns. But as long as you brought it up....

McCain did not play anywhere near as dirty as he should have. Obama broke a promise to you about accepting Federal Election Funds and you did not care. Now the illegal foreign donations he received will not be audited just for that same reason. Meanwhile McCain, who stood by his word to accept Federal Funding, will be required to justify every nickel his campaign spent.

Obama likely to escape campaign audit - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
 

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
Typical deflective response from you. I honestly did not expect anything else, NWB.

We are not discussing campaigns. But as long as you brought it up....

McCain did not play anywhere near as dirty as he should have. Obama broke a promise to you about accepting Federal Election Funds and you did not care. Now the illegal foreign donations he received will not be audited just for that same reason. Meanwhile McCain, who stood by his word to accept Federal Funding, will be required to justify every nickel his campaign spent.

Obama likely to escape campaign audit - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
Johnny,

I wonder how you think the things you say are okay and not abrasive.

You always cease to to amaze me.

Northwestbuds
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
Assuming that Obama was just a better, more interesting candidate, should the media treat both campaigns as though they were equal in all ways?
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
I really wonder how you think that the things that you say are okay and not abrasive.
No need to wonder. I simply don't give a rat's ass about your opinion of what is 'okay' or what is 'abrasive.' What is 'abrasive' to you is 'okay' to someone else.

When have I ever expressed a desire to be warm and fuzzy? If you are uncomfortable with my words, that is not my problem. It's your problem. :fire:
You always cease to to amaze me.
Not surprising. I've seen the things that impress you based on your simplistic Left Always Good/Right Always Evil responses.

You amaze me constantly with your blind allegiance.
Assuming that Obama was just a better, more interesting candidate, should the media treat both campaigns as though they were equal in all ways?
That assumption is a subjective judgment and not one for legitimate journalists to make.

So the answer to your question is yes. The campaigns deserve parity from the professional journalists. The same level of scrutiny.

Should I repeat my statement about the dangers of a complicit news media?
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
McCain had to stick to federal funding. He represents the wealthy who we all know aren't going to hand over any money unless it is a direct bribe.

Obama was right in using donations, it sure showed that the people are behind him.

I don't know why you won't give Obama a chance, he actually has the people and the country in mind, not like McSame who has special interest groups in mind.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I don't think Obama is the right person for the job, but what is done is done. He is our next President and must be given latitude. This does not mean Obama should be given carte blanch however.

So let's just be honest and calm.

Obama did pledge to stick to the funding. He reneged on that promise(?). I always like to reverse things to check myself for being fair, so let's just reverse it here for a sec.

Scenario: McCain pledges to funding just like Obama. McCain breaks from that pledge down the line while Obama maintains his pledge and keeps within the guidelines and is subsequently outspent by a HUGE margin. Obama loses the race.

Your reaction please .... ____________________________________?

Nifty little tool eh?

So, let's stop the bickering and let the man who won, govern. On the other hand, Obama won by 6%... hardly a mandate. Don't treat it as such and maybe Obama might actually help us, if we don't bog the country down with divisive sophistry. :peace:




out. :blsmoke:
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
It's not really the same senerio. McCain and Palin were caught doing a lot of things that are dirty. This is the only real gripe they have on Obama.

Was the "only public funding" idea McCain's idea or Obama's idea? When they idea was presented, how long did Obama have to think it over before being pressured to commit?

I think there is more than meets the eye on this one.
 

medicineman

New Member
It's not really the same senerio. McCain and Palin were caught doing a lot of things that are dirty. This is the only real gripe they have on Obama.

Was the "only public funding" idea McCain's idea or Obama's idea? When they idea was presented, how long did Obama have to think it over before being pressured to commit?

I think there is more than meets the eye on this one.
Exactly. My question still remains. Why were there contributors to McCains campaign after he took the money? Maybe, just maybe, Obama is smarter than McCain, Ya think? Oh by the way, Obama never brought up the USS Forestal in the campaign. Had things been reversed, don't you think McCain would have ranted about that?
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
If what you say is true, we have something in common. We both ignored things about Barack Obama. Which is key to my argument. Barack Obama and Joe Biden did not receive the same scrutiny that Sarah Palin endured.
No, you ignored all but the right-wing opinions on Barack Obama. I didn't ignore any information, but I did disregard what I could prove false.

Thus far, not one Obama supporter has even acknowledged it.

A complicit news media is a very dangerous thing. Liberals/Democrats/Progressives seem okay with that. This frightens me.
I've read interviews with various journalists, and one thing I've heard come up more than once is that there is this idea that they have to give equal positive and negative coverage to both candidates, even if one is constantly screwing up and the other has a flawless record and is running a disciplined campaign. (note that these are hypothetical candidates, not actually referring to this year's) They have a problem with this, because that conflicts with their purpose as a journalist to be objective.

That assumption is a subjective judgment and not one for legitimate journalists to make.

So the answer to your question is yes. The campaigns deserve parity from the professional journalists. The same level of scrutiny.

Should I repeat my statement about the dangers of a complicit news media?
No, it's not. It's possible to have a candidate who is objectively better than the other one. Say, Ronald Reagan running against Josef Stalin, to give a hypothetical example that you probably agree with. Would you expect media to give equal positive and negative coverage to both those candidates?

You also have to look at causes. What might cause media to favor Obama? Is it some massive shadowy conspiracy? Is it that all journalists are brainwashed? Or is the Obama campaign just generating more positive news?
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
I don't think Obama is the right person for the job, but what is done is done. He is our next President and must be given latitude. This does not mean Obama should be given carte blanch however.

So let's just be honest and calm.

Obama did pledge to stick to the funding. He reneged on that promise(?). I always like to reverse things to check myself for being fair, so let's just reverse it here for a sec.

Scenario: McCain pledges to funding just like Obama. McCain breaks from that pledge down the line while Obama maintains his pledge and keeps within the guidelines and is subsequently outspent by a HUGE margin. Obama loses the race.

Your reaction please .... ____________________________________?
But McCain didn't have enough money to do that, whereas millions of people have contributed to the Obama campaign.

Was I annoyed that Obama backed out of his agreement that he would accept public financing? Yeah. Would I have done the exact same thing in his situation? Hellz yeah!

So, let's stop the bickering and let the man who won, govern. On the other hand, Obama won by 6%... hardly a mandate. Don't treat it as such and maybe Obama might actually help us, if we don't bog the country down with divisive sophistry. :peace:
Well you're in luck. If you read "The Audacity of Hope", there is a passage in there where he talks about Bush. Obama says Bush doesn't govern based on what everyone wants, he governs based on what a slim majority wants, and just ignores the rest. He talked about a bill that was going through congress, that Bush had initially proposed. One of the senators came back to Bush and told him that if he just changed a few things with the bill, he could easily get it passed with 70 votes. Bush's response? He didn't need 70 votes, he needed 51. Anyway, this tactic of the Bush administration is one that Obama vehemently opposes, and he has said repeatedly that he will represent even those who voted against him.
 

ViRedd

New Member
You also have to look at causes. What might cause media to favor Obama? Is it some massive shadowy conspiracy? Is it that all journalists are brainwashed? Or is the Obama campaign just generating more positive news?
The MSM favors Democrats in general because most of those running the media are progressive Democrats. I think the last survey pointed out that 86% of the reporters favored progressive (liberal) politicians and their agendas.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
The MSM favors Democrats in general because most of those running the media are progressive Democrats. I think the last survey pointed out that 86% of the reporters favored progressive (liberal) politicians and their agendas.

Vi
But you ignored the fact that 90% of the news corporations are owned and operated by right wing plutocrats. Rupert Murdoch, for example, has approval pending over the content of all political news on fox, either him personally or his "Boys".
 

CrackerJax

New Member
But McCain didn't have enough money to do that, whereas millions of people have contributed to the Obama campaign.

Was I annoyed that Obama backed out of his agreement that he would accept public financing? Yeah. Would I have done the exact same thing in his situation? Hellz yeah!


Well you're in luck. If you read "The Audacity of Hope", there is a passage in there where he talks about Bush. Obama says Bush doesn't govern based on what everyone wants, he governs based on what a slim majority wants, and just ignores the rest. He talked about a bill that was going through congress, that Bush had initially proposed. One of the senators came back to Bush and told him that if he just changed a few things with the bill, he could easily get it passed with 70 votes. Bush's response? He didn't need 70 votes, he needed 51. Anyway, this tactic of the Bush administration is one that Obama vehemently opposes, and he has said repeatedly that he will represent even those who voted against him.
============================================

If that is what Obama says, then he is naive or maybe he thinks you are :-o.

As for the 70 vs 51 "Tactic". Which tactic came first? The changes "wanted" or the refusal to budge? I'm just guessing that Bush didn't want to change it. It's called PEROGATIVE. Obama will use the same, no?

I seriously doubt Obama is going to waste his political capital on going after Bush. There's no payoff in it for him. He can't get MORE popular than he is right now. Of course everyone is popular before they perform. We'll see, we'll see.

As for the funding questions, BOTH candidates agreed to it. Only ONE went back on his word. This is not to meant to sway your minds about Obama, but let's keep it real. Let's keep it real for Obama's sake.

I've read a lot lately about one side of the forum aisle telling the other "to get over it". Well how about if both sides get over it and we pull together politically. If one side rows in the opposite direction of the other, we are not going to get very far. At least bring some water balloons....:-P



out. :blsmoke:
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
McCain had to stick to federal funding. He represents the wealthy who we all know aren't going to hand over any money unless it is a direct bribe.
McCain stuck to the Federal Funding because he authored campaign finance. He made a decision to abide by his pledge.
Obama was right in using donations, it sure showed that the people are behind him.
He broke a campaign promise, but who cares?
I don't know why you won't give Obama a chance, he actually has the people and the country in mind, not like McSame who has special interest groups in mind.
Yeah.... There are no special interests on the Left. LOL!
Obama's Ethics Rules Won't Ban Big Fundraisers From Transition - Bloomberg.com: News

Obama said the U.S. had 57 states. Imagine the uproar if Governor Palin had made that dumbass remark. It would be a continuous target of assault by the Left, even now. As it happened, the Chosen One said it and it was quickly forgotten.

I'll give him more consideration than the Left gave Governor Palin.


It's not really the same senerio. McCain and Palin were caught doing a lot of things that are dirty. This is the only real gripe they have on Obama.
And Obama/Biden escaped the same level of scrutiny from 'legitimate' journalists. It is exactly the same scenario. That is my real gripe.
Was the "only public funding" idea McCain's idea or Obama's idea? When they idea was presented, how long did Obama have to think it over before being pressured to commit?
No one forced Obama to make the pledge.

I want to be clear. I do not fault Obama for forgoing Federal Election funding. I fault Obama for making a pledge then breaking it.

I am no fan of campaign finance reform. McCain-Feingold was only one reason why I did not embrace McCain when his nomination was locked in. He is a moderate Republican and not a true Conservative. Now that Obama has done this, Federal Election Funding is finished. No politician in his right mind will ever tie his hands behind his back, like McCain did, again.
I think there is more than meets the eye on this one.
Of course there is, but because we'll never see an audit on Obama's dirty foreign money. As such, we'll probably never know for sure. It does not matter because your guy won, right?
Exactly. My question still remains. Why were there contributors to McCains campaign after he took the money? Maybe, just maybe, Obama is smarter than McCain, Ya think?
Of course Obama is smart. He hinted for two months he might forego Federal Election Funding. It does not take a genius to read focus group data and realize you can break a pledge and get away with it.
Oh by the way, Obama never brought up the USS Forestal in the campaign. Had things been reversed, don't you think McCain would have ranted about that?
There was no situation to reverse. Obama did not reference the U.S.S. Forestal inicident because there was nothing to it. If there were any truth to the rumors, why would a compliant news media, with a proven anti-McCain bias, fail to report it? LOL!
No, you ignored all but the right-wing opinions on Barack Obama. I didn't ignore any information, but I did disregard what I could prove false.
How could you possibly know that when the mainstream news media did not do it's job and actually investigate Obama? If unsavory details have emerged about the Chosen One, they were relegated to the shadows and dismissed as Republican Propaganda.

Does Obama's own book constitute Right-wing opinion?
In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.
Was Barack Obama a Muslim? - article by Daniel Pipes

Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood
israelinsider: politics: Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?

Many on the Left did not ignore reports based on unnamed sources regarding Governor Palin thinking Africa was a country rather than a continent.

Previously I read comments from the Left with a high degree of certainty as to the veracity of the hoax. What do you say?

The Associated Press: MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

It would appear that many 'bullshit' detectors require calibration. LOL!
I've read interviews with various journalists, and one thing I've heard come up more than once is that there is this idea that they have to give equal positive and negative coverage to both candidates, even if one is constantly screwing up and the other has a flawless record and is running a disciplined campaign. (note that these are hypothetical candidates, not actually referring to this year's) They have a problem with this, because that conflicts with their purpose as a journalist to be objective.
It is the journalists job to report. When it comes to Obama/Biden '08, they failed to meet their obligation as journalists.
No, it's not. It's possible to have a candidate who is objectively better than the other one. Say, Ronald Reagan running against Josef Stalin, to give a hypothetical example that you probably agree with. Would you expect media to give equal positive and negative coverage to both those candidates?
It is not the job of the news reporter to determine this for the news consumer. I expect the candidates to receive equal scrutiny from responsible journalists.
You also have to look at causes. What might cause media to favor Obama?
The mainstream news media chose to sacrifice it's principles in order to guarantee the election for their candidate.
Is it some massive shadowy conspiracy?
Perhaps it is simply inertia. Perhaps a fear of bucking the trend. The evidence of the bias is there. You are free to draw your own conclusions as to the reason.
Is it that all journalists are brainwashed?
Not all, but the sources I presented show a definite overall bias.
Or is the Obama campaign just generating more positive news?
It is because the media is complicit. You don't see a problem with it because I imagine you intended to vote Obama/Biden all along. But the independent voters will realize sooner rather than later that they have been sold a bill of goods. Their anger at this betrayal by the journalists will be felt at the ballot boxes next mid-term election.

**********************
Enjoy your folie à plusieurs regarding Governor Palin. You may fire when ready.
 
Top