|
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 5, 2008 5:51:21 GMT -6
Welcome to the USSA.
United Socialist States of America
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 10, 2008 21:53:11 GMT -6
Post by LB! on Nov 10, 2008 21:53:11 GMT -6
haha you gullible idiot
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 11, 2008 6:17:26 GMT -6
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 11, 2008 6:17:26 GMT -6
Gullible?
No,
Reason 1)
Spreading the wealth. This is one of the basic tennets of socialism.
Reason 2)
Obama's idea of mandatory community service for everyone. The goverment has no right to mandate that everyone be required to particpate in community service. It is up to each individual to make that decision.
If you look at Obama's political ideolgy it mirrrors' FDR. Yea FDR was a great presiden't and navigated the republic through WWII. However boiled down the "great society" concept mirrored Marxism and socialism. Hell Obama himself even said that he likes Karl Marx.
Reason 3)
Obama said the constituion is primaily a negative document. Funny when I look at it I look at it in a positive manner.
I have a freedom of religon, the right to bear arms, I don't have to increminate myself. Yes, the constituion does say what the government cant do to us a individuals. But look at the tmie it was written the US had just overthrown a tyrant.
Reason 4)
Obama wants the supreme court to legislate from the branch.
WRONG. It is not the courts role to legislate. It is courts role to rule in cases brought before it which in some way may effect policy. That's it. Twe don't have a seperation of church and state for nothing.
But the democrats have control of Excutive office and the majority in the House and the Senate, so if the governemnt gets screwed up don't blame the republicans.
Anyway enough ranting. I will support him and hope he does an admirable job.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 11, 2008 17:37:19 GMT -6
Post by LB! on Nov 11, 2008 17:37:19 GMT -6
#1 and 2 are the only ones with any relation to socialism in the first place. "Spreading the wealth" was a poor choice of words but it doesn't change that his tax plan he was talking about's only tax increase is increasing the highest tax bracket to the level it was at during Clinton's presidency and lowering everyone else's taxes.
Using "Socialism" as a negative about politicians in the United States is nonsense because we've had socialist programs for a hundred years. The progressive income tax is a socialist concept in the first place, as are medicare, social security, welfare, and basically every other government program outside of the military.
Obama didn't say the constitution was a negative document, he said it was "A document of negative rights" and he's right. What the constitution does is promise the government won't do things, like impede your political speech or establish a religion, or disarm the populace. Its a legal term coming from a law professor, not a negative judgment on the constitution.
"Legislate from the branch" doesn't mean anything. The entire concept of "activist judges" is nonsense made up by the right so they can complain about judges doing their job, which is interpreting the law and the constitution. I don't know what church and state have to do with anything there at all.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 11, 2008 18:29:36 GMT -6
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 11, 2008 18:29:36 GMT -6
Ahh yes the tax cut that Obama is talking about. Realistically speaking it is impossible for him to taxes for 95% of the populous. Notice that the threshold is dropping first it was 250K then it was 200K, then Biden in a interview mentioned 150K. The number is dropping.
I agree that some of the programs that government is using are socialist, and I don't like them.
The scary thing is Obama states that he wants to create a civilian security force with as much power as the real police. That smacks of a nationalized security force ala the KGB or SS trure that is an extreme example.
Like I said I am going to support Obama, he is my president. Because if he fails then the econmomy is going to be in the toilet and the war on terror will be going badly.
Unlike the far left who rooted for George W to fail since day one since he "stole the election." I hope he doesn;t go crazy with his ideas that he is threatening like the excutive order or stop off shore drilling. How in the hell are we going to decrease our dependency on foriegn oil if he stops off shore drilling?
The true loser in this election cycle.
Media.
This proves once and for all that there is no such thing as unbiaesed media.
From the LA Times supressing potentially daming evidence of Barack hanging with the former secretary of PLO. To CNN and MSNBC practically being Obama's press office. I would be ashamed to call myself a journalist after this. Let's face in the medias eyes Obama could do no wrong.
Case in point.
The supposed chants of "kill him" during McCain/Palin rallies, that the press ran with and Obama mentioned in debate number 3.
Fact.
No such thing occured, the AP did a story stating that the seceret service members at the rallies heard no such cries, if they had they would have arrested said parties who spoke the words (the idea you don't shout fire in a theater). However did CCN, MSNBC refute story nope.
Or how about CNN taking a Fox News story about the coverage of Sarah Palin being "disgraceful, lacking class" or something to that effect and then trying to ambush Palin with it and misquoting the story implying that the writer was talking about Palin herself. when confronted CCN applogized to Fox, and the writer of the story. Did they applogize for the attempt to Smear Palin??
Nope.
Face the media from day one was so enamoured with the idea of Obama as president they made him out to be the second coming of JFK.
I say again there is no such thing as unbiased media.
I say to anyone.
PROVE ME WRONG
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 11, 2008 20:48:56 GMT -6
Post by LB! on Nov 11, 2008 20:48:56 GMT -6
We stop our dependence on foriegn oil by changing our energy sources. Offshore or not we don't have the oil supplies to make any significant impact by drilling, all allowing new offshore drilling will do is put more money in oil company's pockets.
Its hilarious that you'd bring up Khalidi. Not only is Obama's only relation to him being at a party for him when they were both professors at the same college, but John McCain, while working at the International Republican Institute, directly funded an organization for Palestinian polling that was founded by Khalidi. Both of which are irrelevant, because Khalidi isn't a terrorist, he's just Palestinian.
And of course we go to the media, because thats where conservatives always go when they lose. I love that media bias is the conservative boogie man when Fox News has spent 8 years literally reading talking points sent to them by the Bush white house and in the past month spent every possible moment smearing Obama on ACORN, Ayers, and every other non-issue they could try to use to fool people again.
CNN's garbage but not because of a liberal bias. Their only bias is to sensationalism and ratings. But I won't bother defending them anyway, because they're an awful excuse for a new channel anyway.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 11, 2008 21:32:15 GMT -6
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 11, 2008 21:32:15 GMT -6
But agin you didn't deny the blatant pro media bias toward Obama, after the Obamaercial I though the MSNBC news crew was about to cream themselves over how nifty Obama is. The media is biased one way or the other. You didn't prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 11, 2008 23:25:36 GMT -6
Post by LB! on Nov 11, 2008 23:25:36 GMT -6
There are people in the media with a liberal bias and there are definitely shows on MSNBC that are intentionally liberal leaning, but the idea that the media is a collective entity in the first place is nonsense, and the idea that it collectively has any significant Obama bias is just as silly.
Do you want examples of unbiased media? I'd say Meet The Press, at least when Tim Russert was alive, was always solid. I've only caught it once with Brocaw and it seemed fair then, too. PBS and the BBC, too. And there's always C-Span, I guess.
The fact of the matter is that no where on the left is there a organized political machine remotely as significant as Fox News is on the right.
I don't know how you expect me to "proove" there's no pro-Obama bias in the media. I have no idea what you're talking about re: "Or how about CNN taking a Fox News story about the coverage of Sarah Palin being "disgraceful, lacking class" or something to that effect and then trying to ambush Palin with it and misquoting the story implying that the writer was talking about Palin herself. when confronted CCN applogized to Fox, and the writer of the story. Did they applogize for the attempt to Smear Palin??" because I don't know what thing you're talking about, if you can link me to an article or something i'll read about it. I don't watch CNN or Fox.
But "No such thing occured, the AP did a story stating that the seceret service members at the rallies heard no such cries, if they had they would have arrested said parties who spoke the words (the idea you don't shout fire in a theater). However did CCN, MSNBC refute story nope." is proof of a lack of media bias if anything. People heard "Kill him" yelled at those rallies, other people didn't, both were reported. Rallies are loud.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 6:14:30 GMT -6
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 12, 2008 6:14:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 17:56:54 GMT -6
Post by Sylver Morrigan on Nov 12, 2008 17:56:54 GMT -6
But isn't there a difference between news reporting and actual news shows? Olbermann and Matthews both have news shows that allow them to showcase their ideas and opinions. As far as I'm concerned, Olbermann and Matthews saying what they want, voicing their opinions even, on their own shows is a 'news show' or even 'news entertainment'. Contessa Brewer, on the other hand, sharing an opinion on a news story she is reporting (as she does do, to my great chagrin) is not cool. She is reporting news, breaking stories, etc. Which should all be delivered without bias.
Of course, when Olbermann and Matthews are set loose during non-show times (like during the election coverage) their opinions tend to carry over with them.
Having said that. I do not have too much of a comment on the news media's Obama slant, since I only watch MSNBC, I can't honestly say anything. But I refuse to watch Fox because the times I have watched them, they are so righty that I feel vomity.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 19:52:49 GMT -6
Post by Calvin Constantine on Nov 12, 2008 19:52:49 GMT -6
Fox News covers the soap opera and horse race of politics from a "conservative" point of view. MSNBC covers the same from a "liberal" point of view. Since neither network makes any pretense of covering the issues, both essentially preserve the status quo by derailing any attempt at debate. To me, this makes both outlets conservative because they prevent not only social change, but any real discussion thereof.
NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world. Their decision to present a "liberal" take on the news was undertaken because they thought it would help them in the ratings wars. GE is a major arms manufacturer. Do you really think that they are interested in getting the US out of Iraq?
The anti-"Spread the Wealth" banner was a last ditch effort by Republicans to swing an election they knew they were going to lose. Like LB said, Obama has propsed restoring the top marginal income tax rate to its pre-Bush level, 39 percent. Now, the right wing spin doctors are bitching and moaning about "people who don't even pay taxes getting a tax cut blah blah blah!" What they are referring to is called the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC gives financial rebates to working families. One of its most prominent proponents was none other than Ronald Reagan, that socialist. The claim that these people "don't pay taxes" is highly disingenuous, because poor people are disproportionately affected by things like sales tax.
Like LB said, we have plenty of "socialist" programs here in the United States. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production is owned by the state. A whole laundry list of services are "socialized" here in the USA, such as education, police, and fire protection.
Striking down unconstitutional legislation, aka "legislating from the bench", has been the job of the judiciary since 1803. Without this, we would have segregated schools (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954), birth control would be illegal (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), the government could control reproduction (Roe v. Wade, 1973), and homosexuals could be thrown in jail (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Heck, the Supreme Court ruled a law restricting gun ownership unconstitutional earlier this year (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008).
When comparing the coverage of the Obama campaign to the McCain campaign, let's remember a few things. Obama ran an energetic campaign with a consistent message, a campaign with a massive ground game that broke all kinds of fundraising message, and a campaign that was by and large transparent. McCain's message changed constantly. First he was a fighter running against a quitting, surrender monkey. Then he was the guy who puts country first and reaches across the aisle versus a partisan party line voter. After that, a "true leader" versus a "celebrity". Then, a maverick versus a Washington insider. Finally, an everyman protector, standing up for the Joe the Plumbers versus the "socialists". The entire campaign was marred by infighting and backstabbing. The selection of Palin was an insult to the country. Palin could not name the nations of North America; she did not know that Africa is a continent. And the defense that "she's not running for President, she's running for Vice President" is utter nonsense. The only qualification for being Vice President is that one is prepared to be President from day one.
I suppose highlighting these differences does constitute a "bias". It's a bias toward competence and preparation, coolheadedness and hardwork. It's a bias against a campaign that made no sense.
Perhaps the most persistant myth of the campaign was "It's unbelievable how Obama's radical associations haven't gotten any coverage!" You couldn't turn on the fucking television without hearing about Ayers and ACORN, about Rezko and Reverand Wright.
America, fuck yeah!
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 20:17:39 GMT -6
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 12, 2008 20:17:39 GMT -6
But wait this just in ....
The tax cut may not(read not a sonwballs chance in hell) of happening.
That's right, how can he lower taxes and still manage to save an economy that is in the toilet. But wait Bush is responsible for the econmic mess. Partly.
Evyerone is responisble.
Jimmy Carter, for the idea that everyone should own a house. The banks for approving people for laons that are well beyond there means. The Repbulicans and the Democrats both had there hand in the pie and screwed it up.
Case in point the finiancial mess is everyone's fault hell Slick Willie himself, (my favorite adulter Bill C) even said as much.
Yep the tax cut, not going to happen, I give it 100 days from inaguartion till Obama says taxes are being raised.
And yes McCain screwed the pooch on his campaign. but in my opinion (an apprently the minority) he was the lesser of two evils.
Again I think the stupidest thing in the world is to have a president mandate community service. What the hell? We should be able to make our own decision on if we want to do community service.
If the roles were reversed and McCain had won the election, oh how the press would be singing a different song. If Obama had done a 30 min love fest on national TV he would be accused of self indulgent.
If a newpaser was supressing a tpe of McCain saying that Osama Bin Laden is the greatest guy in the world the press would be screaming to release it.
In the media's eyes Obama could do no wrong.
The sad thing most people didn't even know what they were voting for, they followed the media's lead hook line and sinker.
Howard Stern proved it, when he did man on the street interviews that. And asked people who they supported McCain or Obama and they all said Obama then they followed up with a question like
"What do you think of Obama's decision to stay in Iraq and finish the war?"
or
"What do you think of Obama's decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate?"
Everyone thought both ideas were great.
Sad really.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 20:58:23 GMT -6
Post by Calvin Constantine on Nov 12, 2008 20:58:23 GMT -6
An Obama administration is much more likely to cut taxes than a McCain administration. McCain's tax plan would have never made it through the Democratic Congress.
I believe Obama is much more likely to proceed with his tax cut, but scale back on some of the new programs he promised. If the Democrats don't cut taxes after all of the 95 percent soundbites, they'll be dead ducks in 2010.
Obama's 30 minute television program cost the campaign a pretty penny. Again, since he raised so much more money than McCain, he could afford it. Fox News offered McCain a free half hour slot to run opposite of Obama, but McCain turned it down.
When did Obama EVER say that "Osama bin Laden is a great guy"? The refusal of the LA Times to release the tape has nothing to do with any bias toward Obama. The reporter who received the tape promised his source not to release the tape. This doesn't have anything to do with journalistic bias. It has to do with journalistic integrity.
How does people believing that Obama supports the Iraq War indicate media bias toward Obama? The Iraq War is extremely unpopular. If people associated Obama with the war, that would hurt him, not help him.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 21:03:46 GMT -6
Post by Sylver Morrigan on Nov 12, 2008 21:03:46 GMT -6
First, I have to say that Howard Stern proves nothing. He is a comedic shock jock, without any morsel of journalistic integrity. I immediately discount anything said on his programs.
Secondly, I believe that Obama did not say he would make community service 'mandatory'. From what I understood, he wanted to institute a program where people would get $4000 towards college (generally, $4K is enough to pay for four years of community college or two years of state school) in return for 100 hours community service a year. Also, maybe if we all had to take part in our community or country, we'd all care a little bit more about it.
Thirdly, saying 'in the media's eyes, Obama could do no wrong'. Let's think about this type of statement for a second. The television media loves to report the news and commentate on it, this is true, but ultimately they have sponsors to answer to, ratings to reach for. Then, look at two major cable news networks, Fox News and MSNBC. Was Fox slanted towards McCain? From what I've heard and the little bits I watched, yes. Was MSNBC slanted towards Obama? Generally, yes. Was either network fully unbiased? Hell no! Is that wrong or right or do I give a fuck? No.
Like I stated before, I watch MSNBC almost exclusively (I tune into Fox once in a while to either laugh or get angry). I heard PLENTY of shit about ACORN and Ayers and the terrorist fist pump. I had to listen to hundreds of Republicans and McCain staffers talk about how great McCain was and how evil Obama was.
Personally, I was all for Obama. I would have been all for ANY Democrat. While the economy and the war are very important issues to me, I do have a uterus. And I also know that Bush 43 handpicked the current Supreme Court. And in addition to all that, I also know that the current Supreme Court is one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade. I have a problem with that. I've spent my entire voting life thinking 'They'll never overturn Roe v. Wade, they'll never be able to do it, there will be Democrats or women in their way'. And I was finally faced with a Supreme Court who could have done it if McCain won. Also, I am totally against the Defense of Marriage act, which was signed in by Clinton, probably one of the stupidest things he did. But Obama had said he'd repeal it if elected. I won't hold my breath, but I will hope.
|
|
|
Welcome
Nov 12, 2008 21:14:05 GMT -6
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 12, 2008 21:14:05 GMT -6
The Osama comment was an attempt at showing how if the roles were reversed the media would be attacking McCain.
Ahh well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
It's going to be a bumpy 4 years.
|
|