How on Earth does Giuliani not just break down and crawl into a bottle of tequila over what a sad broken man he appears to be in that clip?
I also just loved the clip with the woman on fox news trying to explain that there have been more successful terrorist attacks under the Obama administration, and pointing to the underwear bomber as an example, saying that this was unlike the shoe bomber, who had only *meant* to attack, but had been stopped... Jon Stewart is a trooper for not just throwing his feces at the camera at that point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I also just loved
In other news, apparently Sarah Palin is taking a job as a commentator on Fox News. Which combined with other factors such as the fine news reporting the Daily Show points out on a regular basis and the wholesale organization of the "grassroots protest movement" they are at such delight to cover, somewhat leads me to scream at the wall who are these... people... who continue to take Fox News seriously as a source of "news"?! Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I saw some decent reporting on Fox during my lunch break. *shrug* It was about how corporations are likely to react to efforts to recoup stimulus funds they received. I didn't hear much, but there was nothing in there that seemed particularly partisan.
I'm not sure I understand what Palin will bring to the table - is she going to be a reporter? Anchor? Analyst?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think lunchtime is when they run their real news program, which isn't all that bad from what I've seen. It's the rest of the day, particularly the evening, when they get all pundity.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think lunchtime is when they run their real news program, which isn't all that bad from what I've seen. It's the rest of the day, particularly the evening, when they get all pundity.
Ya. This has been true in my experience
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Okay, I should moderate my tone. My frustration mostly comes from a certain key demographic that takes Fox as their sole major source of news, as the only source of news that they can trust because of their much-vaunted and much-not-in-evidence "balance". I generally feel one could do much better elsewhere, even for the segments that handle actual news, but that doesn't mean they're entirely devoid of news content.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's the rest of the day, particularly the evening, when they get all pundity.
Which is the same format as MSNBC except they are more left...but just as crazy
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Meh... not *just* as crazy. Not all things are binary equivalents, and in my admittedly biased opinion, fox blends in a level of desperation and media whoring not reached by MSNBC. You don't get an argument from me in terms of bias- I expect bias, but I think on a pound for pound match-up of crazy, Fox takes the cake, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Glenn Beck and Hannity can be over the top on their programs, but then again Keith Olberman (Or however you spell his name) is just as bad on MSNBC.
I've decided the "Fair and Balanced" comes from the fact that they usually have guests on both sides of the isle.
I don't know about the morning, but in the afternoon Fox consistently is number 1 in cable news ratings. O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and Gretta consistently have twice the viewership as Larry King, Wolf, or Keith Olberman.
I think Fox has successfully sold itself as the only news outlet friendly to conservatives, which may explain their high viewership. Viewership among non Fox News watchers are split between the other networks.
I am one that believes journalism, for the most part, is dead. Not one cable network reports the news like they should. Every network is filled with political bias. I can't even watch the Today show anymore because Matt and Meredith are so bad at hiding their political bias that it just oozes from them. I expect that kind of thing from Hannity, Beck, and Olberman, but not a show that is just supposed to report the news.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I am one that believes journalism, for the most part, is dead. Not one cable network reports the news like they should. Every network is filled with political bias. I can't even watch the Today show anymore because Matt and Meredith are so bad at hiding their political bias that it just oozes from them. I expect that kind of thing from Hannity, Beck, and Olberman, but not a show that is just supposed to report the news.
I tend to watch local news at 10:00 rather than cable or even network news. It tends to be, in my estimation, less slick (which makes me feel like I'm getting a better feel for the stories), less biased and more pertinent.
I get most of my national/international news through online print media using the Google news aggregator. These can be politically biased, but in a more obvious (which helps me discount the bias ahead of time) and simultaneously less visceral way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Glenn Beck and Hannity can be over the top on their programs, but then again Keith Olberman (Or however you spell his name) is just as bad on MSNBC.
Again, "just as bad," implies that there is a necessary binary opposite. So because Olderman is over the top in a different direction, he is "just as" over the top. But I don't honestly think so. You don't see Olberman wiping his eyes over coke commercials from the 70's, for instance. Though Olberman is... severe, he doesn't generally cry chicken little over every single little thing, and though he is very direct and confrontational, he doesn't employ the same level of reality distortion tactics you see from Beck and Hannity. The three are not totally dissimilar in a lot of ways, but I still think that qualitatively Olberman doesn't act as crazy as those two, not by a long shot in fact. A general compass for me has been that Olberman sticks much closer to the actual facts when making his sometimes over the top statements. If he wants to call Bush a fascist, he chooses some action that is very real to talk about. Hannity and especially Beck anchor a lot of their statements in pure ad homs, or very distant and generalized characterizations of behavior or attitude. Their analysis is very, very loose with facts- facts which Olberman is generally in better control of.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Honestly, I think Nancy Grace is worse than the lot of them at Fox. Just listen to her for two hours while waiting at the doctor and see if you don't want to claw your eyes out.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Orinoco said. Plus MSNBC has conservative pundits and hosts. Joe Scarborough hosts the morning show. You pretty much have to listen to Pat Buchanan every time you tune into any of the shows. Or Peggy Noonan or George Will. George Will has his obnoxious and predictable butt stapled to a chair every week for "Meet the Press.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Honestly, I think Nancy Grace is worse than the lot of them at Fox. Just listen to her for two hours while waiting at the doctor and see if you don't want to claw your eyes out.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Nancy Grace is on Cnn I thought, and anyway she's stupider than she is crazy- although I think it's a bit of both.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Yes, I believe she is on CNN. I meant that I'd rather listen to any/all of the Fox pundits than listen to Nancy Grace.
O'Reilly gets me angry a lot. Sometimes I want to throw things at him. Hannity is that times 20. Grace, on the other hand, makes me want to end my life to stop the pain. She's just on a different level.
Oh, and did I mention, PEOPLE ACTUALLY LOVE HER!!
Ugh...
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Glenn Beck and Hannity can be over the top on their programs, but then again Keith Olberman (Or however you spell his name) is just as bad on MSNBC.
I've decided the "Fair and Balanced" comes from the fact that they usually have guests on both sides of the isle.
Except that Fox News's token liberals are charisma-free non-entities like Alan Colmes, who are chosen because their lack of charisma makes them easy targets for the rhetoric of Hannity et al.
It's as if the Imperial News claimed impartiality because they had Darth Vader on one side and C-3P0 on the other.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I've never watched Gretta for any length of time, but she didn't seem so bad to me. Isn't she a dem?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Glenn Beck and Hannity can be over the top on their programs, but then again Keith Olberman (Or however you spell his name) is just as bad on MSNBC.
Honestly I hate ALL cable news networks and sigh anytime anyone links me an Olbermann clip, but there's no analogue to Glenn Beck. Nobody is "as bad" as Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is in a class of his own.
Olbermann is not scribbling non-cogent conspiracy theories on chalkboards, nor is he dabbing vicks vaporub on his eyes to work up an on-cue crying fit over how the nazi liberals are turning america into the Third Reich.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I find it somewhat reassuring that Beck is aware of the crying aspect to his personality and is capable of making light of it. What bothers you so much about this clip?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Can't speak for Samp, but I'd say the fact that he is making light of it confirms that he is aware of its farcical nature. Thus when he employs it more seriously, it doesn't bespeak "crazy" so much as "manipulative," or "cynical." A political commentator who regularly weeps on air making light of the fact that he regularly weeps on air seems unstable, or else dishonest. Nobody who is both straightforward and even-keeled does that, as far as my experience goes (either the crying or the making-fun of the crying). While I have no real reason to doubt Beck actually does tear up during his broadcasts, it strikes me personally as somewhere between a performance piece, and an honest to goodness sweets-related temper tantrum.
Olderman, on the other hand, when he gets wound up into one of his grandiose Cesarean speeches, seems more caught up in overblown self-importance, contrasting with Beck's petulance. Olberman is a bit more like O'Reilly that way, although O'Reilly seems to often fall somewhere between the self-important and the petulant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He's not 'making light' of anything. That video was leaked to LiveLeak. It's not something we were supposed to see. It's not something we were supposed to know he does. It's just flat-out embarrassing.
It was a photoshoot where they were trying to capture some of Beck's "genuine emotion" on film. It would have been presented as genuine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: He's not 'making light' of anything. That video was leaked to LiveLeak. It's not something we were supposed to see. It's not something we were supposed to know he does. It's just flat-out embarrassing.
It was a photoshoot where they were trying to capture some of Beck's "genuine emotion" on film. It would have been presented as genuine.
Do you have a link to that source of information regarding the photo-shoot?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
The photo-shoot was for this poster. It was part of his response to the accusations that he fake cries on his show.
The fact that you used that video, Samp, should embarrass you.
(not a Glenn Beck fan, I think he's a moron)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Then, recognize that the photographer on scene is Jill Greenberg.
quote:Beck's penchant for hysterical tears makes the pairing obvious—why not ask a photographer famous for taking pictures of crybabies to shoot a blubbering TV personality? But Greenberg is an officially designated public enemy of the right wing: Last year, when she was hired by the Atlantic to shoot John McCain, she boasted of taking extra shots of McCain deliberately lit to make him look old and leaving "his eyes red and his skin looking bad." Also, she posted photoshopped outtakes on her web site featuring a monkey shitting on McCain's head. Republicans didn't like that. Beck got angry and called her a "nut job" on his show and said the Atlantic should sue her:
quote:"The Atlantic" is sending a letter of apology to McCain. They will not be paying her, and they're considering a lawsuit. Good, they should. Greenberg said that, since some of her artwork was anti-Bush, quote, "Maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them to hire me." Wait a minute. Let me see if I have this right. She does a horrible job and then she blames her employer? That's right, I forgot. She's a liberal.
By the way, this isn't the first time this photographer has been in the middle of controversy. In 2004, to describe her political helplessness, she took a series of supposedly artsy photos of toddlers crying. How did she get this shot? Well, she gave the kids candy, and then she snatched it away from them. They'd cry uncontrollably, and she'd just click away. Isn't it just fantastic art? Nothing more beautiful than a child being terrorized.
Yeah, he said that stuff about her over a year ago.
The whole no-no-no-we-would-have-been-candid-about-this-homage-to-Jill's-Tortured-Children story came a wee bit too late.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Anymore the only truly neutral news agency would be CSPAN...there's unfiltered footage from the chamber floor. Unfortunately, they aren't allowed in the current important debates going on.
Fox brings fair and balanced in the grand scheme. Fox is as far right as MSNBC is left. The other networks are at a minimum, left of center. Overall, the left far outweighs the right....MSNBC alone balances the scale for FOX. What really bothers people are FOX's ratings.
I think Media Matters needs to change its name. Half their stories are about Glenn Beck, Rush and Hannity....all individuals that do not put themselves out as journalists.
I watch CSPAN more than any other network. Lately though, CSPAN has only had their cameras in low level crap in a room of empty seats. I was pleased to watch the most "open administration ever" have the CSPAN cameras in the MLK Day Resolution meeting. Too bad they weren't allowed in the other room where they are debating 1/6th the US economy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No. Stop it. Don't start injecting completely irrelevant tangents like what you think about Media Matters. The thread is already about how american politics makes me want to drink myself to death, and then as an extra cherry on top, we started talking about glenn beck. I don't need it to be made worse.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I wasn't in the thread from the beginning...it looked like it turned into a rant against Fox before I entered the room. American politics also makes me want to drink myself to death. I enjoy joining Hatrack during my night off, drinking a beer, and my grammar and logic will degrade over the next couple of hours.
Why does American politics make you want to drink yourself to death? What about it is upsetting to you?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It doesn't make you die a little inside every time you read a political story?
American political stories might as well be written by Tolkien. It'd have the same elements of fiction, drama and chest-thumping, and it'd actually be palatable.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm waiting for intellectually honest people and politicians. If we were intellectually honest, we could take different yet consistent positions. IE Harry Reid and Trent Lott. I'll be intellectually honest and defend Harry Reid for speaking the truth but politics forced Lott to resign. In the realm of racial sensitivity, here's an example of Republicans being intellectually honest....they removed Lott. Obama defends Reid's comments due to his history in "Social Justice" and his crucial position in the Senate. An intellectually honest administration wouldn't put a tax cheat in charge of the Treasury.
What makes politics frustrating is "politics"...lets define politics. To me politics is editing one's thoughts, words and positions so not to offend and to achieve the greatest acceptance/vote. I would prefer a politician state their position and speak their mind honestly, and let the voters decide.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Why does American politics make you want to drink yourself to death? What about it is upsetting to you?
look at
1. the thread title
2. the link
then watch
3. the video in the link
the latest boffo conservative talking point was to say, literally, that there were no domestic terror attacks under bush and now we're having them under Obama. It got perpetuated for days. Three times, I see it on fox news getting steadfastly argued.
Queue up the George Thorogood and the liver donors.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:An intellectually honest administration wouldn't put a tax cheat in charge of the Treasury.
That's not intellectual dishonesty to me. Tom Daschle, who was easily the best candidate for HHS Secretary under consideration, and who would have been perfect to shepherd health care reform through Congress, was tossed overboard for some sort of tax evasion due to limo rides, as best I can remember. It had nothing, in my opinion, to do with his abilities to perform the job he was being considered for, and I think it seriously harmed the administration's efforts to pass effective reform.
Maybe it's a little more on the nose when the job has to do with finances and financial malfeasance is the crime in question, but generally, unless there is serious reason to believe that the breach in question will hamper their performance of the job, I think that the best qualified person should get the job.
If they had hid Geithner's actions, it would have been dishonest, but the reason you and I both know about it is the vetting process, which the administration performed and told you about.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Ok,
I looked at the initial link from the politically unbiased Huffington Post...here's the opening statement:
"Jon Stewart skewered Obama's national security critics last night for dismissing the terror attacks that happened under Bush while coming down on the current president for his defense record."
Ok...and? Republicans can't criticize terror attacks under Obama since they also happened under Bush? I don't blame the left for using this argument...it works for the deficit. Whenever a conservative bashes Obama for his unprecedented deficit spending they point out Bush's unprecedented spending. Not much different than defending hitting someone with a bat because they slapped you in the face.
Obama has had the most acts of terrorism in one year..most deaths in Afghanistan...highest unemployment....greatest deficit and a year where they raised the national debt limit twice. All this and they are pushing for more government programs.
Blaming another and shouting hypocrisy doesn't justify your position or alleviate you from responsibility.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm waiting for intellectually honest people and politicians. If we were intellectually honest, we could take different yet consistent positions. IE Harry Reid and Trent Lott. I'll be intellectually honest and defend Harry Reid for speaking the truth but politics forced Lott to resign. In the realm of racial sensitivity, here's an example of Republicans being intellectually honest....they removed Lott. Obama defends Reid's comments due to his history in "Social Justice" and his crucial position in the Senate. An intellectually honest administration wouldn't put a tax cheat in charge of the Treasury.
What makes politics frustrating is "politics"...lets define politics. To me politics is editing one's thoughts, words and positions so not to offend and to achieve the greatest acceptance/vote. I would prefer a politician state their position and speak their mind honestly, and let the voters decide.
If you can't tell the difference between Reid's comments and Lott's, then that explains a lot.
Thurmond's politics were hate incarnate, and had he been President I think Card's Empire series might actually come true.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:An intellectually honest administration wouldn't put a tax cheat in charge of the Treasury.
That's not intellectual dishonesty to me. Tom Daschle, who was easily the best candidate for HHS Secretary under consideration, and who would have been perfect to shepherd health care reform through Congress, was tossed overboard for some sort of tax evasion due to limo rides, as best I can remember. It had nothing, in my opinion, to do with his abilities to perform the job he was being considered for, and I think it seriously harmed the administration's efforts to pass effective reform.
Maybe it's a little more on the nose when the job has to do with finances and financial malfeasance is the crime in question, but generally, unless there is serious reason to believe that the breach in question will hamper their performance of the job, I think that the best qualified person should get the job.
If they had hid Geithner's actions, it would have been dishonest, but the reason you and I both know about it is the vetting process, which the administration performed and told you about.
I remember quite clearly Geithner's appointment. It was an emergency that he be appointed and just like "too big to fail", his appointment was "too important to wait". Everything this year has been sold as a crisis/emergency thus not due wasted time for deliberation (including healthcare legislation that is an immediate crisis but won't go into effect until 2014) “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” — Rahm Emanuel
We certainly can't talk about qualifications with this administration. Not to mention the limited qualifications of the president himself, Obama's CIA director has no intelligence experience, neither does his head of Department of Homeland Security. They are political hacks.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, To Big to Fail was the call from President Bush's administration, that President Obama was stuck with. You asked for intellectual honesty, and I am willing to give it. He could have changed course and let the banks and the auto companies crash and burn. I still don't see how that would have helped the economy or helped our children face the deficit in twenty years, but he could have. Just don't blame it on him.
You say that there have been more terrorist attacks this year than any other year. I can only think of the recent bomb attempt on Christmas. Please list the others.
Compared to 2001 when you have 9/11--which could be counted as 3 or 4 attacks in of itself, and the Washington Sniper and the poisoned mail, or perhaps those were over two years.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Fort Hood
Arkansas Recruiting Center Shooting
Underwear Bomber
Multiple Synagogue murders. How many terror arrests this year in the US? I suppose we shouldn't count the honor killings in the US.
Again..Bush was wrong. Pointing to the Bush administrations failures does not justify this administrations failures. Bush may have bailed them out but Obama seeks to control them. Bush's bailouts were just as unpopular as Obama's health care bill but both will pass. The tea party movement isn't a response to Obama and the D's, it's a response to the D's and the R's. Republicans wanted "change" last election as well but realized Obama was worse than McCain. I held my nose and voted for McCain. Bush's path and Obama's path are the same, at different rates. Hence the left's continual reference to Bush policies in defense of Obama's. They can't defend Obama but they can call you a hypocrit. The Republican party drifted into the territory of the Dems. Obama didn't only win for his excitement of the liberal base, he won because the Conservative base was dissillusioned. We are the "silent majority"...not so silent anymore. Massachusetts is a liberal stronghold but Kennedy's seat is a toss up...why? How is this possible? The Senate Majority leader has been in office for decades and he will lose in the fall. They've awoken the sleeping giant. Conservatives are embracing the ideas of community organizers and the conservative community is much larger. The ACORN scouring of homeless people on election day is nothing compared to the 912 movement and the Tea Parties.
What is the most popular music in America? Rap? Rock? Classical? Country?
[ January 13, 2010, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So wait, when Obama is president and a potential terrorist is arrested before he commits a crime, it's bad. But when it's under Bush, it's thwarting a potential terror plot?
How's that for intellectual honesty?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Malanthrop, dear god. Stop malanthroping up my thread. Find something else to do. I am already killing myself over the brain-dead state of politics. Why are you trying to kill me fastgwqth343'1vq6oi1'p34quc
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
arrrrrrhgghhhhhhhhhhh
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Ok...and? Republicans can't criticize terror attacks under Obama since they also happened under Bush? I don't blame the left for using this argument...
What argument??? This is not their argument! This is not remotely anyone's argument! The "argument" is simply pointing out that the new "no terror attacks under bush" is 100% clod-brained wrongness.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Blaming another and shouting hypocrisy doesn't justify your position or alleviate you from responsibility.
My responsibility to what? Who's blaming what? you don't make any sense, you never make any sense you never never never make any sense aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
*drinks faster*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
mal, I am SO glad I don't live in the world you live in.
Although it might be nice to live in a world where the truth is what I say it is, regardless of actual facts.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Tom Daschle, who was easily the best candidate for HHS Secretary under consideration, and who would have been perfect to shepherd health care reform through Congress, was tossed overboard for some sort of tax evasion due to limo rides, as best I can remember. It had nothing, in my opinion, to do with his abilities to perform the job he was being considered for, and I think it seriously harmed the administration's efforts to pass effective reform.
quote: Daschle is expected to answer questions Monday from members of the Senate Finance Committee, which has reported that Daschle recently filed amended tax returns to reflect $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest. Also, the financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago shows that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the industry that President Barack Obama wants him to reform.
The speaking fees were just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former South Dakota senator earned over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.
Senators said Sunday they will await guidance from the Finance Committee before deciding whether the tax problem could stall or even derail his confirmation.
Obama has said that no one in his administration who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can deal with the same subject matter. The president has already approved a few exceptions. Daschle is not a registered lobbyist but he worked at a lobbying firm.
Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the money he earned in speaking fees from health care interests do not pose a conflict for the health care reform Obama wants him to lead.
"He welcomed every opportunity to make his case to the American public at large and the health industry in particular that America can't afford to ignore the health care crisis any longer," she said.
Among the health care interest groups paying Daschle for speeches were America's Health Insurance Plans, $40,000 for two speeches; CSL Behring, $30,000; the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, $16,000; and the Principal Life Insurance Co., $15,000.
Daschle said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services ethics office that if he's confirmed by the Senate, he will resign as a senior policy adviser at the Washington law firm of Alston and Bird LLP. He reported earnings of more than $2 million from that firm during the past two years.
Daschle also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. He said he also intends to resign from that firm upon his confirmation.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Cant we all just agree that the most slant free news show on the air is The Daily Show?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think it's the funniest news show in terms of laughing with the commentator and not at the commentator.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Cant we all just agree that the most slant free news show on the air is The Daily Show?
No, but it's the probably the most accurate. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Cant we all just agree that the most slant free news show on the air is The Daily Show?
I'll agree to this, yes they have a democrat slant but they're so flabergasted at democrat incompetance that they also make fun of them as well, they're fair in their criticism.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, thanks for the refresher on the tragic year of 09. Yes there were more attacks last year than in most.
I find it a bit dishonest to say that this is due to our election of President Obama. This idea is based on the assumption that these terrorists assumed Obama was weak and planned to attack that weakness, just as the argument that Afghanistan saw its worst year ever due to the appearance that President Obama would crumple.
A more detailed look at the attacks show this was not the case.
The attacks on synagogues have been uniformly crazy Americans of European and supposedly Christian upbringing. It has not been a Islamic attack on Judiaism. We can't blame that on President Obama's apparent lack of bloodthirsty instinct. We can possibly blame that on his race, as these nuts may have seen his election as the last straw of their race losing some paranoid dream.
The attack at Fort Hood was a deranged Muslim who was making his Jihadist plans before President Obama took office, and blamed the war in Iraq--the war started by a Cowboy, for pushing him over the edge. Again, not Obama's foreign policy.
The attack on the Recruiting Center I do not have enough information on.
And the attack from Yemen was launched because a few years ago we assumed we had already destroyed Al-Queda in Yemen with our cowboy tactics, so we quit worrying about them and focused on Iraq, then Afghanistan.
The increase in deaths in Afghanistan goes against your theory as well, since by the 3rd month of the Obama Presidency he was talking nicely, but INCREASING OUR TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN. He continued and indeed increased, drone attacks into Pakistan. He upped the ante in this war, while still trying to find ways of not converting more people in that area into the enemy.
Cowboys don't prevent violence, they react to it.
Terrorists love reactions. They love to instill them and to claim responsibility for them, no matter what they are.
While I see your point that comparing presidents Obama and Bush II is too easy for President Obama in domestic issues, your argument that we both need a more Cowboy type leader followed by, don't compare him to our last Cowboy type leader just isn't logical.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Terrorists love reactions. They love to instill them and to claim responsibility for them, no matter what they are.
One unacknowledged point underlying Zakaria's thesis is that, for all the destructiveness of the "cowboy" (or Jacksonian to use Walter Russell Mead's formulation) approach, one of the things it successfully destroyed was al-Qaida's operational ability. The fact that instead of blowing up buildings and trains and US battle ships the group is reduced to poorly executed underpants bombings is largely due to the US (over)reaction to Sept. 11.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We need a leader who is at least willing to use the words "Islamic Terror" and "War on Terror". The current administration prefers "Overseas Contingency Operations" and "Man-made disasters". The 911 commission report highlighted the failure in treating terrorists as criminals but this administration is doing just that.
Cowboys say it as it is. We need a leader who will stand up and say that America and the free world is going to hunt down and kill radical Jihadists wherever they are. Our current administration cares more about international opinion than the safety of the American people. If we captured Bin-Laden tomorrow, this administration would declare the war over. The criminal responsible would be in custody...it goes beyond that. If they captured Bin-Laden he would be given a lawyer and told he has a right to remain silent.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Malanthrop, dear god. Stop malanthroping up my thread. Find something else to do. I am already killing myself over the brain-dead state of politics. Why are you trying to kill me fastgwqth343'1vq6oi1'p34quc
He's trying to make up for past misdeeds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Our current administration cares more about international opinion than the safety of the American people.
No, it's that our current administration knows that the two are reasonably intertwined goals.
please stop telling us we need a cowboy for a president. We had one. he's going to be regarded historically as one of the worst we've ever had. Certainly not a pierce or a buchanan, but he's regarded by impartial scholars as damn near close.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I think history will view the worst as a toss up between Carter and Obama. At least they've both been awarded Nobel Peace Prizes.
I respect Ghandi but I wouldn't put him in charge of our national defense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I think history will view the worst as a toss up between Carter and Obama.
That's because, yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Obama doesn't even have a legacy yet and will probably be a second-termer so it's astoundingly premature to be guessing whether he'll be viewed as a failure ex-post-facto (it would, in fact, be just as dumb as concluding Bush would end up being one of the most loathed presidents in history, only after his first year in office), and Carter's legacy already pales in comparison to Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, or Harding. hell, even according to surveys of historical and political science wonks, Carter can't even match up with Grant, Fillmore, or Coolidge or Hoover in terms of negatively judged legacy.
And if you tell me that you honestly believe that either Carter or Obama is worse than Buchanan or Harding, I will.. I don't know what I'll do yet. Probably just try to pistol-whip you with my empty liquor bottles before I slide off into the blissful unconsciousness I have yet to obtain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal: why do you respect Gandhi? What about him do you respect?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I think history will view the worst as a toss up between Carter and Obama. At least they've both been awarded Nobel Peace Prizes.
I respect Ghandi but I wouldn't put him in charge of our national defense.
Ghandi had plenty of advisors willing to act tough when the moment was needed.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Obama will be a second termer? Seriously doubt that one...the Dems are likely to lose a Kennedy seat in Mass. If Coakly is -4 in Mass you are only scratching the surface of the conservative uprising. Obama won due to independents...look at the independent vote position lately? I predicted this in Hatrack months ago. The Dems will overreach and the conservative will take a day off of work to vote them out. The senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has been in office for decades and he is a double digit loser and has no chance of reelection. The true "Blue Dog" voters are seeing the light.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama will be a second termer? Seriously doubt that one...
Yes. I know. Because you have nothing approximating a careful study of voter trends and the popularity of Obama as verified versus current frontline G.O.P. prospects, and because you personally greatly desire Obama not to be a second-termer and you let that desire completely determine your 'gut feeling' about the upcoming election.
I mean, just a post ago, you were talking about how you think history will judge carter and obama as the worst presidents. You're lost in the woods in this one.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Ladies and gentlemen:
quote:When he wasn't calling the president a racist, portraying progressive leaders as vampires who can only be stopped by "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers," or pushing the legitimacy of seceding from the country, Beck obsessively compared Democrats in Washington to Nazis and fascists and "the early days of Adolf Hitler." He wondered, "Is this where we're headed," while showing images of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin; decoded the secret language of Marxists; and compared the government to "heroin pushers" who were "using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)