posted
I would bet it's more than that but it's the lobbyists' pockets that are really full. McCain's fundraisers and staff made millions lobbying on behalf of the mortgage industry. Normally I say "so what?, that's politics" but then McCain blasted the lobbyists, saying:
quote:The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
He then attempted to blame Obama for his ties to lobbyists, which are largely baseless, while ignoring the fact that his own campaign manager and several others on his staff were directly involved in the behavior that he's so upset about.
I don't care that McCain has former lobbyists on his staff. I care that he's being a hypocrite.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:We had a debate that was similar, but I don't think the same. The difference is that I don't think small town people are any stupider by nature than the average America. I think you might be right to a degree that they think that city people think they are stupid, but I think their reaction to that was to instead entrench themselves in the idea that THEY are in fact better because their lifestyle or values or morals and what not are inherently better than the city snobs, despite the fact that there are just as many if not more hardships in city living than there are in rural living. They've reacted, when hearing that someone thinks they are better than them, by coming up with a way to downplay that and insist that THEY are actually better. It's an ironic reaction, but I guess not surprising when you look at the history of sectional reactions in this country.
Do you know why I asked you about Kerry or whether you think Obama's lead would be bigger if people did their duty? It's because the notion that people become entrenched in their beliefs when faced with people who think they are better is not something that is confined to small town people, it is a phenomenon that is truly non-partisan and unbiased, and it is something that allows a more utilitarian look at politics in general. People become entrenched in their beliefs all the time, they face a logical paradox or evidence to the contrary and instead of rationally seeking an answer, they become more entrenched in their own belief, but the real interesting part of that is the reasoning behind it. If you have ever wondered why it was easy to divide America it is because people view their own beliefs through the lens of entitlement, and then that lens affords people a sense of entitlement to the truth. The truth I speak of here is not *the* truth of course, it's *my* truth or *your* truth, and when those truths don't mesh, people can easily become entrenched.
To me, that's the problem, it's the debate we had, and to an extent it is thesis of Stewart's arguments the last few days. For instance, Stewart talked about McCain last night and used a quote from his acceptance speech as an example. McCain said: "I will appoint judges that will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench". Of course, Jon was correct in saying that what that really meant was that he would not allow gay marriage and overturn Roe, but more to the point, this is the kind of politics we now face everyday. Politicians speak to us as if we were children, they don't engage themselves in *big* debates about abortion or gay marriage, they hide behind gaffes their opponents make and behind lines meant to appeal to as many groups as possible, and unfortunately now, that includes Obama. He has failed to raise the level of discourse just as McCain has, and the simple fact that McCain failed does not justify Obama's negative tactics and failure to do so.
That's how our debate's come together because your belief that some of the American people are stupid does impact how we view politics and the nature of the divisions we face. Of course, the solution is to trust the American people and to bring about hope and a better political discourse. How so? Have the big debates, have the debates we *need* to have, and trust that the American people are smart enough to tell the difference. If you don't, you will lose anyway...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:your belief that some of the American people are stupid
Well, that's sort of a mischaracterization. I don't think you'll find a single person on this board that doesn't think SOME American people are stupid. I don't see how you could argue that any population of people doesn't have its share of stupid people. My argument was that people are LAZY, which is considerably different. The reason you asked me about Kerry/Obama was because you wanted me to say that yes, Obama and Kerry would have a bigger lead because anyone paying attention and anyone smart enough would naturally pick the two of them as their candidate. But the fact of the matter is, like I've said before, if everyone paid attention and really looked into the issues to form their own opinions instead of forming them from the prepackaged bits they get from the candidates and the untruths and misrepresentations they do of each other then I have no idea how the country would realign, but I think it would be a major shift in the fundamental nature of American politics. I also think it would dramatically change how the candidates treat us. Candidates don't give us straight out debates on the issues because they know from a century or more of history that platitudes and non-statements both earn them votes, and that they'll never be pressed for more.
But still, I feel like this argument is different than the rural vs. urban argument. That presupposes that I think all the stupid/lazy people are in the rural areas, and that all the smart attention payers are in the suburbs and cities. Again, that's wrong. *********** In other news, McCain pulls his campaign out of Michigan. Not really a surprise. With how the map was looking, he was either going to have to pick between PA or MI and MI's numbers were looking a lot more scary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason you asked me about Kerry/Obama was because you wanted me to say that yes, Obama and Kerry would have a bigger lead because anyone paying attention and anyone smart enough would naturally pick the two of them as their candidate. But the fact of the matter is, like I've said before, if everyone paid attention and really looked into the issues to form their own opinions instead of forming them from the prepackaged bits they get from the candidates and the untruths and misrepresentations they do of each other then I have no idea how the country would realign, but I think it would be a major shift in the fundamental nature of American politics. I also think it would dramatically change how the candidates treat us.
Let me ask you something then, if a candidate were to argue that abortion comes down to a choice between life and murder, then how are we going to have any kind of argument or debate? You claim that if people got past the untruths and misrepresentations that there would be a fundamental shift in the nature of American politics, but it's not like you think that shift would be for the worse, especially given that you argue *for* this line. That shift you speak of is one that you endorse because you think it is the right thing to do and because you think it will be better than what we have now. I mean it's not like you run around arguing things you don't believe in or believing something that you believe to be wrong because that's not a rational approach to knowledge or debate and you are a rational person. However, if the debate you get into is the one I presented above, then how is the American citizen going to get past the lies and misrepresentations and into that new American political landscape you seek?
Here's an even better question, what do you think of those people who disagree with the fundamental tenet of our argument (that the political landscape is perfect the way it is)? And isn't it clear then how they might think, whether it's true or not, that we think they are stupid?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: When Biden said that he supports the government's ability to adjust the principal, how would it work?
This is just my guess, but I suppose there would be a means test to determine how much principle the homeowner could afford and if that value was greater than or equal to the amount that the bank could reasonably raise by foreclosing and auctioning the property then the mortgage would be refinanced to that lower principle.
Alternatively, they could reduce the principle to the fair market value of the home (assuming it's less) and make it up to the homeowner to meet that payment.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me ask you something then, if a candidate were to argue that abortion comes down to a choice between life and murder, then how are we going to have any kind of argument or debate?
Well I think once you get to that point, most of the debate has probably already broke down. We never got into the nitty gritty of specific issues, but I think we might have to make a distinction between certain kinds of issues. Abortion is one of those things that doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer, it's based on a particular person's world or moral view. Where does life begin? Science doesn't have an answer, it's opinion based, entirely opinion based. We put an arbitrary line into Roe v. Wade on what constitutes acceptable limits on what we can legislate when a termination is okay or when it's too late and say that in the beginning, we won't make that decision as a nation. But it's a discussion, like many other social and moral issues, that I question can be reasoned by logic, as it's a philosophical debate, rather than a recitation of facts built into a cogent argument.
I think the way to bring that particular debate back into focus is to change the rhetoric we use to shape it. It's politicians, like so many times in the past, who rile people up by using such inflammatory language that pushes people into camps where they can then draw support from them on issues like this. Not referring to the opposition as baby killers or on the other side as ignorant Bible thumpers or what not is how we at least return the debate to civility, even if we can't come to a satisfactory agreement. So often how we frame the debate can be just as important in succeeding as the debate itself.
quote:However, if the debate you get into is the one I presented above, then how is the American citizen going to get past the lies and misrepresentations and into that new American political landscape you seek?
Like we've said in discussions past, I think it's far, far too easy for middle of the road politicians who try to build consensus to be edged out by extremists. A guy comes along and says that he doesn't think abortion is murder, so supporters aren't baby killers, and his own side will reject him for not supporting them enough, and the other side will reject him for not supporting them at all. It happens all the time. The way past it is for regular people to reject the premise of the debate entirely. It's either that or politics has to change whole cloth, entirely, because all it takes is one guy to take advantage of the system and it all comes apart again, and it's been that way for 200 years.
quote:Here's an even better question, what do you think of those people who disagree with the fundamental tenet of our argument (that the political landscape is perfect the way it is)? And isn't it clear then how they might think, whether it's true or not, that we think they are stupid?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this had to have been done consciously. In response to the Obama campaign putting out an add with a clip for Sen Biden talking about John McCain's healthcare plan rasing middle-class healthcare payments (which the McCain campaign denies but independent organizations says is correct - and it looks pretty obvious to me that it does), a McCain spokesman said:
quote:Whether Barack Obama and his running mate are voting in favor of higher taxes on Americans making just $42,000 or telling bald faced lies, Americans know failed leadership when they see it.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Palin was absolutely not good at debating, she was a pretty face that memorized talking abouts, which as far as I can tell were mostly false.
And she sounded like Ned Flanders.
She was brilliant, actually, and I say that realizing full well that she was memorized and rehearsed and used her pretty face for all it was worth. She dodged questions, brought the topics around to what she wanted to talk about, and did a great job making the emotional masses forget all the bad things about her. Anyone watching the debate with a logical eye could see through what she was doing, but it doesn't change the fact that these tactics work. She's a terrific politician. It's the best thing I've come up with to say about her! Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In an interview with CBS News that aired last week, Biden described how Franklin D. Roosevelt had appeared before the country on television in 1929 to explain the stock market crash. But Herbert Hoover was president in 1929, and televisions sets did not start appearing in American homes until a decade later.
quote: In that same interview, asked about an Obama campaign commercial that mocked Sen. John McCain's lack of computer skills, Biden called the ad "terrible." A few hours later, after McCain's campaign highlighted the remark in several news releases, Obama aides put out a statement under Biden's name in which the senator from Delaware said he had not personally seen the commercial and did not have any concerns once he watched it.
The next day, confronted with a interview in which Biden had said he opposed the bailout of the insurance company American International Group, a move that Obama supported, the Democratic nominee said that "I think Joe should have waited" before commenting.
And Obama aides spent much of the week defending the candidate's backing of the construction of "clean coal" plants, after a video surfaced on the Internet that showed Biden at a campaign event saying he opposed clean coal. The coal industry is a major employer in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two key swing states where Biden is doing much of his campaigning, and Obama has pledged support for coal plants that emit less carbon dioxide than traditional plants.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Palin was absolutely not good at debating, she was a pretty face that memorized talking abouts, which as far as I can tell were mostly false.
And she sounded like Ned Flanders.
She was brilliant, actually, and I say that realizing full well that she was memorized and rehearsed and used her pretty face for all it was worth. She dodged questions, brought the topics around to what she wanted to talk about, and did a great job making the emotional masses forget all the bad things about her. Anyone watching the debate with a logical eye could see through what she was doing, but it doesn't change the fact that these tactics work. She's a terrific politician. It's the best thing I've come up with to say about her!
That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Palin has also brought out the very worst in McCain, forcing him to -- and I do not use this word lightly -- lie about her. In an interview broadcast Wednesday, National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep asked McCain if there would be "an occasion where you could imagine turning to Governor Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?"
McCain replied: "I've turned to her advice many times in the past. I can't imagine turning to Senator Obama or Senator Biden, because they've been wrong."
" Many times in the past?" McCain met Palin only twice before he selected her. What McCain said could not be true. And would anyone who listened to her last night really consult Palin on foreign policy?
quote:Part of reassurance is intellectual. Like Palin, he's a rookie, but in his 19 months on the national stage he has achieved fluency in areas in which he has no experience. In the foreign policy debate with McCain, as in his July news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama held his own -- fluid, familiar and therefore plausibly presidential.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.
Me, I'm not so sure. I expect to see a blitz of anti-Obama ads featuring Ayers, Wright and Rezko soon after the last debate between Obama and McCain. It's not at all clear if they can have an impact any longer. But it's not clear that they can't have an impact, either.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Oddly enough that is what I think of Obama.
Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Lyrhawn, I think Ebert's right. Palin came across more as Jerry Lundegaard than Ned Flanders.
I love reading stuff Ebert writes.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Oddly enough that is what I think of Obama.
Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
Wow there's no possible way to make that more offensive, and believe me I've tried.
IP: Logged |
Well that's fascinating. Obama is "disqualified" to be Commander in Chief. To be fair, it DOES look to me like he was insinuating that that's all our troops have been doing. I think it was a flippant comment (which Palin should know all about) but at the same time appears to be backed up by facts (which Palin might not know about). I think he would have made his point better by being more careful in his wording.
quote: “I did feel there were a lot of things she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket," Palin said. "I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that’s also an indication about being outside that Washington elite, outside that media elite also, and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."
Those are her comments on Couric's interview and her questions. I think she pretty much just specified the difference between two sides in this election. Couric asked her policy questions, asked her to show a command of issues, and she wanted to talk about values. And apparently actually KNOWING THINGS means you're a Washington insider, where as being a folksy charmer means you're exactly the right person for the job.
She just dropped the veneer and said straight out that she's running as a folksy down home vapid America's best friend type, and that anyone who talks about policy or experience is a "washington elite." How she makes that claim and someon exempts McCain is beyond me.
Edit to add: Here's a video of her comments. I take back part of what I said, I was wrong. She apparently doesn't want to talk about her values or her positions, she wants to spend the entire time "clobbering" Barack Obama's positions. Because that's TOTALLY outside what the Washington elite and media elite do and say. She's learning fast.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, in most cases, you can match what you know of a person, their positions, how they usually write and match it up against something that seems outrageous to you.
It's not like Noemon is someone whose usual style or views are a mystery, what with a post count of over 14,000 and all. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
That second part was evidenced when Palin was talking about her world travels. She said that when she graduated high school, unlike other kids whose parents handed them a passport and sent them off to Europe with backpacks, she worked for a living. What is up with that stereotype?
Well, except for the part where I got the passport myself and picked the backpack up at REI, and planned the trip and did the applications for language schools and all that... I do fit the stereotype- I went to Europe four times before I was 22. But I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. My parents could afford to send me, and when I graduated from school, I liquidated my assets and sent myself back again. I wouldn't personally trade those experiences for the morally invigorating life of work in a small town. I have worked in a small town- I was a local camp counselor for 5 years, and a teen center supervisor for 3, and it mostly sucked. Now, I'm glad I had both experiences, but one is not better than the other; they are patently different.
The issue is that Palin is quite narrow-minded. Her experience is inherently better because it belongs to her. That's kind of the whole republican ethos: the vast middle class sees the fragility of their social status and position, but those who are set in either rural communities of limited socio-economic mobility, or those born into inherited wealth, can't believe there is any other way to live than they are living now. The thing about middle class families is that they weren't always the way they are now. The middle class comes from something unlike itself, and knows something about changeability. In some ways I don't think that's true of small towns. I grew up in a small town (though it was in the shadow of a major city) and it had a real effect on people's social mobility, not having connections outside such a small group.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the link, but Palin is expressing disappointment with McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan.
Personally, I'm pleased with the decision if for no other reason than the fact that we'll finally get to see something other than presidential ads on TV! Huzzah! I'm sick to death of all the ads. Every 30 seconds there's another ad, we're drowning in them. The good news for Obama is that he gets to pull most of his resources out of the state too to press the attack in states McCain is defending.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't have the link, but Palin is expressing disappointment with McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan.
Personally, I'm pleased with the decision if for no other reason than the fact that we'll finally get to see something other than presidential ads on TV! Huzzah! I'm sick to death of all the ads. Every 30 seconds there's another ad, we're drowning in them. The good news for Obama is that he gets to pull most of his resources out of the state too to press the attack in states McCain is defending.
No more ads! Yay!
Move out to Utah Valley then, the lack of politically diverse dialogue has long depressed me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blame the electoral college. If we weren't sliced and diced as an electorate, you'd get more attention, and with the spreading of resources, I'd get less.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, so not only is Obama a secret Muslim, but now he's a secret Muslim with terrorist friends!
Frankly I have to imagine there are more subtle ways to attempt to paint your opponent as a terrorist sympathizer, let alone an actual terrorist.
Moreover, her attacks on Obama in recent days have been blunt and ridiculous. It's like she harps on what MIGHT be a good point, and then takes is melodramatically over the top.
Obama makes a comment about the US army killing civilians in Afghanistan. Okay, Obama's point was actually that independent and US reports confirmed that the US was reponsible for as many if not more deaths than the Taliban and her affiliates lately, which isn't a particularly good mark for us. He didn't say it very well, which Palin would have been smart to jump on, but instead she says that now he's totally disqualified to be Commander in Chief. Because in a McCain-Palin Administration there'd be no questioning the high civilian casualty rate? Way over the top.
And now saying he 'pals around with terrorists'? It looks like she's trying to make up lost ground way too fast and might even end up losing more.
Tina Fey reprised her role as Sarah Palin again on SNL earlier tonight. It was pretty funny, as was the parody of Biden.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in the neighborhood with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. I've spoken with them both. He spends his time advocating on behalf of education, while she works in juvenile justice. As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse. 30 years ago, they bombed buildings in the US to draw attention to the massive violence we were inflicting a half a world away. I look at the way they've lived their lives, and I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
quote:I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
You mean he's too pragmatic to come out and say how brave these people were for blowing stuff up? He's being branded as a terrorist sympathizer just for having met Ayers and working with him briefly. Coming out and saying he actually approves of their actions is tantamount to forfeiting the election.
Even if I agreed with you about Ayers, which I don't, I'd still consider his character perfectly in tact for keeping his mouth shut about it and winning the White House than trying to take some high road and giving up the presidency to someone I consider anathema to the White House. Sometimes the price is too high, and I think it has nothing to do with character.
Edit to add: Joe Biden's mother-in-law just died.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it has nothing to do with character
To quote Aaron Sorkin: being President of this country is entirely about character.
quote:I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
That assumes two things: that Obama agrees with you about Ayers and that he doesn't come out and say that for specious reasons. And I don't think you can assume either about Obama...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, is anyone holding Obama not taking public financing against him? Because Palin was in California today fundraising...for the RNC. Which is spending all it's money on McCain.
In fact, you can still contribute money on McCain's site, it just doesn't technically go to his campaign:
"For Individuals- The first $28,500 will go to the RNC, the next portion will be divided evenly between the Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania state parties' federal accounts up to a maximum of $9,250 for each Committee, and the final $2,300 will go to the Compliance Fund."
So McCain pretty much got, what - 80 million dollars of taxpayer money for no loss?
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gotta love those campaign finance laws he put into effect eh?
The real irony? The RNC is demanding a half billion dollar audit of the Obama campaign, claiming they've broken several fundraising laws even though the McCain campaign has had to give back more than a million dollars that it illegally collected.
I'd love to see them duke it out in a debate, but I think it'd get too technical for either side to score any points.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If this is all true... Jeez! How does someone who crashes one plane and accidentally clips a power line with a second manage to stay in the military?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Rolling Stones article is the worst article I've ever read. It is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. Complete trash.
To answer your question, the article got it wrong. I'm embarrassed for journalism that absolute rubbish like that got printed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: ]Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
I'd love to know your qualifications for that assessment. There is virtually no chance of you being correct.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I live in the neighborhood with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. I've spoken with them both. He spends his time advocating on behalf of education, while she works in juvenile justice. As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse. 30 years ago, they bombed buildings in the US to draw attention to the massive violence we were inflicting a half a world away. I look at the way they've lived their lives, and I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
Whatever their reasons, they were foolish to do what they did, in my opinion. Obama, as a lawyer and almost certainly as a student has read Henry David Thereau' "On Civil Disobedience," and understands what real advocates of democratic action have understood for centuries. Violent uprising is a replacement of one tyranny over another if it is not democratic. That is the whole reason why terrorism is wrong. Sometimes I think you only see a problem with terrorism when it isn't your side doing the terrorizing. Infecting people with fear and the threat of violence is no good solution for any of our problems.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That Rolling Stones article is the worst article I've ever read. It is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. Complete trash.
To answer your question, the article got it wrong. I'm embarrassed for journalism that absolute rubbish like that got printed.
It's Rolling Stone. I'm Canadian and even I know it's (political sections) are in the tank hard for liberals.
quote: "As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."
Do you think she realises what she's saying?
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rolling Stone article is certainly poorly written, but I don't believe there's any question about the plane crashes. He definitely crashed into the ocean and clipped the Spanish power lines, they didn't get that wrong.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That Rolling Stones article is the worst article I've ever read. It is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. Complete trash.
To answer your question, the article got it wrong.
Kat, I agree that the article is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. However, I'm not sure where it "got it wrong," at least regarding McCain's flight record. Which assertions aren't factual?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: ]Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
I'd love to know your qualifications for that assessment. There is virtually no chance of you being correct.
Noemon's post was so thick with overblown sarcasm I'm not sure how you could have missed it. Maybe you didn't and I'm completely missing the sarcasm in your response.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I live in the neighborhood with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. I've spoken with them both. He spends his time advocating on behalf of education, while she works in juvenile justice. As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse. 30 years ago, they bombed buildings in the US to draw attention to the massive violence we were inflicting a half a world away. I look at the way they've lived their lives, and I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
Thank you for that lovely self-definition. I wish I could say that I had thought you better than that, but I really hadn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
