Obama and his teleprompter

[Lord of Hunger]

I'm not saying he's above criticism, but people have really hounded him for every little thing, and when Bush made mistakes people just shrugged it all.

Are you ****ing kidding me? If Bush ****ing sneezed, people would claim that he had just eaten little children. The guy was demonized, often for things that he was not even responsible for. He wasn't the best president in the world, I sure wasn't satisfied with his presidency, but he had to put up with a lot of **** that he didn't deserve because the Democrats wanted power, just in the same way that the Republicans hound Obama now.

I think theres a bit of racism between the parties

:facepalm:

 

No, there isn't. Conservatives do not criticize Obama because he is African American, they criticize him because:

 

a) They have been made to see him as a threat to their way of life.

b) He and Congress have spent a ****load of money and we haven't really seem much in the way of results...yet. People are naturally impatient, and Conservatives want to believe that it's business as usual in Washington.

My 2 cents he's only had a year in office, and I think he took over possibly the most challenging first term a president has ever had.

I generally agree with this view. However, my problem is not so much the lack of Obama's achievements so much as the tactics he has used to do his work. He claimed that he was going to get tough on Wall Street, yet his messages can pretty much be summed up as: "Please be good little banks." Also, when he reached out to Republicans and offered massive compromises on Health Care, when they gave him the finger he should have fought back and got his constituents angry about it. It may or may not have put pressure on Democrats to just ignore the Republicans and pass Health Care sooner and with less compromises.

Bush did not leave a good legacy; the war in Afghanistan was not Obama's war; but pulling out renders all the troops sacrifice meaningless. Nor did Bush do America any favours over regulations (or lack of) over American mortgages.

The regulations (or lack of) are the result of Congress' decisions, not Bush. As for Afghanistan, that was the problem of jumping into Iraq without cleaning up the first mess. It's kinda like leaving dishes in the sink until there's no room and you have clean up. It's preferable to clean each dish immediately so you don't have to worry about it later.

[Ghost]

He wasn't the best president in the world, I sure wasn't satisfied with his presidency, but he had to put up with a lot of **** that he didn't deserve because the Democrats wanted power, just in the same way that the Republicans hound Obama now.

 

Oh yay, lets all feel sorry for George Bush who ruined our economy, made our free country seem like a conquering empire, and caused a meaningless war. PITY PARTY!

 

Oh, and if the Republicans are as innocent as you claim, then you must be blind. Because in 00 and 04 when bush called for his "recount" of votes he somehow won when the other candidate was actually surpassing him. I suspect cheating

 

No, there isn't.

 

Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black. I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black.

 

a) They have been made to see him as a threat to their way of life.

 

Only because he disagrees with them, and he wants change. Republicans want things to stay the same, because they think that there is no need for change with many people are without jobs.

 

b) He and Congress have spent a ****load of money and we haven't really seem much in the way of results...yet. People are naturally impatient, and Conservatives want to believe that it's business as usual in Washington.

 

If you say people are naturally impatient, then that includes you. Because change takes time. You can't fix an economy overnight, it takes years to do it. Look how much **** Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with. Hoover was partially the cause of the Great Depression, and a lot of people hated him too. Bush made a bigger mess than Hoover, not just an economy screwup. That includes a meaningless war, Global Warming caused by the Oil Companies, huge debt to China for borrowing money, the list goes on, and the larger the mess, the longer the cleanup

 

There, thats my statement to you

[jonathan7]

You know Johnathon, it really says alot about you that you didn't respond to any of my questions to you.

 

Oh yay, lets all feel sorry for George Bush who ruined our economy, made our free country seem like a conquering empire, and caused a meaningless war. PITY PARTY!

 

So here you go attacking Bush, and expect the Republicans not to do the same to you Obama?

 

Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black. I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black.

 

Source? Fact 92.67% of Internet facts are made up on the spot (including this one).

 

Only because he disagrees with them, and he wants change. Republicans want things to stay the same, because they think that there is no need for change with many people are without jobs.

 

G.K. Chesterton once said;

 

The business of liberals is to make entirely new mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to keep making the same mistakes.

[Ghost]

hey, im just stating my opinions.

 

So here you go attacking Bush, and expect the Republicans not to do the same to Obama?

 

I have my reasons for stating things against bush. People criticize Obama, but Republicans take it way too far. Calling him a terrorist for his middle name being "husain"? Now I know both parties carry it, but when we democrats criticized Bush, we had good reasons. Most reasons that Republicans come up with are just ridiculous.

 

edit: Also, I don't really like people who make wars for nothing, screw up the climate and economy, and I especially don't like it when those same people don't clean up the mess they made. THAT is why I headbutt Bush more than Obama

 

Source? Fact 92.67% of Internet facts are made up on the spot (including this one).

 

Hmm, I did not get it from the internet, I got it from experience. Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

 

Not all republicans are racist, but some people in the south and southwest which have a history of slavery are still discriminating against blacks.

 

 

Just because I don't respond to YOUR posts doesn't mean i did not read them. I may be young, but I am not retarded. I don't want to be mean or anything, but I do understand politics, but apparently i don't understand them in your way.

[Tommycat]

Hmm, I did not get it from the internet, I got it from experience. Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

 

Then the obvious answer is you live in a racist neighborhood. Your sample size is WAAAAAAAY too narrowly focused to claim an in depth knowledge of why Republicans in general do not like Obama. I'm a Republican. Almost every Republican I know would have voted for Colin Powell if he ran for president. Speaking of which... During the Bush presidency the highest non-elected seats of the country were held by black persons. The first black Sec of State and first black WOMAN secretary of state. Quit calling Republicans racist unless you'd rather be viewed as a twit. My dad REALLY didn't like Obama. Are you going to claim that he didn't like him because he was black? I'm sure my stepmother would be upset to hear that the man who married her(a black woman) was racist.

 

Funny how you mention how biased FoxNews is, yet as on of your suggested alternatives you post MSNBC. Helloooo pot... Kettle here...

[Ghost]

didn't I say only some are racist? Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument. How about this, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH competing against each other. They have been since they began, but most fiercely recently. They also are prejudiced against each other as well. I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

[Tommycat]

didn't I say only some are racist? Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument. How about this, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH competing against each other. They have been since they began, but most fiercely recently. They also are prejudiced against each other as well. I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

 

Not good enough. You said "Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black. I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black."

 

So your presumption was that the majority or Republicans are racists. Funny since the dems were the ones with Robert Byrd in congress... Any idea what his affiliation with the KKK was? If you said he was a Grand Wizard of the KKK you would be correct. But you keep placing it out there that we Republicans are racist. Quite frankly it's an argument that ticks me off to no end. I HATE being called racist. When I was in high school I was called racist because none of my friends were black. It had more to do with music choice than skin color. It was so bad that people started to pick fights because they thought I hated blacks. This racism talk is starting to have the same effect.

 

I'd agree that there is some level of prejudice between the Dems and the Reps. That much is obvious. But tying that to race is misplaced. Sure there are bound to be some who are motivated by race. But then you could say that it's the black community who are racist. 96% of blacks voted for Obama(source). That clearly indicates a racial bias.

[Totenkopf]

Sadly, J-Mkll, it seems you likely spend an inordinate amount of time watching MSNBC and display the "balance" in analysis you see from many of its commentators.

 

I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

 

No argument here.

 

@J7--no, I was merely arguing pathetic only. Even John Stewart mocked it, so the "other side" can't complain too bitterly.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The retards who watch it are what's troubling.

 

Given the nature of many of your posts, you'd know.

[jonathan7]

hey, im just stating my opinions.

 

Which have no factual basis that you have shown. When you call Bush a retard, I asked for any evidence that he had any symptoms of mental retardation. Generally the scientific basis for being a retard is an IQ below 70; George Bush has an IQ of 125 (the population average is 100). You say that 7 out of 10 Republicans are racist, out of a sample of 30; this "study" is not generalisable to the wider population of Republicans. What if I said to you 10 out of the 12 Democrats I know were drug users, does that make all Democrats drug users?

 

I have my reasons for stating things against bush. People criticize Obama, but Republicans take it way too far.

 

The Democrats hounded Bush for 8 years as you have done so in this thread. Personally I like Obama, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat (I'm not American); however while I disagree with the treatment of Obama (and Bush) give the polarised state of American politics expecting anything different is going to happen. Perhaps you could begin the process by stopping your attacks on Bush.

 

Calling him a terrorist for his middle name being "husain"?

 

From my expierence, and I am friends with one of those that did the above, they are an extremist fringe of the Republican party.

 

Now I know both parties carry it, but when we democrats criticized Bush, we had good reasons.

 

I'm pretty sure most people when criticizing others think they have "good" reasons; in my experience rarely is their rationale logical.

 

edit: Also, I don't really like people who make wars for nothing, screw up the climate and economy, and I especially don't like it when those same people don't clean up the mess they made. THAT is why I headbutt Bush more than Obama

 

Yes, because compared to Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jung-Il, Ahmadinejad and Omar al-Bashir, Bush was a really bad lader :|

 

Hmm, I did not get it from the internet, I got it from experience. Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

 

Great, so this applies to Republicans in the North, or even Republicans in your state (but not in your town/city) or even replies to Republicans in different neighbourhoods, but in the same town/city as you how?

 

Not all republicans are racist, but some people in the south and southwest which have a history of slavery are still discriminating against blacks.

 

What if I told you I have at least 20 Republican friends and not one of them is racist and they all think slavery is evil?

 

Just because I don't respond to YOUR posts doesn't mean i did not read them.

 

At no point did I suggest you hadn't read them...

 

I may be young, but I am not retarded. I don't want to be mean or anything, but I do understand politics, but apparently i don't understand them in your way.

 

At any point had I inferred you suffered from mental retardation? No, it's clear you don't see politics my way, but given that mine is sat on the fence, and observing people as they are, then the only conclusion is your biased; whether you see that or not.

 

didn't I say only some are racist? Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument. How about this, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH competing against each other. They have been since they began, but most fiercely recently. They also are prejudiced against each other as well. I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

 

This seems to ignore history; the parties were much closer, it is only in the last 50-60 years that the divide has become as big, and as dirty as it is now.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'm going to follow Bush's example and preemptively strike. Don't get too excited. Make sure your comments are civil, please.

[Q]

Bush was the most retarded person EVER.

Well, after reading this thread, you do know what they say about people in glass houses, right?

Obama is actually trying to fix the country

News flash: whatever he's been trying to do to "fix the country" isn't working, which, quite frankly, comes as no surprise to me. All of that talk about "hope and change" was BS used to get him elected. And this whole "Give Obama a break" nonsense is ridiculously hypocritical, especially in light of all of the hatred that was aimed at Bush, and this is coming from someone who thought that Bush sucked. Obama's been in office for over a year, spent trillions of dollars of our money and unemployment is still averaging 10%. Break's over, Mr. President.

You people think Obama sucks, then you watch too much fox.

Nice generalization, there.

Watch MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. You will understand then

How enlightening. I understand perfectly, now. MSNBC? Srsly? Wow.

They're as much of a joke as Fox, if not more so, and it's like you're parroting them word for word. Even Colbert and Stewart give them hell, and they're supposed to be on the same side.

I'm not saying he's above criticism, but people have really hounded him for every little thing, and when Bush made mistakes people just shrugged it all.

OMG. You're kidding, right? Where the hell were you during Bush's presidency? The Democrats painted him as the Antichrist while he was in office.

I think theres a bit of racism between the parties

I agree. The Democrats absolutely despise white people. (J/K)

Because in 00 and 04 when bush called for his "recount" of votes he somehow won when the other candidate was actually surpassing him. I suspect cheating

The recount in 2000 was the Democrats' idea, and a recount in 2004 is news to me, because Bush beat Kerry soundly in that election. Also, you apparently need to learn a bit more about how the Electoral College works and why it's necessary.

didn't I say only some are racist?

No, you said this:

Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black.

Meaning that more than two out of three are racist. A 2 to 1 majority is not "only some". You also presented it as a "fact".

Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument.

Too late. You've already played the race card and insulted people, so you need to check your "facts" and either present some actual proof or withdraw the statement and apologize because it is both libelous and inflammatory.

I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black.

Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

So you drew that conclusion from talking to all of 30 people, and you think that 30 counts as "many"?

Where do you live, anyway? Northeast Indiana?

Also, I don't really like people who make wars for nothing

So, a terrorist attack that killed as many people as the attack on Pearl Harbor, an act for which we ground Japan into a bloody pulp, is nothing, huh? Great.

Not all republicans are racist, but some people in the south and southwest which have a history of slavery are still discriminating against blacks.

Wait; the south is full of Republicans?! And again: way to generalize. I was raised in the north and I now live in the south. In my experience, northerners are just as bigoted as southerners.

hey, im just stating my opinions.

Oh, no you don't. Uh-uh. As I indicated previously, you are presenting your opinions as fact in an insulting manner, so you don't get to play it off in a slimy, dishonest fashion like that. Sorry, but you're dealing with adults, here, and we're not stupid enough to fall for that crap.

 

-snip-

[Sir Vougalot]

Hey, I watch it. It is way funnier than anything on NBC.

 

I don't know. NBC's "Green Week" was pretty funny. "Hey, we've turned out all the lights in the studio to save the planet, yet the cameras, this giant TV behind me, and all the digital equipment are still running. We're really making a difference here!"

 

See, Fox isn't this great amazing news network. They're just a regular news network, the way they were in the old days before becoming mouthpieces for political agendas or governments that provide their funding. From what I can tell, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN force down your throat one political agenda (with the occasional conservative with his own prerecorded show, acting as a gimmick to attract people under the false image that they are unbiased), whereas Fox gives you a variety of differing opinions.

 

Just saying.

[jonathan7]

See, Fox isn't this great amazing news network. They're just a regular news network, the way they were in the old days before becoming mouthpieces for political agendas or governments that provide their funding. From what I can tell, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN force down your throat one political agenda (with the occasional conservative with his own prerecorded show, acting as a gimmick to attract people under the false image that they are unbiased), whereas Fox gives you a variety of differing opinions.

 

Just saying.

 

Your kidding right? Speaking as an outsider if Fox gives you a variety of differing opinions I'm Marilyn Monroe; Fox is as biased as the above, just forcing an alternative political agenda down ones throat. To be very honest, I was shocked at the lack of critical un-biased journalism in the states when I was there. It is the press who should be the ones to maintain our freedom; but I fear for the U.S. just because of the state of the press.

[mimartin]

Three things:

 

1. What Samuel Dravis wrote

 

I'm going to follow Bush's example and preemptively strike. Don't get too excited. Make sure your comments are civil, please.

 

2. Let us remember that this was in Atho was only moved to Kavars because of the serious nature of some of the post. However, not all of the post within this thread were serious.

 

3. Finally all new post should conform to the rules of Kavars.

 

@ Zerimar Nyliram my post was done in Atho, had this thread been in Kavars I never would have posted in the thread. In Atho, I was joking around with the subject matter.

[Q]

To be very honest, I was shocked at the lack of critical un-biased journalism in the states when I was there.

This is both very true and very depressing. I think that Fox came about in an effort to balance things out, as the news was very biased towards the left beforehand, but they would have been more credible had they tried to be unbiased instead of spinning everything towards the right.

 

The first news network to be unbiased would receive a massive viewership from both sides of the political fence, making such an undertaking an attractive business opportunity.

[mur'phon]

I disagree, with Americans segregating more and more, I'm afraid the biased bull you have at the moment is precisely what the public want. Also, getting unbiased news in any country is next to impossible as journalists tend to weer towards the centre-left.

[mimartin]

I’d tend to agree with mur’phon, an totally unbiased news network in the United States would just mean that everyone would be attacking it.

[Q]

I'd watch it, and I don't watch any of the others, including Fox.

[Salzella]

What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it? can't remember the technical name. anyway, without an independant, non-commercialised corporation to give you exactly such unbiased content (like the BBC) you won't get it. hence, crappy US political coverage.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it?

 

the human condition

[Darth Avlectus]

I watch C-Span when I want to see what is really going on in the senate and in congress. It shows things live as the are happening. No slant. I can only stomach so much, though.

 

Problem is without some taking kind of position, it is merely a statement of facts. That gets boring to most people because when you have facts shoved in your face you're likely to start thinking "So (effing) what?" to it.

 

Bipartisan is merely the same as moderate: problem is they tend to shift in whatever direction the political winds are blowing at the time. Often ti is taken advantage of in that where one side is trying to "reach across the aisle" the other side picks up on it and offers something better.

 

Though not always the case: Sometimes a move to be bipartisan is a clever feign by the unscrupulous to incrementally push things through and start a tumbling movement for decay/corrosion of status quo--which also fits "progress", if in a literal fashion.

 

However, this is not all moderates and bipartisans as there are some who actually do mean quite well and genuinely want the best solution. All I am pointing out is that "good intentions pave the way to hell" as the saying goes.

 

What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it? can't remember the technical name.

 

Well this is a part of what describes hypocrisy, though not all of it.

 

anyway, without an independant, non-commercialised corporation to give you exactly such unbiased content (like the BBC) you won't get it. hence, crappy US political coverage.

 

Remeber that government sources (looks out for itself like any other entity) and even scholastic educational sources can have bias (For the longest time they pushed global warming in their textbooks and are now dancing about to avoid looking bad because of climate-gate).

 

Explicitly non partisan sources and organizations are best place to look for finding sources. However, where they don't get bashed, they don't get traction either.

Odd how the dynamic of friction is strangely applicable here in a social way when it is normally associated with physics.

[Salzella]

the human condition

 

hah. yeah, that's the one alright.

[jonathan7]

What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it? can't remember the technical name. anyway, without an independant, non-commercialised corporation to give you exactly such unbiased content (like the BBC) you won't get it. hence, crappy US political coverage.

 

I dunno about any such psychological condition off the top of my head, however Bertrand Russell said, in a book called 'Why I am not a Christian' (ostensibly a collection of his essays).

 

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

[Salzella]

^^ that's the gist, yeah. it's not a condition really, more just a tendency or quirk, common to everyone and part of the human mind. it was mentioned by Dan Gardner in his (excellent) book 'Risk/Fear'.

[Tommycat]

Compared to MSNBC Fox is relatively neutral. But I wouldn't call Fox neutral in the least. They are the voice of the (American Political) Right just as the other stations are the voices of the (American Political) Left. What Fox DOES do better than the other stations is give air time to the opposition. CNN and MSNBC stick with showing a relatively one sided debate. Fox does give the other side a chance to talk, and actually gives them equal time(believe it or not, use a stopwatch). They just don't question them fairly. They talk over, and give them hard questions while the conservative guests get softball questions and a sympathetic ear.

 

I don't think the US could handle a truly unbiased network. Actually I don't think it would be possible. The entertainment value of straight news with no slant tends to drop off.

 

Even news from other country sources tends to be biased. They tend to think we should be more like their host country. Despite the fact that some things that work for them just won't work for us.

 

As for Obama getting treated unfairly, OH PLEASE!!!! I have YET to hear anyone say "He's not MY president." Don't get me wrong, he's getting a LOT of attention. But while EVERYONE knows that Bush spent a lot of time on vacation, How many people know that Obama has spend nearly 4 times as many days golfing as Bush? How many people know about how Bush spent his "vacation" working? But whatever. It's only fair that people keep bringing Bush up. I mean after Bush was elected, Clinton was still bashed by the "winners"

 

Obama is getting the same unfair treatment Bush got. maybe next time the opposition will remember how they were treated and be more understanding. YEAH RIGHT. More likely they will act as the Republicans do now. Like a bunch of spoiled brats who have had their favorite toy taken away. Just as they did during Bush.