Really! The Media Needs To Cut Some Breaks

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jan 24, 2009.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I mean one only becomes president once, why are they so hard on him?

    Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands - Yahoo! News

     
  2. mash107
    Offline

    mash107 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    570
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    So wait... from the article, I can infer that 'change' means doing a 'flurry of activity' in his first few days?

    Doing things the same way, albeit at a faster pace, as before hardly counts as change.

    1- economically: he supports the same bailouts, cronyism, and Keynesian stimulus policies that had landed us in this trouble to begin with.
    2- militarily: he uses military force without a declaration of war, as much as his predecessor did.
    3- domestically: he writes executive orders like they're a replacement for legislature. Last I checked, this power was reserved for the Congress. Abortion is an issue that should be decided at the State level. Remember, all powers not exclusively given to the federal government are explicitly given to the State.

    Welcome to Bush III.
     
  3. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    The executive orders are reasonable. They deal with issues such as hiring practices within the Executive branch and the use of abortion provision as a disqualifying criteria in aid projects funded by USAID, another executive branch department.
     
  4. Svante
    Offline

    Svante cybernetic organism

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Messages:
    219
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Ragnarök
    Ratings:
    +31

    presiident Obama he want t o closs Gitmo. i think this i s big mistake. if he does this then terrorist will have no place to go but to the citys.i agree with him to fund stem cell research this i s good thing.
     
  5. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Given the fact that in a recent poll carried out by the well respected polling organization Marist College Institute of Public Opinion - 60% of people said they think abortions in THIS country should never be allowed or only for the rarest of circumstances of rape and incest -maybe you can explain why taxpayers should be forced to pay their money to international organizations around the world so THEY can provide abortions? Poll: 60 Percent Oppose All, Most Abortions; 28% of "Pro-Choice" are Pro-Life

    My tax dollars cannot be used to pay for someone's abortion in THIS country. Elected officials know they are highly unlikely to be re-elected if they try to push through legislation requiring the use of taxpayer money to foot the bill for abortions in this country or in any way used to support or prop up any organization involved in the abortion industry. But my tax dollars can and should be used to pay for abortions and prop up organizations involved in the abortion industry elsewhere around the world? That could only make sense to a rabid liberal. I expected Obama to reverse this just as Clinton did -and expect the next Republican to put it back in place. This one wasn't a surprise, but the thinking behind it given how the majority in this country feel about abortion anyway makes no sense except to a liberal. The left really doesn't have any problem ramming such things down the throat of the majority against their will and forcing everyone else to foot the bill for activities they sincerely believe to be immoral.

    I thought Obama would be smart enough not to push his far leftwing agenda until a second term. I thought wrong -guess he isn't so smart after all. This guy is handing Republicans a real present because he has posted his leftwing agenda on the White House website. Most of which he never once mentioned during the general election in order to make sure voters knew as little about it as possible apparently. Some of which, if passed, will undoubtedly be challenged in the Supreme Court since it would result in laws interfering with the free exercise clause of the Constitution and force organized religions to engage in activity that violates their religious tenets. And MUCH of that posted agenda will become excellent campaign fodder for moderates and conservatives in both parties.

    If Obama pushes much of that through with the help of the Democrats now in Congress and in addition to the massive spending he wants that won't be an economic stimulus anyway because of the length of time it would take to even get into the economy - 2010 is going to be a very interesting election year. The overwhelming majority in this country are NOT leftwing and do not support much on his posted agenda. A lot of people who voted for this guy but failed to pay attention to what this guy actually SAID in the past on these issues (while keeping mum on them during the general election) -are in for a real eye-opening four years. Because his agenda is NOT the kind of "change" they thought they would be getting by any means. Too bad the rest of us have to pay for it because of those who failed to live up to their responsibilities in exercising their right to vote -by making an INFORMED vote.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. FistyTheBadger
    Offline

    FistyTheBadger King of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,178
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +88
    Basically, it means that he speaks in generalities and circles, and is a coward.
     
  8. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,071
    Thanks Received:
    7,261
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,130

    :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
     
  9. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    I guess it depends on exactly what you believe the purpose of a free press really is. I don't think that purpose is to be in the pocket of a particular party or candidate -either before or after an election. The media got the guy elected they wanted elected and watching their butt kissing and utter FAWNING over this guy was truly nauseating. But once they got the guy they wanted in office, that doesn't mean they intend to actually stop functioning as journalists, and constantly question those in power about what they are doing and why. It IS their job you know.

    On the other hand, it may simply be those in the media reacting to the harsh, intense and well deserved criticism about their blatant bias this election -by merely pretending to be unbiased journalists NOW. If I hadn't seen the stomach turning behavior of journalists this election cycle myself -I wouldn't say that. But no one should hear a NEWS anchor talk about the "chills" he got up his leg by merely SEEING Obama -and then that news anchor go on as if the news story about a candidate he is reporting is actually an unbiased account! LOL I don't EVER want the news media to even hint at what they think I am supposed to think about their story. I'll do that on my own, thank you. I'm one of those people who actually prefers to read and hear unbiased accounts and after doing so, reach my OWN conclusions and opinions. I don't want news reporting and news editorials becoming indistinguishable -and they certainly are on the majority of stations.

    The media has brought on the criticism of its behavior during this election -AND the cynical questioning of their motives now that they are merely pretending to be questioning the actions and motives of an Obama administration when they did all they could but stuff the ballot boxes themselves to get the guy elected. And the media deserves it.

    You want to live in a country where the press merely serves as the government's mouthpiece and makes it obvious they support candidates of just one party both before and after elections because you think that would be "nice" -then you are in the wrong country. Might want to talk to people who did live in countries like that though. I actually prefer a free media that views government and government officials with the same level of cynicism, questions them and all candidates running for office no less rigorously about what they stand for, what they are doing and why -regardless of their political party. Before, during and after an election. If our media had done their job this election cycle, then just MAYBE the majority of people wouldn't have flunked a poll showing they really didn't know a damn thing about the guy they voted for! If they had done their job in the first place, no one would have had concerns that the media was blatantly manipulating people with their ridiculously selective "reporting" as it so obviously did this last election cycle by doing all it could to get Obama elected or by seeing a media act as the open partner of a particular political party.

    And I wouldn't have to keep a bucket on hand to vomit when a news anchor has an orgasm on TV because he heard a particular candidate from the only political party he supports anyway -actually speak out loud.
     
  10. Skyhawk
    Offline

    Skyhawk Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Los Angeles Area
    Ratings:
    +1
    Why are the repubs perpetuating the idea that Gitmo prisoners will be wandering main street.

    Besides being a completely insane scenario, we already have terrorists on our streets.

    They are called gangs and I defy you to take a nighttime walk through their 'turf'!

    See, we already have terrorists on our streets that Bush ignored in favor of turning Iraq into a breeding ground for even more antisocial nutjobs!

    FEAR! BE AFRAID!! Only repubs can save you!

    Bull****!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page