Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Biden is a Joke < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 650
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 12:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"WASHINGTON — Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says today’s leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a financial crisis.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,”‘ Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn’t introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World’s Fair."

But I am sure Dan will come to his defense. Probably something that has more to do with the something other than what this doofus said.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5887
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 12:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I expect that Bush will be mentioned with Hoover's name with increasing frequency.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1822
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 01:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Whatever Dan...

Back to Biden, I am beginning to wonder if McCain picked him as well...
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1907
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 01:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You know what? I'm changing sides for this thread.

You're right, Dan, it's all Bush's fault. Life was great at the end of the Clinton adminsistration and it would have been as good or better if Bush hadn't stolen the election from Gore. Now after eight years of failed Republican economic policies, we're teetering on the edge of another Great Depression. We're doomed unless we change course by voting for Our Lord and Savior, the most merciful Messiah Barack Hussein Obama. He will lead us from this wilderness into the Promised Land.

P.S. The stock market went down again today and the value of my holdings decreased. It's all Bush's fault.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5890
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 12:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You were doing pretty good up until you started the "Lord and Savior" stuff.
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1909
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 12:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I didn't start it - his disciples did.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5892
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well from the perspective of the Bush / McCain position, who could blame someone from thinking "Lord and Savior" when considering Obama. Hell, any of the Democrats probably fit that description.
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1911
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You're right again, Dan. Republicans are eeee-vil rich white folk who are interested only in satisfying their own greed. They started that war in Iraq under false pretenses to steal their oil. That bastard Cheney is behind it all - he was the CEO of Halliburton, you know. Halliburton is an oil services company, and guess what? Iraq has oil! It's so transparent, it's no wonder the Republicans can't see it.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5893
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It is good to see that you understand these things.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9261
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I haven't done any research to verify this. Ron, do you know where Biden made this statement? As you said, it's historically inaccurate. If I remember correctly, TV was invented in 1927, but there were no regular broadcasts until 1939 and they were suspended during World War II.
 

Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 651
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, nice to see that you still cannot address the issue at hand. Your credibility drops by the nanosecond. You would be up in arms if Sarah or John had said this but since it is your team, you give them a pass. Typical....

Bill, it was on a news show.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5902
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well it is the end of the world for Biden then, Ron. In the heat of the moment he got a bit confused. Careful, this standard can come back to bite your guys.
 

Jason Bentley
Member
Username: Pacoustic

Post Number: 172
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 03:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I saw the Biden remark on a rebroadcast, but I didn't get what point he was trying make with it.

Here's a hypothetical. What if TV had been running regular broadcasts and what they were in as large a circulation as they are today, and what if Hoover had made that little speach. Would it have averted or even lessened the Great Depression?

I kinda doubt it, but am interested in hearing your thoughts.

I also think Biden may be one of the best allies of the McCain camp right now. He's done a decent job of distracting Obama from sinking the Republican ship at least for the last couple of days.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6957
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 04:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ya know, it's kinda interesting...when McCain made these kind of slip ups in the past (like not knowing which side was which in Iraq), I listened to Sean Hannity say something to the effect of "Hey, everybody misspeaks once in a a while...give him a break" and I agreed with that. But when Biden said this, Hannity was all over him. Fair and balanced? And then, within 30 sec., Hannity referred to Obama as "Gov. Obama"!
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1828
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 08:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

People seem to forget that Hannity is not a journalist, he is a pundit. He is biased toward Conservative issues. Just as Colmes is biased toward Liberal issues. That's why they have a friggin show. They also seem to forget that half of the show's name is Colmes...it's not "The Hannity Show"

Now, there are other times during the day when Fox delivers the NEWS. These are the times you can hold Fox to the fair and balanced standard.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9269
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 08:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, the problem is that the networks (especially Fox but the others as well) do rather little to emphasize that the pundits' opinions are their own and not necessarily those of the network. It has gotten to the point where the distinction is becoming lost on an increasing portion of the public who seems to expect the news to conform to an agenda. It was easier in the heyday of print journalism when at least in the mainstream press the editorial section was labeled as such and opinions were relegated to that space, while the rest of the news coverage was supposed to be relatively factual and impartial. In today's world of cable news and online blogs it's getting harder to separate the two.

(Message edited by BillPierce on September 25, 2008)
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 2007
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 09:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, you say especially FOX but I'd say it's the other way around. Hannity and Colmes as well as O'Reilly and Greta are all portrayed as shows by pundits. On the other hand MSNBC tried to pass off Olbermann and Matthews as journalists as recently as the conventions. So aren't they the ones that are really doing what you accuse FOX of being the primary offender? Or how about CNN trying to pass Blitzer and Dobbs off as reporters on a regular basis? All four of those guys are EXTREMELY biased yet those two networks try to pass them off as reporters/journalists.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1829
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 09:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So Bill, are you saying that people in general, and Liberals in particular are stupid? That they are not wise enough to make a distinction between News and Opinion?
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1830
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, you forgot to point out the ultimate joke that Olbermann and Matthews were replaced by David Gregory. LOL! That's like replacing Hannity and O'Reilly with Limbaugh!
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9272
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No, Bob, I'm saying that people in general seem less able (or perhaps are less willing) to make the distinction between news reporting and expressions of opinion than they once were. I don't think it would be a bad idea at all for the networks to remind them frequently.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1832
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So because Liberals are too lazy to use their brains, they need warning labels on political spin?
 

Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 652
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 12:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"In the heat of the moment he got a bit confused."

There you go. Next time Palin does something this stupid, if she does, I will be waiting for you to give her the same pass. Yet, somehow I don't think you will.....
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5908
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 12:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I suppose you will give her the same pass as well . . .
 

Tim Wi
Senior Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 1016
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 01:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Makes me wonder if the gaffes (particularly the ones where Biden says Obama isn't going to get his shotgun and Berretta) are deliberate so as to give Obama an excuse to dump him in favor of Hillary if things get grim in the polls.

T
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5909
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 01:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Who is McCain going to replace Palin with when she goes belly up?
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1918
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 03:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mmmm.... Sarah, belly up....

Not to worry, Dan, she won't go "belly up." Do you know how I know she was the absolute best choice for the VP slot? Because you guys hate her. That is the greatest endorsement possible. The beauty of it is, she's going to be our next vice president, so you'll have to wallow in it for the next four years, at least.

Who knows? She could be president. Not that I wish John McCain ill, but sooner, rather than later, would be OK with me.

Whoops! Oh my! This from a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe Republican. A woman president! Unthinkable.

(If Clarence Thomas ran for office, the only reason I'd vote against him is to keep him on the Supreme Court.)
 

davidw
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 1865
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 04:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

McCain decides he needs to be in Washington as that is more important at this point in time vs. debating Obama. Yet Obama says the debate should not be canceled and that he will be there. Wouldn't it be interesting if Sarah showed up to debate him? Heh heh, think about it, what man has *ever* won a debate with a woman? JA JA JA JA!!!
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1919
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 05:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh, that would be priceless!

She'd whip his ass on any subject, and it would be like being tickled by a junior college cheerleading squad to watch it. Please, please, please...
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1834
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 12:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"being tickled by a junior college cheerleading squad"

Just letting that image soak in....

 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5910
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 12:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

LOL! Sorry.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9273
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 05:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Graham, I want to be fair to Sarah Palin, and I've been paying attention to what she's been saying since she was nominated. I believe I said earlier that she's a fresh face, and of course she's the best looking candidate who has ever run for vice president (although an old female friend of mine claimed Dan Quayle looked good in a dinner jacket).

However, I have to say she has done little to distinguish herself to me so far. They have kept her away from the press except for carefully staged interviews. As we all know, politics is a game of hardball, and you have to wonder why she seems to be unwilling to participate in the daily give and take with the press like everyone else (the sleaziest of the personal attacks excepted).

I watched her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric (I did not see the Sean Hannity interview). Her lack of experience with national and international issues showed, and her choice of words was neither assured nor inspiring. She's struggling in ways that do not demonstrate the confidence and command of a national leader. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but she clearly communicates that she is informed about the issues and knows how to be in charge. Sarah Palin does not, at least at this point in the campaign.

I understand the pleasure some people take in the fact that she confounds the Democratic opposition. In many ways, however, that's a sign of the partisanship that has greatly crippled our political system. I would be far more positive about a vice presidential candidate who is ready to step into one of the world's most demanding roles should circumstances require it.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5911
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 06:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

McCain blew his best card, experience, when he went with Palin, this is especially true considering his age and health. The selection was a gimmick and that can't last long. It is already wearing thin.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1839
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 07:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"It is already wearing thin."

Kinda like your posts Dan...
 

Phil Lapp
Junior Member
Username: Phil_lapp

Post Number: 68
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 07:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill,

thanks for your reasonable insight, and your interest in writing in a thoughtful way. Much of what comes through this portion of the forumn is pretty lame these days.

I don't get Fox News at home, but have the chance to watch in hotel rooms. It is amazing how biased it is. In fairness, it also highlights how biased CNN and MSNBC are as well. So, I guess each side gets a network.

Not being on either side, I am still waiting for my network. I watched Letterman with McCain as a no show. Wow. Don't piss Dave off. In his defense, had Obama done a no show, I believe Dave would have been equally as nasty. It was very humorous.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1142
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 08:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Just watched that, it's on Youtube. Ouch.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9275
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 10:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Letterman has turned into a grouch. It's expected for him to skewer the sacred cows, but he's become downright rude.

Phil, I may be more sensitive to the bias at Fox News, where Hannity, O'Reilly et al. have become cheerleaders for the right. It's no surprise that Dick Cheney has orders for no other network to be watched in the hotel suites where he stays.

Yes, the other cable news networks have their own agendas and so do their anchors. Last night the deadpan reaction of CNN's Anderson Cooper was priceless (and possibly outrageous, depending on your point of view) when they broadcast a clip of Sarah Palin's answer to Katie Couric's question about how her experience as governor of Alaska gives her insight into international relations.

(Message edited by BillPierce on September 26, 2008)
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1841
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 12:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I used to watch Letterman all the time. I agree Bill, Letterman has become a grouch. I remember thinking that after he had his bypass surgery a few years back. It seems to have changed him.
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1921
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 06:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't get Fox News at home, but have the chance to watch in hotel rooms. It is amazing how biased it is. In fairness, it also highlights how biased CNN and MSNBC are as well. So, I guess each side gets a network.

You can't be serious.

On the left, you have: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, NPR, Telemundo, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, the Boston Herald, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, US Weekly, and a host of others as profligate as the stars in the heavens.

On the right, you have Fox News, the Washington Times, National Review, and, arguably, the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal.

"Each side gets a network"?! The press is overwhelmingly biased in favor of the left. It has been documented that almost 90% of the press corps votes Democrat. Fox is a lone voice in the wilderness, not a one-for-one counterbalance.

The only reason Fox News kicks the other networks' asses in the ratings is that conservatives have nowhere else to go, whereas liberals can pick any one of a dozen outlets from which to get their DNC propaganda, thus diluting any individual network's ratings.
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1922
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 06:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, I appreciate your comments regarding Sarah Palin. Funny, everything you say about her, to me, applies to Obama. He's running for president, she's running for vice president. I'd rather take my chances with a minimally-qualified VP than with an unqualified president.

Obama is less experienced and less qualified to lead than she is. That's not partisanship, it's a clear and undeniable fact. She has considerable executive experience, and he has none. You can try to put a softer or more nuanced edge on it, but he has no experience or credentials to qualify him for the job of commander in chief. She, on the other hand, is at least as qualified as Carter or Clinton were.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9278
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 10:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'll wait for next week's vice presidential debate before I pass judgment on Sarah Palin's performance, but Obama is at least informed and articulate about the issues, whether you agree with him or not.

I also believe Palin's international experience suffers greatly compared to Obama, and I wouldn't call it an apt comparison to Carter and Clinton. She had never traveled outside the US or Canada or held a passport until 2007. Carter had traveled widely as a Navy officer and commander, while Clinton had studied abroad as a Rhodes Scholar.

(Message edited by BillPierce on September 27, 2008)
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1923
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 02:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Carter had traveled widely as a Navy officer and commander..."

I did the same thing in the same capacity. Does that qualify me to be president, or even a diplomat?

"Clinton had studied abroad as a Rhodes Scholar."


Bill, I'll agree that traveling and working in a foreign country gives one a better appreciation of other cultures. It is an asset, but hardly a qualification to be president of the United States. Spending time as a "Jakarta street kid" (his words, I believe) and a trip to Africa to find the roots from the one side of his family tree he seems willing to acknowledge doesn't make Obama a diplomat, it makes him a security risk as far as I'm concerned.

Dwelling on this comparison to Palin underscores the weakness of the candidate. I don't hear many on the right comparing McCain to Joe Biden. (I realize the age issue makes it more of a legitimate concern.)
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1846
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 04:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think the bottom line to me is that I feel Obama establishes his opinions through committee and McCain is essentially his own man.

When has Obama ever challenged his own party on an issue? Has Obama ever taken a stand against the Democrats?
 

Phil Lapp
Junior Member
Username: Phil_lapp

Post Number: 69
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 09:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think George W. Bush is his own man too. Frankly, I think it might be nice to have someone who is ready to listen to other people.

I have heard Obama say that Lincoln is his model for crafting white house staff; apparently Lincoln put plenty of people around who adamantly disagreed with him. Who knows if he will do it, but at least it would be refreshing change from the current day scene, where being surrounded by yes men and appointing only people who embrace "the cause" can get in.

We won't agree on ideology, but perhaps we can agree that having a variety of opinions represented in the decision room is a good thing.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5913
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 02:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"On the left, you have: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, NPR, Telemundo, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, the Boston Herald, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, US Weekly, and a host of others as profligate as the stars in the heavens.

On the right, you have Fox News, the Washington Times, National Review, and, arguably, the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal. "

It looks like if you are not OVERTLY conservative, you are, by default, that dreaded bad word -"liberal." This is unsurprising coming from the conservative mind set that forces things into a black or white world. "Either you are with us or you are against us."
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1929
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 02:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"It looks like if you are not OVERTLY conservative, you are, by default, that dreaded bad word -"liberal." "

No, if you are overtly liberal, you are, by default, liberal.

There's your opinion and then there's the facts:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

It's real and it's undeniable, Dan. Furthermore, it's been that way for my entire lifetime.

(Message edited by t2driver on September 29, 2008)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5916
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Complaining about the votes of the media ignores the fact that to be in the media, you have to have a bit of stuff between your ears and when this stuff is used, more liberal thoughts tend to come out.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

Still conservatives cannot see any middle view. It requires thought to consider such a thing.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1855
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, that was very smart of you to paste someone else's quote.
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1932
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ah, there it is, the liberal elitism, a defining characteristic of the far left. "We're enlightened, you're a caveman." That's what I hate most about you liberals, Dan, your false sense of superiority and your misplaced arrogance. And it is badly misplaced.

I point out the fact that liberal media bias is real, and you basically call me stupid in return. Is that all you have? It greatly disappoints me that you would stoop to such an insulting line of rhetoric.

I knew coming over to this board was a mistake. I just got tired of seeing you guys gang up on Bob. It makes me very sorry now that I did.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5600
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan is way smarter than you'll ever be, loser
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1933
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 04:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan is way smarter than you'll ever be, loser

I'm not going to insult Dan in response to this statement, Chumley, but FYI, I think I'm a winner.

I spent 20 years in the service of my country as an officer in the Navy doing something that 99.5% of the population is unfit to do, for one reason or another. I have a good job and a wonderful family. I paid my house off at age 41. My nest egg is large enough that, given a market-average rate of return, I will retire with enough money that I can live at my pre-retirement income on interest alone and never touch the principle, passing it all to my daughter and charity. I love God and I love my country, despite that fact that it harbors malcontents like you.

"Smart" doesn't necessarily equal "successful," but you don't get to be successful without - how did Dan so eloquently put it? - "stuff between your ears."

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Fact is, by any standard, I don't seem to be "losing" at much in my life, so "loser" doesn't seem to fit terribly well.

I suggest you quit drinking and go sleep it off.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5917
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 12:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My primary point is that conservatives tend to have bimodal thinking patterns. They like to force things into one or another category and avoid considering the possibility that there are points in between. I believe that the source of this pattern is a low tolerance for ambiguity.

Graham, for instance, would probably have a difficult time naming a middle of the road news source. It seems that either a source is with him or totally against him.

Few things in life are totally bimodal compared to the things that are analog. Forcing analog things into a bimodal framework loses a lot of accuracy.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9282
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 12:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I agree that there seems to be more polarization on the right, more demonizing of the other side, more rhetoric that tends to sharpen differences and provoke a response. As an English teacher, I notice the use of language. The attempt to stigmatize the word "liberal" is one example. There is disagreement and rhetoric on the left, to be sure, but usually not quite the same level of bitterness and rancor.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1857
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 12:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, Look in the mirror. The exact same thing can be said for Liberals when you look at them from a conservative perspective. Funny you mention "low tolerance for ambiguity" Obama's State Senate voting record is the hallmark of "ambiguity" He won't be able to vote "present" from the oval office.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5918
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 01:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here is an example of bimodal thinking. Read the John Stuart Mill quote. Graham reacted to it as though it did not have the first clause at all or the word "most" in the second. He forced it into the worst category he could. He decided that I called him "stupid." Nothing more and nothing less.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9283
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 01:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, the voting procedures in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate are different. Whether you agree or not, it's common to vote "present" in the Illinois Senate on bills that a member does not necessarily oppose but does not want to overtly support, or the other way around. It's also done for matters of parliamentary procedure such as referring to or from committee. This practice is widely used by members of both parties.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6966
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 07:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Anyone who believes all of what ANY media outlet tells them is deluding themselves. Fox is no more fair or accurate then NBC, just a different perspective.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6967
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 08:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"That's what I hate most about you liberals"...you paint with a broad brush, my friend. Should liberals characterize all conservatives alike? I _try_ to think of people I disagree with as individuals rather than characterizing them as a monolithic evil. What this country needs now more than ever is for all the citizens who love the country to work together to solve problems. Disagreement is to be expected, but demonizing those who disagree with us just sets us farther back from our goals.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9287
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 08:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I can't say I'm very proud of what was said by a liberal today. Nancy Pelosi's (not my favorite politician) statement on the floor of the House surely was intended to play to her constituency, but it was partisan fuel for the fire, hardly the measured words required by these troubled times. Denny, you're absolutely right. What we need more than ever right now is for everyone to work together.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6968
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 08:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah, I was SO pissed when I read what she'd said. Whether you agree with her point or not, it was no time to be playing politics and inflame the people you're supposed to be working with. She's not the only one to play this game, but today she blew it.
 

Tom Burk
Member
Username: Tomburk

Post Number: 185
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 09:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here is an example of bimodal thinking. Read the John Stuart Mill quote. Graham reacted to it as though it did not have the first clause at all or the word "most" in the second. He forced it into the worst category he could. He decided that I called him "stupid." Nothing more and nothing less.

Much of what Obama says it is very much like the Dan's comment. He makes a statement that somewhat takes a position and then if critiqued from any direction can then make reactionary comments against that person.

That is the problem of Obama voting present. Yes, it is done, is acceptable and is what many politicians do. It is not what leaders do. Leaders sometimes go against their party, occasionally against constituent views and sometimes work with people with whom they don't always agree to do the right thing. If he wanted to stand out, he would have some positions of note that he was willing to stand up and speak passionately about instead of pandering to each group he speaks to.

I can agree with people, I can agree to disagree with people, but people that have nothing they will really stand up for, I can never agree with.

Sorry for the interruption, please go back to the original players.
 

Robert
Member
Username: Okierat

Post Number: 190
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 09:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan/Denny:

What really gets me about this mess is that both sides are so worried about blaming the other that they are willing to send this nation down the toilet.

To paraphrase Jack Nickleson as the Joker in the old Batman. “What this country needs is an enema."
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9288
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 09:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, that's a little like saying a baseball pitcher should never throw a brushback pitch when everyone knows it's part of the game. I agree that voting "present" allows legislators to avoid taking stands on issues, but it's become part of the technical proceedings of those institutions. I don't believe you can directly fault Obama for using this tactic. Instead you should work to change the parliamentary rules so that no one can.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1861
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 09:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny & Bill, Pelosi's comments today underscore my previous statements about what a polarizing fugure she really is. A party hack is all she is. It is time for her to step down and let a voice of reason take over...if on can be found.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6970
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 10:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't necessarily disagree with that, Bob. She certainly isn't demonstrating leadership or doing the country any good with speeches like that. I just wish the other side had been able to say "What a c**t" and get on with doing their job.
 

Tom Burk
Member
Username: Tomburk

Post Number: 187
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 12:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, exactly the opposite, when the pitcher throws a brushback he doesn't say "Home plate belongs to both of us. I don't want someone to think bad of me for pitching inside, so I'll throw the pitch the batter wants." " He says "I'll through hard, inside and high, if he wants to stand in, let him swing." I think the best baseball anology for Obama is, "Everyone knows I have to throw a pitch so I'll throw close to the plate and complain about the ump." Everyone knows you threw the pitch, your side says strike the opponents say ball and you say I got screwed.

I don't fault the tactic, I just say that it's sad that's what you do if you want be a leader, his best way of taking a (non)position.

I like some people on both sides, my mom was chairman of the county Democratic party, my dad was a Republican. I'm looking for character and someone who will take responsibility, not when things are good, when things have gone wrong and they need to bring people together.

I do have direct contacts to people at the state level. In MI we have had very contentious budget problems and I don't see it getting better.
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1809
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 01:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wow, I turn my back for a few days and things get crazy here. Kinda funny, too, sometimes. I like this the best:

> What's sadder is that you get to vote.

> I used to question the relevance of the Electoral College in the modern world.
> Once again, the wisdom of our founding fathers proves itself to be beyond question.


-- Graham Cox, 9/25/08

> Ah, there it is, the liberal elitism, a defining characteristic of the far left. "We're enlightened, you're a caveman."

-- Graham Cox, 9/29/08

Maybe it's dangerous to assume that we all understand the definition of "elitism", but I will take that as given. So I guess it's only liberal elitism that is the problem? Conservative elitism is okay?
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5604
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 03:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Makes my head swim as well. I can't believe that Graham and Bob can post this stuff at night, read it in the morning again, and believe it to be true. Just boggles the mind, this complete load of hooey.
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1935
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 06:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Maybe it's dangerous to assume that we all understand the definition of "elitism", but I will take that as given. So I guess it's only liberal elitism that is the problem? Conservative elitism is okay?"

Bemoaning ignorance is not elitism, Paul. When it's clear that a poster is ill-informed on the issue(s) and is just parroting talking points without any basis other than his political predilections, calling them on it is not elitism. On the other hand, making statements that claim that people who use their brains are liberal, and by inference those that don't are conservative, and that most stupid people are conservative, is condescending and elitist, and downright insulting. I stand by my statements and I'm holding back considerably from what I'd really like to say in response to this garbage. In fact, I made a promise to myself this morning that I was done with this board because the signal to noise ratio has gotten unacceptably low and I'm tired of being dragged toward the gutter by the obtuse, the obstinate, and the rotund. I'm making this one exception to answer your charge because I know you to be a thoughtful person, as opposed to some other posters whose erudite commentary may be sandwiched in between ours.

No, elitism is not OK from any quarter. If you interpret my posts as being elitist, I can only offer that I believe it to be a misperception.
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1811
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 12:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Okay. I'll accept you at your word and won't quibble.

But I'll toss out two items, one related to the general discussion and one related only to the reference to the Electoral College (i.e., not really relevant to the thread).

In my personal experience, I've never found a correlation between political viewpoint and either raw intelligence or education level. None. But, as I've said before, I find a strong correlation between political viewpoint and general level of fear, or perception of threat, that a person expresses. A recent study, too tiny to be statistically valid but interesting anyway, seems to corroborate: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842523,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topi cs

Unlike statements regarding intelligence or learning, this is a value-free statement. The authors of the study are quick to point out that a well-developed threat response is a key survival trait. Too much fear is disabling, but too little is suicidal. And it is probably best for a society as a whole if different members have different trigger levels.

My point is this: some of the mutual incomprehension conservatives and liberals feel about each other may be due to legitimate differences in threat assessment. We've touched on this several times regarding Islam. Keeping that in perspective may help bridge some of the gap and lower some of the heat.

Now, regarding the Electoral College: What I was taught about the history of the thing makes it a dicey rhetorical device. Basically, I was taught that the EC was a gimmick used to bring the slave-owning States on board when the Constitution was being hammered out. They knew that the Northern States wanted to abolish slavery immediately and, being more populous, had the votes to do it. Two Senators per State, the 3/5ths census clause, and the EC were their defenses against this.

Seats on the EC were doled out using the same 3/5ths formula, essentially giving each white Southerner a bigger vote for the President than each Northerner. (Indirectly, of course, since back in those days the Electors were usually chosen by some method other than direct election by the voters.) More specifically, Southern slave owners, in essence, voted the votes of their own slaves for candidates who promised to protect slavery; the slave's own (partial) votes were used to perpetuate their captivity.

My point is that the you need to be careful in how you use the EC in conversation because it is perceived differently depending on your audience. For some people, it may be an important bulwark against the fickleness of the masses. For others, it is an elitist institution which can allow well-connected pols to overrule the people "when necessary". But for others, it is part of the most shameful and disgusting aspect of our nation's history, the aspect where it most obviously failed to live up to the Christian principles which its patriots like to proclaim.

(Full disclosure: a number of my ancestors were slave-owning Virginians before the Civil War. Several fought in the Confederate Army, including at least 2 officers.)
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 9294
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul, that's a fascinating study. It may also be reflected in the attitudes of career members of the military.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5922
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 03:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul, that study dovetails nicely with my theory that conservatives have a low tolerance toward ambiguity. Conservative verses liberal is not like being a fan of the Bengals verses the Browns (double shudder) or being a Methodist or a Baptist. It is far deeper. The "fight or flight" instinct is very strong and like all such things, has variation in populations which are probably heavily influenced by genetics. No doubt that these are reinforced by experiences that are viewed from the respective perspectives.

If, for some reason, you judge that a threat needs addressing very quickly, evaluating too long would be seen as a problem. If, however, your "alarms" are not so tight, you would be more likely to take the time to consider the nature of the threat and how to best deal with it. Obviously extremes of either reaction would be bad for the individual. Acting too quickly without much regard to the nature of the threat could be very destructive. Waiting to analyse a problem too long could let the problem get out of control. One side of the "curve" sees ambiguity as an interference to action and needs to be repressed while the other side likes to better understand a problem before taking action in order to get a better outcome and avoid unintended consequences.

Fascinating. Thanks!
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1814
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 04:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, the study was just too small to even be truly valid within its own domain, so I'd hesitate to extrapolate from its results. It "feels right" to me regarding conservatives in general. (Actually, when I first read about it, I had the same "well, DUH" reaction most people have when they hear about the "beer goggles" study. "They had to spend money to learn this?") It fits with the tone I hear in the conservative blogosphere, the emails I get from my conservative relatives, and many of the postings here. But it was really a very tiny sample from a small area and you have to be very careful with such tiny samples.

My even-tinier sample of the career military people I know personally (3 in my neighborhood, 5 in my extended family, another half-dozen or so social contacts from the sub base up the road) includes a broad variation in general threat-perception. Huge variation, from near paranoid to completely relaxed. So I can't draw any conclusions from that. (The vets my wife treats all have a threat-perception which is, by definition, pathologic, so they don't count, in a sense.) In short, I don't see it in my tiny data sample.

(Message edited by paulhayslett on September 30, 2008)
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1815
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, I think your assessment needs a little more balance.

One side may rush to action, true. The other side my "monitor the situation" until it is too late to act. Sometimes unintended consequences are better than totally predictable disaster not averted. Wouldn't New Orleans have been better served before Katrina by public officials more frightened of the possible consequences?

I agree with the study's authors that, within a very broad middle range, level of threat perception is value-neutral.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5608
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Blinking in fear....yep, that describes the conservative posters here, alright.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5923
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 04:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I won't deny my own biases might be in play. I can do that, I am a liberal!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: