FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


State of the Union fact check....





Alaskacameradude
I found this article by the AP interesting.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

And Joe Wilson didn't even yell 'You lie' at Obama for any of these....
jwellsy
WOW, the AP ran a story like that? They are now in jeopardy of being accused of not being a legitimate news source. I bet that the FCC Diversity Czar Mark Loyd will get to the bottom of how that happened.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/28/video-fcc-diversity-czar-chavezs-venezuela-incredible-democratic-revol

I can't believe he punked the Supreme Court in public.

Even the galleries moaned at some his blatant lies, not just one person. Gallup is probably right about this being the most polarizing president since it has been tracked.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/obama-approval-polarized-first-year-president.aspx

Barrack Hussein Obama, MMM MM MMM! How's this hoax and chains working out for you?
Voodoocat
Quote:
I can't believe he punked the Supreme Court in public.


I agree- it appears that his holiness has forgotten that the branches of government are separate. Chief Justice Roberts should have pulled a Joe Wilson on the Obamanation and put him in his place.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I found this article by the AP interesting.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

And Joe Wilson didn't even yell 'You lie' at Obama for any of these....

Thanks for posting this interesting article. Gave me lots of food for thought:

1. Obama just had to use this opportunity to sell his health insurance again, and I just wonder how he can do it, as well as then undertake to freeze spending in the same speech. What is wrong with this guy, surely he should have gotten the message by now that people are unhappy with his brand of health reforms. They want healthcare reforms, but not what he is proposing:
Quote:
Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.
and
Quote:
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."


2. Does he know what freezing government spending really means, as if he is sincere about this then I find the following in addition to his brand of healthcare reform legislation a total waste of money, relative to the spending it will require to set it up and keep it going. He can't have both freezing spending as well as creating ego-seeking non-essential programmes:
Quote:
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I found this article by the AP interesting.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

And Joe Wilson didn't even yell 'You lie' at Obama for any of these....

Thanks for posting this interesting article. Gave me lots of food for thought:

1. Obama just had to use this opportunity to sell his health insurance again, and I just wonder how he can do it, as well as then undertake to freeze spending in the same speech. What is wrong with this guy, surely he should have gotten the message by now that people are unhappy with his brand of health reforms. They want healthcare reforms, but not what he is proposing:
Quote:
Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.
and
Quote:
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."


2. Does he know what freezing government spending really means, as if he is sincere about this then I find the following in addition to his brand of healthcare reform legislation a total waste of money, relative to the spending it will require to set it up and keep it going. He can't have both freezing spending as well as creating ego-seeking non-essential programmes:
Quote:
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."


As usual you have to parse out what Obama says and the truth. He wants to institute a spending freeze at 2011 levels, well above what they were previously. In reality he is proposing locked-in spending at an increased rate. In the past he claimed his increased spending at huge deficit levels was temporary to avert crisis after crisis he claimed lurked all around, but now he wants to lock in that elevated spending without the specter and hassle of a crisis of the week. So while the term "spending freeze" sounds like a good thing, it’s a disaster. But we're used to that with this clown, aren't we?
jwellsy
Rush has an interesting response letter. Here's the 7 minute audio and transcript.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012810/content/01125109.guest.html
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
Rush

*wince*

The speech does contain many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and even a few outright lies, but it's not a situation where 'fighting fire with fire' is a good idea.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
As usual you have to parse out what Obama says and the truth. He wants to institute a spending freeze at 2011 levels, well above what they were previously. In reality he is proposing locked-in spending at an increased rate. In the past he claimed his increased spending at huge deficit levels was temporary to avert crisis after crisis he claimed lurked all around, but now he wants to lock in that elevated spending without the specter and hassle of a crisis of the week. So while the term "spending freeze" sounds like a good thing, it’s a disaster. But we're used to that with this clown, aren't we?
Right! Including his undertaking to keep things transparent. How transparent is a spending freeze undertaking that is as complicated as you have described? My poor brain cells had a real work out and I'm still not sure that they have been able to wrap themselves around all of it. So what his "spending freeze" really means in effect is an "overspending freeze"? Instead of saying "locked-in spending at an increased rate" he needs to say "locked in overspending"? Liar
jwellsy
ocalhoun wrote:
it's not a situation where 'fighting fire with fire' is a good idea.


Everyone has their own limit on how much BS they are willing to be passive about. It is time for people to speak up and be heard. Hopefully it's not too late for the people's voices and wishes to be heard. But, I'm afraid this situation may already be past that tipping point.

SCIU president and most frequent white house visitor said that 'if the power of persuasion doesn't work they will use the persuasion of power'.

Obama told his minion that if people attack them that they should be attacked back twice as hard.

People should not sit down and shut up. This thugocracy needs shouted out of office.
jmi256
An interesting observation and another sign that everyone is starting to see through Obama's BS. In his SOTUS Obama said he supported reducing nuclear arms and wanted a world without them, but then turned around and increased spending in that area. Nice actions for a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Quote:
'Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush'

Barack Obama has allocated £4.3billion to spend on maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile - £370million more than what was budgeted by George Bush.

The budget will also be increased by more than £3.1billion over the next five years.

The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms.

The budget is higher than that allocated by George Bush – who was seen by many as a warmongering president in the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003 – during his premiership.

During his 70-minute State of the UNion speech on Wednesday, which marked his first year in office, Obama said: 'I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them.'

However, Vice President Joe Biden today supported the increase on nuclear weapons maintenance, saying: ‘Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security.


‘We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.’

Biden said the Obama administration had inherited a ‘steady decline’ in support for U.S. nuclear stockpiles and infrastructure.

‘For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued,’ he said.

‘The consequences of this neglect - like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the ageing of critical facilities - have largely escaped public notice.

‘The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda.’
He added: 'This investment is long overdue. It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities.
'It will support the work of our nuclear labs, a national treasure that we must and will sustain.'

The Obama administration will publish its budget for fiscal year 2011 on Monday.
The proposal will include a budget increase for nuclear issues while paring back other areas in an effort to control record deficits.

Biden said those steps along with others to advance non-proliferation were essential to ‘holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so’.


Source = http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247049/Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner-Barack-Obama-ups-spending-nuclear-weapons-George-Bush.html
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
Everyone has their own limit on how much BS they are willing to be passive about. It is time for people to speak up and be heard. Hopefully it's not too late for the people's voices and wishes to be heard. But, I'm afraid this situation may already be past that tipping point.

SCIU president and most frequent white house visitor said that 'if the power of persuasion doesn't work they will use the persuasion of power'.

Obama told his minion that if people attack them that they should be attacked back twice as hard.

People should not sit down and shut up. This thugocracy needs shouted out of office.
Darn right! Applause It is high time that people speak up and take responsibility for their Government. As Mao Tse Tung used to say: "no struggle, no progress". To maintain the status quo in the existing political system when it is not working for the people other than the Big Chiefs in Government and the fat cats that they are keeping fat in Congress, Senate and in large corporations, is no solution for the problem, in fact may be the crux of the problem. If the Government system has grown deaf to the voices of its people, then maybe the people need to put ears on the Government system.
Nick2008
jmi256 wrote:
An interesting observation and another sign that everyone is starting to see through Obama's BS. In his SOTUS Obama said he supported reducing nuclear arms and wanted a world without them, but then turned around and increased spending in that area. Nice actions for a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Quote:
'Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush'

Barack Obama has allocated £4.3billion to spend on maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile - £370million more than what was budgeted by George Bush.

The budget will also be increased by more than £3.1billion over the next five years.

The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms.

The budget is higher than that allocated by George Bush – who was seen by many as a warmongering president in the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003 – during his premiership.

During his 70-minute State of the UNion speech on Wednesday, which marked his first year in office, Obama said: 'I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them.'

However, Vice President Joe Biden today supported the increase on nuclear weapons maintenance, saying: ‘Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security.


‘We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.’

Biden said the Obama administration had inherited a ‘steady decline’ in support for U.S. nuclear stockpiles and infrastructure.

‘For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued,’ he said.

‘The consequences of this neglect - like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the ageing of critical facilities - have largely escaped public notice.

‘The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda.’
He added: 'This investment is long overdue. It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities.
'It will support the work of our nuclear labs, a national treasure that we must and will sustain.'

The Obama administration will publish its budget for fiscal year 2011 on Monday.
The proposal will include a budget increase for nuclear issues while paring back other areas in an effort to control record deficits.

Biden said those steps along with others to advance non-proliferation were essential to ‘holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so’.


Source = http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247049/Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner-Barack-Obama-ups-spending-nuclear-weapons-George-Bush.html


How ironic, no surprise the world's greediest superpower spending *sigh* once again, billions of dollars on new programs and maintenance. Sure, we can have our nukes, but at the same time we're saying that other countries shouldn't? Is this sending the wrong message, or are we just being plain old greedy? Or both? Confused
liljp617
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
I can't believe he punked the Supreme Court in public.


I agree- it appears that his holiness has forgotten that the branches of government are separate.


They're separate so they can check each other.

The recent court decision was a stupid (and hypocritical) one.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

They're separate so they can check each other.

Yes, and the executive branch checks the judicial branch by choosing supreme court appointees...
Not by complaining (in front of the whole country) when they don't do what the executive branch wants.

I do agree the recent decision was a stupid one, but bringing it up in the state of the union address is a stupid way to try to fix it.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

They're separate so they can check each other.

Yes, and the executive branch checks the judicial branch by choosing supreme court appointees...
Not by complaining (in front of the whole country) when they don't do what the executive branch wants.


From what I can gather, people want Obama to "listen to the people" and "speak up for the people who's voices aren't heard enough."

He did that.
jwellsy
The Supreme Court made the right decision. It was a case about the censorship of a movie called Hillary-The Movie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401603.html
The claim by the man-child that they struck down a century old tradition is political grandstanding. The bill was written way back in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
It's hypocritical for the progressives to support censorship.
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
The Supreme Court made the right decision. It was a case about the censorship of a movie called Hillary-The Movie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401603.html
The claim by the man-child that they struck down a century old tradition is political grandstanding. The bill was written way back in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
It's hypocritical for the progressives to support censorship.


Obama was referring to the Court's decision to lift restrictions on corporate funding in elections...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I do agree the recent decision was a stupid one, but bringing it up in the state of the union address is a stupid way to try to fix it.
Agreed. But that seems to be vintage Obama style. Try and earn kudos by solving all the worlds issues in speeches, and not really solving them, just talk. I remember a year ago when he was touring Europe and his famous speech in Prague about getting rid of nuclear weapons. At that time people were still susceptible to this new way of dishing up "solutions", but think they have become quite cynical since then. At least he earned a Nobel Prize for this, so it has been profitable in a way. Not sure how real it has been though, more like huge smokescreens all over the place.
liljp617
Now he's condemned for speaking up for the average person...

...politicians can't win.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Now he's condemned for speaking up for the average person...

...politicians can't win.
I would have thought that his speech was more along the lines of "speaking for" the average person than "speaking up for" the average person. I'm not sure that he is always on the mark with who this average person is either.

With regard to the Supreme Court decision, I think it was incorrect for him to have commented as the Supreme Court is supposed to be separate from Government, by commenting on a Supreme Court decision as publicly as he has, he is interfering with the process of justice. He did something similar when he interfered on behalf of his Harvard Professor friend last year. For me his interference has more to do with the appearance of "being right" and getting political advantage from that, than really looking out for your average person or for justice.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Now he's condemned for speaking up for the average person...

...politicians can't win.
I would have thought that his speech was more along the lines of "speaking for" the average person than "speaking up for" the average person. I'm not sure that he is always on the mark with who this average person is either.


I'm not commenting on his speech as a whole, I'm commenting on the very specific part of his remark on the Court decision.

Quote:
With regard to the Supreme Court decision, I think it was incorrect for him to have commented as the Supreme Court is supposed to be separate from Government, by commenting on a Supreme Court decision as publicly as he has, he is interfering with the process of justice. He did something similar when he interfered on behalf of his Harvard Professor friend last year.


I do not believe the situations are at all similar.

Quote:
For me his interference has more to do with the appearance of "being right" and getting political advantage from that, than really looking out for your average person or for justice.


Call me gullible, but I believe he genuinely cares about the Court's decision and its negative impact on future elections. I believe he very much disagrees with the Court's decision. I believe the majority of voting American citizens feel quite similar with respect to this specific issue (that is, special interest corporations arguably buying elections).

Of course he wants some "brownie points" for making his view on this decision openly known. He's a politician trying to maintain and/or gain popularity from those who elected him and those who are in opposition to him. I see nothing wrong with this attempt to maintain/gain favor, given I see his position as a genuine one and a very legitimate concern that most Americans share. In this respect, I think he is speaking up for the (likely) majority of Americans who feel the Court's decision was the wrong one...the (likely) majority of Americans who's voices are drowned out in Congress by the mindless bickering on both sides.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Call me gullible, but I believe he genuinely cares about the Court's decision and its negative impact on future elections.
I don't see it as gullible at all. From my own point of view, looking from the outside in, I see someone who got elected as President following a MASSIVE marketing campaign, that could only have been possible by lots of sponsorship and campaign contributions. If Obama had been against campaign contributions in principle, then I would have regarded his point of view against the decision genuinely sincere. But since he is directly involved in receiving money for his election campaigns, with one coming up soon for his run for re-election, he has a vested interest in how the ruling turns out. Perhaps if he had been quiet it would have made a much stronger point for him, than protesting as loudly as he did.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Call me gullible, but I believe he genuinely cares about the Court's decision and its negative impact on future elections.
I don't see it as gullible at all. From my own point of view, looking from the outside in, I see someone who got elected as President following a MASSIVE marketing campaign, that could only have been possible by lots of sponsorship and campaign contributions. If Obama had been against campaign contributions in principle, then I would have regarded his point of view against the decision genuinely sincere. But since he is directly involved in receiving money for his election campaigns, with one coming up soon for his run for re-election, he has a vested interest in how the ruling turns out. Perhaps if he had been quiet it would have made a much stronger point for him, than protesting as loudly as he did.


Why would he have to be against campaign contributions in general to show opposition toward the Court's ruling? One could surely argue that elections are already bought, but why should we further this buying of elections by breaking down a century of law (which is precisely what the Supreme Court did).

What vested interest does he have in opposing something that would likely give his campaign even more money than it raised in the 2008 election?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:


What vested interest does he have in opposing something that would likely give his campaign even more money than it raised in the 2008 election?


Political gains from liberals for opposing something seen as both evil and conservative-led, perhaps?

And since he has little actual control over the supreme court -- especially concerning a ruling that has already passed -- his opposition is unlikely to cost him any money.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
but why should we further this buying of elections by breaking down a century of law (which is precisely what the Supreme Court did).
I don't understand this, in whose opinion? I thought the Supreme Court was impartial?

liljp617 wrote:
What vested interest does he have in opposing something that would likely give his campaign even more money than it raised in the 2008 election?
I would have thought that there would be greater competition with others as they would have equal access to a greater pool of money. If the Republicans are happy about the Supreme Court decision, there has to be some good things in the legislation for them. And what is good for them, has to be upsetting for Obama. In addition, the way Obama is going in the opinion polls he may have less money around for his re-election. No one has to tell him that, as a marketing whizz he probably realizes that people are looking for action more than words and speeches. Talking about reducing the deficit is a good start in that direction. But hopefully he will do that with less spending rather than taxing. Fiddling with taxes can't be that good if you want to win a re-election.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
but why should we further this buying of elections by breaking down a century of law (which is precisely what the Supreme Court did).
I don't understand this, in whose opinion? I thought the Supreme Court was impartial?


The recent decision, from my understanding, overturned roughly a century of law that barred corporations from directly funding elections.

Quote:
liljp617 wrote:
What vested interest does he have in opposing something that would likely give his campaign even more money than it raised in the 2008 election?
I would have thought that there would be greater competition with others as they would have equal access to a greater pool of money. If the Republicans are happy about the Supreme Court decision, there has to be some good things in the legislation for them. And what is good for them, has to be upsetting for Obama. In addition, the way Obama is going in the opinion polls he may have less money around for his re-election. No one has to tell him that, as a marketing whizz he probably realizes that people are looking for action more than words and speeches. Talking about reducing the deficit is a good start in that direction. But hopefully he will do that with less spending rather than taxing. Fiddling with taxes can't be that good if you want to win a re-election.


Greater competition is perhaps a factor he's concerned with.

But you say he may be looking at the polls and seeing a possible decrease in his campaign funding for 2012. Don't you think there are at least a few corporations who would fund his campaign and possibly make up for the loss in individual funds he may suffer? Wouldn't he be fond of this? *Of course we're playing with baseless hypothetical situations here*

Perhaps Ocalhoun's assessment is correct. I personally don't see it as a partisan issue, but I suppose a lot of people do. I see it as a simply dumb decision by the Court that will have a largely negative impact on elections, regardless of party affiliation.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
but why should we further this buying of elections by breaking down a century of law (which is precisely what the Supreme Court did).
I don't understand this, in whose opinion? I thought the Supreme Court was impartial?

That would be the idealistic supposition...
The reality would be real humans in the judicial seats... and worse yet, they're politicians.
Realistically, in order to get nominated and accepted to the supreme court, you have to take a stance on 'the issues' that agrees with the party in power at the time. Which doesn't lead to impartiality.
liljp617 wrote:

Perhaps Ocalhoun's assessment is correct. I personally don't see it as a partisan issue, but I suppose a lot of people do.

The majority of political types tend to see everything as a partisan, left vs. right, issue.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
but why should we further this buying of elections by breaking down a century of law (which is precisely what the Supreme Court did).
I don't understand this, in whose opinion? I thought the Supreme Court was impartial?

That would be the idealistic supposition...
The reality would be real humans in the judicial seats... and worse yet, they're politicians.
Realistically, in order to get nominated and accepted to the supreme court, you have to take a stance on 'the issues' that agrees with the party in power at the time. Which doesn't lead to impartiality.
liljp617 wrote:

Perhaps Ocalhoun's assessment is correct. I personally don't see it as a partisan issue, but I suppose a lot of people do.

The majority of political types tend to see everything as a partisan, left vs. right, issue.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
but why should we further this buying of elections by breaking down a century of law (which is precisely what the Supreme Court did).
I don't understand this, in whose opinion? I thought the Supreme Court was impartial?

That would be the idealistic supposition...
The reality would be real humans in the judicial seats... and worse yet, they're politicians.
Realistically, in order to get nominated and accepted to the supreme court, you have to take a stance on 'the issues' that agrees with the party in power at the time. Which doesn't lead to impartiality.
Has to be an enormous shortcoming in the judicial system of the United States if the Supreme Court has the power to play ping-pong politics with legislation? Shocked Problem is that the President of the United States is political as well (when he is not supposed to be), so it would appear almost like two wrongs tangling with one another?
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

Perhaps Ocalhoun's assessment is correct. I personally don't see it as a partisan issue, but I suppose a lot of people do.

The majority of political types tend to see everything as a partisan, left vs. right, issue.
So how should people see it then?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
so it would appear almost like two wrongs tangling with one another?

Exactly... That would be the system of checks and balances at work.
By setting the politicians against each other, the power of government as a whole is reduced; a good thing.
(Though, actually, it is three wrongs tangling with each other- we mustn't forget congress.)
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

The majority of political types tend to see everything as a partisan, left vs. right, issue.
So how should people see it then?

Ideally? By judging it by their own, personal, interpretation of the constitution and the values of the country.
Practically? They must at least give some consideration to the 'left vs. right issue' view, because others who use that view will force it upon them.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
so it would appear almost like two wrongs tangling with one another?

Exactly... That would be the system of checks and balances at work.
By setting the politicians against each other, the power of government as a whole is reduced; a good thing.
(Though, actually, it is three wrongs tangling with each other- we mustn't forget congress.)
And the media, as the media interprets it in a million ways suiting their own objectives, and fortunately we are dependent on the media for our information.
ocalhoun wrote:
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

The majority of political types tend to see everything as a partisan, left vs. right, issue.
So how should people see it then?

Ideally? By judging it by their own, personal, interpretation of the constitution and the values of the country.
Practically? They must at least give some consideration to the 'left vs. right issue' view, because others who use that view will force it upon them.
Can't help bringing the media up again. How is it possible to think beyond partisan when it is being barked upon all the time by the media?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Can't help bringing the media up again. How is it possible to think beyond partisan when it is being barked upon all the time by the media?

Think beyond what the media tells you, of course.

Most of the time -- especially for political coverage -- you have to translate the mediaspeak before you can understand what's really going on.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Most of the time -- especially for political coverage -- you have to translate the mediaspeak before you can understand what's really going on.
Right, but how many people do that, and can one then blame anyone for not really knowing the difference? Especially when multi-billion media and PR companies are employed to pursuade people to think in specific ways using the most subtle messages possible, i.e. brainwashing?
Related topics
Hurricane set to lash New Orleans
Why do you all hate God?
President bush
Adsense referral clarification
Serial code can i use twice leagaly?
The NFL in America
Will Give You The Chills
Einstein proves Religion
Torture your mother?
Are the governments of the world becoming less significant?
An example of why you should fact check.
The ethics of firing someone for off-the-job bad behaviour
Obama's State of the Union 2012
Coming out and the people that come with it
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.