What is the 'We The People Stimulus Package' about?

[Frank Murphy]

I have been noticing this headline at the top of the panel for a few days. The link leads to a youtube video about some judge supremo. Does anyone know what it is about? Curiousity got to me eventually i guess

[TLTheLiberator]

It's a Thomas Paine/founding father look-alike who rails about the evils of encroaching government.

I guess we can go back and forth on the merits of the Obama plan for American.

( the spending bill & budget etc. )

I simply wonder where this guy was when the Republicans were slowly but surely running the country into the ground over the last 30 years and especially the last 8 years.

( perhaps he was saying the same things?? )

There's a bunch of good concepts in his rant and as far as I'm concerned a bunch of real bad ones.

Taxation without representation?? ( someone explain that one to me )

I think all in all, I think he wants us to be much better citizens and I certainly applaud that sentiment.

Hope This Helps!!

TL

[Frank Murphy]

Thanks, but still wondering what it is doing on a marketing/biz forum?

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by Lady NaNa

Thanks, but still wondering what it is doing on a marketing/biz forum?

I guess someone wants as many people as possible to view the video.

TL

[Kay King]

Surely since you joined you've noticed ads and products in that top space on the forum. That contains info from the Admin (forum owner) that he thinks is worth sharing. Clearly that particular video addresses current US problems.

Enough said.

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

It's a Thomas Paine/founding father look-alike who rails about the evils of encroaching government.

I guess we can go back and forth on the merits of the Obama plan for American.

( the spending bill & budget etc. )

I simply wonder where this guy was when the Republicans were slowly but surely running the country into the ground over the last 30 years and especially the last 8 years.

( perhaps he was saying the same things?? )

NOPE! The ones that control the money are in CONGRESS! Obama was one of the senators and thus was MORE guilty in how the money was spent.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

There's a bunch of good concepts in his rant and as far as I'm concerned a bunch of real bad ones.

Taxation without representation?? ( someone explain that one to me )

What is to explain? They dumb down the public, misinform, lie, cheat, steal, bus in illegals, etc... to destroy any chance that people like me would be heard. SO, instead of vetoing nafta/gatt, keeping glass steagle, enforcing current laws, keeping prisons(what they call prisons are treated almost like forced boarding, and many criminals have said they PREFER it to the outside), Getting rid of bad teachers, paying on merit, etc.... They have done the OPPOSITE! ****THEY**** create the economical problems, take credit for any improvement, and people like ME have to pay! RIDICULOUS! And when I retire, they will MAYBE smile and hand me back a check that is a SMALL portion of what they owe me like they have done me a great favor.

Just yesterday, some MORON, in the New York Times, said that kids should go to school longer, for more years, to learn more, and make it easier to get jobs! BULL!!!!!! What they need is to get rid of the bad teachers, get good ones, and get rid of the lousy nothing subjects, agenda, and FLUFF! KEEP the days short like they WERE(People learn better when they are not kept so long), etc... Kids may actually stay FEWER years and learn MORE! I have been saying that since I was like 6 or 7. I used to LOVE school, but when I asked for more, I was told "maybe next year". I felt like Number five in short circuit, but with NO bookstore around! GIVE ME A BREAK!

BTW I bet that idiot did that because he ran colleges, and loved Obama. Obama is supposedly calling for people to stay in school longer. YEP, let's just throw more money at it!!!!!! MY plans would have MADE money!

And the one kind of fluff course I WANTED "drivers ed" was one I was NOT allowed to take because some school administrator claimed that prop 13(a tax bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_13_(1978) ) hurt funding! I ended up being in the first, and possibly last, class that HAD to pay for it. In the US, at least in some areas, insurance and some things were lower if you took drivers ed. Never mind that I knew it already. MOST people took it in 10th grade. Lo and behold, that is the grade I was in when they started cutting back.

Steve

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by seasoned

NOPE! The ones that control the money are in CONGRESS! Obama was one of the senators and thus was MORE guilty in how the money was spent.



What is to explain? They dumb down the public, misinform, lie, cheat, steal, bus in illegals, etc... to destroy any chance that people like me would be heard. SO, instead of vetoing nafta/gatt, keeping glass steagle, enforcing current laws, keeping prisons(what they call prisons are treated almost like forced boarding, and many criminals have said they PREFER it to the outside), Getting rid of bad teachers, paying on merit, etc.... They have done the OPPOSITE! ****THEY**** create the economical problems, take credit for any improvement, and people like ME have to pay! RIDICULOUS! And when I retire, they will MAYBE smile and hand me back a check that is a SMALL portion of what they owe me like they have done me a great favor.

Just yesterday, some MORON, in the New York Times, said that kids should go to school longer, for more years, to learn more, and make it easier to get jobs! BULL!!!!!! What they need is to get rid of the bad teachers, get good ones, and get rid of the lousy nothing subjects, agenda, and FLUFF! KEEP the days short like they WERE(People learn better when they are not kept so long), etc... Kids may actually stay FEWER years and learn MORE! I have been saying that since I was like 6 or 7. I used to LOVE school, but when I asked for more, I was told "maybe next year". I felt like Number five in short circuit, but with NO bookstore around! GIVE ME A BREAK!

BTW I bet that idiot did that because he ran colleges, and loved Obama. Obama is supposedly calling for people to stay in school longer. YEP, let's just throw more money at it!!!!!! MY plans would have MADE money!

And the one kind of fluff course I WANTED "drivers ed" was one I was NOT allowed to take because some school administrator claimed that prop 13(a tax bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_13_(1978) ) hurt funding! I ended up being in the first, and possibly last, class that HAD to pay for it. In the US, at least in some areas, insurance and some things were lower if you took drivers ed. Never mind that I knew it already. MOST people took it in 10th grade. Lo and behold, that is the grade I was in when they started cutting back.

Steve

I was waiting for someone like you...

- Have you forgotten that the repubs ran this country ( white house & congress ) from 2000- 2006?

and they...

They exacerbated every economic problem the nation had with a reckless, callas, indifference to the living standards of the people of our great nation.


- Have you forgotten that in 1980 this country had no debt to speak of and then after 12 years of Regan-BUSH1 all of a sudden we have 4 trillion?

( I'll admit that the congress was democrat and the presidents were republican - it was a joint venture )

I am legally registered as an independent.

You may not remember but...

This country was so prosperous that when the oil shock of the 1970's hit and the cost of living doubled, people hardly blinked and just paid more - without it really hurting anyone.



- I was asking about explaining the old dude's claim of ..."taxation without representation"

I still don't get it.

Who in the US is being taxed without being represented??


Now...

I generally agree with your thoughts on nafta, glass stengal etc. and the general attacks on the American way of life that you pointed out.

The President is asking Americans, especially young ones to either get some type of vocational training in a trade or go to college.

( what's wrong with that? - we did have the highest percentage of people with a degree )

About the massive spending of Obama's admin...

Nobel prize winner, Paul Krugman agrees that we have to spend our way of of this mess.

I'd rather listen to him than the people/forces who want us to do nothing at all and let the pain work it's way on out.

Speaking of pain...

What I object most about the Colonial dude is that most his followers will probably end up hanging out with the republicans...( did he mention teas bags? )

and..

If someone's not independently wealthy they... IMHO, have no business at all going anywhere near the republicans. ( not after what they did to the nation in numerous ways )


If a person is independently wealthy, the political process won't go anywhere near hampering/bothering/disrupting their standard of living.


seasoned, I think we're actually on the same page with the same attitudes in regards to the powers that be but don't tell me you're an un-independently-wealthy republican.

If you're independently wealthy, I take my hat off to you.


I await your reply.

TL


Ps. Both parties suck out loud but with the new president and new attitudes the dems are on the right side of history.

[ThomM]

I was asking about explaining the old dude's claim of ..."taxation without representation"

I still don't get it.

Who in the US is being taxed without being represented??

Who do you think our elected officials are representing?
Do you honestly think they have our best interests in mind? or that of the banks, big corporations and wall street?

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by ThomM

Who do you think our elected officials are representing?
Do you honestly think they have our best interests in mind? or that of the banks, big corporations and wall street?

I get that part and it's going to take an enormous effort on the citizens part to blunt the negative effect they have on our lives.

But let the terminology go because it's very misleading and corny.

TL

[ThomM]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I get that part and it's going to take an enormous effort on the citizens part to blunt the negative effect they have on our lives.

But let the terminology go because it's very misleading and corny.

TL

It's the reason we became a country so I'd say it's relevant and hopefully a wake up call.

[Wakunahum]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I was waiting for someone like you...

- Have you forgotten that the repubs ran this country ( white house & congress ) from 2000- 2006?

and they...

They exacerbated every economic problem the nation had with a reckless, callas, indifference to the living standards of the people of our great nation.

...

If it makes you feel better, I think they (democrats or republicans) have done a poor job for a long, long time.

I will agree that the gears have been in motion alot longer than since someone took office in January 2009.

I get your angst of "how come all the suddenly alot of people are complaining about the same stuff that's been happening for quite some time?" but believe me there are those who have been outspoken for awhile as well.

Personally, if someone "wakes up" to a problem (any problem) that has been around for decades, it's better to speak now than to hold it in cause the person failed to mention it was a problem X years earlier. To me that's a poor argument to say their points are invalid cause they should have spoken up sooner.

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

If it makes you feel better, I think they (democrats or republicans) have done a poor job for a long, long time.

I will agree that the gears have been in motion alot longer than since someone took office in January 2009.

I get your angst of "how come all the suddenly alot of people are complaining about the same stuff that's been happening for quite some time?" but believe me there are those who have been outspoken for awhile as well.

Personally, if someone "wakes up" to a problem (any problem) that has been around for decades, it's better to speak now than to hold it in cause the person failed to mention it was a problem X years earlier. To me that's a poor argument to say their points are invalid cause they should have spoken up sooner.

And the republicans in my book get 70% of the blame because they had complete control of the federal government for 6 years ( 2000-2006 ) and seriously exacerbated all of our nation's economic problems and left us with this historic mess.

The last 2 years of the Bush2 Admin was a stalemate with the dem congress in which the admin was checked from doing any further damage.

The Ides Of September:

Mccain was actually leading in the polls and the media was doing all it could to keep him afloat and...

there was a good chance Mccain would have been elected but the administration could not hold off the announcement that the banks had gone bellyup in mid September.


When undecided folks realized the result of republican deregulation polices they could not justify voting for a repub in 2008.

Obama would have won at least 65-70% of the popular vote ( not 54% ) and even a few southern states if the good white folk of the south would not have voted against him something in the range of 80%.

Older white folk voted against him, close to 70%.

I think we can agree on why they did not vote for him.

All on all, Colonial dude is asking us to be better American and I can't argue with that but folks should be careful before they end up following idiots like Rush Limbaugh and friends.

I never said the Colonial dude's points were invalid because I thought he was a Johnny come lately, I was just saying where were all these super anti-government folks for the last 8 years when more damage was done to the republic than at any time in our history?

TL

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I was waiting for someone like you...

- Have you forgotten that the repubs ran this country ( white house & congress ) from 2000- 2006?

and they...

They exacerbated every economic problem the nation had with a reckless, callas, indifference to the living standards of the people of our great nation.


- Have you forgotten that in 1980 this country had no debt to speak of and then after 12 years of Regan-BUSH1 all of a sudden we have 4 trillion?

I didn't forget about the things that happened prior to 1999 that led up to todays economic problems, or the repeal of Glass steagle at that time, or the lousy shambles things were in when bush got it, while they claimed it was so great and they claimed there was a SURPLUS EITHER!! It was MORE than 4 trillion in debt then, and certainly more than that NOW, due to a legacy that occured even before CARTER, though he himself is not totally innocent.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

( I'll admit that the congress was democrat and the presidents were republican - it was a joint venture )

WOW, you admit something! Yep, truth be known, I am not crazy about EITHER. I merely hate one less.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I am legally registered as an independent.

You may not remember but...

This country was so prosperous that when the oil shock of the 1970's hit and the cost of living doubled, people hardly blinked and just paid more - without it really hurting anyone.

Actually, I DO remember! It hurt MANY, and they did FAR more than blink! And remember the BALLOON payments!?!?!? I thought those were DEAD, but they cam back perhaps 5 years ago! Yet ANOTHER thing that hurt the economy! What about the long lines at the gas station? Ironically, Real estate didn't seem to be so crazy prior to that.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Who in the US is being taxed without being represented??

I'm taxed and not properly represented.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I generally agree with your thoughts on nafta, glass stengal etc. and the general attacks on the American way of life that you pointed out.

The President is asking Americans, especially young ones to either get some type of vocational training in a trade or go to college.

( what's wrong with that? - we did have the highest percentage of people with a degree )

About the massive spending of Obama's admin...

Nobel prize winner, Paul Krugman agrees that we have to spend our way of of this mess.

I'd rather listen to him than the people/forces who want us to do nothing at all and let the pain work it's way on out.

Speaking of pain...

What I object most about the Colonial dude is that most his followers will probably end up hanging out with the republicans...( did he mention teas bags? )

and..

If someone's not independently wealthy they... IMHO, have no business at all going anywhere near the republicans. ( not after what they did to the nation in numerous ways )


If a person is independently wealthy, the political process won't go anywhere near hampering/bothering/disrupting their standard of living.


seasoned, I think we're actually on the same page with the same attitudes in regards to the powers that be but don't tell me you're an un-independently-wealthy republican.

If you're independently wealthy, I take my hat off to you.


I await your reply.

TL


Ps. Both parties suck out loud but with the new president and new attitudes the dems are on the right side of history.

I'm not independently wealthy, but part of that is because of all the garbage of the democrats. I have known democrats(OK, my father is a republican(I found out AFTER I decided), and most of his friends happen to be DEMOCRATS! And most are RICH! Heck, one person he plays with is named William Gates III! And YEP, his wife is Melinda! I wouldn't be surprised if THEY are democrats. ) that WERE independently wealthy that insist that MY taxes be raised, and THEY "fail to report income" because THEY feel THEY are being taxed too much! EVEN though, after all the dust clears, they make MILLIONS more than I do every year! They also have more tax shelters than I do! And they tend to be married, so their base tax is lower, etc.....

Actually, you have been brainwashed! Congress said we had a surplus BEFORE clinton was elected. After he was elected, they said that we had a surplus for the first time in whatever. In any event, though they often say surplus, they REALLY meant ******BUDGET***** surplus! That is like owning a billion shares in a bad company that are valued at $50 per, and you paid $25 per, and you claim you made $25 billion. Odds are, you probably LOST! I mean you can't just start selling it, and what if the value drops when people find out how bad it is? Likewise, with a budget, expenses may be missing, and they approximate taxes. What if people die, lose their jobs, can't/don't pay, the economy takes a nosedive, etc.... It was about as real as monopoly money.

BTW One thing I forgot about. A LOT of companies CLOSED, and people were laid off, etc.... with the dot com fiasco. The economy WAS hurt! In fact, THAT is what setoff the crazy lowering of the fed funds rate that is STILL in place. It was an attempt to bring back the credit markets, and help sme companies TEETERING on bankruptcy! Why does everyone forget THAT!?!?

BTW MOST of my fathers friends LOVED OBAMA, but they DON'T now! I don't know about Bill. I assume HE still does, and it looks like Warren does ALSO, but most DON'T! And most of his friends/acquaintences aren't quite so famous. One that actually admitted to me about the ........ owns a few restaurants, parking lots, and supermarkets in California. And, last I checked, the strong approval/dissapproval numbers for obama were BOTH about 36%. Obviously, the honeymoon is starting to end.

steve

[ThomM]

Being an older white folk I voted against him.
I voted for the black female McKinney running on the Green Party ticket.
Keep in mind that many old white guys are Vietnam vets and McCain played that P.O.W. card to death.
As to where this guy was for the last 8 years? Who knows or cares I'm glad he's here now for whatever good it does.
The old white folks may have been on to something though, check this video out.

YouTube - Explosive Video Reich, Obamas economic...

[Kurt]

Steve,

You ARE represented. It's a fact, deal with it.

Also, get your facts straight for once. You said:

And, last I checked, the strong approval/dissapproval numbers for obama were BOTH about 36%. Obviously, the honeymoon is starting to end.

You are confused. The 36% rating is for the COUNTRY NOT OBAMA. Obama's approval rating is at 61%.
Obama Approval Rating Stable, Polarized
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Now that we've established the correct facts, time for you to admit we're having a prolonged honeymoon with Obama, instead of your declaration that the "Obviously, the honeymoon is starting to end".

And if approval ratings are so important to you, then let's discuss Bush's when he left office...What was it, the lowest since Truman? What was it, like 25%?

I'll explain the numbers to you...34% don't like how the country is going, but 61% approve of Obama. This means, a good percentage of Americas think the country is in trouble, but realize it was the Bush policies.

Again, you are confused. You're confused about the difference between the federal debt and the deficit. They are two different things. Clinton didn't reduce the debt, but he did turn the deficit into a surplus, the largest in US history, which Bush took and turned into the largest deficit in US history.

Also, the bail out packages cost less than Bush's bogus war. I'd rather spend the money in America building bridges, than millions per bomb to destroy bridges (and lives) in Iraq, only to spend more American money rebuilding the same bridges.

But like Colin Powell said, "You break it, you pay for it"...And boy are we paying.

By the time we're done paying for the healthcare over the course of a life time for our injured soldiers, it's estimated the Bush war will cost 3-4 trillion, and we aren't even out of Iraq yet.

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by ThomM

Being an older white folk I voted against him.
I voted for the black female McKinney running on the Green Party ticket.
Keep in mind that many old white guys are Vietnam vets and McCain played that P.O.W. card to death.
As to where this guy was for the last 8 years? Who knows or cares I'm glad he's here now for whatever good it does.
The old white folks may have been on to something though, check this video out.
YouTube - Explosive Video Reich, Obamas economic advisor no "White Male Construction Workers"

That was surely a wasted vote but it was yours.


Very cute video but it's just the opinions of Mr. Rangal and Mr. Richt. - not the admins.

Just because Mr. Richt is an adviser to the prez does not mean the Obama admin has adopted his attitudes and plans.

The old white folks voted in 2008 for a party that had no right to even ask for anyone's vote. ( they did an historically bad job )

Just because they didn't want a Black man to be president, they were prepared to sacrifice the living standards of their children and grandchildren.

Now, I'm sure not every last one of them voted against him for that reason but I'm sure the numbers were at least 80% or more.

And the others also proved that wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

They should have turned on Reagan as soon as he started running up the debt for a country that had none to speak of.

But since he was good at beating his chest ( like the repubs of today ) and winked and nodded about putting the minorities back in their places - they continued to support him and the rest of the republican presidents.

That was the beginning of the end of the golden age for America and now look where we are.

We are in the middle of a historical re-run.

- The repubs did the same thing in the 1920's and a dem comes in to clean up the mess.

- Clinton did it on a smaller scale in the 1990's.

- And now act #3


TL

[ThomM]

That was surely a wasted vote but it was yours.

It's attitudes like that that make it a wasted vote.
Funny how both parties have brainwashed most of America into thinking if you vote 3rd party you are wasting your vote.

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by ThomM

It's attitudes like that that make it a wasted vote.
Funny how both parties have brainwashed most of America into thinking if you vote 3rd party you are wasting your vote.

I voted for Perot in 1992 and if all the people that wanted to vote for him would have - he would have won the election.

The media did a great job of scaring the public and anyone that was anyone was on TV called Perot crazy like a fox.

And..

I hear that he couldn't buy any local or national advertising over the last 3 weeks of the campaign and he still received almost 20% of the popular vote.

But he did help Clinton win the office.

( some people believe his main goal was to prevent Bush1 from re-election - and it was personal )

I also voted for Ralf Nadar in 2000 in my native Maryland only because I knew he was not going to affect the vote in Md. but if his party received 5% of the popular vote - nationwide, they would be eligible for public financing the next time around.

So, there's plenty proof that I'm not brainwashed at all about 3rd parties, but your vote was your vote and tactically it was a true waste but not because voting on 3rd parties is a waste.

But because they didn't have a chance at 2% of the national vote.


And that's just my opinion.


All The Best!!

TL

[ThomM]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I voted for Perot in 1992 and if all the people that wanted to vote for him would have - he would have won the election.

But he did help Clinton win the office. ( some people believe his main goal was to prevent Bush1 from re-election)

So, there's proof that I'm not brainwashed at all but your vote was your vote and tactically it was a true waste but not because voting on 3rd parties is a waste.


And that's just my opinion.


All The Best!!

TL

Well you know what they say about opinion's T

I deleted what I had here. After some thought I decided it would be taken wrong and it really had nothing to do with anything already posted in this thread.

When you think about it, any vote that wasn't cast for Obama was a wasted vote. Only the votes for the winner weren't.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally Posted by Kurt

Obama's approval rating is at 61%.

Considering how the media practically drools over everything the man and his family does, can anyone honestly expect his approval rating to be much lower than this?

[KimW]

Religious & Political Topics Are Forbidden!

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by Michael Ellis

Considering how the media practically drools over everything the man and his family does, can anyone honestly expect his approval rating to be much lower than this?

The media is also giving equal coverage to idiotic points of view like those of Rush Limbaugh and friends and Obama seems to be winning the argument and the hearts of the people in spite of the onslaught.


TL

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by KimW

Religious & Political Topics Are Forbidden!

The admin kicked things off by posting a link to that political video and someone asked about it and now it's on.

We seem to have his blessing on this one.

TL

[KimW]

It's the admin's board.
I haven't seen a post by the admin giving this thread his blessing.

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by KimW

It's the admin's board.
I haven't seen a post by the admin giving this thread his blessing.

You're right. I, for one, was going to stop today anyway. The other thread I am checking is political enough, even though TECHNICALLY, that one shouldn't be considered a political issue.

Steve

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by KimW

It's the admin's board.
I haven't seen a post by the admin giving this thread his blessing.

By posting the link to the video the admin ( the great Allen Says ) has opened a pandora's box.

Perhaps I went to far when I suggested he gave this thread his blessings.

Well this has been going on for a couple of days now.

I'm not going to comment anymore no matter what anyone says.

TL

[Frank Murphy]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The admin kicked things off by posting a link to that political video and someone asked about it and now it's on.

We seem to have his blessing on this one.

TL

Oh my..I seriously didn't expect things to go..out of hands. Americans are such funny people..lol..

[Michael Ellis]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The media is also giving equal coverage to idiotic points of view like those of Rush Limbaugh and friends and Obama seems to be winning the argument and the hearts of the people in spite of the onslaught.


TL

And that's just it... Anytime Rush and company has a point of view the media outlets portray it as idiotic. At the same time, anything that comes out of Obama's mouth is portrayed as "historic" or "brilliant" or "exactly what America needs."

If you take a close look at who owns the media companies that show such favoritism, and what the Obama administration can and has done for them, you'd quickly realize that it's in their absolute best interest to stay on Obama's good side.

I realize that political topics aren't allowed. Actually, I don't think it's the political topics that Allen doesn't want, I think it's the slamming we do to each other whenever we discuss it. If we keep these conversations civil, I don't think he'd have any issues with it.

Please note: I'm not bashing Obama, I'm just making reference to the heavily slanted media preference to his administration, and how that could certainly impact public opinion.

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Michael Ellis

And that's just it... Anytime Rush and company has a point of view the media outlets portray it as idiotic. At the same time, anything that comes out of Obama's mouth is portrayed as "historic" or "brilliant" or "exactly what America needs."

If you take a close look at who owns the media companies that show such favoritism, and what the Obama administration can and has done for them, you'd quickly realize that it's in their absolute best interest to stay on Obama's good side.

I realize that political topics aren't allowed. Actually, I don't think it's the political topics that Allen doesn't want, I think it's the slamming we do to each other whenever we discuss it. If we keep these conversations civil, I don't think he'd have any issues with it.

Please note: I'm not bashing Obama, I'm just making reference to the heavily slanted media preference to his administration, and how that could certainly impact public opinion.

Well, you certainly make a good point. I had to laugh when Hillary spoke about the right wing media bias, etc... Heck, one person once said I listened to rush limbaugh too much(because he thought I was "too" right wing). I said "That's FUNNY! LOL! I had the feelings BEFORE I even heard of him, and I listen to bill press MORE because he is in a better time slot.". That person LIED about rush limbaugh's views, so I gave him a newsletter to PROVE he was WRONG! He didn't even read it! Yet I listened to bill press. That tells you something! BTW, here is a link: Bill Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AND, in case anyone HERE is too lazy to read:

William Press (born 1940) is an American syndicated talk radio host, political commentator and author. Press was the chair of the California Democratic Party from 1993 to 1996. He has served in different appointed positions such as a chief of staff to California State Sen. Peter Behr (a Republican) and director of the California Office of Planning and Research under Gov. Jerry Brown. However, the majority of his career has been spent as a political commentator.

Press started his broadcasting career in Los Angeles for TV stations KABC-TV and KCOP-TV. He is a former CNN and MSNBC political commentator, and an accomplished author. He is best known for co-hosting CNN's The Spin Room opposite Tucker Carlson, and Crossfire and MSNBC's Buchanan and Press.

Since May 2005 he's been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post. Press also contributes blogs to the online version of Washington, D.C.'s nonpartisan The Hill newspaper.
...
Radio talk show
Since September 2005, Press has been hosting a daily liberal syndicated talk radio program which is broadcast nationwide live from 6-9 AM ET. The show is syndicated by Dial Global. In addition to terrestrial stations, the show is heard on Sirius Satellite Radio channel 146 and XM Satellite Radio channel 167 America Left. In 2008, Press was ranked #96 in the Talkers Magazine Heavy 100.[1]

And hopefully it won't get too out of hand. I suspect you are right. ALSO, this IS only one thread. *I* am certainly not going to start a political thread here. But Sex, religion, and politics are things they say you shouldn't speak about.

Steve

[TLTheLiberator]

Originally Posted by Michael Ellis

And that's just it... Anytime Rush and company has a point of view the media outlets portray it as idiotic. At the same time, anything that comes out of Obama's mouth is portrayed as "historic" or "brilliant" or "exactly what America needs."

If you take a close look at who owns the media companies that show such favoritism, and what the Obama administration can and has done for them, you'd quickly realize that it's in their absolute best interest to stay on Obama's good side.

I realize that political topics aren't allowed. Actually, I don't think it's the political topics that Allen doesn't want, I think it's the slamming we do to each other whenever we discuss it. If we keep these conversations civil, I don't think he'd have any issues with it.

Please note: I'm not bashing Obama, I'm just making reference to the heavily slanted media preference to his administration, and how that could certainly impact public opinion.

I don't have a problem keeping things civil.

The media has always shown deference to the admin point of view.

And if you're running around saying the the president is not an American citizen you will be treated as a joke.

But...

It's the same media that slyly cheer leaded us into war for the Bush admin.

Example: 400 or so experts on cable and network TV to talk about should we go to war or not, but only 6 or 7 were clearly against the war.

You can't say the media was in Obama's corner during the general election.

But I'll be happy to admit that the media was in his corner and helped him defeat Hillary Clinton. ( the guy could do no wrong )

Why?

Because they and the powers that be understood that the only way in hell that a republican was going to get elected president in 2008 was to run against the Black guy and hope Euro-Americans wouldn't vote for him because of what he is.

But as hard as they tried, it all backfired because of Obama's fund raising, his 1st class organization on the ground, his support from the organizations on the left and because of the financial revelation around the Ides Of September.

( that's when the Bush admin had to admit the massive financial problems but I'm sure they wished they could have held on to the news for another 6 weeks - after the election - and there's a good chance Mccain would have been president )

Note: An independent media research company found that during the general election, 85% of the news stories, references etc. in the media regarding Obama was negative but only 55% were negative for Mccain.

They held the man up like weekend at Bernie's.

TL

[pcalvert]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Note: An independent media research company found that during the general election, 85% of the news stories, references etc. in the media regarding Obama was negative but only 55% were negative for Mccain.

Citation, please.

Phil