interesting what a few months in office does to you;

It looks like guantanamo is back on the map, and bringing enemy combatents to US Courts, a promise made during the campaign trail, is now off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us...o.html?_r=2&hp

Quote:

---

Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the commissions, saying that “by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” and declaring that as president he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.”

---

Quote:

---

“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

---

Quote:

---

In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions, the rules must give detainees “a maximum amount of due process.”

But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, “It may be difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a normal federal court.”

---

What it appears to me, is that Obama and his clan have realized that prosecution in a Federal Court is a mistake on so many levels, thus Bush was right. However, he can't simply revert back to bush's system, he's in a pickle and will word things so that the requirements are relaxed somehow.

Obama has changed his thoughts on alot of issues which he critiqued Bush on during the campaign and that he ran on "changing". Most notably is this detainee issue and the Vice Presidential protection powers, as well as aspects of the Patriot Act. Personally, I like this....but I wonder how many blind supporters are questioning their messiah for going back on his campaign promises?

My apologies for tooting my own horn here, but:
Guantanamo to be closed??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

All of the above being the case I'm not convinced that "closing Guantanamo" really means releasing all of the prisoners, let alone actually closing the base (which is never going to happen for reasons far outside of this debate). President-elect Obama has many smart people working for his administration, and I'm certain that most of them realize that it's probably a good idea to hold prisoners there. If there's a better physical location to hold them then I'm sure that information will be offered up, but I don't know of a better physical place to hold them. What I see the phrase "closing Guantanamo" as representing is a change to the body of law that the prison and the personnel running it are operating under. I know that recent press coverage of the President-elect's administration has been about how he wants to change many of the Executive Orders issued by the Bush administration, so I imagine that the "torture papers" which I talked about above are going to be included in that list of Orders in which to change.

One former criticism of the prison on Guantanamo was also the conditions of the prison itself. This has largely been addressed already by the Bush administration however. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Obama administration ends up spending more money in order to upgrade the facility further however.

Once the above items have been addressed then a case could be made that the "old Guantanamo" has been closed to be replaced by the new policy, law and facilities. All of this is purely speculative however since none of us know what the President-elect's administration is specifically planning on doing, that I know of.

---

Ahem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

My apologies for tooting my own horn here, but:
Guantanamo to be closed??


Ahem...

---

haha, i do remember your position at the time and when making my post was saying to myself that i'm glad you're back around. for some reason most in here can't see the forest through the trees on this issue. Its nice to have someone with a similar viewpoint.

I wish I could say I was surprised. Somebody cue up another round of Democrats trying to convince me that this is somehow better than standing up for any actual ideals. On second thought, don't, because I'm kind of sick of hearing it by now. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oriole^

I wish I could say I was surprised. Somebody cue up another round of Democrats trying to convince me that this is somehow better than standing up for any actual ideals. On second thought, don't, because I'm kind of sick of hearing it by now. :mad:

---

Yeah... well... uh...

TREES SUCK!!!



:D

Republicans one, democrats zero on this one. So many people just "bought" into this plan of "change" from Obama, who (of course) would realize things weren't as he thought they would be once he got into office. This doesn't mean he should be criticized..he is learning on the job...for a short amount of time. But many campaigns promised in this (and every) election...of course, aren't going to get to come true as he said they would. It's just a reality of the situation. Doesn't mean Obama is a failed president...but all those ****ing liberals that hated Bush, but didn't have a clue what it took to do the job, and didn't know the details of what really was going on...are slowly starting to find out once their messiah is in office...of course they are still not going to ever admit that Bush was ever right on anything...they'll just say that Obama proved it couldn't be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Republicans one, democrats zero on this one. So many people just "bought" into this plan of "change" from Obama, who (of course) would realize things weren't as he thought they would be once he got into office. This doesn't mean he should be criticized..he is learning on the job...for a short amount of time. But many campaigns promised in this (and every) election...of course, aren't going to get to come true as he said they would. It's just a reality of the situation. Doesn't mean Obama is a failed president...but all those ****ing liberals that hated Bush, but didn't have a clue what it took to do the job, and didn't know the details of what really was going on...are slowly starting to find out once their messiah is in office...of course they are still not going to ever admit that Bush was ever right on anything...they'll just say that Obama proved it couldn't be done.

---

well said.

I don't know a ton about politics, but I'd imagine a majority of the Obama supporters don't really care that he's going back on campaign promises. From what I saw of the supporters, their following was so blind that I don't think they even paid attention to what his positions were on topics. They just heard a great speaker who wasn't an old white guy (the complete opposite of Bush) and voted based on that.

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA....oh wait...

no I was wrong.....politics as usual, carry on.

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that made me chuckle

I'll keep my freedom, my guns and my money and you can keep the "change"

teehee

Oh my god. Out of 1200 ridiculously stupid, poor decisions the last administration made, they made ONE (1) move that might not have been the worst decision, and somehow this turns into a right-wing glee club? Give me a break.

for you guys jumping up and down and saying 'look! he's not infallible! He's not perfect! Mwaha-hah!' What did you think, we're all sheep? That we felt Obama was the Neo-esque, real life equivalent of The One, flying about DC and kung-fu-ing the place into shape in 110 days? Holy projected idealistic ignorance, Batman.

This doesn't make me happy, but I don't expect every major Bush-era decision to be completely reversed. The administration was horrible, but most of that was exemplified in how they handled things - lies, miscommunications, underhanded firings/leaks etc. The actual policies are almost an afterthought. I can accept that maybe in this case there is no easy tear-it-down alternative - just like there's no pack-up-and-get-out-of-Iraq in a week plan, either.

My god, the administration made a campaign promise; it looked at the facts examined the situation, and is now coming forward with those results. Even that - even that simple act of having more communication, entertaining more than one viewpoint - sets this administration light years ahead of its predecessor. It's not even in the same universe.

Those of us on the more conservative side of things often have this I-know-the-ways-of-the-world-better-than-you attitude, as if liberal is equal to inexperienced, naive, idealistic, or just 'never been mugged'. I think that's something that you need to abandon if you hope to get any educated youth to respect your opinions and viewpoints. You're not all old, rich, uneducated white men, and we're not all young, poor, minority socialists. Get a grip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Oh my god. Out of 1200 ridiculously stupid, poor decisions the last administration made, they made ONE (1) move that might not have been the worst decision, and somehow this turns into a right-wing glee club? Give me a break.

for you guys jumping up and down and saying 'look! he's not infallible! He's not perfect! Mwaha-hah!' What did you think, we're all sheep? That we felt Obama was the Neo-esque, real life equivalent of The One, flying about DC and kung-fu-ing the place into shape in 110 days? Holy projected idealistic ignorance, Batman.

This doesn't make me happy, but I don't expect every major Bush-era decision to be completely reversed. The administration was horrible, but most of that was exemplified in how they handled things - lies, miscommunications, underhanded firings/leaks etc. The actual policies are almost an afterthought. I can accept that maybe in this case there is no easy tear-it-down alternative - just like there's no pack-up-and-get-out-of-Iraq in a week plan, either.

My god, the administration made a campaign promise; it looked at the facts examined the situation, and is now coming forward with those results. Even that - even that simple act of having more communication, entertaining more than one viewpoint - sets this administration light years ahead of its predecessor. It's not even in the same universe.

Those of us on the more conservative side of things often have this I-know-the-ways-of-the-world-better-than-you attitude, as if liberal is equal to inexperienced, naive, idealistic, or just 'never been mugged'. I think that's something that you need to abandon if you hope to get any educated youth to respect your opinions and viewpoints. You're not all old, rich, uneducated white men, and we're not all young, poor, minority socialists. Get a grip.

---

Judging by the ignorance surrounding the $400/$800 tax cut (there are STILL lots of people that claim it wasn't really a cut... LOL), I'd say this well reasoned, logical retort will get you..........


no where.

Sorry AOW.

Good reply, AOW.

I don't buy into Obama's image and policies any more then I bought into Bush's. Neither one is an ideological match to my views. Obama is no more or less correct then Bush was.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Obama administration is doing what they feel is best, with the facts as they are, through their (Liberal) ideological viewpoint. The Bush administration did what it viewed as best through it's (Neo-Conservative) ideological view.
The Neo-Cons were in power, now the Liberal's are. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Oh my god. Out of 1200 ridiculously stupid, poor decisions the last administration made, they made ONE (1) move that might not have been the worst decision, and somehow this turns into a right-wing glee club? Give me a break.

---

read my initial post. it wasn't referring to "1" move in general but a series of moves Obama has made that were inconsistent with the campaign trail promises and more importantly were exactly the items that his campaign and liberals attacked Bush for.

More significantly than this issue for me, is the Vice Presidential powers that liberals & Obama vehemently attached Bush / Cheney for which Obama immediately backed down upon after accepting office. I'll post more on that one later, i'm off to the Yankee/Sox game to pay my parking fee so they can then cancel the game.

I know - I wasn't directly ping-ponging you - I read your post at first and just went on to another thread. When I came back and found all the other comments, I pretty much had to blow off the steam in my post.

My point is that, even if the Obama admin goes through and finds that all of these policies and detention centers and what not really were the best option, and somehow are defensible/necessary/immovable, then at least they went in with the intention of doing the right thing, and were convinced otherwise - and will then (be forced to) let the public know why. And that, alone, is enough to satisfy people like me - knowing that the people in charge are examining things and adapting and learning what the best option is, instead of just declaring it Decider-style and then labelling anyone disagreeing or even questioning as assisting terrorism.

I don't expect every campaign promise to be lived up to 100% - but by pushing the tax stuff, economic overhauls, and masssive green/environment agenda, they're following through at a pretty good rate. What gets me upset is when people get gleeful at any tiny opportunity to play political "gotcha!" - especially when some of this crap saddling the new administration might have been left in an unfixable mess by their predecessor. Ever have public office? I ran thinking I could get the budget sorted out, not realizing how seriously F'd up the fools before me had gotten it.

Anyway - back to something everyone here should be able to agree on; here's hoping the Sox wipe the floor with the Yanks! Enjoy the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

- especially when some of this crap saddling the new administration might have been left in an unfixable mess by their predecessor.

---

Exactly. One of the reasons federal courts may be out is because of the predecessor's decision to use "torture" techniques, which means the info would not be allowed in federal court. Thus the illegal acts of the predecessor plays a role in this administrations lack of options.

And, related to the torture issue, I saw a national (U.S.) poll over the weekend that showed the more one attended church, the more likely one was to support torturing terrorist suspects. Not only is that a sad indictment of the U.S., but it also a damning indictment of those that attend church. It seems to me that a great many "religious" folks are missing an important part of the word of Jesus. Not all, I'm not painting ALL with a wide brush, but the poll was pretty specific, the more one attended church, the more likely one was to approve of torturing another human being. Incredibly sad, and stupid.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04...-survey-finds/

http://blog.beliefnet.com/apagansblo...s-reports.html

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256286?source=most_viewed

Quote:

---

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

---

Interesting quote. Especially interesting considering who said it.

Ronald Reagan, supposed mesiah of the right wing.

So, can anybody point to one President that did not reverse at least one "campaign promise"? Or one President that came through on every "campaign promise"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

So, can anybody point to one President that did not reverse at least one "campaign promise"? Or one President that came through on every "campaign promise"?

---

George Washington. He could never tell a lie. :p

Washington because he didn't campaign for the job!

So he didn't have any campaign promises, so he doesn't count. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

So he didn't have any campaign promises, so he doesn't count. :)

---

Ah but he does...he fulfills all the obligations of the questions asked. He did not reverse any campaign promises....because he didn't make them....he kept every promise he made....

:p:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I know - I wasn't directly ping-ponging you - I read your post at first and just went on to another thread. When I came back and found all the other comments, I pretty much had to blow off the steam in my post.

My point is that, even if the Obama admin goes through and finds that all of these policies and detention centers and what not really were the best option, and somehow are defensible/necessary/immovable, then at least they went in with the intention of doing the right thing, and were convinced otherwise - and will then (be forced to) let the public know why. And that, alone, is enough to satisfy people like me - knowing that the people in charge are examining things and adapting and learning what the best option is, instead of just declaring it Decider-style and then labelling anyone disagreeing or even questioning as assisting terrorism.

I don't expect every campaign promise to be lived up to 100% - but by pushing the tax stuff, economic overhauls, and masssive green/environment agenda, they're following through at a pretty good rate. What gets me upset is when people get gleeful at any tiny opportunity to play political "gotcha!" - especially when some of this crap saddling the new administration might have been left in an unfixable mess by their predecessor. Ever have public office? I ran thinking I could get the budget sorted out, not realizing how seriously F'd up the fools before me had gotten it.

Anyway - back to something everyone here should be able to agree on; here's hoping the Sox wipe the floor with the Yanks! Enjoy the game.

---

Wow this is backass lol. First of all, "Obama went in with the intention to do the right thing" which ended up being wrong!! Maybe it wasn't the right thing then?? One could say that the constant criticism regarding the issue during the campaign was detrimental to our efforts. Maybe he should have further educated himself on the issue before making false accusations?

Now i will highlight this statement;

Quote:

---

And that, alone, is enough to satisfy people like me - knowing that the people in charge are examining things and adapting and learning what the best option is, instead of just declaring it Decider-style and then labelling anyone disagreeing or even questioning as assisting terrorism.

---

Are you kidding me? So Obama makes a decision and he did so after examining all issues and deciding the best option, but Bush's decision was clearly different? What makes you so certain Bush didn't examine the issues and come up with this conclusion, the same that apparently Obama has come up with, prior? And because he was apparently right, then wasn't attempts to give false and unjust criticism and demands to take a different course in fact "assisting terrorism"? I like my leaders to be right the first time as much as possible. I'm not critiquing Obama here, i'm critiquing your logic into saying his style of leadership was right and Bush's was wrong, on this issue that is.

Well, that's partially fair - some of my attitude is over-the-top, Bush was always wrong, ANYONE else will be better. That perhaps may be a bit unfair. I'm sure that administration couldn't have done everything wrong. :)

I guess my realistic stance is more of feeling that this is administration we can trust to make good decisions, since the last one could not. They're also starting with a clean slate, so there's no reputation for uninformed, harmful decision making. Finally, they are communicative and open, instead of just giving everyone the finger and saying they know best. Those three factors are what make me potentially more friendly to this than when Bush espoused it.

That may obviously show a bias towards the more open, intellectual administration. But it's not like I developed that in a vacuum; the previous administration more than dug their own hole in eroding public confidence in their decision-making capabilities. If a majority of Americans feel that most likely, a majority of their moves may have been errors or had the wrong intent, of course they'll be more open to a second opinion - any second opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Oh my god. Out of 1200 ridiculously stupid, poor decisions the last administration made, they made ONE (1) move that might not have been the worst decision, and somehow this turns into a right-wing glee club? Give me a break.

for you guys jumping up and down and saying 'look! he's not infallible! He's not perfect! Mwaha-hah!' What did you think, we're all sheep? That we felt Obama was the Neo-esque, real life equivalent of The One, flying about DC and kung-fu-ing the place into shape in 110 days? Holy projected idealistic ignorance, Batman.

---

We wouldn't be jumping up and down about it if the media didn't make him out to be some sort of savior or the one. If he didn't get glorified so much pre-election then his backing on a simple campaign promise wouldn't matter as much to people. I still stand by what I posted earlier in this thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Interesting quote. Especially interesting considering who said it.

Ronald Reagan, supposed mesiah of the right wing.

---

yes same guy who said "the gov't doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them."

There are many great quotes from Reagan....and he wasn't all out conservative either....he was a previous liberal ya know........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Interesting quote. Especially interesting considering who said it.

Ronald Reagan, supposed mesiah of the right wing.

---

"As I said in China this spring, there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. There is no place for intolerance of dissent." - Newt Gingrich, 1997

"The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” - President Bush on UN Torture Victims Recognition Day 26 June 2003

"I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment." - President Bush in a memo from June 26, 2003 regarding UN Torture Victims Recognition Day

“Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law … Many have been detained, arrested, thrown in prison and subjected to torture by regimes that fail to understand that their habits of control will not serve them well in the long term.” - Statement by President Bush released by the White House on June 26, 2005

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Well, that's partially fair - some of my attitude is over-the-top, Bush was always wrong, ANYONE else will be better. That perhaps may be a bit unfair. I'm sure that administration couldn't have done everything wrong. :)

I guess my realistic stance is more of feeling that this is administration we can trust to make good decisions, since the last one could not. They're also starting with a clean slate, so there's no reputation for uninformed, harmful decision making. Finally, they are communicative and open, instead of just giving everyone the finger and saying they know best. Those three factors are what make me potentially more friendly to this than when Bush espoused it.

That may obviously show a bias towards the more open, intellectual administration. But it's not like I developed that in a vacuum; the previous administration more than dug their own hole in eroding public confidence in their decision-making capabilities. If a majority of Americans feel that most likely, a majority of their moves may have been errors or had the wrong intent, of course they'll be more open to a second opinion - any second opinion.

---

Very fair. I will agree with you 100% that I did not like the way the previous administration communicated with the public. There may be things that should be kept confidential and not explained which I'm fine with but they did do a poor job communicating almost everything. That we agree with. Where we disagree is in how many of the prior regimes decisions were "errors". Thus far the new president who initially had many opposing view points seems more and more to be siding with the prior regimes decisions rendering them in fact "correct' on many levels, at least for those who support Obama fully.

Some of the hysteria regarding "everything bush did was wrong" appears more and more to be the result of some of the media and liberals falsely demonizing (again if you buy everything Obama does as good) alot of the policy & programs largely for political reasons which they now are going to embrace under Obama. Now, don't get me wrong...bush did fu(k alot of shiite up....but again many of Obama's campaigns strong criticisms were towards programs he now apparently has chosen to endorse or keep in place.

My biggest concern and critique, is Obama and the democrats IMO correct assaults on Bush's growth of executive powers. We've never had an administrative branch with so much power. Of course, once taking office Obama has been a staunch defender of his rights to maintain that power. Kind of wanting cake and eating it too.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...bama_be_l.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/whi...ower-grab.html

Quote:

---

It's past time for Obama to address his apparent adoption of positions he formerly characterized as extremist, and his suddenly cooling commitment to transparency when it comes to embarrassing secrets left over from the Bush era.

---

Quote:

---

In the past few weeks, we've seen the Obama Justice Department make absurdly broad invocations of the state secrets privilege to protect Bush's spying programs from judicial review. We've seen the administration argue that foreign detainees -- as long as they are being held in Afghanistan rather than at Guantanamo -- can be imprisoned indefinitely without formal charges. We've seen how Obama, after staying out of the debate over accountability for torture and other unlawful legacies of the Bush administration, is now, apparently, taking sides by balking at requests from his own top legal advisers to release incriminating memos.

---

Quote:

---

"Preserving the President's general ability to block lawsuits alleging illegal conduct on the part of the President obviously enables Obama to invoke that power whenever there are allegations that he is breaking the law. The power to abduct people and put them in cages indefinitely without having to answer to anyone about what you're doing -- the power Obama is claiming he possesses in the Bagram case -- is obviously a potent authority that a typical President fighting a 'war' would instinctively want to wield. And Howard Fineman was likely correct when he told [MSNBC's Keith] Olbermann on Tuesday night that Obama is petrified of alienating the permanent intelligence and military establishments in Washington which might be alarmed by any attempt to abandon these vast powers, particularly where reversing course could raise the likelihood of prosecutions.

---

Quote:

---

The Obama Administration supports invoking Bush era state secrecy to protect executive order illegal wiretapping and domestic surveillance. Bob Egelko - San Francisco Chronicle:
"For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush - in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate... The dispute involves Walker's Jan. 5 order to allow plaintiffs who say the government illegally wiretapped their phones to read a classified surveillance document that could confirm the assertion and avoid dismissal of their suit. Lawyers for the Obama administration say the judge's decision "presents a clear-cut conflict between the court and the executive branch."

---

Obama, just like any and all other presidents who ran on a campaign, have all done the same thing. Made promises, and they will do their best to uphold them. Obama isn't intentionally going back on any of his promises. He is just getting more information now and handling it as well as he (thinks) he can. I believe Bush did the same. To believe that all presidental campaigns will be ran in full honesty is absurd. They can't seem weak or indecsive on decisions and thus must take stances (in Obama's case he was more anti-Bush then he was pro-liberalism in my mind) in order to become elected. Once elected, he can do whatever he needs/wants to do. Another example of everyone being fed the same b.s. by a politician to become elected. They all do it, so outcasting Obama isn't fair at all. But it's nice (as a conservative) to watch the Obama halo slowly disapear.

P.S. I don't mean that in a negative sense, I'm just annoyed with how much the media and liberal morons (not all liberals, just the one's i seem to keep meeting) would proclaim him the savior to all of America's problems. I hope he does a great job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Obama, just like any and all other presidents who ran on a campaign, have all done the same thing. Made promises, and they will do their best to uphold them. Obama isn't intentionally going back on any of his promises. He is just getting more information now and handling it as well as he (thinks) he can. I believe Bush did the same. To believe that all presidental campaigns will be ran in full honesty is absurd. They can't seem weak or indecsive on decisions and thus must take stances (in Obama's case he was more anti-Bush then he was pro-liberalism in my mind) in order to become elected. Once elected, he can do whatever he needs/wants to do. Another example of everyone being fed the same b.s. by a politician to become elected. They all do it, so outcasted Obama isn't fair at all. But it's nice (as a conservative) to watch the Obama halo slowly disapear.

P.S. I don't mean that in a negative sense, I'm just annoyed with how much the media and liberal morons (not all liberals, just the one's i seem to keep meeting) would proclaim him the savior to all of America's problems. I hope he does a great job

---

Its one thing to turn around on some of your campaign promises and its another to turn around on the entire theme of your candidacy. His stanch attacks on the negligent growth and abuse of executive powers and his now defense of them should be concerning as heck, even to Obama blind supporters. I happen to agree that our govt. has unprecedented powers and this is worrysome. Was everything he said simply a lie to get elected?

More imporantly, and something our country should wrestle with, was lying or greatly exaggerating...or being naive about the situation and speaking so affirmatively detrimental to our country's national security and image around the world?

An example....if Donald Trump or Bob Bernanke publicly said that they dislike some of the business practices by XXXX Corporation without fully knowing the situations involved, there would be negative consequences to the shareholders of that corporation. It also could be criminal. If a presidential candidate uses that pulpit, the media and his or her supporters to denounce things being done without full knowledge, is that detrimental to the country and possibly reckless? That statement goes for democrats and republicans alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Its one thing to turn around on some of your campaign promises and its another to turn around on the entire theme of your candidacy. His stanch attacks on the negligent growth and abuse of executive powers and his now defense of them should be concerning as heck, even to Obama blind supporters. I happen to agree that our govt. has unprecedented powers and this is worrysome. Was everything he said simply a lie to get elected?

More imporantly, and something our country should wrestle with, was lying or greatly exaggerating...or being naive about the situation and speaking so affirmatively detrimental to our country's national security and image around the world?

---

that's a little extreme, even to me.

I am not hurt by him lying (if you can call it that), i assumed he would. I figured this was very likely to happen, and all Republicans would get all in a huffy about it and take it too far....and democrats will continue to put all the blame on Bush....but no one is taking responsiblity for our country....it's in Obama's hands for the next four years regardless.....we just gotta accept that and support him...if you don't like, then make sure he isn't re-elected.

I just don't want Republicans to make the mistake of attacking Obama during his administration, it won't help us in regaining support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

that's a little extreme, even to me.

I am not hurt by him lying (if you can call it that), i assumed he would. I figured this was very likely to happen, and all Republicans would get all in a huffy about it and take it too far....and democrats will continue to put all the blame on Bush....but no one is taking responsiblity for our country....it's in Obama's hands for the next four years regardless.....we just gotta accept that and support him...if you don't like, then make sure he isn't re-elected.

I just don't want Republicans to make the mistake of attacking Obama during his administration, it won't help us in regaining support.

---

I agree with this...i'm not really trying to make this a partisan thing. I feel though when the democrats strongly critique some of the executive powers done under bush, call them crimes against humanity, heck one even compared them to pulpots and the like....and then once in office they endorse and defend those powers including wiretapping and war commissions, what kind of detriment did those verbal attacks cause? Were they reckless and simply political with no real desire to make those changes, or were they made without researching the issue which IMO could also be reckless and harmful.

The "crimes against humanity" aspect, as far as I've ever seen, has only really been said about the torture committed, which IS something that Barack Obama has made moves to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I agree with this...i'm not really trying to make this a partisan thing. I feel though when the democrats strongly critique some of the executive powers done under bush, call them crimes against humanity, heck one even compared them to pulpots and the like....and then once in office they endorse and defend those powers including wiretapping and war commissions, what kind of detriment did those verbal attacks cause? Were they reckless and simply political with no real desire to make those changes, or were they made without researching the issue which IMO could also be reckless and harmful.

---

then be the bigger man here. If someone shows signs of vast immaturity what do you do? do you enable that immaturity by attacking it and defending your views? or do you one up them and become better then them?

It's like if a five year old is misbehaving. Do you then misbehave as well? Or do you be the adult and rise above the situation. I see the Democrats acting like idiots as an opportunity to rise above them (pending what you said was factual). Believe me, I get your point. But we have an opportunity to rise above, but if we behave the same way, we will only stay in our vicious cycle with partisianship runs America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

then be the bigger man here. If someone shows signs of vast immaturity what do you do? do you enable that immaturity by attacking it and defending your views? or do you one up them and become better then them?

It's like if a five year old is misbehaving. Do you then misbehave as well? Or do you be the adult and rise above the situation. I see the Democrats acting like idiots as an opportunity to rise above them (pending what you said was factual). Believe me, I get your point. But we have an opportunity to rise above, but if we behave the same way, we will only stay in our vicious cycle with partisianship runs America.

---

oh i fully agree. I didn't realize we were going that route and discussing that issue lol. Republicans should in no way give the same discourse.

What i'm saying, is as a country I think we need to begin questioning whether some of the outlandish things that are said by public officials for political gain hurt our cause and the way we are viewed at home and abroad. It can't happen, because we've become so polarized if someone with a (D) says something and we're a democrat, it must be right, and visa versa if someone with an (R) says something for republicans. Was it in fact right, was it based purely on insighting the base for political gain, and were there any real supportive evidence to the claims? Primary winners, and those in Congressional leaders hold alout of clout, and when they make claims they should be based on fact and they should know what they are talking about.

Again, if Bob Bernanke says something negative about a particular company without knowing the facts, he'll be sued this afternoon about it. Why aren't our public officials held to the same standard, republicans and democrats alike. I suppose its because we the people are the shareholders...:rolleyes:

ya know..i apologize. i don't know wtf i mean or am trying to say right now. oh well, i'll leave this be.

[QUOTE=dickay;1294092]oh i fully agree. I didn't realize we were going that route and discussing that issue lol. Republicans should in no way give the same discourse. [QUOTE]

sorry didn't mean to go off topic....whoopsies

Quote:

---

What i'm saying, is as a country I think we need to begin questioning whether some of the outlandish things that are said by public officials for political gain hurt our cause and the way we are viewed at home and abroad. It can't happen, because we've become so polarized if someone with a (D) says something and we're a democrat, it must be right, and visa versa if someone with an (R) says something for republicans. Was it in fact right, was it based purely on insighting the base for political gain, and were there any real supportive evidence to the claims? Primary winners, and those in Congressional leaders hold alout of clout, and when they make claims they should be based on fact and they should know what they are talking about.

Again, if Bob Bernanke says something negative about a particular company without knowing the facts, he'll be sued this afternoon about it. Why aren't our public officials held to the same standard, republicans and democrats alike. I suppose its because we the people are the shareholders...:rolleyes:

ya know..i apologize. i don't know wtf i mean or am trying to say right now. oh well, i'll leave this be.

---

You are exactly right, the problem is that so few Americans take the time to investigate information that is their civic duty to do so. They tend to just believe everything at face value...a serious problem we have in this country.

Wanna know a current problem i am having today?

A city ran non for profit is here in Cape and I am forced to deal with a director who lets her politics dictate how she runs her business....and she is stuck in this middle management mindset of reaction....she is driving me insane. I should go under my venting thread to complain, but it would take longer then is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

We wouldn't be jumping up and down about it if the media didn't make him out to be some sort of savior or the one. If he didn't get glorified so much pre-election then his backing on a simple campaign promise wouldn't matter as much to people. I still stand by what I posted earlier in this thread

---

Sorry, but even with all the ridiculous Obamania, the right still holds the record for this. You had conservatives trying to put Reagan on the dime, for pete's sake (conveniently pushing off FDR, who is still about ten times the President Reagan was). And even now, you have Bush administration officials echoing the "if the President does it, that means it's not illegal" line.

If you're going to have people bordering on fanaticism, I'd rather have them in the street with a sign and a bullhorn than in the highest levels of each of the three branches of government, instituting their "faith-based" policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

We wouldn't be jumping up and down about it if the media didn't make him out to be some sort of savior or the one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oriole^

Sorry, but even with all the ridiculous Obamania, the right still holds the record for this. You had conservatives trying to put Reagan on the dime, for pete's sake (conveniently pushing off FDR, who is still about ten times the President Reagan was). And even now, you have Bush administration officials echoing the "if the President does it, that means it's not illegal" line.

If you're going to have people bordering on fanaticism, I'd rather have them in the street with a sign and a bullhorn than in the highest levels of each of the three branches of government, instituting their "faith-based" policy.

---

And not only that, but this constant "librul media" crap is just that, C R A P. The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

They've (those on the right) honestly believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. And amazingly enough, lots of folks now do believe it's true.

And if you really believe the coverage of Obama was slanted, quick, tell me how many can answer off the top of their heads without looking it up the name of an old pastor of Obama's from years ago versus how many can name ANY of the other Keating Five involved with McCain in that scandal, also from years ago? If it were slanted to Obama, we'd know all of McCain's scandals by heart and Obama's would be hard to recall. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'll guarantee you four or five times more folks can answer that first question off the top of their heads then the second.

Until those on the right stop with the ******** "librul media" I'll not stop with the more accurate "right wing media." Mine won't be quite true either, but it'll be closer to accurate than the liberal media ********.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

And not only that, but this constant "librul media" crap is just that, C R A P. The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

They've (those on the right) honestly believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. And amazingly enough, lots of folks now do believe it's true.

And if you really believe the coverage of Obama was slanted, quick, tell me how many can answer off the top of their heads without looking it up the name of an old pastor of Obama's from years ago versus how many can name ANY of the other Keating Five involved with McCain in that scandal, also from years ago? If it were slanted to Obama, we'd know all of McCain's scandals by heart and Obama's would be hard to recall. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'll guarantee you four or five times more folks can answer that first question off the top of their heads then the second.

Until those on the right stop with the ******** "librul media" I'll not stop with the more accurate "right wing media." Mine won't be quite true either, but it'll be closer to accurate than the liberal media ********.

---

lol, you are so off based on this one OFG. It may bother you that this is true, i understand that...but truly hope you open your eyes.

Here's a few facts;

I think at least ten of the large organization journalists (CNN, MSNBC, etc) have gone to work or were heavily courted by the Obama Administration. Interestingly enough, after getting the top job Obama felt it necessary to take care of the many that "helped" him get there in the mainstream media. I don't know all there names, but you could easily google this stuff. CNN's had a middle east correspondant go to work for Obama's staff as well as others including their SENIOR Political Producer!! Quite a few members of the Washington Post have taken senior positions in the DOT & I think it was the department of science? (didn't know there was even a department of science). An ABCNews political producer is now in Obama's Justice Department.

There are also many many quotes regarding the issue from people within the media who agree with the notion. Here's a few;

Quote:

---

“I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005

---

Quote:

---

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

---

Quote:

---

Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”
— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.

---

Quote:

---

“Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don’t drive pickup trucks, most of them don’t have guns, most of them don’t go to NASCAR, and every day we’re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.”
— ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry’s concession speech on November 3, 2004.

---

Quote:

---

“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.

---

Quote:

---

“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

---

Quote:

---

“Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’...”
“The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush’s justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate....The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.”
— From the February 10, 2004 edition of ABCNews.com’s “The Note,” a daily political memo assembled by ABC News political director Mark Halperin and his staff.

---

Quote:

---

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

---

of course that can go on and on and on...

and if none of those are enough, there's always wikipedia who brings up many studies on the issue. Of course, wikipedia is only believable though when it suits ones arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_b..._United_States

Quote:

---

ABC News political director Mark Halperin stated that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views, and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

---

Quote:

---

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]

---

Quote:

---

Studies finding liberal bias in the media are not limited to studies of print media. A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN.[17] These findings concerning liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN[18] – are echoed throughout the academic literature.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

And not only that, but this constant "librul media" crap is just that, C R A P. The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

They've (those on the right) honestly believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. And amazingly enough, lots of folks now do believe it's true.

And if you really believe the coverage of Obama was slanted, quick, tell me how many can answer off the top of their heads without looking it up the name of an old pastor of Obama's from years ago versus how many can name ANY of the other Keating Five involved with McCain in that scandal, also from years ago? If it were slanted to Obama, we'd know all of McCain's scandals by heart and Obama's would be hard to recall. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'll guarantee you four or five times more folks can answer that first question off the top of their heads then the second.

Until those on the right stop with the ******** "librul media" I'll not stop with the more accurate "right wing media." Mine won't be quite true either, but it'll be closer to accurate than the liberal media ********.

---

When I state liberal media. I am basing this on what I have SEEN. not what I have heard. This past election, my gf and I followed more of it on the news then either of us had every paid attention to before. We cared and wanted to make the best informed decision that we could...it's our civic duty.

She is pretty liberal, i am pretty conservative. We would watch as much as we could from Fox news to CNN to MSNBC. The only program that had conservatives with shows was FOX, and I can admit, they were over the top, even for my liking. but CNN, MSNBC, etc....basically all the other (in our area) channels 49-55 are all incredibly biased liberally. It was constant attacks toward McCain....the so called "Republican" speakers on there never were allowed to get a word in edge wise...or...they weren't Republicans by heart. Everything I saw just made me mad at the program I was watching not because of the view, but because it didn't seem like Republicans were being given a fair shot....On Fox news it was the same problem, only in the other direction. Even Alyssa would admit what she was watching wasn't fair....and that girl HATES Bush, and all other conservatives.

Right wing, left wing, whatever it may be. Just because a program is owned by a conservative, doesn't mean that is the way the program will be ran.....it has nothing to do with personal political beliefs when you own it....it's about cash...simple...and if bashing Bush gets you ratings and sponorships...and you are on a board of directors who are looking out for themselves....who cares what they say? This is why we have so much terrible television programming....because people eat it up. Everything from the Hills to following the Kardashians (only know of that show because alyssa made me watch it last night...omg it was terrible) to the crap on QVC to MTV's attempts to entertain society....as a network owner, do you really care what is making you money so long as it brings in viewers? that's why you appoint studio heads to run it.

And to follow up, your point OFG took it really off topic. If you must reread my whole comment....i wasn't attacking Obama.....or liberal mindset. I was attacking the citizens that allow a media group to help them make informed decisions....and seeminly base everything off of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

---

My father, is part of owner of (now over) 45 newspapers throughout America:

Missouri

* Southeast Missourian - Cape Girardeau
* Cassville Democrat - Cassville
* Daily Statesman - Dexter
* Daily Dunklin Democrat - Kennett
* The Marshall Democrat News - Marshall
* Nevada Daily Mail - Nevada
* Daily American Republic - Poplar Bluff
* Standard Democrat - Sikeston
* Democrat Argus - Caruthersville
* North Stoddard Countian - Advance/Bloomfield
* Scott County Signal - Chaffee
* The Concordian - Concordia
* Prospect News - Doniphan
* Delta News Citizen - Malden/Campbell
* Banner Press - Marble Hill
* Missourian News - Portageville
* Puxico Press - Puxico
* Steele Enterprise - Steele
* South Missourian News - Thayer

Arkansas

* Courier News - Blytheville
* Lovely County Citizen - Eureka Springs
* Carroll County News - Eureka Springs/Berryville/Holiday Island
* Northeast Arkansas Town Crier - Manila
* Tri-City Tribune - Marked Tree
* Piggott Times - Piggott
* Clay County Democrat - Rector
* Trumann Democrat - Trumann
* Osceola Times - Osceola
* The News - Salem

Tennessee

* State Gazette - Dyersburg
* Times-Gazette - Shelbyville
* Marshall County Tribune - Lewisburg

Indiana

* Banner Graphic - Greencastle
* Brazil Times - Brazil
* Greene County Daily World - Linton/Bloomfield

Iowa

* Daily Sentinel - Le Mars
* Chronicle Times - Cherokee
* Storm Lake Pilot Tribune - Storm Lake
* The Daily Reporter - Spencer
* Dickinson County News - Spirit Lake
* Sioux Valley News - Anthon
* Kingsley News/Times - Kingsley

Kansas

* The Fort Scott Tribune - Fort Scott

Nebraska

* McCook Gazette - McCook

Idaho

* Mountain Home News - Mountain Home

Each one is considered a democratic newspaper...hell like ten of them have it in their name. My father is Republican, as well the other three people on the Executive Board that owns all of these are as well. Just because they own them and are Republican doesn't mean they aren't ran with a liberal bias.

Rust Communications owns newspapers in small rural towns where the guys are those hillbillies with guns, anti-abortion, former KKK members still exist. but the papers are ran very liberally.

I sent my dad an email this morning:

Are you kidding? Over 80 per cent of working journalists, when asked of their political leanings, say they consider themselves liberal or progressive. That happens for many reasons...especially college and j-school profs who are traditionally liberal. Most media ownership is conservative.

________________________________________
From: Jeffrey Lage
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:38:11 -0500
To: "Lage, Wally"

Do you believe the media as a whole is liberally slanted?

Jeffrey Lage
Consultative Marketing Group


You work hard for your time and money; we work hard so you have plenty of both.

www.cmgcomplete.com

Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.