Anti-Obama Media Hatefest / McCain Lovefest Continues Apace

[Troubadour]

Obama: Designated Media Target

A few months ago I began noticing something rather startling - the media were seemingly fishing for excuses to report negatively about Barack Obama. If he made a mistake, no matter how insignificant, it would be the top headline on every major news media outlet; but if he did something overwhelmingly right and profound, they would zoom in on the tiniest, most insignificant, or even completely made-up flaw and do everything in their power to avoid reporting the salient points of what he was doing.

If tens of thousands cheer and six boo, the headline is that he was heckled; if he's five points ahead in a poll, the headline is that his lead is not bigger, and that he's "in trouble" with some demographic that overwhelmingly supports him; and as always, every bold move he makes is described in hysterically, desperately hopeful tones as having the potential to send his campaign careening off a cliff, with no mention of what is actually accomplished, and the tremendous positive potential barely mentioned at all.

In fact, not only is he roundly condemned for everything under all possible conditions, but in some cases is condemned on mutually exclusive terms. He is condemned for not going somewhere, then codemned for going. He is falsely condemned for not doing something that he actually did, then condemned for pointing out that he did, as if correcting Republican media lies is some form of blasphemy. He is lampooned as a foolish and ridiculous failure, and a...globally popular, beloved celebrity? He is derided as an inexperienced, naive, spineless, and unknowledgeable child and...a snooty, elitist, arrogant freak who dares to inspire tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Germans to turn out waving American flags? In other words, how dare he contradict the media's "narrative"?

Even the rare instances where coverage is more positive than negative are always backhanded, full of innuendos portraying him as some kind of awful person who just happens to have done something partially right. And these are not the editorial / opinion pages, but the headlines and front pages of these newspapers, magazines, and websites.

McCain: The Golden Child, Untouchable and Sacred

Compare this with heroic hero and patriotic patriot maverick John McCain, whose resume includes such stunning accomplishments as being almost dead last in his class at the Naval Academy, being captured in Vietnam, leaving his wheelchair-bound wife for a hot young heiress after said wife took care of their children alone while he was imprisoned, hobnobbing with the Keating 5, bragging about how much he loves George W. Bush's approach to governance, and now polluting the airwaves with outright lies, irrelevancies, and attempts to portray his opponent as the Anti-Christ! (ROFLMAO!). No issue ads in sight, just filth. So what does our glorious Republican-owned fifth wheel- err, excuse me, "Fourth Estate" - have to say about this incredible heroicky patrioticky, wheelchair-bound-wife-abandoningy mavericky maverick? Well, visit McCain's campaign website and you'll get the general idea of what his media coverage has been like.

If he doesn't know what continent a major country is, that's okay - he's just proving he's "one of the people." If he doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia while proclaiming himself an Iraq expert, well that's just to be expected, because he's more of a "hands-off" type of leader, who deals more with overall leadership and stuff. If he's in the cheese aisle of a supermarket, and drawing barely-curious glances from a handful of shoppers while Barack Obama is in Berlin making the world love America again, well he's clearly "getting in touch with the average American" while Obama is "off on some snooty elitist tourist jaunt."

See, the media is divided into two camps: Those out to serve Republicans explicitly, and those who serve Republicans by default because they believe "fairness" demands that reality's liberal bias must be corrected for. If the media went back to simply reporting the facts, it would be Democratic landslide after landslide, and Republicans would scream, and shout, and whine, and probably murder people in outrage (like the terrorist attack on the Unitarian church) at the "librul media bias." But because actual journalism would put punditry out of work, it simply can't be allowed to exist anymore. We must provide media welfare for Republicans! Even the most crazy, whacked-out Republican nutjobs on the planet have to be treated as if their loony ravings and inchoate lies are rational arguments worthy of consideration, and even the most obvious facts and common sense policies have to be treated with contempt if they are biased against nonsense.

But the beautiful part is that it doesn't matter anymore. Part of the reason the Republican media is so desperate to slander and destroy Obama is that he is beyond their control. He does not kowtow to their made-up BS, or internalize the deranged Orwellian framing they try to concoct on behalf of their paycheck guarantors. They decided in the primary that he would lose to Hillary Clinton, but he failed to obey their narrative, and now they're enraged and terrified. What would happen to the media with a president who doesn't need their help to be popular? A president who doesn't need their permission to succeed? A man who is, in fact, already regarded as an American icon despite their best efforts to destroy him? They're pissing themselves right along with the Republican oligarchs that dictate their content. And it doesn't matter one bit what shenanigans they resort to, because the fact remains Obama is already leading America, and McCain is a sad joke reduced to jealously portraying that fact as a negative.

Only a Republican would mock hope and leadership. Only a Republican would see that as the "Mark of the Beast" after supporting eight years of pure evil. And the American people are sick of those idiots beyond words. But, of course, we can trust the "librul media" will portray anything less than victories in every single race of the election as a stunning defeat of Democrats.

[william the wierd]

Obama will win (be tagged "it") just in time to preside over the biggest economic downturn since the 1780s (made the 30s look prosperous) the liberal media tries to save the left from itself and is denounced for doing so. Thank you, sir you have made my day.

[ilikegw]

There's a republican media???? Obama is hated??? McCain is loved?!?! What planet am I on??

[Stoner]

There's a republican media???? Obama is hated??? McCain is loved?!?! What planet am I on??

I was thinking the same thing. Where do I find this "Republican media?"

The media is all over Obama like a fat boy on cake. NBC, ABC and CBS have their heads so far up his ass the water on Obama's knee could quench their thirst for weeks.

[Troubadour]

Obama will win (be tagged "it") just in time to preside over the biggest economic downturn since the 1780s (made the 30s look prosperous)

And not a minute too soon. Only a man of Obama's immense talent and moral caliber could lift this country up from the aftermath of Republican dictatorship.

the liberal media tries to save the left from itself and is denounced for doing so.

Ah, I see. Starting with the assumption that Republicans cannot be at fault nor Democrats fail to be, you deduce that the "liberal media" (a fictional bogeyman invented by Rush Limbaugh) is being McCain's 24-hour Lewinsky as part of a fiendish plot to save Obama from the burdens of a presidency in troubled times. Nice logic, Spock.

[Troubadour]

There's a republican media?

Congratulations on emerging from your 28-year coma. Things are a little different these days - i.e., a lot more Republican, authoritarian, and stupid (but I repeat myself).

Obama is hated??? McCain is loved?!?!

No, the media doesn't hate Obama - they just can't allow him to become president, because (a) they're owned by Republicans, and (b) he doesn't need them. Nor do they love McCain - he's just a Republican, and he very much does need them.

What planet am I on??

Depends who you ask. As far as I can tell, you're here...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/STKPOD/stk200102s.jpg

But if you ask a Republican, you might get different answers...

http://jse.blogg.no/images/world_map_g_1153237884.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

Obama: Designated Media Target

A few months ago I began noticing something rather startling - the media were seemingly fishing for excuses to report negatively about Barack Obama.

where are earth are you watching the news....

[IndieVisible]

I was thinking the same thing. Where do I find this "Republican media?"

The media is all over Obama like a fat boy on cake. NBC, ABC and CBS have their heads so far up his ass the water on Obama's knee could quench their thirst for weeks.

I can't think of one after Fox news. But the media is not as hot for Obama as they were when he first started out. Now it's like, ok, but say some thing new. McCain is just fun to point out the blunders. SNL would have a lot of material on both of these guys just wait and see.

[Troubadour]

I was thinking the same thing. Where do I find this "Republican media?"

I'm glad you asked. There's a miraculous new invention called television - John McCain recently heard about it and has been singing its praises. Anyway, what you do is you turn it on, and change the channel until you get to someone in formal attire talking into the camera with a three- or four-letter acronym graphic in one corner of the screen. Another format is the newspaper or news magazine, where words are printed on leaves of pulp or glossy paper - not as popular with Republicans as television, of course, since it involves reading, but still a prodigious venue. Least popular of all but still significant is the internet, where Average Joe Republican can sit back, relax, and explain his learned monosyllabic theories about Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and everyone else he's disliked since 3rd grade when one (or all) of them kicked his ass in a fight he started.

The media is all over Obama like a fat boy on cake. NBC, ABC and CBS have their heads so far up his ass the water on Obama's knee could quench their thirst for weeks.

The media is a groveling Republican catamite whose petty, Rove-approved editor/censors will not allow any photograph of Obama that isn't handpicked to look bad, let alone acknowledgements that his campaign has inspired people all over America and the world. And God forbid actual stories that reflect positively - that would be "biased." Bringing out hundreds of thousands of American-flag-waving Germans cannot be called the triumph it is for Americans in general, because that would "unfairly" state a fact that negatively affects McCain. No, it has to be characterized as "arrogant," and "snooty," or "irrelevant," or even harmful (yes, HARMFUL!) to America through some psychotic right-wing chain of bitter hatriot logic, and all the while the media desperately wishing it would backfire somehow, talking endlessly about all the ways it might, however improbable. Obama is such a stellar candidate and a great leader, and McCain such a lowlife, that they can't report honestly on this election without destroying any chance McCain has. So they don't - they put McCain on media welfare, and make him off-limits to criticism while hammering every word and gesture out of Obama.

[ilikegw]

where are earth are you watching the news....

I was wondering the same thing. Then he posts some stupid map with idiotic terms for the countries and says it's a Republican's map?? I'm still waiting to see where McCain is loved.

[Troubadour]

where (on) earth are you watching the news....

Obviously the United States, though I'm sure it's the same story in Rupert-land (the Commonwealth countries). Where on Mars are you watching the news, that this is news to you?

[ilikegw]

Ok, really, are you from another planet? Am I being punked?

[Troubadour]

I'm still waiting to see where McCain is loved.

They almost never criticize him, no matter what he says or does. When they say Obama's "in trouble" for losing 2% (less than MoE) of a demographic he's 17% ahead in, I'd say giving McCain a pass for absolutely everything is...a bit biased. They don't ask why McCain's behind, they ask why Obama isn't further ahead. They don't ask McCain why he's losing all these demographics - they demand to know why Obama doesn't have them even stronger, and basically act like his campaign is collapsing if they move downward at all. If Obama saved a bunch of children from a burning house, the media would be outside with a stopwatch, and the headline would be "Obama fails to beat rescue record." And on election day, after his overwhelming victory, the headlines will be "West Virginians resoundingly reject Obama!" The media is a sniveling Republican tool, and it's fortunate for this country we finally have a leader who isn't its punk.

BTW, nice pic on your sig line. You do know that inflating your tires can save several percent on gas, didn't you? Didn't you? Oops, you didn't, did you? See, Obama's already saving you money, and you're ridiculing him for it. Republicans are such amazing creatures.

[ilikegw]

They almost never criticize him, no matter what he says or does. When they say Obama's "in trouble" for losing 2% (less than MoE) of a demographic he's 17% ahead in, I'd say giving McCain a pass for absolutely everything is...a bit biased. They don't ask why McCain's behind, they ask why Obama isn't further ahead. They don't ask McCain why he's losing all these demographics - they demand to know why Obama doesn't have them even stronger, and basically act like his campaign is collapsing if they move downward at all. If Obama saved a bunch of children from a burning house, the media would be outside with a stopwatch, and the headline would be "Obama fails to beat rescue record." And on election day, after his overwhelming victory, the headlines will be "West Virginians resoundingly reject Obama!" The media is a sniveling Republican tool, and it's fortunate for this country we finally have a leader who isn't its punk.

Ok, really, are you from another planet? Am I being punked? :help:

[Troubadour]

Ok, really, are you from another planet?

Do your thoughts usually turn to astronomy when cornered?

Am I being punked? :help:

I have no idea how you came to the conclusions you did, aside from the fact that the "liberal media" seems to spend so much time calling itself that. All I can do is point out the facts, and hope people aren't too defensive to recognize their mistakes. The media is vapidly, absurdly, ridiculously Republican - owned body and soul by the GOP, and most Democrats have to scrape by on their hands and knees to even have a chance in that environment.

[PostmodernProphet]

Obviously the United States, though I'm sure it's the same story in Rupert-land (the Commonwealth countries). Where on Mars are you watching the news, that this is news to you?

well I could only think of a couple of options....one, that you were watching different news than the rest of us, or two, that you weren't very perceptive....I was giving you the benefit of the doubt....

[webwarrior]

TroubadourI have no idea how you came to the conclusions you didNeither did he, it's called a spin job, you know, change the topic..it's a defense tactic the neocons use to thwart the truth.
Just keep posting the facts and stay above the childish games, it's hard to do with this many spindoctors though..

[Troubadour]

well I could only think of a couple of options...

Brainwashing does that.

one, that you were watching different news than the rest of us

Well, certainly more of it. If all you watch is propaganda, you would probably believe all but the most head-explodingly extreme parts are normal. That's how propaganda works.

or two, that you weren't very perceptive...

Or, perhaps, not as receptive to having Republican messages hammered into my head by constant media repetition. Having a mind, one builds up an immunity.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt....

No, you were avoiding confrontation because your beliefs are indefensible.

Neither did he, it's called a spin job, you know, change the topic..it's a defense tactic the neocons use to thwart the truth.

Yes, they're liars.

Just keep posting the facts and stay above the childish games, it's hard to do with this many spindoctors though..

Eh - one zombie, two zombie, three zombie, four. What's the difference? You could put some of these folks in a Thriller video. Not exactly the sort I'd call "doctors," even in the negative sense.

[PostmodernProphet]

Having a mind, one builds up an immunity.

how would you know?......

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thanks for the laughs Troubador..... ;)

I see you switched to comedic political commentary instead of factual?

[Buck Laser]

Troubador, thank you so much for giving some of the inmates here just a little glimpse of reality! They don't get out a whole lot, and talk only to their own kind, so it's nice for them to get out of the cave once in a while.

I've been hearing this "liberal media" mantra from the same old people for something like the last forty years or so. Meanwhile, I have to go out of my way to find even a few news sources that are in fact liberal, and provide some news and coverage of the things that Obama actually says and does instead of the bites and snippiets and McCain camp reactions.

If any one of you McCainiacs doubts that, just take a list at the cockamamie stories you guys have been thrashing: John Edwards's "love child," Michelle Obama's "hatred," flag pins, Obama's "messianic" fervor, a "tire pressure gauge" energy policy. Give us a friggin' break, people! If you and your press gurus can't come up with any slime more significant than that, you need to get some smarter people to advise you.

Can't you find something real to talk about?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I can find something very real to talk about, but none of the partisans want to talk about it since its an evil they all share equally.....

Partisanship, and its inherant evil.

[ilikegw]

Brainwashing does that.



Well, certainly more of it. If all you watch is propaganda, you would probably believe all but the most head-explodingly extreme parts are normal. That's how propaganda works.



Or, perhaps, not as receptive to having Republican messages hammered into my head by constant media repetition. Having a mind, one builds up an immunity.



No, you were avoiding confrontation because your beliefs are indefensible.



Yes, they're liars.



Eh - one zombie, two zombie, three zombie, four. What's the difference? You could put some of these folks in a Thriller video. Not exactly the sort I'd call "doctors," even in the negative sense.
:shame:

[Troubadour]

how would you know?......

Unless you're talking to yourself, that's a self-answering question.

Thanks for the laughs Troubador...

http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/01/ohwalnuts_mccain.jpg

Welcome.


I see you switched to comedic political commentary instead of factual?

No, I just enjoy laughing at the...

http://www.thehookandlateral.com/images/coaches/wingnut.jpg

...conservative types, and their parallel universe ravings about a "librul media" that doesn't exist. It used to be "Jew-run media," but apparently that line stopped working sometime around 1941 - who knows why. Of course, they only learned to stop saying it publicly about 30 years later. Not that most of them have ever evolved beyond seeing every single person, group, object, symbol, and idea they dislike as one great big delirious blur. Most of them don't even know there was a transition from Red paranoia to terrorism paranoia - they just unconsciously slipped into using different nouns. You can occasionally see them at right-wing Nuremberg-style hate rallies denouncing liberal business owners as "Communists" and pacifist peace protesters as "terrorists."

Troubador, thank you so much for giving some of the inmates here just a little glimpse of reality! They don't get out a whole lot, and talk only to their own kind, so it's nice for them to get out of the cave once in a while.

Oh, I'm a great cave-diver. I love plumbing the dim, murky depths of (sub)humanity for Morlocks, C.H.U.D.s, Rodents of Unusual Size, and Republicans (but I repeat myself).

I've been hearing this "liberal media" mantra from the same old people for something like the last forty years or so. Meanwhile, I have to go out of my way to find even a few news sources that are in fact liberal, and provide some news and coverage of the things that Obama actually says and does instead of the bites and snippiets and McCain camp reactions.

I haven't seen any large-scale news sources per se that I would call "liberal." There are liberal blogs that occasionally uncover something, some liberal to moderate commentators, and a handful of mid-sized newspapers that aren't part of the GOP's Nazi Fudge Factory, but beyond that this might as well be China.

Can't (they) find something real to talk about?

They're not talking at all. They're pushing buttons trying to make people give them what they want, like their usual psychotic child selves. "Pleeeeeease? Lemme have it?" No. "I'll be your friend!" No. "I'll say you're a child molester if you don't!" F*ck off. "I'll KILL you! ARRRRGH! GIMME! GIMMEGIMMEGIMMEGIMME#$%^&...."

http://www.lazydork.com/movies/frightnight.jpg

:shame:

Ah, denial. You follow your Glorious Leader's example well. Why think when you can just ignore any fact that endangers your opinions?

[ECW]

If any one of you McCainiacs doubts that, just take a list at the cockamamie stories you guys have been thrashing: John Edwards's "love child," Michelle Obama's "hatred," flag pins, Obama's "messianic" fervor, a "tire pressure gauge" energy policy. Give us a friggin' break, people! If you and your press gurus can't come up with any slime more significant than that, you need to get some smarter people to advise you.

Can't you find something real to talk about?

No, they cannot. They cannot talk about McCain's plan to get out of Iraq because he doesn't have one. They can't talk about health care because the McCain plan is the same as the Bush plan: don't get sick. They cannot talk about the mortgage crisis because McCain and half of his staff is to blame for most of the worst parts of it. They cannot tell us when the economy will get better because they don't know how the fuck it got so bad in the first place.

When the talking heads of their major network will not talk about anything else except tabloid news, you know they do not have anything else.

Troubadour hit a homer on this one and the rightwingers are trying to tell us it's football season now so it doesn't count.

[Buck Laser]

Troubadour hit a homer on this one and the rightwingers are trying to tell us it's football season now so it doesn't count.

Bingo! The basic response from the conservatives on this thread has been "No it isn't." They've been taught to believe that there is such a thing as "liberal media" so unquestioningly that they think Fox News, World Net Daily and Rush Limbaugh are actually liberals masquerading as conservatives. There are actually some fairly respectable conservative thinkers out there who write analyses all the time. I get the feeling though that our conservative inmates are probably reading impaired. Ever note how few respond to the thoughtful liberal posts that appear here with some regularity?

It's just easier to talk about Obama's paster, Edwards's affair and flag burning. I should post more pieces here from The Nation, The American Prospect, and some of the various bloggers and columnists that I read, but frankly I think so many heads would explode that we'd all slip and fall.

Before I leave the subject, I ought to explain to the inmates that there are in fact quite a number of moderately liberal columnists--people like Paul Krugman, Leonard Pitts, any number of people who write for The Nation, appearing in the very same media that present neocons like William Kristol and others. There's actually a very wide range of views out there, and I enjoy reading what the conservatives have to say. It's really too bad that our kids seem to get their "ideas" from right wing funny books.

Even the telly has one or two sorta lefties--I do enjoy Keith Olbermann's rants. He reminds me of myself when I was a pastor preaching about civil rights and equality. Unfortunately, not all those memories are happy. I paid some pretty heavy dues back then.

[Interrested]

I was thinking the same thing. Where do I find this "Republican media?"

The media is all over Obama like a fat boy on cake. NBC, ABC and CBS have their heads so far up his ass the water on Obama's knee could quench their thirst for weeks.

Well said. This is ridiculous - The entire "Obama Craze" is propelled by the media.

[aaronssongs]

Unless you're talking to yourself, that's a self-answering question.



http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/01/ohwalnuts_mccain.jpg

Welcome.



No, I just enjoy laughing at the...

http://www.thehookandlateral.com/images/coaches/wingnut.jpg

...conservative types, and their parallel universe ravings about a "librul media" that doesn't exist. It used to be "Jew-run media," but apparently that line stopped working sometime around 1941 - who knows why. Of course, they only learned to stop saying it publicly about 30 years later. Not that most of them have ever evolved beyond seeing every single person, group, object, symbol, and idea they dislike as one great big delirious blur. Most of them don't even know there was a transition from Red paranoia to terrorism paranoia - they just unconsciously slipped into using different nouns. You can occasionally see them at right-wing Nuremberg-style hate rallies denouncing liberal business owners as "Communists" and pacifist peace protesters as "terrorists."



Oh, I'm a great cave-diver. I love plumbing the dim, murky depths of (sub)humanity for Morlocks, C.H.U.D.s, Rodents of Unusual Size, and Republicans (but I repeat myself).



I haven't seen any large-scale news sources per se that I would call "liberal." There are liberal blogs that occasionally uncover something, some liberal to moderate commentators, and a handful of mid-sized newspapers that aren't part of the GOP's Nazi Fudge Factory, but beyond that this might as well be China.



They're not talking at all. They're pushing buttons trying to make people give them what they want, like their usual psychotic child selves. "Pleeeeeease? Lemme have it?" No. "I'll be your friend!" No. "I'll say you're a child molester if you don't!" F*ck off. "I'll KILL you! ARRRRGH! GIMME! GIMMEGIMMEGIMMEGIMME#$%^&...."

http://www.lazydork.com/movies/frightnight.jpg



Ah, denial. You follow your Glorious Leader's example well. Why think when you can just ignore any fact that endangers your opinions?

Bravo. Well-said.

[4Reaganomics]

In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall, compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain. The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11912.html

[aaronssongs]

"the sound of muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful in the world". - Barack Hussein Obama Jr.


Lies and innuendo

[mj278]

The media does lean to the left, and there have been studies that show this. As for thinking that the media is attacking Obama, I really don't know where you are getting this from. Do you actually read the headlines? Or watch the news? Maybe they are just starting to actually treat him as a presidential candidate, and not a celebrity.

[ECW]

The media does lean to the left, and there have been studies that show this. As for thinking that the media is attacking Obama, I really don't know where you are getting this from. Do you actually read the headlines? Or watch the news? Maybe they are just starting to actually treat him as a presidential candidate, and not a celebrity.

I watch a number of different outlets almost every day and Troubadour hit it on the head.

The nonsense that passed for critical "issues" about Obama was stunning and McCain was given pass after pass after pass by the same reporters and commentators. In fact, as Buck mentioned, only Olbermann was ballsy enough to bring out the BS flag and wave it around. Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC & PBS all gave McCain the softball treatment on every issue that they ripped Obama on and nobody said, "Boo" hoping no one would notice. Well, I did and so did Troubadour. He just said it better and with more passion than I would have.

[PostmodernProphet]

the only time the media attacked Obama was when the media was supporting Clinton instead of Obama.....

[mj278]

The nonsense that passed for critical "issues" about Obama was stunning

I can see your point here somewhat.

and McCain was given pass after pass after pass by the same reporters and commentators.

But this I don't get. Do you have any examples maybe?

In fact, as Buck mentioned, only Olbermann was ballsy enough to bring out the BS flag and wave it around. Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC & PBS all gave McCain the softball treatment on every issue that they ripped Obama on and nobody said, "Boo" hoping no one would notice. Well, I did and so did Troubadour. He just said it better and with more passion than I would have.

I don't consider Olberman news. He is the left's version of OReily and I don't really like either of them. What issues did they do this with?

[Troubadour]

Well said. This is ridiculous - The entire "Obama Craze" is propelled by the media.

So says the media.

[url]In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall

Roughly the percentage who believe UFOs are alien spacecraft.

compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain.

The media's blatantly, insanely pro-McCain bias has indeed been rather shocking. Normally one would expect a younger, smarter, more talented, more eloquent, better-looking, and more charismatic leader to be favored, but this isn't exactly a "free press" we're dealing with.


The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month.

Far less than the increase in media stories claiming pro-Obama media bias.

The media does lean to the left

Again, another claim OF the media, repeated ad nauseum while they spew attacks on Obama and gingerly cradle McCain like Baby Jesus. Every single campaign headline of the Summer:

1.(noun) Could Hurt / Is Hurting / Will Hurt Obama With (demographic).
2. Obama's (dismissive term for event, decision, or statement) Fails to (verb).
3. Obama in Trouble with (demographic).
4. McCain Does/Is/Will Do (active-voice verb, laudatory adjective, heroic plan).

There's your "librul media."

and there have been studies that show this.

Fake studies by conservative groups, reported constantly by...the media. It doesn't even matter that they're debunked within hours of being published - they just churn them out like sausages, and most "news" organizations use weasel words in covering them to avoid having to issue retractions.

As for thinking that the media is attacking Obama, I really don't know where you are getting this from.

Conservatives are perfectly aware of their media's overwhelming bias against Obama, but are no longer confident that it can overcome his talents and the political mood of the country. So, they shriek louder, lie more prodigiously, and occasionally shoot up a church when their frustration boils over.

Do you actually read the headlines? Or watch the news? Maybe they are just starting to actually treat him as a presidential candidate, and not a celebrity.

They are treating him like Goldstein in 1984 - the object of a Two Minute Hate session that goes on 24/7. He is running the most positive, visionary, substantive, and politically astute campaign in a generation, and there would be no question of his landslide victory if the media allowed a single glimpse of that to slip through its hamfisted Republican phalanx.

the only time the media attacked Obama was when the media was supporting Clinton instead of Obama.....

They supported Clinton because they were desperate to avoid Obama, and now we're seeing just how desperate. He communicates directly with the American people without their permission or mediation, which makes them superfluous and disadvantaged. Both the directives from Republican HQ to corporate ownership and the self-interest of pundits align against him, and he's still stronger.

[mj278]

Fake studies by conservative groups, reported constantly by...the media. It doesn't even matter that they're debunked within hours of being published - they just churn them out like sausages, and most "news" organizations use weasel words in covering them to avoid having to issue retractions.

When did Harvard become a conservative group?
http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

And I said it leans to the left, which it does. You just choose to focus on the little bit of "negativity" Obama is getting. But it isn't even negative, the media is expected to vet the candidates. They aren't supposed to just praise them.

And isn't it convenient that the media shouted over the pro military bias in the news, but they fail to ever report their own liberal leanings. They dare not talk about such things, just as they never mention the studies that show their anti-gun bias.

And to dismiss a study because it is done by a group that leans to the right is foolish. I don't dismiss studies just because they are done by groups that lean to the left. One should be willing to look at both ends of the spectrum.

Conservatives are perfectly aware of their media's overwhelming bias against Obama, but are no longer confident that it can overcome his talents and the political mood of the country. So, they shriek louder, lie more prodigiously, and occasionally shoot up a church when their frustration boils over.

If you are referring to people like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush, then I somewhat agree with you here. But I don't consider them a good source for news either.

They are treating him like Goldstein in 1984 - the object of a Two Minute Hate session that goes on 24/7.

I was 6 in 1984, so I wouldn't know.

[Troubadour]

When did Harvard become a conservative group?
http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

That only covers the primaries. A newer study covering the general election found strong anti-Obama bias:

http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm

And this study understates the bias because it doesn't take into account whether a negative story is actually warranted by the facts or is just arbitrary spin. The enormous, vast majority of negative coverage of Obama is of the latter category, while negative stories of McCain (difficult to find as they are) tend to be excruciatingly softened.


And I said it leans to the left, which it does.

No, it doesn't - even your own source doesn't indicate that. And it doesn't even "lean" to the right - it is out and out politically conservative, and reflects that bias in the overwhelming majority of coverage on virtually every subject of national interest.

You just choose to focus on the little bit of "negativity" Obama is getting. But it isn't even negative, the media is expected to vet the candidates. They aren't supposed to just praise them.

They're not "vetting" anything, they're spastically slandering Obama's every word, move, and hypothetical move while giving McCain a blank check. No attack is too petty, deranged, or overused. They are Swiftboating him, serving as a proxy campaign for McCain not limited by fundraising laws.

And isn't it convenient that the media shouted over the pro military bias in the news, but they fail to ever report their own liberal leanings.

The media has never given any serious attention to its own pro-military bias, and they constantly talk about the alleged, nonexistent liberal leanings of the media. They talk about it constantly because it's nonsense, and they are Republican shills.

They dare not talk about such things, just as they never mention the studies that show their anti-gun bias.

Only a minority are passionate about guns one way or the other - certainly not including Republican leaders who only use it as an occasional wedge issue - so my guess is that just reflects the urban pedigree of most national news organizations.

And to dismiss a study because it is done by a group that leans to the right is foolish.

No, it's quite rational. The right lies constantly. When a consevative organization has exhausted all credibility, its financiers and principal operators form a new one and the cycle begins again. In fact, they form multiple organizations with interlocking leadership and financing, then use them to flood the information spectrum with self-supporting press releases full of complete fabrications. The media then dutifully reports these claims as fact without making the slightest effort to verify any of it. Groups that exercise slightly more restraint, and lie mainly by manipulation, deliberate omission, and innuendo stick around longer, and attain the veneer of respectability by accumulating media citations. Ultimately the fact that the objectives of conservatism have nothing to do with the truth, and are not morally or ethically restrained from any level of deception, makes it perfectly rational to discount statements from conservative groups unless strongly supported. That is, it is best to treat their claims like those of a despotic totalitarian government, which is in fact illustrative of the values they represent, and what they hope to achieve.

I don't dismiss studies just because they are done by groups that lean to the left. One should be willing to look at both ends of the spectrum.

I'm perfectly willing to look at any study, but that doesn't mean I'm going to grant it credibility by default.

If you are referring to people like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush, then I somewhat agree with you here. But I don't consider them a good source for news either.

Those guys serve mainly as distractions. They create such an extreme backdrop that even blatant bias looks reasonable by comparison if it's spoken in even-handed tones. So we hear Coulter basically calling for the extermination of liberals, and then some empty suit reporter belittles Obama for no damn reason and looks fair and rational by comparison. It's like staring at a bright red light and then looking away - everything looks blue.

I was 6 in 1984, so I wouldn't know.

The book 1984, by George Orwell. Goldstein was the scapegoat people were forced to scream at in regular, mandatory hate rallies called Two Minute Hates. They would display his picture, and everyone had to explode into a frenzy of shouting and rage - secret police would be standing around looking for anyone who didn't do it enthusiastically enough. I'm saying that's how the media treats Obama. And I, BTW, wasn't even walking yet in 1984.

[mj278]

The book 1984, by George Orwell. Goldstein was the scapegoat people were forced to scream at in regular, mandatory hate rallies called Two Minute Hates. They would display his picture, and everyone had to explode into a frenzy of shouting and rage - secret police would be standing around looking for anyone who didn't do it enthusiastically enough. I'm saying that's how the media treats Obama. And I, BTW, wasn't even walking yet in 1984.

Oh! Don't I look foolish. I have actually never read the book, so I just thought you were talking about the year.

[Pookie]

I just love election years. One minute, you're the big hero of the media, the next minute, you are the worst thing that has happened since Hitler.
That's just what it is, folks. Give things a week or so and it will change again. And again. And again...til November.
Purrs,
Pookie

[mj278]

No, it doesn't - even your own source doesn't indicate that. And it doesn't even "lean" to the right - it is out and out politically conservative, and reflects that bias in the overwhelming majority of coverage on virtually every subject of national interest.

Well, maybe the news is to the left of me then, and to the right of you.


They're not "vetting" anything, they're spastically slandering Obama's every word, move, and hypothetical move while giving McCain a blank check. No attack is too petty, deranged, or overused. They are Swiftboating him, serving as a proxy campaign for McCain not limited by fundraising laws.

I don't see it this way, but I get most of my news from the paper, and the internet. I do watch the TV sometimes, so I will be on the lookout. But I don't think we will agree on this.


The media has never given any serious attention to its own pro-military bias, and they constantly talk about the alleged, nonexistent liberal leanings of the media. They talk about it constantly because it's nonsense, and they are Republican shills.

Maybe. I don't think very highly of the Republicans as of late. They have abandoned their principles. I read numerous articles, and saw a good amount of stories about the military bias quite often when the story broke.

No, it's quite rational. The right lies constantly. When a consevative organization has exhausted all credibility, its financiers and principal operators form a new one and the cycle begins again. In fact, they form multiple organizations with interlocking leadership and financing, then use them to flood the information spectrum with self-supporting press releases full of complete fabrications. The media then dutifully reports these claims as fact without making the slightest effort to verify any of it. Groups that exercise slightly more restraint, and lie mainly by manipulation, deliberate omission, and innuendo stick around longer, and attain the veneer of respectability by accumulating media citations. Ultimately the fact that the objectives of conservatism have nothing to do with the truth, and are not morally or ethically restrained from any level of deception, makes it perfectly rational to discount statements from conservative groups unless strongly supported. That is, it is best to treat their claims like those of a despotic totalitarian government, which is in fact illustrative of the values they represent, and what they hope to achieve.

I agree with the bolded part, but that is it. And your view on conservatism is not correct. Bush, and the talking heads on TV, and the like are not conservatives. They are neocons.

[Troubadour]

Oh! Don't I look foolish.

You look foolish insisting the media "leans left," regardless of literary experience. The media is waging the most profoundly mendacious campaign of lies, innuendo, and slander I've ever seen. If the Swiftboaters from 2004 were put in charge of America's major news organizations, this is roughly what one would imagine the result would be.

[Troubadour]

Well, maybe the news is to the left of me then, and to the right of you.

There is only one set of facts, and the media ignores them to serve Republicans.


I don't see it this way, but I get most of my news from the paper, and the internet. I do watch the TV sometimes, so I will be on the lookout. But I don't think we will agree on this.

If you truly can't see it, then you have no frame of reference. Pick a national news source (e.g., NYT, LAT, Time, CNN) and I'll illustrate what I'm talking about.


Maybe. I don't think very highly of the Republicans as of late. They have abandoned their principles.

They never had any. They've been fantasizing for decades about the things Bush has done, but had to take it slow after Nixon.

I read numerous articles, and saw a good amount of stories about the military bias quite often when the story broke.

I never saw it mentioned, I just knew it existed from observation.

And your view on conservatism is not correct. Bush, and the talking heads on TV, and the like are not conservatives. They are neocons.

They are conservatives. Some conservatives are mainly interested in imposing their religion; some with lining their pockets at everyone else's expense; and others with fantasies of Empire, but they all share the underlying values of power and narcissism. They were not "tricked" into voting for George W. Bush - he represents them exactly, and acted on every impulse of the conservative psyche.

To the "theocons," he delivered a belligerently religious, pettily oppressive, messianic regime whose rhetoric was as cloaked in holiness as its reality was bloody and horrific, condemning millions to early death who might be saved by stem cell technology just to pander to the sensibilities of a tiny fringe minority. To the "neocons," he delivered nothing less than the formal implementation of Fascism as the foundation of American foreign policy, literally declaring the entire world the sovereign personal property of George W. Bush, and proclaiming his absolute and unquestionable authority to murder, invade, torture, or do anything else he pleases with anyone who should happen to reside in it. And for the money people, he delivered tax cut after tax cut after tax cut - for every occasion and excuse, another round of tax cuts - acompanied by an endless gravy train of no-bid contracts where billions in taxpayer money were snuck out the back door and dumped in the pockets of Republican contributors. The result is a nation on the verge of bankruptcy; an economy and infrastructure on the verge of collapse; an international reputation that will be forever stained; and the virtual privatization of the federal government into the hands of lawless, corrupt, deranged thugs.

[mj278]

There is only one set of facts, and the media ignores them to serve Republicans.

We will have to agree to disagree on this then.

If you truly can't see it, then you have no frame of reference. Pick a national news source (e.g., NYT, LAT, Time, CNN) and I'll illustrate what I'm talking about.

Now I have no frame of reference?

They never had any. They've been fantasizing for decades about the things Bush has done, but had to take it slow after Nixon.

Really? Wasn't it the Republican party that pushed for the advancement of equal rights? Weren't they the ones who wanted to abolish slavery?

They are conservatives. Some conservatives are mainly interested in imposing their religion; some with lining their pockets at everyone else's expense; and others with fantasies of Empire, but they all share the underlying values of power and narcissism. They were not "tricked" into voting for George W. Bush - he represents them exactly, and acted on every impulse of the conservative psyche.

No...they are not. Bush has spent more money than any other president. He has increased spending, not decreased it. He has launched an assault on our individual freedoms and liberties, all in the name of security. He is no conservative.

I'm a conservative, and I didn't vote for Bush. While there are people who support him, I am not one of them. I suppose you think McCain is a conservative too. They are both statists.

To the "theocons," he delivered a belligerently religious, pettily oppressive, messianic regime whose rhetoric was as cloaked in holiness as its reality was bloody and horrific, condemning millions to early death who might be saved by stem cell technology just to pander to the sensibilities of a tiny fringe minority.

The religious right are hypocrites. I will agree with you here.

And for the money people, he delivered tax cut after tax cut after tax cut - for every occasion and excuse, another round of tax cuts - acompanied by an endless gravy train of no-bid contracts where billions in taxpayer money were snuck out the back door and dumped in the pockets of Republican contributors. The result is a nation on the verge of bankruptcy; an economy and infrastructure on the verge of collapse; an international reputation that will be forever stained; and the virtual privatization of the federal government into the hands of lawless, corrupt, deranged thugs.

I happen to agree with the tax cuts. Everyone benefited from them. The rich just got a bigger cut because they make more. And our economic problems have been in the making for a long time. They didn't start with Bush. He may have aggravated the problem, but he didn't cause them all.

Washington has an addiction to spending. That is our problem. We need to cut spending, but no one is willing to do this. The federal government has been a special interest group only out to benefit themselves for a while now...before Bush. The solution for this is to limit the government...not give them more power.

[Troubadour]

Really? Wasn't it the Republican party that pushed for the advancement of equal rights? Weren't they the ones who wanted to abolish slavery?

The Republicans who abolished slavery and pushed civil rights were radically liberal Yankees whom today's GOP would sooner hang from a lamppost than shake hands with, and that's a little more important than the fact they share a name.

Bush has spent more money than any other president.

But he didn't raise taxes to pay for any of it - he's just going to put the bill for it all into a time capsule and mail it to us in 2015, just like we're still paying for Reagan. And what exactly did he spend the money on? Waging a savage war of conquest and imperial occupation supported fanatically by conservatives, murdering well over a million people in the process; channeling what pittance remains of America's safety net through churches so they can use taxpayer money to coerce the poor into attending sermons, again with overwhelming conservative support; pimping "abstinence-only" sex education that apparently increases teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease; oh, and almost forgot the part about making federal support of schools contingent on their turning students into thoughtless, trivia-regurgitating automatons, and even then cutting support for their own program to pay for a capital gains tax cut.

That's a tiny fraction of all the ideological conservative agenda items he's funded with this Monopoly Money. Not only did he not raise taxes while pouring the public treasury into the hands of gangsters, cultists, and homicidal maniacs, he actually cut them over, and over, and over. He isn't just making us pay for these things, he's making us pay interest on them for the privilege of paying for them, and all the while loading up the tax code with exemptions and deductions so rich people can pay even less than their employees.

He has increased spending, not decreased it.

He has radically decreased spending on a vast array of programs, including those funding infrastructure maintenance and growth. A report recently came out that it would take a century for the US to catch up to Japan's internet bandwidth at the current rate of expansion, IF Japan agreed to hold still while we slogged our way toward it, and an earlier report on bridges following the Minnesota collapse found that 2/3 of America's bridges were in "dire" need of repair. I'm sure it's the same story with tunnels, overpasses, train tracks, public transit, electrical transmission, on and on. That's the state of affairs yielded by conservative priorities that just leave everything up to corporate America.


He has launched an assault on our individual freedoms and liberties, all in the name of security. He is no conservative.

He says he's a conservative. Conservatives overwhelmingly said he was a conservative until he became unpopular, long after the debut of his mendacity and criminality. And liberals have said he is a conservative from the very beginning, because his actions have reflected everything we have always said about the nature of right-wing politics.

I'm a conservative, and I didn't vote for Bush. While there are people who support him, I am not one of them. I suppose you think McCain is a conservative too. They are both statists.

They are both conservatives. The difference is primarily stylistic - McCain is more of a populist than Bush, which isn't really saying much given that Bush is a contemptuous tyrant.


I happen to agree with the tax cuts. Everyone benefited from them.

No, a minority benefited. The rest paid for their own money twice - first in loss of services through subsequent budget cuts, and then continuously ever since through inflation and job losses.

The rich just got a bigger cut because they make more.

Which is why they shouldn't have got a bigger cut, or any cut at all. They were doing better than ever before Bush's tax cuts.

And our economic problems have been in the making for a long time. They didn't start with Bush. He may have aggravated the problem, but he didn't cause them all.

His policies are the most immediate and most dangerous problem. Once they are reversed, we can begin to address the older roots in the Reagan era.

Washington has an addiction to spending.

Spending is a neutral action - it's what you spend on and how that matters, not how much. As long as you maintain a balanced budget, and your budget reflects rational and moral priorities, the exact figure is a matter of what's required - not what an ideological aversion to the public sector will tolerate.

That is our problem. We need to cut spending, but no one is willing to do this.

Quite wrong. Spending is already dangerously low on many high priorities, so there has to be some kind of rational judgment exercised - can't just go on a random cutting spree. A budget is not a monolith, it's comprised of billions of little details that all matter.

The solution for this is to limit the government...not give them more power.

Nobody (other than Bush's supporters) suggests giving the government more power. I suggest bringing its priorities back to sanity.

[aaronssongs]

Troubadour,
Excellent post.

[mj278]

He has radically decreased spending on a vast array of programs, including those funding infrastructure maintenance and growth.

Bush increased spending overall. He didn't decrease it. And did you notice that the cities with failing infrastructures are run by democrats? The government wastes money. They need to learn to manage it better.

He says he's a conservative. Conservatives overwhelmingly said he was a conservative until he became unpopular, long after the debut of his mendacity and criminality. And liberals have said he is a conservative from the very beginning, because his actions have reflected everything we have always said about the nature of right-wing politics.

Actions speak louder than words. Bush talks the talk, but he is no conservative. I never liked him, and I didn't vote for him in 2004. I didn't vote at all in 2000.


They are both conservatives. The difference is primarily stylistic - McCain is more of a populist than Bush, which isn't really saying much given that Bush is a contemptuous tyrant.

No they're not. McCain is just pandering to try and win over the conservative vote.

No, a minority benefited. The rest paid for their own money twice - first in loss of services through subsequent budget cuts, and then continuously ever since through inflation and job losses.

The tax cuts put a greater burden on the rich, They ended up paying a greater percentage after the cuts were in affect.

Which is why they shouldn't have got a bigger cut, or any cut at all. They were doing better than ever before Bush's tax cuts.

Well, I don't support punishing people for their success, and I don't support wealth redistribution. The rich already pay most of the taxes in this country.

His policies are the most immediate and most dangerous problem. Once they are reversed, we can begin to address the older roots in the Reagan era.

I am too young to know first hand what went on during Reagan's administration. I can only go by what I have read, and from everything I have read, the problems started even before Reagan.

Spending is a neutral action - it's what you spend on and how that matters, not how much. As long as you maintain a balanced budget, and your budget reflects rational and moral priorities, the exact figure is a matter of what's required - not what an ideological aversion to the public sector will tolerate.

While I do agree that is does matter where we allocate the money, it is obvious that we need to reduce spending. The government already wastes money. They need to manage it better. Raising taxes isn't going to fix the mess we are in, and both candidates plans are going to add to the deficit, not decrease it.


Quite wrong. Spending is already dangerously low on many high priorities, so there has to be some kind of rational judgment exercised - can't just go on a random cutting spree. A budget is not a monolith, it's comprised of billions of little details that all matter.

Nobody (other than Bush's supporters) suggests giving the government more power. I suggest bringing its priorities back to sanity.

Really? Could have fooled me. People were demanding bailouts, they are advocating "free" healthcare for everyone, the nationalization of the oil companies, they are demanding more government interference. Seems like bigger government to me.

[ECW]

My results were:

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41
Putting me squarely in the center of the green area,

Which makes me a left leaning Social Libertarian. Thank You.

Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

Which makes me a solidly left libertarian who votes Democratic because they are the only ones who field viable, winning candidates.

And McCain is still getting a pass from the media over damn near everything.

[ECW]

Sorry, but there is no such thing.

There are 71,000 hits that say otherwise. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=left+leaning+libertarian&btnG=Google+Search)

[xLIBREx]

There are 71,000 hits that say otherwise. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=left+leaning+libertarian&btnG=Google+Search)

There are 500K hits on the flat earth society's website a month. Do you really want to go any further with your nugget of logical fallacy?

Let's look at this piece of stupidity from that site. They claim the pinnacle of people who believe in both social and economic freedom is "anarchy." Right there they lose any credibility whatsoever. Please don't tell me I need to explain this to you further. I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt that you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[ECW]

Your critique of the test fails to convince me that "it does not exist" when it is very clear that it does. People are writing about it, they are discussing the differences between the conservative libertarian viewpoint and the Liberal libertarian viewpoint. Denying that it exists without convincing proof does not fly.

[xLIBREx]

Your critique of the test fails to convince me that "it does not exist" when it is very clear that it does. People are writing about it, they are discussing the differences between the conservative libertarian viewpoint and the Liberal libertarian viewpoint. Denying that it exists without convincing proof does not fly.


I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sigh

Libertarianism has a very specific meaning. It means you believe in the innate rights of man to have both political and social freedom and that man must accept the responsibility which comes along with that freedom.

So, for a bunch of people to steal the word and try to change the meaning of it as if that will somehow give their wacky ideas more credibility because they are incorrectly using a word which describes our founding fathers is laughable.

If you don't believe in economic freedom you are not a libertarian in any way shape of form. The same is true for social freedoms. So, I am not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Lastly, you think it's true because people are writing about it and debating it? So, I guess you believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, every word in the Bible, Qu'ran, Thorah, and Dianetics........... I can go on forever, but if you haven't gotten the point by now, you probably never will.

[ECW]

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sigh

i was never so naive as to extend that to you.

Libertarianism has a very specific meaning. It means you believe in the innate rights of man to have both political and social freedom and that man must accept the responsibility which comes along with that freedom.

The small trouble is that the responsibility thing never extends as far as it should because the government does for you in ways you do not pay for and I never see a so-called libertarian running to the government with a check to pay for those services. That social/political freedom winds up being the antithesis of modern society and, thus, unsupportable in the form you desire. The "every man is an island" concept is as utopian as communism and just about as workable.

So, for a bunch of people to steal the word and try to change the meaning of it as if that will somehow give their wacky ideas more credibility because they are incorrectly using a word which describes our founding fathers is laughable.

The Founding Fathers I grew up reading about never imagined the society we have today OR the concepts you are bringing to the table.

If you don't believe in economic freedom you are not a libertarian in any way shape of form. The same is true for social freedoms. So, I am not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I believe in economic freedom but I also extend the responsibility over to that concept so you do not have child labor, slave labor, environmental ruin and exploitative companies simply because they can get away with it under your conservative libertarian system. The sanctity of human existence is a concept that liberal libertarians honor that conservatives seem to be able to do without. Actions that compromise or exploit that sanctity do not fly with us.

Lastly, you think it's true because people are writing about it and debating it? So, I guess you believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, every word in the Bible, Qu'ran, Thorah, and Dianetics........... I can go on forever, but if you haven't gotten the point by now, you probably never will.

Red herrings. You lose. This discussion is over unless you want to continue this is in your own thread. this thread is about McCain/Obama, not libertarianism.

[ECW]

back on topic...

McCain went to the VFW convention today and made false claims about his support of our vets and even though the networks covered the story, they failed to point out how McCain misled everyone with his revisionist history.

[PostmodernProphet]

I asked you the same question on another thread, you don't have to answer it twice, but I would appreciate it if you would answer it once.....what lie did he speak?......

[ilikegw]

back on topic...

McCain went to the VFW convention today and made false claims about his support of our vets and even though the networks covered the story, they failed to point out how McCain misled everyone with his revisionist history.

So... what did he say?

[ECW]

McCain's bogus claim to have been a positive part of the new GI Bill when he opposed it and sat on his hands for 18 months about it and then offered up a watered down piece of crap substitute was one thing. Taking credit for getting Jim Webb's bill passed when HE NEVER SHOWED UP TO VOTE ON IT is the biggest lie of all. His claim that he made some contribution to getting that bill passed was just outrageous since both Bush and McCain opposed every aspect of that bill from the beginning... something about retention rates and too much money to spend on our troops were the SOP excuses. Thank God Jim Webb did not buy into those lies and neither did the VFW who awarded Webb a medal for it, NOT John McCain.

The media did not call him out on this but that's to be expected since it is their buddy John McCain.

[PostmodernProphet]

McCain's bogus claim to have been a positive part of the new GI Bill when he opposed it and sat on his hands for 18 months about it and then offered up a watered down piece of crap substitute was one thing. Taking credit for getting Jim Webb's bill passed when HE NEVER SHOWED UP TO VOTE ON IT is the biggest lie of all. His claim that he made some contribution to getting that bill passed was just outrageous since both Bush and McCain opposed every aspect of that bill from the beginning... something about retention rates and too much money to spend on our troops were the SOP excuses. Thank God Jim Webb did not buy into those lies and neither did the VFW who awarded Webb a medal for it, NOT John McCain.

The media did not call him out on this but that's to be expected since it is their buddy John McCain.

can you show me from his statements where he took credit for getting Webb's bill passed?.....

[ECW]

I suppose from my opponent's vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage. This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill. In its initial version, that bill failed to address the number one education request that I've heard from career service members and their families -- the freedom to transfer their benefits to a spouse or a child. The bill also did nothing to retain the young officer and enlisted leaders who form the backbone of our all-volunteer force.

As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I'm proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country.

more... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/mccains_speech_to_the_vfw_conv.html)

Transferability was the issue that McCain used as his excuse to craft a vastly inferior bill that denied veterans with less than 12 years of service the full benefits of the GI bill. The Webb bill allowed vets with the minimum enlistment to gain this benefit. John McCain opposed it, just like he said in the red part of his quote above. The lie on that one is that McCain ignores the study that shows that enlistments more than make up for the retirements caused by the benefit in the bill so his point, if there ever was one, is moot. Adding the transferability did not change the essence of the bill which McCain opposed from the outset because Bush said it was too expensive and set a bad standard. McCain agreed with him 100%. If that was all it took to make a bill he would support why didn't he suggest that to Webb from the outset? He did not and he did not respond to Webb's entreaties to help him out with the bill. McCain's claim is just political theater trying to make a positive out of a horrific negative.

Now he comes to the VFW and says he had a hand in making the New GI Bill better when (1) they knew he did not support it, (2) he failed to vote for it, and (3) Jim Webb got an award from the VFW for it. Spin that exaggeration all you want but it was just another lie as far as I can tell.

The media missed this spin machine as well.

[PostmodernProphet]

sorry, ECW, McCain's assessment of the act is more accurate than yours.....you're claim of a lie falls flat, just as all the other crap has.....

[ECW]

Sorry, but transferability was included in the Webb bill but not to the extent McCain wanted it. He backed Bush's opposition to the bill and had very little to do with the New GI Bill despite being asked to help out by Webb himself. The VFW is no pack of fools. They saw Webb's contribution for what it was and McCain's empty rhetoric for the pandering it was. It's why Webb got their gold medal and McCain got your sympathy. Call it what you will but McCain did not tell the truth about this whole matter and tried to tell the VFW that he was their guy and they did not agree. THAT'S what fell flat here.

[suedanim]

McCain's bogus claim to have been a positive part of the new GI Bill when he opposed it and sat on his hands for 18 months about it and then offered up a watered down piece of crap substitute was one thing. Taking credit for getting Jim Webb's bill passed when HE NEVER SHOWED UP TO VOTE ON IT is the biggest lie of all. His claim that he made some contribution to getting that bill passed was just outrageous since both Bush and McCain opposed every aspect of that bill from the beginning... something about retention rates and too much money to spend on our troops were the SOP excuses. Thank God Jim Webb did not buy into those lies and neither did the VFW who awarded Webb a medal for it, NOT John McCain.

The media did not call him out on this but that's to be expected since it is their buddy John McCain.

He needs to have his ass in a sling over the torture bill he bailed on... and then theres campaign finance reform. Even a perfunctory examination of McCain's history reveals him dropping the ball each time, while claiming and getting undeserved credit. He MUST be called out.

The problem is for some reason... I don't understand... the POW/victim card is played and no one dare touch McCain's failures, because not only do the sycophants play it, but his campaign plays it too... every time. Sure there WAS a time... McCain could claim victim status. But, that time is long past.

The rule is... what have you done for us lately? McCain fails and fails again. The troops and patriotism, Petreous and surge winning Iraq are all blowing hot air. Its truly empty rhetoric because he has done little to achieve anything for ending and bringing the troops home, providing for the troops health and welfare...and INSTEAD promises to keep us in Iraq and just as devastatingly.... no change in economic policy.

A world with John McCain as President is going to be a very depressing place for most Americans. :shame: Imagine it.

I would seriously like those who will likely vote McCain to tell me why. I'd like to know what good they think he will do for the United States... WITHOUT invoking Obama or Democrats.

I seriously doubt even one of you can stipulate what good things McCain promises to accomplish for America.. foreign and domestic,without copy/paste and without saying... he isn't Obama.

[AlanC]

I seriously doubt even one of you can stipulate what good things McCain promises to accomplish for America.. foreign and domestic,without copy/paste and without saying... he isn't Obama.


You have asked the question and answered it in the same sentence.

McCain will do little for the country, but he is less likely to hurt it than Obama. I will keep saying it.

They are both liars. McCain lies about being a conservative, which should make you happy and Obama lies about being a moderate which probably makes you even happier.

The fact that he isn't Obama is seen to be a good thing by a great many people.

[suedanim]

You have asked the question and answered it in the same sentence.

McCain will do little for the country, but he is less likely to hurt it than Obama. I will keep saying it.

They are both liars. McCain lies about being a conservative, which should make you happy and Obama lies about being a moderate which probably makes you even happier.

The fact that he isn't Obama is seen to be a good thing by a great many people.

"less likely to hurt it" is a bullshit, lame excuse for an answer AlanC. That doesn't say anything. Its like saying two train wrecks, in which no one survives, one was a better train wreck.

How about describing exactly what you mean by that "less likely to hurt it"?

[AlanC]

"less likely to hurt it" is a bullshit, lame excuse for an answer AlanC. That doesn't say anything. Its like saying two train wrecks, in which no one survives, one was a better train wreck.

How about describing exactly what you mean by that "less likely to hurt it"?

Obama is saying he will raise spending and cut taxes.

He is saying he will tax those that send jobs overseas and give breaks to business' that keep jobs here.

He is saying he will raise coporate taxes, already the highest in the idustrial world, which will drive jobs out of the country.

His promises of a middle class tax cut are impossible if he does the rest of what he promises. He is fine with high gas prices and wants them higher. He plans on spending tax money on alternative fuels with no idea where and when that will be. As a consumer, you will pay more for gas and higher taxes to the coporations and you will be paying the taxes to cover his "investments."

He wants to start a global anti-poverty program when he is going to be increasing poverty here. His tax increases will trash an already weak economy.

His liberal agenda is farther to the left than any other candidate we have ever had for the presidency. He is vehemently anti gun, pro abortion and he has offered massive increases in Federal spending.

McCain has a record of fiscal restraint and fighting some budget excesses. He will probably do most of the same things Obama will do, but less so. He will at least try to toss a bone to his base everyonce in awhile while he is caving in to the Dems on some of the spending increases. He won't balance the budget either, but he won't be proposing the massive spending increases that Obama is.

He may raise taxes, but he will be more reluctant to do so than Obama and his increases will be smaller. His impact on the economy will be less negative as a result. Neither candidate has any intention of securing our border, so that is not even an issue, unfortunately.

The net result will be, I think, that neither one of these two will have a second term and its just a question of limiting the damage they can do in four years. Since congress won't likely be much inclined to reign in either one, it makes the choice really pretty simple.

Further I believe McCain will get us out of Iraq, but in a way that we won't have to go back in 5 years later. Obama will probably get us out of Iraq, not as soon as he has said, but out none the less. But it will be in a manner that assures we will have to return sooner rather than later because he has no experience, no rapport with the military and no concept of strategic planning.

Now I understand that you don't agree with a thing I just said and I expect that. It is why you will vote for him and why I won't.

To me merely being less liberal than the other guy is not a strong reason to vote for someone, but in the absence of anything better it will do.

[Trish]

He needs to have his ass in a sling over the torture bill he bailed on...

There you go again repeating an allegation that has proven to be false. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "Neener, neener I'm not listening." all you want - it doesn't change the fact that THIS allegation you keep repeating is just false.

[lily]

Alan......reading your comparisons between Obama and McCain, the only thing I got out of it was Obama is going to be upfront and honest in how he is going to do things, McCain is going to do bascilly the same things, but be sneaky about it.......and that is an improvment???

[suedanim]

There you go again repeating an allegation that has proven to be false. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "Neener, neener I'm not listening." all you want - it doesn't change the fact that THIS allegation you keep repeating is just false.

Your claiming that you have debunked or disproven a thing is merely a whole lot of hutzpah. yada yada... Patting yourself on the back a usual.

Its pretty much common knowledge that McCain uttered the objections, but where the rubber met the road, he compromised and worse.

But... I'll be addressing torture in other posts... not in this one.

[suedanim]

Obama is saying he will raise spending and cut taxes.

He is saying he will tax those that send jobs overseas and give breaks to business' that keep jobs here.

He is saying he will raise coporate taxes, already the highest in the idustrial world, which will drive jobs out of the country.

His promises of a middle class tax cut are impossible if he does the rest of what he promises. He is fine with high gas prices and wants them higher. He plans on spending tax money on alternative fuels with no idea where and when that will be. As a consumer, you will pay more for gas and higher taxes to the coporations and you will be paying the taxes to cover his "investments."

He wants to start a global anti-poverty program when he is going to be increasing poverty here. His tax increases will trash an already weak economy.

His liberal agenda is farther to the left than any other candidate we have ever had for the presidency. He is vehemently anti gun, pro abortion and he has offered massive increases in Federal spending.

McCain has a record of fiscal restraint and fighting some budget excesses. He will probably do most of the same things Obama will do, but less so. He will at least try to toss a bone to his base everyonce in awhile while he is caving in to the Dems on some of the spending increases. He won't balance the budget either, but he won't be proposing the massive spending increases that Obama is.

He may raise taxes, but he will be more reluctant to do so than Obama and his increases will be smaller. His impact on the economy will be less negative as a result. Neither candidate has any intention of securing our border, so that is not even an issue, unfortunately.

The net result will be, I think, that neither one of these two will have a second term and its just a question of limiting the damage they can do in four years. Since congress won't likely be much inclined to reign in either one, it makes the choice really pretty simple.

Further I believe McCain will get us out of Iraq, but in a way that we won't have to go back in 5 years later. Obama will probably get us out of Iraq, not as soon as he has said, but out none the less. But it will be in a manner that assures we will have to return sooner rather than later because he has no experience, no rapport with the military and no concept of strategic planning.

Now I understand that you don't agree with a thing I just said and I expect that. It is why you will vote for him and why I won't.

To me merely being less liberal than the other guy is not a strong reason to vote for someone, but in the absence of anything better it will do.

Well, I appreciate this post AlanC and the time and effort you put into it.

I don't want to argue you at you for each point. But instead would ask... from where do you get this information on Obama's tax and economy plan?

I think you're way, way off base with your assumptions. I've recently read an article I'll post in another thread. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

btw... no spending or job outsourcing can top the last eight years of Bush-Cheney and McCain promises wars that will keep that spending going.

In addition... McCain is NOT going to touch abortion as the CIC. Obama is just more honest about it.

[Troubadour]

Bush increased spending overall.

Reality isn't an average! He increased spending on the military and a handful of corrupted social programs he set up to fail, all while gutting virtually everything else. America is physically collapsing because of his budget cuts.

And did you notice that the cities with failing infrastructures are run by democrats?

Most of America's cities have failing infrastructures, and correlating that with the party of the mayors and city councils (and weighting how long they've been in office) would be quite a chore - and something I'm sure you haven't done.

But if you wish to imagine that as the case, there's a very simple explanation that hardly speaks well of Republican leadership: They simply don't build any infrastructure not supported by business, regardless of what that does to living standards. I've lived in Republican areas, and apart from the rich ones they are absolute and unadulterated cesspools: Wastelands full of big-box retailers with poorly lit parking lots, eight-lane traffic to feed them, and little pristine gated communities segregated from the reality of how much the rest of the city sucks.

The government wastes money. They need to learn to manage it better.

There is no "the government"! There are individual leaders with specific agendas, political parties whose values inform those agendas, and agencies whose institutional objectives are interpreted and implemented (or sabotaged!) by those leaders. Elect competent leaders, money will be spent more efficiently; elect decent leaders, money will be spent on the right priorities. Elect leaders who just cut spending without caring what they cut, you'll get exactly what cities across America already get under that kind of leadership: Unlivable communities with Walmarts on every other block, where the businesses are the citizens and the people who live there are just permitted to exist so they can shop.

The tax cuts put a greater burden on the rich, They ended up paying a greater percentage after the cuts were in affect.

Burdens are not a percentage! Raising the taxes of the top 1% by 10% has no effect on their lifestyle whatsoever, but can have real benefits for society if spent wisely. You're comparing a decline in numbers on some rich guy's account statement that he only sees once a year with students having textbooks, streets having lights, bridges not falling down, etc. etc. "Burden"! Outrageous.

Well, I don't support punishing people for their success

I don't consider responsibility a punishment.

and I don't support wealth redistribution.

By not taxing the wealthy more, you ARE redistributing wealth - from the poor and middle class to the rich. Read up on "externalities," "external costs," etc.

The rich already pay most of the taxes in this country.

As they should, but currently their rates are far too low.


I am too young to know first hand what went on during Reagan's administration. I can only go by what I have read, and from everything I have read, the problems started even before Reagan.

I wasn't around, but I've read enough to say there were different problems. Reagan exploited them to push through a radical conservative agenda, which resulted in hospital closures, an explosion in homelessness, rapid decline in wages and living standards, and a vast array of resultant problems. Americans got used to that over time, but then Bush came around and with a Republican Congress pushed through an agenda so radical it made Reagan's look liberal by comparison. The only reason we're not already a Third World country right now is that China is giving us an unlimited line of credit so we can keep buying their exports.


Really? Could have fooled me. People were demanding bailouts, they are advocating "free" healthcare for everyone, the nationalization of the oil companies, they are demanding more government interference. Seems like bigger government to me.

And if reality could be boiled down to "big" vs. "small," that might mean something. Some programs should be big, some should be small, and some shouldn't exist at all. Conservatives don't know and don't care which is which - because they're mainly rich, they want to pay no taxes and have no responsibility to their fellow citizens; the hardship they bring on others will never reach their gated community doorsteps.

[mj278]

Reality isn't an average! He increased spending on the military and a handful of corrupted social programs he set up to fail, all while gutting virtually everything else. America is physically collapsing because of his budget cuts.

We are collapsing because of the massive spending, and failed social programs such as welfare, medicare, and medicaid. We are not collapsing because of budget cuts, but because people expect a nanny government to take care of them.

"Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson."
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

"President Bush topped the list with a 24.3 percent increase in 2003 according to the annual report. His 2002 regulatory budget also made the top five, growing 16.4 percent. By comparison, the average growth rate over the last 60 years has been only six percent.

"Bush has been a big spender across the board," said report co-author and Mercatus Center Senior Fellow Veronique de Rugy. Overall, government spending has increased a dramatic 65 percent between 2001 and 2009, from $1.3 trillion to $3.1 trillion. When it comes to the budget for regulatory agencies, the trend is no different. After a decline in regulation during the 1980s and 1990s, the last eight years have seen an almost 68 percent jump in spending."
http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080812/12aug20081126.html


Most of America's cities have failing infrastructures, and correlating that with the party of the mayors and city councils (and weighting how long they've been in office) would be quite a chore - and something I'm sure you haven't done.

I haven't done it, and I didn't claim that I did. I am just referring to the stories that I have read about. Also, I live in a Republican run county. We have been run by Republicans for quite some time now. We have low taxes, good schools, our roads and infrastructures are not failing. When you compare this to the democratic run city close by, and the fact that people are fleeing it because of the condition, it makes me wonder about things.

There is no "the government"! There are individual leaders with specific agendas, political parties whose values inform those agendas, and agencies whose institutional objectives are interpreted and implemented (or sabotaged!) by those leaders. Elect competent leaders, money will be spent more efficiently; elect decent leaders, money will be spent on the right priorities. Elect leaders who just cut spending without caring what they cut, you'll get exactly what cities across America already get under that kind of leadership: Unlivable communities with Walmarts on every other block, where the businesses are the citizens and the people who live there are just permitted to exist so they can shop.

Sorry, but in case you haven't realized, there are very few people in Washington who actually care about the citizens in this country. Washington is nothing but a special interest group looking out for the best interests of themselves. This includes the democrats too. When a competent leader comes along, I will vote for them. But right now, there are none.

And I don't support a nanny state. I don't think the government should be spending money on the same things you do. I would rather give my own money to causes I support. If our government really cared about the people, they wouldn't be engaging in so much unnecessary spending.

Burdens are not a percentage! Raising the taxes of the top 1% by 10% has no effect on their lifestyle whatsoever, but can have real benefits for society if spent wisely. You're comparing a decline in numbers on some rich guy's account statement that he only sees once a year with students having textbooks, streets having lights, bridges not falling down, etc. etc. "Burden"! Outrageous.

After the tax cuts, the rich actually paid a larger percentage of the taxes. And what makes you think that money will suddenly be spent wisely? This is a delusion.

A very small percent of our income tax money goes towards infrastructure. Most of it goes towards social security, healthcare, and defense spending. 2% goes towards transportation and infrastructure, and 2% towards education.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/where-do-you-ta.html

I don't consider responsibility a punishment.

Maybe you should be demanding more responsibilty from your elected officials. They have all successfully proven that they have none.

By not taxing the wealthy more, you ARE redistributing wealth - from the poor and middle class to the rich. Read up on "externalities," "external costs," etc.

This doesn't even make sense. Are you claiming that those who are rich don't work for their money? And I don't need to read up on anything. Costs and benefits are subjective, and unless there is an invasion of my property, I don't see the problem.

As they should, but currently their rates are far too low.

Too low? Okay, so what should they be then?

And if reality could be boiled down to "big" vs. "small," that might mean something. Some programs should be big, some should be small, and some shouldn't exist at all. Conservatives don't know and don't care which is which - because they're mainly rich, they want to pay no taxes and have no responsibility to their fellow citizens; the hardship they bring on others will never reach their gated community doorsteps.

Conservatives are not mainly rich. I am a conservative, and I am far from being rich, I don't live in a gated community, I grew up on welfare, lived in the projects, and contrary to your negative view, I do care about things. I just happen to disagree with you in that we should rely on our government. I have no problems paying taxes. I do however, disagree with the system that is in place. It punishes success and rewards laziness.

[Troubadour]

We are collapsing because of the massive spending

So bridges are falling down because we're spending too much repairing them?

and failed social programs such as welfare, medicare, and medicaid.

None of those are "failed."

We are not collapsing because of budget cuts

So the cuts are pure coincidence.

but because people expect a nanny government to take care of them.

Who are you referring to?

"Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)

Yet again, you keep talking like the federal government is one giant box - it's thousands of completely unrelated programs. I'm sorry if reality doesn't suit your point, but these broad categories like "non-defense discretionary spending" are totally meaningless. They exist for the convenience of OMB accountants - there is no relevance to the actual functioning of the federal government. You have to look at specific departments and programs.


And I don't need to read up on anything.

That seems to be a popular attitude among conservatives.


Too low? Okay, so what should they be then?


They were upwards of 70% at the height of American prosperity. I'd be willing to accept 50%, although I'd insist on 100% estate taxes over $500k.

Conservatives are not mainly rich.

But the rich are the source of their economic ideology.

It punishes success and rewards laziness.

That's a misunderstanding of how economics works, which is why I advised you to read up on externalities and external costs. Markets are not perfect - they're a physical system, and some of the costs you incur getting rich aren't paid by you or by people who make a free choice to pay you. Some of those costs are imposed on others against their will. Costs like pollution, or foreign slave labor, or workers not allowed to unionize by organized corporate repression, etc. etc. For markets to work efficiently, those costs have to be balanced with taxes that are allocated to address the related problems. That's part of what's happening now to our economy - taxes are too low for rich people and corporations, so their external costs are accumulating and draining our economy.

[Blueneck]

The NYT story about McCain and the lobbyist was months ago, and I have not heard one rumor about him reported on since. And oddly enough, the real issue of his business relationship with lobbyists, a valid criticism and an important one, was dropped after we all decided he wasn't having sex with her - they didn't report on that aspect of it at all.

Obama, on the other hand is scrutinized not so much for what he does, but how people react to his speeches, and and all other manner of superficial crap is suddenly "an issue". Elitism? Gimme me break. Why do we need in depth reporting and endless analysis on whether or not he's "in touch" with regular people, when McCain has umpteen houses? The question of how many houses he has has only been discussed from the viewpoint of it's use as a campaign ad tactic to counter the "elitist" charge. Nobody has seriously asked the question (round table discussion with a panel of experts) "Has McCain's millionaire lifestyle and seclusion in the Senate for 30 odd years, hobnobbing with lobbyists made him an out of touch elitist?"

Not once have the same questions about Obama's character ever been explored with McCain with more than a passing glance.

I'm hoping Ms. Palin will remedy this. I'm hoping the McCain ticket will get the scrutiny of all things superficial and nitpicky that Obama's campaign has endured. I hope the Republicans will enjoy the spotlight of the lurid and pit stain obsessed media.

First issue, the role of beauty pageants in molding governors, and is Cindy jealous? Ready, set, go!

[mj278]

So bridges are falling down because we're spending too much repairing them?

I gave a link that showed it isn't our income tax money that goes towards infrastructure. Most of the money we pay in income taxes goes towards defense, healthcare, and social security. And I also stated it isn't paying tyaxes that I disagree with, but the system we have in place.

None of those are "failed."

The programs are in disarray. Medicare and Medicaid are a mess, and the people who the help the most don't get it. These programs have also successfully raised the costs for the rest of us, because of the cost shift.
If these programs are not reformed, they are doomed to fail.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2539408120080325

So the cuts are pure coincidence.

The problem is that spending was not reduced. I am a proponent of low taxes, but if you are not going to cut spending, then the purpose is defeated. The Republicans are so caught up in the promise to not raise taxes, but the are doing more harm than good because we are not reducing the spending. And the economy benefited following the tax cuts.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=1960&page=article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11259.html

Who are you referring to?

People seem to think it is the government's responsibility to take care of them. It is not.

Yet again, you keep talking like the federal government is one giant box - it's thousands of completely unrelated programs. I'm sorry if reality doesn't suit your point, but these broad categories like "non-defense discretionary spending" are totally meaningless. They exist for the convenience of OMB accountants - there is no relevance to the actual functioning of the federal government. You have to look at specific departments and programs.

I understand what you are saying. What you don't seem to understand is that there are very few, if any at all, people or programs in Washington that are efficient. I provided a link for you on the distribution of our income tax money. Yet you keep saying that I don't want functioning infrastructure or roads. I also showed where most of our income tax money goes, and stated that it is only the system of our income tax system that I disagree with.

Non-defense spending is not meaningless. You claimed that defense spending was the source of our problems...it is not.

That seems to be a popular attitude among conservatives.

And what is it exactly that you would like me to look up. I stated my opinion on the matter.

They were upwards of 70% at the height of American prosperity. I'd be willing to accept 50%, although I'd insist on 100% estate taxes over $500k.

The bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay a measly 3% of the income taxes. The rich pay more than their "fair" share. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. What more do you want? That is money that people work for and earn for themselves. It is funny that I don't see those who support wealth redistribution complain about the money our politicians bring in for sitting on their asses doing absolutely nothing!

Prior to the 1980s, the tax system had more loopholes, and deductions than it does now. So to compare to the 90% and 70% tax rates of the past will yield misleading results.

Tax cuts result in economic growth. So are you more interested in economic growth, or just redistributing wealth?

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23534.html

That's a misunderstanding of how economics works, which is why I advised you to read up on externalities and external costs. Markets are not perfect - they're a physical system, and some of the costs you incur getting rich aren't paid by you or by people who make a free choice to pay you. Some of those costs are imposed on others against their will. Costs like pollution, or foreign slave labor, or workers not allowed to unionize by organized corporate repression, etc. etc. For markets to work efficiently, those costs have to be balanced with taxes that are allocated to address the related problems. That's part of what's happening now to our economy - taxes are too low for rich people and corporations, so their external costs are accumulating and draining our economy.

The government is not a wealth generator. It relies on its sources of funding from the private sector. The more money the government spends, the less that is available to generate wealth in the private sector. The only things the government does is consume wealth...they do not generate it. In order to have the tax cuts be effective, the government needs to reduce their spending. Again the problem was not the tax cuts, it was the spending. If you are not going to reduce spending, the cuts are meaningless. With the reckless policies of the fed, and the increasing government outlays, it is hard to have effective tax cuts. You want to argue that the cuts are the problem, fine. But to ignore the fed's interference, and the increasing government outlays, and the government's fiscal irresponsibility is being dishonest. And there is insufficient political will, from both the Republicans and the Democrats to come up with any real solutions.

[mj278]

The NYT story about McCain and the lobbyist was months ago, and I have not heard one rumor about him reported on since. And oddly enough, the real issue of his business relationship with lobbyists, a valid criticism and an important one, was dropped after we all decided he wasn't having sex with her - they didn't report on that aspect of it at all.

I agree with you on this. We don't have a lobby for the common citizen in this country, and our government has zero concerns about what is beneficial to us. I don't like McCain or Obama. And the people who actually believe what McCain says are only fooling themselves. As for Obama, I disagree with most of his policies, and I don't believe much of what he says either.

Obama, on the other hand is scrutinized not so much for what he does, but how people react to his speeches, and and all other manner of superficial crap is suddenly "an issue". Elitism? Gimme me break. Why do we need in depth reporting and endless analysis on whether or not he's "in touch" with regular people, when McCain has umpteen houses? The question of how many houses he has has only been discussed from the viewpoint of it's use as a campaign ad tactic to counter the "elitist" charge. Nobody has seriously asked the question (round table discussion with a panel of experts) "Has McCain's millionaire lifestyle and seclusion in the Senate for 30 odd years, hobnobbing with lobbyists made him an out of touch elitist?"

Not once have the same questions about Obama's character ever been explored with McCain with more than a passing glance.

Again, I do agree with you somewhat. However, I do think that we should examine things that relate to the reflection of a candidate's character, and this is an area that the media has fallen short on, in reference to McCain.

[ECW]

Again, I do agree with you somewhat. However, I do think that we should examine things that relate to the reflection of a candidate's character, and this is an area that the media has fallen short on, in reference to McCain.

And thus the reason for this thread.

[mj278]

And thus the reason for this thread.

I know that. And I have admitted that the media failed on this aspect.

[ECW]

Just this past Sunday the media passed up on the chance to correct the record with Palin's Bridge To Nowhere controversy. They accepted the McCain campaign's line that she was against it all the way when, in fact, she campaigned for governor on the platform of having it built.