NationStates Jolt Archive


In The Tank For Obama

Hotwife
05-02-2009, 00:22
So much for journalistic integrity...

Maybe he can go over to MSNBC, where the whole network is already in the tank.

http://www.mrc.org/press/2009/press20090204.asp

Alexandria, VA – Media Research Center (MRC) President L. Brent Bozell, III has written a letter to ABC News President David Westin calling on him to publicly address and resolve what appears to be a clear violation of journalistic ethics by ABC’s Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos. Last week a Politico story broke the news that Stephanopoulos has participated in daily phone strategy sessions with now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel throughout his tenure at ABC.

Mr. Bozell on Thursday issued a statement demanding an explanation, and calling for Stephanopoulos to recuse himself from reporting on an Obama Administration whose plans and messaging he spends every morning helping to craft. Stephanopoulos has remained silent.

Bozell has now brought the matter directly to Westin, calling on him to either provide evidence that the Politico story is false, or admit and resolve what clearly would be a major violation of journalistic ethics.
Ashmoria
05-02-2009, 00:29
apparently it turns out that talking to a friend who happens to be the presidents chief of staff doesnt constitute "strategy sessions" but just "talking".

is mr stephanopolis required to stop talking to any friend of his who works for the government?
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 00:30
I hate Stephanopoulos, but I dont think this is as bad as its being made out.
Afro-Cuban
05-02-2009, 00:36
This guy is either being naive or clever. Everyone has sides, especially in the news media.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 00:37
I hate Stephanopoulos, but I dont think this is as bad as its being made out.

Daily strategy calls with the White House Chief of Staff...

It's clearly unethical.
Skallvia
05-02-2009, 00:37
When did I start caring what Stephanopoulos did? Oh right, i didnt, lol...
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 00:39
Daily strategy calls with the White House Chief of Staff...

It's clearly unethical.

I have to see what was said in these "strategy" calls before I make a decision.

But Id be rather happy if Stephy lost his job over this.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 00:40
I have to see what was said in these "strategy" calls before I make a decision.

But Id be rather happy if Stephy lost his job over this.

So we can agree Stephy is a smarmy little creep?
Trostia
05-02-2009, 00:41
So much for journalistic integrity...

Maybe he can go over to MSNBC, where the whole network is already in the tank.


lol liberal media
The Black Forrest
05-02-2009, 00:42
lol liberal media

Did you read the mission of his source?

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 00:43
So we can agree Stephy is a smarmy little creep?

Yes.
Tmutarakhan
05-02-2009, 00:45
Well I have no idea who the MRC is, but it didn't provide any link to the story it is talking about, and so I get no conception of what is actually going on, and have little inclination to believe that the MRC, whoever they are, are accurately portraying it.
Poliwanacraca
05-02-2009, 00:59
On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values...

This is pretty damned hilarious. Methinks the young determined conservatives slept through the class that explained how "sound scientific research" works. :p
Ghost of Ayn Rand
05-02-2009, 01:03
This is pretty damned hilarious. Methinks the young determined conservatives slept through the class that explained how "sound scientific research" works. :p

How dare you question the premise that "balance" is apparently best served by an organization avowedly embracing one end of the spectrum, determinedly?

They have every right put forward their spin (seriously), and its perfectly credible to say that their spin represents balance and fairness (less seriously).

I'd call you a dumb whore, but I've been warned for flaming.
Poliwanacraca
05-02-2009, 01:09
How dare you question the premise that "balance" is apparently best served by an organization avowedly embracing one end of the spectrum, determinedly?

They have every right put forward their spin (seriously), and its perfectly credible to say that their spin represents balance and fairness (less seriously).

I'd call you a dumb whore, but I've been warned for flaming.

Hehe, yeah, I'm evil like that. Silly me and my crazy idea that "sound scientific research" should follow something at least remotely resembling the scientific method, and not just be "We decided to prove that gravity doesn't exist, which we will do by helpfully ignoring any evidence that suggests it might exist! Woohoo, sound scientific research!" :tongue:
Trostia
05-02-2009, 01:13
Did you are the mission of his source?

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed

Right-wing website accuses the media of a liberal bias. Right-wing troll cites the accusation as proof of bias, and then proceeds to spin a communications satellite into a nuclear weapons attack on Ohio.

Good enough for me! Liberal media indeed!
The_pantless_hero
05-02-2009, 01:14
Oh right, journalists are "in the tank for Obama" because a conservative think tank says so :rolleyes:
Skallvia
05-02-2009, 01:19
Ill start to care about journalists that are "in the tank for Obama"...

When Rush and his clones are no longer in the Tank Against him...
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 01:32
Oh right, journalists are "in the tank for Obama" because a conservative think tank says so :rolleyes:

I'm just glad he didn't use that idiotic "Drinking the kool-aid" metaphor.
Trostia
05-02-2009, 01:39
I'm just glad he didn't use that idiotic "Drinking the kool-aid" metaphor.

They're wearing flip-flops and drinking the kool-aid in the tank after being thrown under the bus.
Intangelon
05-02-2009, 02:06
Y'know, I don't think there were this many anti-W threads by one poster in a MONTH.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 02:58
Y'know, I don't think there were this many anti-W threads by one poster in a MONTH.

Because W was a Real American.
Gauntleted Fist
05-02-2009, 04:55
Because W was a Real American.They're never going to live that down, are they?
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 04:59
They're never going to live that down, are they?

No.
The Black Forrest
05-02-2009, 05:03
Because W was a Real American.

More then that; he was a Real Texan!
Delator
05-02-2009, 09:16
They're never going to live that down, are they?

Not if I can help it...not that I can, but I like to pretend I'm important.

As for the media, I've never bought the "liberal bias" argument...if anything, media remains too conservative.

Despite a clear "mandate" (another one we'll never let 'em forget, considering the razor-thin margin Bush had in '04), and a signficant electoral victory for the Democratic party, the media continues to frame the political debate in a right-leaning direction, or there would be NO talk of tax cuts vs spending in the stimulus package, as that debate was settled on Election Day.
greed and death
05-02-2009, 09:46
I hate Stephanopoulos, but I dont think this is as bad as its being made out.

Im prone to agree.
However the thing with professionalism is you need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Example one of the professors at my university is a friend of my family. Everyone at the university knows we are friends, as sometimes i get invited over to eat and so on. He has told me to never take a class with him. the reason he is concerned is he is worried it would present the appearance that he would pass me because of family connections.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 16:09
Did you read the mission of his source?

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed
All I needed was to see that the source was Brent Bozell. He's well known as a rightwing propagandist.

The funny thing is that there actually are legitimate conservative political analysts, news analysts and journalists out there, only DK never, ever goes to them for his information. He only spews whatever talking points the rightwing fringe spitout on their vanity websites. Hm.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 16:13
They're wearing flip-flops and drinking the kool-aid in the tank after being thrown under the bus.
Win. :D

Y'know, I don't think there were this many anti-W threads by one poster in a MONTH.
Nor so many by just one poster.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 16:15
Obama and his friends are making this easy.

But I suppose you don't remember the virulent post-2000 hatred of Bush...
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 16:17
Obama and his friends are making this easy.

But I suppose you don't remember the virulent post-2000 hatred of Bush...

Just once I'd like to see a right winger on here that's not so absurd that they can actually stay off my ignore list. I wait in vain.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 16:20
Just once I'd like to see a right winger on here that's not so absurd that they can actually stay off my ignore list. I wait in vain.

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat on here who will admit to the post-2000 Bush hatred from day one...
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 16:24
Just once I'd like to see a Democrat on here who will admit to the post-2000 Bush hatred from day one...

You mean back when he had approval ratings above 60%? So true, we all hated him so much, the bastard, we just lied to the pollsters!

The reassuring blank I'll see instead of your posts in future gives me a fuzzy feeling.

Here's a pretty graph for you. It's pretty simple:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
Sdaeriji
05-02-2009, 16:28
Obama and his friends are making this easy.

But I suppose you don't remember the virulent post-2000 hatred of Bush...

You refer, of course, to the "omg he stole the election" crowd, who were rightfully upset even before he became president. I now defy you to provide even a single example of a Democrat acting in the same manner that you are in the first 14 days of Bush's reign. We, and everyone else in the universe, know you won't actually do anything to support your batshit claims, but I'd like to put out the challenge anyway.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 16:29
You refer, of course, to the "omg he stole the election" crowd, who were rightfully upset even before he became president. I now defy you to provide even a single example of a Democrat acting in the same manner that you are in the first 14 days of Bush's reign. We, and everyone else in the universe, know you won't actually do anything to support your batshit claims, but I'd like to put out the challenge anyway.

I don't think there were that many really violently upset then. After over a month of post election bullshit I just wanted one or the other to give it up.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 16:32
You mean back when he had approval ratings above 60%? So true, we all hated him so much, the bastard, we just lied to the pollsters!

The reassuring blank I'll see instead of your posts in future gives me a fuzzy feeling.

Here's a pretty graph for you. It's pretty simple:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Interesting that Obama's ratings are now in the 60 percent range.

Pretty short honeymoon.

Also, the American people are evidently opposed to the stimulus package now, according to the polls. They know it's fat useless pork designed to mire them in debt that won't do a single thing to "save" the economy.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 16:36
Also, the American people are evidently opposed to the stimulus package now, according to the polls. They know it's fat useless pork designed to mire them in debt that won't do a single thing to "save" the economy.

The American people oppose the stimulus because the Republicans have launched this ridiculous politically bitter campaign against it. And unfortunately, the American people have as much understanding of economics that most of Congress has. At least the Democrats are listening to the economists though. The Republicans simply fly in the face of what every freshman college student in ECON101 knows.

God help us, when will the Republican Party finally crumble? Intellectually I'm super excited to see a party realignment in my life time, but I just hope it comes sooner rather than later.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 16:37
Interesting that Obama's ratings are now in the 60 percent range.

Pretty short honeymoon.

Obama's approval rating is around 65-67%, and has not had any statistically significant change since he took office (fluctuating from a high of 69 to a low of 64, a 5 point spread, and not very statistically significant). This is higher than either Bush's, Clinton's, Carter's, or Regan's was at this same time in their presendency.

In fact, it's one of the highest approval ratings at this point in an administration ever, and hasn't been matched since Kennedy. Just to make sure I hammer that point home, Obama's current approval rating, is higher than Bill Clinton's, Ronald Reagan's, Jimmy Carter's, George W. Bush's and George H.W. Bush's, and Richard Nixon's
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 16:38
Obama's approval rating is around 67%, higher than Bush, Clinton, Carter, or Regan's was at this same time in their presendency.

In fact, it's one of the highest approval ratings at this point in an administration ever.

Down from over 80 percent.

It's not bad, but apparently he's lost support for the stimulus. An actual majority now oppose it.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 16:38
The American people oppose the stimulus because the Republicans have launched this ridiculous politically bitter campaign against it. And unfortunately, the American people have as much understanding of economics that most of Congress has. At least the Democrats are listening to the economists though. The Republicans simply fly in the face of what every freshman college student in ECON101 knows.

God help us, when will the Republican Party finally crumble? Intellectually I'm super excited to see a party realignment in my life time, but I just hope it comes sooner rather than later.

Actually the American people pretty much hated the stimulus plan from the word go. Which is part of the reason McCain's "I'll save the bailout!!!!" stunt backfired.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 16:43
Down from over 80 percent.

Obama never, at any point, had 80% of the country approve of his job as president. He began his term at about 68%, and is at about 65% according to Rasmussen. Statistically irrelevant change. No president has EVER had an 80% approval rating by this point in their administration. Ever. Never ever.

What you're refering to, in your typical intellectual dishonesty, is that Obama had about an 80% approval rating for his transition efforts. Which meant that about 80% of the country felt that he was handling the transition from President Bush to President Obama well. That's something ENTIRELY different than an 80% approval rating as president:

There's a story making its way around the internet that is surely giving giddy shivers to PUMAs, birfers, and Ditto-heads alike. The headline is "After less than a week in office, Barack Obama's approval rating plunges 15 points."

Holy carp! That is bad! What did he do, carpet-bomb Dallas with live kittens?

The story cites Gallup, who ran a headline 2 days earlier that read "Obama Starts With 68% Job Approval." Huh? Isn't 68% the number that the Mail says Obama had plunged to?

. . .

The 83% figure is from a Gallup poll asking "Do you approve or disapprove of how Barack Obama is handling his presidential transition?"

The truth is, after 2 full weeks, Obama's approval has dropped 3 points, which is within the margin of error.

Debunked: 'Obama's Approval Rating Plunges 15 Points' (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/04/debunked-obamas-approval-rating-plunges-15-points/).

Liar liar, pants on fire DK.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 16:44
Obama never, at any point, had 80% of the country approve of his job as president. He began his term at about 69%, and is at about 67% according to Rasmussen. Statistically irrelevant change. No president has EVER had an 80% approval rating by this point in their administration. Ever. Never ever.

And now he has no majority support for his stimulus, I mean pork package.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 16:44
Actually the American people pretty much hated the stimulus plan from the word go. Which is part of the reason McCain's "I'll save the bailout!!!!" stunt backfired.

http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1725386&pid=51&ccid=51#top

Not to be contrary.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 16:47
And now he has no majority support for his stimulus, I mean pork package.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/02/03/poll-stimulus-is-popular-but-many-want-changes-to-democrats-bill.html

Again, the problem isn't that the American people don't want a stimulus, its that some of them still think the Republicans know what they are talking about. Classic mistake.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 16:49
People used to support it, according to Rasmussen.

Now they not only oppose it, they think it will make things worse.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/50_say_stimulus_plan_likely_to_make_things_worse

Evidently the Democratic congress comes in for some hatred

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

And a majority disagree with Obama on the subject of whether or not tax cuts are a good idea

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/most_say_tax_cuts_always_better_than_increased_spending
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 16:50
http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1725386&pid=51&ccid=51#top

Not to be contrary.

Huh, clearly I wasn't paying sufficient attention. I stand corrected.
VirginiaCooper
05-02-2009, 16:53
Rasmussen said they opposed it, but Gallop says the support has increased, as of the 3rd at least. And 75% support a stimulus in some form.

I think the only thing we can know for sure is that America doesn't know what to think.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 16:53
Rasmussen says they oppose it, but Gallop says the support has increased, as of the 3rd at least.

I think the only thing we can know for sure is that America doesn't know what to think.

I'm so confused!
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:01
I'm so confused!

No reason to be Rasmussen very consistantly polled more Republican during the election.
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 17:02
If Bush were to have visited a school 'to escape the White House bubble' while a frozen Kentucky is still trying to get sufficient FEMA help, would the press simply be ignoring that point as they are currently doing with Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/obamas-escape-white-house_n_163689.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2009/02/02/97488.htm

Granted he is only 2 weeks on the job, but I simply can't ignore all the "ready to govern on day one" talk.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 17:04
If Bush were to have visited a school 'to escape the White House bubble' while a frozen Kentucky is still trying to get sufficient FEMA help, would the press simply be ignoring that point as they are currently doing with Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/obamas-escape-white-house_n_163689.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2009/02/02/97488.htm

Granted he is only 2 weeks on the job, but I simply can't ignore all the "ready to govern on day one" talk.

Shh. 900,000 people in the freeze without power is not to be discussed.

Reminds me of Katrina, really. But we're not permitted to question anything Obama does.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:07
If Bush were to have visited a school 'to escape the White House bubble' while a frozen Kentucky is still trying to get sufficient FEMA help, would the press simply be ignoring that point as they are currently doing with Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/obamas-escape-white-house_n_163689.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2009/02/02/97488.htm

Granted he is only 2 weeks on the job, but I simply can't ignore all the "ready to govern on day one" talk.

Got a more current article on the Kentucky situation? Yours is quite outdated.
Hotwife
05-02-2009, 17:09
Got a more current article on the Kentucky situation? Yours is quite outdated.

Obviously, Obama hasn't visited Kentucky in the aftermath of the disaster.

No White House press releases, either.

No Presidential disaster declaration.

Guess it's not important, eh?
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 17:15
Got a more current article on the Kentucky situation? Yours is quite outdated.

Nice try to deflect. The article is 3 days old. He visited the school the school the next day. Where is the priority?

Obama didn't even have the decency of a fly-over. Heck, what better way to get out of the house than to take your new airplane for spin?
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 17:18
The article is 3 days old. He visited the school the school the next day. Where is the priority?

Obama didn't even have the decency of a fly-over. Heck, what better way to get out of the house than to take your new airplane for spin?

what the fuck would that do? What the fuck would be accomplished by the president flying over frozen Kentucky?

God, why are republicans and neocons so built up on useless symbolism? I don't give a fuck if the president decides to fly over kentucky, it won't accomplish anything. I'm not one for symbolism, I'm one for results. Maybe you think the most important thing is that the president decides to show up for a photo op. I personally care more about things ACTUALLY getting accomplished. FEMA is there, and they're doing their jobs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28973769/).
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 17:20
No Presidential disaster declaration.

lies.

Beshear asked Obama for a disaster declaration to free up federal assistance Thursday, two days after the storm hit, and Obama issued it hours later. Trucks loaded with supplies began arriving at a staging area at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Friday morning, said Mary Hudak, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

No White House press releases, either.

Also lies:

1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/PresidentObamaSpeakswithGovernorsBeebeandBeshearSignsEmergencyDeclarationsforArkansasandKentucky/)
2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaDeclaresMajorDisasterinWashingtonState/)
3

Come on DK, really, did you really think you're going to get away with screaming "OBAMA HAS NOT DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY OR ISSUED ANY PRESS RELEASES?" How long did you think it would take someone to find the press release saying that Obama declared an emergency?
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:20
Nice try to deflect. The article is 3 days old. He visited the school the school the next day. Where is the priority?

Obama didn't even have the decency of a fly-over. Heck, what better way to get out of the house than to take your new airplane for spin?

What deflection, I'm from Indiana, so Kentucky's problems actually hold some interest for me. If you want me to address your idiotic point fine.

Every time a snowflake falls Barack Obama will be there with a scraper to take it off someone's windshield. Because he's motherfucking SUPERMAN!

More lies.

Hotwife... lied?! Inconceivable!


Also lies:

I'd also point out his bullshit on the 900,000 without power thing.

The number of people without power in central Kentucky continues to decrease.

As of Thursday morning, Kentucky Utilities said 1,550 customers were without power in Fayette County. That number is down from a high of 41,000 last week.

In Madison County, 750 KU customers are still in the dark. 250 people are without power in Woodford County. And there are 50 outages reported in both Scott and Clark counties.

Kentucky Utilities said there are now 35,000 of their customers without power statewide, and most are west of Interstate 65.

Statewide, there are over 200,000 people without power. At the height of the storm, over 700,000 homes and businesses were without power.
http://www.wlextv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9793561&nav=menu203_2
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 17:31
what the fuck would that do? What the fuck would be accomplished by the president flying over frozen Kentucky?

God, why are republicans and neocons so built up on useless symbolism? I don't give a fuck if the president decides to fly over kentucky, it won't accomplish anything. I'm not one for symbolism, I'm one for results. Maybe you think the most important thing is that the president decides to show up for a photo op. I personally care more about things ACTUALLY getting accomplished. FEMA is there, and they're doing their jobs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28973769/).

The 'fly-over' was a satirical reference to Bush's weak attempt at viewing the Katrina damage. He deservedly got raked over the coals by the press and likewise was bashed for being in a school when airplanes were crashing into buildings on 9-11. Yet here is Obama, facing economic downturn, a natural disaster, and appointees with ethics issues and he decides that the best use of his time is to visit with the kiddies.

Oh, and I don't believe that Obama has yet appointed a person to head FEMA. So sorry if I am not confident in their abilities to handle a disaster where the death toll in Kentucky has reached to over 40.

My point isn't to bash a new president, but the fact that the same press who held the previous administration's foot to the fire is not doing the same with the current administration. I call that imbalanced.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 17:34
My point isn't to bash a new president, but the fact that the same press who held the previous administration's foot to the fire is not doing the same with the current administration. I call that imbalanced.

except the two situations aren't comparable. Nobody attacked bush for being in a school when 9-11 happened. Nobody even attacked Bush for the act of the flyover.

Where Bush got criticized, rightly so, was not that "he flew over", I couldn't give a damn if he did, but what I did give a damn about was that the flyover was very much an example of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. A "survey of the disaster" is meaningless when your administration is incompetent to do anything about it.

Meanwhile by all measure, FEMA is handling the kentucky ice storm with all due haste and efficiency. Sure, 40 people are dead, but that's a natural disaster for you. FEMA exists to handle emergencies, not wave a magic wand and make everything sunshine and kittens. And in emergencies people die. Tragic, it happens. I don't expect amazing superhuman efforts, I just expect reasonable ones. I fully accept that just because some people died doesn't mean FEMA didn't do all they could.

The deaths are tragic, but I have seen nothing to indicate they were preventable by any reasonable efforts, or that Obama's, or FEMA's, response was lacking in any materially deficient way. So maybe Obama isn't getting the raking over the coals that Bush got is because he's..handling it well.
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 17:34
What deflection

So what it's an old article. Fact is, this issue is not covered by the press as it would have, had it occurred during the precious administrations watch.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:38
So what it's an old article. Fact is, this issue is not covered by the press as it would have, had it occurred during the precious administrations watch.

If you post an article from the day after the disaster strikes it will of course be alarming, if you post an article from three days later when they've got a lot of trees off power lines and generators fired up all around it's a lot less alarming.
Lackadaisical2
05-02-2009, 17:40
I'd also point out his bullshit on the 900,000 without power thing.


http://www.wlextv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9793561&nav=menu203_2

well, your source doesn't come close to contradicting the 900,000 number, since 700,000 homes and businesses sounds like alot more than 900,000 people, unless people in kentucky don't have children, and live by themselves.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:41
well, your source doesn't come close to contradicting the 900,000 number, since 700,000 homes and businesses sounds like alot more than 900,000 people, unless people in kentucky don't have children, and live by themselves.

When the power's out they don't call you up and ask how many people are affected, they count homes.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 17:44
well, your source doesn't come close to contradicting the 900,000 number, since 700,000 homes and businesses sounds like alot more than 900,000 people, unless people in kentucky don't have children, and live by themselves.

note though, that was "at the height of". That number has scaled down dramatically. Which runs counter to DK's claims.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:45
note though, that was "at the height of". That number has scaled down dramatically. Which runs counter to DK's claims.

For DK's numbers to be correct there'd have to be an average of 4.5 people per home (and business).
Lackadaisical2
05-02-2009, 17:46
note though, that was "at the height of". That number has scaled down dramatically. Which runs counter to DK's claims.

It's hard to say if we meant that 900,000 are currently without power or that they were at some point.

For DK's numbers to be correct there'd have to be an average of 4.5 people per home (and business).

huh? the two numbers I have are 900,000 and 700,000 which would be about 1.3 people per home and business.
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:47
It's hard to say if we meant that 900,000 are currently without power or that they were at some point.

Considering he used present tense I think his meaning was clear.
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 17:48
It's hard to say if we meant that 900,000 are currently without power or that they were at some point.

It would make no sense to, with any degree of intellectual honesty, count the number of initial power outages as having ANYTHING to do with Obama, unless you believe can control the weather.

Of course, this being DK, we're likely to get a thread any moment that begins with "It still snows in winter, WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?"
Khadgar
05-02-2009, 17:53
It would make no sense to, with any degree of intellectual honesty, count the number of initial power outages as having ANYTHING to do with Obama, unless you believe can control the weather.

Of course, this being DK, we're likely to get a thread any moment that begins with "It still snows in winter, WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?"

President Barack Obama, or President Victor Fries?
Lackadaisical2
05-02-2009, 17:56
Considering he used present tense I think his meaning was clear.

I'm not sure, how would you say "900,000 people in the freeze without power is not to be discussed."? Like if I was talking about China, I would say something like "getting run over by a tank is not to be talked about" of course they're not driving tanks on top of people currently (that I know of) but I used present tense.


It would make no sense to, with any degree of intellectual honesty, count the number of initial power outages as having ANYTHING to do with Obama, unless you believe can control the weather.

Or do something about the way businesses provide power.

Of course, this being DK, we're likely to get a thread any moment that begins with "It still snows in winter, WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?"

The whole change thing is annoying. Actually if I see the word "ch...." again I might throw up.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 18:09
So what it's an old article. Fact is, this issue is not covered by the press as it would have, had it occurred during the precious administrations watch.
By that reasoning, you may as well dig up an article about the Civil War written in the 1860s and bitch that Obama didn't do anything about that, either, because the article doesn't mention him doing anything about it. Yelling that he didn't do X days after he actually did do X does not make your argument look rational.


The whole change thing is annoying. Actually if I see the word "ch...." again I might throw up.
The phrase "the C-word" will take on a whole new meaning.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 18:19
And now he has no majority support for his stimulus, I mean pork package.

I love watching your arguement progressively change as you continually get shown to be a liar.
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 18:26
By that reasoning, you may as well dig up an article about the Civil War written in the 1860s and bitch that Obama didn't do anything about that, either, because the article doesn't mention him doing anything about it. Yelling that he didn't do X days after he actually did do X does not make your argument look rational.

OK, I am not yelling. First of all the article and the disaster occured while Obama was in office while his administration is at the helm of the Executive branch. I was simply quoting from Monday and Tuesday this week, so trying muddle the issue with Civil War era equivalencies is weak.

If anything, the fact that you would consider the articles 'outdated', reinforce my point that the press simply isn't focusing on this and has refused to do so for at least the last 3 days. Prior to this administration, FEMA/government response to a major disaster including fatalities has regularly been a nationally newsworthy topic warranting multiple days of coverage. Now that does not seem to be the case. Why?
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 18:26
I love watching your arguement progressively change as you continually get shown to be a liar.
It's like a kaleidascope. Ooooooh....look at the picture and colors change the more he twists it about.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 18:28
It's like a kaleidascope. Ooooooh....look at the picture and colors change the more he twists it about.

And he wonders why we never believe his personal anecdotes....
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 18:35
OK, I am not yelling.
"Yelling", a rhetorical usage indicating a lack of respect for the complaint referenced; equivalent to "crying," "whining" or "yapping." I didn't mean it literally.

First of all the article and the disaster occured while Obama was in office while his administration is at the helm of the Executive branch. I was simply quoting from Monday and Tuesday this week, so trying muddle the issue with Civil War era equivalencies is weak.
Oh, so you do blame him for the weather?

It happened. He responded when asked to by the affected states in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The response is proving to be effective, as indicated in the link provided by another poster.

However, YOU slipped into the gap between it happening and him being asked to respond and tried to blame him for not doing something. And you tried to claim he hadn't done anything and people were suffering because of it, AFTER he actually did do what he was supposed to do when he was asked to do it and people were being helped by it. You pointed to part A of the story and tried to pretend that parts B, C, and D didn't exist.

People call that "misleading" and "intellectually dishonest" when they want to be polite.

If anything, the fact that you would consider the articles 'outdated', reinforce my point that the press simply isn't focusing on this and has refused to do so for at least the last 3 days. Prior to this administration, FEMA/government response to a major disaster including fatalities has regularly been a nationally newsworthy topic warranting multiple days of coverage. Now that does not seem to be the case. Why?
Hahahaha. You're funny.

1) I consider them outdated because they have been superseded by subsequent events.

2) I know about those subsequent events because I heard about them in the...wait for it...PRESS!!! Surprise! In the last three days, too. WOW!!!

3) So, I guess it actually does seem to be the case that the press is covering it, and you're just either wrong or lying.
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 18:57
I am not blaming Obama for any disaster or even criticizing his reaction to it.

I am not even saying that the story hasn't been covered.

I used the events in Kentucky merely as an example in which the manner the press covers (or lack thereof) the issues in relation to Obama's administration. Had this occurred during the previous administration, I am sure the tone, focus and angles of the coverage would have been different.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 19:05
I am not blaming Obama for any disaster or even criticizing his reaction to it.

I am not even saying that the story hasn't been covered.

I used the events in Kentucky merely as an example in which the manner the press covers (or lack thereof) the issues in relation to Obama's administration. Had this occurred during the previous administration, I am sure the tone, focus and angles of the coverage would have been different.
Nice backpedal. Look out, there's a wall behind you. Someone has written "Your point failed" on it.
Deefiki Ahno States
05-02-2009, 19:13
Nice backpedal. Look out, there's a wall behind you. Someone has written "Your point failed" on it.

Did you even read my posts or are you so caught up in winning a point that you can't have an objective discussion on the fact that the press might favor the Obama administration?
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 19:13
I am not blaming Obama for any disaster or even criticizing his reaction to it.

I am not even saying that the story hasn't been covered.

I used the events in Kentucky merely as an example in which the manner the press covers (or lack thereof) the issues in relation to Obama's administration. Had this occurred during the previous administration, I am sure the tone, focus and angles of the coverage would have been different.

Your argument basically seems to be "how come the press was so critical with how Bush handled Katrina but nobody seems to be critical about how Obama is handling Kentucky???"

Maybe because Obama handled it...better? Just a thought?

The governor requested a declaration of emergency. Obama granted the request. FEMA and the national guard were dispatched. Kentucky officials overall seem pleased with the federal response.

The deaths were tragic, but why should we be as critical of Obama as we were of Bush? Kentucky is being handled fairly well. Katrina was a fucking disaster.

Why did we criticize bush for such an empty gesture of flying over New Orleans but we're not criticizing Obama of visiting a school during the storm? Because the flight over New Orleans was a blatant photo op by a president who obviously didn't care, and whose administration did a horrendous cockup of a job dealing with the disaster. Obama on the other hand, is doing it right, and, frankly, I'm happy we have a president who, when faced with responsibility, simply does his job, rather than "travels to the disaster area" for a staged photo op. In a way, I have a bit of respect for him over the fact that he DIDN'T choose to go there. He's not needed there. He'd be a distraction there. He has no legitimate reason to be there. Going there would just be an attempt to use human tragedy for publicity. Something he appears to be above.

Something that can't be said for a certain other administration.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 19:14
you can't have an objective discussion on the fact that the press might favor the Obama administration?

They dont. It was done to death since he announced he'd run. Its absurd.
Muravyets
05-02-2009, 19:16
Did you even read my posts or are you so caught up in winning a point that you can't have an objective discussion on the fact that the press might favor the Obama administration?
As soon as you propose an objective debate I'll be glad to participate in it. But your points are not objective. They are biased and not factual. And I think I have made it clear that I disagree with your assertion that the press is favoring Obama on the storm story. The difference in coverage is due only to the difference in the situations. Others have already pointed that out.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 19:17
Your argument basically seems to be "how come the press was so critical with how Bush handled Katrina but nobody seems to be critical about how Obama is handling Kentucky???"

Maybe because Obama handled it...better? Just a thought?

The governor requested a declaration of emergency. Obama granted the request. FEMA and the national guard were dispatched. Kentucky officials overall seem pleased with the federal response.

The deaths were tragic, but why should we be as critical of Obama as we were of Bush? Kentucky is being handled fairly well. Katrina was a fucking disaster.

Why did we criticize bush for such an empty gesture of flying over New Orleans but we're not criticizing Obama of visiting a school during the storm? Because the flight over New Orleans was a blatant photo op by a president who obviously didn't care, and whose administration did a horrendous cockup of a job dealing with the disaster. Obama on the other hand, is doing it right, and, frankly, I'm happy we have a president who, when faced with responsibility, simply does his job, rather than "travels to the disaster area" for a staged photo op. In a way, I have a bit of respect for him over the fact that he DIDN'T choose to go there. He's not needed there. He'd be a distraction there. He has no legitimate reason to be there. Going there would just be an attempt to use human tragedy for publicity. Something he appears to be above.

Something that can't be said for a certain other administration.

Silly Neo Art. Dont you realize that in order for the press to be fair and not play favorites, they need to scream about how terrible a job the presidents doing, just like they did for the last guy, even if he did his job stunningly well?
Neo Art
05-02-2009, 19:24
Silly Neo Art. Dont you realize that in order for the press to be fair and not play favorites, they need to scream about how terrible a job the presidents doing, just like they did for the last guy, even if he did his job stunningly well?

I think it's remarkably telling that, in order for the right to feign outrage about Obama's response, they can't actually find a legitimate complaint, and have to resort to blatant lies like "he didn't declare a state of emergency!" (he did, within hours of being asked to, as required by law) or "he didn't even issue a single press release!" (he did, several in fact, they're all available on the whitehouse website's press release archives for all to see), or patent irrelevancies like "he went to a school!" (so what? what do you want him to do? Grab a snowshovel and start digging?).

I am made very confident in our president when, in times of emergencies, his detractors have to resort to out and out lies in order to criticize him. It means they can't find a single legitimate complaint. It's comforting.
Knights of Liberty
05-02-2009, 19:26
I think it's remarkably telling that, in order for the right to feign outrage about Obama's response, they can't actually find a legitimate complaint, and have to resort to blatant lies like "he didn't declare a state of emergency!" (he did, within hours of being asked to, as required by law) or "he didn't even issue a single press release!" (he did, several in fact, they're all available on the whitehouse website's press release archives for all to see), or patent irrelevancies like "he went to a school!" (so what? what do you want him to do?).

I am made very confident in our president when, in times of emergencies, his detractors have to resort to out and out lies in order to criticize him. It means they can't find a single legitimate complaint. It's comforting.


It does me one feel kinda fuzzy.