The General Politics Thread

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:46 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

Ronnie

North From Here · **Posted:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:53 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

Goat wrote:

I hope, if somehow RP does end up as the candidate, they smooth him up a bit. He's always come over a bit all-over-the-place to me in debates, and Obama could be a danger. Remember, America, Kennedy beat Nixon because of sweat.

It's high time the voters in this country look past superficialities and use their damned brains.
The mans record speaks for itself.

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

http://ronpaul.net/html/about.html

Another four years of Bush 2.0 or whatever neocon the GOP tosses out there, and we are fucked hard.

I just don't see either mainstream party nominating someone this removed from the establishment. I think the Republican establishment has to be terrified of Ron Paul running as an independent, and must be very careful with how they handle him after he loses the nomination fight.

noodles · **Posted:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:05 pm

It's cool how Ron Paul sticks to a definite stance, not cool that it's a stance I disagree with.

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:53 pm

Or deriding people that don't vote for him, as if they don't think about issues important to them as well.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:27 am

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

Or deriding people that don't vote for him, as if they don't think about issues important to them as well.

Examples?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:39 am

emperorblackdoom wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Goat wrote:

I hope, if somehow RP does end up as the candidate, they smooth him up a bit. He's always come over a bit all-over-the-place to me in debates, and Obama could be a danger. Remember, America, Kennedy beat Nixon because of sweat.

It's high time the voters in this country look past superficialities and use their damned brains.
The mans record speaks for itself.

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

http://ronpaul.net/html/about.html

Another four years of Bush 2.0 or whatever neocon the GOP tosses out there, and we are fucked hard.

I just don't see either mainstream party nominating someone this removed from the establishment. I think the Republican establishment has to be terrified of Ron Paul running as an independent, and must be very careful with how they handle him after he loses the nomination fight.

The Republican (RINO) establishment have long forsaken their principles to the highest bidder.
All Paul has to do is demonstrate to the public that their is no real difference between the current crop of D's and R's on parade, other than which special interests / lobbies they serve. History, both recent and not so recent bears this out.

If he gets equal time (yeah, right), he has a damn good chance. But it will probably be Bachmann, Perry or Romney for the GOP nod.

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:57 am

cry of the banshee wrote:

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

Or deriding people that don't vote for him, as if they don't think about issues important to them as well.

Examples?

Of speaking negatively about voters?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:07 am

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

Or deriding people that don't vote for him, as if they don't think about issues important to them as well.

Examples?

Of speaking negatively about voters?

Well, whatever you were referring to.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:39 am

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Agree:

Quote:

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.

Dinnae agree:

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

Nae sure:

Quote:

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Iraq war.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:36 am

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Agree:

Quote:

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.

Dinnae agree:

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

Nae sure:

Quote:

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Iraq war.

My uncanny powers of deduction tell me that "Dinnae" must mean "do not" and "Nae sure" means not sure...

So you weren't / aren't sure about the Iraq war?
I get the others (gun laws, tax, etc), but I just assumed you'd be against the Iraq war.
Weird.

Goat · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:38 am

Fridge hates Muslims, remember? Hundreds of thousands of them got blown up in the Iraq war, therefore it must have been a good thing. Silly ol' Ron Paul.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:59 am

Goat wrote:

Fridge hates Muslims, remember? Hundreds of thousands of them got blown up in the Iraq war, therefore it must have been a good thing. Silly ol' Ron Paul.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:12 am

Goat wrote:

Fridge hates Muslims, remember? Hundreds of thousands of them got blown up in the Iraq war, therefore it must have been a good thing. Silly ol' Ron Paul.

Actually, a sizeable amount of data indicates towards the Iraqi government actually hiding and financing prominent terrorists from various jihadi groups, Al Qaida among others. Sure, no WMD, and the lies that were told to the US people as an excuse for war were obscene and deserved all the protests they got (and more, IMO), but whatever the actual reasons may have been (oil, daddy's honor, republican cahoneys, who the fuck kens?) the outcome was almost definitely positive, as Saddam's regime was both promoting anti-western militarism and engaging in genocide.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:26 pm

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2011/0 ... or-people/

Funny and sad, at the same time.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:34 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?src=rechp

Really interesting study on Tea Party demographics. Basically, the most important link to Tea Party support is religious fervor.

Wow, surprise surprise... another hit piece on the TEA party.

What's funny about that article is how it doesn't mention that perhaps the media's constant hit job slander (bogus claims of racism, blaming this small upstart group for the econmic crisis, incredibly, etc.) has something to do with the tea party's unfavorable reception.
Indeed the article even attempts to perpetuate these blatantly fraudulent claims.

Quote:

They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

Really? I'd like to see some proof of these attitudes being widespread and prevalent within the TEA party. Because, it's pretty much been debunked.
I'm not really interested in the TP, but this non-stop, dishonest propganda is bullshit.

If you trust our media, I have some property for sale. Cheap.

Perfect example: the Ron Paul blackout, even though he was virtually tied with Bachmann in the polls after the Iowa GOP debate.
Where was he the following Sunday while every other candidate was granted air time, even though they didn't do so well?

The media is really not much more than an appendage of the DNC at this point. They know that Paul's message will resound with a helluva lot of people and if given equal time will ensure that the current Campaigner In Chief is a one termer. Can't have that, can we?

Pay attention. Unless you enjoy being lied to.

Well, first of all--that article isn't written by reporters, or "the media". It's a study written by professors of polisci and public policy at Notre Dame and Harvard.

"Racism" is a very slippery term, but I don't really think that "low regard"--or "racism", for that matter--signifies lower attitudes towards other races solely because they're of a different race. You can justify it with things like "black on white violence" or "illegal immigrant". I would say that you hold blacks in "low regard", and I don't think you'd disagree with me.

Regardless, I'm definitely not in disagreement with that assessment. It's a scientific study, number 1, and I also think that it's a fair claim.

I really have trouble believing that Ron Paul is being "blacked out" by the government/media because he is a threat to Obama's re-election. Not only is the evidence non-existent, aside from one weekend of TV?, but...yeah, there's no reason to believe that, that I know of.

Although I agree that you're not gonna get everything you need to know through mainstream media. It's dumb to think that they're not telling people what they want to hear, though--if there was a chance that a news outlet could make a profit by distributing in-demand news that others won't talk about, I don't think for a fucking second that they wouldn't do it.

It was presented by the media, though. The Gray Lady, no less.

As for the TP "having a low regard for immigrants (err, why skirt around the word "illegal"? That's waht they are against, not legal immigration) and blacks"... that is a speculative claim, and I'de like to see some proof of that. And let's be honest; it was another attempt at painting them as racists. We both know it.

See, the media has been relentess in trying to paint the TP as a hateful, racist, homophobic group, even when the evidence is to the contrary.
So, forgive my jaundiced eye in regards to what passes for reportage here in the States.

Paul would absolutely destroy Obama in a debate, and everyone knows it.
Obamas record is an atrocity.

If the media is merely telling people what they want to hear, why is Zero's approval numbers in the basement? The media does all it can to cloud what a disaster this "president" has been, after all.
And if the media is merely telling people what they want to hear, they are not doing their job as journalists, are they?

Don't think they were skirting around the word "illegal". I think they meant that the Tea Party have a lower regard for immigrants, legal or illegal.

I don't really think the evidence is to the contrary, since that article gives definitive evidence...well, to the contrary. Give me another legit, academic study on demographics of the Tea Party that shows otherwise, please.

Please, don't even try to say that the media is trying to cover up for the president. What a joke. I could point you to a hundred articles in liberal media criticizing the job he's done, not to mention Fox News and other conservative outlets .

I will admit that Ron Paul doesn't get the coverage that others do, but that's because he's not out there saying fucking stupid shit like Ben Bernanke is a traitor. Guess he needs to stir up some controversy.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:53 pm

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?src=rechp

Really interesting study on Tea Party demographics. Basically, the most important link to Tea Party support is religious fervor.

Wow, surprise surprise... another hit piece on the TEA party.

What's funny about that article is how it doesn't mention that perhaps the media's constant hit job slander (bogus claims of racism, blaming this small upstart group for the econmic crisis, incredibly, etc.) has something to do with the tea party's unfavorable reception.
Indeed the article even attempts to perpetuate these blatantly fraudulent claims.

Quote:

They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

Really? I'd like to see some proof of these attitudes being widespread and prevalent within the TEA party. Because, it's pretty much been debunked.
I'm not really interested in the TP, but this non-stop, dishonest propganda is bullshit.

If you trust our media, I have some property for sale. Cheap.

Perfect example: the Ron Paul blackout, even though he was virtually tied with Bachmann in the polls after the Iowa GOP debate.
Where was he the following Sunday while every other candidate was granted air time, even though they didn't do so well?

The media is really not much more than an appendage of the DNC at this point. They know that Paul's message will resound with a helluva lot of people and if given equal time will ensure that the current Campaigner In Chief is a one termer. Can't have that, can we?

Pay attention. Unless you enjoy being lied to.

Well, first of all--that article isn't written by reporters, or "the media". It's a study written by professors of polisci and public policy at Notre Dame and Harvard.

"Racism" is a very slippery term, but I don't really think that "low regard"--or "racism", for that matter--signifies lower attitudes towards other races solely because they're of a different race. You can justify it with things like "black on white violence" or "illegal immigrant". I would say that you hold blacks in "low regard", and I don't think you'd disagree with me.

Regardless, I'm definitely not in disagreement with that assessment. It's a scientific study, number 1, and I also think that it's a fair claim.

I really have trouble believing that Ron Paul is being "blacked out" by the government/media because he is a threat to Obama's re-election. Not only is the evidence non-existent, aside from one weekend of TV?, but...yeah, there's no reason to believe that, that I know of.

Although I agree that you're not gonna get everything you need to know through mainstream media. It's dumb to think that they're not telling people what they want to hear, though--if there was a chance that a news outlet could make a profit by distributing in-demand news that others won't talk about, I don't think for a fucking second that they wouldn't do it.

It was presented by the media, though. The Gray Lady, no less.

As for the TP "having a low regard for immigrants (err, why skirt around the word "illegal"? That's waht they are against, not legal immigration) and blacks"... that is a speculative claim, and I'de like to see some proof of that. And let's be honest; it was another attempt at painting them as racists. We both know it.

See, the media has been relentess in trying to paint the TP as a hateful, racist, homophobic group, even when the evidence is to the contrary.
So, forgive my jaundiced eye in regards to what passes for reportage here in the States.

Paul would absolutely destroy Obama in a debate, and everyone knows it.
Obamas record is an atrocity.

If the media is merely telling people what they want to hear, why is Zero's approval numbers in the basement? The media does all it can to cloud what a disaster this "president" has been, after all.
And if the media is merely telling people what they want to hear, they are not doing their job as journalists, are they?

Don't think they were skirting around the word "illegal". I think they meant that the Tea Party have a lower regard for immigrants, legal or illegal.

I don't really think the evidence is to the contrary, since that article gives definitive evidence...well, to the contrary. Give me another legit, academic study on demographics of the Tea Party that shows otherwise, please.

Please, don't even try to say that the media is trying to cover up for the president. What a joke. I could point you to a hundred articles in liberal media criticizing the job he's done, not to mention Fox News and other conservative outlets .

I will admit that Ron Paul doesn't get the coverage that others do, but that's because he's not out there saying fucking stupid shit like Ben Bernanke is a traitor. Guess he needs to stir up some controversy.

That article made a claim; it offered zero "definitive evidence".
Actually the onus of proof is on the accuser, so I'll turn it around.
You show me the demographics that indicate that the TP are racist and that they are against immigration in general.
I already cited a study that showed that the reportage has been extremely biased against the TP. Did you even read it?

As for the press... yeah, give me a break. Denying the liberal bias is a fucking joke.
Google JournoList.
I can cite independent studies as well that state the obvious: the media leans overwhelmingly left, and has for quite some time... you mention FOX, but you don't mention ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (more moderate, true, but still a bit left), AP / reuters/ etc., the printed news media, HGN, plus liberal talk radio (there are some of them as well, you know)...
just contrast the reportage of Obama and the GOP candidates, especially in the coming weeks and months. They will try and marginalize whatever the GOP puts up as much as possible while downplaying Obama's incompetence... we are treated with news on how Perry would "attack the constitution", while the media never brings up the numerous constitutional violations that Obama has perpetrated. Or how Bachmanns entourage elbowed some journalist, even though it was obviously close quarters and chaotic, the media have been trying to spin it into something akin to brownshirt tactics. This is obviously BS.
Also, all the things that the media hounded W for are now pretty much never mentioned... Gitmo, Patriot Act, wars, daily death toll, etc.
Or how the media clamored for Palin's e-mails, while not extending that same demand to Obama. Palin is not even a candidate.
Remember the Giffords shooting? It was a concerted effort from the get go to attempt to make it into a right winger attacking a liberal.
Well, that didn't turn out to be the case, now did it?
I can go on and on and on, but instead, I'll cite this link:

http://newsbusters.org/

pages upon pages of examples of liberal bias.

They are critical of Obama, are they? When they are it is usually about something that he has done that is not liberal enough.
Even, so the most effective propaganda is when a small truth is sandwiched between two massive lies.
Google JournoList400.

You even admit that the media is blacking out Paul, though you still make excuses for them doing so. Nope, no bias there.
:lol:

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:21 pm

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Goat wrote:

Fridge hates Muslims, remember? Hundreds of thousands of them got blown up in the Iraq war, therefore it must have been a good thing. Silly ol' Ron Paul.

Actually, a sizeable amount of data indicates towards the Iraqi government actually hiding and financing prominent terrorists from various jihadi groups, Al Qaida among others. Sure, no WMD, and the lies that were told to the US people as an excuse for war were obscene and deserved all the protests they got (and more, IMO), but whatever the actual reasons may have been (oil, daddy's honor, republican cahoneys, who the fuck kens?) the outcome was almost definitely positive, as Saddam's regime was both promoting anti-western militarism and engaging in genocide.

The outcome is debatable, but the war has been a disaster, both in terms of the loss of life and limb and financially.

As for this

Quote:

Saddam's regime was both promoting anti-western militarism and engaging in genocide

And? Am I supposed to be concerned with this?

heatseeker · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:35 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

That article made a claim; it offered zero "definitive evidence".
Actually the onus of proof is on the accuser, so I'll turn it around.
You show me the demographics that indicate that the TP are racist and that they are against immigration in general.
I already cited a study that showed that the reportage has been extremely biased against the TP. Did you even read it?

As for the press... yeah, give me a break. Denying the liberal bias is a fucking joke.
Google JournoList.
I can cite independent studies as well that state the obvious: the media leans overwhelmingly left, and has for quite some time... you mention FOX, but you don't mention ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (more moderate, true, but still a bit left), AP / reuters/ etc., the printed news media, HGN, plus liberal talk radio (there are some of them as well, you know)...
just contrast the reportage of Obama and the GOP candidates, especially in the coming weeks and months. They will try and marginalize whatever the GOP puts up as much as possible while downplaying Obama's incompetence... we are treated with news on how Perry would "attack the constitution", while the media never brings up the numerous constitutional violations that Obama has perpetrated. Or how Bachmanns entourage elbowed some journalist, even though it was obviously close quarters and chaotic, the media have been trying to spin it into something akin to brownshirt tactics. This is obviously BS.
Also, all the things that the media hounded W for are now pretty much never mentioned... Gitmo, Patriot Act, wars, daily death toll, etc.
Or how the media clamored for Palin's e-mails, while not extending that same demand to Obama. Palin is not even a candidate.
Remember the Giffords shooting? It was a concerted effort from the get go to attempt to make it into a right winger attacking a liberal.
Well, that didn't turn out to be the case, now did it?
I can go on and on and on, but instead, I'll cite this link:

http://newsbusters.org/

pages upon pages of examples of liberal bias.

They are critical of Obama, are they? When they are it is usually about something that he has done that is not liberal enough.
Even, so the most effective propaganda is when a small truth is sandwiched between two massive lies.
Google JournoList400.

You even admit that the media is blacking out Paul, though you still make excuses for them doing so. Nope, no bias there.
:lol:

From the article:

Quote:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

I don't really know how an article can be any more scientifically rigorous. Maybe you didn't read it very closely, but that article is not JUST an opinion piece, it presents the results of a study and then offers commentary on them. Those results show that Tea Party members, in general, have lower regard for blacks and immigrants than even other Republicans.

Not sure what other type of evidence you are looking for.

Wasn't making excuses for the media...more of a commentary on how the media is being unfair. I kind of agree with you, haha.

But the media is not defending Obama. That is just stupid. What constitutional violations has he perpetrated?

Never denied that the media has a liberal bias...that might be true, I don't really give a fuck. Don't follow the mainstream media much. BUT they're not defending Obama...even if it is criticism for not standing up for liberal principles enough.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:57 pm

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

That article made a claim; it offered zero "definitive evidence".
Actually the onus of proof is on the accuser, so I'll turn it around.
You show me the demographics that indicate that the TP are racist and that they are against immigration in general.
I already cited a study that showed that the reportage has been extremely biased against the TP. Did you even read it?

As for the press... yeah, give me a break. Denying the liberal bias is a fucking joke.
Google JournoList.
I can cite independent studies as well that state the obvious: the media leans overwhelmingly left, and has for quite some time... you mention FOX, but you don't mention ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (more moderate, true, but still a bit left), AP / reuters/ etc., the printed news media, HGN, plus liberal talk radio (there are some of them as well, you know)...
just contrast the reportage of Obama and the GOP candidates, especially in the coming weeks and months. They will try and marginalize whatever the GOP puts up as much as possible while downplaying Obama's incompetence... we are treated with news on how Perry would "attack the constitution", while the media never brings up the numerous constitutional violations that Obama has perpetrated. Or how Bachmanns entourage elbowed some journalist, even though it was obviously close quarters and chaotic, the media have been trying to spin it into something akin to brownshirt tactics. This is obviously BS.
Also, all the things that the media hounded W for are now pretty much never mentioned... Gitmo, Patriot Act, wars, daily death toll, etc.
Or how the media clamored for Palin's e-mails, while not extending that same demand to Obama. Palin is not even a candidate.
Remember the Giffords shooting? It was a concerted effort from the get go to attempt to make it into a right winger attacking a liberal.
Well, that didn't turn out to be the case, now did it?
I can go on and on and on, but instead, I'll cite this link:

http://newsbusters.org/

pages upon pages of examples of liberal bias.

They are critical of Obama, are they? When they are it is usually about something that he has done that is not liberal enough.
Even, so the most effective propaganda is when a small truth is sandwiched between two massive lies.
Google JournoList400.

You even admit that the media is blacking out Paul, though you still make excuses for them doing so. Nope, no bias there.
:lol:

From the article:

Quote:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

I don't really know how an article can be any more scientifically rigorous. Maybe you didn't read it very closely, but that article is not JUST an opinion piece, it presents the results of a study and then offers commentary on them. Those results show that Tea Party members, in general, have lower regard for blacks and immigrants than even other Republicans.

Not sure what other type of evidence you are looking for.

Wasn't making excuses for the media...more of a commentary on how the media is being unfair. I kind of agree with you, haha.

But the media is not defending Obama. That is just stupid. What constitutional violations has he perpetrated?

Never denied that the media has a liberal bias...that might be true, I don't really give a fuck. Don't follow the mainstream media much. BUT they're not defending Obama...even if it is criticism for not standing up for liberal principles enough.

That study doesn't show what the interview questions were, or the context or even what the "representative sample " consisted of.
It's all speculative. And holding blacks in low regard doesn't necessarilly equate to "racism", now does it? I'd say they have brought that on themselves, so why is it even a factor (if true, that is... again, I am very suspicious of the MSM in regards to their political reportage).

As for this

Quote:

But the media is not defending Obama. That is just stupid. What constitutional violations has he perpetrated?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-t ... -congress/

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-t ... ongress/2/

Add to that bypassing the Congress in regards to getting involved in the Libya mess.
Extending the patriot act is also very very suspicious.

Also a little matter of "equal protection under the law" in regards to his appointed AG, Eric Holder.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:00 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

That article made a claim; it offered zero "definitive evidence".
Actually the onus of proof is on the accuser, so I'll turn it around.
You show me the demographics that indicate that the TP are racist and that they are against immigration in general.
I already cited a study that showed that the reportage has been extremely biased against the TP. Did you even read it?

As for the press... yeah, give me a break. Denying the liberal bias is a fucking joke.
Google JournoList.
I can cite independent studies as well that state the obvious: the media leans overwhelmingly left, and has for quite some time... you mention FOX, but you don't mention ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (more moderate, true, but still a bit left), AP / reuters/ etc., the printed news media, HGN, plus liberal talk radio (there are some of them as well, you know)...
just contrast the reportage of Obama and the GOP candidates, especially in the coming weeks and months. They will try and marginalize whatever the GOP puts up as much as possible while downplaying Obama's incompetence... we are treated with news on how Perry would "attack the constitution", while the media never brings up the numerous constitutional violations that Obama has perpetrated. Or how Bachmanns entourage elbowed some journalist, even though it was obviously close quarters and chaotic, the media have been trying to spin it into something akin to brownshirt tactics. This is obviously BS.
Also, all the things that the media hounded W for are now pretty much never mentioned... Gitmo, Patriot Act, wars, daily death toll, etc.
Or how the media clamored for Palin's e-mails, while not extending that same demand to Obama. Palin is not even a candidate.
Remember the Giffords shooting? It was a concerted effort from the get go to attempt to make it into a right winger attacking a liberal.
Well, that didn't turn out to be the case, now did it?
I can go on and on and on, but instead, I'll cite this link:

http://newsbusters.org/

pages upon pages of examples of liberal bias.

They are critical of Obama, are they? When they are it is usually about something that he has done that is not liberal enough.
Even, so the most effective propaganda is when a small truth is sandwiched between two massive lies.
Google JournoList400.

You even admit that the media is blacking out Paul, though you still make excuses for them doing so. Nope, no bias there.
:lol:

From the article:

Quote:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

I don't really know how an article can be any more scientifically rigorous. Maybe you didn't read it very closely, but that article is not JUST an opinion piece, it presents the results of a study and then offers commentary on them. Those results show that Tea Party members, in general, have lower regard for blacks and immigrants than even other Republicans.

Not sure what other type of evidence you are looking for.

Wasn't making excuses for the media...more of a commentary on how the media is being unfair. I kind of agree with you, haha.

But the media is not defending Obama. That is just stupid. What constitutional violations has he perpetrated?

Never denied that the media has a liberal bias...that might be true, I don't really give a fuck. Don't follow the mainstream media much. BUT they're not defending Obama...even if it is criticism for not standing up for liberal principles enough.

That study doesn't show what the interview questions were, or the context or even what the "representative sample " consisted of.
It's all speculative. And holding blacks in low regard doesn't necessarilly equate to "racism", now does it? I'd say they have brought that on themselves, so why is it even a factor (if true, that is... again, I am very suspicious of the MSM in regards to their political reportage).

As for this

Quote:

But the media is not defending Obama. That is just stupid. What constitutional violations has he perpetrated?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-t ... -congress/

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-t ... ongress/2/

Add to that bypassing the Congress in regards to getting involved in the Libya mess.
Extending the patriot act is also very very suspicious.

Also a little matter of "equal protection under the law" in regards to his appointed AG, Eric Holder.

I actually said earlier that "low regard" does not necessarily mean "racism". Racism is a very slippery term, etc...

You're justified in asking for the details in terms of questions used, etc., but that itself doesn't invalidate the study. I still look at the results they find and think "yep". You can choose to believe it or not.

That constitutional violations thing is fishy in more than a few places:

Quote:

#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity.

Blatantly partisan bullshit. The assertion that cap and trade can't be justified is an opinion, not a fact. As if reducing greenhouse gas emissions isn't good for the general welfare.

Other examples of where the article states opinion as fact to justify their claims:

Quote:

more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.

(Laughably oversimplifying the issue.)

Quote:

The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.

(Not only is this just a bunch of opinionated, highly debatable bunk, but there's no actual Constitutional violation cited...)

Quote:

The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.

(Rescuing the banks can easily be justified as being for the general welfare).

So yeah. There may be actual evidence for this stuff, I'm not an expert, but in general, I trust the Supreme Court to do their job.

Metal Reviews

The General Politics Thread

Who is online