11 replies to this topic

[inawe]

Bellow are excerpts from an article publish in a paper today.

[McCain Loses His Head

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around." --
"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie
playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama. Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without
even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This
childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle --
had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand
what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19,
Page A22). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is
always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem
to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the
McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict
campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17, Page A4; and the New York Times of Sept. 20, Page One.)

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent
judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has
that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either. It is arguable that,
because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and
bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency.
Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed? ]

The author must be some liberal hack, right? WRONG! It's
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21
http://www.washingto...8092202583.html

What's happening?
Obama is smart, educated, knowledgeable and measured. Since none of those attributes can be found in the Republican ticket they came up with
"Elitist". So anybody who's smart, educated, knowledgeable and measured is an "Elitist".

Supporters of McCain posting in this forum clearly are not "Elitists".

Turns out that many conservatives like George Will are proud "Elitists". And they cannot take the crap coming from the McCain camp any longer.

[REGIMEN]

Bellow are excerpts from an article publish in a paper today.

[McCain Loses His Head

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around." --
"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie
playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama. Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without
even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This
childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle --
had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand
what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19,
Page A22). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is
always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem
to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the
McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict
campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17, Page A4; and the New York Times of Sept. 20, Page One.)

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent
judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has
that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either. It is arguable that,
because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and
bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency.
Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed? ]

The author must be some liberal hack, right? WRONG! It's
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21
http://www.washingto...8092202583.html

What's happening?
Obama is smart, educated, knowledgeable and measured. Since none of those attributes can be found in the Republican ticket they came up with
"Elitist". So anybody who's smart, educated, knowledgeable and measured is an "Elitist".

Supporters of McCain posting in this forum clearly are not "Elitists".

Turns out that many conservatives like George Will are proud "Elitists". And they cannot take the crap coming from the McCain camp any longer.

Tasty.

[luv2increase]

Bellow are excerpts from an article publish in a paper today.

[McCain Loses His Head

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around." --
"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie
playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama. Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without
even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This
childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle --
had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand
what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19,
Page A22). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is
always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem
to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the
McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict
campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17, Page A4; and the New York Times of Sept. 20, Page One.)

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent
judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has
that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either. It is arguable that,
because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and
bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency.
Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed? ]

The author must be some liberal hack, right? WRONG! It's
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21
http://www.washingto...8092202583.html

What's happening?
Obama is smart, educated, knowledgeable and measured. Since none of those attributes can be found in the Republican ticket they came up with
"Elitist". So anybody who's smart, educated, knowledgeable and measured is an "Elitist".

Supporters of McCain posting in this forum clearly are not "Elitists".

Turns out that many conservatives like George Will are proud "Elitists". And they cannot take the crap coming from the McCain camp any longer.

Tasty.

Boy, that article didn't say anything. It didn't have any substance. It was just a biased journalist upset that McCain said he would fire the SEC Chairman! Well, in case you don't understand how Wall Street works etc..., you would realize that the SEC Chairman has not done his job. He is a grave reason why this has happened.

One thing you should realize 'inawe' is that the media is greatly biased against McCain right now. They take something like this and write a whole article on it like they have the TRUTH. Who is to say they are the all-knowing final say in this? There is no one...

Get the facts from both sides before you go head over heals on some negative commentary. You must decipher the happenings of the political arena for yourself. Don't let some biased journalist DICTATE YOUR BELIEFS FOR YOU.

Learn to think for yourself rather than other people thinking for you...

Edited by luv2increase, 24 September 2008 - 02:12 PM.

[inawe]

A McCain supporter proving he is unable to understand even simple things. He's going to watch the Fox channel to get instructions from
Rupert Murdoch.
He wants to "Elect a fossil who has admitted not knowing how to use a computer and his moose hunting sidekick that
believes creationism and evolution should be on equal academic footing in schools. Then the economy is sure to flourish." (mygenus)

[luv2increase]

A McCain supporter proving he is unable to understand even simple things.

How so? What simple things are you insinuating? That you must be able to type on a keyboard to be president? Don't you think that men of his stature have people do that stuff for him? Also, the guy isn't physically able to do so, and it was quite a sleezy shot of Obama to make fun of him for it! Obama didn't let people know he wasn't physically able to do so yet just didn't know how to do it.

He's going to watch the Fox channel

Fox News is the only unbiased news state. This is hardly true for the likes of MSNBC, CNN, ABC News, and CBS. Those news stations don't even say anything positive about Obama in these last days before election, yet they only bash McCain/Palin 24/7 round the clock. Instead of talking about why Obama should be president, they focus on why not McCain should be president. This doesn't make sense to me; does it you?

"Elect a fossil who has admitted not knowing how to use a computer and his moose hunting sidekick that
believes creationism and evolution should be on equal academic footing in schools. Then the economy is sure to flourish." (mygenus)

If neither creationism nor evolution have been proven; why should it matter? Can't they both be taught as theories? Also, the "elect a fossil" statement is a tad out of line. McCain isn't just a fossil yet a man who gave his all for this country and has attempted to rid corruption from the gov't for along time. Obama hasn't given anything for his country. He hasn't called out corruption; he hasn't served in our gov't for along time; he doesn't have the credentials to be a president; he walk and talks in a pompous, arrogant manner; he plays the African American card when he isn't even African American (this said by African American historians & experts -- not me); he voted present 104 times in the Senate on important issues -- the ones he says he is for now btw; he has terrorist ties; he told a little girl our country isn't any good anymore; he was the second highest paid Senator from corporations; & etc... etc.... etc....

Why doesn't the media focus on these issues? Because they are biased. They don't want the American people to think about these issues. It would simply be not conducive to their sick agenda. Everything which you are spewing is the same thing that is spewed constantly on the media.


What you should really be doing if you want to sway me to vote for Obama (lol) is tell me all the good things Obama has done since he has been in politics which makes him a suitable candidate for the President of the United States of America. Let's hear them.

[Shannon Vyff]

Actually, the genius in Fox News marketing is owning their bias. The other stations attempt counter-points and a semblance of objectivity--but because we are all human and have subjective tendencies, it becomes simple to moralize about claims to objective content or only focus on one element of an attempted counterpoint. Fox News simply doesn't strive for objectivity and owns its space.

May not agree with the network, but its a brilliant marketing choice.

I'm curious about the manner in which you see George Will as biased? He's one of the last true Goldwater believers, and you leave me wondering if you are familiar with his work.

Just curious-

Also, you may want to rethink complaints about posters being sheeple while using near Orwellian phrases in bold. The contradiction between your proposed message and the method of communication could not be more disjointed.

[Mind]

Actually, the genius in Fox News marketing is owning their bias. The other stations attempt counter-points and a semblance of objectivity--but because we are all human and have subjective tendencies, it becomes simple to moralize about claims to objective content or only focus on one element of an attempted counterpoint. Fox News simply doesn't strive for objectivity and owns its space.

I don't watch much news outside of CNBC and my own station, but when I have seen FoxNews, I have seen many folks from all sides of the political spectrum. Maybe things have changed recently. Do they now only have Republicans on 24 hours a day? Seems the show Hannity & Colmes is a point/counterpoint thing, or am I missing something?

[Shannon Vyff]

Fox News also hires the most unattractive Democrat pundits they can find and love to compromise or fluster them. Colmes is there as a foil, a wiry moderate liberal who defers to Hannity. Fox has also given Hannity his own other shows and his own radio shows (Colmes does not, and makes less money). Hannity & Colmes point / counterpoint is sort of like point / counterpoint on the Daily Show (known for owning up to its liberal content). If you watch it, Hannity has much more air time as well. It is not at all like Crossfire (sort of unproductive, but the evenly matched point / counterpoint between liberals and conservatives who basically end up yelling at each other).

[luv2increase]

Actually, the genius in Fox News marketing is owning their bias. The other stations attempt counter-points and a semblance of objectivity--but because we are all human and have subjective tendencies, it becomes simple to moralize about claims to objective content or only focus on one element of an attempted counterpoint. Fox News simply doesn't strive for objectivity and owns its space.

May not agree with the network, but its a brilliant marketing choice.

I'm curious about the manner in which you see George Will as biased? He's one of the last true Goldwater believers, and you leave me wondering if you are familiar with his work.

Just curious-

Also, you may want to rethink complaints about posters being sheeple while using near Orwellian phrases in bold. The contradiction between your proposed message and the method of communication could not be more disjointed.

I've been watching Fox News and every other news channel daily for the last 6 months. I am completely enthralled in it. I've concluded that Fox News has just as much bad propaganda of McCain/Palin as Obama/Biden. This makes them unbiased in regards to the Presidential Campaign.

On the other hand, every other news source including the popular national newspapers have had literally almost nill negativity of Obama and all negativity on McCain/Palin. I challenge you to watch 1 hour of news coverage of the Presidential Race on MSNBC. I then challenge you to do the same on Fox News. You will find that what I said is 100% true. The proof is in the pudding.

[luv2increase]

Fox News also hires the most unattractive Democrat pundits they can find and love to compromise or fluster them. Colmes is there as a foil, a wiry moderate liberal who defers to Hannity. Fox has also given Hannity his own other shows and his own radio shows (Colmes does not, and makes less money). Hannity & Colmes point / counterpoint is sort of like point / counterpoint on the Daily Show (known for owning up to its liberal content). If you watch it, Hannity has much more air time as well. It is not at all like Crossfire (sort of unproductive, but the evenly matched point / counterpoint between liberals and conservatives who basically end up yelling at each other).

You must be talking about a different news channel lol. I must say that I'm surprised to see you write what you have. For instance, "Fox News also hires the most unattractive Democrat pundits". Are you serious? Now that is what I call a good argument. Bravo shannon for your intelligent remark...

[Shannon Vyff]

Ok I'm not sure if that is sarcasm since it is so hard to read in, but I'm guessing it is. There was an article a while back where it had been mentioned by them that they do that on purpose, if I see it, I'll post it.

[luv2increase]

Ok I'm not sure if that is sarcasm since it is so hard to read in, but I'm guessing it is. There was an article a while back where it had been mentioned by them that they do that on purpose, if I see it, I'll post it.

Take a gander at Fox News will ya? There is an equal amount of negative and positive propaganda on both candidates and their VP choices. You have to be up-to-date and realize that things change. Fox News is the No Spin Zone now like it or not.