Obama Drops A (another) Turd

[Chocolate Shake Man]

why did i come back to the board

 

I feel the same way about my own decision...

[Smilin Ed H]

It's like being inside a Randy Newman song

[Bean Bag]

 

You're hurting my feelings.  Is this conversation beneath all of you?  

[alf wiedersehen]

You're hurting my feelings.  Is this conversation beneath all of you?  

I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had. It's more just like "I intensely dislike Obama and I'mma tell you about it."
Maybe if you held back a bit and instead presented a logical argument for why something is bad/wrong, there would be a reasonable conversation.

[18thofMay]

You cannot be serious?

Oh come on, even if the rest of the Liberals aren't bad, you have to at least admit Abbott is a d*ckhead that consistently embarrasses himself.

No it is all about perception, no perception is wrong or right.

[18thofMay]

It would be nearly impossible to reply to all of your bullshit because I actually have a life. It's the whole Fox news?Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch skreed. God, things were so much better when the republicans were in charge. But you're convinced that this guy is evil personified . Does it bother you at all that right wing republicans are almost always on the wrong side of history?(now you can look up those few times when they weren't) When someone says it's not about  a certain party or president then you know that's exactly what it's about.

Have you ever even watched FoxNews?  I'm not trying to convert you or anything silly, but it's the only place on TV were you get left AND right opinions together. It might help you form your own opinions, which are always more honest and weighty than the bumper sticker variety.  Try the Five. It's on at 5pm. It's fun and relaxed and ideas get bounced around.

And to answer some of your comments, NO, the Republicans are not the answer sadly. It's never that easy. Well, except,it's almost 100% certain now that the Democrats are just a flat out criminal organization. They use extortion better than the mob. It's really sad what happened to that party.

How can anyone be take seriously when they reference FoxNews?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How can anybody take it seriously when someone says that you can get a "left" opinion anywhere in US mainstream media, let alone Fox news?

[filledeplage]

It would be nearly impossible to reply to all of your bullshit because I actually have a life. It's the whole Fox news?Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch skreed. God, things were so much better when the republicans were in charge. But you're convinced that this guy is evil personified . Does it bother you at all that right wing republicans are almost always on the wrong side of history?(now you can look up those few times when they weren't) When someone says it's not about  a certain party or president then you know that's exactly what it's about.

Have you ever even watched FoxNews?  I'm not trying to convert you or anything silly, but it's the only place on TV were you get left AND right opinions together. It might help you form your own opinions, which are always more honest and weighty than the bumper sticker variety.  Try the Five. It's on at 5pm. It's fun and relaxed and ideas get bounced around.

And to answer some of your comments, NO, the Republicans are not the answer sadly. It's never that easy. Well, except,it's almost 100% certain now that the Democrats are just a flat out criminal organization. They use extortion better than the mob. It's really sad what happened to that party.

How can anyone be take seriously when they reference FoxNews?

Greta Van Susteren - legal analyst for CNN from 1994-2002 listed by Forbes in 2012 as one of the 100th most powerful women in the world. Former adjunct faculty at Georgetown Law.  
Not credible?

Megyn  Kelly - Kelly File - listed by Time as one of the 100th most influential people in 2014. Albany Law, litigation experience, covered the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan.  Not credible?

Judge Jeanine Pirro - district court judge, first female judge in Westchester, NY, District Attorney, 12 years. Guest hosted Larry King Live, Joy Behar, Geraldo show. Not credible?

Geraldo Rivera - attorney, reporter Columbia post-grad in Journalism, NYPD investigator, frequent atty. for Puerto Rican activist group, the Young Lords, who occupied an East Harlem church in in. 1969.  ABC's Good Night America, then correspondent for Good Morning America 1975-77, investigated Elvis' prescription drug records, causing Tennessee to revoke the medical license of Dr. George Nichopoulos for overprescribing. Plenty more can be found.  

Took a pay cut to work for Fox after 9/11. Delivered the keynote at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 2008 Public Policy conference.  Not credible?

This is The Sandbox.  

You may not like them, and don't have to, but it is hard to argue that they do not have highly credentialed people working for them.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It would be nearly impossible to reply to all of your bullshit because I actually have a life. It's the whole Fox news?Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch skreed. God, things were so much better when the republicans were in charge. But you're convinced that this guy is evil personified . Does it bother you at all that right wing republicans are almost always on the wrong side of history?(now you can look up those few times when they weren't) When someone says it's not about  a certain party or president then you know that's exactly what it's about.

Have you ever even watched FoxNews?  I'm not trying to convert you or anything silly, but it's the only place on TV were you get left AND right opinions together. It might help you form your own opinions, which are always more honest and weighty than the bumper sticker variety.  Try the Five. It's on at 5pm. It's fun and relaxed and ideas get bounced around.

And to answer some of your comments, NO, the Republicans are not the answer sadly. It's never that easy. Well, except,it's almost 100% certain now that the Democrats are just a flat out criminal organization. They use extortion better than the mob. It's really sad what happened to that party.

How can anyone be take seriously when they reference FoxNews?

Greta Van Susteren - legal analyst for CNN from 1994-2002 listed by Forbes in 2012 as one of the 100th most powerful women in the world. Former adjunct faculty at Georgetown Law.  
Not credible?

Megyn  Kelly - Kelly File - listed by Time as one of the 100th most influential people in 2014. Albany Law, litigation experience, covered the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan.  Not credible?

Judge Jeanine Pirro - district court judge, first female judge in Westchester, NY, District Attorney, 12 years. Guest hosted Larry King Live, Joy Behar, Geraldo show. Not credible?

Geraldo Rivera - attorney, reporter Columbia post-grad in Journalism, NYPD investigator, frequent atty. for Puerto Rican activist group, the Young Lords, who occupied an East Harlem church in in. 1969.  ABC's Good Night America, then correspondent for Good Morning America 1975-77, investigated Elvis' prescription drug records, causing Tennessee to revoke the medical license of Dr. George Nichopoulos for overprescribing. Plenty more can be found.  

Took a pay cut to work for Fox after 9/11. Delivered the keynote at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 2008 Public Policy conference.  Not credible?

This is The Sandbox.  

You may not like them, and don't have to, but it is hard to argue that they do not have highly credentialed people working for them.  

Well, as people who have been trained by elite institutions, and have worked as dutiful members of power institutions and power structures, that does make them perfect candidates for a job of journalism, which requires dutiful obedience to dominating power structures. As far as any of them being credible, I'd have to say no. I don't particularly think any agent of power is credible.

[SMiLE Brian]

why did i come back to the board

 

I feel the same way about my own decision...

Glad to have both of you guys on the board!

[filledeplage]

It would be nearly impossible to reply to all of your bullshit because I actually have a life. It's the whole Fox news?Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch skreed. God, things were so much better when the republicans were in charge. But you're convinced that this guy is evil personified . Does it bother you at all that right wing republicans are almost always on the wrong side of history?(now you can look up those few times when they weren't) When someone says it's not about  a certain party or president then you know that's exactly what it's about.

Have you ever even watched FoxNews?  I'm not trying to convert you or anything silly, but it's the only place on TV were you get left AND right opinions together. It might help you form your own opinions, which are always more honest and weighty than the bumper sticker variety.  Try the Five. It's on at 5pm. It's fun and relaxed and ideas get bounced around.

And to answer some of your comments, NO, the Republicans are not the answer sadly. It's never that easy. Well, except,it's almost 100% certain now that the Democrats are just a flat out criminal organization. They use extortion better than the mob. It's really sad what happened to that party.

How can anyone be take seriously when they reference FoxNews?

Greta Van Susteren - legal analyst for CNN from 1994-2002 listed by Forbes in 2012 as one of the 100th most powerful women in the world. Former adjunct faculty at Georgetown Law.  
Not credible?

Megyn  Kelly - Kelly File - listed by Time as one of the 100th most influential people in 2014. Albany Law, litigation experience, covered the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan.  Not credible?

Judge Jeanine Pirro - district court judge, first female judge in Westchester, NY, District Attorney, 12 years. Guest hosted Larry King Live, Joy Behar, Geraldo show. Not credible?

Geraldo Rivera - attorney, reporter Columbia post-grad in Journalism, NYPD investigator, frequent atty. for Puerto Rican activist group, the Young Lords, who occupied an East Harlem church in in. 1969.  ABC's Good Night America, then correspondent for Good Morning America 1975-77, investigated Elvis' prescription drug records, causing Tennessee to revoke the medical license of Dr. George Nichopoulos for overprescribing. Plenty more can be found.  

Took a pay cut to work for Fox after 9/11. Delivered the keynote at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 2008 Public Policy conference.  Not credible?

This is The Sandbox.  

You may not like them, and don't have to, but it is hard to argue that they do not have highly credentialed people working for them.  

Well, as people who have been trained by elite institutions, and have worked as dutiful members of power institutions and power structures, that does make them perfect candidates for a job of journalism, which requires dutiful obedience to dominating power structures. As far as any of them being credible, I'd have to say no. I don't particularly think any agent of power is credible.

Geraldo Rivera  - dutiful obedience?

You might want to fact-check...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Geraldo Rivera  - dutiful obedience?

You might want to fact-check...

Rivera is probably the most dutifully obedient figure out of anybody you named. If you want to talk facts, please demonstrate one single instance where Rivera expressed any point of view ever that was remotely critical of the ruling ideology.

Rivera is kind of a classic case of textbook journalism: the case of the right-wing liberal journalist hired by an extremist reactionary right wing news outfit who is placed out front to perpetuate the myth that there is a balance of opinion, that the outfit is moderate, that they tolerate "different ideas," etc. In reality, these figures are marginally different from the rest of the journalists, and most of those differences are expressed on social issues rather than political/economic issues, and essentially work only to reinforce the status quo, which they do well since they are probably the outfit's best representative of the status quo.

[filledeplage]

Geraldo Rivera  - dutiful obedience?

You might want to fact-check...

Rivera is probably the most dutifully obedient figure out of anybody you named. If you want to talk facts, please demonstrate one single instance where Rivera expressed any point of view ever that was remotely critical of the ruling ideology.

Rivera is kind of a classic case of textbook journalism: the case of the right-wing liberal journalist hired by an extremist reactionary right wing news outfit who is placed out front to perpetuate the myth that there is a balance of opinion, that the outfit is moderate, that they tolerate "different ideas," etc. In reality, these figures are marginally different from the rest of the journalists, and most of those differences are expressed on social issues rather than political/economic issues, and essentially work only to reinforce the status quo, which they do well since they are probably the outfit's best representative of the status quo.

Geraldo was fired after criticizing the journalistic integrity of ABC's Roone Arledge in 1985, for refusing to air a report on 20/20 by Syvia Chase concerning the relationship among Marilyn Monroe, JFK and RFK.  Hardly status quo.

Right wing? Classic textbook? He didn't start out to be a reporter. He worked for the National lawyers Guild, who were the first group to admit minorities.  These were labor oriented and regarded left wing as opposed to your contention that he is right wing, almost laughable.

You're entitled to your opinion. 

Time for O'Reilly!   

[Rocky Raccoon]

Regardless of their credentials, they've all shown a bias in their reporting that is often I'll-informed and unprofessional for a journalist.  Opinion-based reporting isn't journalism.  It's editorializing and while that's fine, pretending your editorial is fact is not okay.  Also the network's treatment of any religion that isn't Christianity is just appalling.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Geraldo was fired after criticizing the journalistic integrity of ABC's Roone Arledge in 1985, for refusing to air a report on 20/20 by Syvia Chase concerning the relationship among Marilyn Monroe, JFK and RFK.  Hardly status quo.

That is exactly status quo - that is trivial tabloid nonsense.

In 1985, the United States was sponsoring what a former CIA director referred to as a terrorist campaign in Nicaragua. This is after several years of support of massive repression throughout Latin America - including a very violent military insurgence against the Catholic Church in El Salvador, an ongoing support of the scorched earth campaigns in Guatemala, all resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. You had ongoing support of genocide in East Timor. By 1986, the U.S. was charged with terrorism by the World Court. You had a figure in power who was essentially selling himself as some kind of free market saviour who was really a statist reactionary who was largely protecting the needs of the ruling elite at the expense of the population. And here's Geraldo getting bothered about the sex lives of long dead politicians from twenty years earlier. The ruling elite must have been high-fiving each other over such wilful ignorance and complicit consensus by dutiful reporters like Geraldo.

Right wing? Classic textbook? He didn't start out to be a reporter. He worked for the National lawyers Guild, who were the first group to admit minorities.  These were labor oriented and regarded left wing as opposed to your contention that he is right wing, almost laughable.

I'm specifically talking about his work as a journalist. His record is proof positive that he certainly said what needed to be said when he took on the role as a reporter.

[filledeplage]

Chocolate Shake Man - the report on Monroe and the Kennedy brothers was not Geraldo's but his co-worker, Sylvia Chase's.  Geraldo challenged the network head because Arledge caved to the pressure, exerted on the network, politically, to shut down the story. 

If one doesn't have a spectrum of resources for news, you listen to one network.  Excluding one side or another frustrates the purpose of being more fully informed.  And, I think Geraldo's work is informed by his background, both from his education and his work defending marginalized groups.  I've only recently discovered that Fox does seem to have more guests, who are controversial, but allowed to speak their minds and debate whatever moderator is in the chair.  Then the "editorial" facet triggers.  But, first, with this format, you get to see the opposing opinion guests, first.  You get to see where they are coming from.

We have a free press.  Other nations don't like that.  They have state-run news. What is better? I'll take my chances with free market and boycott or not watch networks, whose sponsors and propaganda I don't care for. And, I often watch networks I don't agree with to know what they are thinking.

Genocide happening right now, is the issue, in my view.  That is the "clear and present danger" to the US.  That is what concerns me.  Today's policies concern me.  I can't fix the 1980's, even if it was shameful.

We know more, now, than in the 1980's that you mentioned, because of the internet. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Chocolate Shake Man - the report on Monroe and the Kennedy brothers was not Geraldo's but his co-worker, Sylvia Chase's.  Geraldo challenged the network head because Arledge caved to the pressure, exerted on the network, politically, to shut down the story.

Yes, I read what you wrote and I responded accordingly. I'm not sure what gave you any other indication. Whatever the case, this has absolutely nothing to do with Geraldo doing anything to challenge the ruling ideology and thus, the status quo. Maybe he challenged the status quo at ABC, but that's meaningless. So did Norm Macdonald at NBC when he made too many O.J. jokes on Weekend Update on SNL. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call what Norm Macdonald was doing, journalism that criticized the ruling elite.

If one doesn't have a spectrum of resources for news, you listen to one network.  Excluding one side or another frustrates the purpose of being more fully informed.

I'm really unclear on what you are saying here.

 And, I think Geraldo's work is informed by his background, both from his education and his work defending marginalized groups.

Then, again, please present one incident where Geraldo was remotely critical of the ruling ideology. And by that I mean a stance critical of the political system of the country as informed by the financial institutions.

I've only recently discovered that Fox does seem to have more guests, who are controversial, but allowed to speak their minds and debate whatever moderator is in the chair.  Then the "editorial" facet triggers.  But, first, with this format, you get to see the opposing opinion guests, first.  You get to see where they are coming from.

Like on any network, you get a difference of opinion within an extremely narrow range of political thought. You essentially have representatives from the moderate-centre-right to the extreme reactionary right, which is the perfectly predictable consequence when you consider the narrow range of people who own the media (see below). Of course, you don't get voices from the political left since the political left has been all-but eliminated from the public sphere in the United States after decades of massive repression that included all sorts of illegal measures largely carried out by the repressive state apparatus. There's a very rich history of that, I'd be happy to go through it.

I will say, though, I've been happy to see Glenn Greenwald appearing on mainstream networks though most his left-wing opinion is usually curbed in favour of the Snowden discussion, which in and of itself is relevant and important.

We have a free press.

You are right - people are absolutely free to express whatever views they want within that extremely narrow range of political thought. Nobody is ever told what to say, because any person who has opinions that come from the large space of repressed political ideas would either never get a job at a mainstream network, would never be invited to talk at a mainstream network, or would never even consider that their point of view would be considered "newsworthy" - since what counts as "news" is essentially the narrow political thought that I have already discussed.

 Other nations don't like that.

Such as?

They have state-run news. What is better?

Well, of course, if a state is democratic then the state-run news would largely be under control of the population. In the United States, 90% of the media is controlled by 6 corporations. In other words, most of the news that you get in the U.S. is produced by an extraordinary small pocket of concentrated wealth and power, which is largely beholden to no one. On the one hand, state-run media has the potential for being democratic (though not saying that it works out that way); while the type of media that you support is always totalitarian in structure. Again, what you have is most of the media being controlled by a few people - that is textbook totalitarianism.

I'll take my chances with free market

There is exactly nothing "free market" about the U.S. mainstream media. It is merely an expression of an extremely small minority of concentrated wealth and power.

and boycott or not watch networks, whose sponsors and propaganda I don't care for.

I try and stay away from this line of thinking - the culture tends to turn individuals with real emotions, concerns, etc. into nothing more than consumers that can be exploited to buy things. In a world where we are not people but consumers, we are indoctrinated into thinking that the best solutions are consumer decisions - "I won't buy your product; I'll buy someone else's" - this only works to continue the cycle that the social structure has set up for us in advance - and this de-humanization of the population, incidentally, is a really recent development in human history.

Genocide happening right now, is the issue, in my view.  That is the "clear and present danger" to the US.  That is what concerns me.  Today's policies concern me.  I can't fix the 1980's, even if it was shameful.

Sorry, you were the one that brought up the 80s and only to talk about Geraldo fighting for a story about politicians from the 60s. Yes, there are terrible things going on right now, I agree.

We know more, now, than in the 1980's that you mentioned, because of the internet.  

Not really. The internet is good if you know where to look, but the internet has a virtue of appearing that just because someone says something it's true. Or if it sounds true, then it must be true. The internet has really fostered a "ring of truth" belief system, which, to be honest, is why 90% of the hogwash that you read on page one of this thread is spoken as if it were gospel fact when it fact it is a load of crap, for the most part. Of course, because the corporate elite-run mainstream media is so dominating, and sets itself up as a legitimate source, the type of news you find online that has the "ring of truth" is that which reaffirms the point of view that has already been constructed by the mainstream media, or maybe takes that point of view a bit "further."

[Gerry]

I would say this and I really mean it ; if you want an accurate, honest take on the news watch The Daily Show. I recently saw Jon Stewart debate Chris Wallace and Wallace looked like a deer in the headlights . Stewart is very smart and he can defend his positions.

[Bean Bag]

I would say this and I really mean it ; if you want an accurate, honest take on the news watch The Daily Show. I recently saw Jon Stewart debate Chris Wallace and Wallace looked like a deer in the headlights . Stewart is very smart and he can defend his positions.

It's sad that someone would believe The Daily Show to be honest, accurate or even "news."  But if you don't have any fiber in your mental diet -- candy and sludge seems like fiber.  You're not the only one -- I have liberal family members who say the same thing.  They're seem like petty little kids to me when discussing politics -- even though they're older.  They're silly.

It's sad because I know I can't reach them.  They're brainwashed teens, mentally speaking.  Simply put... I listen to hardcore, unafraid right-wing conservative radio, mostly.  It's unafraid, because they're not hiding who they are.  They tell me.  And they analyze what stupid liberals say.  And they say why it's stupid.  They don't tell what to think like liberal media types -- they reaffirm what I know to be true.  There's a difference, but it's likely to escape people.  They don't do quick sound bites and stare at the camera waiting for a laugh.  Or have comedy writers coming up with funny remarks.  There's not an sense of mob thought.  It's individual.  Again, big difference.

There's nothing to be ashamed of when you're confident in your beliefs and confident in the truth and facts.  But there's a lot of people out there who need to be told how to feel, I suppose.  Feel is the operative word.  Since learning to think is work.  It is... but it's not if you listen to yourself.

[Bean Bag]

Regardless of their credentials, they've all shown a bias in their reporting that is often I'll-informed and unprofessional for a journalist.  Opinion-based reporting isn't journalism.  It's editorializing and while that's fine, pretending your editorial is fact is not okay.  Also the network's treatment of any religion that isn't Christianity is just appalling.

If you're talking about the ENTIRE dinosaur, lame-stream Left Wing Media -- then yes.. you are correct.  But you're not, I suppose.  You live in a Bizzaro World to me Rocky!  Your sky is my ground.  My ground is your sky.  Cars fly in your world and planes drive.  It's koo-koo cocoanuts! 

[Bean Bag]

You cannot be serious?

Oh come on, even if the rest of the Liberals aren't bad, you have to at least admit Abbott is a d*ckhead that consistently embarrasses himself.

No it is all about perception, no perception is wrong or right.

True... but right/wrong isn't always up to one's own perception.  There is a world of natural law and physics outside of one's perception.  Some people actually do drop turds when they speak.  Hence this thread.

[Bean Bag]

You're hurting my feelings.  Is this conversation beneath all of you?  

I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had. It's more just like "I intensely dislike Obama and I'mma tell you about it."
Maybe if you held back a bit and instead presented a logical argument for why something is bad/wrong, there would be a reasonable conversation.

I did that Bubbles.  Page one, first post!  C'mon man!

Then, I aptly expressed in my subsequent posts why it was in fact another TURD dropped by a jive turkey, crap-mouthed President (In case it wasn't obvious).  In short, bringing up the Crusades is fine for debating around the kitchen table (or dorm room bakeoff) but when you're the Prez, setting policy in the middle of a war, it sounds dumb.

Don't believe me?  Well, what if FDR said, "hey... this Hitler guy only popped up cuz of Woodrow Wilson's crappy deal after WWI."  While interesting and perhaps true... it would still be stupid to say in the middle of a war.  But hey... those Crusades.  Yeah... really.  



Then someone dutifully defended the poop President and I shredded that to smithereens with the "logical argument" stuff you pretend to crave.  See Post #6.


And what's all this "I should hold back" stuff?  Perhaps you're actually referring to the responses of others.  Like "Definitely in need of a bl-w j-b."  And the "why did I come back here" stuff.  Are those the comments that leave little conversation to be had?  Frankly, I'm fine with them.  I too just like to have fun with all this.  There's others who will drain the fck out of this... BELIEVE ME.  Seriously... believe me.  Cough.  Cough.

[alf wiedersehen]

the "logical argument" stuff you pretend to crave

That seems unnecessary to say that to me after I gave you a genuine answer to a question you asked, but okay.

And what's all this "I should hold back" stuff?  Perhaps you're actually referring to the responses of others.

I'm not.

[Mikie]

I recently saw Jon Stewart debate Chris Wallace and Wallace looked like a deer in the headlights .

I wish to hell I could have seen that. I love it when a guest on Fox News Sunday cuts Wallace short and tells it like it is! 

[Bean Bag]

the "logical argument" stuff you pretend to crave

That seems unnecessary to say that to me after I gave you a genuine answer to a question you asked, but okay.

And what's all this "I should hold back" stuff?  Perhaps you're actually referring to the responses of others.

I'm not.

Well, you did reduce my brilliant and hilarious commentary down to "I don't like Obama, and I'mma gonna tell you about it, duuuh."  I added the duh.

I find that to be lacking -- and it excuses a lot of the points I made.  I spent a good amount of time trying to come up with something catchy, funny, poignant and intellectually relevant.  I selected funny pictures to enhance my point and even worked in Brian Williams.  And when challenged on the merits of my characterization of Obama, I presented great points and pictures again to drive home the argument.  Logically.

So there is no reason that my work should result in people feeling that conversation was impaired based on your reasoning -- which was that I should back off and present logical arguments to enhance the conversation.

Now, as for backing off -- perhaps you're right.  I suppose pretending I don't know the answer would invite more discussion.  But then I feel like I'm leading people.  I just prefer to dump it out... kind of like Obama!  Just saddle up to the terlit... and dump it out.