The problem is why children should be forced to watch. they also have to do activities like learn his "famous quotes", for a man no one knew about before a few years ago that is pretty ego-centric.
Printable View
The problem is why children should be forced to watch. they also have to do activities like learn his "famous quotes", for a man no one knew about before a few years ago that is pretty ego-centric.
I distincly remember watching Bush and Clinton speak in my classrooms. I turned out to be a fully functioning adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Mountain meet mole hill
You said:"More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject". They were not talking about Van Jones prior to that. Thus, it was not correct. I don't see how you can still think that much of your statement was correct. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
They brought up Jones for the sole purpose of talking about how unreliable a source of information the Internet is. That would make as much sense as me using a psychic who exactly predicted what would happen to me today as a jumping off point for how unreliable they are. The example they used was one of their failure and not of the blogosphere. It's nonsensical to use that to start a cautionary lecture about how you shouldn't trust anything on the Internet.
They continue to make themselves look like fools by talking about the chilling effect this has- I believe it was Friedman who said that it shows young people today not to write or say anything, because it will be used against them if they're ever appointed ambassador. He's blindly missing the point- it's not that you can't write anything, it's that you can't write anything patently offensive and idiotic and expect not to hear about it if you become a public figure. I don't see where finding out that an appointee thought the government, that he is being appointed to serve, perpetrated a massive scale terrorist attack on its own people is a bad thing. How is it bad if we find out if people are fringe kooks before they're appointed to office? It's not! Yet, the way they frame the discussion, they leave you thinking it is bad and lamentable. :dizzy2:
Uh-huh. They used Jones as an example to set up their next topic. :yes:Quote:
They were talking about obama giving a speech at a school and then mentioned van jones and transitioned into a new subject.
Yes, I disagree with much of what he says. I agree insofar as you shouldn't take any information as gospel without some kind of verification. But that's nothing unique to the Internet. Really, just referring to the "Internet" and judging it as whole makes shows how clueless they really are. Saying "I saw it on the Internet" is not worse than saying "I saw it on TV". There are lots of things on television that also aren't true. Also, for what it's worth, I don't know anyone who says "I read it on the Internet" or "I saw it on TV" with a straight face when trying to win a point.Quote:
You can pull the open sewer comment out as often as you like, but do you disagree with what he was saying or just the word choice?
Congratulations. I hope you found a filter for the transcript though, you can't believe what you read on the open sewer.Quote:
In googling to find the transcript I went through the sean hannity forums and and angry ranting blogger :beam:
Even that is a poor comparison. The blogosphere isn't readily comparable to TV stations- the "channels" and subjects are near infinite. If you picked a well-reputed blog and compared it with Beck or Olbermann, I think it would hold up quite well. Yet, if I compared a alien abduction blog with CSPAN, it wouldn't look very favorable.Quote:
Pick a tv news show at random and pick a blog at random and which will be better? The tv news by leaps and bounds. Cherry picking one example of a failure by the msm says very little, however annoying you find their tone. And they don't "lament the free flow of information" and suggest that "all the news should be filtered through them", which you said originally. If I were to cherry pick an example of a failure of internet reporting :smash:
They never said directly that all information should be filtered through them(and neither did I), they just implied the hell out of it through their tearing down of a competing form of media without ever making even a passing mention or acknowledgement of their own repeated failings.
When I first read the allegations that Jones was a truther, there was an accompanying link to the website of the organization and the statement he signed onto. Compare that to the validation that Meet the Press gave when they covered it....... oh wait, they didn't.
In short, their entire discussion was vacuous and self-serving. :yes:
I wasn't :dizzy2: at it being said the were talking about a different subject before the clip you posted. If they had been it would make your argument stronger--so I was surprised that you took it as disproving my "theory" that they used van jones as a segue, especially when you said yourself that he was a jumping off point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yup I used my judgement, exactly as they suggested we do. They didn't say "you need to watch the news" they said "you need to have judgement--and it needs to be taught in schools and churches". They a clearly saying that each person should have an internal filter, and that they shouldn't rely on the internet blindly. I'm glad to see them make that point at all.Quote:
Congratulations. I hope you found a filter for the transcript though, you can't believe what you read on the open sewer.
Basically you are objecting to them not reporting on van jones very well, and then not specifically saying that people should use their own judgment when it comes to meet the press.
I would object to the first and give them a pass on the 2nd, I don't expect people to criticize themselves. Would be hypocritical.
It doesn't have anything to do with van jones :whip:
You used your judgement to determine that the alien abduction blog was bogus and that the well-reputed blogs were worthwhile. That is what they think people should do, and what I recall you telling me to do back when I was copy and pasting articles from michael moore's website :beam:Quote:
Even that is a poor comparison. The blogosphere isn't readily comparable to TV stations- the "channels" and subjects are near infinite. If you picked a well-reputed blog and compared it with Beck or Olbermann, I think it would hold up quite well. Yet, if I compared a alien abduction blog with CSPAN, it wouldn't look very favorable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I'm pretty sure that "open sewer" was meant to shine a negative light on the Internet and its ability to disseminate information. I'm pretty sure that their intent was to downplay the web in favor of television. Let them, I feel kind of bad for them after all - It's a losing battle.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I recall that President Bush was busily mind-manipulating children on the morning of 9-11 by reading "The Pet Goat", a propaganda tract about vigilantism in the cloven hooved (and a clear reference to the economic wealth of backwater Islam). Clearly, this was to soften them up for the war in Iraq. Osama bin Laden later pointed out that the president's diversion of impressionable young minds allowed the hijackers more time to carry out their mission, thus proving the Truthers completely and irrevocably right, the more so because OBL now owns little but goats.
There, all three themes of the recent thread brought together. Anyone notice a touch of common absurdity?
The full text of the US president's back-to-school address, as released in advance by the White House.
Hello everyone, how's everybody doing today? I'm here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we've got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through 12th grade. I'm glad you all could join us today.The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?
Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down don't let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
With apolgies to the moderators. I know I run the risk of being instagibbed for such quoting such seditious, poisenous filth. But I must insist I only repeated it here for educational purposes. In no way, shape or form do I condone the President of the United States indoctrinating innocent children with this terror-communist personality cult. :sweatdrop:
It's shot through with subliminal codes on public health, foreigners and revolution. If only we could discover the secret trigger word that will send the zombie children hordes into action.
You are SO banned. :no:
More seriously, The Economist has an interesting article on whether seeking bipartisan legislation is actually dead in the water.
And yet in the Washington think-tanks the passing of Ted Kennedy has revived a different debate. Is bipartisanship still feasible in today’s America? Is it even desirable? Pietro Nivola, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has doubts on both counts. Grand bargains are harder in an age when both parties, but especially the Republicans, have become more ideological and cohesive. Congress no longer contains legions of conservative Democrats from the South or moderate Republicans from the north-east willing to make common cause—or laws. The gerrymandering of electoral districts has slashed the number of swing seats, forcing candidates to nurture their wild-eyed base, rather than reach out to moderates, to win their primaries. Religious polarisation has sharpened the gap between the parties, sucking believers into the Republican camp and driving the secular to the Democrats.
This relates to my perception that the president actually lacks the courage to stand forward on his platform. He got a mandate, and he has the votes in Congress. The USA now has a real party system. Since the GOP confine themselves to hysterical opposition, surely he should drive his agenda through - and sink or swim at the polls in four years.
Given the nature of the attacks on his policies and personality, the real change he should bring is to drop the fig-leaf of "consensus" and do what he promised the electorate. Let the Republicans repeal it if they ever regain power and feel the need so to do (which is rare over this side of the pond - such legislation always proves to be a good way of blaming the opposition for a decade).
Fascinating. So many people in one place with so little idea how world politics work. They are aware that for a free market economy to not collapse business's have to be kept afloat? Saying that they're probably also oblivious to the fact that every single western government has adopted the same strategy? Why? Because it works. The financial collapse could of been so much worse but luckily it wasn't. I dread to think what would of happened if we had a McCain administration..Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Article also offers an interesting insight into just how large the proportion of the electorate is within America who still live in their own little world..
So in other words a lot of wingnuts.Quote:
Saturday's demonstrators spanned the spectrum of conservative anger at Obama, including opponents of his tax, spending and health-care plans and protesters who question his U.S. citizenship and compare his administration to the Nazi regime.
This is worse than some of the sources Fragony uses. Do we really have to read this neonazi filth about children having to educate themselves? Kids should believe in themselves and in their country.. yeah right. Osama bin Laden couldnt have said it better!Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Businesses don't need to receive government bailouts to stay in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Nope. It's because politicians need to be seen doing something, regardless of whether it works or not, or they won't be reelected, which is the first goal of almost every politician.Quote:
Saying that they're probably also oblivious to the fact that every single western government has adopted the same strategy? Why? Because it works.
Same thing, lesser extent. He would need votes too.Quote:
I dread to think what would of happened if we had a McCain administration..
Not really. According to the NRO, there were precisely two birther signs (that the author saw). Many more communist signs, of course, but surely you remember the protests comparing Bush to a Nazi?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
How would you classify this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v..._tea_party.jpg
Says one school of thought that has, oddly enough, been proven wrong again and again. The huge spending bill passed in the US is bad even for a keynesian bill, because it will take years for all that money to be spent and then it won't help (keep in mind this is according to keynesian theory). But business certainly don't need to be 'kept afloat' by the government. The weaker ones should be left to go out of business (I'm not saying we shouldn't give some banks more money to lend, however).Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
What's fascinating is that you haven't even heard of other economic schools of thought, especially since one said school has dominated most governments' policies since the second world war.
Also, I got really peeved at how the various news articles said 'tens of thousands of protesters" when they should have said hundreds of thousands.
CR
According to Malkin et al. the number should be millions. According to the socialist Washington D.C. fire dept, it was around 70,000, still a respectable number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Depends how she meant it really. It could be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
1) Birther
2) Racist
3) Half-true
4) A jibe at someone
5) An attempt at humour
Either way, she seems to have forgotten a word.
^^ Looks like "the zoo has an african lion and the white house has a lyin african"
I think they quit doing official tallies ever since the million man march was estimated at 400,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Holy crap, I can't believe the POTUS is allowed to make such a speech in front of american children.
USSR of Americanistan, I salute you:shame:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
:laugh4:
:rolleyes:
Anyway, this is a sort of NotW item, but it's political so here it is:
DNC Promises to "Rain Hellfire" Down On Opponents
Gee guys, a bit too serious maybe?Quote:
The increasingly aggressive Democratic National Committee on Friday launched a new “Call ’Em Out” website targeting prominent Republicans for statements they have made about President Barack Obama’s health reform plans.
“Help debunk the outrageous lies and misinformation about health reform,” the site says.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said: “The message to opponents of change who would lie or misrepresent the truth should be clear. We are going to respond forcefully and consistently with the facts, and you will no longer be able to peddle your lies with impunity. Through tools like 'Call 'Em Out,' you will be met with a rain of hellfire from supporters armed with the facts and you will be held to account.”
CR
If this were a GOP quote, I'd make a lenghty post deconstructing the Christian subtext and how this is destroying America's freedom into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
However, since it's not, I'll suffice with saying that it's about bloody time too that the Democrats fought back.
Reading the GOP's commentary on healthcare reform made me feel like I'm Tribesman glancing over Fragony's posts: the biggest load of bollox I've read in my life.
The DNC has been getting fairly active in the last few weeks. I've gotten at least thee calls from them, all asking for money to "debunk republican lies". I can only assume some of that fundraiser $$ went toward this site, course they did stop calling when I told them I was poor and most of my money goes to classes. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Still, I really wouldn't be surprised if there was more of this sorta thing in the coming weeks.
Hats off to Tribes and Frag for their spot on reenactment of Republican/Democrat bickering. Well done!! :laugh4:
Obama says something I agree with. ~:eek:
I'd like to think that's obvious to everyone. But it apparently isn't to some here, and it isn't to Jimmy Carter either.Quote:
"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are," Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here."
-snip-
"There's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition, or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes," Obama told CNN.
To NBC News, Obama put it this way: "It's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another? ... This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions."
Obama loses when he allows himself to be positioned as a black president. He's downplayed his race for as long as he's been in politics. So regardless of whatever the truth might be, his positioning is a continuation of a longstanding strategy.
Do you agree with that lemur?Quote:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said.
Not as stated, no. Sasaki, do you think race plays any role in the rage and fear directed at President 44?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro