Cal_Fan2;505295 said:

---

BW..... you know I've been arguing from the middle against both extreme sides but you have GOT to know both sides do this...I mean the war is libya is not a war, it is a Kinetic Military Action?... Now I know you will find a reason for saying this is ok and that other is not. What I find amusing is that again, both sides do this but far leaning folk don't see it.... Kinetic Military Action is just as bad as homicide bomber....at least to those of us near the middle..

---

no, it's stupid too. they're all just finding ways to get around congressional approval; Bush called things wars because he didn't care as much, Obama wants to finesse it when he circumvents the Constitution

oh and the point here re "homicide bombers" was that Fox News (who as a news organization should be emphasizing accuracy) took its lead from the politicians (who emphasize spin). If MSNBC started using the term "Kinetic Military Action" you'd have a good example that "both sides do it", but to my knowledge, no news organization is using that term.

Those who have seen Alex Smith play for the 49ers would politely disagree.

SitkaBear;505314 said:

---

You'd be hard-pressed to find any major national news outlet which adopted the Obama administration's attempt to euphamize "war/fighting" in Libya with "Kinetic Military Action," unlike Fox News' instant and wholesale adoption of the term "homocide bomber" (a term almost exclusively used by Fox News hundreds of times).

In fact, the administration's use of the term KMA has been derided by most legitimate news services as well it should have been.

---

I understand what you are saying..my point is whether it is a new org or a politician, using terms they like is not exclusive to one network....so my understanding is that you think Obama is as shameless as FOX news...again, I'm not on either side, only on the side of those who think both sides are equally guilty....we won't find common ground on this since I'm arguing from the middle and you are arguing from the left.....I'll leave it at that and say to you..."have a nice day".......

I like you so I'm just going to gently point this out to you.

On the one hand, one is deluded to think both sides don't engage in certain behaviors. On the other hand its 90% liberals doing the bashing.

You were right the first time.

drunkoski;505280 said:

---

i'd think you'd guys be extremely happy if the republican party was run by the far right wing. obama would win in a landslide and take back congress. why the complaining? this is good no?

---

Well, that's pretty much what happened in 2008. So here's hoping.

Cal_Fan2;505316 said:

---

I understand what you are saying..my point is whether it is a new org or a politician, using terms they like is not exclusive to one network....so my understanding is that you think Obama is as shameless as FOX news...again, I'm not on either side, only on the side of those who think both sides are equally guilty....we won't find common ground on this since I'm arguing from the middle and you are arguing from the left.....I'll leave it at that and say to you..."have a nice day".......

---

It's unfair to say that those who say that Fox News has more of a political slant than other networks are "arguing from the left". It's documented, it's quantifiable. Obama would be as "shameless" as Fox News if you held each to the same standard, but you shouldn't. We complain about politicians' nonsense, but that's expected; news organizations are (in an ideal world) supposed to not spin.

Here's the argument from the middle: News organizations should use the most accurate terminology, not confusing terms that are poll-tested to move people to one side of a debate. "Homicide bomber" is redundant and less descriptive than "suicide bomber", and Fox shouldn't have used it. "Kinetic military action" is misleading and clumsy, and shouldn't be used by news organizations -- which as far as I know it's not. That's the argument from the middle.

drunkoski;505333 said:

---

can you explain the last election? obama being too left doesn't factor in to your argument i imagine.

---

Bad economy = ruling party voted out. It's hard to keep a Congressional majority for long.

OaktownBear;505329 said:

---

I like you so I'm just going to gently point this out to you.

On the one hand, one is deluded to think both sides don't engage in certain behaviors. On the other hand its 90% liberals doing the bashing.

You were right the first time.

---

Oaktown....I was talking about BI posters in the 2nd part...if you go back thru all the threads, when something turns political, it is usually someone on the left throwing out the insults....how many times in a non-political thread have you heard someone talk about Bush, Cheney, tea partiers, Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, etc with some off the cuff remark. It is far more common than someone commenting on Obama, Pelosi, Boxer etc.. ..I don't comment on it and dont' have the time to post quotes, but I assure you that is the case.. that is why I initially asked "why do threads have to turn political so much?"

drunkoski;505338 said:

---

so in 08 the economy wasn't a factor in the election? you can't have it both ways.

---

It was a factor in both elections.

SitkaBear;505337 said:

---

Yes, using slanted terms is exclusive to Fox News. I just provided you with an example, while showing that the use of the term KMA has not been adopted by any news organization.

Politicians are expected to slant words when explaining policies to the public. I don't blame Bush or Obama for using such genuinely accepted practices.

I do however hold Fox News accountable when they slant words when reporting policies to the public and fail to maintain generally accepted journalistic principles. I don't think this is such a strange concept.

Good day.

---

I get your point...I have just ONE question and an honest one...if MSNBC doesn't slant or use words that others don't......why were the only ones that on several occasion used the pejorative "tea baggers"... I didn't hear that on any other network and you know that is a very disparaging remark.... Even Rachel Maddow who usually is above name calling used it countless times in an interview with Ann Marie Cox....David Schuster used it numerous times before he got fired.... again, insults and word slanting is not necessarily exclusive....or do you approve the the term "tea baggers" or "tea bagging" in this case...you know they are using this in the pejoative

........and by the way, I know you know full well the tea party movement was in reference to the revolution...actually I think first coined by the guy on CNBC, Rick Santelli.

Not on either side with this, but what is wrong with the use of the term "Homocide Bomber". Their goal is to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. When I think of suicide, I think of someone hanging by a rope in their garage, only harming themselves.

drunkoski;505256 said:

---

obama is a centrist I assume you believe right?

---

No doubt about it.
1. Exhibit A. Health Care -- single payer was not even put on the table despite the fact that most Dems wanted it. Instead Obama went with a proposal that basically kept in place the current system of private insurers.
For crying out loud it replicated a system set up by Romney and proposed by Nixon years ago.

2. Guantanamo and Iraq war were kept in place with the idea of winding them down slowly instead of cutting them out entirely.

3. Geitner was kept on board with many others who got us into this mess in order to preserve stability.

4. The auto bailout was in the form of loans to the companies instead of government take overs.

5. Obama keeps trying to get bipartisanship going (reaching across the aisle) and many of the hard core dems said "screw em" when they controlled the House and Senate.

6. He kept Bush's generals in charge of Irag and Afghanistan.

7. He continued to pursue OBL despite the crazies on the left fringe of the Dems who believe that he is going too far.

If someone looks at his actions and legislation, he/she has to say it is centrist unless he/she believes that Rush Limbaugh is just left of center and Glenn Beck is just right of center.

SRBear;505352 said:

---

Not on either side with this, but what is wrong with the use of the term "Homocide Bomber". Their goal is to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. When I think of suicide, I think of someone hanging by a rope in their garage, only harming themselves.

---

Here's a good explanation: http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/words_and_politics_homicide_bomber/

This was written in 2002 and they predicted that the term wouldn't stick in the public lexicon, and they were right.

drunkoski;505280 said:

---

i'd think you'd guys be extremely happy if the republican party was run by the far right wing. obama would win in a landslide and take back congress. why the complaining? this is good no?

---

No. I would be happy if the Republican party returned back to the days of Rockefeller and Eisenhower a middle of the road political party that respected Labor, the Constitution, and the Middle Class and sought to advance the People of the US. And did not try to return us to the "Gilded Age" (of the 1870's through 1890's) of avarice, prejudice, plutocratic power and social injustice.

drunkoski;505353 said:

---

jesus use google.

somehow i doubt you will consider anything msnbc has said as "egregiously incorrect" since you agree with them?

---

hahaha

"jesus! would you please just go use google to try to find examples to support my argument!? [SIZE="1"](I've been unsuccessful thus far..)[/SIZE]"

68great;505370 said:

---

No doubt about it.
1. Exhibit A. Health Care -- single payer was not even put on the table despite the fact that most Dems wanted it. Instead Obama went with a proposal that basically kept in place the current system of private insurers.
For crying out loud it replicated a system set up by Romney and proposed by Nixon years ago.

2. Guantanamo and Iraq war were kept in place with the idea of winding them down slowly instead of cutting them out entirely.

3. Geitner was kept on board with many others who got us into this mess in order to preserve stability.

4. The auto bailout was in the form of loans to the companies instead of government take overs.

5. Obama keeps trying to get bipartisanship going (reaching across the aisle) and many of the hard core dems said "screw em" when they controlled the House and Senate.

6. He kept Bush's generals in charge of Irag and Afghanistan.

7. He continued to pursue OBL despite the crazies on the left fringe of the Dems who believe that he is going too far.

If someone looks at his actions and legislation, he/she has to say it is centrist unless he/she believes that Rush Limbaugh is just left of center and Glenn Beck is just right of center.

---

8. Cut a deal with the pharmaceutical companies on heath care.
9. Committed more troops to the war in Afghanistan.
10. Totally backed down on closing Guatanamo and on civilian trials.
11. Another adventure in Libya

I am astonished when I hear the anti business stuff from Obama bashers. Corporate america is the major and perhaps only beneficiary of the "recovery". They are doing wonderfully.

68great;505373 said:

---

No. I would be happy if the Republican party returned back to the days of Rockefeller and Eisenhower a middle of the road political party that respected Labor, the Constitution, and the Middle Class and sought to advance the People of the US.

---

Yes. Despite some of my snarkiness earlier, this is also what I'd like to see. I'm perfectly fine with some reasonable conservatism; I just don't see much of it in the current version of the Republican Party.

68great;505373 said:

---

No. I would be happy if the Republican party returned back to the days of Rockefeller and Eisenhower a middle of the road political party that respected Labor, the Constitution, and the Middle Class and sought to advance the People of the US. And did not try to return us to the "Gilded Age" (of the 1870's through 1890's) of avarice, prejudice, plutocratic power and social injustice.

---

:beer:

If we ever meet beyond the confines of cyberspace, I will buy you a beer for a line well said! BTW, aren't we once again, in that "gilded age"? Read Bearisters' link (found in another political thread in the football section):

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=2

drunkoski;505387 said:

---

then once again. you should be happy because the republican party surely will kill itself from within and the centrist democrats will clearly dominate for years.

---

Honestly, I do hope that happens. I hope some of this crazed, xenophobic "tea party" stuff runs its course and eventually splinters off, allowing either the GOP or some new conservative party to return to moderation.

GB54;505381 said:

---

8. Cut a deal with the pharmaceutical companies on heath care.
9. Committed more troops to the war in Afghanistan.
10. Totally backed down on closing Guatanamo and on civilian trials.
11. Another adventure in Libya

---

12. "Fierce advocate" of gay rights doesn't address 'don't ask don't tell' for two years and files court brief in support of DOMA that compares gay marriage to incest and child marriage.

drunkoski;505280 said:

---

i'd think you'd guys be extremely happy if the republican party was run by the far right wing. obama would win in a landslide and take back congress. why the complaining? this is good no?

---

Actually this is looking more and more like the reality (teabaggers anyone?).

Cal_Fan2;505295 said:

---

BW..... you know I've been arguing from the middle against both extreme sides but you have GOT to know both sides do this...I mean the war is libya is not a war, it is a Kinetic Military Action?... Now I know you will find a reason for saying this is ok and that other is not. What I find amusing is that again, both sides do this but far leaning folk don't see it.... Kinetic Military Action is just as bad as homicide bomber....at least to those of us near the middle..

---

This is where I think the black & white kind of arguments fail.

You're basically saying "war is war." Are you then saying that Libya is comparable to what W did in Iraq? Or comparable to Afghanistan?

Yes, it's semantics and yes, it's politics but clearly the message and intention is that this isn't a conflict where we're going to be mobilizing lots of ground forces nor do we intend have a long term presence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 68great
And did not try to return us to the "Gilded Age" (of the 1870's through 1890's) of avarice, prejudice, plutocratic power and social injustice. please explain specifically how doing this would benefit the republican party and the people funding it?

That is a very telling comment which shows that we are on the same page about the current leadership of the Republican Party [note: I do not condem all Republicans]

In the olden days, a Republican could be elected president by seeking the support of the common man. Following the death of FDR, Dewey almost won election if had not been for a few mistakes in his strategy. Eisenhower considered running for pres as either a Democrat or a Republican (so while there were differences the differences were not ENORMOUS). He managed to win as a Republicn with an over whelming majority. Nixon won with a clear overwhelming majority. (Yes there were dirty tricks and black bags of money floating around-- but no where near as much as today.)

All of these presidents had bought into the New Deal philosophy.

Your comments indicate that the Republican leaders could care less about Labor, the Constitution, the Middle Class and social justice. And are willing to do the bidding of whomever will give them money to get elected. If that is true it is a very sad commentary on the Republican leadership.

drunkoski;505384 said:

---

and consistantly vilifying wall street and big business as the cause of all of america's troubles.

---

LOL Wall Street got off with nothing for all their screw ups; meanwhile the $ keeps rolling back in. Profits are up so is the market.

drunkoski;505396 said:

---

you do realize the teabaggers won the last election right? if obama is centrist how come a right wing organization gained such traction? this is the funny part. obama get's elected because he is the opposite of bush. similar to how carter got elected after nixon. and how the "teabaggers" regained control of congrass because of obama. yet all the democrats saw obama winning as a change in the way america thinks. hilarous.

---

drunkoski, you must be so drunk that you're confused. I'll instant replay it for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drunkoski
i'd think you'd guys be extremely happy if the republican party was run by the far right wing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshfunk
Actually this is looking more and more like the reality (teabaggers anyone?).

---

And your response is "you do realize the teabaggers won the last election?" Isn't that pretty much what I just said/admitted?

Some people are so eager to snark they can't see agreement when it smacks them right in the middle of the forehead.

drunkoski;505396 said:

---

you do realize the teabaggers won the last election right? if obama is centrist how come a right wing organization gained such traction? this is the funny part. obama get's elected because he is the opposite of bush. similar to how carter got elected after nixon. and how the "teabaggers" regained control of congrass because of obama. yet all the democrats saw obama winning as a change in the way america thinks. hilarous.

---

If you look at the vote, one could say that Obama's supporters did not turn out to the same degree as they did in 2008. Overall their absence accounted for much of the losing spread.

The other point was the issue of the economy. The American people expected a miracle and expected the economy to bounce back in 2 years.
The Republicans played their part in opposing as much goverment spending as was really needed to restart the economy. So when the national unemplyment numbers hovered around 10% the voters chose the other party.

There were several programs at Cal in the months before the 2010 election. The speakers were spot on. The unemployment numbers drove voters away from the Democrats. (Not the philosophy of the Tea Party).

freshfunk;505395 said:

---

This is where I think the black & white kind of arguments fail.

You're basically saying "war is war." Are you then saying that Libya is comparable to what W did in Iraq? Or comparable to Afghanistan?

Yes, it's semantics and yes, it's politics but clearly the message and intention is that this isn't a conflict where we're going to be mobilizing lots of ground forces nor do we intend have a long term presence.

---

I'm not saying anything....another poster brought up the idea that FOX uses code words for certain things....and I said others do it including administrations. The Admin is using this word to distance themselves from the term "war"... whether it is or isn't, it is an example of word usage for the purposes of political or legal advantage....I personally don't care what the hell they call it as long as they get rid of Qaddafi

drunkoski;505399 said:

---

my comments indicate that torpedoing the middle class is the worst possible thing republicans could do to their rich overlords.

---

Not when the rich overlords have off shored their operations, their sales, and their production and managed to avoid paying taxes in the US. How are they hurt.

And Iraq was OK?

BearyWhite;505391 said:

---

12. "Fierce advocate" of gay rights doesn't address 'don't ask don't tell' for two years and files court brief in support of DOMA that compares gay marriage to incest and child marriage.

---

Actually, he took 1 year. If he took 2 years, that means he would've begun addressing DADT in January of this year.

Yes, he could've made an executive decision that would've caused controversy and protest.

But instead, he chose the boring route, using a study to show everybody that DADT was pointless in this day and age. The result was a lifting of the ban that was uneventful, lacking controversy and protest.

Cal_Fan2;505405 said:

---

I'm not saying anything....another poster brought up the idea that FOX uses code words for certain things....and I said others do it including administrations. The Admin is using this word to distance themselves from the term "war"... whether it is or isn't, it is an example of word usage for the purposes of political or legal advantage....

---

..and the drunk down the street keeps saying that someone implanted a mind control chip behind his right ear. the prevarications of white house spokespeople and news anchors are not comparable, particularly when the topic of the discussion is "the biases of news organizations".

68great;505404 said:

---

If you look at the vote, one could say that Obama's supporters did not turn out to the same degree as they did in 2008. Overall their absence accounted for much of the losing spread.

The other point was the issue of the economy. The American people expected a miracle and expected the economy to bounce back in 2 years.
The Republicans played their part in opposing as much goverment spending as was really needed to restart the economy. So when the national unemplyment numbers hovered around 10% the voters chose the other party.

There were several programs at Cal in the months before the 2010 election. The speakers were spot on. The unemployment numbers drove voters away from the Democrats. (Not the philosophy of the Tea Party).

---

Point one is to be expected. Why would they turn out especially if "change" is no longer compelling.

The economy argument is more subtle. Obama-imo-made two major mistakes the first year-the first was ceding control of the stimulus to the congress which just larded it up . If he had taken the competitiveness argument and placed it at the center of stimulus one he might have won more support better public opinion. Second taking on health care was a huge mistake in year one-jobs were all that mattered. And health care hurt the Democrats badly.

drunkoski;505414 said:

---

nope. nor is lybia.

---

you misspelled labia.

drunkoski;505406 said:

---

strange. my restricted stock being worth 1/10th of what it was when i was awarded it certainly doesn't make me feel like we got off with nothing. i imagine the tens of thousands of people who were fired and laid off (including the ceos of most of the major banks) might disagree with you as well.

---

CEO's can't be fired when they send their companies into bankruptcy? Not much of a capitalist are you?

BearyWhite;505418 said:

---

you misspelled labia.

---

I am so mad you beat me to this. That's what I get for trying to be something I'm not, a grownup.