Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree41Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old December 6th, 2012, 07:52 AM   #51 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

Not in France - Sarkozy was the incumbent and he's on the positive side.

__________________
Sent by UFO
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zuben el genub For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (December 6th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:02 AM   #52 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The challenger is always going to be more negative though. The incumbent has a track record. All he has to do is tout his track record and tell everyone how awesome he is whether it's true or not. The challenger has to come out and say that the incumbent sucks and he can do a better job. That's a negative campaign right from the start.
Perhaps, but that's not how this last election went down:



Quote:
A full 86 percent of Obama’s television advertising and 79 percent of Romney’s has been negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising. By comparison, Obama and John McCain had spent an average of 69 percent of their TV budgets on negative ads by this point in 2008, and George W. Bush and John Kerry had spent 58 percent in 2004.

The record-setting rancor reflects the circumstances of the 2012 race: Obama couldn’t run on an economic rebound, and some of his biggest legislative accomplishments, such as his health care law, are unpopular in the polls. Romney has tried to persuade the American people to fire the incumbent — but has been light on details of his own.
R.I.P. positive ads in 2012 election - POLITICO.com

I think the main take away is both candidates were massively negative in this race. Making hay over one being slightly more negative than the other is just splitting hairs to score political points IMO.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2012, 06:23 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,311
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,108
Thanked 1,438 Times in 1,097 Posts
Default

Honestly, the negativity doesn't bother me all that much, all campaigns are negative to various degrees. The blatant dishonesty and lack of any core values was what scared me about Romney.

I used to have respect for McCain before the dirty campaign he ran and the idiotic choice of Palin. Damn him for forcing her into the public consciousness.
Rico ANDROID likes this.
__________________
"Machete don't text"
Gmash is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Gmash For This Useful Post:
Rico ANDROID (December 9th, 2012)
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:22 AM   #54 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Right. Like Obama was honest and upstanding. Come on now.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 07:09 AM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

I can't really judge - Colorado was a swing state, and the conservative PACS were the worst. I didn't see much of Ron Paul or some of the others. Except for sports and news, I usually avoid commercial TV. We support PBS, and saw some of the ads under reporting about a candidate. PBS would show the ad in question if the ad stirred up any controversy.

This could have also been the choice of the local stations to run more negative conservative ads.
They'd give equal time to the other side, but I have a feeling it was pick and choose as to which PACS they ran.
zuben el genub is offline  
Last edited by zuben el genub; December 7th, 2012 at 07:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:05 AM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Well, the conservative PACS spent more money so that doesn't surprise me that they'd have more ads. The truth was butchered by both sides though.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #57 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Well, the conservative PACS spent more money so that doesn't surprise me that they'd have more ads. The truth was butchered by both sides though.
I disagree.

First of all, there weren't 2 polar-opposite sides as in a boxing ring. The political leanings of the two major parties...well at least one of the two parties is a lot more variegated than that. Plus there were also a lot of third party players running ads who we'll never truly know where they stood. Plenty of Super-PAC ads looked like they did more damage to the candidate(s) that they seemed to support than help. How do we know that some or all weren't false flag operations?

But there's no doubt whatsoever that at the final turn, Romney in particular and the GOP in general started telling whoppers, and didn't stop lying until...well they still haven't stopped. (Boehner and that turtle-bird man picked up where Romney left off.) At least we don't have to hear the BS on TV commercials on every channel for a while.
Rico ANDROID likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Gmash (December 9th, 2012), Rico ANDROID (December 9th, 2012)
Old December 9th, 2012, 07:47 AM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

It was polarized in swing states. In this town, it got really bad with the local TV stations picking up the worst of the conservative PAC ads. Even folks with conservative leanings and good manners got disgusted. We seem to have a bunch of very nasty Tea Party followers here.

I also got very disgusted with those disguised political survey calls. Since we are cell only and don't give out our number - we didn't get regular calls.

I have a specific ringtone for unknowns. If I hear that, I look. Got calls from these survey idiots from 7 different states - none of them where I live. I just didn't answer and one or two let the phone ring on. I had TMO block voice mail, so the phone would just ring. After about 10 rings (or a chorus of Cocaine), they'd give up.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zuben el genub For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (December 9th, 2012)
Old December 9th, 2012, 08:06 AM   #59 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Rico ANDROID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: In Cell Phone SIMetery
Posts: 3,569
 
Device(s): GALAXY NOTE 2 .(aka T.E.D.6)....ROOTED!
Carrier: A Bentley Carries Me

Thanks: 4,405
Thanked 1,670 Times in 1,238 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Right. Like Obama was honest and upstanding. Come on now.
I cant agree with this comment 100%. It seem to imply that Obama lies or have lied on a magnitude of the same scale of Romneys bold outright arrogant vicious lies.

If Obama lied in such a way, the "DUM TRUMP FUNDED MALARKIES" would have had the President impeached WAY back in his first term and surely would have changed the outcome of winning a SECOND term.

And according to the Republican Spokesperson Dum Trump, that birth certificate was the only thing his funded millions could come up with that was impeachable.

I agree with Speed Daemon & GMash's last post before this one. Most of the negative ads are not "endorsed" by the candidates so all sorts of "grossly bent truths" are pushed on the air for that influential vote.

I am glad it worked with opposite results this time.

Yes "BONER" is a Romney Proxy-Monkey. I once respect him. But you can see and hear the arrogance and anger in his face and voice. The republicans are back to square one and their top priority: No real cokstruftive working strategy, just disagree with the President and "get him out the whitehouse no matter what".
Rico ANDROID is offline  
Last edited by Rico ANDROID; December 9th, 2012 at 08:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 09:56 AM   #60 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

I think trying to quantify which side lied more is a dubious exercise at best. Nonetheless the Washington Post's Fact Checker took a stab at it:

Quote:
According to our Pinocchio Tracker, through most of the race President Obama and former governor Mitt Romney were neck and neck for the average number of Pinocchios, averaging about 2 Pinocchios each. But then, in the final months, Romney suddenly pulled ahead (so to speak) with a series of statements and commercials that stretched the limits. Obama’s average also got worse — and was nothing to be proud of.

In the end, Romney finished with an average ranking of 2.4 Pinnochios, compared to 2.11 for Obama. Not counting debates (when we awarded no Pinocchios), we rated 92 statements by Obama and 77 by Romney, as well as more than 200 claims made by surrogates and interest groups, as well as Republican presidential contenders.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 9th, 2012, 12:24 PM   #61 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico ANDROID View Post
I cant agree with this comment 100%. It seem to imply that Obama lies or have lied on a magnitude of the same scale of Romneys bold outright arrogant vicious lies.

If Obama lied in such a way, the "DUM TRUMP FUNDED MALARKIES" would have had the President impeached WAY back in his first term and surely would have changed the outcome of winning a SECOND term.

And according to the Republican Spokesperson Dum Trump, that birth certificate was the only thing his funded millions could come up with that was impeachable.

I agree with Speed Daemon & GMash's last post before this one. Most of the negative ads are not "endorsed" by the candidates so all sorts of "grossly bent truths" are pushed on the air for that influential vote.

I am glad it worked with opposite results this time.

Yes "BONER" is a Romney Proxy-Monkey. I once respect him. But you can see and hear the arrogance and anger in his face and voice. The republicans are back to square one and their top priority: No real cokstruftive working strategy, just disagree with the President and "get him out the whitehouse no matter what".
So you're going to hold candidates responsible for statements made by PACs they have no control over?
Rico ANDROID likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 01:02 PM   #62 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico ANDROID View Post
I cant agree with this comment 100%. It seem to imply that Obama lies or have lied...
I can't agree with any of that statement. The President is a very public figure, and the election season produced thousands of hours of video, audio and written transcripts documenting precisely what the President said. If the President did something less than "honest and upstanding" there must be ample evidence of it. Bearing this in mind, innuendo just plain doesn't cut it, especially so long afterwards.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 01:25 PM   #63 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
I think trying to quantify which side lied more is a dubious exercise at best. Nonetheless the Washington Post's Fact Checker took a stab at it:
I must point out that that quote is patently misleading. It attributes "Pinocchios" to the President and former Governor Romney personally, yet the entirety of the "proof" that Mr. Kessler offers to support that allegation is labeled either "Democratic version" or "Republican version", and contains nothing that implicates either candidate personally.

The worst part is that this quote is that it's from a blog, which is not the same as real news. It's just some guy's opinion. I have a blog of my own. That doesn't make me a respected journalist, and it certainly doesn't make everything that I put on the blog magically true.

Context matters. In this case the context makes the contents of Mr. Kessler's blog his own opinion and not journalism from the paper itself. And the content that wasn't quoted belies the claims made in the part that was quoted. Sorry cjr72, no offense intended. But Mr. Kessler's summary fails to speak the truth.
Rico ANDROID likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 02:01 PM   #64 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Rico ANDROID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: In Cell Phone SIMetery
Posts: 3,569
 
Device(s): GALAXY NOTE 2 .(aka T.E.D.6)....ROOTED!
Carrier: A Bentley Carries Me

Thanks: 4,405
Thanked 1,670 Times in 1,238 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
So you're going to hold candidates responsible for statements made by PACs they have no control over?
No, not at all. To me , ads like these turn me off and makes me think otherwise of the ad's motive. But you would think both parties would denounce unendorsed ads, but, its obvious both parties campaign managers no doubt, are "piggybacking" in such.

But it is obvious Romney supports Trump's rants. I am not sorry to say ROMNEY is N O T to be trusted. If the republicans wants to change their reputation, they need to do better than Romney.
Rico ANDROID is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 02:12 PM   #65 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Rico ANDROID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: In Cell Phone SIMetery
Posts: 3,569
 
Device(s): GALAXY NOTE 2 .(aka T.E.D.6)....ROOTED!
Carrier: A Bentley Carries Me

Thanks: 4,405
Thanked 1,670 Times in 1,238 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
I can't agree with any of that statement. The President is a very public figure, and the election season produced thousands of hours of video, audio and written transcripts documenting precisely what the President said. If the President did something less than "honest and upstanding" there must be ample evidence of it. Bearing this in mind, innuendo just plain doesn't cut it, especially so long afterwards.
Which facts and statements were documented that should have costed the President his first term and kept his re-election to be a failure? If "documented lies" didnt scar the President's reputation and 2nd term, it seems that such newshound agencies do what they do best; try to influence public views on a

I know everybody's imperfect and things may be said or promised things they didnt deliver. But still, his character and leadership outshine Romney's any day.
Rico ANDROID is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 02:50 PM   #66 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico ANDROID View Post
No, not at all. To me , ads like these turn me off and makes me think otherwise of the ad's motive. But you would think both parties would denounce unendorsed ads, but, its obvious both parties campaign managers no doubt, are "piggybacking" in such.
IMHO a lot of the blame lies on the five Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Citizens United and in related cases that the Supreme Court ruled on. The assertion by the majority that "money equals free speech" was IMO worthy of investigation for sedition. That concept is totally alien to the Constitution and the American Way.
saptech likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Gmash (December 9th, 2012)
Old December 9th, 2012, 02:56 PM   #67 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico ANDROID View Post
Which facts and statements were documented that should have costed the President his first term and kept his re-election to be a failure?
I'm not aware of any such acts. Furthermore I believe that innuendo was used precisely because there is nothing worse to say against the President.
Rico ANDROID likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Rico ANDROID (December 10th, 2012)
Old December 9th, 2012, 03:34 PM   #68 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
That concept is totally alien to the Constitution and the American Way.
Is it though? Is it really?

I mean it is wrong. But contrary to those two things? I'm not so sure.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 04:22 PM   #69 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Is it though? Is it really?

I mean it is wrong. But contrary to those two things? I'm not so sure.
Well, speaking as an American who was raised in the US and studied the US Constitution in school from grade school through college and beyond, as someone who was brought up to believe in the American Way, yes it really is.

"We are different because our government and our way of life are not based on the divine right of kings, the hereditary privileges of elites, or the enforcement of deference to dictators" sums it up nicely. Super-PACs are the playthings of people like Donald Trump and the Koch brothers, who inherited their wealth, privilege and power. Our Constitution, and our nation's reason for rejecting the British monarchy and class system was based on the concept of "one person, one vote" not "one dollar, one vote".

Never before in US history have we had a Supreme Court justice (never mind five at once) who openly flouted the rule of the Constitution, and actively participated in partisan politics (with clear conflicts of interest) while on the bench. Such actions were so unthinkable that our Constitution has no provisions for how to handle this level of corruption. It is a truly perilous situation.
Rico ANDROID likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 05:16 PM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

I don't think too many of them "lie" - but all have bad memories and many misstatements of prior history.

All ads seemed to concentrate on the here and now - regardless of who caused the fiscal mess, it only happened yesterday and it's the current incumbent's fault.

The fiscal mess was both parties' fault - The right wanted deregulation and the left wanted all to have a shot at owning a home.
Our Demographic Decline - The Daily Beast

One paragraph says we are a debt culture, and we need debt to be successful.
I say - give decent bonuses, not a couple of million, and plow that money into making better products at decent prices. Partner robotics to assist humans, not do the whole job.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 9th, 2012, 05:27 PM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Here's the thing though and here's where the hypocrisy comes in. There were Democratic Super-PACs doing the exact same thing and the Democrats didn't say squat about them. They were quick to denounce the Republican Super-PACs and how horrible they were, but said nothing about their own Super PACs. The fact is the Republicans simply played the Super PAC game better than the Dems this year. I expect that to change in four years. If the tables were reversed and the Dems were the ones winning the Super PAC game they wouldn't say a single word and it'd be the Republicans crying foul. Neither side cares about what is right or what is constitutional. Both are out for power, nothing more and nothing less.
Rico ANDROID likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 05:33 PM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

I didn't see too many Democratic PAC ads this year. Equal time consisted of Obama approved ads, and scads of Republican PACS. Stations would run the approved ad for equal time and follow up with the most scurrilous PAC ads.

I live in a town who worshipped Tim Tebow's butt and most had signs about "no new taxes"

I also don't watch much commercial TV. PBS doesn't run these ads. We do watch commercial OTA for news and sports. I think the Vulcan had it with the word BS - applied liberally to ANY political ad.
zuben el genub is offline  
Last edited by zuben el genub; December 9th, 2012 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 06:03 PM   #73 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub View Post
I don't think too many of them "lie" - but all have bad memories and many misstatements of prior history.
Oh, I think Romney plainly crossed the line into "without a doubt a lie" territory in October.

Quote:
All ads seemed to concentrate on the here and now - regardless of who caused the fiscal mess, it only happened yesterday and it's the current incumbent's fault.
Yes, they attack President Obama for "his out of control spending" and neglect to mention that "his" spending is 99% paying the vig on all the loans taken out to pay for GOP initiatives like the wars and massive tax give-aways to the wealthy and hugely profitable corporations.

Quote:
The fiscal mess was both parties' fault - The right wanted deregulation and the left wanted all to have a shot at owning a home.
A little problem with that. I wouldn't call Dubya a liberal. And the construction boom in the '80s that trashed the S&Ls was Reagan's big dream.

It's not like I'm on a vendetta against Republicans. I just follow the facts, and the facts keep on taking me back to Republicans when it comes to the major, budget-busting stuff. Sorry, but saying it's all one political party's fault is a lot closer to the truth than saying "every party is equally to blame." MOF the people promoting the "everybody does it" talking point are GOP operatives.

I will agree that non-Republicans have been magnanimous to a fault.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 07:50 PM   #74 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
I must point out that that quote is patently misleading. It attributes "Pinocchios" to the President and former Governor Romney personally, yet the entirety of the "proof" that Mr. Kessler offers to support that allegation is labeled either "Democratic version" or "Republican version", and contains nothing that implicates either candidate personally.
From the page that I did link to there is a link that lets you drill down into the numbers from the quote...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
The worst part is that this quote is that it's from a blog, which is not the same as real news. It's just some guy's opinion. I have a blog of my own. That doesn't make me a respected journalist, and it certainly doesn't make everything that I put on the blog magically true.
I understand the convenience of that argument but in my opinion blog vs "real news" is a distinction without a difference in this case. The Washington Post itself refers to "The Fact Checker" as a column that it sees fit to publish under its name. Call me naive but I think that rises above the level of some random guy blogging from a basement.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 07:57 PM   #75 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub View Post
I didn't see too many Democratic PAC ads this year. Equal time consisted of Obama approved ads, and scads of Republican PACS. Stations would run the approved ad for equal time and follow up with the most scurrilous PAC ads.
I have a little test: take two minutes and try to find as many Republican PACs Super PACs that you can. Use Google, whatever you want. Now do the exact same thing in the exact same time for Democratic PACs and Super PACs. Notice anything?

Next, take those PAC names, and try to find credible evidence that each and every one of those PACs participated in the 2012 Presidential elections. If your results are anything like mine, you'll know a lot about the GOP PACs, right down to the name of the GOP operative who runs it and probably a few ads they ran. But on the Democratic side the numbers are way different. Same thing with the names. Just try to name a single Democratic PAC leader on the same level of Karl Rove. Nobody, right? The closest I got was Rahm Emanuel, who isn't running a PAC, but canceled all of his fund raising activities because he was too busy running Chicago.

Here's where the hypocrisy comes in. The Republican narrative has been droning on about how the Democrats are doing the exact same things that the Republicans, and at the same levels. The thing is that the numbers simply don't support the GOP narrative. There weren't dozens of Democratic Super PACs oozing 9-figure donations. There weren't Democratic media blitzes anywhere near the scale of the Republicans'. There weren't dozens of Democratic PACs injecting tens of millions of last-minute dollars to bolster losing Democratic local campaigns.

Why? Because the people who supported the non-Republican campaigns didn't send money to PACs and Super PACs; they donated to their candidate(s) campaigns for the most part. That's what I did. That's what my friends and neighbors did. (Yes, everyone I know either works for a living or would kill to get a job, including me.)

Quote:
I live in a town who worshipped Tim Tebow's butt and most had signs about "no new taxes"
I have family members. I love them dearly, but have seen them lose scary amounts of money to Amway-style get rich quick pyramid schemes, faith healers and "concerned citizens" who lecture about black helicopters, the Illuminati, the World Bank and the Antichrist. The adults have FOX "News" going 24/7 and the kids have the FOX Electronic Babysitter / Indoctrinator Channel going 24/7 on the kid's TVs. (Scary but true.) I'll go out on a limb and guess that a tiny fraction of the income for the dozen or so PACs with "Prosperity" in their names came in the form of checks that are big money for these relatives of mine.

Quote:
I also don't watch much commercial TV. PBS doesn't run these ads. We do watch commercial OTA for news and sports. I think the Vulcan had it with the word BS - applied liberally to ANY political ad.
Remember that most of those ads had to target the Low Information Voter. They had to be as batpoop crazy as their audience. They didn't even remotely resemble any of the President's speeches, did they? Of course not!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 08:21 PM   #76 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
From the page that I did link to there is a link that lets you drill down into the numbers from the quote...
That's nice, but I didn't see any of that quoted either. I also noticed that your new page is only a list of links to other blog posts. Same basic problem still. I'm not biting, sorry. But thanks for revealing that you do in fact have an agenda.

Quote:
I understand the convenience of that argument but in my opinion blog vs "real news" is a distinction without a difference in this case. The Washington Post itself refers to "The Fact Checker" as a column that it sees fit to publish under its name. Call me naive but I think that rises above the level of some random guy blogging from a basement.
Nice try, but the URL* says "blog" not "column". The menu clearly states "Blogs & Columns" and not "blogs are columns". Case closed.

I will not call you naive. Anybody who can fit four logical fallacies into seven words is anything but naive.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-biggest-pinocchios-of-election-2012/2012/11/02/ad6e0bb4-2534-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_blog.html
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 09:22 PM   #77 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub View Post
I didn't see too many Democratic PAC ads this year. Equal time consisted of Obama approved ads, and scads of Republican PACS. Stations would run the approved ad for equal time and follow up with the most scurrilous PAC ads.
You're right. That's because the Democrat PACs failed at fundraising. They tried. They just failed. The wealthy Democrat donors refused to donate. Many of them because they were disenchanted w/Obama. But you still didn't see any Democrats calling out the Democratic PACs.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 09:38 PM   #78 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
That's nice, but I didn't see any of that quoted either. I also noticed that your new page is only a list of links to other blog posts. Same basic problem still. I'm not biting, sorry. But thanks for revealing that you do in fact have an agenda.
From the original page that I linked to if you go all the way down to the second sentence of the article the link is indeed there called Pinocchio Tracker that addresses what was quoted. My apologies for leaving it to others to understand the magic of a linked World Wide Web and not flattening and reproducing the entire Wapo Fact Checker site into a single forum post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Nice try, but the URL* says "blog" not "column". The menu clearly states "Blogs & Columns" and not "blogs are columns". Case closed.
Perhaps we are getting a bit too pedantic here but Washington Post does indeed refer to Fact Checker as a column in the first sentence of this page. Anyhow this reminds me of posts I've read down the stretch by Romney supporters trying to dismiss Nate Silver's analysis of the polls with "YEAH BUT HE'S JUST A BLOGGER!!!!!!!!"
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2012, 10:32 PM   #79 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

*sigh* I think I'll be better off talking to brain-eating zombies. Brains...
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #80 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't trust a source because it's a blog and not a real news source. It sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
cjr72 (December 10th, 2012), dustwun77 (December 13th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old December 10th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #81 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

A news source isn't necessarily impartial, either. Fox News/NBC (MS got out)

Public TV probably comes the closest.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:26 AM   #82 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Agreed. Every source has it's bias. You've got to look at the actual facts being reported and see how well they jibe with other sources reporting on the same thing really.

I guess my real objection is to the idea that one party/candidate (pick one) is a bastion of truth and integrity and the other is just a scuzzy slimebucket of lies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Both parties are at fault for the mess we're in, but neither party can admit it for political reasons so they just lie through their teeth and blame the other guy.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 09:15 AM   #83 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't trust a source because it's a blog and not a real news source. It sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
Nice to see someone gets the point. Reading (and comprehension), it's fundamental.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 01:39 PM   #84 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Well, speaking as an American who was raised in the US and studied the US Constitution in school from grade school through college and beyond, as someone who was brought up to believe in the American Way, yes it really is.
Why would someone study the US Constitution so much anyway? Are you a lawyer? As for the American way, it also entails rampant individualism, aint a fan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Never before in US history have we had a Supreme Court justice (never mind five at once) who openly flouted the rule of the Constitution, and actively participated in partisan politics (with clear conflicts of interest) while on the bench. Such actions were so unthinkable that our Constitution has no provisions for how to handle this level of corruption. It is a truly perilous situation.
Yeah well US justices seems to be awfully partisan, its a bit ridiculous really. FDR didnt help with his idea of packing the Supreme Court back in the day.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 02:03 PM   #85 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Rico ANDROID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: In Cell Phone SIMetery
Posts: 3,569
 
Device(s): GALAXY NOTE 2 .(aka T.E.D.6)....ROOTED!
Carrier: A Bentley Carries Me

Thanks: 4,405
Thanked 1,670 Times in 1,238 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Here's the thing though and here's where the hypocrisy comes in. There were Democratic Super-PACs doing the exact same thing and the Democrats didn't say squat about them. They were quick to denounce the Republican Super-PACs and how horrible they were, but said nothing about their own Super PACs. The fact is the Republicans simply played the Super PAC game better than the Dems this year. I expect that to change in four years. If the tables were reversed and the Dems were the ones winning the Super PAC game they wouldn't say a single word and it'd be the Republicans crying foul. Neither side cares about what is right or what is constitutional. Both are out for power, nothing more and nothing less.
There are plenty hypocrits in both parties and all specialized groups inbetween. The problem is theres no such thing as a "public servant". The arrogance however displays the most on the side of the republicans. Right now, all they have to do is agree for once and do something about this socalled "over the cliff" issue. I BETCHA the republicans will hornerilly hold out so to make taxes go up " just to get that man out of the whitehouse".

And who are the ones that $3.00 more on a product will be effected the most? Not their phat @$$es.


And they cant give you one good reason for not agreeing on some solution . LAWD knows what mess we would be facing if "romney" won.
Rico ANDROID is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 02:29 PM   #86 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I don't think I can go along with that. It's popular to bash Republicans, but both sides have put the country where we are and neither side will compromise. If either side compromises the other will immediately brand them as weak and pushovers. That's the problem. You have one side (pick one) coming out and proclaiming that we must do XYZ for the good of the country and why won't the other side cooperate. The second the other side starts cooperating, then the story is "Those limp wristed pansies have no moral fortitude. How can anyone support them? They won't stick to their guns."
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 03:24 PM   #87 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Oh, I think Romney plainly crossed the line into "without a doubt a lie" territory in October.

Yes, they attack President Obama for "his out of control spending" and neglect to mention that "his" spending is 99% paying the vig on all the loans taken out to pay for GOP initiatives like the wars and massive tax give-aways to the wealthy and hugely profitable corporations.
99%? Really? Obama could have probably tried harder to cut spending while keeping in place stimulus. Defence projects are still getting overfunded in many cases for example, while there is a massive deficit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
A little problem with that. I wouldn't call Dubya a liberal. And the construction boom in the '80s that trashed the S&Ls was Reagan's big dream.
Still, I think that its fair to say that liberals like the idea of helping everyone own their own home. Those on the left and right less so.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 04:13 PM   #88 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub
I don't think too many of them "lie" - but all have bad memories and many misstatements of prior history.
The stories about out of control spending fall into this category -
Yes, spending might be out of control, but they conveniently forgot why. An when.At least the PACS did.

I remember a quote from a Romney spot saying "this president can blame others for spending "(or something like that), so he did acknowledge that the problems might be inherited. Somewhat offhandedly, to be true.

Btw- his quote about the 47% will likely be the top quote of the year.

It's mostly the republicans who want government out of everything except women's lives. They love deregulation. Puts more people who work the system to line their pockets in the republican's corner.

About women's lives - I've read a couple of articles about how our standard of living will go down unless people have more kids. We are geared to debt, merchandizing, and upselling. If there is no one to sell to - (You finish the sentence) I think most people are inherently greedy. Civil and responsible behavior limits quite a few of them to non-piggery.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 04:40 PM   #89 (permalink)
Rom & Kernel Developer
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sevierville
Gender: Male
Posts: 560
 
Device(s): HTC One M8, HTC One SV, HTC One V (CDMA&GSM), HTC Wildfire S, Nexus 7 (2012)
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 89
Thanked 682 Times in 235 Posts
Default

Its crazy funny how people stick with their party no matter how bad the person running is . This goes to everyone. Not just Republicans. Not just Democrats.
#OurFutureIsDoomed
__________________
Are you a developer who needs some hosting for their ROMs? Want to reward your users with no hard to get downloads? Contact me in a PM and I will help you out, for free!

Follow all the rules, and be kind to everyone. Its a community, after all!
simonsimons34 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 05:28 PM   #90 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

Nope - I'm an Independent. I told one candidate I'd probably vote for the least horse's a$$ in the bunch.

We don't give out our cell numbers, so candidates had no way to pester us. I was rather surprised not to find door to door since both parties were courting the independent voters. I wouldn't talk to any of them anyway. I can read and a lot of the time the written word is different from a campaigning volunteer. I prefer written.

Anyway - here is a "scare" article on the other side of being a consumer society.
The world of 2030: U.S. declines; food, water may be scarce | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

I do know the Oglalla aquifer is being depleted faster than refilled. Colorado depends on snowmelt. If it doesn't snow - there's a problem. I've lived with water shortages and it's no fun.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 11th, 2012, 01:06 AM   #91 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub View Post
A news source isn't necessarily impartial, either.
Not now; we have Reagan-era deregulation to thank for that.

I got into television broadcasting while I was still in college, and so I took the unusual step of supplementing my electrical engineering course work by taking classes at a nearby college that trained people to be TV producers, directors and so forth. Not only did I get a more rounded education than I would have at IIT's Armour College of Engineering, I got to take a course that was all about FCC rule-making, its history and the reasons why America needs sober oversight of the Fourth Estate. Believe me, that was a real eye-opener, especially in light of the systematic dismantling of FCC regulation directly afterwards.

I know all too well that the sheer expense of getting all of the licenses for a TV station, purchasing the equipment and hiring people competent to install and operate that equipment alone is so enormous that the onlt people who can afford to get into that kind of business are extremely wealthy ones. And without any regulatory body or public will to keep the "news" honest, it's only natural that the news media that can "shout the loudest" has become beholden to the extremely wealthy people who own and operate the stations and the networks behind them.

Notice that this hegemony leaves only ten Watt college radio stations that reach only a few blocks as the only possible "liberal media". And IME, college stations don't do much news.

Quote:
Fox News/NBC (MS got out)
No, FOX News (and I say that with a ten pound salt lick) is owned by Rupert Murdoch's media Empire, and NBC is owned by NBCUniversal. As for "MS", it's still MSNBC, CNBC and so forth.

If you're trying to imply that MSNBC is in the same class as the FOX "News" cable channel, I couldn't agree less. First of all, MSNBC does hard news, and that news arm is as good as journalism in the US gets these days. The political commentary/opinion shows are presented as such on MSNBC, and MSNBC has never been seen giving any political party carte blanche access to their programming, as FOX has. What FOX has slapped the "News" label on does not meet the standard of journalism, but does fit the definition of propaganda closely.

Quote:
Public TV probably comes the closest.
PBS NewsHour may or may not be "the closest". Considering that it is supported by large corporate donors and targeted at an upper class audience, on one hand it appears to be relatively neutral. OTOH its extremely limited scope of reporting and emphasis on feel-good news makes it biased in an entirely different way. I call it "ivory tower news" because of this bias. The people in my life who watch PBS NewsHour and receive little else for news tend to be well-off and disinterested in getting involved in social issues that their money can keep them insulated from.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012, 02:10 AM   #92 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Why would someone study the US Constitution so much anyway?
  • Because that's what we do in this country.
  • Because it was a mandatory subject when I went to school.
  • To understand how the government works.
  • To give soon-to-be voters the basic skills needed to vote effectively.
  • Because the US Constitution is the platform on which all US law is built.
  • To be a better citizen and member of society.
  • To know enough to keep from being a criminal.
  • Curiosity.
  • Because passing a Constitution test used to be a requirement for matriculation.
Quote:
Are you a lawyer?
No, I'm an engineer.

Quote:
As for the American way, it also entails rampant individualism, aint a fan.
No, the American Way does not entail rampant individualism.

Quote:
FDR didnt help with his idea of packing the Supreme Court back in the day.
He didn't? I disagree.

First of all, FDR presided over the worst economic depression in the history of the United States. FDR had to make tough decisions and take bold actions to arrest and turn around this crippling economic situation. But he faced an old and conservative Supreme Court that had been packed by FDR's predecessors, the same people who caused the Great Depression and left it for FDR to repair.

One very important point to remember is that FDR did no court-packing himself. What he did do was go to Congress and ask for legislation that could break the Supreme Court's dangerous meddling with the other two branches of government during a time of national crisis. FDR went strictly "by the book" by going to Congress. Another important thing to take note of is that FDR's bill failed in Congress.

FDR led the US out of the great Depression, and later as a wartime President elevated America to being a world power. The first world power that was not built on conquest and imperialism. We all know how Germany dealt with the Great Depression (which was a worldwide crisis), and the tragic results of that decision. Bearing this in mind, IMHO FDR did a pretty darn good job, all things considered.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:00 AM   #93 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
99%? Really? Obama could have probably tried harder to cut spending while keeping in place stimulus. Defence projects are still getting overfunded in many cases for example, while there is a massive deficit.
I think I've found the problem here. You don't understand that the US government isn't a parliamentary system, which is understandable since your country is parliamentary, and that's probably all you've ever known. But the US government is not parliamentary; the executive branch is not intertwined with the legislature. President Obama is not the leader of the majority party in Congress, and therefore can't command Congress to do his bidding. President Obama can't dissolve the government if it doesn't obey him. And most importantly of all, the President of the United States of America has no power or obligation to legislate.

I hope that helps you get that sorted.

As for the annual budget deficit, the US government can operate that way. There's no law saying that the federal budget must be balanced, unlike in many of the states.

Quote:
Still, I think that its fair to say that liberals like the idea of helping everyone own their own home. Those on the left and right less so.
Once more it looks like you aren't understanding how things work over here. I'm not blaming you, and intend no offense. I wish that more Americans took as much interest in their own government as you are taking in it.

The buzzword "liberals" is synonymous with "the left". But even that is misleading because the US has no more left wing remaining. Over the last 30 years, Americans have gone from a healthy balance of left and right to one that's entirely right of center. The people who are called "liberals" or "leftist" are in fact centrist or somewhat right of center.

Those who are called "the right" in the US are very far to the right. In addition, most of those who we call "the right" also have strong authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) beliefs. History has shown us that the combination of extreme right-wing and strongly authoritarian politics is a very dangerous combination.

As far as home ownership goes, none of the political "sides" had any real interest in home ownership. George W. Bush said what he said because his masters wanted to make quick and easy profits by putting people deeply in debt. It was all a scam. If regular citizens tried that, they would go to prison.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:33 AM   #94 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonsimons34 View Post
Its crazy funny how people stick with their party no matter how bad the person running is . This goes to everyone. Not just Republicans. Not just Democrats.
#OurFutureIsDoomed
Correction: how some people do. Not all people.

For example I belong to no political parties. When I turned 18 (the voting age) and had decisions to make, I pragmatically chose Ronald Reagan's promises with a "wait and see" attitude. When I discovered that Reagan and other Republicans have a nasty habit of lying, I rejected the entire Republican party. As time has passed, the Republicans have only given me more reason to reject them.

Because the Republicans had betrayed my trust so egregiously, I decided to subscribe to no political party. It would have been foolish of me to rush into the arms of the Democratic party as a reaction. I was in no hurry to risk being "fooled twice" and didn't agree with many of the Democratic party's values. I believe in some of the principles that the Republicans advertise but never deliver. So that makes me a life-long independent.

My belief in President Obama comes from my own impressions of him when I lived in Chicago. Although I never knew the man personally, I liked what he did locally. When he ran for the Illinois Senate I voted for him, and he didn't disappoint. Same thing when he ran for the US Senate.

While I definitely saw the potential for Barack Obama becoming the first black President, I would have preferred it if he had racked up more political experience first. But when it became obvious that this was his time, I didn't hesitate to back him. And he didn't disappoint.

So you see, my support for our President didn't come from party affiliation because I have none. It's not due to political leanings because I'm pretty balanced. It is because I had a front seat to watch Barack Obama's career unfold, and because I recognized a great potential.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012, 08:14 AM   #95 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

I am not rich nor disinterested. I watch PBS as I think that movies, sitcoms, and the usual crap on commercial channels is stupid. I'm also too cheap to subscribe to cable. I'll only pay if I can get a la carte.

What I don't like about conservatives is mostly related to science.
Conservatives can be persuaded to care more about environmental issues when couched in terms of fending off threats to 'purity'

It's this freaking purity that bothers me. Smacks to much of Naziism and racial purity.

The human Genome is being sequenced, and most of us unless we are purely African, have some Neanderthal DNA. Doesn't bother me, but conservative scientists are disputing since that would upset the notion that Homo Sapiens was too smart to breed with Neanderthals, or they weren't human enough to crossbreed. Africans are exempt if they stayed in Africa and didn't migrate and come back. This bothers the purists as the only people with no Neanderthal DNA are black.

Climate change, shortages, running out of oil, copper, you name it - nothing bothers them as long as they can make a profit.

I worked in Radio Advertising. We did market to a lot of super conservative networks. But a lot of ads also went the other way if we had stations that supported the certain required demographic.

I think we need regulation. Those fires in the garment industry in Bangladesh were caused by the same greed that dominates here (and some of the same companies). If our companies could get away with no regulations, they would. It was common in the beginning of the industrial age and is just as common now. People have totally forgotten about the "Robber Barons" and Tammany Hall.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zuben el genub For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (December 11th, 2012)
Old December 11th, 2012, 09:01 AM   #96 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,311
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,108
Thanked 1,438 Times in 1,097 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub View Post
I am not rich nor disinterested. I watch PBS as I think that movies, sitcoms, and the usual crap on commercial channels is stupid. I'm also too cheap to subscribe to cable. I'll only pay if I can get a la carte.

What I don't like about conservatives is mostly related to science.
Conservatives can be persuaded to care more about environmental issues when couched in terms of fending off threats to 'purity'

It's this freaking purity that bothers me. Smacks to much of Naziism and racial purity.

The human Genome is being sequenced, and most of us unless we are purely African, have some Neanderthal DNA. Doesn't bother me, but conservative scientists are disputing since that would upset the notion that Homo Sapiens was too smart to breed with Neanderthals, or they weren't human enough to crossbreed. Africans are exempt if they stayed in Africa and didn't migrate and come back. This bothers the purists as the only people with no Neanderthal DNA are black.

Climate change, shortages, running out of oil, copper, you name it - nothing bothers them as long as they can make a profit.

I worked in Radio Advertising. We did market to a lot of super conservative networks. But a lot of ads also went the other way if we had stations that supported the certain required demographic.

I think we need regulation. Those fires in the garment industry in Bangladesh were caused by the same greed that dominates here (and some of the same companies). If our companies could get away with no regulations, they would. It was common in the beginning of the industrial age and is just as common now. People have totally forgotten about the "Robber Barons" and Tammany Hall.
"Right to work" law due to be passed in Michigan today. Many are eager to return to the bad old days when workers had no rights, and that is the direction we are heading when profit trumps all.
saptech likes this.
Gmash is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Gmash For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (December 12th, 2012)
Old December 11th, 2012, 09:36 AM   #97 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,758
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

I remember too many union scandals and unions trying to force members to vote against conscience. Union higherups living high on the hog with members dues. We need a better way to get fairness in employment. Maybe a system where employees with a grievance could choose a law firm, or another to represent them.

In other words, collective bargaining for all without a union but a representative selected by all employees, not a union slate. In that case, most employees, union or not, probably would pay a share of the costs for that service only. If all employees content - no payments.
zuben el genub is offline  
Last edited by zuben el genub; December 11th, 2012 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2012, 07:37 AM   #98 (permalink)
Pâtes avec votre foie
 
pastafarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 5,443
 
Device(s): Samsung Note 2(Me), Evo4G LTE(Wife), Nexus 7, Nook Tablet All rooted? Of course!!
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 3,745
Thanked 4,404 Times in 1,950 Posts
pastafarianaf@gmail.com
Default

OK, this thread was closed briefly because it was getting personal. I know that this subject can get heated, but we ask that you attack the issues, not each other. If the thread turns to personal attacks, it will be closed permanently and those responsible may face repercussions. We would prefer that didn't happen. Discuss on!
__________________
The RULES, follow them and prosper!

Did you forget to kiss a Mod today?
pastafarian is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pastafarian For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (December 12th, 2012), lunatic59 (December 12th, 2012)
Old December 13th, 2012, 05:55 AM   #99 (permalink)
Endeavor to Persevere :)
 
dustwun77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SC
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,708
 
Device(s): Note 3, Evo 4G LTE, Evo 4G retired.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8,651
Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,768 Posts
dustwun77@gmail.com
Default

I don't believe the answers to our problem are MORE taxes and no real cuts in spending. Especially when our spending is so far out of control.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg OBAMAFAILDEFICITSCBO-600x389.jpg (49.0 KB, 8 views)
dustwun77 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2012, 06:04 AM   #100 (permalink)
Endeavor to Persevere :)
 
dustwun77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SC
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,708
 
Device(s): Note 3, Evo 4G LTE, Evo 4G retired.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8,651
Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,768 Posts
dustwun77@gmail.com
Default

It appears to me that there is actually some merit to the argument that if you lower the tax rate that you do increase revenue.

I don't think we should raise taxes, I think we should keep them the same or even lower them and cut spending.
Attached Images
File Type: png 2A1cuts_121203.png.cms.png (29.0 KB, 8 views)
dustwun77 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.