quote:

"My side"

The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. At no time did I identify with them. This is a perfect example of the "us or them" mentality. The world is not that simple.

Do I like Obama more than Bush? Absolutely.
Does that make me a Democrat? Nope, afraid not.

I said “side”, not “party”.

There are lots of people who describe themselves as ‘Liberals’, ‘Progressives’ and so on, who consistently vote for Democrats and repeat that party’s talking points. Now, there may be ‘big D’ Democrats or Democratic Party partisans with whom you may have disagreements with, but generally you support and argue for that side’s viewpoints and stated policies, and the speed with which you sling around the word ‘extremist’ for anything to the right of George McGovern tells anyone who cares to observe which side you are on, whether you claim to be independent or not.

In a lot of ways, there isn't much to choose between your posted opinions and Senator Harry Reid's stances on ...anything.

And yes, the world is that simple; instead of emoting, dithering and posturing, you can just draw the lines that you find unacceptable to cross, do the math, plot the social/political trajectories, count the costs and decide where you stand accordingly.

cheers

horseback

The media are showing tiny signs of life.

Jake Tapper of ABC is apparently weening off the koolaide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-4qEz1vea0

http://www.newsmax.com/insidec...09/10/23/276402.html

Obama Backs Down on Plan to Exclude Fox

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:43 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

Count the score in President Barack Obama's war against Fox News as follows: Fox News, 1, Obama, 0.

The Obama administration suffered an embarrassing setback in its ongoing effort to cast Fox News Channel as a media pariah, when five TV networks threatened to boycott a news event because administration officials planned to bar Fox.

According to FoxNews.com, the Treasury Department sought to arrange interviews on Thursday for "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. The notable exception: Fox News would not be invited.

After conferring, the bureau chiefs of the other networks informed Treasury officials that because Fox is a member of the network pool, it could not be excluded. Either Fox would be permitted to participate, they said, or none of the networks would provide coverage.


The administration backed down quickly, agreeing to make Feinberg available for all the networks including Fox. But it was another skirmish in the unseemly struggle between Obama and Fox News that appears to be elevating the network's ratings, even as Obama's standing with independent voters appears to be slipping.

After all, Obama promised during the campaign to bring a post-partisan era of politics to Washington.

So far there's no sign the administration intends to back off on its aggressive approach to Fox. On Wednesday, Obama told NBC he's not "losing sleep" over the conflict, and appeared to compare Fox News coverage to AM talk radio.

Obama said: "If media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another."

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., declared Wednesday on the House floor that the White House appears to be "increasingly intolerant of criticism."

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

You know, I think you could really learn something about the Obama administration just by reading their Friday evening news releases.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where Im starting to look forward to Friday nights. It's like a box of chocolates.

Huge applause for the other network chiefs banding together for what is right. I think Americans are starting to see the light.

Hope indeed.

Check this one out; a lot of good material here:

http://article.nationalreview....ZTBhNGFjNTQ5MWRiZjQ=

Mark Steyn being his usual funny but on point self.

cheers

horseback

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
Check this one out; a lot of good material here:

as it seems, comprehension of several of the us-media demands a pre-knowledge of the intention.
so, just that i won't spend endless time with searching for 'good material' in that article, can anyone tell me, which kind of publication it is supposed to be? i guess, it has to be read as a persiflage or glosse maybe - or is it a parody? probably i lack the necessary insider-knowledge for the specific humour presented.

help would be much appreciated, since my own perception is so far stuck on considering it a low-level rant, adressed to those, who would agree anyway by their commonly shared agena. i would give examples what i mean, but then again the whole text is a cheapload of continuous phrases.

is it a commentary or a reader's comment? the author can't possibliy be a regular, or even paid... can he?


edited, a bit later:
thx, but i found a bit of information myself, which helps me enough to find my way in the search of the meaning.
the national review describes itself as 'America's magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion' and the author is said to react on criticism often most agressively.

so hardly a recommendable source of objective information on the thread's topic for me, i assume?

You people are funny to watch.

Ducks head from flying shoes



.

I get annoyed by "mainstream" media everyday, and guess what FOX is, sadly enough, mainstream media.

I do however have actual hatred for FOX as opposed to my annoyance/disdain towards other news outlets.

Don't hate the messenger.

quote:

Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.

William Blake: 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell'

Fox News Channel, Obama administration talking

There is a pattern to this administration's behavior:

Whitehouse VS Edmunds.com (a freaking car website)

http://www.businessinsider.com...e-edmundscom-2009-10

I'm sorry, I don't understand, is the white house blog not allowed to make comments about reports it thinks are faulty? Did the previous administration have a blog? If so did they make comments on things they thought were incorrect?

Personally I'm all for anyone shutting down or restricting FOX. They frequently spout nonsense, inflammatory nonsense at that.

I would also shut down CNN for their constant self-promoting - "We bring you the uber-est selection of journalists in our "War-room" mit der fancy graphics" promos. Nauseating.

I haven't seen other US networks so can't comment. I'd probably lump pretty much all TV news shows into the same category though, nowadays.
Seriously, get a normal person, have them read a telex of the news off the wires.
I want some of the facts, no window-dressing and no endless hours spent obsessing over trivia.