This matter is black and white

Posted by ( Geriberi ) on November 25, 2008 at 10:57 pm

I know this is really complicated.  Opa, try googling “Washington Post Obama bias.“  If you still can’t find it (you could just read what I copied below), it explains much about why you don’t see things the way I do - you just don’t see what’s in front of you.
As for the documentary, I’ll see if I can find it.  The part I saw was shown during a news program.  What it said to me was that the American public voted for a man without knowing anything about him, or their own government.  One vote does make for a controlling interest in Congress - otherwise we wouldn’t have Pelosi as Speaker.  And they have made a big, nasty mess with their little scheme to make owning a home an American right - you know, the one we all used to have to work toward.  Thank goodness we don’t have to do that anymore, huh?

McCain said absolutely that he was not for tax increases.  He was not going to give tax breaks that were the equivalent of welfare checks to people who don’t pay taxes to begin with.  So I really don’t know where that inane comment came from about him saying he’d give more. 

I believe that the AVERAGE conservative voter is more educated on the issues.  Period.  Ask someone who voted for McCain why they voted for him and they’re likely to give at least a couple of good reasons.  Ask an Obama supporter?  Because he’s not Bush?  Great.  And the saddest part about that is that, for many of them, they don’t even know why they don’t like Bush, except that no one else does and it’s the cool thing these days.  Hollywood and the music people hate him, so they do too.  Matt Damon is, like, you know, just so great, and he hates him.

Over the past 8 years the percentage of poor people has shrunk and the percentage of people making over $100,000 has grown considerably.  I assume that’s what you meant by that upward shift of wealth.  You’re right, that’s just so horrible!

Paying for abortions overseas is not an accepted practive now, but it’s something Obama wants to see happen.  I don’t want to pay for them in THIS country, much less elsewhere.  We can’t afford to be taking on something like that - either here or abroad.

Obama does not want to increase defense spending, unless you’re talking about the extra-spooky civilian defense force he talked about, that should be just as powerful and just as well-funded as our military.  I didn’t put that in quotes because I don’t want rjma the grammar Nazi on me, but that’s pretty much what he said, verbatim.  Does the Gestapo ring a bell?  Google it - I dare you.  Wondering where your facts regarding this increase in defense spending are coming from - maybe it’s something from the new and improved Obama.

A whole slew of anti-black others?  Now it’s my turn with the question marks - what are you talking about?  And who was attending this church?  I don’t recall anyone on McCain’s side saying “GD AMERICA!“  When you’re considering someone for the office of the presidency, the fact that they attended a church with a preacher who openly preaches hatred for this country is certainly not irrelevant, particularly when Obama originally named him as a spirtual advisor for his campaign.

He’s not a candidate for change.  He’s looking more like a Clinton third term.  And he’s changing his changing more and more - he might actually end up a thrid term Clinton-Bush combo!  That would be so cool!

So, Opa, can you have a conversation that isn’t all question marks?  And I’m not making an issue of race, just responding to the fact that so many people think we’re trying to make it an issue.  It’s pretty humorous really - I respond to someone making a claim that race is being made an issue, and to make my point I am forced to quote Obama and others who were making an issue of race.  This means that I’m making an issue of race. 

The only issues I have with Obama are, well, the same issues that made me vote against him.  I’m not a racist, or anything close - I know what’s in my heart.  For that matter, if I were attending a church that was so hate-based, I’d find another church - I don’t care what group they were attacking.

You know, I gave very good reasons for my original post.  You have so far given nothing in return except repeating the same questions.  I guess maybe you think you can make me see the error of my ways if you just keep asking me the same old questions in new and even less constructive ways, with more forceful punctuation!

So, rjma, I used breaks just for you.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( rjma ) on November 25, 2008 at 9:28 pm

OK, I get it.  When you say something in quotes, we’re supposed to be able to read your mind and know that you didn’t really mean it.  I like to be able to read something and accept it at face value without having to evaluate it for whether it is true or just a rhetorical “gist”. 

You may want to wallow in frustration about Obama getting a few more pics than McCain, but I think most people prefer to get on with the business of working on all our problems.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Geriberi ) on November 25, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Too bad you guys don’t have a sense of humor, or humility.  That was the essence of what they said.  I should not have put it in quotes.  I sure hope you can forgive me.  You want a quote?  Here you go Mr. Grammatically Perfect:
This from right after the election:
“On Sunday, The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an “Obama tilt” in her own newspaper.

“Readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts,“ Ms. Howell wrote in her column.

“Now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself,“ countered Ed Morrissey of Hot Air.

Revelations of a pro-Obama press are not new.

A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that the press wanted Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. The same analysis found a Democrat-friendly press dating back to the 1992 presidential election.

A current Harvard University analysis revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press in politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative.

With the help of an assistant, Ms. Howell examined The Post’s political coverage since Nov. 11, 2007. “Numbers don’t tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post’s priorities,“ she said.

The number of Obama-centric stories was 946, compared with 786 centered on John McCain until the presidential nominations were completed in June, she found. From then to Election Day, the tally was 626 stories for Mr. Obama, 584 for Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama was on the front page 176 times, Mr. McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both candidates.

“The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement,“ Ms. Howell said.

The Post also ran more photographs of Mr. Obama. Since June 4, Mr. Obama was in 311 Post photos and Mr. McCain in 282. The Democrat also got splashier treatment, garnering larger pictures (133 to 121, respectively) and more color shots (164 to 133).

She compared her results to a study of the national news media conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that from June 9 to Nov. 2, two-thirds of the campaign stories were about Mr. Obama compared with 53 percent for Mr. McCain.“

So, rjma, let me know if you need me to do any more research for you.  It’s difficult, I know, when you’re so dependent on others.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Geriberi ) on November 25, 2008 at 4:57 pm

The media was part of the Obama mania that got him elected - they would not stand for anything but a victory - argue all you want, but even the MEDIA admitted their bias - even the left-leaning Washington Post said, after the fact, “wow, I guess we were pretty biased.“  There was a non-partisan documentary done on election day - they asked people leaving the polls who they voted for, then a series of questions.  Of the many who voted for Obama, every one of them knew it was Sarah Palin who had the big controversy surrounding her wardrobe - every single one of them knew about this really big deal.  NONE of the six I saw knew that Congress was Democratically controlled - it was actually funny because they said Congress was so screwed up that they KNEW it was controlled by Republicans.  They didn’t know anything about Obama’s policies except that he was going to “give them stuff.“  Now, if the media had been doing its job, they would have known a whole lot more, and I truly believe it would have been a different election.  Argue it all you want, but the media were in love with an image and they got him in there.
They, and everyone else, were also the ones making a big deal about “the first African American president.“  You couldn’t watch any coverage of the election and see interviews with people who were voting for him without seeing a whole, whole bunch who were voting for him ONLY because he was black.  Good lord, most couldn’t tell you anything he was proposing other than FREE CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!!  Most conservatives couldn’t care less about his color - we were concerned with his policies (still are).
Gee, I’d say redistribution of wealth is pretty friggin liberal, unless of course you don’t deem socialism a liberal ideology.  Also, paying for abortions for people in other countries, and allowing babies to die who survived botched abortions, yep, that’s pretty darn liberal.  Cutting our defense budget by 25% when we’re under constant threat of terrorist attacks?  Yes, that would, again, be liberal.  Of course he’s now backing away from many of the actions he so adamantly promised to take - what a shock that once he got a clue about what’s going on in the real world, he’d realize that his little Shangri-la just wouldn’t work.  Looks like he should have maybe worked a little longer and learned a bit more before he went for the big office, but that’s all moot now, huh?  Oh, and let’s not forget the “Fairness Doctrine,“ also known as censoring anyone who doesn’t agree with the ruling party.  Just because it’s only fair to the liberal media and unfair to conservative talk radio certainly doesn’t make it a part of a liberal agenda. 
Obama said that we were going to try to “scare people about him” because he “looked different,“ and had a “funny name.“  He was the only one saying ANYTHING like that, period.  And, gee, he did go to that whitey-hating church too - I’m just saying.  Like I said in my earlier comment - why is it ok for Obama and the people on the left to comment on his race?  And who else is even saying anything about it?  Not me - I’ve got too much to be legitimately concerned about with our new president.
So, Opa, I’m all ears if you’d like to tell me where I’m wrong.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Geriberi ) on November 25, 2008 at 8:09 am

The “ignorant people of both races” are being influenced by the same media that elected Obama.  THEY are the ones making a big deal about race.  I don’t care if he’s purple, I do not agree with his extreme liberal views of how to run our country - it has NOTHING to do with race.  Telling people to “grow up” because they disagree with him is not going to help us “get along.“
Also, Obama was originally the one to start all this, with his “I don’t look like the other presidents,“ and other similar comments.  HE wanted it to be an issue, and the other liberals claimed that, if he was not elected, it would be because of race.  I guess it’s ok to use race to your advantage, but not ok to comment on it otherwise?

Report Inappropriate Comment