Jesus lord in heaven, I hate our primary process. The media does have an unduly large effect on who wins the general election. But they have total control over who wins the primaries. I am so, so tired of them determining who's winning by pushing whatever narrative they feel like pushing.
Freddie, why don't you just go calmly talk to the media and tell them how you feel?
What's that you say? You can't? Why not? OH BECAUSE THE MEDIA AREN'T A SINGLE ENTITY!!!!! Wow, I never thought of that. I guess you'll have to wait for their next clandestine meeting of every single journalist, editor, etc in the world. I believe it's scheduled for a week after the meeting of The Elders of Zion.
You know, I take alot of abuse around here, and I like that. But seriously, are you suggesting that it's crazy to think that the media holds a disproportionate amount of sway over the primary process? Would you like me to link to a hundred-- literally, a hundred, I could do it easily-- articles, blog posts, comments, etc., stating exactly that opinion? Just using the Atlantic bloggers I could easily get 25 or 30 posts saying exactly that. And that's the same as believing in the Elders of Zion?
Why are you Obama supporters so depressed? I know he's a great speaker -- I haven't seen a crowd in the palm of any speaker's hand like that since "Triumph of The Will" -- but as a practical matter, there is hardly any policy difference between Hillary and Obama. He's maybe 5% more liberal than her. Is style more important to you than substance?
Uh, why be depressed if you support Obama? Because Hillary winning New Hampshire means its over? Did Obama winning Iowa mean it was over? It's a dogfight.
I know that as a libertarian, I shouldn't be in favor of Obama.
I guess Obama captivates me for the same reason that Michael Jordan captivates me as a basketball fan (even though I hate the Bulls). I've never seen a figure like Obama in the political arena.
And haven't baby boomers messed up our government enough. no mas.
"And haven't baby boomers messed up our government enough. no mas."
The problem is that Obama's politics predates the boomers; it's like there's a homunculus of Walter Mondale inside him. From card-check unionism, to raising the capital gains tax to the level it was at before Clinton cut it, he has no new or promising solutions, just mainly old leftwing nostrums.
I don't want him to be President per se, but in theory I could see good in it.
He's a good speaker so might charm some of our allies who feel disgruntled by Bush. Also cheer people up during natural disasters. His policies are liberal enough that, when combined with a Democratic Congress, they could cause a reaction that (hopefully) could lead to a retake of Congress for the GOP. The Supreme Court is relatively safe for the time being as most of the really old justices are liberal.
Basically I'm saying as a "Head of State", the ceremonial/charming aspect, he might be pretty good. And the rest could be fixed by getting a Republican Congress. Well in theory.
More realistically I think he'd probably cause loads of errors and in the short-term could be fairly negative. Still if we must have a Democratic President, and it seems likely we will, I'd much prefer him to Clinton or Edwards. I'm guessing that won't happen as she's pretty much always had a lead nationally. It's a pity as I'm really not in the mood to return to 1993.
Freddie, you get abuse because your stance is immature and ill informed. The way you speak, you act as if the media are some collective controlling entity that manipulates people. The media ARE people. They aren't colluding. They aren't conspiring. They are just reporting.
Yes, there are common themes in their reporting. That may because they are all reporting on the same events and facts.
But, actually, on second though, no, you're right. Your conspiracy theory holds some heft.
And someone who accuses people of idiocy with really clever lines about not being able to use simple machinery should really learn that the word "media" is plural.
His policies are liberal enough that, when combined with a Democratic Congress
Danger, Will Robinson!
When the executive and legislative branches are governed by the same party, one of two things happens: either they infight and go corrupt behind each others' backs, or they agree on everything, no matter how expensive or batty. (Witness how long it took Bush Dubya to find and exercise a veto pen.) When the executive harkens from the opposite party as the one dominating the legislative branch, then the two entities have to actually analyze priorities and negotiate or stand firmly against accordingly.
Jesus lord in heaven, I hate our primary process. The media does have an unduly large effect on who wins the general election. But they have total control over who wins the primaries. I am so, so tired of them determining who's winning by pushing whatever narrative they feel like pushing.
Freddie, why don't you just go calmly talk to the media and tell them how you feel?
What's that you say? You can't? Why not? OH BECAUSE THE MEDIA AREN'T A SINGLE ENTITY!!!!! Wow, I never thought of that. I guess you'll have to wait for their next clandestine meeting of every single journalist, editor, etc in the world. I believe it's scheduled for a week after the meeting of The Elders of Zion.
You know, I take alot of abuse around here, and I like that. But seriously, are you suggesting that it's crazy to think that the media holds a disproportionate amount of sway over the primary process? Would you like me to link to a hundred-- literally, a hundred, I could do it easily-- articles, blog posts, comments, etc., stating exactly that opinion? Just using the Atlantic bloggers I could easily get 25 or 30 posts saying exactly that. And that's the same as believing in the Elders of Zion?
Who helped you turn on your computer today?
this is depressing.
I'm heading out right now for the gas station to buy some malt liquor.
I'm sure you'll see some drunk comments from me here later tonight.
Why are you Obama supporters so depressed? I know he's a great speaker -- I haven't seen a crowd in the palm of any speaker's hand like that since "Triumph of The Will" -- but as a practical matter, there is hardly any policy difference between Hillary and Obama. He's maybe 5% more liberal than her. Is style more important to you than substance?
Uh, why be depressed if you support Obama? Because Hillary winning New Hampshire means its over? Did Obama winning Iowa mean it was over? It's a dogfight.
Hillary is not in. But she has a golden opportunity to recycle Bill's "comeback kid" speech.
I know that as a libertarian, I shouldn't be in favor of Obama.
I guess Obama captivates me for the same reason that Michael Jordan captivates me as a basketball fan (even though I hate the Bulls). I've never seen a figure like Obama in the political arena.
And haven't baby boomers messed up our government enough. no mas.
"And haven't baby boomers messed up our government enough. no mas."
The problem is that Obama's politics predates the boomers; it's like there's a homunculus of Walter Mondale inside him. From card-check unionism, to raising the capital gains tax to the level it was at before Clinton cut it, he has no new or promising solutions, just mainly old leftwing nostrums.
I don't want him to be President per se, but in theory I could see good in it.
He's a good speaker so might charm some of our allies who feel disgruntled by Bush. Also cheer people up during natural disasters. His policies are liberal enough that, when combined with a Democratic Congress, they could cause a reaction that (hopefully) could lead to a retake of Congress for the GOP. The Supreme Court is relatively safe for the time being as most of the really old justices are liberal.
Basically I'm saying as a "Head of State", the ceremonial/charming aspect, he might be pretty good. And the rest could be fixed by getting a Republican Congress. Well in theory.
More realistically I think he'd probably cause loads of errors and in the short-term could be fairly negative. Still if we must have a Democratic President, and it seems likely we will, I'd much prefer him to Clinton or Edwards. I'm guessing that won't happen as she's pretty much always had a lead nationally. It's a pity as I'm really not in the mood to return to 1993.
Freddie, you get abuse because your stance is immature and ill informed. The way you speak, you act as if the media are some collective controlling entity that manipulates people. The media ARE people. They aren't colluding. They aren't conspiring. They are just reporting.
Yes, there are common themes in their reporting. That may because they are all reporting on the same events and facts.
But, actually, on second though, no, you're right. Your conspiracy theory holds some heft.
And someone who accuses people of idiocy with really clever lines about not being able to use simple machinery should really learn that the word "media" is plural.
"The devil's greatest trick was to convince the world he didn't exist." -Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects
lr,
no kidding.. as well, isn't NutonToast's defense of 'the Media' a little too bombastic?
If he doesn't already know, maybe he should search up: The Mighty Wurlitzer..
His policies are liberal enough that, when combined with a Democratic Congress
Danger, Will Robinson!
When the executive and legislative branches are governed by the same party, one of two things happens: either they infight and go corrupt behind each others' backs, or they agree on everything, no matter how expensive or batty. (Witness how long it took Bush Dubya to find and exercise a veto pen.) When the executive harkens from the opposite party as the one dominating the legislative branch, then the two entities have to actually analyze priorities and negotiate or stand firmly against accordingly.