How Obama Got Elected
#42
11-21-2008, 02:13 PM
well, mate, maybe i should have said "narrowly focused"? Lol
guy, there is no productive conversation here. Just grousing over the outcome where your man didn't win. You're just trying to belabor a point that is not only irrelevant - but is now rendered moot as well.
On the history channel they had an excellent series called "the presidents" each episode highlighted 4 to 5 presidents. You could learn a great deal from them as i did. Media - back then was only print - always backed a candidate. Produced unflattering cartoons characitures of who they were against and mostly inaccurate (sometimes blatantly lied).
My reference to washington, eisenhower, and kennedy - were to prove a point. The first two didn't want to become president - but they enjoyed huge celebrity status. Kennedy actually was pushed by his father (but that's another story). Kennedy - like obama - wrote a great book, profiles in courage - great read you should check that out as well. He enjoyed a huge celebrity following.
Here's one point i learned from that history channel show - washington had this beautiful white horse that would accompany him on state trips. It trotted behind the carriage the washington rode in. When they came upon a town that they would pass through - washington would mount the steed and gallop into town. It was a brilliant display.
Now if that's not playing up your "celebrity" i don't know what is! Lol...
To be honest, you may have some truly valid points - but right now it just comes across as sour grapes. Just like the democrats b!tching about hanging chads and the countless recounts. They even went so far as to go back and do a recount and you know what? Bush did win with a narrow margin - if i recall correctly.
Obama's biggest asset was that he wasn't a reactionary. Mccain was. Almost every week he had some plan that didn't hold water, some accusation that was ludicris, some stance that was unnecessary.
Obama played it neutral - to some maybe he was too cool.
But he won. End of story. Another election gone and now in the history books.
guy, there is no productive conversation here. Just grousing over the outcome where your man didn't win. You're just trying to belabor a point that is not only irrelevant - but is now rendered moot as well.
On the history channel they had an excellent series called "the presidents" each episode highlighted 4 to 5 presidents. You could learn a great deal from them as i did. Media - back then was only print - always backed a candidate. Produced unflattering cartoons characitures of who they were against and mostly inaccurate (sometimes blatantly lied).
My reference to washington, eisenhower, and kennedy - were to prove a point. The first two didn't want to become president - but they enjoyed huge celebrity status. Kennedy actually was pushed by his father (but that's another story). Kennedy - like obama - wrote a great book, profiles in courage - great read you should check that out as well. He enjoyed a huge celebrity following.
Here's one point i learned from that history channel show - washington had this beautiful white horse that would accompany him on state trips. It trotted behind the carriage the washington rode in. When they came upon a town that they would pass through - washington would mount the steed and gallop into town. It was a brilliant display.
Now if that's not playing up your "celebrity" i don't know what is! Lol...
To be honest, you may have some truly valid points - but right now it just comes across as sour grapes. Just like the democrats b!tching about hanging chads and the countless recounts. They even went so far as to go back and do a recount and you know what? Bush did win with a narrow margin - if i recall correctly.
Obama's biggest asset was that he wasn't a reactionary. Mccain was. Almost every week he had some plan that didn't hold water, some accusation that was ludicris, some stance that was unnecessary.
Obama played it neutral - to some maybe he was too cool.
But he won. End of story. Another election gone and now in the history books.
/thread
#43
11-21-2008, 02:23 PM
I dont doubt that Obama won the election so you can have that point. You can call it sour grapes or whatever label you want, but the losing party is always labeled that way. I am not saying we need to go recount ballots and challenge the results. But I think that there is more to the election than meets the eye and it is good to look at both sides and learn as much as possible. I dont blame past candidates for using their celebrity to their advantage. But lets understand why they are considered celebrities. Sorry if I am skeptical of Obama, his past is not the story of a war hero. And if you think the media is just the same old entity it has always been, then read the article written by the journalist and argue against his points. But I wont hold my breath.
#44
11-21-2008, 05:08 PM
Hey, I read everything you posted, mate, and Mr. Malone's article has some validity. But he's delusional on some parts. The media has never been completely "un-biased".
He spoke of being a child of the 60's - back then the media was constantly portraying hippies as drug addled, social radicals (though some were) but this was not entirely true. It was a biased report.
I laugh everytime I hear Fox Noise claim to be "fair and balanced"... they are as extreme right as MSNBC is extreme left.
He is right though, objectional journalism is a rare thing now-a-days. Even reporters from BBC were not covering Obama as much as McCain. But here's the rub...
With competition for viewers on at least 8 different networks (including the cable ones) - what sells?
The cool, stoic, unknown senator from Illinois or the hotblooded "maverick" from Arizona? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count
The media can print whatever they want - as long as it's not slander. That reminds me of the "terrorist fist jab" comment... lol...
Sensationalism sells - if there's no juicy sex stories about orgies, hookers or random airport bathroom gay match-ups
So that's where they sniffed - up McCain's skirt. And he gave them plenty to write about, too.
Obama had a helluva time fighting the initial attacks that hit him across the internet - still to this day one of my employees feels we just elected a terrorist (a back woods hick, but a solid worker).
Honestly, look back objectively. Both sides had it tough, it just wasn't McCain. Even now the Secret Service has stepped up protection for Obama due to the numerous death threats against the guy.
If you want to compare "celebrity-status" then do it correctly - unlike the McCain ad that painted Obama like an airheaded millionairess and pop star. That was uncalled for, honestly. That got plenty of air play from all the networks for being outright ridiculous.
As I mentioned before, only time (like these last 8 yrs did) will prove who was the better (or wrong) man for the job.
He spoke of being a child of the 60's - back then the media was constantly portraying hippies as drug addled, social radicals (though some were) but this was not entirely true. It was a biased report.
I laugh everytime I hear Fox Noise claim to be "fair and balanced"... they are as extreme right as MSNBC is extreme left.
He is right though, objectional journalism is a rare thing now-a-days. Even reporters from BBC were not covering Obama as much as McCain. But here's the rub...
With competition for viewers on at least 8 different networks (including the cable ones) - what sells?
The cool, stoic, unknown senator from Illinois or the hotblooded "maverick" from Arizona? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count
The media can print whatever they want - as long as it's not slander. That reminds me of the "terrorist fist jab" comment... lol...
Sensationalism sells - if there's no juicy sex stories about orgies, hookers or random airport bathroom gay match-ups
So that's where they sniffed - up McCain's skirt. And he gave them plenty to write about, too.Obama had a helluva time fighting the initial attacks that hit him across the internet - still to this day one of my employees feels we just elected a terrorist (a back woods hick, but a solid worker).
Honestly, look back objectively. Both sides had it tough, it just wasn't McCain. Even now the Secret Service has stepped up protection for Obama due to the numerous death threats against the guy.
If you want to compare "celebrity-status" then do it correctly - unlike the McCain ad that painted Obama like an airheaded millionairess and pop star. That was uncalled for, honestly. That got plenty of air play from all the networks for being outright ridiculous.
As I mentioned before, only time (like these last 8 yrs did) will prove who was the better (or wrong) man for the job.
Last edited by Palindari™; 11-21-2008 at 05:11 PM.
#45
11-21-2008, 05:14 PM
Yes time will tell if Obama was the right choice. It will be interesting for all us to be apart of it ....
#47
11-21-2008, 10:52 PM
My opinion.......99% of our presidents fuhked the American people, so really it doesn't matter who got elected.......we will still get screwed by Government!
#48
02-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Liberal media members finding a new home in the white house:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ss-conference/
Time will tell, indeed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ss-conference/
Time will tell, indeed.
#49
02-12-2009, 10:14 AM
http://thecablegame.blogspot.com/200...on-why-to.html
Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE which is the parent company of NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, was named to Obama's economic recovery board. He was voted the worst CEO in America in 2008 so it seems like a strange choice. GE was also accused of doing business with Iran after it was revealed that Iran was smuggling IEDs into Iraq to kill Americans. But the most relevant fact here is that he controls major media networks.
Another fact to add onto my previous post - the first person that Obama called on at his press conference was Helen Thomas who recently said that she was born a liberal and "what else should a journalists be (but liberal)?" She was also recently demoted to the title of columnists since she primarily writes opinion pieces.
Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE which is the parent company of NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, was named to Obama's economic recovery board. He was voted the worst CEO in America in 2008 so it seems like a strange choice. GE was also accused of doing business with Iran after it was revealed that Iran was smuggling IEDs into Iraq to kill Americans. But the most relevant fact here is that he controls major media networks.
Another fact to add onto my previous post - the first person that Obama called on at his press conference was Helen Thomas who recently said that she was born a liberal and "what else should a journalists be (but liberal)?" She was also recently demoted to the title of columnists since she primarily writes opinion pieces.
#50
02-12-2009, 01:48 PM
I'm a tad confused...
What's wrong with liberal views?
It's almost like if you're deemed liberal - you're a bleeding heart, tree hugger sissy - conservative the same, you're a war loving, gun toting hard ***.
But let's break this down further.
Liberal = open mindedness
Conservative = close mindedness
If you look up the definitions they boil down to just that. So to declare that you were born "liberal" means maybe that your mind is open to ideas?
But like I mentioned earlier - the term has been bastardsized to become a label (as does being "conservative").
Speaking only for myself, I consider myself a "moderate".
I believe in the death penalty - with some strict guidelines.
Gun ownership
One language
Gay marriage - goes to that "equal rights to all" thing in the Constitution
Pro-choice
Strict immigration laws and enforcement
and all the freedoms the Bill of Rights allow me... you know, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And I happily voted for a Democratic for the very first time last November.
So what if Obama calls upon a "liberal" reporter on his first day? Hell, Bush was caught on a open mic telling Cheney that some reporter was an ******* or something. Do you think he called on that guy much? lol
You should read more history, mate. All our Presidents favored some over others. Some even held reporters out of meetings at gunpoint... think that was Jackson... just because they wrote nasty things about him.
Perhaps you should be a little more open minded. To be honest it seems to me that being liberal means you're optimistic and conservative, pessimistic. But maybe I'm over simplifying here a touch still.
Like it or not, Mr. Obama is our President. And it's going to take all of us to get us out of the sheethole we're all in at moment.
What's wrong with liberal views?
It's almost like if you're deemed liberal - you're a bleeding heart, tree hugger sissy - conservative the same, you're a war loving, gun toting hard ***.
But let's break this down further.
Liberal = open mindedness
Conservative = close mindedness
If you look up the definitions they boil down to just that. So to declare that you were born "liberal" means maybe that your mind is open to ideas?
But like I mentioned earlier - the term has been bastardsized to become a label (as does being "conservative").
Speaking only for myself, I consider myself a "moderate".
I believe in the death penalty - with some strict guidelines.
Gun ownership
One language
Gay marriage - goes to that "equal rights to all" thing in the Constitution
Pro-choice
Strict immigration laws and enforcement
and all the freedoms the Bill of Rights allow me... you know, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And I happily voted for a Democratic for the very first time last November.
So what if Obama calls upon a "liberal" reporter on his first day? Hell, Bush was caught on a open mic telling Cheney that some reporter was an ******* or something. Do you think he called on that guy much? lol
You should read more history, mate. All our Presidents favored some over others. Some even held reporters out of meetings at gunpoint... think that was Jackson... just because they wrote nasty things about him.
Perhaps you should be a little more open minded. To be honest it seems to me that being liberal means you're optimistic and conservative, pessimistic. But maybe I'm over simplifying here a touch still.
Like it or not, Mr. Obama is our President. And it's going to take all of us to get us out of the sheethole we're all in at moment.
Last edited by Palindari™; 02-12-2009 at 02:14 PM.