Writerbuckeye;558509 wrote:Yeah, because most of them are brain dead or have their heads wrapped in tin foil.
Tell you this much: I NEVER felt like Bush would do anything deliberately to hurt this country or put it down in any way (he didn't).
You cannot say the same about Obama -- which is why he scares me. I think he resents the US for its place in the world and wants to see it brought down a peg and "even" with the family of nations crap.
And before you ask why I think he feels that way it's simple: the people he trained and learned from DO feel that way, very overtly. I don't see the apple falling far from the tree.

Ty Webb;558798 wrote:Writer what proof do you have that anything President Obama has done or will do is meant to harm our country?? That is an ignorant and naive thing to say.

How can you require "proof" on plainly stated feelings and thoughts? I think Writer stated plainly enough that his post was based on thoughts and feelings (think/felt).

ptown_trojans_1;559237 wrote:I'll agree the media loved Obama, but it wash right wing media that spread the accusations like Obama wasn't an American, he was a Muslim, and had insanely close ties to Rev Wright therefore he was a racist and hated America, etc.

I'll agree it was not the same level as Bush over the eight years, but so far since 2008, it has been pretty close.

What is right wing media? The same nutsos on the right as compared to the Daily Kos, DU nutjobs?

Did Fox perpetuate any of these rumors? CB-freaking-S spiked the Texas Air Guard story and was going to air it the week of the election, until a really nutty guy (Charles Johnson - the guy is nuttier than a extra nutty fruitcake) saw how they were fake.

It isn't pretty close, it isn't the same ballpark. Dan Rather and CBS tried to sway the '04 election.

ptown_trojans_1;559237 wrote:I'll agree the media loved Obama, but it wash right wing media that spread the accusations like Obama wasn't an American, he was a Muslim, and had insanely close ties to Rev Wright therefore he was a racist and hated America, etc.

I'll agree it was not the same level as Bush over the eight years, but so far since 2008, it has been pretty close.

I chalk that up to "Trying to figure out who this guy is who served a couple of years as Illinois State Senator/U.S. Senator, then becomes rock star/political icon overnight". Ideally the media in this country would've asked those questions for the American people, but no - anything that might possibly paint BHO in a negative light was off-limits. Consequently, any questioning and digging was left to right-wingers, and any conclusions they reached were predetermined to be idiotic.

BTW, Obama himself seemed to suggest his closeness to Rev. Wright before it became too politically risky:

I can no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother

jhay78;559559 wrote:I chalk that up to "Trying to figure out who this guy is who served a couple of years as Illinois State Senator/U.S. Senator, then becomes rock star/political icon overnight". Ideally the media in this country would've asked those questions for the American people, but no - anything that might possibly paint BHO in a negative light was off-limits. Consequently, any questioning and digging was left to right-wingers, and any conclusions they reached were predetermined to be idiotic.

BTW, Obama himself seemed to suggest his closeness to Rev. Wright before it became too politically risky:

Truth!

1. Oprah introduced him as "The One" and even grown men worshipped at the alter of Harpo. Or felt tingles up their legs.

2. The reality.

*Also, anyone who questions or disagrees with anything Obama is said to have got it from FOX. Obviously, Obama supporters do not think that anybody different than them cannot think on their own.

Manhattan Buckeye;559325 wrote:What is right wing media? The same nutsos on the right as compared to the Daily Kos, DU nutjobs?

Did Fox perpetuate any of these rumors? CB-freaking-S spiked the Texas Air Guard story and was going to air it the week of the election, until a really nutty guy (Charles Johnson - the guy is nuttier than a extra nutty fruitcake) saw how they were fake.

It isn't pretty close, it isn't the same ballpark. Dan Rather and CBS tried to sway the '04 election.

I'd say some right wing blogs, Malkin, Ingram helped, the conservative radio like Rush, Frank Gaffney, or Levin. It was then picked up by Hannity on Fox, who made it a point to make Obama the worst thing ever for the country. So, yeah, I would equal the two in that sense.

jhay78;559559 wrote:I chalk that up to "Trying to figure out who this guy is who served a couple of years as Illinois State Senator/U.S. Senator, then becomes rock star/political icon overnight". Ideally the media in this country would've asked those questions for the American people, but no - anything that might possibly paint BHO in a negative light was off-limits. Consequently, any questioning and digging was left to right-wingers, and any conclusions they reached were predetermined to be idiotic.

BTW, Obama himself seemed to suggest his closeness to Rev. Wright before it became too politically risky:

I agree with some of that. But, calling him a Muslim or not an American or a radical racist is not looking into his history. I get looking into him, but it was done with so much bias that it clouded the message and erased credibility from those sources.

I would support if someone would have came with something, but with a more moderate, credible, rational and unbiased method of delivery.

CenterBHSFan;559580 wrote:Truth!

1. Oprah introduced him as "The One" and even grown men worshipped at the alter of Harpo. Or felt tingles up their legs.

2. The reality.

*Also, anyone who questions or disagrees with anything Obama is said to have got it from FOX. Obviously, Obama supporters do not think that anybody different than them cannot think on their own.

Oprah should not have said anything. She should not have been involved in politics. I didn't support it then and not now. Anyone who thought the President would be a "savior" of the "one" had no idea about how Washington, policy or the government works.
Matthews is an idiot, plain and simple.

I support the President, but also know when to criticize him. I would also point out that a successful area where Obama is criticized is Foreign Policy's Shadow Government.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/

"I'd say some right wing blogs, Malkin, Ingram helped, the conservative radio like Rush, Frank Gaffney, or Levin. It was then picked up by Hannity on Fox, who made it a point to make Obama the worst thing ever for the country. So, yeah, I would equal the two in that sense. "

Respectfully disagree. Query. How old were you in 2004? Do you remember the CBS false Texas Air Guard story? It was the proverbial straw that broke the "mainstream media" back. It killed Dan Rather's career, and his past reputation.

That's a far cry from Comedy Central's clowns doing what it is that they do - it is fine with me, but they aren't any different than a guy in his pajamas giving his opinion. The Rathergate story was a big deal, because it was so obviously biased and so obviously incompentent.

Manhattan Buckeye;559660 wrote:"I'd say some right wing blogs, Malkin, Ingram helped, the conservative radio like Rush, Frank Gaffney, or Levin. It was then picked up by Hannity on Fox, who made it a point to make Obama the worst thing ever for the country. So, yeah, I would equal the two in that sense. "

Respectfully disagree. Query. How old were you in 2004? Do you remember the CBS false Texas Air Guard story? It was the proverbial straw that broke the "mainstream media" back. It killed Dan Rather's career, and his past reputation.


That's a far cry from Comedy Central's clowns doing what it is that they do - it is fine with me, but they aren't any different than a guy in his pajamas giving his opinion. The Rathergate story was a big deal, because it was so obviously biased and so obviously incompentent.

I remember the 2004 issue. I was able to vote then. I agree it was an awful story to really screw up the President? But, if I may, wasn't the swift boat ad the same for Kerry?

I would still say after only 2 years, the tone against Obama and accusations are on pace to be the same as Bush.

ptown_trojans_1;559670 wrote:I remember the 2004 issue. I was able to vote then. I agree it was an awful story to really screw up the President? But, if I may, wasn't the swift boat ad the same for Kerry?

Perhaps, if you think that ads are comparable to "news".

CenterBHSFan;559671 wrote:Perhaps, if you think that ads are comparable to "news".

In terms of how people perceive them, yes.
Attacks ads, sadly work.

ptown_trojans_1;559670 wrote:IBut, if I may, wasn't the swift boat ad the same for Kerry?

The Repubs may have milked the swift boat thing for all it's worth but at least the were elements of truth in it. The CBS Texas Air National Guard story was pure fiction.

"I would still say after only 2 years, the tone against Obama and accusations are on pace to be the same as Bush. "

Is the mainstream media making up stuff? Obama has dug his own ditch, and only the folks that think that a "not even one-term Senator" is the promised one has to admit, his administration has poorly governed, and the country is not in good shape.

Hope and Change might as well be the name for the greyhounds next door. It definitely doesn't describe the U.S. We have a long road to travel to get back to a solid foundation. The administration ignored the unemployment issue. The administration pretty much gave small businesses the middle finger. The administration hasn't cut back on any of the W administration's unfunded costs. We elected the guy in law school that sits in the corner and pontificates about how the world would work as if he/she were in charge, but hasn't even bothered to work a minimum wage job in the enterprises that drive the economy.

Manhattan Buckeye;559685 wrote:"I would still say after only 2 years, the tone against Obama and accusations are on pace to be the same as Bush. "

Is the mainstream media making up stuff? Obama has dug his own ditch, and only the folks that think that a "not even one-term Senator" is the promised one has to admit, his administration has poorly governed, and the country is not in good shape.

Hope and Change might as well be the name for the greyhounds next door. It definitely doesn't describe the U.S. We have a long road to travel to get back to a solid foundation. The administration ignored the unemployment issue. The administration pretty much gave small businesses the middle finger. The administration hasn't cut back on any of the W administration's unfunded costs. We elected the guy in law school that sits in the corner and pontificates about how the world would work as if he/she were in charge, but hasn't even bothered to work a minimum wage job in the enterprises that drive the economy.

ptown_trojans_1;559670 wrote:I remember the 2004 issue. I was able to vote then. I agree it was an awful story to really screw up the President? But, if I may, wasn't the swift boat ad the same for Kerry?

I would still say after only 2 years, the tone against Obama and accusations are on pace to be the same as Bush.

Disagree. Swift Boat was merely two groups of people telling different versions of the same story. Neither side had their story disproved to any degree of certainty. I don't think this compares to a news network getting completely busted making up a story.

ptown_trojans_1;559670 wrote: I would still say after only 2 years, the tone against Obama and accusations are on pace to be the same as Bush.

You can't be serious, you can not possibly type that and believe it with a straight face.

Even to this day there are very few stories from main stream media that are denegrating Obama.

jmog;560667 wrote:You can't be serious, you can not possibly type that and believe it with a straight face.

Even to this day there are very few stories from main stream media that are denegrating Obama.

Well the media was pretty quick to note that Obama's "thrill" is no longer evident based on the results of his recent Asian tour. But other than that....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/november_2010/opposition_to_auto_bailouts_is_now_below_50

jmog;560667 wrote:You can't be serious, you can not possibly type that and believe it with a straight face.

Even to this day there are very few stories from main stream media that are denegrating Obama.

I disagree.

And if main stream media includes radio I especially disagree.

Also, I believe ptown was talking in a broader sense than simply the media.

Ty Webb;571095 wrote:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/november_2010/opposition_to_auto_bailouts_is_now_below_50

Oh, I see...now that you agree with a Rasmussen piece, you post it. Good one. At least you are on the best pollster in the business' site. Keep up the good work.

Two years from now, Ty will be voting with us ................. you heard it here first.

lol, did Ty, who has denegrated Rassmussen a number of times as basically a right wing group, is now quoting them because a poll agrees with him?

Too funny.

Per Gibby's link:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 46% of Adults say that it was bad idea for the federal government to provide bailout funding for GM and Chrysler. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say the bailouts were a good idea, but 16% remain undecided.

But General Motors has been posting more positive news in recent months

I'm wondering how many of those folks think that GM paid back the government with sales receipts?

I wonder how many folks would change their mind if they weren't intentionally mislead by GovCo.

1) We are never getting are money back from the "investment"

2) The only reason why there was an IPO is because the government changed the rules on how the bankruptcy process works (more on this below)

3) GM has scaled down, but hasn't shown it can be competitive in a hyper-competitive market. There is no guarantee they won't need another bailout in the next 5-10 years if it is still "too big to fail"

Excellent and concise argument:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/11/true-cost-of-the-gm-bankruptcy.html#comments

In addition to the blog entry, read the comment by Ignoramus (an ironic username) - the comment about GM allowed to keep their NOLs is spot on....what % of Americans even know what NOLs are? Less than 5%? All people know is that they still make cars (for now) and the idiot CEO misrepresented in commercials that since they paid off their "loan" that the taxpayers have been made whole. We haven't. Just shifting numbers on a balance sheet isn't making us whole, but many people believed him.

jmog;571197 wrote:lol, did Ty, who has denegrated Rassmussen a number of times as basically a right wing group, is now quoting them because a poll agrees with him?

Too funny.

I understand the humor in that.

But lets say I think Rasmussen is a right wing biased group and that is the motivation for polls being particularly negative to Democrats/liberals/Obama/etc. Rasmussen then comes out with a poll with a less negative view, I could argue that it's because even this right wing group cannot hide the positive viewpoint shift.

I don't think that but simply because you question the viewpoints of an organization doesn't mean that you can't agree with something they say.

Many of you believe the NY Times to be a left wing newspaper. But I've seen people link to stories that supported their position from them.

Manhattan Buckeye;571230 wrote:I wonder how many folks would change their mind if they weren't intentionally mislead by GovCo.

1) We are never getting are money back from the "investment"

2) The only reason why there was an IPO is because the government changed the rules on how the bankruptcy process works (more on this below)

3) GM has scaled down, but hasn't shown it can be competitive in a hyper-competitive market. There is no guarantee they won't need another bailout in the next 5-10 years if it is still "too big to fail"

Excellent and concise argument:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/11/true-cost-of-the-gm-bankruptcy.html#comments

In addition to the blog entry, read the comment by Ignoramus (an ironic username) - the comment about GM allowed to keep their NOLs is spot on....what % of Americans even know what NOLs are? Less than 5%? All people know is that they still make cars (for now) and the idiot CEO misrepresented in commercials that since they paid off their "loan" that the taxpayers have been made whole. We haven't. Just shifting numbers on a balance sheet isn't making us whole, but many people believed him.

We can get our money back assuming GM is still in business and does well for at least a couple years the government could simply sell its shares.

I Wear Pants;571239 wrote:We can get our money back assuming GM is still in business and does well for at least a couple years the government could simply sell its shares.

They'd have to nearly double their all-time market cap. When do you see that happening? Every economist I've read (even from those that supported the bailout) admits that it is unlikely to ever happen, and certainly not in the next couple of years. Their market share would need to increase significantly, and there are enough people disgusted that one of the worst, if not worst, ran American company needed a shot in the arm while well-run companies have to - you know- play by the rules...that a large part of the consumer base isn't interested in GM anymore.

Who is now anyway? Aside from pick-ups, the Yukon/Tahoe and Corvette/Camaro enthusiasts, they still make lousy products. Who buys a GM minivan over Honda, Toyota or even Chrysler? The crossover triplets (Acadia, Traverse, whatever the Buick is) have underperformed and their sedans flat out can't compete. No 20ish person entering the car market says to themselves, "Yeah I want a Malibu over an Accord, Camry or Altima."

They've lost over two decades of young consumers, not easy to get that back.