Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:Uhm, did you not read what you wrote? You did. Frazz mentioned the idea in his own special way and you questioned whether anyone said there should be a law. Well there is, so I told you. Right hand doesn't know what the left hand is typing?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I wasn't asking what your response was about, I was asking why Fraz raised the Fairness Doctrine at all. Because I was making the case that FOX news really is worse than anything else out there, that the argument made on it are more ridiculous that you can find elsewhere. That the errors it makes are more severe, and those errors consistently favour Republicans over Democrats.

When the point is made 'FOX news is really worse than any other news service, and by a long way' then the rebuttals that make sense are along the lines of 'no it isn't, look at this excellent coverage it provided', or 'no it isn't, here's a guy CNN saying that we should round up all the Republicans into death camps' or something. Those arguments weren't made, because FOX doesn't do decent stories (actual journalism is expensive, and Murdoch doesn't do expensive) and because the other news carriers, while bad, don't say anything half as the stuff regularly trotted out by the pundits and hosts on FOX.

Instead we get the rebuttal 'there's legislation being proposed to enforce balanced coverage'. Which has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Tyras wrote:To the brow beating and charges of rascism for those who oppose Obama: I won't even dignify your remarks other than to ask the question as to how a deaf and blind person can find the faculty to post on an internet forum?

Toy Soldiers Tyras... The Forum is about Toy Soldiers... I'm spending waay to much time debating what even Democrats are saying is illegal rather than debating the pros and cons of taking a Dakka Predator or two over a Land Raider Crusader.

Sorry, you're gonna say this after the guy runs an INCREDIBLY clean campaign against people who attacked him for being a Muslim/foreigner/whatever else? That's cute.

Toy Soldiers, Tyras... this forum IS about toy soldiers. You're spending way too much of your time being sore that the rich old white man's party is out of power.

Funny that you used the word "illegal" too. Like gitmo or wiretapping? Yep. Illegal.

Tyras wrote:To the brow beating and charges of rascism for those who oppose Obama: I won't even dignify your remarks other than to ask the question as to how a deaf and blind person can find the faculty to post on an internet forum?

Why don't you dignify it by providing examples? Because that'd probably be more constructive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Sorry, you're gonna say this after the guy runs an INCREDIBLY clean campaign against people who attacked him for being a Muslim/foreigner/whatever else? That's cute.

Toy Soldiers, Tyras... this forum IS about toy soldiers. You're spending way too much of your time being sore that the rich old white man's party is out of power.

Funny that you used the word "illegal" too. Like gitmo or wiretapping? Yep. Illegal.

That's just kind of how it works in the US. Each president expands the powers of the office, and the party that doesn't hold the presidency gnashes and wails about it. Then they win the presidency, start doing the same stuff, while the other party starts with the gnashing and the wailing. It's been a little strange this time around, because the Bush admin was so aggressive in the powers it claimed to see the same folk now so concerned about the limits on the executive (remember Cheney honestly stating that the office of the VP wasn't part of the presidency or the senate, so the legislation putting oversight on each didn't apply to the VP office, therefore he could do whatever he wanted?)


The end effect is the office of the Presidency grows in power with every new President. But then that was an inevability from the moment you seperated the legislative from the executive.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Tyras wrote:To the brow beating and charges of rascism for those who oppose Obama: I won't even dignify your remarks other than to ask the question as to how a deaf and blind person can find the faculty to post on an internet forum?

Toy Soldiers Tyras... The Forum is about Toy Soldiers... I'm spending waay to much time debating what even Democrats are saying is illegal rather than debating the pros and cons of taking a Dakka Predator or two over a Land Raider Crusader.

Sorry, you're gonna say this after the guy runs an INCREDIBLY clean campaign against people who attacked him for being a Muslim/foreigner/whatever else? That's cute.

Toy Soldiers, Tyras... this forum IS about toy soldiers. You're spending way too much of your time being sore that the rich old white man's party is out of power.

Funny that you used the word "illegal" too. Like gitmo or wiretapping? Yep. Illegal.

1) McCaine ran a clean campaign as well, even defended Obama against the outrageous claims some people who showed up at his rallies tried to perpetuate. The attacks came from outside his campaign and there is no doubt in my mind that if one were to look they'd find just as much BS from Obama's side of the election as well, also from supporters from outside his campaign.

2) The rich old white man's party... nothing racist there, move along.

3) I never defended Bush's actions on those issues. I defended Bush's acting within the constraints of the law given the intelligence at the time of his decision to commit the Armed Forces into Iraq, and even there I disagreed with that decision. It's my opinion that Bush wasn't all that great of a President, so don't go throwing him into a conversation. It's a smoke screen tactic and poor justification of Obama's illegal activities. "Well bush broke the law, why is it bad that Obama does it too". Absolute Rubbish.

I could care less if the President was neon green with purple polka dots and grew up in a freakin cave raised by a previously unknown species of lemurs in South Dakota as long as his policies weren't A) illegal B) socialist C) expanding government power. Race has absolutely no bearing in my opinions stop playing the frakkin race card, it's old, tired and catagorically false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Why don't you dignify it by providing examples? Because that'd probably be more constructive.

Brow Beating http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/war_on_investors_the_chrysler.html Secure Lenders are not greedy (Looking to profit unreasonably, according to Obama) for trying to protect funds they have a feduciary responsibilty to their clients, like oh say The State of Indiana's government retirement fund, while a Union that heavily contributed to Obama's campaign makes money hand over fist.

Oppose Obama? Must be a racist. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Olbermann-and-Garafalo-acc-by-America-20xy-090419-654.html

Now before you go and say "Obama never said those things!", I know that. No politician, that I know of anyways, would ever directly come out and say the opposition is racist. It's the fact that when members of the media, Hollywood, popular figure or any voice speaking on behalf of the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive point of view the Dems don't say a damned thing. Their silence is a blank check "OK" to what those people are saying. I've seen in the news and heard on the radio conservatives laugh people off the air who spouted off with the secret Muslim, elected because he's black BS. Hell even the RNC Chaiman Micheal Steele was chastised publicly for his assertment that Obama wasn't vetted because America fell in love with the black man, and he's freaking GOP leadership. But let anybody with a microphone say a conservative is racist and all you get from the Dems is silence. It's an image their more than happy perpetuate.

Tyras wrote: 1) McCaine ran a clean campaign as well

Except that isn’t remotely true. McCain accused Obama of supporting a comprehensive sex education class for kindergartners, when the program was actually about teaching kids to be wary of paedophiles. Obama said McCain’s remarketing of his economic policies were about putting ‘lipstick on a pig’, McCain took that quote in isolation and pretended it was about Palin. They lied about Obama’s support for a tax bill that would have increased taxes for $15 a year for single earners on $42,000, they pretended it would apply to families earning that much, and pretended it was part of Obama’s current tax platform (and not a defunct old tax bill). McCain then went on to claim Obama’s tax plan would increase taxes on the middle class, which only makes sense if ‘middle class’ starts at $250,000 a year.

Now, its true that by the time the Obama is an anti-American secret muslim communist reached fever pitch, McCain did point out that he wasn’t actually a muslim. But that’s the bare minimum standard expected of any decent human, and something McCain only managed after months of campaigning.

I liked McCain before he started his campaign. I supported the Democratic ticket because I felt the US really needed to send a message to the Republicans that the Bush presidency was unacceptable, but in terms of Obama and McCain I liked both of them about the same. But by the end of the McCain campaign I lost a lot of respect for the guy. He lied a lot during his campaign.

2) The rich old white man's party... nothing racist there, move along.

What is racist about pointing out that a party is dominated by rich, old white men. It’s arguably a little disingenuous, as the Democrats are also dominated by rich, old white men, but it’s hardly racist.

I could care less if the President was neon green with purple polka dots and grew up in a freakin cave raised by a previously unknown species of lemurs in South Dakota as long as his policies weren't …. socialist

Stop saying this. It makes you sound like an idiot.

sebster wrote:

I could care less if the President was neon green with purple polka dots and grew up in a freakin cave raised by a previously unknown species of lemurs in South Dakota as long as his policies weren't …. socialist

Stop saying this. It makes you sound like an idiot.

When the man stops fowarding policy that raises taxes (Cap and Trade) while redistributing the money from those taxes to social programs and subsidizing who he deems are worthy (Under 200K a year), pushing government healthcare and nationalising private sector companies I'll stop calling him socialist. As to the rest of that post do we really have to get into campain lies, half truths and broken promises. Given where Obama is now versus his stance in his campaign I think I might have a good shot at coming out on top of that one. That's not even looking into what he claimed or said about MacCain through the fact checker.

To the racist thing, I don't see how that statement isn't dripping in it's filth. If I were to be sore not that the Rich White guy was out, but the rich Black guy was in it would be racist. Class and race have nothing to do with my argument, yet he chose to insuate that it did. That the passion in my argument was born of having a Black man take the place of a white man. It's racist BS.

Tyras wrote:Brow Beating http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/war_on_investors_the_chrysler.html Secure Lenders are not greedy (Looking to profit unreasonably, according to Obama) for trying to protect funds they have a feduciary responsibilty to their clients, like oh say The State of Indiana's government retirement fund, while a Union that heavily contributed to Obama's campaign makes money hand over fist.

First up, I advise against reading realclearpolitics, in the same way as its best not to read dailykos. These sites are defined by open partisanship and (more seriously) no journalistic or editorial standards at all. They will make you dumber in the same way that FOX news will make you dumber.

Second up, in Perella Weinberg you have claims from one journalist over death threat calls with no source named. Neither Perella Weinberg nor the Obama admin have ever said such calls were made. Whee.

Oppose Obama? Must be a racist. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Olbermann-and-Garafalo-acc-by-America-20xy-090419-654.html

Now before you go and say "Obama never said those things!", I know that. No politician, that I know of anyways, would ever directly come out and say the opposition is racist. It's the fact that when members of the media, Hollywood, popular figure or any voice speaking on behalf of the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive point of view the Dems don't say a damned thing. Their silence is a blank check "OK" to what those people are saying.

You want the Obama campaign to come and speak out every time a third tier media personality like Garofalo makes a dubious claim about a non-event like a corporate sponsored political stunt that had almost no turn-out? Because that's an incredibly irrelevant moment for a president to be spending his time condemning. Is that really the extent of the oppose Obama means you're racist. Because that's just nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyras wrote:When the man stops fowarding policy that raises taxes (Cap and Trade) while redistributing the money from those taxes to social programs and subsidizing who he deems are worthy (Under 200K a year), pushing government healthcare and nationalising private sector companies I'll stop calling him socialist.

No, because words have meanings. Socialism is a system where the state owns the means of production and distribution. Having social policy and taxation is not socialism. If it were, every single country with anything approaching a modern economy ever would be socialist.

What Obama is in favour of is a form of social democracy, where the primary driver of the economy is the free market, but the extremes are tempered by government policy. There is no debate about government controlling the system entirely, nor is there debate about government no involving itself at all - the debate is about the extent of government involvement.

Jumping up and down and shouting ‘socialist!’ over a centrist to centre right view of government involvement does nothing but make noise and signal to everyone else in the debate that you need to be ignored from now on.

As to the rest of that post do we really have to get into campain lies, half truths and broken promises. Given where Obama is now versus his stance in his campaign I think I might have a good shot at coming out on top of that one. That's not even looking into what he claimed or said about MacCain through the fact checker.

No, you don’t have any chance of coming out ahead. Nor is coming out ahead even an issue, what matters is that you said McCain ran an honest campaign. McCain didn’t run an honest campaign, and it begins and ends with that simple truth.

To the racist thing, I don't see how that statement isn't dripping in it's filth. If I were to be sore not that the Rich White guy was out, but the rich Black guy was in it would be racist. Class and race have nothing to do with my argument, yet he chose to insuate that it did. That the passion in my argument was born of having a Black man take the place of a white man. It's racist BS.

No, the point of the ‘party of the rich white guy’ is all about the fact that the elected officials the Republican party puts up are almost all old rich white guys. It’s a simple descriptor of the party. The descriptor applies almost as accurately to the Democrats, hence the amount of coverage over the fact that, holy crap, the current president isn’t actually an old, rich white guy.

There was no criticism of your own personal views in there. That’s you attempting to find offence to score rhetorical points.

They were well publicised, readily available examples. The site they were taken from is irrelevant given that what was said is out there and could be quoted from a number of, what you might consider, more reputible websites. Search phrase > open first link > identify the quote I was looking for > Post in response.

Should the Administration reply to every wack job out there no... god knows I don't want to give Obama reason to appoint another Czar lol. It would take up more time and resources than the Administration could muster. The Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton types out there who, unfortunately, are respected among many Obama supporters orchestrate a race war of words daily. It seems to be a cause celeb to look at everything conservatives say through the smoked glass of racism. Most of the news outlets do it, bloggers are notorius for it, but when somebody like the above mentioned personalities play th eboy who called racist nothing is said. Should Obama's government stop it or speak against it? No, it's not their job. Should the Democratic, liberal, or progressive organizations knock it off, and speak against the playing of the race card at every drop of a hat? Absolutely. The point is, people who speak out against Obama's policies are often cast as racist. It's out there, and doesn't take alot of effort to dredge up. The example given was just an easy find because it's already become a chore having to defend every syllable of every post I make, against people who try to make a statement like "The forum is about toy soldiers" seem like a cowardly retreat or something before, hell not even in essence... pretty much outright, calling me a racist. Some people are just bat crazy and really not worth the effort to debate.

You're spending way too much of your time being sore that the rich old white man's party is out of power.

Too much of my time being sore... I'm apparently angry that the rich white guys are out of power. It's a racist statement. The Republican party is as old rich and white as the Democratic party. I couldn't care less what race a politician is if their policies make sense to me and if, by Mad Rabbit's call, the rich white guys are out of power, who is in power, and why would I be mad? Is it that he's assuming that I'm mad that the Black guy is in power? I believe so. Again I say it's a racist statement.

Tyras wrote:They were well publicised, readily available examples. The site they were taken from is irrelevant

I wasn't dismissing the story because of Realclearpolitics. I dismissed the story because there isn't a story - there's one unsourced report and a denial and a 'no comment' from the two parties involved. I just mentioned as an aside that reading Realclearpolitics is a bad idea because it will make you dumber.

Should the Administration reply to every wack job out there no... god knows I don't want to give Obama reason to appoint another Czar lol. It would take up more time and resources than the Administration could muster. The Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton types out there who, unfortunately, are respected among many Obama supporters orchestrate a race war of words daily. It seems to be a cause celeb to look at everything conservatives say through the smoked glass of racism. Most of the news outlets do it, bloggers are notorius for it, but when somebody like the above mentioned personalities play th eboy who called racist nothing is said. Should Obama's government stop it or speak against it? No, it's not their job. Should the Democratic, liberal, or progressive organizations knock it off, and speak against the playing of the race card at every drop of a hat? Absolutely. The point is, people who speak out against Obama's policies are often cast as racist. It's out there, and doesn't take alot of effort to dredge up. The example given was just an easy find because it's already become a chore having to defend every syllable of every post I make, against people who try to make a statement like "The forum is about toy soldiers" seem like a cowardly retreat or something before, hell not even in essence... pretty much outright, calling me a racist. Some people are just bat crazy and really not worth the effort to debate.

Yeah, both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton play the race card often. But neither of them play any part in the Obama administration. You were talking about the race card being used to attack critics of the Obama admin. So far you've given us a comment from Garofalo and then started talking about Sharpton and Jackson, then made claims about how bloggers are notorious for it.

In other words, you haven't substantiated your claim at all.

Too much of my time being sore... I'm apparently angry that the rich white guys are out of power. It's a racist statement. The Republican party is as old rich and white as the Democratic party. I couldn't care less what race a politician is if their policies make sense to me and if, by Mad Rabbit's call, the rich white guys are out of power, who is in power, and why would I be mad? Is it that he's assuming that I'm mad that the Black guy is in power? I believe so. Again I say it's a racist statement.

There's nothing in the comment that says the primary element is the 'white' bit. The comment reads as 'you're just sore because your team lost' with a 'by the way, your team is the team of old rich white guys'. Now, I don't agree with the second bit, because despite the advertising the Democrats are also dominated by rich, white guys (and personally, the 'rich' is a bigger problem than the 'white'). But the first part is a really good point, your team lost, get over it and move on.

It isn't a racist comment, so stop pretending it is. This game about pretending to be an oppressed minority helps no-one.

Could this mean that FOX could very soon be hosting a series of "How terrorists act" series where they show the viewer how to burn a flag, grow a beard, make their own bombs and plan an actual attack?

I'd watch it.

My bombs rock, but I can't get my damn beard to look halfway decent.

Ah, curse of the neck beard.

Yeah, I'd really like a bushy neckbeard, but it naturally forms some sort of stylish goatee.

I look like a homosexual, which will suck if God makes a mistake and turns my eyes into salt or something.

You could always try implanting pubic hair. Or weave them together into a prosthetic beard of sorts. I could see FOX do a workshop on those.

You will respect ma neckbah!

Tyras wrote:
The SIXTEEN Czars he has appointed act may not hold an offical designation, but they act as a public minister deriving their power from the office of the President. They, in the name of that office, can dictate policy and answer only to the President. They can't even be called in front of an oversight commitee.

Yeah, just like every other member of the executive staff. The 'czars' are generally senior members of the executive staff instructed to deal in a specific topic. They are no more 'public ministers' (where did you pull that phrase out of?) than the guy that gets Obama his coffee.

Tyras wrote:
The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.

You're wrong, again. Principal officers are government officials who oversee executive departments. If the person in question oversees no department, then they are not principal officers.

Tyras wrote:
Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.

Correct, but irrelevant.

Tyras wrote:
White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.

Exactly. Most of the 'czars' fall into this category.

Tyras wrote:

But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.

Senator Byrd (D) West Virginia

A distinction which is fully irrelevant. The 'czars' are Presidential advisers who are considered to speak on behalf of the President. Their word carries no authority, but it is considered with respect because it is assumed that their opinion will have a significant role in shaping policy.

Tyras wrote:
I'll just let the word out from the horse's mouth on the Inspector General's story. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html

I admit I'm a bit rusty in the research department, but I am having a bit of difficulty finding where IG Walpin was suspended with pay while the President informed Congress of his dismissal in accordance with law.

Run a google search for 'inspector general Obama', it should pop up in the first page.

Tyras wrote:
To the brow beating and charges of rascism for those who oppose Obama: I won't even dignify your remarks other than to ask the question as to how a deaf and blind person can find the faculty to post on an internet forum?

Cute, but it was an honest question. Albeit quite snarky.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyras wrote:Some people are just bat crazy and really not worth the effort to debate.

QFT.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Uhm, did you not read what you wrote? You did. Frazz mentioned the idea in his own special way and you questioned whether anyone said there should be a law. Well there is, so I told you. Right hand doesn't know what the left hand is typing?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I wasn't asking what your response was about, I was asking why Fraz raised the Fairness Doctrine at all. Because I was making the case that FOX news really is worse than anything else out there, that the argument made on it are more ridiculous that you can find elsewhere. That the errors it makes are more severe, and those errors consistently favour Republicans over Democrats.

Thats a conclusion made on your part and will brook no denial of it.

When the point is made 'FOX news is really worse than any other news service, and by a long way' then the rebuttals that make sense are along the lines of 'no it isn't, look at this excellent coverage it provided', or 'no it isn't, here's a guy CNN saying that we should round up all the Republicans into death camps' or something. Those arguments weren't made, because FOX doesn't do decent stories (actual journalism is expensive, and Murdoch doesn't do expensive) and because the other news carriers, while bad, don't say anything half as the stuff regularly trotted out by the pundits and hosts on FOX.

Instead we get the rebuttal 'there's legislation being proposed to enforce balanced coverage'. Which has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Why make the argument when you will just put your fingers in your ears and go NO ITS NOT NO ITS NOT?
You've made a conclusion and won't listen to counterarguments so why on earth would I be arsed enough to look up counterexamples?

would I be arsed enough to look up counterexamples?

.. you sound more and more British by the post Mr. Frazzled.

dogma wrote:

Forgetting the silliness of judging the correctness of a statement about a law that doesn't exist:

You 'correction' doesn't change anything about my comment. Rush, Olberman, and all the others would still be lumped into the 'media' category just like they are now. If it ended up being one-sided the pendulum would simply swing back with a change of administration.

Wanna bet?

The law did exist. It was a policy already overturned. This has all happened before.

The fairness doctrine isn't a great idea, but it also isn't going to crush all political dissent on the airwaves.

Dogma, after providing quotes and links to people who create, interperate, and debate the law for a living (Senator Byrd), direct passages from the Constitution supporting my points and then further supported by the previously mentioned Senator you still say it's wrong. I don't know what your credentials are, but I am far more likely to take the word of somebody who does this stuff for a living than those of Random Keyboard Jockey with an opinion # 235243652362. The fact that no matter what supporting references are presented, regardless of their source or the credability thereof, posters in this thread will continue to believe what they choose and not be swayed. It's like trying to argue to people that the sky is blue. They'll say it's green and despite showing them pictures, and giving them scientific evidence, they'll still say it's green, when all they have to do is go outside and see the obvious truth. Even then they'll probably return and say it's wrong. "The sky is black. It's 2AM here, but it had a greenish hue..."

So this is me agreeing to disagree.

Cnn, Fox, ABC, and all the other liberal/conservative tv channels are the reason I don't watch much tv anymore...