Indecision Blog headline:
Barack Obama Maybe Kind of Likes America, Some Republicans Admit
(link):
If they added in a question about whether or not Barack Obama breathes oxygen like the rest of humanity, I wonder what percentage of Republicans would answer that he probably didn’t.
I know one thing. It wouldn’t be zero.
Made me laugh. The GOP’s anti-Obama campaign has gone from party opposition to “making the people at Comedy Central and The Onion’s jobs very easy” in just 10 months. And Barack Obama (how dare he!) is calling Fox News what it is: faux news. People like to complain about this type of stuff, while sounding the warning cries of partisanship, and the warm fuzzies of bipartisanship.
Bull.
Everyone loves a good partisan kerfuffle. The more partisan, the better. We just don’t like it when our team is losing, and we have a tendency to be whiny about that.
Complaints about partisanship more often come from the underdogs, or the most recently trampled in the most recent election. Extreme partisanship is how minority parties rally the troops, and begin to rebuild (cough cough Utah Democrats!). No one lets go of partisanship until the general election is in full swing, and even then it’s just for show.
I don’t judge the GOP for the attacks. I think it’s hypocritical to do so. (I do judge them for not being better fact checkers though… how long do you want this minority party thing to go on?) Partisanship is part of the process, as long as we have parties to choose from.
The greatest moments of progress in our country’s history were the direct result of some of the most heated partisan battles.
Well obviously those Republicans admitting this are nothing but RINO, evil, puppy-blood drinking, commie, lib, socialist, fascist turncoats.
You drink the blood of puppies, Grumpy? Gross!
Seriously! You’re not supposed to drink it, it’s only meant to be used in cooking.
I gotta say, I’m absolutely shocked at the admission in the title of this post.
Jason,
I have to say that I agree with you about partisanship, I like it! I believe our government runs best when it’s bogged down in disagreement and little if anything gets done. When there is major conflict between factions in government, the only agreement that is usually found is on those truly important issues where the right choice and roll of government is obvious to all parties. (Note: I say usually!) Unfortunately, when there is no parity and one party runs the entire show we usually see pork barrel spending go through the roof, even with Republicans.
Now to your statement about Obama’s opinion of Fox News.
This type of statement about Fox has long been the Hallmark of liberal political opinionates like your self, but to now hear such rhetoric coming from the elevated halls of the White House is truly disturbing. What these statements from the White House really represent is a warning shot across the bow of the media. The White House is telling every major media outlet that while minor criticisms can be ignored, any really in-depth or hard hitting exposure of the White House which might be seen as negative will critically damage your access to White House sources.
Of course this is nothing new for the Obama team. This kind of retaliation against the media has been used before by Obama. Three days before the election Obama kicked 3 newspapers, the Washington Times, N.Y. Post and Dallas Morning News after these papers endorsed McCain on their editorial pages.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/01/obama-kicks-times-off-plane/
And let’s not forget about when Obama kicked the New Yorker off his plane immediately after they published a satirical image of Obama on its cover.
While, you and I have agreed in past discussions that news organizations certainly do cater to specific demographics, saying that Fox News isn’t a news organization simply because they host Beck is ridiculous. If you remember right Beck began his TV career of CNN. So where were the statements by Obama that CNN isn’t a “real” news organization.
This is no different than if I clamed that KVNU’s news team and reports weren’t actually a news organization simply because they allow you to go on the air with your own liberal points of view.
Of course, I can be completely wrong about this. So I want to give you your chance to post right here the specific claims made by the White House that backs up their claim that Fox is not a “real” news organization. Surely they must have given examples of bad or inaccurate reporting during Fox NEWS broadcasts or by their correspondents. Show me the press releases where the White House has publically refuted factual claims in actual news stories.
As for Glenn Beck, I’ve heard that he installed a red phone in the studio with a number given directly to the White House so that they can call up at anytime during the broadcast and refute and claims made on his show live. While I don’t watch Beck much, I wonder how often the White House has taken the opportunity to set the record straight. How FEAKING FUNNY!!! I love political satire!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/glenn_beck_installs_red_phone_for_white_house_so_you_can_correct_the_mistakes_as_they_happen_140085.asp
RO “And let’s not forget about when Obama kicked the New Yorker off his plane immediately after they published a satirical image of Obama on its cover.”
But lets forget that former VP Cheneny insisted FOX news be on in all hotels he stayed at.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html
A recent sample of FOX journalistic objectiveness:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-5-2009/moment-of-zen—chicago-is-too-dangerous-for-the-olympics
Can’t you just smell the fairness and balance? Me too.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-18-voa1.cfm
R.O.: “If you remember right Beck began his TV career of CNN. So where were the statements by Obama that CNN isn’t a “real” news organization.”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
To be fair Rich, I think you’re right. Glenn Beck was a tool way before he got a job at FOX.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-16-2006/headlines—launched-in-translation
BECK: History was made last Tuesday when Democrat Keith Ellison got elected to Congress, representing the great state of Minnesota. Well, not really unusual that Minnesota would elect a Democrat. What is noteworthy is that Keith is the first Muslim in history to be elected to the House of Representatives. He joins us now.
Congratulations, sir.
ELLISON: How you doing, Glenn? Glad to be here.
BECK: Thank you. I will tell you, may I — may we have five minutes here where we’re just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?
ELLISON: Go there.
BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I’ve been to mosques. I really don’t believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I — you know, I think it’s being hijacked, quite frankly.
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, “Let’s cut and run.” And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”
And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There’s no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don’t need to — need to prove my patriotic stripes.
BECK: I understand that. And I’m not asking you to. I’m wondering if you see that. You come from a district that is heavily immigrant with Somalians. And I think it’s wonderful, honestly, I think it is really a good sign that you are a — you could be an icon to show Europe, this is the way you integrate into a country. I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing. With that –
ELLISON: I’d agree with you.
Could you give me your definition of “Tool?”
You know, Mr. Carter, I can understand you being upset with Glenn Beck. After all, it was Glenn Beck who almost single handedly forced the Obama administration to fire their Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, after exposing that he had signed a petition supporting the theory that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. I know that subject is near and dear to your heart.
What I don’t understand is how you can continue to support Obama after the firing. If you stop and think for a moment, it means that if you were working for the Obama administration you would likely be fired also for holding such views. Doesn’t it make you angry that after all the support and defense you have given Obama, he would have absolutely nothing to do with you? Doesn’t it make you angry that Obama see’s you as just another nut job who is making his job difficult?
Sorry bro, but somebody had to say it! Food for thought I guess…
Rich,
Perhaps in harmony with your constant claims of being “disturbed”, I too am disturbed at your absurd and persistent inability to apply your judgment onto a fair and level playing field.
The Bush administration jockeyed, toyed and played with the media during its entire reign. It did exactly the same thing to MSNBC. This was outright admitted to by Dana Perino. By calling a spade a spade, the Obama administration done merely the first step in a series of things done by the Bush administration, and against a different media outlet.
I’m sure you were just so busy being fair and balanced, that you didn’t have time to voice your “disturbed” mental state at the practices of the Bush administration when those events were taking place.
Where was the outrage then ? Were you disturbed then ?
Grumpy: “The Bush administration jockeyed, toyed and played with the media during its entire reign. It did exactly the same thing to MSNBC.”
You’re right Grumpy. What Rich is wailing about now has been happening for a while:
“A months-long review of documents and interviews with Pentagon personnel has revealed that the Bush Administration’s military analyst program — aimed at selling the Iraq war to the American people — operated through a secretive collaboration between the Defense Department’s press and community relations offices.
Raw Story has also uncovered evidence that directly ties the activities undertaken in the military analyst program to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations — propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.”
From here: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/bryan-whitman-2/
And only now Rich is disturbed by the tactic. Rich proves the point of the post.
You’re not serious, right Grumpy? Your not actually comparing the way Bush handled the media with Obama’s current media quagmire are you? I’m sorry, but did I miss something and oranges recently began growing from apple trees?
I must have been in a slumber during the Bush administration when they kicked MSNBC of their plane and held a press conference to announce that MSNBC wasn’t a true news outlet but some conspirator research arm of the Marxist movement.
And when was the moment when the Bush administration tried to keep MSNBC out of a press conference altogether causing the media in attendance to revolt and refused to cover the conference if MSNBC wasn’t admitted? Well, that’s exactly what the White House tried to do, to not to MarxistTV (MSNBC) where the number of viewers could fit in a coat closet but to FOX, the number one rated cable news network in history with a viewership that makes MSNBC look like a small town newspaper.
If I were you, for some historical perspective, I would watch this CBS piece (that’s right CBS) on the subject before putting your foot in your mouth again.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMiqIW5e1Q[/youtube]
If that did not embed, here’s the Youtube link from the CBS broadcast on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMiqIW5e1Q
Yep! Once again under Obama we are seeing history made as a presidency slowly collapses under the weight of its inexperience and arrogance! If I were a Democrat I would simply be furious that your party let such an untested individual rise through the ranks of the party not on his political abilities or accomplishments but on his star power alone. Just think, you all could have had Hillary who certainly would have known better than picking such a fight!
Since, no one seems to want to post the examples from the White House of Fox News’ failed Journalism, I will post what Obama said when asked point blank about it. Are you ready for it? Are you ready for the straight forward, most open administration in history’s direct response when questioned on this issue? Well, here it is:
What a very interesting statement considering that Obama started this fight with FOX (whose viewership continues to grow during Obama’s administration.) As someone who rarely watched FOX, I’ve been finding myself turning them on more and more to see what all the fuss is about. How about you, Grumpy?
R.O.: “You know, Mr. Carter, I can understand you being upset with Glenn Beck.”
I think you are reading me wrong, Rich. I think Glenn Beck is the GREATEST thing to hit FOX news. Him and Hannity and others in the lineup take them further and further away from journalism. Hopefully, Americans will eventually catch on and turn it off. This should also be said for MSNBC with their Oberman/Maddow lineup. Great muckraking on both sides but eventually intelligent Americans will demand substance. And maybe not, maybe both sides know that most of our decisions are emotion based, and exploit that angle. What sets Beck apart from the pack is his superior showmanship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWKzobeya4
R.O.: “Since, no one seems to want to post the examples from the White House of Fox News’ failed Journalism”
A recent sample of FOX journalistic objectiveness:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-5-2009/moment-of-zen—chicago-is-too-dangerous-for-the-olympics
Can’t you just smell the fairness and balance? Me too.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-18-voa1.cfm
It appears Rich has invoked his set of ‘Calvinball’ rules again for this thread.
R.O.: “After all, it was Glenn Beck who almost single handedly forced the Obama administration to fire their Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, after exposing that he had signed a petition supporting the theory that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. I know that subject is near and dear to your heart.”
If you would like to discuss this on another thread Rich, I would be happy to. But most of your discussions deteriorate into you slamming other peoples intelligence for having an opposing view.
Mr. Carter
You do know that neither Beck nor Hannity are journalists, right? They are opinionates and Beck could be best described as a political satirists, much like Bill Marr on HBO. You seem to be making the exact same mistake that the White House is making. Fortunately, most, including the mainstream media knows the difference which is why they collectively threatened to boycott one of the White House’s press events for threats to refuse entry to FOX.
As I noted before, relating these opinion shows to the regular news programming at FOX would be no different than if we related KVNU’s news programs to the For the People show. Does this mean that everyone gets it? Of course not. I can still remember people calling up Tom Grover on FTP and complaining about bad journalism on his part only to be reminded of the difference.
Of course this discussion does illustrate a real and persistent problem in modern journalism. The most watched programs like the nightly news broadcasts and cable news have long been using a magazine style format rather than a hard journalism format. In a hard news format, the stories are told through the words of the subjects in the stories. In a magazine style format the journalist is allowed and often encouraged to make a news event more sensational by adding their own interpretations into the story in an attempt to aim the story at a specific demographic. Consider for a moment re-watching the CBS story about this controversy and pay special attention to how often others are quoted in the piece and how often the opinions or interpretations of the author are used.
What I find most disturbing is the regular anecdotal discussions that the anchors on news casts have with the reporters on various stories during the seg-ways between stories. Even if the story itself is journalistically sound, they blow it when they need to tell everyone what to think about the story during these brief dialogs.
I have long wanted to do a study where random news articles are taken from various news sources and services and have those articles graded by journalism professors from various institutions around the country, average the grades and post the results. Then consumers could easily judge which programs have the most journalistic integrity.
Now back to your argument, Mr. Carter. You seem to be basing your entire argument on the idea that Fox may not be very journalistically note worthy in an attempt to defend the Obama administrations reasoning behind referring to them as a political adversary rather than a “real” new agency. Of course for every example of shoddy journalism that you post from FOX, I can post similar comparisons from other networks that don’t share the distinction made by the White House.
Regardless of what you personally think about FOX, Obama was able to secure little or no support for this attack on Fox. Even most liberal pundits on the Sunday shows called this an ill advised action, and most believe that Obama will make up with FOX by doing at least one interview by the end of the year. You can almost see the white flag going up over the White House. They lost and Fox won with a huge jump in viewership.
Again, it was another stupid mistake by and inexperienced and arrogant White House.
BTW: As for you strange comparisons with stories about the safety of the South Side of Chicago and Rio; I can tell you personally, since I have been to both, that I much prefer Rio.
R.O.: “You do know that neither Beck nor Hannity are journalists, right? They are opinionates and Beck could be best described as a political satirists, much like Bill Marr on HBO.”
This is a good point Rich. Tell me the last time CNN, ABC, MSNBC, HBO..etc. allowed their “satirists” and used their outlet to help promote and/or organize ‘demonstrations’ or ‘tea parties’?
R.O.: “As for you strange comparisons with stories about the safety of the South Side of Chicago and Rio; I can tell you personally, since I have been to both, that I much prefer Rio.
I thought it was a fair comparison. Whe was the last time you heard that a POLICE HELICOPTER had been shot down by drug gangs in Chicago?
R.O.’s self-proclaimed preference of Rio over Chicago is absurd. There were nearly 4,600 homicides in Rio last year. And yes, a drug-gang shot down a chopper.
…Maybe his fear is rooted in something less tangible.
Yeah, it doesn’t make much sense from a security angle. Maybe he’s coming from the ‘Thong/One piece ratio’ angle.
By your statement, I imagine that you believe the IOC’s choice of Rio was also absurd, based only on the crime rate. While my personal experiences are certainly anecdotal, can you say Grumpy that you have personally been to either city and can thus provide us with your own personal comparison? I can see how both you and Mr. Carter would have affections for Chicago. After all it is one of the shining examples of liberal politics at work in America with its crime and dysfunctional social systems.
More likely you each supported Chicago to host the Olympics because you are each Obamatons. Meaning, if Obama supports something; that should be the end of discussion. How appropriate considering that this thread is about partisanship, in this case blind faith partisanship. No doubt each of you also support the new Health Care bill in Congress, though neither of you have seen it.
While Rio did have some of the worst poverty that I have ever seen, with some bridges giving shelter to squatter towns, the lion’s share of Rio was very safe as local authorities made protecting tourists a priority. My personal experience there we amazing and well beyond anything I ever experience in Chicago.
As such, my preference for Rio over Chicago has little to do with crime and more to do with the cities themselves. While I love both cities for different reasons, Rio’s diverse ethnicities, food, vistas and activities make it perfect for the Olympics. Ask almost anyone who has been to both where they would prefer to vacation and Rio wins hands down. In addition, bringing the Olympics to Rio will do the most good economically for the greatest number of impoverished. The poorest people in Chicago live like kings with running water and sewer systems compared to their counter parts here in the liberal sections of America. As liberals I’m sure you and Mr. Carter can get behind that notion of having the millions of dollars that the Olympics bring in going to an area most affected by poverty. Right?
Finally, why should the U.S. seem to have the privilege of hosting the Olympic at least once a decade? Since 1904, when the modern Olympics began, the US has hosted 9 times! Heck twice in L.A. alone…
I thought it was interesting the other day when Tyler Riggs talked on air about those that seem to oppose Obama simple because he’s Obama, yet nothing was said about the huge number of Obamatons, who follow like lemmings regardless of the outcome. The cliff is coming closer, it might be time to lift your head and take a look around.
“Absurd”… really? Absurd?
Sweeeet. The R.O. that everyone who follows this blog has come to know and love has shown up. I knew he couldn’t keep it balled up inside. R.O.’s ‘modus operandi’ stays true. Show up with what you think our solid arguments, and when countered: start slingin’ labels and jabs. “Obamatons”, “lemmings”, “As liberals I’m sure you and Mr. Carter”. Classic M.O.
R.O.: “As such, my preference for Rio over Chicago has little to do with crime and more to do with the cities themselves.”
“Finally, why should the U.S. seem to have the privilege of hosting the Olympic at least once a decade? Since 1904, when the modern Olympics began, the US has hosted 9 times! Heck twice in L.A. alone…”
“While I love both cities for different reasons, Rio’s diverse ethnicities, food, vistas and activities make it perfect for the Olympics.”
These are great points, Rich. And I agree with them. Rio deserved to get the Olympics. I applaud them. Great choice. That said, I don’t have a problem with our president pursuing the “millions of dollars that the Olympics bring in” you reference, into our country which is in a recession.
But this: “As such, my preference for Rio over Chicago has little to do with crime and more to do with the cities themselves.”
Does not jive with what we were talking about(objective media context)this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-5-2009/moment-of-zen%E2%80%94chicago-is-too-dangerous-for-the-olympics
compared to this: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-18-voa1.cfm
BTW Rich, have you come up with anything on this?:
Tell me the last time CNN, ABC, MSNBC, HBO..etc. allowed their “satirists” and used their outlet to help promote and/or organize ‘demonstrations’ or ‘tea parties’?
Tim Carter,
I believe that I have shown up with very solid arguments thank you very much. In fact your responses have only continued to illustrate the absurdity of saying that Fox News is not a “real” news station. While certainly this is a relativistic statement, it still points to the fact that both you and the White House are out of touch with mainstream thinking. It’s obvious that regardless of what Obama thinks of Fox News, the media and most others don’t share that opinion and that is how it will be reported to the country each and every time. This is why your president so cleverly and obviously avoided the subject when questioned about it. Even the Law is not on your side. Heck, I’m even considered part of the press and enjoy the full protection of U.S. Constitution for simply blogging.
As far as you apparently getting your feelings hurt over being called an Obamaton or a lemming, they are simply a necessary descriptive element and metaphor. If you are offended by the statements, it might be because there is some truth to it. Of course that could be easily wiped away be dispelling the statement the way that Grumpy has.
“I am no “Obamaton”…I am rather disappointed in him, as I have stated in NUMEROUS posts and in the chat room.” – Grumpy
Oooops… looks like I forgot to close a quote somewhere. My apologies…
(BTW: if you would like to use the quoting and bold functions yourself it works like this: proceed your quote with and close it with Be sure to delete the space marks. I had to include them or the system would have made the section a quote. For Bold use the word ‘strong’ instead of ‘blockquote’. These are called HTML Tags. You should be able to find a comprehensive list on the web, but consider that some tags require apps that may not be installed. This is why you may not be able to embed video.)
Crap… It still hid the tag… well simply enclose the HTML tag between the greaterthan and lessthan symbols and close the tag by putting a forward slash before the tag.
“Absurd”… really? Absurd?”
Yes. The R.O. that shows up on this blog is absolutely absurd. I am no “Obamaton”…I am rather disappointed in him, as I have stated in NUMEROUS posts and in the chat room. I harbor no enchantment with Chicago as your childish, pathetic stereotyping attempts to portray. I have indeed been there, not once, not twice, but thrice times. I actually do have personal experience of life in “White Sox” territory, where the uglier side of Chicago can be seen.
Giving the nod to Rio, a mecca of gangland and drug warfare, violence and murder, is an invitation to chaos. There will be thousands upon thousands of visitors coming there with deep wallets, looking to “experience” things. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, let alone someone who subscribes to “common sense” (as you Repubs are so keen to claim) to figure out that a place with far less murder, muggings, rape and overall crime is likely a better place to fly in a few hundred thousand international visitors…
…If you are so hell-bent on denying the obvious, please continue your absurd ranting.
Tim,
Do you see now why it was necessary for me to use the term Obamaton? It’s important for Democrats to begin expressing their own dislikes for Obama publically as the first steps back towards reality.
R.O.: “As I noted before, relating these opinion shows to the regular news programming at FOX would be no different than if we related KVNU’s news programs to the For the People show. Does this mean that everyone gets it? Of course not. I can still remember people calling up Tom Grover on FTP and complaining about bad journalism on his part only to be reminded of the difference.”
I don’t think KVNU has any ‘news programs’ other than their top of the hour feeds.
Hey Jason, how do I (or can I?)embed this:
Ya know Rich, I think me and “Mr. Carter” don’t subscribe to the notion that FTP is some sort of beacon of civility (despite your childish attempt to assign that mindset to us), but it ought to be something set as a goal. That is at least sense I got when T-Grove and Senor Yonk started this…and it was very appealing.
But your talking-head, uninformed, utterly myopic soapbox garbage is certainly doing this place no favors.
“As far as you apparently getting your feelings hurt over being called an Obamaton or a lemming, they are simply a necessary descriptive element and metaphor. If you are offended by the statements, it might be because there is some truth to it. Of course that could be easily wiped away be dispelling the statement the way that Grumpy has.
“I am no “Obamaton”…I am rather disappointed in him, as I have stated in NUMEROUS posts and in the chat room.” – Grumpy”.
The above being a great example. It is clear you are attempting to stroke what must obviously be a rather delicate ego, and that is pretty sad Rich. Wake up man. No Democrats feelings are hurt, regardless of your insult-of-the-week. It’s laughable, and so are you. It comes off as PeeWee Herman-speak with the injection of 10 years of FoxNews talking points.
R.O.: “You seem to be implying that the producers of the Fox News programs need to exercise more control over their editorial and satirical programming.”
No Rich, I am not. Don’t rewrite the question into something you can spin. Show me where Tina Fey, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Marr used their media outlet to help promote and/or organize protests, demonstrations or tea parties?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909020024
Tell me the last time CNN, ABC, MSNBC, HBO..etc. allowed their “satirists” and used their outlet to help promote and/or organize ‘demonstrations’ or ‘tea parties’?
R.O.: “what specific examples has the White House given to back up their statements about Fox News not being a “real” news organization?”
Here was my example again Rich:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-5-2009/moment-of-zen—chicago-is-too-dangerous-for-the-olympics
Can’t you just smell the fairness and balance? Me too.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-18-voa1.cfm
Which you spun into this: “By your statement, I imagine that you believe the IOC’s choice of Rio was also absurd, based only on the crime rate.”
And this: “I can see how both you and Mr. Carter would have affections for Chicago. After all it is one of the shining examples of liberal politics at work in America with its crime and dysfunctional social systems.”
this: “More likely you each supported Chicago to host the Olympics because you are each Obamatons.”
I agree with Grumpy. I think Grover and Yonk envisioned a little higher standard for discourse here at FTP. I’ve said it before Rich. I think your brand belongs at the Herald Journal threads.
<>
<param name="movie" value="”>
R.O.: “it still points to the fact that both you and the White House are out of touch with mainstream thinking. It’s obvious that regardless of what Obama thinks of Fox News, the media and most others don’t share that opinion and that is how it will be reported to the country each and every time.”
Just thought I would chime in, thank god R.O. posts here otherwise it would be more lopsided discussion than it already is, most of the conservative views are not being represented. I tend to find myself siding more with rich, half the stuff tim comes up with is outrageous and definately fits conspiracy kook talking points with half truths.
FTP has become a spouting spot for the liberals in the community who are the minority of the valley and think they have a bigger voice than they really do (At least locally).
I like Fox News not for the reasons you might think. They bring up points the rest of the media wont touch, it seems due to their love affair with Obama.
There is alot of stuff that people hear with the exception of Mr. Carter, that regardless of what media source you hear it from that you use your own common sense and become educated on the subject to determine what is right, true, and honest reporting. If we are told lies and untruths even though we may not catch them at first they will come out and it effects their credability. I am not talking innocent mistakes I mean intentional deceptions. Some of the networks I would argue stopped reporting the news a long time ago. Whats more they reported what was politically best for them or fit their political views.
“Do you see now why it was necessary for me to use the term Obamaton? It’s important for Democrats to begin expressing their own dislikes for Obama publically as the first steps back towards reality.”
How benevolent.
R.O.: “Do you see now why it was necessary for me to use the term Obamaton?”
No Rich, I don’t. If I started referring to everyone who had an opposing view as ‘mindless, dumbf*ck, racist conservatives’, the pissing match is on. I’m conservative in a lot of my views, but get attacked for not conforming to the media version of ‘conservatism’. I’m not buying it. I think discussions without using the current crop of labels would do alot in making the divided factions see that their not as far apart as the media has portrayed us to be.
Topgun: ” half the stuff tim comes up with is outrageous and definately fits conspiracy kook talking points with half truths.”
This is the place to refute it Topgun. Right here. Nobody is gonna hang up on you, or talk over you, or bash you after your off the phone. If anything I have posted is false. Refute it. Bring it. Make me look like an idiot. I’m game. But if it is because you simply disagree, be honest and then say that also.
But I do agree with you on this: “thank god R.O. posts here otherwise it would be more lopsided discussion than it already is,”
I’m just saying the language just sets people of and turns into a shit slinging match. Does nothing to further the discussion to find middle ground.
“I’m just saying the language just sets people of and turns into a shit slinging match. Does nothing to further the discussion to find middle ground.”
Ahh and there’s the main issue. Not everyone is interested in finding that ground. R.O. simply knows he’s right, and doesn’t want to hear ANYTHING that disagrees with rigid worldview. Further, he wants to disparage and belittle all who disagree with him. He’s not uncommon.
GRUMPY,
Is this your way of furthering the civil discussion that you believe FTP should aspire too? Hmmm… It seems to me that rather than having a civil discussion about the topic at hand you are instead utterly obsessed with me at a very personal level. Or is that too much supposition for you? I know from experience that you can be quite sensitive to suppositions about you. (I guess that was only a partial supposition.)
Don’t fret too much though GRUMPY! I really don’t take much of what you say too seriously. I mean how can I? Every time I read one of your posts I can’t help but imagine a short, fat and angry Disney character with a big nose, pissed at the world and taking it out on everyone else.
So, are you done talking about me for a while or do you still want to try a few more ways to use the word MYOPIC? Are you serious? MYOPIC? And you use the word ‘laughable’ to describe me?
Rich,
I find it amusing that you seem to take issue with my choice of words. With that, and a slew of other things in mind, I certainly do use the word ‘laughable’ to describe you.
I’ll let the rest of your post speak for itself. It’s nice to know I’m not the only one that regards you in this way.
hey okelberry,
maybe people don’t want a pompous d-bag to represent us…..just sayin.
-rinrh
Thanks for your condolences, “r in river heights.” You truly are a person of high integrity and compassion and are a prime example of the ideal that we strive for here at FTP. (please don’t miss the sarcasm in that statement.)
At least I can begin writing for KVNU FTP again, right?
Still, I really do want to thank those that did take the time to get to know me and ultimately decided to vote for me. Breaking into politics in such a small and integrated community after living here for only two years can be a very difficult thing to do. This is the kind of town where everyone literally knows someone or is related to someone on the council. In fact it is this tightness in our community as well as my newcomer status that originally made me reject the requests of neighbors who had originally asked me to run. Fortunately, they were persistent in their requests as I now would not give up the experience of this campaign for the world! It simply would not have been possible to have come so far and to have made so many new connections with those in the community without the overwhelming support from friends and neighbors.
I found this post on Facebook yesterday especially supportive.
While I had been involved in politics for years before moving back to the valley, it was Tom Grover who welcomed me in and gave me a new start after severing my connections to politics in Lincoln, Ne with our move to River Heights. It was Tom who first invited me to publish my commentaries here at KVNU and even encouraged me to consider taking over his position at KVNU when he left for Law School.
I must say that after living in River Heights for two years, I now understand where Mr. Grover gets his passion to embrace outsiders and make them part of the community. While I have lived in many parts of this country, I have never been so welcomed into a new area in my life with so many neighbors willing to do so much to help at a moments notice.
Truly, my service to my adoptive community is just beginning. While the work ahead will certainly be more difficult not being on the council, I feel that we can still accomplish many of the goals stated in my campaign. Chief among them will be the establishment of a Non-profit Foundation to serve the community.
Thanks to all who have encouraged and supported me in this endeavor.