PDA

View Full Version : Obama and his teleprompter


Totenkopf
01-27-2010, 05:20 AM
Wow, and people thought Bush was an idiot. :lol: Seriously, for someone tauted as being sooo smart, this looks pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYrvm-vGhbc

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-27-2010, 12:55 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-25-2010/obama-speaks-to-a-sixth-grade-classroom

JediAthos
01-27-2010, 02:42 PM
Pretty funny, but in my experience doing public speaking there were days where I wished for a teleprompter. I don't blame him for using it...but he could try to make it look a little less obvious.

Darth InSidious
01-27-2010, 03:31 PM
Nose Has Two Cavities, Placed In Front of Face, Scientists Say (Page 6).

Jae Onasi
01-27-2010, 04:25 PM
"The teleprompter clashes with the construction paper house" :rofl:

mimartin
01-27-2010, 04:33 PM
"The teleprompter clashes with the construction paper house" :rofl:

That not just any construction paper house, that is a construction paper house made from the notes from George W's last State of the Union Address.

Samnmax221
01-27-2010, 09:07 PM
Wow, and people thought Bush was an idiot. :lol: Seriously, for someone tauted as being sooo smart, this looks pathetic
Sean Hannity, please go away.

Totenkopf
01-28-2010, 03:49 AM
Sean Hannity, please go away.

You first, Olbermann.

Q
01-28-2010, 08:14 AM
They need teleprompter eyeglasses.

Darth InSidious
01-28-2010, 08:45 AM
They need teleprompter eyeglasses.

Contacts Q. Teleprompter contacts. Just think of the possibilities...

:indif:

Totenkopf
01-28-2010, 02:18 PM
Hell, they should just contract with the Japanese to make an Obama robot to deliver the canned speeches. At least you could program the robot so that it didn't look lame reading a teleprompter to a 6th grade class. :devsmoke:

JediAthos
01-28-2010, 02:34 PM
Virtually all presidential speeches are...canned in some form. The days of presidents writing their own speeches are long gone. They have speech writers, and I'm not even sure how much input the presidents provide beyond what they want to focus on.

Q
01-28-2010, 04:10 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to discover that no US president has written his own speeches since Abraham Lincoln.

Totenkopf
01-28-2010, 05:17 PM
Virtually all presidential speeches are...canned in some form...

Wasn't suggesting otherwise, just be sarcastic. ;)

Ghost
01-28-2010, 05:37 PM
Seriously you guys, you need to lay off Obama. Every president makes stupid mistakes, bush especially

Wow, and people thought Bush was an idiot. Seriously, for someone tauted as being sooo smart, this looks pathetic.

Bold talk. Bush was the most retarded person EVER. Obama is actually trying to fix the country instead of telling everybody.

Go out and shop. Waste your money

Way to go bush, you just won the Economy Killer Award :anvil:

You people think Obama sucks, then you watch too much fox. They are just republican hounds. Yes you too Totenkopf. Watch MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. You will understand then

EDIT: Oh, and writing your speeches is actually professional. Lincoln was the most influential president in history, besides the Roosevelts and Washington

Darth Avlectus
01-28-2010, 06:10 PM
Seriously you guys, you need to lay off Obama. Every president makes stupid mistakes, bush especially

In freedom of speech, provided it isn't slanderous, you can pretty much say what you want.

Besides I bash *every* president, republican or democrat. THE INTERNET: [serious business]


You people think Obama sucks, then you watch too much fox. They are just republican hounds. Yes you too Totenkopf.

There are as many rightward leaning folks as there are leftward leaning folks here in the KOTOR forums. Besides, several members posting here are not in America so they can take it with a light heart. Most of us just laugh anyways, especially here in Ahto. In Kavar's on the other hand, it's serious discussion.

Watch MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. You will understand then

I already do watch those, AND fox so that I get the whole story instead of *just* one slant OR the other.

MSNBC is the democrat "hound" station, so their credibility is opposite but about the same overall.

You know what? NONE of them tell the FULL story. But I have known this for a while b/c I almost made the mistake of going into TV broadcasting. BOTH sides are just as guilty of hyperbolizing.

So I choose to be an independent--as America was meant to be. I watch C-span at times and go for sources other than mainstream. Then again I don't really like to turn on the TV.

EDIT: Oh, and writing your speeches is actually professional. Lincoln was the most influential president in history, besides the Roosevelts and Washington
So what? It's only further proof that presidents don't write their own speeches...:indif:

Lord of Hunger
01-28-2010, 06:16 PM
Seriously you guys, you need to lay off Obama. Every president makes stupid mistakes, bush especially
Translation: No, YOUR guy is evil, not mine!!!
Bold talk. Bush was the most retarded person EVER.
Your proof?
Obama is actually trying to fix the country instead of telling everybody.
Considering that's the basis of our economy, how is that necessarily an unintelligent suggestion?
Way to go bush, you just won the Economy Killer Award :anvil:
:facepalm:
You people think Obama sucks, then you watch too much fox. They are just republican hounds. Yes you too Totenkopf. Watch MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. You will understand then
Translation: I'm right and you're wrong!!!1!

Honest to God, Obama is not above criticism. I'm not one to hound him on every single choice he is made (I usually defend his decisions from some of my close friends), but he has made a fair amount of mistakes so far and hasn't really achieved much.

Ghost
01-28-2010, 06:23 PM
I'm not saying he's above criticism, but people have really hounded him for every little thing, and when Bush made mistakes people just shrugged it all. I think theres a bit of racism between the parties

Salzella
01-28-2010, 06:36 PM
^^ That's because Fox news, according to the guardian is the "most trusted news network in the USA"

*facepalm*

Darth Avlectus
01-28-2010, 07:15 PM
I'm not saying he's above criticism, but people have really hounded him for every little thing, and when Bush made mistakes people just shrugged it all.
No, I'm pretty sure just as many people capped on bush for being either disingenuous and/or dumb...and for as many little things. It depends on your source, and where you're looking into, really.

Whilst racism undeniably exists, I wonder if people don't feed more into it by paying it so much attention. That and I think parents teaching their kids at a young age to not illogically attribute physical traits to bad personality flaws is an absolutely vital thing.

On a side note:
There also are people who will take advantage of you this way as well, and will use your non-racism against you. Most commonly they will employ a tactic of "straw man" fallacy closely followed by "Poisoning the well" fallacy.
I.E. you try to say something then they decide to become hostile over it and twist your words to make it sound like you were saying something that you really weren't. Then while you're off guard and defensive, they come back at you with "You're not racist, ARE YOU?!" (Done respectively as I listed off the fallacies.)
All the while they were manipulating you and pushing you around to get what they wanted, most cases to shut down debate or discussion.

Why is this relevant? Because I have seen people who have tried to analyze and criticize our president form a purely objective intelligent standpoint and then people (pundits) decide to do what I outlined above. So much of what you're seeing on BOTH sides of the media is also alarmist agitation to attempt to sway their viewers one way or the other.

It makes joking about another rather difficult under these circumstances.

Zerimar Nyliram
01-28-2010, 07:40 PM
Yeah, just skimming through this thread, and my only comment is that I really can't stand people who make basely claims like "Bush was the most retarded person ever!" or who demonize Fox News with no base whatsover (Why are you people so threatened by a "silly" news corporation, anyway?) or who call anything that isn't liberal "Republican." I usually just write people off as not worth talking to right off the bat when they say foolhardy things like that, figuring that such a person is horribly ill-informed, lazy and blindly biased.

And that is exactly the same procedure I'm going to take here. Good job!

And before you call me a "Republican," let me inform you that I am an Independent.

Samnmax221
01-28-2010, 08:14 PM
or who demonize Fox News with no base whatsover (Why are you people so threatened by a "silly" news corporation, anyway?)
The retards who watch it are what's troubling.

mimartin
01-28-2010, 08:16 PM
The retards who watch it are what's troubling.Hey, I watch it. It is way funnier than anything on NBC.

Ghost
01-28-2010, 08:28 PM
Hey, I watch it. It is way funnier than anything on NBC.

thats because they just want viewers.

All TV stations exaggerate info, but the most is Fox. They make a simple accident which happens everyday seem like a huge disaster. They are all drama kings. They wore black when Obama was elected, and talked him down. Obviously they were "mourning" their loss in the presidential election.

jonathan7
01-28-2010, 08:37 PM
Wow, and people thought Bush was an idiot. :lol: Seriously, for someone tauted as being sooo smart, this looks pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYrvm-vGhbc

Perhaps I missed something, but I really didn't see anything horrific here, everyone is human.

Bold talk. Bush was the most retarded person EVER. Obama is actually trying to fix the country instead of telling everybody.

I'm not quite sure by what definition of retard your going by, but I never saw Bush exhibit any symptoms of retardation.

Way to go bush, you just won the Economy Killer Award :anvil:

I'm pretty sure it was the bankers and greed which destroyed the economy. While I don't think Bush helped, I think world leaders seem to think they can control the world economy a lot more than they really can.

You people think Obama sucks, then you watch too much fox. They are just republican hounds. Yes you too Totenkopf. Watch MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. You will understand then

Because none of those news networks are biased?

Seriously you guys, you need to lay off Obama. Every president makes stupid mistakes, bush especially

Not biased at all? I seem to recall Bush being hounded as stupid too; he certainly was not the most articulate president the U.S. has ever had; but both sides are guilty of it, and you were guilty of beating on Bush earlier and then expect the Republicans not to give Obama a hard time; get over it, your as bad as each other!


Honest to God, Obama is not above criticism. I'm not one to hound him on every single choice he is made (I usually defend his decisions from some of my close friends), but he has made a fair amount of mistakes so far and hasn't really achieved much.

My 2 cents he's only had a year in office, and I think he took over possibly the most challenging first term a president has ever had. Bush did not leave a good legacy; the war in Afghanistan was not Obama's war; but pulling out renders all the troops sacrifice meaningless. Nor did Bush do America any favours over regulations (or lack of) over American mortgages.

I usually just write people off as not worth talking to right off the bat when they say foolhardy things like that, figuring that such a person is horribly ill-informed, lazy and blindly biased.

Because this isn't a stereotype either?

Lord of Hunger
01-28-2010, 09:02 PM
I'm not saying he's above criticism, but people have really hounded him for every little thing, and when Bush made mistakes people just shrugged it all.
Are you ****ing kidding me? If Bush ****ing sneezed, people would claim that he had just eaten little children. The guy was demonized, often for things that he was not even responsible for. He wasn't the best president in the world, I sure wasn't satisfied with his presidency, but he had to put up with a lot of **** that he didn't deserve because the Democrats wanted power, just in the same way that the Republicans hound Obama now.
I think theres a bit of racism between the parties
:facepalm:

No, there isn't. Conservatives do not criticize Obama because he is African American, they criticize him because:

a) They have been made to see him as a threat to their way of life.
b) He and Congress have spent a ****load of money and we haven't really seem much in the way of results...yet. People are naturally impatient, and Conservatives want to believe that it's business as usual in Washington.
My 2 cents he's only had a year in office, and I think he took over possibly the most challenging first term a president has ever had.
I generally agree with this view. However, my problem is not so much the lack of Obama's achievements so much as the tactics he has used to do his work. He claimed that he was going to get tough on Wall Street, yet his messages can pretty much be summed up as: "Please be good little banks." Also, when he reached out to Republicans and offered massive compromises on Health Care, when they gave him the finger he should have fought back and got his constituents angry about it. It may or may not have put pressure on Democrats to just ignore the Republicans and pass Health Care sooner and with less compromises.
Bush did not leave a good legacy; the war in Afghanistan was not Obama's war; but pulling out renders all the troops sacrifice meaningless. Nor did Bush do America any favours over regulations (or lack of) over American mortgages.
The regulations (or lack of) are the result of Congress' decisions, not Bush. As for Afghanistan, that was the problem of jumping into Iraq without cleaning up the first mess. It's kinda like leaving dishes in the sink until there's no room and you have clean up. It's preferable to clean each dish immediately so you don't have to worry about it later.

Ghost
01-28-2010, 09:12 PM
He wasn't the best president in the world, I sure wasn't satisfied with his presidency, but he had to put up with a lot of **** that he didn't deserve because the Democrats wanted power, just in the same way that the Republicans hound Obama now.

Oh yay, lets all feel sorry for George Bush who ruined our economy, made our free country seem like a conquering empire, and caused a meaningless war. PITY PARTY! :tophat1:

Oh, and if the Republicans are as innocent as you claim, then you must be blind. Because in 00 and 04 when bush called for his "recount" of votes he somehow won when the other candidate was actually surpassing him. I suspect cheating :ninja2:

No, there isn't.

Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black. I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black.

a) They have been made to see him as a threat to their way of life.

Only because he disagrees with them, and he wants change. Republicans want things to stay the same, because they think that there is no need for change with many people are without jobs.

b) He and Congress have spent a ****load of money and we haven't really seem much in the way of results...yet. People are naturally impatient, and Conservatives want to believe that it's business as usual in Washington.

If you say people are naturally impatient, then that includes you. Because change takes time. You can't fix an economy overnight, it takes years to do it. Look how much **** Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with. Hoover was partially the cause of the Great Depression, and a lot of people hated him too. Bush made a bigger mess than Hoover, not just an economy screwup. That includes a meaningless war, Global Warming caused by the Oil Companies, huge debt to China for borrowing money, the list goes on, and the larger the mess, the longer the cleanup

There, thats my statement to you

jonathan7
01-28-2010, 09:20 PM
You know Johnathon, it really says alot about you that you didn't respond to any of my questions to you.

Oh yay, lets all feel sorry for George Bush who ruined our economy, made our free country seem like a conquering empire, and caused a meaningless war. PITY PARTY! :tophat1:

So here you go attacking Bush, and expect the Republicans not to do the same to you Obama?

Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black. I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black.

Source? Fact 92.67% of Internet facts are made up on the spot (including this one).

Only because he disagrees with them, and he wants change. Republicans want things to stay the same, because they think that there is no need for change with many people are without jobs.

G.K. Chesterton once said;

The business of liberals is to make entirely new mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to keep making the same mistakes.

Ghost
01-28-2010, 10:21 PM
hey, im just stating my opinions.

So here you go attacking Bush, and expect the Republicans not to do the same to Obama?


I have my reasons for stating things against bush. People criticize Obama, but Republicans take it way too far. Calling him a terrorist for his middle name being "husain"? Now I know both parties carry it, but when we democrats criticized Bush, we had good reasons. Most reasons that Republicans come up with are just ridiculous.

edit: Also, I don't really like people who make wars for nothing, screw up the climate and economy, and I especially don't like it when those same people don't clean up the mess they made. THAT is why I headbutt Bush more than Obama

Source? Fact 92.67% of Internet facts are made up on the spot (including this one).

Hmm, I did not get it from the internet, I got it from experience. Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

Not all republicans are racist, but some people in the south and southwest which have a history of slavery are still discriminating against blacks.


Just because I don't respond to YOUR posts doesn't mean i did not read them. I may be young, but I am not retarded. I don't want to be mean or anything, but I do understand politics, but apparently i don't understand them in your way.

Tommycat
01-28-2010, 10:55 PM
Hmm, I did not get it from the internet, I got it from experience. Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

Then the obvious answer is you live in a racist neighborhood. Your sample size is WAAAAAAAY too narrowly focused to claim an in depth knowledge of why Republicans in general do not like Obama. I'm a Republican. Almost every Republican I know would have voted for Colin Powell if he ran for president. Speaking of which... During the Bush presidency the highest non-elected seats of the country were held by black persons. The first black Sec of State and first black WOMAN secretary of state. Quit calling Republicans racist unless you'd rather be viewed as a twit. My dad REALLY didn't like Obama. Are you going to claim that he didn't like him because he was black? I'm sure my stepmother would be upset to hear that the man who married her(a black woman) was racist.

Funny how you mention how biased FoxNews is, yet as on of your suggested alternatives you post MSNBC. Helloooo pot... Kettle here...

Ghost
01-28-2010, 11:04 PM
didn't I say only some are racist? Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument. How about this, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH competing against each other. They have been since they began, but most fiercely recently. They also are prejudiced against each other as well. I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

Tommycat
01-29-2010, 12:21 AM
didn't I say only some are racist? Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument. How about this, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH competing against each other. They have been since they began, but most fiercely recently. They also are prejudiced against each other as well. I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

Not good enough. You said "Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black. I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black."

So your presumption was that the majority or Republicans are racists. Funny since the dems were the ones with Robert Byrd in congress... Any idea what his affiliation with the KKK was? If you said he was a Grand Wizard of the KKK you would be correct. But you keep placing it out there that we Republicans are racist. Quite frankly it's an argument that ticks me off to no end. I HATE being called racist. When I was in high school I was called racist because none of my friends were black. It had more to do with music choice than skin color. It was so bad that people started to pick fights because they thought I hated blacks. This racism talk is starting to have the same effect.

I'd agree that there is some level of prejudice between the Dems and the Reps. That much is obvious. But tying that to race is misplaced. Sure there are bound to be some who are motivated by race. But then you could say that it's the black community who are racist. 96% of blacks voted for Obama(source (http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/11/06/5-voting-demographics-where-barack-obama-made-headlines.html)). That clearly indicates a racial bias.

Totenkopf
01-29-2010, 08:18 AM
Sadly, J-Mkll, it seems you likely spend an inordinate amount of time watching MSNBC and display the "balance" in analysis you see from many of its commentators.

I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

No argument here. ;)

@J7--no, I was merely arguing pathetic only. Even John Stewart mocked it, so the "other side" can't complain too bitterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The retards who watch it are what's troubling.

Given the nature of many of your posts, you'd know. ;)

jonathan7
01-29-2010, 08:46 AM
hey, im just stating my opinions.

Which have no factual basis that you have shown. When you call Bush a retard, I asked for any evidence that he had any symptoms of mental retardation. Generally the scientific basis for being a retard is an IQ below 70; George Bush has an IQ of 125 (the population average is 100). You say that 7 out of 10 Republicans are racist, out of a sample of 30; this "study" is not generalisable to the wider population of Republicans. What if I said to you 10 out of the 12 Democrats I know were drug users, does that make all Democrats drug users?

I have my reasons for stating things against bush. People criticize Obama, but Republicans take it way too far.

The Democrats hounded Bush for 8 years as you have done so in this thread. Personally I like Obama, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat (I'm not American); however while I disagree with the treatment of Obama (and Bush) give the polarised state of American politics expecting anything different is going to happen. Perhaps you could begin the process by stopping your attacks on Bush.

Calling him a terrorist for his middle name being "husain"?

From my expierence, and I am friends with one of those that did the above, they are an extremist fringe of the Republican party.

Now I know both parties carry it, but when we democrats criticized Bush, we had good reasons.

I'm pretty sure most people when criticizing others think they have "good" reasons; in my experience rarely is their rationale logical.

edit: Also, I don't really like people who make wars for nothing, screw up the climate and economy, and I especially don't like it when those same people don't clean up the mess they made. THAT is why I headbutt Bush more than Obama

Yes, because compared to Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jung-Il, Ahmadinejad and Omar al-Bashir, Bush was a really bad lader :|

Hmm, I did not get it from the internet, I got it from experience. Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.

Great, so this applies to Republicans in the North, or even Republicans in your state (but not in your town/city) or even replies to Republicans in different neighbourhoods, but in the same town/city as you how?

Not all republicans are racist, but some people in the south and southwest which have a history of slavery are still discriminating against blacks.

What if I told you I have at least 20 Republican friends and not one of them is racist and they all think slavery is evil?

Just because I don't respond to YOUR posts doesn't mean i did not read them.

At no point did I suggest you hadn't read them...

I may be young, but I am not retarded. I don't want to be mean or anything, but I do understand politics, but apparently i don't understand them in your way.

At any point had I inferred you suffered from mental retardation? No, it's clear you don't see politics my way, but given that mine is sat on the fence, and observing people as they are, then the only conclusion is your biased; whether you see that or not.

didn't I say only some are racist? Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument. How about this, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH competing against each other. They have been since they began, but most fiercely recently. They also are prejudiced against each other as well. I have my democratic beliefs, no matter how idiotic they seem.

This seems to ignore history; the parties were much closer, it is only in the last 50-60 years that the divide has become as big, and as dirty as it is now.

Samuel Dravis
01-29-2010, 11:30 AM
I'm going to follow Bush's example and preemptively strike. Don't get too excited. Make sure your comments are civil, please.

Q
01-29-2010, 11:52 AM
Bush was the most retarded person EVER.
Well, after reading this thread, you do know what they say about people in glass houses, right? ;P
Obama is actually trying to fix the country
http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=330&pictureid=5785
News flash: whatever he's been trying to do to "fix the country" isn't working, which, quite frankly, comes as no surprise to me. All of that talk about "hope and change" was BS used to get him elected. And this whole "Give Obama a break" nonsense is ridiculously hypocritical, especially in light of all of the hatred that was aimed at Bush, and this is coming from someone who thought that Bush sucked. Obama's been in office for over a year, spent trillions of dollars of our money and unemployment is still averaging 10%. Break's over, Mr. President.
You people think Obama sucks, then you watch too much fox.
Nice generalization, there. :thmbup1:
Watch MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. You will understand then
How enlightening. I understand perfectly, now. MSNBC? Srsly? Wow. :lol:
They're as much of a joke as Fox, if not more so, and it's like you're parroting them word for word. Even Colbert and Stewart give them hell, and they're supposed to be on the same side.
I'm not saying he's above criticism, but people have really hounded him for every little thing, and when Bush made mistakes people just shrugged it all.
OMG. You're kidding, right? Where the hell were you during Bush's presidency? The Democrats painted him as the Antichrist while he was in office.
I think theres a bit of racism between the parties
I agree. The Democrats absolutely despise white people. (J/K) :p
Because in 00 and 04 when bush called for his "recount" of votes he somehow won when the other candidate was actually surpassing him. I suspect cheating :ninja2:
The recount in 2000 was the Democrats' idea, and a recount in 2004 is news to me, because Bush beat Kerry soundly in that election. Also, you apparently need to learn a bit more about how the Electoral College works and why it's necessary.
didn't I say only some are racist?
No, you said this:
Yes there is, in fact 7 out of 10 republicans dislike obama because hes black.
Meaning that more than two out of three are racist. A 2 to 1 majority is not "only some". You also presented it as a "fact".
Okay, since all of us are debating on that, forget the whole racist thing its going to get into an argument.
Too late. You've already played the race card and insulted people, so you need to check your "facts" and either present some actual proof or withdraw the statement and apologize because it is both libelous and inflammatory.
I know many republicans, and most of them don't like him because hes black.
Most people in my neighborhood are Republican. I interviewed most of them, and out of the 18, 12 said that they did not like him for "color" reasons, commonly known as racism.
So you drew that conclusion from talking to all of 30 people, and you think that 30 counts as "many"? :roleyess:
Where do you live, anyway? Northeast Indiana?
Also, I don't really like people who make wars for nothing
So, a terrorist attack that killed as many people as the attack on Pearl Harbor, an act for which we ground Japan into a bloody pulp, is nothing, huh? Great. :indif:
Not all republicans are racist, but some people in the south and southwest which have a history of slavery are still discriminating against blacks.
Wait; the south is full of Republicans?! And again: way to generalize. I was raised in the north and I now live in the south. In my experience, northerners are just as bigoted as southerners.
hey, im just stating my opinions.
Oh, no you don't. Uh-uh. As I indicated previously, you are presenting your opinions as fact in an insulting manner, so you don't get to play it off in a slimy, dishonest fashion like that. Sorry, but you're dealing with adults, here, and we're not stupid enough to fall for that crap. :carms:

-snip-

Zerimar Nyliram
01-29-2010, 02:34 PM
Hey, I watch it. It is way funnier than anything on NBC.

I don't know. NBC's "Green Week" was pretty funny. "Hey, we've turned out all the lights in the studio to save the planet, yet the cameras, this giant TV behind me, and all the digital equipment are still running. We're really making a difference here!"

See, Fox isn't this great amazing news network. They're just a regular news network, the way they were in the old days before becoming mouthpieces for political agendas or governments that provide their funding. From what I can tell, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN force down your throat one political agenda (with the occasional conservative with his own prerecorded show, acting as a gimmick to attract people under the false image that they are unbiased), whereas Fox gives you a variety of differing opinions.

Just saying.

jonathan7
01-29-2010, 02:40 PM
See, Fox isn't this great amazing news network. They're just a regular news network, the way they were in the old days before becoming mouthpieces for political agendas or governments that provide their funding. From what I can tell, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN force down your throat one political agenda (with the occasional conservative with his own prerecorded show, acting as a gimmick to attract people under the false image that they are unbiased), whereas Fox gives you a variety of differing opinions.

Just saying.

Your kidding right? Speaking as an outsider if Fox gives you a variety of differing opinions I'm Marilyn Monroe; Fox is as biased as the above, just forcing an alternative political agenda down ones throat. To be very honest, I was shocked at the lack of critical un-biased journalism in the states when I was there. It is the press who should be the ones to maintain our freedom; but I fear for the U.S. just because of the state of the press.

mimartin
01-29-2010, 02:51 PM
Three things:

1. What Samuel Dravis wrote

I'm going to follow Bush's example and preemptively strike. Don't get too excited. Make sure your comments are civil, please.

2. Let us remember that this was in Atho was only moved to Kavars because of the serious nature of some of the post. However, not all of the post within this thread were serious.

3. Finally all new post should conform to the rules of Kavars.

@ Zerimar Nyliram my post was done in Atho, had this thread been in Kavars I never would have posted in the thread. In Atho, I was joking around with the subject matter.

Q
01-29-2010, 02:59 PM
To be very honest, I was shocked at the lack of critical un-biased journalism in the states when I was there.
This is both very true and very depressing. I think that Fox came about in an effort to balance things out, as the news was very biased towards the left beforehand, but they would have been more credible had they tried to be unbiased instead of spinning everything towards the right.

The first news network to be unbiased would receive a massive viewership from both sides of the political fence, making such an undertaking an attractive business opportunity.

mur'phon
01-29-2010, 03:08 PM
I disagree, with Americans segregating more and more, I'm afraid the biased bull you have at the moment is precisely what the public want. Also, getting unbiased news in any country is next to impossible as journalists tend to weer towards the centre-left.

mimartin
01-29-2010, 03:14 PM
I’d tend to agree with mur’phon, an totally unbiased news network in the United States would just mean that everyone would be attacking it.

Q
01-29-2010, 03:17 PM
I'd watch it, and I don't watch any of the others, including Fox.

Salzella
01-29-2010, 03:30 PM
What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it? can't remember the technical name. anyway, without an independant, non-commercialised corporation to give you exactly such unbiased content (like the BBC) you won't get it. hence, crappy US political coverage.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-29-2010, 03:38 PM
What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it?

the human condition

Darth Avlectus
01-29-2010, 04:40 PM
I watch C-Span when I want to see what is really going on in the senate and in congress. It shows things live as the are happening. No slant. I can only stomach so much, though.

Problem is without some taking kind of position, it is merely a statement of facts. That gets boring to most people because when you have facts shoved in your face you're likely to start thinking "So (effing) what?" to it.

Bipartisan is merely the same as moderate: problem is they tend to shift in whatever direction the political winds are blowing at the time. Often ti is taken advantage of in that where one side is trying to "reach across the aisle" the other side picks up on it and offers something better.

Though not always the case: Sometimes a move to be bipartisan is a clever feign by the unscrupulous to incrementally push things through and start a tumbling movement for decay/corrosion of status quo--which also fits "progress", if in a literal fashion.

However, this is not all moderates and bipartisans as there are some who actually do mean quite well and genuinely want the best solution. All I am pointing out is that "good intentions pave the way to hell" as the saying goes.

What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it? can't remember the technical name.

Well this is a part of what describes hypocrisy, though not all of it.

anyway, without an independant, non-commercialised corporation to give you exactly such unbiased content (like the BBC) you won't get it. hence, crappy US political coverage.

Remeber that government sources (looks out for itself like any other entity) and even scholastic educational sources can have bias (For the longest time they pushed global warming in their textbooks and are now dancing about to avoid looking bad because of climate-gate).

Explicitly non partisan sources and organizations are best place to look for finding sources. However, where they don't get bashed, they don't get traction either.
Odd how the dynamic of friction is strangely applicable here in a social way when it is normally associated with physics. :lol:

Salzella
01-29-2010, 05:04 PM
the human condition

hah. yeah, that's the one alright.

jonathan7
01-29-2010, 05:33 PM
What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it? can't remember the technical name. anyway, without an independant, non-commercialised corporation to give you exactly such unbiased content (like the BBC) you won't get it. hence, crappy US political coverage.

I dunno about any such psychological condition off the top of my head, however Bertrand Russell said, in a book called 'Why I am not a Christian' (ostensibly a collection of his essays).

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

Salzella
01-29-2010, 05:38 PM
^^ that's the gist, yeah. it's not a condition really, more just a tendency or quirk, common to everyone and part of the human mind. it was mentioned by Dan Gardner in his (excellent) book 'Risk/Fear'.

Tommycat
01-29-2010, 09:18 PM
Compared to MSNBC Fox is relatively neutral. But I wouldn't call Fox neutral in the least. They are the voice of the (American Political) Right just as the other stations are the voices of the (American Political) Left. What Fox DOES do better than the other stations is give air time to the opposition. CNN and MSNBC stick with showing a relatively one sided debate. Fox does give the other side a chance to talk, and actually gives them equal time(believe it or not, use a stopwatch). They just don't question them fairly. They talk over, and give them hard questions while the conservative guests get softball questions and a sympathetic ear.

I don't think the US could handle a truly unbiased network. Actually I don't think it would be possible. The entertainment value of straight news with no slant tends to drop off.

Even news from other country sources tends to be biased. They tend to think we should be more like their host country. Despite the fact that some things that work for them just won't work for us.

As for Obama getting treated unfairly, OH PLEASE!!!! I have YET to hear anyone say "He's not MY president." Don't get me wrong, he's getting a LOT of attention. But while EVERYONE knows that Bush spent a lot of time on vacation, How many people know that Obama has spend nearly 4 times as many days golfing as Bush? How many people know about how Bush spent his "vacation" working? But whatever. It's only fair that people keep bringing Bush up. I mean after Bush was elected, Clinton was still bashed by the "winners"

Obama is getting the same unfair treatment Bush got. maybe next time the opposition will remember how they were treated and be more understanding. YEAH RIGHT. More likely they will act as the Republicans do now. Like a bunch of spoiled brats who have had their favorite toy taken away. Just as they did during Bush.

Samnmax221
01-29-2010, 09:34 PM
BBC is the standard for good news. Didn't have to hear much about Anna Nicole Smith, just that she was unremarkable, dead, and that there was a bit of controversy surrounding the money the old pervert left her. Barely had to hear about Tiger Woods, rarely see Sarah Palin and her retard baby, and never have to see cats playing pianos.

Totenkopf
01-30-2010, 07:17 AM
I'm wondering, is the BBC also plagued by the 24 hour news cycle mentality? We get BBC America over here, but it's sandwiched in between a number of other shows. Problem with the concept, arguably, is that there's going to be as much non-hard news (or more) as not in order to keep people's attention and try to avoid losing audiences to each other. Thus, when people like Jackson or Smith die or get into big trouble, there's an oversaturation by all the 24 hour networks of the story. The tabloidization of the news, driven by ratings (someone's got to pay for it, the alternative being a lot of the vapid and/or insipid crap you get on public stations like NPR and whatnot, but paid for w/your tax dollars).

mimartin
01-30-2010, 08:31 AM
What Fox DOES do better than the other stations is give air time to the opposition. CNN and MSNBC stick with showing a relatively one sided debate. Fox does give the other side a chance to talk, and actually gives them equal time(believe it or not, use a stopwatch). They just don't question them fairly. They talk over, and give them hard questions while the conservative guests get softball questions and a sympathetic ear.
You forgot they call them names in an attempt to belittle them, they choice their opposition guest carefully so they have no trouble acting superior and they use arguments rife with ad hominem arguments. If you can’t beat the message attack the messenger, but it does work for them (most of the time – unless the other side is very passionate about a subject, like gamers. Although my mother still thinks I’m a pervert after this Fox News gem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU)).


They would have to change their argument behavior to post in Kavars. :xp:

Tommycat
02-02-2010, 06:24 PM
You forgot they call them names in an attempt to belittle them, they choice their opposition guest carefully so they have no trouble acting superior and they use arguments rife with ad hominem arguments. If you canít beat the message attack the messenger, but it does work for them (most of the time Ė unless the other side is very passionate about a subject, like gamers. Although my mother still thinks Iím a pervert after this Fox News gem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU)).


They would have to change their argument behavior to post in Kavars. :xp:
Didn't someone get a ban for essentially reposting Foxnews...

As for the choosing the guests carefully, CNN and MSNBC do that as well. Though Fox is more prevalent at the ad hominem attacks. But MSNBC has been far worse and blatant in their attacks. They have simply attacked persons without even the little attention Fox has given to actually finding arguments. I've heard the term "Repugnant clan" used a number of times on MSNBC. Trust me I'd far sooner watch CNN than MSDNC. At least they, while biased, aren't frothing at the mouth biased


and you are a pervert...Just not because of that haha.

Nedak
02-02-2010, 07:20 PM
I could really give two ****s if he's reading a teleprompter or not. Doesn't effect his ability to be a president.

However I will say that at least he can read a teleprompter...unlike the previous president.

Before I start getting idiots bashing on me, I'm not pro-Obama. Every politician to me is a crook and a liar. However, he was the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.

EDIT: Also who in their right mind would believe that Obama would choose the set-up in the classroom? His advisors and PRs are the people that set that stuff up, not him.

Jae Onasi
02-02-2010, 08:41 PM
EDIT: Also who in their right mind would believe that Obama would choose the set-up in the classroom? His advisors and PRs are the people that set that stuff up, not him.
I don't buy that for one minute. If Obama wants it set up a certain way, Obama gets it the way he wants. The staff may do the actual set up of the equipment, but I would be willing to bet good money that Obama told them he wanted a teleprompter.

mimartin
02-02-2010, 09:08 PM
Serious mode for one moment: He was using the time not merely address the students in the classroom, but to address the nation and the world through Television, so the teleprompter was warranted. Showing the Teleprompter in a 22 second clip and saying it was for a speech to a 6th grade class is funny, but it hardly the truth of the situation.

Darth Avlectus
02-02-2010, 10:00 PM
Before I start getting idiots bashing on me,
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm not pro-Obama. Every politician to me is a crook and a liar. However, he was the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.

Ok, so perhaps you feel you're just left leaning. (as the allleged "idiots who would bash you" can already see)

While I am in agreement with you over every politician being a crook and a liar (and you forgot a "cheat" BTW), frankly none are the lesser of two evils because it's two sides of the same damn coin. They're really all just in it for their own benefit primarily, while throwing table scraps to the people secondarily. The tide seems to be progressing in one direction regardless: We're screwed no matter what.

Q
02-03-2010, 07:10 PM
Before I start getting idiots bashing on me, I'm not pro-Obama.
I know you're not. You certainly weren't among the group of people going absolutely ga-ga over him a year and a half ago.
Every politician to me is a crook and a liar.
Agreed.
However, he was the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.
Well, in spite of McCain's identity crisis (which was disgusting), I had to go with the lesser of the two socialists. ;)

Totenkopf
02-03-2010, 09:09 PM
I think he was referring in the end there to Palin. ;) Btw, I agree that McCain looked a lot like Obama lite.

machievelli
02-04-2010, 08:20 PM
A little reality check here:

First, My ex works in real estate in California. She said the economoy was going to tank after 2000 because 'The democrats won't be in office, and the Republicans aren't going to throw money at the problem when it does'. It had begun to slide before 9-11.

Second 9-11 was what started it on the major slide it went through. When people are no longer confident they are safe, they tend to grab the money and run. All of that stock money being yanks caused the market to plummet.

3rd: A lot of the corporations that went out of business, Enron, Fanny mae et al, had been bolstered by free money or perks from the government. As an example, the (Admitedly Republican based) decentralization of electricty services in California and the (Democratically pushed) clean air laws took one third to half of electricity generation capability out of action, causing the Energy shortage that drove California into the start of their recession. That was caused by then governor Gray Davis (Dem) to buy electricity from outside the state. Enron (Who deserves their own special level in hell) then had their California affiliates sending their electricity to Oregon, Nevada and Arizona so that it could be 'sold' at the higher rates back to Californians.

That casued the 'governator' to be elected, which would have been a fine joke if he could have fixed it.

So don't point fingers kiddies. I can take any 'great' or 'retard' president you name and show you how wrong you are.

As for myself the best president we have ever had was a democrat, Theodore Roosevelt. In the start of the 20th century, he had finished a term as Secretary of the navy, and assumed the presidency. The Dems were the majority party, and to forestall foreign adventures, they cut not the navy's numbers, but cut their fuel supplies. If they can't sail off to Europe, obviously we won't get involved, right?

Roosevelt ordered an 'emergency readiness' exercise. He sent the Atlantic fleet to the west coast, then sent the combined fleet off to the Phillipines. When they arrived they had already burned their entire fuel budget.

Everyone panicked. Our fleet was 6,000 miles away, what could we do? Congress and the senate ordered Roosevelt to return them home immediately. He replied 'Oh, I'd like to. But we have to wait until the next budget because they don't have enough fuel'. Between them the two houses voted an emergency measure to supply the fleet with enough fuel to get home.

Roosevelt replied to the wording by rodering the entire fleet to make an around the world tour, the Great White Fleet.

Don't mess with him. Ever.

Totenkopf
02-04-2010, 09:00 PM
Well, that sounds like TR, speak softly but carry a big stick. In that case the stick being devlish ingeniuity. :p

Darth Avlectus
02-06-2010, 05:45 AM
A little reality check here:
I am a CA resident! :p

First, My ex works in real estate in California. She said the economoy was going to tank after 2000 because 'The democrats won't be in office, and the Republicans aren't going to throw money at the problem when it does'. It had begun to slide before 9-11.

Check, although it was a lot more than just that--corruption in the correctional facilities, people who work cheaper also end up living with a need to be more heavily subsidized by the government.

Budgeting has been a mess for at least 10 years if not longer. Neither side is fiscally conservative anymore which is a major problem.

Second 9-11 was what started it on the major slide it went through. When people are no longer confident they are safe, they tend to grab the money and run. All of that stock money being yanks caused the market to plummet. There was a lot of that. Yes.

However, it seemed whatever was left behind, there was some enterprising types there soon afterward to claim it.

3rd: A lot of the corporations that went out of business, Enron, Fanny mae et al, had been bolstered by free money or perks from the government. As an example, the (Admitedly Republican based) decentralization of electricty services in California and the (Democratically pushed) clean air laws took one third to half of electricity generation capability out of action, causing the Energy shortage that drove California into the start of their recession. Ah, bipartisan action minus any sense of fiscal constraint equals inevitable disaster.

You know there was a beautiful initiative proposed a few years ago that would have rewarded people making their houses more self sufficient, proposed regulation in a minimalist fashion to assure there was competition in the energy market (and new jobs because of it) and it would have made a clear standard for service. BTW research done into transportation.
(At least it didn't stop the invention of the tesla roadster nor their produciton in CA.)

Alas...
Big power companies fought it: though they are natural monopolies and publicly owned, they still love their income. This would have introduced small competitors in the market and protected them from being rubbed out.
Oil fought it: it spoke of alternatives to petrol based fuel, etc.
Sierra club fought it: It would "damage the environment of the area and endager the wildlife, and make eyesores"--the reality was that they wanted to install solar power plants in the desert, windmill power where ridges on mountains and cliffsides get wind and gusts. Relying on their club to take them at their word instead of looking at what actually was being proposed.

Now it looks like we'll have to settle for a government run capitalism of the main big competitors.

As one who believes in self sustain-ism, I've not seen more harm done to the prospect of citizen energy independence than this. It took a double whammy by both democrats and republicans.

I'm rightward leaning and I think that's ****ed up. I see a fairly grass roots based free market potential in new alternative energies field that make homes self sufficient. I am no longer convinced free market and capitalism are one and the same. And I know free market is not freedom from responsibility. In fact this is a shatterpoint where capitalism has snuffed out free market.

That was caused by then governor Gray Davis (Dem) to buy electricity from outside the state. Enron (Who deserves their own special level in hell) then had their California affiliates sending their electricity to Oregon, Nevada and Arizona so that it could be 'sold' at the higher rates back to Californians.
Interesting. Link please?

Lord Foley
02-12-2010, 10:22 PM
What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it?

Confirmation Bias