Barack Obama believed to be a Muslim by one fifth of Americans

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Azure

So?

At the end of the year the media empire donates about 50/50 to both Republicans/Democrats.

I'm going to take a guess and say the $1 million dollar cheque happened because of the Supreme Court ruling in regards to corporations and political donations.

I guess if that does happen at the end of the year then you can so I told you so.

But not now.

Right now I see bias of a media empire that I would like to see it being impartial.

I dont think they should be donating at all frankly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

The issue isn't the results of some idiotic poll, it's that there is a concerted effort on the part of right wing fringe groups to push complete fallacy as truth in order to discredit Obama, and those groups are starting to infiltrate mainstream politics. There's stupidity in every political sub-group, what's concerning here is the tactics taken and the apparent desire for factions of the population to buy it hook line and sinker.

The sad thing is that the right wing doesn't have to do anything to discredit Obama, he's doing a fine enough job on his own, especially as the American Economy looks like its going backwards instead of forwards. All the republicans had to focus on was getting a nice moderate candidate for the next election and the presidencey would fall in their lap.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I guess if that does happen at the end of the year then you can so I told you so.

But not now.

Right now I see bias of a media empire that I would like to see it being impartial.

I dont think they should be donating at all frankly.

I guess I see a bias of a couple of other media empires as well (NBC, Time Warner, and ABC). According to this article looks like these other networks seem to donate quite a bit more to the Democrats.

"...Time Warner gave $2.3 million to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle, and since 1990, 72 percent of Time Warner’s political donations went to Democrats."

"...in 2008, 100 percent of MSNBC Cable’s donations went to Democrats and 99 percent of NBC’s donations went to Democrats.

Additionally, so far in 2010, 100 percent of ABC News’s donations have gone to Democrats..."

I agree that neither fox nor any other media network should be donating to the political parties. Although on the other hand it really does show that at some level all networks do have some political bias.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I guess I see a bias of a couple of other media empires as well (NBC, Time Warner, and ABC). According to this article looks like these other networks seem to donate quite a bit more to the Democrats.

"...Time Warner gave $2.3 million to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle, and since 1990, 72 percent of Time Warner’s political donations went to Democrats."

"...in 2008, 100 percent of MSNBC Cable’s donations went to Democrats and 99 percent of NBC’s donations went to Democrats.

Additionally, so far in 2010, 100 percent of ABC News’s donations have gone to Democrats..."

I agree that neither fox nor any other media network should be donating to the political parties. Although on the other hand it really does show that at some level all networks do have some political bias.

I agree but perhaps I should have made it clearer...I think that ALL of the media should not be allowed to donate.

But election doantions and lobbying needs a major overhaul yet alone what I think of the party system too.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The sad thing is that the right wing doesn't have to do anything to discredit Obama, he's doing a fine enough job on his own, especially as the American Economy looks like its going backwards instead of forwards. All the republicans had to focus on was getting a nice moderate candidate for the next election and the presidencey would fall in their lap.

Well I don't think it's fair to place the blame for the economy on Obama, after all a lot of the problems that are being undone (or have been so messed up their nearly unsalvagable) were the doings of the previous administration. That said, he's certainly failed to meet my expectations in a number of respects.

Your overall point is a good one though, I simply don't get the desire to turn to tactics that will do nothing more than cause division in the country and lead to an increasingly hostile environment when the election is winnable on the real substantive issues. I understand attack based politics when it's the only card you have left to play, but leading with it? That's absurd.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well I don't think it's fair to place the blame for the economy on Obama, after all a lot of the problems that are being undone (or have been so messed up their nearly unsalvagable) were the doings of the previous administration. That said, he's certainly failed to meet my expectations in a number of respects.

Your overall point is a good one though, I simply don't get the desire to turn to tactics that will do nothing more than cause division in the country and lead to an increasingly hostile environment when the election is winnable on the real substantive issues. I understand attack based politics when it's the only card you have left to play, but leading with it? That's absurd.

I think that its a little simplistic when you say its merely the fault of the last administration. The seeds for this economic collapse can be seen all the way back to the Carter Administration.

After watching the news this morning its becoming frighteningly clear that the U.S. economy is not improving, its heading back into the toilet.

So while I can certainly understand blaming the previous government for the recession, Obama's economic policies did nothing but create a small spike but have failed to build any of the momentum that you need to get out of the pit.

On the second point, I fully agree. I'm not a big fan of the need to create division in a country that needs to come together now more then ever.

I would be happier if the Republicans would get enough brain power to eject the Palin's and other members of the lunatic fringe and get back to the idea of government by the people for the people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

I'm confused. Are you talking about the same person now?

The crazy blogger/fundamental scumbag would have gone practically unnoticed if the New York Post didn't catch wind and being good newspeople recognized a way to sell a boatload of newspapers. Then since they're both under the same corporate umbrella, Fox New and their assorted bunch of loons, turned up the crazy. Which in turn has gotten the mouth breathers into a huge tizzy.

I'm hoping this will all go away once rasslin' starts up again.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying that the extremists would have used the issue to their advantage EITHER way it turned out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that its a little simplistic when you say its merely the fault of the last administration. The seeds for this economic collapse can be seen all the way back to the Carter Administration.

After watching the news this morning its becoming frighteningly clear that the U.S. economy is not improving, its heading back into the toilet.

So while I can certainly understand blaming the previous government for the recession, Obama's economic policies did nothing but create a small spike but have failed to build any of the momentum that you need to get out of the pit.

On the second point, I fully agree. I'm not a big fan of the need to create division in a country that needs to come together now more then ever.

I would be happier if the Republicans would get enough brain power to eject the Palin's and other members of the lunatic fringe and get back to the idea of government by the people for the people.

If anything, Obama's policies just made the economy worse. But in the bigger picture, the problems certainly do go back all the way to Carter. At least with the banking situation.

That being said, when you take the deficit from $400 billion, and run it up to a trillion plus bucks, and the results are not there, people are going to blame you.

What I find so strange is that Congress(Reid, Pelosi, the rest of the Democrat old guard, as well as a LOT of Republicans) are the ones really at fault considering they've been sitting in the legislature for decades now. If anyone should be kicked out, its them. And yet it looks like a lot of them will retain their seats.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I guess if that does happen at the end of the year then you can so I told you so.

But not now.

Right now I see bias of a media empire that I would like to see it being impartial.

I dont think they should be donating at all frankly.

You're never going to get away from letting people donate. Every single company in the US will lobby and donate based on who they like as a candidate.

Problem is that means we're going to stick with status quo, because years of lobbying have gotten a lot of politicians into the hands of these big corporations.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

If anything, Obama's policies just made the economy worse. But in the bigger picture, the problems certainly do go back all the way to Carter. At least with the banking situation.

That being said, when you take the deficit from $400 billion, and run it up to a trillion plus bucks, and the results are not there, people are going to blame you.

What I find so strange is that Congress(Reid, Pelosi, the rest of the Democrat old guard, as well as a LOT of Republicans) are the ones really at fault considering they've been sitting in the legislature for decades now. If anyone should be kicked out, its them. And yet it looks like a lot of them will retain their seats.

Don't get me started on Nancy Pelosi, she's equally as bad as some of the Republican wing nuts.

I do agree that Obama does have to take a chunk of blame for how the economy has gone. I think its akin to a man trying to dig himself out of a well.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Azure

Been waiting for this article a while now.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082302480.html

So take your 'large number of Tea Party people are morons because they believe Obama is a Muslim(which hasn't been proven)'....and stick it you know where.

Fact is that a lot of stupid people from all kinds of political sides believe a lot of stupid things.

Trying to pin stupidity on one party just shows anyone's obvious bias, and their ignorance.

More reading material about what people believe.

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-an...le-Faiths.aspx

I agree that there are morons and wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum. However, the right wing nutjobs we got now are the only ones that scare me. I don't think some commie liberal is going to blow up a building anytime soon (maybe it will happen but I don't see it). There is a real threat with the nutjob right wing movement today in this country that I can see another OKC happening or potentially blowing up the Park51 center at ground zero when it gets built.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I agree that there are morons and wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum. However, the right wing nutjobs we got now are the only ones that scare me. I don't think some commie liberal is going to blow up a building anytime soon (maybe it will happen but I don't see it). There is a real threat with the nutjob right wing movement today in this country that I can see another OKC happening or potentially blowing up the Park51 center at ground zero when it gets built.

Liberal commies did that all the time in the 60's and 70's and were the political basis of many superpower third world proxy armies in those same time periods.

Nutjobs are nutjobs.

Cowperson

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're never going to get away from letting people donate. Every single company in the US will lobby and donate based on who they like as a candidate.

Problem is that means we're going to stick with status quo, because years of lobbying have gotten a lot of politicians into the hands of these big corporations.

I agree I have no issue with an individual donation up to a certain amount of $.

I am not for corporate donations as they should argue their point on its merits not on how big of a cheque they can make.

I feel that the status quo is the problem and yes unless the people demand change it is never going to happen.

I always find it interesting how a person of average wealth can become a politician but retire wealthy.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Liberal commies did that all the time in the 60's and 70's and were the political basis of many superpower third world proxy armies in those same time periods.

Nutjobs are nutjobs.

Cowperson

Oh I agree I just don't think that's going to happen in the current political environment, things can always sway to the other side (like if somehow the socially extreme right wingers take over the gov't in the next 2 elections).

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Oh I agree I just don't think that's going to happen in the current political environment, things can always sway to the other side (like if somehow the socially extreme right wingers take over the gov't in the next 2 elections).

I would think the riots in Toronto were instigated by left wing nutjobs and, if I recall correctly, they set off a bomb at a Royal Bank. Weren't they also responsible for the running riots of Rome in the last year or so?

Maybe the real worry should be that the right wing nutjobs are better armed and more competent than the left wing ones.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Weren't the Weathermen on the radical left?

The FLQ were staunch leftists who wanted to establish a socialist paradise in a independant Quebec.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I would think the riots in Toronto were instigated by left wing nutjobs and, if I recall correctly, they set off a bomb at a Royal Bank. Weren't they also responsible for the running riots of Rome in the last year or so?

Maybe the real worry should be that the right wing nutjobs are better armed and more competent than the left wing ones.

Cowperson

Sorry I was speaking in regards to the US only. Of course the radical left can do damage anywhere and will do damage wherever the G7 meets.

[Ramsayfarian]

And so it begins:
NYC Cabbie Stabbed by Islamophobe

It goes without saying that Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et al., feel no responsibility for this whatsoever: A New York City cab driver named Ahmed Sharif was stabbed by a passenger who allegedly asked "Are you a Muslim?" before carrying out the attack. When the cab driver said yes, the passenger allegedly pulled out a Leatherman tool and slashed his throat, arm, and lip. Sharif was able to lock the passenger in the back of his car, and is currently in the hospital recovering from his injuries. The passenger, Michael Enright, is a 21-year-old filmmaker who recently returned from Afghanistan. In a statement, Sharif said "I feel very sad. I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...BMdXDBB8TzQe21

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I agree that there are morons and wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum. However, the right wing nutjobs we got now are the only ones that scare me. I don't think some commie liberal is going to blow up a building anytime soon (maybe it will happen but I don't see it). There is a real threat with the nutjob right wing movement today in this country that I can see another OKC happening or potentially blowing up the Park51 center at ground zero when it gets built.

Here's your war-monger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_johnson

[troutman]

Conservative columnist says Tea Party is toxic for GOP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082405001.html

Most Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are understandably concerned about the size and reach of government. Their enthusiasm is a clear Republican advantage. But Tea Party populism is just as clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs. It is at odds with Abraham Lincoln's inclusive tone and his conviction that government policies could empower individuals. It is inconsistent with religious teaching on government's responsibility to seek the common good and to care for the weak. It does not reflect a Burkean suspicion of radical social change.

The Democratic political nightmare is now obvious and overwhelming. The Republican challenge is different: building a majority on an unstable, slightly cracked foundation.