 |
A quick perusal shows that is not their intent. They plan on dissecting the words of Obama's political opponents (and evidently will continue the left's obsession with the things Glenn Beck says).
The 1st 3 postings are about Rick Perry ,Mitt Romney ,and Beck. On the 'Attack Files ',the only real outrageous nonsense they address is the already debunked one that the President wasn't born in the country.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What is wrong with that?
Anything Glen Beck says needs to be subject to scrutiny. This is not a criticism of his character. It should be an analysis of the words he says. Does Beck take responsibility of what he says or does he fade into the background and wait to come out with another outrageous comment?
Exactly the same standard should apply to the left. Known 'nonsense' peddlers ( left and right) should be subject to scrutiny in terms of the words they say.
Why do people hide behind The First Amendment as it applies to the press? Responsibility not codified enough?
Tut
I don't care actually . I think free speech is almost absolute . I even signed up to the site ;just like I regularly visit other lefty web sites.
Beck is Beck . I don't recall anyone here using him or his words in support of their position. The President has in fact not been a strong ally to Israel. However ,I give him props for the position he is taking at the UN against the Palestinian statehood declaration,
The postings about Perry and Romney are more interesting to me . They take Perry to task for saying the stimulus created "zero jobs". Well perhaps "some " jobs were created by the stimulus so they are technically correct. However that is nitpicking and unworthy of a serious reply. The stimulus was a failure ,and the only proof one needs is that the President plans on spending another $400 billion in the attempt.
The thing on Romney is equally silly.
Hi again Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm glad you said, 'almost' because there are no absolutes in my view. In this day and age most people seems to know their rights but when it comes to knowing their responsibilities extreme elements seems to plead ignorant. Strange isn't it?
As far as American domestic and foreign policy is concerned? You would be a better judge than myself.
Tut
Yeah I carefully qualified it . However tin foil hats are entertaining and pose no real threat to civil society. As cal points out there are no shortage of people willing to debunk them ,and it would be surprising if the Dem machine were actually wasting their time and effort to that pursuit.
What this is actually is a way to get their base fired up . The initial targets and subjects on the site are irrelevant to the President's re election effort.But then again ;his opening salvos are demogogic rants against Congress so perhaps they are already showing their desperation.
Hello:
It appears that the stimulus DID create jobs... But... we've got Republicanzonkerland, and then we've got realityland. If you decide stuff, you should decide it on the TRUTH. Wouldn't you agree?
excon
Hmm I never noticed before that Fact Check was an Annenberg site . So much for unbiased fact checking .
Lol simply put if there was truth in reporting unemployment figures the overall rate would be much worse. I'm glad the Dems are going to run on their record of job creating achievement. I encourage it. 3/4 trillion dollars to make less than a 2 % difference ;with most of the money temporarily forestalling larger cuts at the State level and not actually creating anything.Quote:
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there's no doubt that the number is positive.
More pump priming mythology. BTW... assuming the 3.3 million jobs is correct ;it cost us taxpayers $212,200 per job "created "... BAM that's bang for your buck !
Even funnier... the 2008 version of this web site is still on line
Fight The Smears - Learn the Truth About Barack Obama
Back then we learned the truth that Michelle doesn't abuse travel privilages .
Fight the Smears: The Truth About Michelle and the Fake Room Service Bill
We now know of course that Michelle would never stoop to abusing that privilege .
Michelle Obama accused of spending $10m in public money on vacations | Mail Online
The dopes put it on twitter... I encourage everyone to go there are see the reportings :
Quote:
@GlenRussum
Glen Russum @AttackWatch I need to report that Batman was seen "abusing" the Joker in a dark alley while Santa and others watched and recorded... sick!
Quote:
Hey #attackwatch, remember those 6 job killing ATMs? Just saw them down at the #USDayofRage.
hundreds of similar examples!Quote:
@Talkmaster
Neal Boortz Loving our robust Economy? NEVER forget that Obama once referred to the private sector as the "ENEMY." #attackwatch
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Good point. There does seem to be plenty of scrutiny round at the moment (electronic or paper media ). Not much nonsense gets through without someone latching onto it.
Yes, tin foil hats don't pose a threat to civil society. This will only hold true so long as the middle ground doesn't slowly keep shifting to the left and the right. Do you think this is happening? I would be interested in your opinion here.
Tut
Tut
It depends on the parameters of history you are looking at. Speaking from the perspective of American history ,I find it interesting that people are surprised and alarmed at polarization .
Americans tend to romanticize the founding of the country and think the founders were of one voice and philosophy.. That is far from the case . A closer examination reveals that the roots of the debate in the country today are found in the debates the founders and early national leaders had then .
I further see that the discourse back then was not cordial . The blogs of their days were the pamphletters who published in pseudonym . (example Alexander Hamilton published under the name 'Publis' ) . It is a fact that during the 1800 campaign ,Thomas Jefferson used publications that supported him to level vicious charges against John Adams (they charged he was loyal to the British crown ) ;and Adams supporters in return made charges against Jefferson (very personal in nature about his character ) .
Political attacks like these led to the famous Aaron Burr -Alexander Hamilton duel that cost Hamilton his life.
History has shown here that some variation of the middle is in power and when it shifts one way or the other it is short term and there is push back(note that the 2010 elections were a push back to the Dems gaining control of the elected branches of government ,and their attempt to govern too far to the left).
Can one take a position on basic core beliefs and say it's straight down the middle if they have any convictions ? I have no issue at all with the concept of partisanship .
It appears to me that you shouldn't either given that your political system is designed to encourage it .
Non-partisanship to me is a bromide . Yes consensus is reached through compromise . But to cede a position before the negotiation is to succumb to the will of the opponent.
I guess I must have missed what sites you're referring to. But anyway, even that is subjective. Who defines what's "extreme"?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hi Speech,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
True. I guess it's all relative.
Tut
Speaking of the Day of Rage , whenever there's a good leftist protest, Zombie gets pictures (NSFW, mature content). The poor, confused boobs. I'd have taken the guys burning dollar bills more seriously had they been lighting up Benjamins.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Those day of rage things only work when a Republican is in office. I wonder why they didn't occupy Solyndra ?
I guess Obama has been reading up on George Orwell's 1984 and thinks it's a great idea.
Its exactly the sort of thing a guy like him would do.
Well, that didn't take long. Obama has rolled out his newest incarnation of the snitch patrol by renaming his "Attack Watch" the "Truth Team".
So watch it boys and girls, don't criticize The One or he'll send out his union thugs to break your kneecaps.
Go ahead, report me. Please.Quote:
National supporters including the National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the United Steelworkers Union (USW) will be participating in this effort.
Do you want to be reported for the chance to see what happens?
I'm not going to do it but maybe someone you know better will oblige.
Remember Muskie crying on the steps?
Granted he wasn't a president. But he might have had a chance if his team had been on top of rumors. (Man crying = another issue.)
Your argument is that a prez isn't entitled to sweep the speakings of the nation. I see it as just the tech version of the media staff that looked for lies and dirty tricks designed to bring him down. You see it as a desire to squash dissent?
Yet the origins of a lot of what they are looking for are from the very people trying to unseat Obama and put their candidate in for the next term. So why isn't a president allowed to ask, campaign, and answer to what he feels are lies? He has a right to protect his integrity. A report site doesn't mean he gets to use the info against anyone. I don't see how it's any different from the staff of old who clipped news from papers. It might be true, it might not, it might be second hand reporting just as this is. If Obama wanted to be nefarious he wouldn't do it out in the open, he'd use all the gov't agencies at his disposal.
It's peanuts compared to the secretive stuff he could use.
Wouldn't you rather be out in the open?
No, I'd rather our thin-skinned president get over himself allow us to enjoy our first amendment rights instead of asking for snitches to smack down dissent. He could learn a thing or two from his predecessor who endured more than his "fair share" of vicious attacks but didn't let them get under his skin. So no I don't believe the president is "entitled to sweep the speakings of the nation". His job is to DEFEND our rights, not squelch them.
My point is that every president has a staff that sweeps the media, extracting his name to see what is being said. Heck, mayors and senators do it. My point is that it isn't to squash dissent, it's to respond to perceived lies. My point is that it's out in the OPEN. You claim Bush didn't do it? ****SNORT****
Mock all you want but that's not what I said. What I said was Bush didn't let it bother him, and if anyone had reason to respond to the attacks it was Bush. He was attacked relentlessly and you did not see him getting obviously irritated and developing snitch networks. This is Obama's THIRD incarnation of a snitch network and quite frankly, I find that beyond disturbing. Read Victor Davis Hanson's column in the OP, this is about more than seeing what is being said about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 AM. |