Aileron Posted March 15, 2008 Report Posted March 15, 2008 Wait, 'Obama is inexperienced' is propaganda? He is a Freshman Senator from Arkansas, and has never held an executive office. It's a fair criticism for his opponents to make. A perfectly unbiased media would be bound to stick to the facts, and in this case the list of Obama's previously held offices is purely factual.
Bak Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 we have three senators in the race who all haven't held an executive office?
SeVeR Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 The thing is, i don't think there is a single person in America who hasn't heard the "Obama is inexperienced" line, due simply to it's prolific circulation. It's importance has been blown out of proportion, to the extent where he is unelectable by some. It has nothing to do with his policy, and nothing to do with anything he himself says or does. Still, you're right, it can and should be stated, but to have it shoved down your throat is evidence of a political agenda. I suppose this pales in comparison with the "Obama is a Muslim Extremist" story, circulated principally by none other than the right-wing news agency: Fox News. To even acknowledge that Fox News is right-wing should be enough to take them off the air. The same should be said for any leftist news organisations. If i had my way, Rupert Murdoch would be brought up on charges of treason.
rootbear75 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 !@#$%^&* inexperience... WHO CARES as kids, we all thought we knew we could run this country better than the older people running it.don't tell me, you would like to make a law, that says naptime at 3:00, with milk and warm cookies.... etc....
Bak Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 in 2nd grade the teacher asked the class what we thought was the solution to the war in Bosnia... we came up with "take them over" anyways, obama's got 10 years of political experience... it's not like it's his first day on the job.
Cancer+ Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 So I hear Obama is black? People on the news are saying "Well if Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be facing "this" and "this". I'm sorry, but that is a !@#$%^&*ing sorry !@#$%^&* excuse. There are many, many biggots out there, but you should know, going to try and be president, there are goin to be those kind of people trying to put you down. In politics, the white male is going to be more "superior." Not because he is better, more experienced, qualified. But because he is a WHITE MALE. But I guess in this case, it's female. I'm just tired of people saying well because he is black this....first black man to do this....black guy cant do this because....etc. If we are so created equal, this !@#$%^&* shouldn't come up. The reporters/media are making this a racial issue and it is sad. Personally, I will never vote because of !@#$%^&* like this. Not because of racism, but because Politics is sooooo !@#$%^&*ed up. Everyone in Politics are greedy, care about themselves, selfish, don't give a !@#$%^&* about anyone in America. I would rather stay at home and beat my !@#$%^&*/take a !@#$%^&*/shave my balls than vote for any of those cheap/selfish little ASSS that are in the white house. That is just my rant.
Aileron Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Hey, all I'm saying is that if we have a fair media, it would have to state facts as-is. Obama's list of previous jobs is factual. 'Inexperienced' is relative, and 'too inexperienced' is an opinion. However, the media would have to post Obama's resume factually, and most viewers would come to the 'inexperienced' conclusion because relative to most presidents he is.
SeVeR Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Yes, that's the right distinction i think. Also, do inexperienced presidents typically make for bad presidents? Unless this is true, then the "too inexperienced to be elected" opinion really is propagandist.
NBVegita Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 I can't be quoted on this as I heard it on a tv/radio show, but I do believe one analyst actually said the the more inexperienced presidents have actually done very well in office. Yet again, don't quote me on that.
SeVeR Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Yea i read that somewhere too. I think it's because they've risen to the top alot faster, and are therefore more successful.
Confess Posted March 17, 2008 Report Posted March 17, 2008 If obama wasnt black, he never would have made it this far...simple. I agree with about 90% of the above statements. Honestly, im all into saying "screw the commies" however....If we decide to do this, my hunch is that we would be infested with more and more muslims as it comes time + more terrorist attacks/etc.
AstroProdigy Posted March 24, 2008 Report Posted March 24, 2008 If Obama wasn't black it never would have mattered what his preacher said. White evangelical preachers say stuff that makes Obama's old preacher look like Mother Theresa, but no one seems to care when McCain goes out and actively courts their favor. Heck when McCain embraced a pastor who calls Catholicism a cult of devil worshipers there's no conceivable response that could be as big and overblown as the one to Obama. To Aileron and Confess: Have you ever actually listened to Obama's speaches? He is a great speaker! The fact that you ignore the impact that has had on where he's gotten is just you trying to push "affirmative action" to discredit a Democrat. If he was a Republican, oh say Condoleezza Rice, running for president you wouldn't be saying she only got where she was because she's black. Sounds like thinly veiled partisanship to me.
Aileron Posted March 24, 2008 Report Posted March 24, 2008 Don't put words in my mouth. Race has nothing to do with why he was nominated. All I said was that he has less than normal experience. I did mention that there are those who are only voting for him because of race, but that didn't get him nominated. Also, don't put words in the mouth of preachers. Last I checked you don't go to church on a regular basis, so you have no idea what stuff they say, and your entire opinion is based upon a stereotype of an entire profession, and a stereotype which is generally incorrect at that. The leadership of the democratic party is rigging their primaries with an iron fist. They have had Hillary Clinton chosen as their presidential candidate for at least a decade. Just the other day I was watching Die Hard III, made in 1995, where Bruce Willis* made a joke about her running for president back then, which shows how long planning for her nomination has been obvious. The leadership of the democratic party was certain to not mess up her primary by nominating anyone with more strict time-in-office experience than her, because if they did she'd have to go through the trouble of campaigning and debating. *The similarity between the names John McClain and John McCain is kinda scary, isn't it? Obama was chosen as a possible VP candidate as wall as a 2012/2016 candidate. He had less experience than Clinton, but would have enough to run for president in 2012 and also would still be young enough by then to do so. Even I respect Obama in a way. He was clearly set up to fail but managed to pull off great success. Also, he will absolutely be a strong candidate for president some time in the future, especially after he finds out the proper answer to his 'reverend' friend, which he will. The fact that this is coming out now only proves that Obama has officially reached the big leagues. Its politics at its finest! I'll say something else about Obama. Texas screwed up. Rush Limbaugh was wrong. Texas republicans should never have voted for Clinton to keep this race hot. It would have just been better to take Hillary out of the race and be done with it, especially because this little piece of history could have been saved for October to be released by the McCain campaign. I guess it is up to us Pennsylvanians to do things right and send Hillary Clinton into retirement. There will probably be a record number of registered democrats who will 'cross party lines' in November. Don't be alarmed. Pennsylvania conservatives are in NO WAY planning on messing up the democratic primary in our best interests. Bwahahaha haBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
SeVeR Posted March 24, 2008 Report Posted March 24, 2008 If Obama gets the most "delegates" will he be certain to win the nomination or can Hillary still get in there? I only ask because i agree with you about the democrat party and how they've wanted Hillary as President for some time now. If Obama gets nominated i'd be shocked but bloody happy at the same time.
JDS Posted March 26, 2008 Report Posted March 26, 2008 the president is just a face anyway... its not like they really do anything other than what they are told to..
Aileron Posted March 30, 2008 Report Posted March 30, 2008 Delegates can vote for whoever they want to. Generally the delegates follow the wishes of their territories, but with the current democratic party, I could see a few delegates for Obama states being convinced that voting Clinton would be 'what their states really wanted'. Still, that has never happened before in any election, except after a candidate won. The other thing is the so called 'Super Delegates'. These people are delegates who get votes at the DNC but don't represent a state, so if you took two of them, those two Super Delegates have as much voting power as the entire state of South Dakota. There are currently enough undecided Super Delegates to put Clinton's name on the ticket. Essentially the Democratic Party could put whoever they want on the ballot. The only question is how much are they willing to alienate their own voters to put somebody's name on the ballot. One can expect that if the people vote one way, and the super delegates vote the other, the Democratic Party would destroy itself.
Charis Posted April 2, 2008 Report Posted April 2, 2008 Got this about 15x in my inbox (lot of military friends), but I loved it so much, just had to share it for those who haven't seen it yet. Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .Agreed, we dont help our nation. We fix other's problems not ours. Pulling out of the war seems to be the hot topic these days
aquarius Posted April 6, 2008 Report Posted April 6, 2008 According to them, they are defending their 'Muslim brothers'. In reality they are invading Iraq to use it as a battleground. ... elaborate? The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world !@#$%^&* holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. There's alot more to this than just charity. If you can turn a third world country into your private oil factory, then a little aid into the pockets of a fat landowner will go a long way. fat landowners get eliminated It's funny how these negative ideas seep into people's minds isn't it? Ron Paul is crazy and Obama is inexperienced, we've all heard it. It's like these opinions are hammered into our heads. Where does it come from, and who is saying it? Oh that's right, the media.. Put an end to political propaganda in America.Suggestive thinking. Not exactly sure how it's done (probably media) but it is a way of 'putting ideas into someones head'. The way it works is it 'suggests' an idea or opinion on a matter subliminally. Eventually the targeted person will realize the thought, pick it up. But by then he thinks HE thought of it. And everyone embraces their own thoughts. So the masses strive to be someone or embrace the ideas of a third party. While thinking it is their own. the president is just a face anyway... its not like they really do anything other than what they are told to.. nobody needs bush, he's just a funny guy
Aileron Posted April 6, 2008 Report Posted April 6, 2008 No, 'suggestive thinking' isn't so much a matter of targeting the subliminal, but by repe!@#$%^&*ion. It has been shown though that the power of repeated suggestion is strong. Generally if the media repeats a lie often enough, people believe it. Rush Limbaugh does good segment on that, where he will repeatedly find a single sentence that has been repeated by about two dozen over by different broadcasters regarding the same topic. Ofcourse you'd have to be a right-winged crazy to listen to Rush Limbaugh. After all the media has said that he's a right winged extremist two dozen times over by different broadcasters, so they must be right. The media already used the power of suggestion to ruin Bush' presidency in the eyes of the people, and has also created many stereotypes which make it easier for them to sell papers. (All CEOs are greedy, All government workers are accepting bribes, Anyone who doesn't believe global warming will set the world on fire is getting money from Exxon, etc.) How the process works is simple. If you repeat one side frequently without stating the other, you close the debate before it even starts, and the viewing public thinks that it is socially unacceptable to disagree with the media. I'll also give that the media's suggestions aren't always anti-right. I could be convinced that the media used this process to convince people invading Iraq was a good idea, though I will contend that if it did it wasn't Bush's doing. He has no friends in the New York Times. While I'd say that the media is more often anti-right than anti-left, I will say that there is enough anti-left stuff in the media that left-wingers have a right to be pissed.
SeVeR Posted April 6, 2008 Report Posted April 6, 2008 On Bush, they are ruining his Presidency, but only now when he can't stand for re-election. It's a good ploy. Many would think the media was against Bush the whole time. In the case we were discussing, it's the repe!@#$%^&*ion (like Ail said). Also it's in the simplicity of the statement, it's easy to remember and shows some under-lying level of knowledge about Obama (his past experience). Aquarius is therefore very correct in saying the statement is exactly what people want to p!@#$%^&* of as their own opinion (easy to remember and shows understanding). Lastly, what i personally can't stand, is the tone of voice the news-readers use to say these things. If you say "Obama is inexperienced" in a dismissive, put-down, tone of voice, then the listeners will pick up on it. This i have to say is the biggest difference between American and British news, and i think it's quite possibly what does the most damage (guiding thoughts).
aquarius Posted April 6, 2008 Report Posted April 6, 2008 How the process works is simple. If you repeat one side frequently without stating the other, you close the debate before it even starts, and the viewing public thinks that it is socially unacceptable to disagree with the media. I'm going to use the word audience twice and quote a favored rapper of mine. "manifest acceptance as an audience applauds" "ignorance allows an audience to be manipulated"
AstroProdigy Posted April 19, 2008 Report Posted April 19, 2008 Obama was chosen as a possible VP candidate as wall as a 2012/2016 candidate. He had less experience than Clinton' date=' but would have enough to run for president in 2012 and also would still be young enough by then to do so. Even I respect Obama in a way. He was clearly set up to fail but managed to pull off great success. Also, he will absolutely be a strong candidate for president some time in the future, especially after he finds out the proper answer to his 'reverend' friend, which he will. The fact that this is coming out now only proves that Obama has officially reached the big leagues. Its politics at its finest! I'll say something else about Obama. Texas screwed up. Rush Limbaugh was wrong. Texas republicans should never have voted for Clinton to keep this race hot. It would have just been better to take Hillary out of the race and be done with it, especially because this little piece of history could have been saved for October to be released by the McCain campaign. I guess it is up to us Pennsylvanians to do things right and send Hillary Clinton into retirement. There will probably be a record number of registered democrats who will 'cross party lines' in November.[/quote']Hillary only suggests Obama as a future candidate or a VP candidate to further her own ends. Case in point is the way she's latched on him saying bitter people latch on to religion and guns as if she's one of the people talking about her own experience with guns that, considering they way she "got shot at" in Bosnia, is a lie. All this and the Reverend Wright issue do is hurt Obama and Hillary at the same time, leaving John McCain looking good. If he had been doing the mudslinging in October there would have been backlash against him, but this way he comes out unscathed. I'm optimistic about November, though. When Obama, the natural orator, and McCain, the former moderate now conservative wanna flip flop get into a debate McCain's message of do nothing about the economy and stay the course in Iraq will blow up in his face nicely. Also, Obama's strongly liberal and shorter record means very few flip flops to put into a sound byte, but McCain's long record which seems to have turned almost completely around for the sake of appealing to Conservatives will provide plenty of sound bytes. In case you think people who don't have a long experience in government don't do well *cough* ABRAHAM LINCOLN *cough*.
Recommended Posts