Article on the Obama/FOX News debacle

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13302538/the_low_post_the_scum_also_rises/1

Pretty good article. While I disagree that radio and TV "personalities" like Hannity should be held to the same standards as actual journalists, I agree about the libel. What Fox did was downright dirty and it is libel. Obama would have the legal ground to take action over this, but of course he won't: politicians never stand up these guys, in part because the damage has already been done.

While I'm not the biggest Obama fan in the world I feel that he's definitely a decent, honest guy. And it seems like it's these kinds of politicians who get hit with the slime the hardest. For whatever reason, conservatives are afraid of Obama. And as I predicted months ago, they're working to bring him down and give Hillary the nomination. Hell even Rupert Murdoch is trying to get her elected.

[Cheebs]

Obama will be hit hard over the next year, he is honest so it makes a easy target plus he doesn't want to do go negative on his "enemies" in the race.


Hillary on the other hand...
She said this in Iowa on the weekend when asked about the obvious attack ad's that will come at her:

“When you’re attacked, you have to deck your opponents”

[Phoenix Dark]

Best Hillary quote of the year. I like that. Goin for the hip hop crowd now boiiii!

Even Joen Biden sonned Obama, and black people in the process

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

More here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=140554
 

And I used to like that asshole

[The Fake Shemp]

Obama is a terrorist and his name rhymes with Osama.

[Phoenix Dark]

And his middle name is Hussein

[Cheebs]

Biden always has a tradition of messing up when he speaks. His 1988 presidential election was a complete joke. I expect the same in 08.

[PhoenixWright]

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Sounds more like a shot at Condoleeza Rice to me.

[Phoenix Dark]

Condi is very, VERY smart. That's why I'm so disappointed in her Bush administration antics

[Cheebs]

Condi is very, VERY smart. That's why I'm so disappointed in her Bush administration antics

There are a good deal of smart republicans that had bright futures in 2000 but now have no future. McCain, Condi, Powell...etc who all once seemed to have a bright future till Bush tainted them.

Powell the only one to escape in time.  :'(

Rather similar to when Nixon's slime tainted a lot of Republicans with potential.

[Tauntaun]

I would vote for Condi in a heartbeat, she is very smart.  It does seem like she's been held back by this administration though, the MAN if you will.  She needs to rise up and become America's nubian princess and reign for 5,000 years.

[Phoenix Dark]

Powell

While I understand that he's the type of "good soldier" who's been in the chain of command for decades, there comes a time when you have to put your country ahead of that chain.

But at least he tried his best in his last few years to combat Rummy

[Cheebs]

I would vote for Condi in a heartbeat, she is very smart.  It does seem like she's been held back by this administration though, the MAN if you will.  She needs to rise up and become America's nubian princess and reign for 5,000 years.

She is out of politics in 08. She couldn't win in 2008 though no matter what. The Bush hatred among the country is so absurdly widespread that anyone directly connected with it have no political future.


Bush is by no means the worst president or the worst president to hurt the party but he has damaged a political party more than any two term President in history. The word Republican alone brings up anger among citizens these days, this is not a good time for any Republican who hopes for a future.

[Tauntaun]

This is true.  Oh well, should be an interesting time though.  I really wondering what's going to happen with Iraq, I think that's the biggest thing on the mind of America.

[APF]

Hay guys whats goin on in this thread?

[Phoenix Dark]

The Republicans need to listen to Newt.

A complete transformation is needed. A republican needs to come out and say "hey Iraq was a bad idea. We need to be tough on terrorism and fight it, but Iraq wasn't the place." That would go over well with those hardcore conservatives who think the Republican's are the tough party.

Ditch Iraq mentally, and make Afghanistan a priority again. Call for pressure on Iran and NK. Those are areas where the Republicans should focus.

[Cheebs]

The Republicans need to listen to Newt.

A complete transformation is needed. A republican needs to come out and say "hey Iraq was a bad idea. We need to be tough on terrorism and fight it, but Iraq wasn't the place." That would go over well with those hardcore conservatives who think the Republican's are the tough party.

Ditch Iraq mentally, and make Afghanistan a priority again. Call for pressure on Iran and NK. Those are areas where the Republicans should focus.

It will happen but it won't happen in two years. Republicans finally had reality slap them in the face in 2006.

The GOP today is where Democrats were in 1980.

Carter fell apart and Reagan came in and stole a HUGE chunk of the democratic party and was winning every state but one including the extremely liberal ones.

It took the party 12 years to recoop themselves and pull themselves back. 

I hope it happens even though I am a progressive. I don't enjoy hating most republicans. I hope the party of Ike and Teddy can return in my life time.

[APF]

Republican discontent isn't entirely related to the Iraq war, though of course it would have been far better if the occupation/reconstruction phase was actually well-concieved and not the haphazzard mess it is now.  Much of the discontent has been due to a) not being able to implement policy, and b) lack of fiscal restraint; c) anger at high-profile corruption also plays a larger role than many would like to let on.

[FlameOfCallandor]

APF, the republican party now is not even recognizable. What happened to smaller government and personal responsibility. We have a president that doesn't know any of this, and the longer the republican party feigns innocence for letting this shit get out of hand the worse the parties perception becomes.

I mean, your party had 6 years to do whatever they want. WHATEVER THEY WANTED. They had a virtual blank check to make America a better place. We could have built high tech schools, hospitals; educated and trained the poor; invested in national infrastructure or the national parks system. We could have probably have gone to Mars! Instead what did the Republican party do? The pissed it away like a fucking child. Bitching and moaning about WMDs and shit that doesn't even exist. Anyone associated with the party should be downright ashamed!

[y2kev]

I can't wait to see Hilary's campaign. It's probably going to be one of the "hardest" in recent memory.

[APF]

First off, I'm an independent and a liberal moderate.

APF, the republican party now is not even recognizable. What happened to smaller government and personal responsibility.

Bush didn't run on smaller government per se, he ran on "compassionate conservatism," which is basically social conservatism mixed with fiscal uh... non-conservatism.  Bush and Rove capitalized on Evangelical support, mixed (in the last Pres. election) with post-9/11 and-then-Iraq-war anxiety over national security--not on his bonifides as a small-government Republican.  Does national security trump ideological purity?  In the words of most Republicans I know or read, "you think Kerry's gonna be better?"

The rest of your post is cute but I'll pass.

[FlameOfCallandor]

National security doesn't trump ideological purity.

[Cheebs]

I can't wait to see Hilary's campaign. It's probably going to be one of the "hardest" in recent memory.

Yeah. I don't think I heard anyone ever say they will "deck" their opponents. She is going to be one tough bitch.

It's almost funny that the most tough candidate the Democrats will have nominated since LBJ is a female if she gets nominated.

[APF]

National security doesn't trump ideological purity.

Perhaps part of why many Republicans sat out the past elections.

[APF]

It's almost funny that the most tough candidate the Democrats will have nominated since LBJ is a female if she gets nominated.

Instapundit constantly quotes a (speculative fiction) novel suggesting she was "the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States."

[non-edit edit: think this is the book]

[Cheebs]

I honestly don't see her doing a quick pullout of Iraq if she becomes president nor do I see her playing "nice" with Iran. Regardless what she may be saying. Much like FDR calling himself a isolationist and promising to not join the war but at the same time more or less preparing for it and expecting to get in.

I see Hillary being VERY tough foreign policy wise, a gut feeling you could say. I can easily see a future where a hillary presidency makes the Democratic party once again be the more "trigger happy" party getting involved in foreign affairs and the Iraq debacle turning the Republicans into a party in support of a almost isolationist view.

[BlueTsunami]

[Phoenix Dark]

(Image removed from quote.)

"NO"


"YES"


"LOL"

[futami]

the only way to combat this kind of affront to the truth, is to find the offender and put a bullet in his head.

traditional forms of protest, from columns to picketed news stations, does nothing but embolden these psychotics, offering them the publicity their duplicitous brand of journalism thrives on.

put a bullet in their head, and see how many them want to continue down that path.

[Saint Cornelius]

yeah, right. you might get blood on your jeans.

[APF]

I stopped reading this article riiight...

Most print journalists I know would expect the same thing; the legal ramifications alone of intentionally going to print with a story that missed by that much would guarantee that 80 cents out of every dollar you made for the next ten years would go to the victim of your libel. That's unless you're Tom Friedman and you can use congenital idiocy as a defense in court.

Here.  Don't lecture me about decorum and character assassination when you're collaterally-damaging Pulitzer Prize winners in like your second paragraph.

[futami]

I stopped reading this article riiight...

Most print journalists I know would expect the same thing; the legal ramifications alone of intentionally going to print with a story that missed by that much would guarantee that 80 cents out of every dollar you made for the next ten years would go to the victim of your libel. That's unless you're Tom Friedman and you can use congenital idiocy as a defense in court.

Here.  Don't lecture me about decorum and character assassination when you're collaterally-damaging Pulitzer Prize winners in like your second paragraph.

um, what was invidious about the tom friedman reference, and how does that translate into libelous disinformation?

i mean, if they had said "unless you're tom friendman and you can use your homosexuality as a defense in court," you might have a point (assuming he isn't a homosexual).

[APF]

OMG I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE LOL