Where Obama Would Have Us Go

Simply mindboggling! It's like the ending of the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", where the guy is screaming and noddy is listening. Are these "seed pods" of this administration spread to far to do anything about it?

A little OT but hey, it's my article:

Boggles the mind that Chavez & I agree on something.  Wonderland could not be more bizarre.

Ouch, Chavez just thru my whole "buddies with Obama" theory out the window with this. Gotta give the guy craedit though. When he's honest, he actually is.

As for the article. Did I read it right? Obama is trying to curve freedom of speech in the US?

Chavez probably believes he deserves the award!

I heard this weekend the best thing Obama could do, now that the deed is done. That would be to send a family (or family member) of a slain US soldier to Oslo to receive the award. The message would be clear...US troops (and other similar minded nations troops) are dying so that these high-brow elitists can sit back on their comfy chairs in freedom and pass judgment. Of course the president wouldn't dream of upsetting some of his biggest supporters, but it would be a huge shot in the arm for him here in the US. I suppose he can't be thinking about the people he is supposed to serve while he dreams of being president of the world.

Hmm, while I'm naturally skeptical and have a few questions about the bias/slant of the article, since it is the weekly standard - the thought of what they say Obama is doing, is very, very troubling.

If it's true, and he pushes the curtailing of speech - he'll have found a very stubborn and determined opponent, I promise that.

~AJ

Facts is facts.  Too many media 'sources' are unconcerned with them these days.

Bias is bias, and "sources," as well facts, images and video can be faked; welcome to the world of yellow journalism. So, like I said, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

~AJ

Pray tell - how are the facts in the linked article 'biased'?

I'm not implicitly saying they are,  but that they could be. Heck, technically I didn't say they're biased at all, I'm merely implying that things *can* be arranged to fit one's agenda. I even conceded that I could be wrong; however, right now, I'm not going to buy this hook, line, and sinker. This comes from knowing full well the power of the media and what it can do, has done, and will do - as well as could do. I'll read more about it and research more.

That being said - the bias comes from not the facts per se, but the presentation of the story - which is essentially what each news report is.

~AJ

AJ This is EXACTLY what I was speaking to you about in the other article. Your twisting the intent into something entirely different. Read the article/link if you feel it's biased in some way, post your response/proof/conflicting data and go from there. The only thing you've stated (the obvious) was that bias exists, and your not sure if it is driving this link. More personal theories. You should get into politics because nobody can get a direct response from you on the topic without going off on a tangent. You might call it idealism, but in this particular forum it's just a distraction.

"All we want are the fact's ma'am". - Sgt. Joe Friday

It's called cynicism and skepticism Nitro. Yeah, maybe I am way too much of both, but I'm not going to piss around the bush or lie - saying: "Yup, I think the article is accurate or not skewed." I just won't. I provided my opinion, and gave my reasons behind it, so there you go. Sorry if it's not to your liking, but oh well. Not like anyone hasn't not liked my comments that before.  >_> 

My original comment was implying that - not the facts - but the slant/intent/bias (and so on so forth) was what I was concerned about. The facts may be: Obama said XYZ. That's fine and dandy, but as I read the article - I realized that you could interpret it in multiple ways. 

In fact, I am going to mention something that has been on my mind: In this case, people are willing to acknowledge the fact that the weekly standard has it right. That they have the facts. Yet, I've heard time and again that news agencies like the NY Times, FoxNews, CNN, Msnbc, and so on so forth - are biased/liberal/elitistist, and so on. Fact is, the weekly standard is as much a journalistic venture as any of those are. They're bound by the same principles, and burdened by the same human faults. So I ask:

What makes one journalistic place any different from another? The writers are still biased, the facts/photos/etc. can still be adjusted to fit the desired story. A lot of things can be manipulated. 

Anyways, got that off my chest. 

No thanks, don't plan on running for office - I actually have a set of standards/morals thanks.  

\sarcasm  Apparently the new fad is to not be skeptical, use critical thinking, research, and take what you hear with a grain of salt...

~AJ

You did...sort of. You said the piece was bias because of the source. If you left it at that...no problem. But then you went off on a rant about bias... something that is subjective to the reader, and therefore dependent on them. This just seems to be a pattern for you. You feel the need to explain what doesn't need explanation. If someone needs more clarification they will ask for it. Give your readers the same credit you expect for yourself. That's all I'm saying to you, take the advice or don't.

Your doing fine on the first, not so sure on the second, and I'm just not seeing the third. Believe me with all that going on for you, the reader has no choice but to take what you say with a grain of salt. Skepticism is good, but saying something is bias in broad terns is a cop out. What parts of the article lead you to believe this? What is your source for unbiased news? Much better to show where the story is incorrect or flawed don't you think? Anyone can call any piece biased, that's not critical or thinking, and definitely not using research.

moving on...

Sorry for hijacking the topic Daiwa. I haven't heard anymore on this, but based on how much of the news is being buried these days I'm not surprised. Post any updates if you get them. 

Opinions about what people did (i.e. opinion versus rant) are also subjective Nitro; anything you read is subjective. To be fair, I'll try to take a look at it tonight (or tomrrow) when I have time; however, to be honet, I'm exhausted because of having to work on mass editing DuckU TV footage. I would've been done within 3 hours if the freaking computer, program and server had not crashed last night; I didn't finish until 4am this morning and I get up at 6 for class.(btw, that might be adding to my mood - so if i've been rude, mea culpa)

~AJ

As usual, the so-called mainstream media are ignoring it.  They're too busy making false accusations of racism against Limbaugh.

Yeah, I see them in a huff over Limbaugh trying to buy a football team. Typical of the left - pissed off that someone is willing to buy something in this economy. They feel they should the only ones spending cash (others at that) I suppose.

I can understand you not wanting to believe everything you read right off the bat. But maybe you could have made the attempt to prove or disprove the story before commenting rather than commenting how you think this may not be true just because of all the BS going around these days. Skeptisism is ok, but won't you try to relieve the skeptsism of something eventually by checking the info to see if they are fact or fiction? Why not do it before commenting and then giving a reply about the story itself as oppose to a general "i'm not sure if this is true or not" reply. That way you dont get the "explain how"questionand you also do what the article was meant to do, debate the topic, not what you or anyone else thinks about it's reliability before comfirming it.

Of course I will researching and such. Have I not shown that I put forth the effort to verify things. Hell, I've changed opinions on things and/or admitted that I was wrong after doing that. I've mentioned that/implied it many times just to Nitro. Now, if I'm not getting that across, then just look at what I said right off the bat in this reply.

It feels more like people are nitpicking and assuming when the facts support my looking into things. Not saying it's persecution or picking on or anything like that melodramatic crap - just pointless nitpicking and not sticking to the topic.

Honestly, it's annoying. The time and effort could have been spent on the topic.

By the way, thank you for taking a level headed and forthright approach.

~AJ

I think Obama means well and the Health Insurance Bill will be eventually passed and it will benefir lots of people.

I would like to see reform of health care because the entire system is become ridiculously unbalanced in favor of the hc companies; however, in the current form I would like to see it fail. In my opinion, they need to go back and start over. Do I think that will happen? Eh, not really.

~AJ

I disagree.  Obama is looking for control and a means to that end only.  As for benefitting a lot of people?  That is in the eye of the beholder.  Everyone today in the US has health care (it is already mandated by law).  What some do not have is insurance.  But insurance is a zero sum game.  if I pay $1000 for insurance and use $10,000, then others are paying the difference.  So it is with the current legislation.  In the end, it will benefit very few, tax most, and not accomplish much.  It does nothing to stem health care costs, and indeeds imposes restrictions to make it more expensive.

So why is Obama pushing it?  To gain more control.  It will do nothing for costs, and nothing for care.  it will drive up costs.

I wonder how many wars started, or people died because of good intentions. I wonder if the Inca's felt humbled by Spain's good intention of finding a new trade route to Asia? Please, just say no to "good intentions", they only benefit the intender.

I wonder how many religious people squash homosexual people's lives because of good intentions? Oh yeah, many. Like your logic says, say no to good intentions (of the anti-ssm religious).

~AJ

Not being religious, and don't hang in those circles so I wouldn't know. So, I only get privilege to see the uninvited homosexuals on my TV whining about why I should support their right to pack each others chutes and call it marriage. So much for good intentions.

What has 'unbalanced' our current system are the unintended consequences of previous efforts to regulate/mandate/control it.  We are now being asked to open wide & swallow a massive dose of hair of the dog.  Expecting that to 'fix' the problems caused by small, cumulative doses of dog hair is idiotic.

Reality is that 'fixing the system' is not what currently proposed legislation is about.  Dr. Guy is absolutely correct.  It's about gaining a stranglehold, no matter the details.  They care about the details only as they relate to getting 60 votes, not as to what they mean to your well-being or mine.

Like I said Daiwa, in its current form, I would like to see the bill fail. I want real reform, not crap.

Bullshit, those who have power will abuse it - corporations included. Can you honest, with a straight face, tell me that these insurance companies that increase their customers' costs, yet continually deny covering various serious health issues - not an abuse of power?

Wake up and smell the shit pile - corporations/business has just as big a negative human nature as government or people; there's no exception.

~AJ