"Can we just enjoy Obama for a moment? Before the policy choices have to be weighed and the hard decisions have to be made, can we just take a month or two to contemplate him the way we might contemplate a painting by Vermeer or a guitar lick by the early-seventies Rolling Stones or a Peyton Manning pass or any other astounding, ecstatic human achievement? Because twenty years from now, we're going to look back on this time as a glorious idyll in American politics, with a confident, intelligent, fascinating president riding the surge of his prodigious talents from triumph to triumph…. 'I am large, I contain multitudes,' Walt Whitman wrote, and Obama lives that lyrical prophecy…. Barack Obama is developing into what Hegel called a 'world-historical soul,' an embodiment of the spirit of the times. He is what we hope we can be." -- Esquire's Stephen Marche in a column for the magazine's August 11 issue, "How Can We Not Love Obama? Because Like It or Not, He Is All of Us."
Favorite Lib Logic Quote for the day!
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Favorite "conservative" quote of the day, from David Frum, former Bush administration official (coined the term "axis of evil") and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute:
************************
Extremism and conflict make for bad politics but great TV. Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segment—and its stars have become the true thought leaders of the conservative world. The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel). As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly in the Obama era. As journalism, not so much. As a tool of political mobilization, it backfires, by inciting followers to the point at which they force leaders into confrontations where everybody loses, like the summertime showdown over the debt ceiling.
But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy *errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action *phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”
************************
Extremism and conflict make for bad politics but great TV. Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segment—and its stars have become the true thought leaders of the conservative world. The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel). As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly in the Obama era. As journalism, not so much. As a tool of political mobilization, it backfires, by inciting followers to the point at which they force leaders into confrontations where everybody loses, like the summertime showdown over the debt ceiling.
But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy *errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action *phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”
What you just don't get is that Conservative leaders are SO successful because they filled the void left by the mainstream media which has covered the news and opinion with a left wing bias for the last fifty years. Rush started it by simply saying what is on the minds of Conservative people.
That's why left wing radio, in effect, doesn't exist, and MSNBC, etc. can't hold a candle to Fox's ratings.
You have no idea what it feels like, as an example, to go into a doctor's office a only have Time, News Week, etc. etc. with their highly biased reporting as the only thing there to read. Its an insult.
And, Jeff, by constantly repeating your mantra of these people forming our opinions, leading us into distrust, etc. etc. only shows how narrow your understanding of the Conservative mind is.
That's why left wing radio, in effect, doesn't exist, and MSNBC, etc. can't hold a candle to Fox's ratings.
You have no idea what it feels like, as an example, to go into a doctor's office a only have Time, News Week, etc. etc. with their highly biased reporting as the only thing there to read. Its an insult.
And, Jeff, by constantly repeating your mantra of these people forming our opinions, leading us into distrust, etc. etc. only shows how narrow your understanding of the Conservative mind is.
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Thinking about how one's statement sounds to the objective listener is a valuable skill for any speaker. Complaining about the very thing one practices, says more than the postings themselves.
Last edited:
What are you trying to say here? You've changed my quote and then babble about what objective listeners hear.
As far as what I'm complaining about, I'm trying to explain that before the internet and talk radio, there was no "other side" to the argument.
Your editing of my statement seems to say a lot about your posting as well.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
The point of this quote was that it isn't just "my mantra," it's that reasonable Republicans are also starting to realize the same thing.
When a guy like Frum realizes that the "industry of consevative media" has created an alternative reality with its own history and economics, then guys like you should really start to wonder about a lot of the crap information you absorb on a daily basis from these outlets. It's unhealthy. Seriously.
When a guy like Frum realizes that the "industry of consevative media" has created an alternative reality with its own history and economics, then guys like you should really start to wonder about a lot of the crap information you absorb on a daily basis from these outlets. It's unhealthy. Seriously.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
There certainly always was "another side" to the news. To begin, there wasn't "sides" to the TV news. Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Roger Mudd, others tried to be objective as possible in reporting.
Papers? Their op/ed pages certainly had a political slant. Some papers were liberal, and some conservative.
Opinion TV/radio? Existed on both sides. William F. Buckley's Firing Line was a great show.
The idea that a void existed of real information that had to be filled by crap like Rush -- which is not and never has been "news" -- is a total and complete myth. Listening to Rush or Hannity or Beck for entertainment is fine. Listening to them for facts and for "news" is poisoning your mind. And yes the same is true for the equivalent on the left -- O'Donnell, Maddow, Olberman, etc.
Papers? Their op/ed pages certainly had a political slant. Some papers were liberal, and some conservative.
Opinion TV/radio? Existed on both sides. William F. Buckley's Firing Line was a great show.
The idea that a void existed of real information that had to be filled by crap like Rush -- which is not and never has been "news" -- is a total and complete myth. Listening to Rush or Hannity or Beck for entertainment is fine. Listening to them for facts and for "news" is poisoning your mind. And yes the same is true for the equivalent on the left -- O'Donnell, Maddow, Olberman, etc.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff
The reason liberal biased "new" shows are uncucessful is purly because liberals tend to be better educated and smarter, they see that liberal "news" just like Fox "news" slants the truth and they do not watch.
A real "news" program gives you the "NEWS" and lets the viewer decide what it means.
When Fox "news" gives only one side to a story and then tells you what to think, that is brain washing and they are very good at it.
Just look how the poor miss informed consevatives come here day after day and regurgitate that missinformation it here, just like it was real "news".
They don't even realise that they are being lied to and manipulated. So very sad.
The reason liberal biased "new" shows are uncucessful is purly because liberals tend to be better educated and smarter, they see that liberal "news" just like Fox "news" slants the truth and they do not watch.
A real "news" program gives you the "NEWS" and lets the viewer decide what it means.
When Fox "news" gives only one side to a story and then tells you what to think, that is brain washing and they are very good at it.
Just look how the poor miss informed consevatives come here day after day and regurgitate that missinformation it here, just like it was real "news".
They don't even realise that they are being lied to and manipulated. So very sad.
While I don't subscribe to Fox News' TV channel here in Europe, I can say that it provides a far more accurate assessment of the news than does anything else. The BBC supports your side Jim. Some say it is unbiased, but it does represent the view of the UK government. And that includes global warming.
I disagree with your statement about Fox News.
Such it is to be led by the conservatives to "drink the kool-aid", Jim! Total, blind trust, just b/c they want Obama out of the White House they will believe ANYTHING their political "pundits" have to say.
As you say, sad indeed!!
Cheers!
Doug
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Dom,
I know that you are not here in the US, but I have a question for you.
If a person gets most to all their "information" from Fox and other conservative "news" outlets, would they be considered to be.......
WELL INFORMED?
Would they really be in a position to fairly discuss the news of the day?
I know that you are not here in the US, but I have a question for you.
If a person gets most to all their "information" from Fox and other conservative "news" outlets, would they be considered to be.......
WELL INFORMED?
Would they really be in a position to fairly discuss the news of the day?
The well known arrogance of liberals for all to see.
They've all been immersed in left wing propaganda from the cradle, and they'll still be there to the grave, knowing it better than anyone else.
They've all been immersed in left wing propaganda from the cradle, and they'll still be there to the grave, knowing it better than anyone else.
If you have one guy that says our economy is booming, and that our current president is uniting us and doing a bang up job....and then you have another guy that says our economy sucks and our current president has divided us as a nation further than before, and overall doing a crap job..
One of these two guys are misinformed..
One of these two guys are misinformed..
Domtoni,
If as you say the BBC represents the view of the UK government, how on earth can it support Jim's side when we have a Conservative government in the UK.
Unless of course you know something I don't and Jim is a closet Conservative, Lonsesome Bob is a closet Liberal white is black and I'm going to get run over on the next Zebra crossing.
Craig,
You will find two guys saying exactly the same in the UK which again has a Conservative government.
Which only goes to prove “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
I'm afraid the the brainwashing is complete. After there folks receive a steady diet of Fox news, any News that tries to be objective (you know tells both sides), any News that does not continually bash Obama and the left appears to them to be "biased".
Let me ask a few questions..........
If someone got all their "news" from MSNBC and Keith Oberman would you consider them to be "well informed"?
If someone got all their "news" from MSNBC and Keith Oberman would you think them able to knowlagebly discuss the "news" of the day?
If someone got all their "news" from MSNBC and Keith Oberman made the statement that ABC, CBS, NPR and the other main stream news outlets were "RIGHT WING" what would you say?
Let me ask a few questions..........
If someone got all their "news" from MSNBC and Keith Oberman would you consider them to be "well informed"?
If someone got all their "news" from MSNBC and Keith Oberman would you think them able to knowlagebly discuss the "news" of the day?
If someone got all their "news" from MSNBC and Keith Oberman made the statement that ABC, CBS, NPR and the other main stream news outlets were "RIGHT WING" what would you say?
Last edited:
A prime example of the bias of "real news" outlets is the lack of a vetting process for B. O.
We know more about even the most obscure Republican candidate at this point in the process than we know today about the POTUS after three years in office.
We know more about even the most obscure Republican candidate at this point in the process than we know today about the POTUS after three years in office.
Exactly....it's about the stories that are pushed and the stories that are ignored...
The utter arrogance extends to the fact that these liberal wise men take it as a fact that Fox news is our only source of information.
Quite an assumption there. If you were to go through the hundreds of links I've posted here, I doubt you'd find more than one or two coming from Fox.
By saying "the brainwashing is complete," Jim, you are correct. And its you and your group of self deluded libs who are stumbling in the dark.
Quite an assumption there. If you were to go through the hundreds of links I've posted here, I doubt you'd find more than one or two coming from Fox.
By saying "the brainwashing is complete," Jim, you are correct. And its you and your group of self deluded libs who are stumbling in the dark.
That's why The Drudge Report now controls the news cycle. He finds the stories the "real news" has to report, but buries on page 13, section B and brings it to the "top of the fold" on his site.
Here's a guy that doesn't print a word of his own, being called a misleading yellow journalist, the favorite tactic of a liberal agenda with no honest ground to stand on.
Nick, the bureaucracies don't change with the current administration. They go on and they are liberal here.
A prime example of that in the US was the revelation of the openly Communists in the federal bureaucracy installed by the Roosevelt administration. When one would be found in, lets say Dept. of State, they would resign and be reinstated in another, such as the Dept. of Interior . They never went away, and this has been throughly document with congressional records.
A prime example of that in the US was the revelation of the openly Communists in the federal bureaucracy installed by the Roosevelt administration. When one would be found in, lets say Dept. of State, they would resign and be reinstated in another, such as the Dept. of Interior . They never went away, and this has been throughly document with congressional records.
