»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Freedom of the Press
| The Alley |
|
Freedom of the Press |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
If you don't like the questions, freeze them out. That seems to be Obama's method of operation. I'll bet we can now expect this news anchor to be subjected to the same "vetting" as was Joe the Plumber, unlike what was done on Obama himself, of course. What a disgrace. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Obama wasn’t vetted? That’s absolutely unbelievable Denise, I’m totally shocked that in these security conscious times your current government has allowed an un-vetted candidate to possibly attain the highest office. Which bozo allowed this disgraceful lapse in your country's security? I mean it’s pretty basic stuff surely someone somewhere is responsible for checking out potential candidates. If you’re right the whole of the American intelligence system is open to question, does Bush know about this? Do you think this could go all the way to the top? Is this perhaps a conspiracy to overthrow the free world? OMG! Can you supply me some evidence to verify this? Oh! And thanks for bring this to our attention - I had no idea. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Obama has NEVER been asked the hard questions. See what Biden did when confronted with it? Chicken-shirt! Notice Obama's reaction? "Yeah, I'm with you, Joe. Don't answer it!" (paraphrased) As he resurfaces in the news, another Biden gaffe. Anyone got a spare muzzle? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He wasn't vetted in the mainstream news media as was Joe the Plumber and now how this news anchor will be. But how can someone be vetted by the media if when they try to ask the tough questions, they are blacklisted? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Denise or Grinch, I have to admit: all this 'vetting' discussion just goes over my head. Who cares who vetted who? I'm just not getting what the hub bub is about. Can you enlighten me on what the debate is really over? Help! jf |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Blacklisted like Dowd and Klein were by McCain. Is that what you mean? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think Denise is trying to suggest that not wanting to be interviewed by someone who’s idea of an intelligent question is “how is Obama not a Marxist?” somehow erodes the freedom of the press. The easy answer is it doesn’t, the press is free to say pretty much what they want, including false claims of voter registration, accusations of Marxist philosophy and references to Joe the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker. They still have that right and Biden, McCain, Palin and Obama have the right to ignore them. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My point, Jeff, is that more digging has been done by the MSM into the backgrounds of people who dare to question their candidate, than they have done on the candidate himself. Shutting out an entire news organization at least until after the election, is a bit more extreme than choosing not to interview with a particular interviewer from within a news organization. I don't see anything unfair with her questions, Grinch. Obama's "spreading the wealth" philosophy is no different a philosophy than that of Karl Marx, as far as I can see. If you think it is, please enlighten me as to how it is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, this is nothing new. Obama will not deal with reporters or stations that are not favorable to him with easy questions and will not demand answers to questions he wants to avoid. The only exception was his appearance on Bill O' Reilly, which didn't turn out well for him at all. Try to pin him or Biden down and you're gone. My imagination? A friend sent me this political cartoon from Australia. Apparently they are aware of these facts more than democrats.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I like these political cartoons you have been coming across, Michael! They are quite pithy!  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, A Marxist is someone who espouses the fundamental necessity to move from a capitalist society to a wholly communist society, by force if necessary. As laid out by Carl Marx. Calling somebody a Marxist is exactly the same as calling them a communist - do you honestly think that Obama is a communist? Obama’s suggestion of a redistribution of wealth through taxation isn’t a Communist or Marxist idea, the closest you could claim would be that it’s Marxian - it bears a similarity to one of the tenets of Marxist economic thinking. Before you jump all over that though you need to realise that capitalism is littered with Marxian processes, which isn’t surprising given that that’s exactly where Marx got them from in the first place. Every candidate, every former President and every economist deals, day in day out, with processes that can be deemed Marxian ideas. Obama is as Marxist as John McCain - that is - not at all, but they both utilise processes that could be deemed Marxian. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Thanks guys for the explanation of the post, but my question was more of: what is the 'vetting' deal? What exactly does it mean, and why is dragged into conversations all time, politically? Well, Mike, as far as your cartoon goes: it was very obvious that the Dem's stacked the deck with moderate to liberal debate moderators. There was not ONE overtly conservative moderator allowed in the debate. CNN just canned Glen Beck, and their only conservative on their network. That's their attempt at 'fair and balanced' commenting. Fox takes alot of heat for their conservative commentators, but in actuality, it's the ONLY network that puts them on. MSNBC relegates Joe Scarbourough to morning with a goofy co-anchor, Tucker Carlson is gone, Glen Beck is gone, Rachel Maddow was added to MSNBC and CNN cancelled their only moderate-to conservative voice. I won't even comment on Lou Dobbs and what he is. *smile* The major networks: CBS, ABC, and NBC are ALL accused of liberal viewpoints consistently by their overcoverage of Obama, their overcoverage of the dilemmas in past-Iraq dilemmas, and NO coverage of the success of the battle. Speaking of which: since things ARE going well in Iraq, it has DISAPPEARED as a news topic for over three weeks!! Good news, to ABC/CBS/NBC is obviously NO news. I don't get it...We have a winning 'football' team, and the papers/networks only cover the 'losses.' No mention of the wins. Inexplicable. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No idea, Denise brought it up: quote: Personally my guess is that Obama was vetted before being accepted as a candidate, I suspect fairly rigorously, I’ve also a sneaky suspicion that if he was a terrorist, Marxist or a Communist we’d have heard about it. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Her loaded question toward Obama being a Marxist shows she didn't do her homework. Biden answered smart for a change. He's getting better looking by the minute. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not inexplicable at all, Tbear. To actually print some good news about the situation in Iraq, of which there is PLENTY, the press and the democrats are concerned that someone that may reflect as a positive for either Bush or the republicans. They certainly don't want that. I remember the time on the ABC morning news that the anchorman said, "There is no news from Iraq to report. No soldiers killed or no acts of terrorism to report." Good grief! That IS news! that's good news. Unfortunately, to the liberal press, good news is treated as no news....that's their modus operandi. Sad thing is that Democrats know this is happening and they go along with it. For a country that has had no good news for eight years (according to the press), I have no doubt there will be a plethora of wonderful news the day after Obama takes control....an amazing transformation will occur. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He was vetted as far as the Dems wanted to go in vetting him, Grinch, but not at all by the main stream media. His background and associations would eliminate anyone but him, it seems, from any position requiring a high level security clearance in this country. Marxism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, so if and until he takes us all the way to communism, I'll just call him a Marxist for the time being. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Here are the six questions. Below them are what I would have said: quote: Been there, done that. Where have you been the last month, Ma'am? quote: [smiling]Okay, you haven't done any homework for this interview, have you? quote: Political blunder? Have you seen the polls? quote: Is that a joke? Oh wait, that's what Biden said. quote: Huh? quote: The last Swede I talked to was quite happy living in America. She wanted to stay there in fact. Maybe we should listen to the Swedes more often. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Are you saying that the Bush government hasn’t checked out Obama’s background? Back to my original comment, if that’s true then someone should be accountable - who’s responsible for the security of your nation? Is it the media? BTW Marxism isn’t an intermediary position, it’s a communist philosophy that suggests that a move from capitalism to communism could be achieved by an intermediary step. Marxism is the method of system analysis and the ideology to attain a communist society or movement. It’s also a label attached to people who believe in, and promote the transformation process to communism. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Democratic Party is responsible for vetting their own candidates, not the Bush Administration. Apparently their standards for a candidate are not as strict as those for an FBI field agent. He wouldn't even pass the background check for police officer in most cities. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, It is a funny cartoon. Out of curiosity, is it from a Murdoch-owned Newspaper in Australia? That's where he got his start, as you remember. You know, the guy who owns Fox News? Isn't it funny how they might know about American politics over there? Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why would it be funny they know about American politics in Australia, Bob? Do you consider them stupid or merely uninformed? According to ron and Grinch, the entire world focuses on American politics because, as we go, so goes the world. Why should the Austrailians also not be concerned? Or are you just saying they obviously shouldn't know much about American politics because the cartoons lean more toward the right than the left. Perhaps you feel that shows a certain ignorance on their part, I don't know. Here's another one...  Seems like thay have a pretty good handle on eit to me.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A bit reminiscent of Vietnam, I'd say. If Obama had his way we would have left Iraq in defeat already. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting video on tv tonight of a dummy dressed as Sarah Palin with a noose around her neck handing from a house in Hollywood. It was on Fox, of course. I didn't see it on any other station, although they may be forced to pick it up. Can anyone even imagine what would have happened if that had been a dummy of Obama with a noose around his neck? It would have been the lead in to every news broadcast, protests would be coming from every black Jesse Jackson type in the country, and rioting in the streets would not be out of the realm of possibility. Since it was Palin, it's barely worth a mention from the "unbiased" press. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, It was a funny cartoon, Mike. So is this one. Both are well drawn, both are pointed. I don't have to like the politics to like the cartoon. quote: The above attributes thoughts and feelings to me about Australians that leave me perplexed. What I did ask you was if the newspaper that printed them, whose name I could not make out and who, by rights, should have been credited if you were going to use their work for reproduction in the same way you would credit the author of a book, article or poem, was owned by Rupert Murdoch. While I do believe that many folks are interested in U.S. policy and actions, I felt that the the funny cartoon felt a bit like it was trying to make a pretty internal U.S. point. And that sort of thing felt to me a bit like a put up job. If I knew whether the Newspaper was owned by Rupert Murdoch, I'd have a much better sense of that. I'd expect it in that case to echo and build in the Fox TV point of view, and I'd find it considerably less meaningful than if it weren't a Murdoch connected paper. It's like the way the CIA evaluates information by levels of dependability and significance. Not related to Murdoch: More significant because it is an independent thing. Related to Murdoch: No so significant. It's probably part of a campaign organized by Murdoch to further his private political agenda. When I asked you in my last posting, you were apparently rendered apoplectic. Not my intention. I simply wanted to see what significance I might usefully read from the cartoon in addition to its humor. I also might want to follow further cartoons by this cartoonist, whose name I can't make out, but whose work is charming. Murdoch Paper or not Murdoch Paper, That is the question! Yours, sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Bob, I don't know which paper they were displayed in. What I do know is the their meaning is one that many Americans can relate to. Behind the humor, they are not inaccurate and can be backed by facts. That is probably one reason why they would bother a liberal. as far as the "shoot the messenger" game plan goes, I can't see that it would matter. The message is what counts. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have found the artist of the cartoons.. Michael Ramirez is the Editorial Cartoonist and a Senior Editor for Investor's Business Daily. Ramirez is a Lincoln Fellow and has won several awards during his career, including the 2008 and 1994 Pulitzer Prize, the UCI Medal from the University of California, Irvine and the Sigma Delta Chi Awards in 1995 and 1997. Ramirez was named "Best Editorial Cartoonist 2006" by the National Cartoonists Society, and won the prestigious 2008 John Fischetti Editorial Cartoon Competition. Previously, Ramirez has been the editorial cartoonist of the Los Angeles Times, the Commercial Appeal and USA Today, and is nationally syndicated in over 450 newspapers around the world. So much for that mystery. No luck on finding which Australian papers carried them. Now you will be able to keep up with his latest endeavors, Bob. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
