Have they been smearing her? Oh, good. Considering how corrupt and ignorant she is, that's a good thing. I mean, anyone who thinks Dinosaurs walked the earth 4000 years ago should not be VP.
Palin fought corruption in her own state, which, need I remind you, was dominated by Republicans. Obama was a Chicago Daley Machine hack. Obama didn't fight corruption, he made deals with it. Tony Rezko, convicted felon, was his real estate agent.
As for your ludicrous Dinosaur claim, did you rip that straight from DailyKos or is that just your imagination running wild again?
As usual, you have a knack for making absurd and unsubstantiated claims (Deck and I go way back). Who are these 'leftists'? Are you referring to centrist Democrats? Where is any evidence?
Yes. Totally. Unsubstantiated. Rumors. About. Left Wing. Hatred of Sarah Palin's being.
I submit I lost here, as I was not able to find a unique link for each word in the previous sentence. It appears the upper limit on blatant bias/hatred is 6 articles. There are the more subtle snipes at her unseriousness due to her being physically attractive, but I honestly don't think people searching for incriminating bikini photos counts as hatred as much as lust.
It couldn't possibly be that they disagree with her politics or find her unfit for being VP. Or maybe find her 'family values' stance hypocritical due to her corruption in Alaska and the fact that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock (personally, I don't care. No leftists I know care, either. They simply see her as a hypocrite).
The day I hear someone say "her contraception failed, therefore comprehensive sex education is a categorical failure" is the day I'll put any stock against abstinence education. As it stands, you will never become pregnant if you remain abstinent, but stories of "safe" sex failing to prevent pregnancy are legion. Rape is a non-sequiter, as rapists do not tend to use protection. Leftists expected the "right wing," e.g. people like me, to turn on Sarah Palin. We didn't because we realize that parents only have limited control over their teenagers, and teenagers have a habit of making mistakes. Sarah Palin is no more a hypocrite for her daughter getting pregnant than would Obama be if his hypothetical teenage daughter got pregnant.
Leftists do not think we are capable of this nuance. A Leftist's view of the Right Wing is as a demonic caricature, not as a real person. Why else would the pregnancy of a minor be front page news in America's "Paper of Record?"
Going back to the above: If Obama had a teenage daughter who used contraception and still got pregnant, would it be cited as just another example of the categorical failure of comprehensive sex-ed? You and I both know the answer is no. It is no because "safe" sex is a multi-billion dollar industry whereas willpower is essentially free. Somebody makes money off of pills, condoms, mouth guards, etc, and its in their interest to keep selling those things. The people that make money off those products are wholly linked and merged with Big Abortion. When their products fail, as they inevitably do, as all things which fight against the very nature of biology, abortion is there to step in.
But that is enough for now, onto the rest of your concerns.
But, no. It's not any of that, it's that "leftists" hate "minority and female conservatives".
Oh, there are some people that oppose her because of her positions. But they aren't in the media. Call me when the NYT runs a front page story about Barack Obama's dubious associations. I'm counting 1 large hit piece on Palin and nothing but kisses and adulation for the big O.
For comparison:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...tml?query=OBAMA, BARACK&field=per&match=exact
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/sarah_palin/index.html
I note with particular interest the NYT managed to interview the 25% of people in Alaska who are not satisfied with Palin for their interviews, and yet they merely repeat the Barack Obama Campaign's talking points about Ayers simply being a guy in Obama's neighborhood.
The press sent dozens way up to Wasilla to gather every last negative opinion of Palin they could, and yet they could not be bothered to check Obama's associations from their Chicago office?
Fox News is extremely right-wing, and all news networks are centrist at best. Unlike you, I can present proof. All news networks are owned by large corporations. Corporations whose profit margins would be undermined if not outright destroyed if they actually were 'leftist' and called for progressive changes in society. Clearly, they're not so stupid as to be self-destructive.
George Soros is a billionaire socialist. He is very comfortable throwing money around to lost liberal causes like Air America. Moreover, your "proof" is a logical algorithm loosely translated as follows:
Corporations are rich
Rich entities cannot be left-wing
Therefore, corporations must be right-wing.
I, however, have this
study.
Pictures:
Read the whole thing, of course. But as I said, Fox News is only "extreme right wing" in relation to the other networks. This is just 2008 election data, I'll need to scrounge around more for data over a longer time period, but basically Fox plays it mostly down the middle. This should amply answer your queries on media bias and coverage.
BTW, can you actually *define* socialist other than by using a non-answer like 'Russia' or 'something I don't like'? Can you do so in an objective way?
Socialist: Any person who believes government should have as much control over economic and personal decisions as possible. Thus, a socialist policy will seek to nationalize all industries, especially those inextricably linked to health, safety, and well-being: e.g. Energy, Health Care, Finance, and Social Services.
You're exactly right, here. Democrats can't offer any real changes because they are simply in the pockets of capitalists. The only difference is that Democrats are sometimes slightly liberal on social issues. Clinton, for example, was liberal on social issues, but was as far right as Reagan when it came to the economy.
Democrats are in the pocket of socialist groups that support expanded government social services. Pro-Abortion groups want government provided daycare, for example.The Sodomy lobby is easily bought with promises of forced acceptance for their sexual preferences, in exchange for government being able to define marriage as it sees fit. Labor Bosses are currently trying to remove secret balloting because unions are now more about securing kickbacks than opposing bad labor conditions.
Oh, and while we're at it, can you define "capitalist" outside of "republicans" or "corporations" or "something I don't like?"
I think she turns off people who actual want to have a competent leader.
Obama has never shown any inclination towards competence. He can't even command the English language when removed from a teleprompter.
Deck, it's your choice, of course, but Palin really isn't very bright. She is not even aware of what the Bush Doctrine is, which I know is something you probably know/agree with. There is some reason to believe she is rather corrupt and ineffectual at keeping crime down (she was mayor of the meth capital of Alaska, for example).
Obama was State Senator and then U.S. Senator representing the most corrupt Political Machine in the country. You're not seriously going to compare Chicago's crime, corruption, and violence levels to Wasilla, Alaska, are you? Chicago is probably simultaneously the crystal meth, crack, weed, and PCP capital of Illinois. Obama did a great job organizing that community; they appear to be living in the same shoddy tenements as before. That's Change you can Hope for, but, of course, will never receive.
Now, Define the Bush Doctrine. And no, do not use "pre-emptive war for oil." If you want to know what it is, I recommend asking
Charles Krauthammer.
Krauthammer said:
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
[..]
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
I support fighting terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. This does not mean we need to send the US Army and Marines everywhere, it means we must oust terrorist supporting states when possible and work with democratic countries to fight the terrorist cells in their nations. The US cannot reasonably invade everywhere, but they don't need to if terrorists have no refuge anywhere on earth.
How is he awesome on foreign policy and the war on terror? In my opinion, his only decent stance - being against torture - evaporated in order to fit his party line.
Please tell me how a man literally maimed in a war is a warmonger. Fact is, McCain got the Georgia-Russia conflict right instantly, Obama took 3 days to reach a carbon copy of John McCain's first position. McCain knows a KGB man like Putin when he sees him. He was also railing against government excesses with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, before, amazingly, Election 2008 even started.
And before you defend torture, it's simply an ineffective tactic for ANYTHING. People will tell you what they think you want to hear. It's simply a terror weapon - terrorism, basically. In a war like this, where you can't intimidate the enemy, that only backfires and makes more people want to fight you.
The United States has used torture exactly three times since Sept. 11th to obtain information, all of which were before the Iraq war. The incidents at Abu Ghraib were deplorable and those responsible were punished. They violated the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And here is a fun one Cuchonchuir: Define torture. then explain to me how I support torture under your definition of torture, citing examples of things I have written.
If you really wanted to win the "war on terror" (which I think is a farce to begin with), you'd not do it by being brutal to your enemies. You'd do it by treating them extremely nicely; make prison camps a paradise. It would completely undercut the arguments used by the enemy in saying we are devils. If you converted captured enemy combatants to your side, you could win easily. This is called 'winning a battle and becoming stronger'. It's one of the oldest tactics used by generals who actually win wars and battles.
Terrorists do not value their lives. Their sole goal is to kill you in the name of Allah. Giving them creature comforts will not placate them. They will eat your meal, thank you graciously, and then detonate their suicide vest. You cannot reason with the unreasonable; the only thing they understand is raw, total obliteration. Yours is the policy of Neville Chamberlain. How did that work out? Did we achieve "peace in our time?" Did Hitler come to his senses and realize Britain and France really only wanted to be friends, and that he should stop running over Poles and Slovaks and Russians with tanks?
BTW, Deck, your signature is funny since the worst murderers in history were, by far, capitalists.
Adolf Hitler, Bennito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi-Minh, Pol-Pot, and Mao-Tse-Tung: Ardent Capitalists, them. I believe their combined death toll is somewhere around 5% of current world population. Mao killed more Chinese people under his rule than in all of China's recorded history. Pretty sure Uncle Joe did the same for Russians. Hitler was smart enough to know that you throw in Nationalism with Socialism, so that you end up with less dead Germans and more dead everyone else. Ironically, he was actually the first of the atheistic socialist leaders. I suppose there were also elements of corporatism in there, but corporatism isn't capitalism.
You may continue to live in fantasy, but so far the worst thing stupid capitalists have done is make stupid decisions with inherently crappy financial instruments. The net effect this has had on America is that poverty is defined as living and eating indoors and having only one vehicle. Compare this with socialist countries, where the definition of poverty is dead in a street with a jackbooted thug standing over your corpse (poor socialism ala North Korea) or double-digit unemployment, inability to project power or defend against a real threat, and faceless bureaucracies that view your life as a series of expenses instead of something with intrinsic value (rich socialism ala The Netherlands, and soon Britain).
I do believe I remember you Cuchonchuir, but it was quite a while ago, and I'm about as impressed now as I was then, which is not very.
