BlueWolf

...sounds like 90% of the liberal Left-wing mainstream media, obsessed with Obama, and before that obsessed with Obama versus Hillary, and soon to be obsessed with who will be Obama's running mate; no longer even paying lip service to the concept of balanced objective journalism, singularly disinterested in McCain, or in fact the entire Republican half of the story, and, presumably, failing to prepare themselves in any way for the shock of incomprehension when the Democrats lose, as it has been obvious to most of us they are going to, for some considerable time.

chuks

"Reality Disconnect" has been actuated, I think. The Democrats have gone for a high-risk strategy with Obama, given his obvious negatives (lack of experience, close ties to a mad, racist preacher, exotic background, fairly unattractive lady wife in terms of not showing up bearing a tray of fresh-baked cookies or else wearing a "do-rag" and making like Aunt Jemimah) and now they are persuading themselves that this is going to carry the day in the name of "Change."

Well, it might work! I remember when Kennedy got in despite being a Catholic, when the States was a very different place in terms of accepting diversity. Back then being a Roman Catholic was further out than having this race-baiting Wright character as your spiritual advisor is today.

It almost proves the maxim that the more things change the more they remain the same. Then it was Kennedy's supposed allegiance to the Pope and today it is Obama's supposed allegiance to race-based preaching.

Of course the first thing with leftist liberals is that there is no such thing as black racism but only white racism so that whatever Wright said, well, that has to be placed into context, same as reading Mein Kampf used to be. Then, even if some primitives might still think it's racism, even coming from a black man, Obama has repudiated that the very moment he noticed what he had been listening to there in church for the last few (how many?) years. So that is okay then.

Reporters are human too. Well, not really, most of them, but I guess they share human emotions or at least retail them, and here they seem to have picked up on the idea of Obama as something more interesting and attractive to sell compared to McCain.

Okay, McCain was a war hero but that doesn't push too many buttons for most folks nowadays, especially given how few of us in the main demographic ended up in Viet Nam in percentage terms. If anything the message might be that this guy did the "Duty, Honor, Country" thing for real when most of us didn't even give it lip service so that his heroism might be a negative in a weird sort of way.

Too, that was then and this is now, when McCain looks very much like just another pol. Obama really is just another pol but there are enough angles on the guy to make him very intriguing to the reptiles, something they can run with to get air time and sell articles. If this were two conventional pols in terms of image then the race might be a real snooze-fest.

If they can nail this news crew on the alleged lie of skewing the results of asking the troops who they were for, well, that should make news in itself. Assuming that some other newspeople wish to rat out their colleagues, of course!

brickhistory

BBC World reporter last night covering Obama in Afghanistan:


"He's not the American head of state, not yet anyway, but Barack Obama met with the leader of Afghanistan......."




Of course, should Obama lose the election, it will strictly be due to his race. Especially according to the foreign press and I am betting here on JB.

Not his lack of experience or policies with any substance. Or his stance on anything being undiscovered.

Americans are still racist, don't ya know.

ORAC

G-AWZK

You will never accept the error of your ways. It has never happened yet.

I'll support Binos on this one. There is no point trying to introduce an opposing viewpoint, it simply will not be listened to - regardless of it's validity.

If Obama does lose this election, it will be because it has been fixed again, not because of his skin colour. There are signififcant questions on the quality of the voting system in the US, but noone seems to be interested discussing them. If you want to know more read Greg Palast's latest book.

I fully expect the usual piling in and right wing sledging. It matters little, you guys have given us the measure of your intellect and arrogant disregard for anyone elses opinion.

BTW has anyone found any WMD's in Iraq yet?

vapilot2004

That implies an earlier fixed election? Nothing I recall. There was a bit of trouble down in Florida a while ago, but the folks in the black robes got that all neatly sorted.

There are too many people involved for a nationwide election fix to be successful. To put a proper whammy on Obammy or the good Senator from Arizona would require some sort of electrickery election box that sees no evil and spits no paper.

G-AWZK

brickhistory

Yet your opinion is valid because...?

I see. Reasoned debate at its finest.


I think two of the main differences between those who lean right on JB and those who go left is 1) civility and 2) we're (me anyway) not trying to convince you to change. We (me) accept you for your beliefs. We (me) disagree with you, but have no heartburn with you believing so. We (me) wonder why the same courtesy isn't extended.

Finally, regarding your 'fixed' election theory, who 'fixed' it? Name names and institutions. How do 'they' rig it? How do 'they' keep it under wraps?

Using the Rolling Stone article (hmm, Rolling Stone as a reference?) as your basis for your belief, how come none of the other networks or major news organizations, even the BBC, have not pursued this? If this is true, it would make Watergate seem a tea party. Yet the Democrats aren't baying for impeachment (Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich aside). Why is that?

Interesting that you already think it's a lost cause for Obama. And the reason is nefarious not a genuine difference of opinion on what he stands for.

What is that anyway?

G-AWZK

My opinion is as valid as yours. You, sir, are just as guilty of the one line slap 'em downs as anyone.

You have to be kidding me! Are you seriously trying to say that anyone (in your opinion) who is a left winger is not civil and that all you polite neo-cons are such nice people? Really?

At the end of the day, this is an insignificant tiny corner of the internet that has no influence on anyone's political viewpoint. It may however strengthen already held stereotypes.

The BBC made significant amounts of airtime to this subject in the wake of the 2000 and the 2004 elections. Why the US networks did not make any issue over this is to me any way, a mystery. On the other hand, the US media were only too eager to propogate the lies about WMD's and the link between 9/11 and Iraq. Maybe you can explain that one to me? Why have there been no moves to impeach on the basis of the reasons given for the Iraq invasion?

The extreme differences between the exit polls and the final results were way to wide to be coincidence. It is an issue that should have been followed up, in the same way the US government demanded an investigation into the Ukranian elections based on the variances between exit polls and final results.

I did not even come close to implying that, try reading what I write instead of stuffing words in my mouth.

brickhistory

Absolutely your opinion is as valid. But when you write

and

it does seem to imply otherwise about your view of mine.

Almost always in self-defense. I don't like starting a flame session, but I will respond.

Nope. I said the main differences between most right and left is civility. You illustrate my point beautifully and I thank you.

Ok, they devoted airtime. Did they/do they find institutions and names that broke the law? If so, why no further reporting? Why do they not keep beating that drum? I'm sure if there were something to it, the Democrats would be happy to pursue the matter. Yet, only crickets do I hear chirping on this.

Actually, the US media did give significant air and print space to all of this. But then actually finding proof and concrete facts that would hold up seemed to be lacking.

Because there is an important distinction between being wrong and being illegal. Only one can get a US official impeached.

So the media is infallible? You refuted that in your previous point about WMDs and the media's gullibility.

Sorry, must have misunderstood

I refer the gentleman to his quote about 'been fixed again' to illustrate that I did indeed read what he wrote.

As you agreed with binos and his 'Peadophiles Monthly' post, one would hope that words are enough.

parabellum

A Democrat led committee investigated the Florida result in the 2000 election and reached the conclusion it was a fair Republican win, so not much point in whining about it now, is there?

Capt.KAOS

chuks

You lefties just want to be loved. You post this half-baked drivel here and then go all pouty when it gets shot full of holes. Well, boo-f*ckng-hoo!

I am keeping an open mind about this election and the two candidates, not presuming that I know from afar that the only reason Obama might lose is that the election shall be fixed.

Let's take a little logic-break for a second, kick those Birkenstocks off and let the smelly feet breathe... If the villainous Republicans are capable of stealing the election and ensuring victory then how shall Obama win? What, they are crooked enough to snatch victory but then decide, oh, ho-hum, let the Black boy have it? That reads like total BS to me! To write that means you just haven't a clue about how the American electoral process functions in reality. It has plenty of flaws but most elections are still reasonably fair; we are not a banana republic yet!

I have the funny feeling that if I met Brickhistory in the flesh I might find him far too far to the Right for my tastes and vice-versa I am probably too far Left for his. That said, I have no problem with honest argument from him rather than our posting something here expecting everyone to reply, "Amen, right on Brother! You be da Man!"

I don't need some bunch of fellow internet weirdoes to hand out warm fuzzies for my life to be complete and that is not what I am looking for. When some of you say we are so repellent we have driven away all the people with dissenting opinions, well that is just too goddam precious for words! As Chopper Reid would say, "Harden the f*ck up!"

brickhistory

chuks, you might be surprised.

In either case, I'd buy you a beer/beverage of your choice just for serving our country during another unpopular war.

That's far more than many do and worthy of respect.

G-AWZK

Brick,

I started a point by point defence but it really isnt worth it is it? You already have me pidgon-holed as some sort of lefty liberal wet imbecile. Unfortunately, you know nothing of my background or experiences both in civil or military duty.

I can already see this spiralling into the demands for proof etc etc etc that ultimately result in the squeaking of the hamster wheel.

I am sure you couldn't give a flying fcuk about what I think of you and equally your opinion of me is utterly unimportant.

What is said here will have no bearing on the outcome of the US elections whatsoever, but I am sure a number of stereotypes have been reinforced.

brickhistory

G-AWZK,

I'm not asking you to defend anything. I do wonder why you wrote

That certainly seems to me to quash any discussion and insult any who disagree with your viewpoint. Is that not what you intended?

I have no stereotype of you. I don't know you. But this

certainly implies that you think you know me and some others who post here.

So what is the difference between your supposition and my alleged one?

edited to add: One final thing, when you write
you're only half right (no pun intended). You see, I can vote in the election. You cannot. But then again, you can't apparently vote for your own Prime Minister, so it shouldn't come as too great a shock.

G-AWZK

We do not vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a party. The parliamentary party then decide who is the leader, and by tradition (not rule) the leader of the party becomes prime minister.

Ultimately, it is the Queen who decides who becomes Prime Minister, however, were she to go against the wishes of the people the constitutional crisis would probably lead to the downfall of the monarchy.

Anyway, I am leaving this thread to the Republican Party now. I am obviously not welcome. See ya.

Conan The Barber

It's lucky Obama is a Democrat, isn't it.

BenThere

Another one bites the dust...

We are what we write on here. For all I know Brick is someone's fat and ugly adolescent home girl living an alternate persona here on PPRuNe. Even if that were so, I would still like her.

As I see it, what doesn't change is that those on the right tend to argue facts, fears of consequences, and recognition and analysis of the enemies and evils facing the West. The left tends to argue on emotions, against avarice and greed, and with a blind eye to those enemies and evils.

No one ever wins, but I do think every debate can have real impact. The 2000 election was decided by a handful of votes, you know.

As for stealing elections, having grown up in Detroit, I know Democrats are far more effective in stuffing ballot boxes, fraudulent proxy such as visiting homes for the aged and obtaining ballots from the unaware, and such. In fact, it's what they do best. And none of them are better at it than the Chicago Daley machine that gave us Obama.

obgraham

Did.
Did not.
Did too.
Did not.
Did too. Told ya so.
Did not.

Now that we're past this level...

The reason these conspiracy theories have such legs, IMHO, is that we have now such an equally divided populace. So elections turn on 1% of the vote. Then when it's over, you have just short of half the population thinking they got screwed over and looking for a reason. Any suspicion of a few crooked votes becomes a big issue. Heck, in my state the Governor won the last election by only 130 or so votes, total.
In the case of 2000 or 2004, you could find dozens of subgroups of the voters and say that "if only they had voted differently/been counted correctly/not been excluded" then my particular side would have won, not lost.
That's why the whiners are reduced to writing articles in Rolling Stone of Vanity Fair or Mother Jones.

Lots of folks are sick of it all. That's why I think there'll be a pretty decisive vote for Obama in the fall. Whether he can do anything with that torch after it passes to him remains to be seen.