| Forum Index > General Forum |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 13 2008 10:12 ahrara_ wrote: Jibba is obviously unaware Chuck Norris IS the economy. One of the house moms he talked to said "anything but the free market is socialism." I wanted to change channels so badly but I promised myself I wouldn't. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
On October 13 2008 09:57 Savio wrote: Republicans were in power long before FoxNews ever started. In fact, the GOP may do BETTER when they don't have a station that leans Right. Most people accepted as fact that tv stations leaned Left, but now that FoxNews is here, Republicans can't look like the outsiders against corrupt media anymore. They now look like part of it. I also don't think that MSNBC is doing Democrats any favors by lambasting Republicans and fawning over Democrats. People react against that (at least people in the middle. Hardliners like it--both from FoxNews and MSNBC) I thought having the Republican point of view presented on TV on a regular basis gave them more legitimacy in the eyes of moderates and a lot more exposure, enough even to compensate for the effect you described. I never thought of it that way - moderates being turned off by partisan TV stations - it sounds plausible but then why do political attacks in the media seem to almost always work? Isn't that half of what partisan stations do? Also, I'm not sure if you're claiming this but are Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow really symmetrical opposites to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? I've only been watching them for a short while so I may be wrong, but my impression so far is that while they are all passionate and are willing to look the other way or to rationalize when their parties make mistakes, the Fox News bunch are a lot more vitriolic and seem to be very eager to ignore or bend important facts. Am I wrong? | ||
|
Mooga
United States575 Posts
On October 13 2008 10:10 Savio wrote: eh?  I was not accepted at first. You can even see a few calls to ban me WAY back when. Its hard for conservatives to be accepted here. It takes consistent respect in your posts over a period of time, but it comes. And I don't fear becoming like you because I decide my own fate through my behavior Been there, done that. But respect comes from ignoring rude posts and staying consistently respectful and thoughtful. Also admitting when you are wrong helps. The internet is serious business. And don't you ever forget that. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
Step 1. Question who Obama is. Step 2. Reveal Obama did an honest and charitable thing for his community working with and organization. Step 3. Reveal the organization or someone in the organization has done something bad. Step 4. Say Obama is risky or dangerous. Step 5. Show a photo of the walking corpse/McCain Of course all this is done with dark scary backgrounds and emotionally stirring music. You have to appeal to that amygdala whenever you can! | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 13 2008 11:02 Doctorasul wrote: I thought having the Republican point of view presented on TV on a regular basis gave them more legitimacy in the eyes of moderates and a lot more exposure, enough even to compensate for the effect you described. I never thought of it that way - moderates being turned off by partisan TV stations - it sounds plausible but then why do political attacks in the media seem to almost always work? Isn't that half of what partisan stations do? Also, I'm not sure if you're claiming this but are Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow really symmetrical opposites to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? I've only been watching them for a short while so I may be wrong, but my impression so far is that while they are all passionate and are willing to look the other way or to rationalize when their parties make mistakes, the Fox News bunch are a lot more vitriolic and seem to be very eager to ignore or bend important facts. Am I wrong? It is a fair comparison. But keep watching and make your own judgment. FoxNews, however, is a MUCH bigger station than MSNBC and has a bigger effect. it sounds plausible but then why do political attacks in the media seem to almost always work? Isn't that half of what partisan stations do? That is a very good question. I think that attacks on FoxNews (or MSNBC) have an indirect effect rather than a direct effect. If they can make a story big enough that the broadcast stations and newspapers feel compelled to report on it or risk looking like they are ignoring "news", then the attacks can have a real affect. For example, if FoxNews reports on some new fact about Ayers and does it well enough, long enough, then the other stations and newspapers may begin to report it, which gives it credence. Likewise, if MSNBC reports on some new occurance in the Palin "Troopergate" issue, and it makes news, then it gains legitimacy. And on a side note, in my humble opinion, there is NO cable news worth watching. I don't even have any of the 3 in my house. Papers and internet are more efficient and better all around as long as you get it from a variety of sources. Sure, I had a TINY little blip where I was like "FoxNews is cool", then after a week, I was like, "ugh.." and that was the end of it and all cable news. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
The internet is serious business. That almost belongs as a quote under someone's posts. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
On October 13 2008 11:43 Savio wrote: That almost belongs as a quote under someone's posts. At the risk of being off topic it is under a lot of peoples post... just not on this forum. (Yes I go to others) On topic fivethirtyeight.com seems to be going farther off the deep end 20:1 odds that Obama wins. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
fivethirtyeight.com | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 13 2008 11:08 Mooga wrote: The internet is serious business. And don't you ever forget that. I see you're at it again with your impeccable wit. That a way darlin. | ||
|
Mooga
United States575 Posts
On October 13 2008 12:41 wswordsmen wrote: At the risk of being off topic it is under a lot of peoples post... just not on this forum. (Yes I go to others) that's because it is the truth. and it can't be suppressed. [B]On October 13 2008 12:41 wswordsmen wrote: On topic fivethirtyeight.com seems to be going farther off the deep end 20:1 odds that Obama wins. pre-election polls are shown to be historically inaccurate | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
"WE MUST HAVE A FREE MARKET!!!!!" "RAWRRRRRRR GREED IS BAD!!!!!!" | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On October 13 2008 11:02 Doctorasul wrote: Republicans were in power long before FoxNews ever started. In fact, the GOP may do BETTER when they don't have a station that leans Right. Most people accepted as fact that tv stations leaned Left, but now that FoxNews is here, Republicans can't look like the outsiders against corrupt media anymore. They now look like part of it. I also don't think that MSNBC is doing Democrats any favors by lambasting Republicans and fawning over Democrats. People react against that (at least people in the middle. Hardliners like it--both from FoxNews and MSNBC) I thought having the Republican point of view presented on TV on a regular basis gave them more legitimacy in the eyes of moderates and a lot more exposure, enough even to compensate for the effect you described. I never thought of it that way - moderates being turned off by partisan TV stations - it sounds plausible but then why do political attacks in the media seem to almost always work? Isn't that half of what partisan stations do? Also, I'm not sure if you're claiming this but are Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow really symmetrical opposites to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? I've only been watching them for a short while so I may be wrong, but my impression so far is that while they are all passionate and are willing to look the other way or to rationalize when their parties make mistakes, the Fox News bunch are a lot more vitriolic and seem to be very eager to ignore or bend important facts. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE] First, OF COURSE Hannity is blatantly republican, that's what the show is based on. And second, about O'Rielly, I was shown a propaganda video (in high school which I find funny), and they could only give one editted example of O'Reilly being biased or misrepresentative. How long has he been on air? Don't you think these things would be flying around after over seven years? Look at what O'Reilly showed on his own show, The Daily Show clipping eight different comments together to make him say something completely different. Whenever I read something, look for those sexy triple periods (...) which misrepresent what someone says. And about the polls, they say nothing. You should expect McCain to do better than expected (not that means he will win). | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
| ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
1. I think one of the biggest reasons is pure bad luck - the economy crashed. If the VP pick had been someone more experienced in business, it's entirely possible that more people would feel comfortable about voting for McCain. 2. I also think there was a critical difference between Obama and Palin in terms of experience: we had all heard of Obama. In fact, I'd heard of him 4 years ago and I'm not even American. When the primaries started, the only 3 candidates I knew at all were Obama, Clinton and Edwards. whereas Palin literally came out of nowhere. That means Obama had already built an image for himself. Some of his campaign promises go against what he outlined in his books, but it hardly matters because the image he has built up for himself is so remarkably resilient. He could speak against NAFTA again and again during the primaries, but a lot of his supporters would still see him being for free trade because that's the image he built before the primaries. Palin never had that chance, which means it was left to the media to build her image. 3. Obama is running for president, not VP. In a way, the VP has to be a credible person in and of himself. The president has the luxury of hiring advisors. I don't think Obama and McCain know a whole lot about the economy, but very often the focus isn't on them, it's on their advisors. The VP is supposed to be a kind of advisor, and hiring a dumb advisor is not a good idea. 4. Obama is controlling the campaign. He can spin it any which way to make himself look good. Palin is really unfortunate to be stuck in a campaign which is first and foremost a campaign for McCain and the Republicans. Obama can divert whatever resources he wants to cover his weaknesses and respond to attacks. Palin doesn't have that luxury. 5. This goes back to the image issue... Obama thinks long term. I am really amazed at his intellect, in fact. When he made that overseas tour after the primaries there was no change in the polls. But now that the race is heating up and he doesn't have the time to do an overseas tour, I think that early tour has helped people to perceive him as presidential and at ease with overseas leaders. We don't know if Palin thinks long term, but even if she does, she never had the chance! | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
One reason I support Obama is because I think he'll be in a better position to help the economy. Not so much because of his ability to regulate and understand economic policy (although I do think he's more intelligent than McCain and is better at wheeling and dealing and pushing through tough bills) but because fixing the economy needs a shift in mindset. I mean, you need someone to persuade people that taking a loan for a house which you KNOW you can't pay back (the very definition of a subprime loan) is a bad idea. You actually need someone who can get Americans swept up in a fervour of saving money. And you need someone who can persuade everyone that they'll have to settle for slower but sustainable growth. Obama's got the knack of getting people swept up in that kind of fervour. Finally, I think both cadidates have their hearts in the right place. I mean, who the hell would want to be president at a time like this if they weren't determined to do the right thing? But with strong support for Obama on the ground, the Democrats will be more willing to listen to him and allocate the money more carefully in investments like education and infrastructure. Being associated with a popular president is good for you. For all McCain's "straight talk", if he does win, it's going to be close. He's going to have a to water down a lot of his bills to gain support from his own party. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 13 2008 17:01 The Storyteller wrote: although I do think he's (Obama) more intelligent than McCain and is better at wheeling and dealing and pushing through tough bills That almost made me lol, because Obama has never actually pushed a tough bill through congress. McCain has done a large percentage of the pushing of tough bills for the last 20 years. Maybe this goes back to the point you made about Obama being good at creating an image for himself. He can make himself look lik someone who can push through bills without ever pushing one through. He can also make himself look moderate despite being consistently more liberal compared to his fellow democrats for 3 years in a row. He's a politician's politician. We'll see what kind of an executive he is though. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
