CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 18
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 17
Total: 17

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

According to Rasmussen Reports, 69% of Americans are convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly 5-to-1 margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama.

Seven out of 10 voters (69%) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama.
[...]
Just last week a Rasmussen Reports survey found that 51% of voters believed reporters were trying to hurt McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, with their news coverage.

article at rasmussenreports.com

Palin family 'incest' joked about on NBC

"What about the husband?" asked a Times reporter during a mock assignment meeting for the paper. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75852

~~~~~~~

Say the same thing about Obama and watch the heads roll.

Palin family 'incest' joked about on NBC

"What about the husband?" asked a Times reporter during a mock assignment meeting for the paper. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75852

~~~~~~~

Say the same thing about Obama and watch the heads roll.

you know that they were making fun of the communist paper that is the NYT

"According to Rasmussen Reports, 69% of Americans are convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly 5-to-1 margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama."

Sounds to me that 5 out six 6 voters are misinformed.

Not surprising, considering how the media fails to inform us about McCain/Palin -- and airs their propaganda without critical examination.

What percentage of Americans still believe that Iraq and Sadam Hussein were responsible for 9/11?

IS:  Your comments on this are comical. 

Good day.

"IS:  Your comments on this are comical.  "

Thanks for the new argument/information -- It advances the argument to a new level.

How many American's believe that Obama will raise their taxes?
The media mindlessly accepts McCains' mantra that Obama will raise your taxes.

How many voters believe that Obama's economic program will cost more money than McCain's?

How many times have the three evening network news broadcasts  mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko compared they to McCain's dealings with donors or McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy?

How come Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. coverage was so extensive while the coverage of televangelists James Hagee and Rod Parsley and Palin's minister was so sparse?

Specifically:

    * The Los Angeles Times has published one news article that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to five news articles mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * The New York Times has published its original April 22 news article and one editorial that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to seven news articles and one opinion piece mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * USA Today published one news article that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to two news articles mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * The Wall Street Journal has yet to publish a news article, editorial, or opinion piece that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but it has published six news articles and four editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * The Washington Post has published three news articles that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to 12 news articles and two editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * ABC's World News has yet to air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but has aired three reports mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * The CBS Evening News has yet to air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but has aired one report mentioning Obama and Rezko.

    * NBC's Nightly News has yet to air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but has aired one report mentioning Obama and Rezko.

At least one poll shows that voters are blaming Republicans for the current financial problems:

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll also finds that by a two-to-one margin Americans blame Republicans for the current financial crisis.

IS:

I offer one data point.

Governor Clinton, in 1992, campaigned for over a year on offering a middle class tax cut.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1EalCmTANIg&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/1EalCmTANIg&rel=0</a>

We know how that turned out.

Now, you can (and probably would) argue that Clinton's tax hike was a good thing, but that's not the point. The point is that Clinton lied and it is reasonable to believe that Obama is as well.

Clinton -- January 1993

Growing deficit estimates require a president to shift gears, he said, adding: "I think that it would be irresponsible for any president of the United States ever not to respond to changing circumstances."

http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/01/15/cut1.php

THE 1998 FEDERAL BUDGET PLAN

FEBRUARY 6, 1997
TRANSCRIPT

    The President has released a $ 1.69 trillion budget that includes middle class tax cuts, and new spending for education, children's health care, and crime prevention. The GOP leadership says the plan is a "good first step," but needs work.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/february97/budget_setup_2-6.html

The Republicans refused to include a tax cut targeted for the middle class

"The point is that Clinton lied and it is reasonable to believe that Obama is as well. "

What sort of logic justifies your conclusion? Your argument lacks a middle term -- please provide the missing premise.

Premise 1: x lied.
Premise 2:

Therefore z is lying.

Premise 2: Walks like a duck, talks like a duck argument

"Premise 2: Walks like a duck, talks like a duck argument"
That's fine -- you're agreeing with me and scrapping the original argument.
I thought the original argument was worthy of examination.

Are you not scrapping the argument and suggesting that the duck argument works a 2nd premise?

Premise 1: x lied.
Premise 2: Walks like a duck, talks like a duck argument
Therefore z is lying.

I don't know if anyone here has ever cracked a logic text but this is an invalid argument.

Again, where is the middle term?

I'll give you a bit of help.

All x's (ducks whatever) are liars.
Z is an x
Therefore z is a liar.

x is the middle term.  What exactly is the middle term? I.e., what does x stand for?  Hint: ducks won't work.

I'll up the ante here. Once you supply the middle term then you have to show that the premise is actually true.

Your original inquiry was along the lines of how many Americans believe that Obama will raise their taxes. You attribute this belief to a right wing bias in the media. I offer an alternative theory.

Liberal but articulate democratic candidate promises me a middle class tax cut
Candidate gets elected
Candidate raises my taxes.

New Liberal but articulate candidate promises me a middle class tax cut.

Most Americans who were around for the campaign of 1992 would be justifiably skeptical.




 

"Most Americans who were around for the campaign of 1992 would be justifiably skeptical [that Obama will be able to get a middle-class tax cut]."

Skepticism of tax cuts is a reasonable position.

The deficit has ballooned the last 8 years.
The current bail-out, being considered, will cost each American (every man, woman, and child) about $3,000+interest.

Deficit spending and bailouts are taxes.

You could argue that Bush has raised our taxes to the extant that he has raised the deficit.

We just haven't converted those taxes into actual legislation yet.

I think you can believe Obama when he says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. I think you can believe that he does not want to raise taxes on the middle-class.

If you want to be sceptical of Obama - that's fine. But, it isn't rational to judge Obama based on Clinton's actions.

If you want to be sceptical of Obama - that's fine. But, it isn't rational to judge Obama based on Clinton's actions.

Come now, IS. Every democrat worthy of the name is painting their opponent as a mirror image of George Bush. Obama's tag line is "More of the same".  It may not be rationale, but it is what it is.

"Come now, IS. Every democrat worthy of the name is painting their opponent as a mirror image of George Bush. Obama's tag line is "More of the same".  It may not be rationale, but it is what it is."

MarcSchare,


You're right but no one (except you) is painting Obama as another Clinton.

McCain is running as a supporter of Bush policies: the war -- the occupation will continue, tax cuts -- more cuts for the wealthy, the deficit -- bigger deficit, social security -- privatize it, health care -- emphasis on privatization and getting health care off the backs of employers. These are fundamental to his campaign--next to attacks on Obama.

There are parallels between Obama and Clinton: young, good speakers, attractive, and intelligent.

These aren't policy comparisons:  yes they are both liberals so there will be policy similarities.

You would be right to argue that cutting or raising taxes are policy issues, including raising taxes for the wealthy and lowering taxes for the middle-class.

So it's proper, in general terms to lump liberals with liberals, Obama with Clinton.

It's clear that politicians lie and change their minds -- again comparison is warranted.

Both Clinton and Obama made middle-class cuts part of their campaigns. Both Clinton and Obama faced rising deficits and increase in national debt.

Here's the difference: Obama is dealing with long-term near recessionary low growth. Key economic indicators for the middle-class have been bad: median income declining for several years, no job growth and good jobs are being exported.

Here is the key fact: Bush's attempts to stimulate the economy by giving the investor class big tax cuts haven't worked.

Conventional wisdom says that bottom up stimulation is more effective. This might be false these days, given that the products we buy are largely imported.

Economic advancement can be spurred by technological advancement -- I think that's where Obama puts his greatest hope--in energy technology -- ending the drain on our resources by importing energy and exporting war.

The next president faces an energy crisis, a foreign policy crisis and an economic crisis. The wealthy have gotten enormous tax cuts and the gab between the wealthy and the middle-class has never been bigger. Democracy depends on a sense of fairness and equality.

Bottom line: The situation is complex and the problems are different, so it isn's warranted to conclude that Obama will backdown on his middle-class tax cut merely because democrats are democrats, politicians are politicians, Clinton did it therefore Obama probably will.

Marc:

Come now, IS. Every democrat worthy of the name is painting their opponent as a mirror image of George Bush. Obama's tag line is "More of the same".  It may not be rationale, but it is what it is

It is rational.  Most of the R candidates are either incumbents who have voted with Bush or support his policies.  McCain certainly has voted that way most of the time. 

And if Obama sounds like Clinton does that make it bad?  Remember Clinton was re-elected and the country was in good shape when he left.  Bush was re-elected also but the country is not in such good shape. 

As far as changing one's mind in the face of changed conditions it is not an indication of weakness.  One should expect the candidates to change their tunes and promises in the face of the circumstances that have changed since the start of the campaign two long years ago.

Unwillingness to do thus is not good governance.  It indicates a belief in one's infallibility which is tantamount to arrogance.  It has not served either Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc. well.  The country is not better for it.

The Shadow has been here