L.A. Times Employs Classic Technique of Liberal Bias in Portraying Republican Criticism of Obama
I have told you in the past:
When the paper disagrees with criticism of a [politician], it is portrayed as an attack by political opponents. When the paper agrees with the criticism, the criticism becomes a mysterious and disembodied (but ever-growing) entity. Doubts grow. Criticism emerges.
Which way do you think the L.A. Times is portraying Republican criticism of Obama?
You guessed it! In an article titled Republicans step up criticism of Obama, the paper says:
Republicans signaled Sunday that they would not be daunted by President Obama’s soaring approval ratings, criticizing his proposed $825-billion economic stimulus plan, his strategy for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his decision to exempt a top-ranking Pentagon appointee from new ethics rules.
Some of the sharpest criticism came from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s challenger to Obama in the election and the recipient of aggressive outreach as part of the new president’s efforts to forge an image of bipartisanship.
That damned ingrate McCain!
Obama honored McCain on the eve of last week’s inauguration with a bipartisan candlelight dinner, and he has solicited his former rival’s advice on top appointments. McCain has returned the favor by pressing fellow Republicans to speedily confirm Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But Sunday, McCain had few kind words for Obama’s initial moves as president. He called it “disingenuous” for the White House to impose new rules to limit the influence of lobbyists but immediately claim an exemption for William Lynn III, the nominee to be deputy Defense secretary, who has lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon Co.
Note how deftly that was done. The paper manages to tell you that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House — but who’s the bad guy? Somehow, it’s John McCain. Obama tried to reach out to him, we are told, and McCain showed his gratitude by calling Obama “disingenuous.” The fact that Obama was disingenuous isn’t the point, you see. It’s all about how McCain and other Republicans are big jerks who are ignoring Obama’s bipartisan gestures.
Nicely done, L.A. Times. Nicely done. Obama will be happy to see this article. You can feel proud.
… which is why I wish them all ill.
Schadenfreude forever.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:09 amNow Rahm Emanuel is using kittens for fishing bait. Word has it Rahm Emanuel is going to use Rush Limbaugh’s cat Pumpkin to troll for sailfish just off Rush’s beach.
Rahm Emanuel is a monster.
Joe (17aeff) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:12 amAccording to that guy from Mr. Obama’s Neighborhood, John McCain is the terrorist.
Joe (17aeff) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:15 amI seriously think the LATimes is angling for some of that phat stimulus money.
This is an example of the “vital public service” that they fill and will make them “too important to fail”.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:29 amGlad to know, that Sarah’s belated spinetransplant is kind of settling in; A little late John, would have appreciated it during say the campaign but it’s still appreciated. He was burned by the campaign for the TARP; so he’s a little more cautious
narciso (ce69ff) — 1/26/2009 @ 8:10 amYou folks are doing it all wrong. You’re supposed to pay attention to what the Democrats SAY, not what they actually DO. It’s not fair to actually hold Democrats accountable for their worlds. I mean when Nancy Pelosi said she would run the most ethical Congress ever did anybody seriously believe her? Anyone? Bueller?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 8:23 amI sort-of wish the Peace of Hobama would penetrate my thick skull so this stuff wouldn’t bother me.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 1/26/2009 @ 9:21 amActually, where McCain reneged was when he decided that, despite the credit given him for aiding with the stimulus plan, he decided to now declare himself against it in the media, rather than working to repair it. His political promise of cooperation lasted less than a week. A Republican keeping a promise not to indulge in partisan politics and the politics of NO…why am I not surprised that they can’t keep their word?
Baycat57 (3c8bef) — 1/26/2009 @ 9:39 amNo, the Republicans would never play politics with the economic health of the nation for some cheap misguided fear-mongering. They’re the party of “good ideas” and “competence” and “small government” and “morality.”
Yawn.
Guess what? Obama won. The Republican party is a failed joke and as long as they keep on playing the same old games on the backs of the American people, they will continue to atrophy and lose elections and that can only be a good thing.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:15 amSo, yeah, the L.A. Times has the story right in this instance. IMHO. YMMV. TTYL. FWIW.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:17 amA stunning rebuttal to the LATimes editorial slant in a “news” article, pete.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:18 amTwo lefty experts in a row ! We are honored today. Next Peter will tell us how contraceptives are going to revive the economy.
Over at Washington Monthly, they were in high dudgeon because McCain opposed rural internet service in the stimulus bill. I wondered a bit and looked at the link. What he said was, one-it was not economic stimulus as defined by the proponents, and two, it would not occur during the next year. It turns out that only 7% of the money would be spent this year and most of it is pork.
If Obama does not get control of the House and Pelosi, his program will collapse into the usual Democrat pork fest.
And the lefties don’t see it. What else is new ?
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:23 amBaycat – McCain said he would not vote for the pork fest in it’s current form, but does that necessarily lead to the conclusion that he would not help negotiate a new version? Could you help me through the logic there?
Obama essentially said he would ram it down the throats of Republicans in a bipartisan manner last week when he gently reminded them “I WON!!!!111!!!eleventy!!!” at the White House, but I’m sure that was only in the interest of comity.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:34 amChange Fest 09
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:47 amMore whining. Get over yourselves!
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:05 amDuring Bush’s presidency, they used to have some Columbia Journalism School professor on the network news shows to explain that the media wasn’t being liberally biased with their lockstep perpetual attacks on Republicans but rather they were just doing the job of an “adversarial media” and the Republicans were the ones in power.
j curtis (8cc224) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:14 amEmperor7 – We’re being patriotic. STFU. You have no excuse. You whined all last year.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:16 amBig problems, small ideas, it almost makes me wish for Bush. Listening to Jim Bunning demand that Geitner apologize over and over again, we are in the middle of a BIG crisis why not just admit that GOP and admit that deregulation was the path that got us here. Apologize and no, seems to the GOP vocabulary de jour.
Elin (5819b7) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:33 amC’mon, daley! Get with the program!
It’s patriotic when you dissent from Republicans.
It’s whining when you dissent from Democrats. Heck, as Jon Stewart suggests, it may even be “marginally treasonous.”
That business about “building consensus” and “respecting alternative points of view” seems decidedly unidirectional.
Teh Narrative lives!
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:36 amanother predictable product of the ever shrinking Slimes echo chamber…… how many of their decreasing readership actually read it? it’s only reinforcement propaganda for the true believers, a little something different to peruse in between paging through their Little Blue Book in search of an appropriate vapid profundity.
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:36 am“…deregulation was the path that got us here…”
If that is true, why are EU financial circles upside down also?
Do they too suffer a lack of regulation?
And, if more regulation was called for, why did the Dems in Congress block the efforts of the GOP in reining-in the excesses at FM2?
Unfortunately, what we will find is that, again, the more the Fed.Govt. interferes in the market place, the worse the economic condition will become.
As RR noted to us in 1981, the Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem.
AD (cb5311) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:52 amIt was true then, just as it is true now.
Elin, deregulation of the financial sector was a Clintonian thang.
I will say the following on this issue and having some insight on it ,,,,, co-mingling the concept of INVESTING with the concept of HELPING OTHER INVEST is a major problem and why we are here.
The financial market is unlike any other and keeping intermediaries clear of real owners of securities is very important to a health system. THIS WAS BUNGLED BY CLINTON AND BUSH MADE IT WORSE.
Same reason why speculators should not be allowed into the Risk Management markets such as derivatives.
Why you think Oil hit $145? Pure nonsense, trades caught in an “infinate” loop that became a fallacious money machine and source of wealth transfer. Only reason ts blew up was Bears Stearns essentially got the leverage out of the trade and Lehman finally killed it. No leverage meant the Tulips were worth lots less money.
Anyway, good regulation is desperately needed to keep intermediaries in the financial markets honest and functioning as any free marketer would want……
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 12:24 pmComment by daleyrocks — 1/26/2009 @ 11:16 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 12:27 pmYou ain’t gonna take my joy away, Daley. Stay in your depression if you like. Whining about how unfairly you are being treated and how the system seems to favor the other is no way to build a republic. All hands need to be on deck now, everybody. The Economic situation has no party affiliation. It’s every one’s problem. Let’s all get to work! Enough with the name-calling and let’s come together and do something positive.
Emperor7,
GFY. GF Obama too. Again, my only wish is the morons like you suffer 10x with this lunacy that is purporting to be Hope and Change.
Much like the Rah-Rah Communists of Cuba or Venezuela who are now living in squalor while those who left are living large in this horrible Bush Economy.
Here is my thought: I HOPE lazy, unproductive members of society do something of value. That would be a CHANGE.
That includes community organizers living on the public trust who justify their existence by giving away more and more to those who deserve less and less.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 12:50 pmNo, the Republicans would never play politics with the economic health of the nation for some cheap misguided fear-mongering. They’re the party of “good ideas” and “competence” and “small government” and “morality.”
Yawn.
Guess what? Obama won. The Republican party is a failed joke and as long as they keep on playing the same old games on the backs of the American people, they will continue to atrophy and lose elections and that can only be a good thing.
This thread isn’t about Republican policies vs. Democrat policies. It’s about MEDIA PORTRAYAL of Republicans who disagree with Democrat policies vs. MEDIA PORTRAYAL of Democrats who disagree with Republican policies.
Don’t know how you could have missed that.
Gerald A (adb85a) — 1/26/2009 @ 12:50 pmLovey, You, WORK!?!?, ROTFLOL!!!!!!!
PCD (7fe637) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:00 pmLovey is a squeegee, I just blew past him in my S600.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:01 pm“Next Peter will tell us how contraceptives are going to revive the economy.”
Well that is easy, more cheap hotel room stays, more abortions, more kleenex consumption, more demand for plastic …. the benefits are endless.
Peter is a damn idiot who is upset he is such a loser that he can’t keep up. So instead of admitting his GRAND MEDIOCRITY he wishes it on others.
Old proverb of two Russian Peasants walking down a path with a cow and the one of the peasants trips over a lantern and a Genie pops up. The Genie tells the Russian Peasant he will grant him one wish. The peasant thought deeply and squinted his eyes …. the genie said very well, disappeared and his friends cow dropped dead.
That is Liberal in all its glory.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:06 pmLove2008 can be polite from time to time. Her problem is simple: a lack of memory regarding the last eight years. The Left did their level best to denounce and second guess every decision that originated from someone with an “R” after their names.
That was patriotism, not partisanship, I was told.
And now we need to work together? Now, disagreeing with Presidential policies is called “marginally treasonous”?
It’s like the not-joke of the Democratic definition of bipartisanship.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:07 pmEric, which is why many individuals who are conservative truly believe these scum are mentally ill.
I would love to think working with Obama would give the nation better policy but frankly these Libtards and Obama Infatuation Disorder suffers are certifiably insane.
I am flabergasted the MSM is basically calling anyone who is not sucking Obama’s rod a bad American. It is like collective amnesia..
From Day 1 they called Reagan a loon and the same for GBII. You got to be kidding me. So I got suck some Black’s dude nut sack juss even if I disagree with his policies when they did not reciprocate once?????
Scadenfreude forever — I wish them all ill in the worst possible ways. This level of hypocrisy deserves the absolute worst. A plague likk that which visited the Egyptians is what they deserve.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:13 pmEric and OuA – Like I said, I’m just being patriotic and I wish Lovey all the best, from the heart of my bottom.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:23 pmAll this seems to miss the larger question: Why does Obama NEED Republican votes for his stimulus bill? The Democrats clearly have the votes to ram this package through both houses of congress, so why don’t they just end this little charade and do it?
Yes, there won’t be any pretense of “bipartisanship” if they do it that way, so there won’t be any way to blame any part of this trillion dollar plan on Republicans if it blows up in everybody’s faces, but if Obama and the Capitol Hill Dems are so sure this is a good idea this isn’t a problem, right? Right?
Sean P (e57269) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:48 pm“Deftly Done”??
Now let me get this straight, The Los Angeles Times already reported this on Jan. 23, 2009 right? Are you guys aware of that? And in that article McCain was never mentioned.
You make it seem like the article brings up the issue for the first time.
The paper managed to tell us three days before the “Republicans Criticism” article that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House not today.
Defly done indeed Patterico……. but nice try.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:49 pm“Deftly Done”??
Now let me get this straight, The Los Angeles Times already reported this on Jan. 23, 2009 right? Are you guys aware of that? And in that article McCain was never mentioned.
You make it seem like the article brings up the issue for the first time.
The paper managed to tell us three days before the “Republicans Criticism” article that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House not today.
Defly done indeed Patterico……. but nice try.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:49 pm“Deftly Done”??
Now let me get this straight, The Los Angeles Times already reported this on Jan. 23, 2009 right? Are you guys aware of that? And in that article McCain was never mentioned.
You make it seem like the article brings up the issue for the first time.
The paper managed to tell us three days before the “Republicans Criticism” article that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House not today.
Defly done indeed Patterico……. but nice try.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:49 pmNeed I remind you that it is racist to criticize Teh One? The Times is just making sure that they do not offend.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:54 pmPosting it 3 times does not make it any less obtuse, Oiram.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:55 pm#36 Hey JD, when you get a chance, read January 23, 2009’s article and then get back to us on who (Patterico) is offending who.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-deputy-defense-secretary23-2009jan23,0,879330.story
Link is not working for some reason or I’m doing it wrong, cut and paste is in order.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:05 pmOr just search L.A. times for William Lynn III
I rest my case. Knock yourselves out.
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:06 pmPosting 3 times was a mistake on my part JD.
“Obtuse”?
You don’t think the original post here makes one think that the Los Angeles times is bringing up the ethics involved in Obama’s decision for the first time?
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:07 pmActually, Oiram, I read the link and you haven’t proved your point. Rather than calling Obama disingenuous for reneging on his promise, the worst that Levin said about Obama was:
Boy, that’s really taking O to task, isn’t it?
Patterico’s point stands.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:10 pmThe original post here says:
“Note how deftly that was done. The paper manages to tell you that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House “
The Los Angeles times told us 3 days before not today folks.
Sorry to nitpick but I’ve learned from the best (Patterico).
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:12 pmPatterico’s point, which was delivered in a manner far too nuanced for you, is that they criticize McCain for Barack being disingenuous. But, we all know you sometimes have trouble with simple English.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:12 pm#42 … Your point has absolutely nothing to do with the point Patterico made, Mario. When the paper pointed out that Baracky lied makes no difference. The fact that they criticize McCain for pointing out that Baracky is being disingenuous, rather than pointing out that Baracky is being disingenuous, remains the point.
NUANCE!
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:15 pmSteverino, I think the link is up there.
But all you’ve got to do is type William Lynn III to find the date of the 23rd not the 26th.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:21 pm#44 JD as soon as The Los Angeles times calls Obama “Disingenuous” then you could complain. They are reporting the news. McCain however called Obama disingenuous, that’s news……. and perhaps correct in my opinion, but nonetheless McCain’s place and mine, not the Los Angeles Time’s.
Perhaps you need to look in the Opinion section JD.
Refresh my memory, did the Los Angeles times ever outright call President Bush “Disingenuous”?
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:25 pmIf they called Baracky disingenuous, Oiram, that would be a statement of fact, not opinion, especially in re. Lynn. Are you fucking serious about that Opinion crap?! They did not call him disingenuous, they called him a liar. Nuance. Good Allah, you have to be this obtuse on purpose.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:31 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/obama.pressure/index.html
The fact he was not qualified to begin with but elected leaves not one question …… but the opposite does.
Now the argument is he needs to be twice as good as a white to be considered a good POTUS.
So when Conservatives disagree it is because we are RACIST!
Apoplectic is the right word.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:31 pmPeter wrote:
So, should we assume that you were saying, in January of 2001 or January of 2005, “Well, maybe I don’t like it, but George Bush won. Guess I’d better get with the program.”
Well, unlike some other countries which have “one man, one vote, one time,” in the United States we have regularly scheduled elections, and, surprisingly enough, we are allowed to begin campaigning for the next one the day after the last one.
The Dana who votes in every election (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:31 pm95% of Blacks voted for an unqualified neophyte when they had Liberal Lion Hillary …. but nary a peep about how blacks hold blacks to LOWER STANDARDS.
Juss Whitey who is the prah’lem.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:32 pmWhites hold blacks to higher standards but whites to (mathematically) lower standards yet 90% of Blacks voted for Obama over a long listed over more qualified Demoncraps.
Hypocrisy indeed CNN.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:35 pmErr my CNN link is missing.
Article on how poor Baracky has to be better than Whitey.
Go read for entertainment value.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:36 pmShorter Peter – Submit, bitches!!!!eleventy1!
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:38 pmEmperor7 wrote:
All hands need to be on deck now, everybody. The Economic situation has no party affiliation. It’s every one’s problem. Let’s all get to work! Enough with the name-calling and let’s come together and do something positive.
But the economic solution certainly has a party affiliation. Some of us believe that the direction in which President Obama would like to take us would be a counterproductive one. Are you suggesting that those of us who think that should simply knuckle under and do things the way Mr Obama says, just because he said it?
We elected a President, not a Führer.
The Dana who votes in every election (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:41 pm“Shut up,” he (Peter) explained.
Mitch (890cbf) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:41 pmNo, the Republicans would never play politics with the economic health of the nation for some cheap misguided fear-mongering.
You need to be a little less mindless in employing the Democrat templates about Republicans. You use “fear mongering” when Republicans warn about terrorism.
In connection with the economy, you’re supposed to talk about “The Party of the Rich”.
Gerald A (adb85a) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:47 pmDana,
I think my über alles is inspiring your choice of prose.
Führer.
Must be the ü.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:48 pm#44 JD as soon as The Los Angeles times calls Obama “Disingenuous” then you could complain. They are reporting the news. McCain however called Obama disingenuous, that’s news……. and perhaps correct in my opinion, but nonetheless McCain’s place and mine, not the Los Angeles Time’s.
Perhaps you need to look in the Opinion section JD.
Refresh my memory, did the Los Angeles times ever outright call President Bush “Disingenuous”?
What are you talking about?
Gerald A (adb85a) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:50 pmGerald A – It is prolly racist to expect Oiram to actually make sense.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/26/2009 @ 2:52 pmTo quote Dana, I DENOUNCE EVERYONE!
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:00 pm#43 I don’t have trouble with simple English JD. (Just read that “Trollesque” criticism).
Apparenly you are o.k. with newspapers giving their personal opinions: Contrary to that whole “liberal MSM” Stance I know you carry with you like so many marbles rolling around in your head.
#44 “The fact that they criticize McCain for pointing out that Baracky is being disingenuous, rather than pointing out that Baracky is being disingenuous, remains the point.
NUANCE!”
“Nuance”…….. I’ll say.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:07 pmNext Peter will tell us how contraceptives are going to revive the economy.
Peter wants to know what is this thing called “the economy.”
All hands need to be on deck now, everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Himmler.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:07 pm“Nuance”…….. I’ll say.
So are we to assume you’re now an expert regarding the English language? OK, let’s hear your definition of the word – and please use it in a sentence to illustrate that definition.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:10 pm#56 Gerald A, Why is it o.k. for JD and his ilk to claim the MSM is slanted, and then in more or less the same breath to expect The Los Angeles Times’s non opinion section to call “baracky” (this is what JD calls our President) “Disingenuous” the way McCain has?
Makes perfect sense, unless you have and expect the MSM to have your slant.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:11 pmComment by Obama über alles!!!!! — 1/26/2009 @ 3:00 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:15 pmAre you trying to be funny or are you just plain silly? I know. You are new here. Don’t worry, you will soon be properly discipled.
#61 Professor Dmac, deal with what I’m saying, not with what you think I know or don’t know about the English language.
No one here bothers to examine the misleading way the original post here makes us think that The Los Angeles Times is using Republicans to call Obama disingenous.
This post makes people think that, when it’s not true. Instead you just criticise the messenger from the other aisle.
But hey if your comfortable with it, it’s your English that needs examining.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:15 pmOiram, you have missed the point. Yes, McCain called Obama disingenuous. Yes, The Times reported on Obama’s backtrack on January 23rd.
The point is the way both stories were reported. In the 1/23 story, there is no real criticism of Obama cited. But the story about McCain is written in such a way to suggest that McCain is being ungrateful for all the attention Obama has given him.
As Patterico wrote, if The Times agrees with the criticism, the story is written one way, but if The Times disagrees with the criticism, the critic is portrayed in a bad light.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:16 pmPlease don’t criticize someone else’s English skills in the same sentence where you make a rather simple grammatical error. My irony meter can’t take the strain.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:17 pm“The Los Angeles times told us 3 days before not today folks.”
Oiram – I don’t understand your point. The article Patterico is highlighting discusses the appearances of McCain and Boehner on Sunday television programs and how dastardly their criticisms of Obama were given the new era of bipartisanship. Perhaps you failed to read the link. The fact that the LA Times reported on the matter three days prior is irrelevant to the analysis of the linked article.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:20 pmIts pretty clear that Oiram is not reading the post but instead is hearing voices in his head to which he is responding.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:23 pmDana, well said:
But that was different!
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:25 pmEmperor7,
Disciplined? Discipled?
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:31 pmOK, let’s hear your definition of the word – and please use it in a sentence to illustrate that definition.
Comment by Dmac — 1/26/2009 @ 3:10 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:45 pmNuance: a subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude.
A subtle distinction or variation .
sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value).
Can we get on with other things now?
Discipled. ( It’s Christian word for making disciples out of people.)To be properly brain-washed and indoctrinated into the Emperor’s way of thinking.
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:52 pmIt will take some doing, but like those before you, you will soon be tamed and submissive. (Meek and obedient).
OüA @ 55: Actually, I’m pretty good at using the various ASCII codes, which, combined with my being just ridiculously obsessive/compulsive, leads me to do things like that.
Not, of course, that anyone could have guessed that I’m obsessive/compulsive! 🙂
The HTML Dana (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:57 pmwe are in the middle of a BIG crisis why not just admit that GOP and admit that deregulation was the path that got us here. Apologize and no, seems to the GOP vocabulary de jour.
Comment by Elin
That certainly is the position of the brilliant voters who put Barack over the top. Now, someone else raised the question of, if the solution of the problem is so obvious and the GOP is just playing politics, why not pass the “stimulus” bill without them ?
The Democrats know what to do and they have majorities in both houses of Congress plus The One in the White House. They don’t NEED the GOP.
Why not take all the credit for knowing the solution ?
Hmmmm?
I have a series of posts over on my blog with some ideas other than the Fannie/Freddie theory. They don’t even mention CRA.
I think we all agree that there is a terrible liquidity crisis now.
The issue is what to do about it. We passed the TARP bill that went to banks to help recapitalize them. Now, we have another bill, allegedly a stimulus bill, and that is what the discussion is about.
Have you looked at the provisions ?
Have you read the CBO evaluation of it ?
Here’s one evaluation.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis of President Barack Obama’s plan found that most of the approximately $355 billion in proposed discretionary spending on highways, renewable energy and other initiatives wouldn’t be spent before 2011. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said.
About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019, the report said. Republicans said the analysis showed that the plan, unveiled last week by House Democrats, won’t get money into the economy quickly enough.
“We have serious concerns that the bulk of this spending won’t have an immediate or short-term positive effect on the economic crisis,” said Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. “This is especially troubling given the massive size of the package and the enormous burden of debt it is placing on the taxpayers.”
I subscribe to an investment letter that I have read for 30 years. He says that the bear market is probably at the bottom right now. It began in 2007 and may be over. Unless Congress makes major mistakes.
Now, do you want to sound serious or would you rather play the fool ?
Of course getting those contraceptives funded, and all that overseas abortion counseling is important.
Hello ? Hello ? Is there someone in there ?
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/26/2009 @ 3:58 pmMirrored mariO wrote:
Well, while you were specifically addressing JD, I don’t object to newspapers having an editorial opinion, nor do I object to such journals including such opinions in their main news articles — if they are honest about it. I do have somewhat of a problem with people or institutions claiming to be unbiased when such is untrue.
My guess is, however, that the liberal bias seen in so many of our supposedly unbiased newspapers is so ingrained, and seems to normal to the writers, that they really never see it in themselves. My guess is that they see themselves as bending over backwards to be fair, but are so far to the left, individually, that even bending over backwards they can never reach the center.
The HTML Dana (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:05 pmComment by The HTML Dana — 1/26/2009 @ 3:57 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:06 pmDidn’t know you were, well,…..a woman. Doesn’t change anything though. I still love to read your humorous posts. 🙂
Steverino wrote:
Oh, good
The Dana concerned with Steverino's . . . equipment (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:10 pmPresident!Lord, you don’t bring that thing in here with you?Emperor7 wrote, in reference to my statement that I am obsessive/compulsive:
Surely, surely! only a thoroughly sexist pig would assume that simply because someone is obsessive/compulsive, that person must be female.
As it happens, I am male, and I thoroughly denounce you for such a chauvinistic assumption.
The totally egalitarian Dana (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:15 pm#67 Daley at your request, I re-read the article. It is reporting the news.
Was Obama criitcised by Republicans or not?
The news of Obama’s choice being a lobbyist being reported 3 days before the said article is extremely relevent.
Note how deftly that was done. The paper manages to tell you that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House —
This makes it seem that the Los Angeles Times reported the issue today by way of critisism from the Republican party. You see L.A. times had reported this, again 3 days before. They were now reporting on Republican critisism.
Serioulsy folks, because I need more info on your idea of the liberal MSM slant.
Do you really expect The Los Angeles Times to give you it’s opinion or the news?
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:17 pm#74 Dana, That opinion is fine and well.
But don’t you see the misleading way Patterico perpetuates your opinion in the original post?
Am I the only one who sees this?
Because if I am, and you dare to agree, then I think you might want to reconsider some of your feelings about the media being slanted to the left.
I mean we’ve got JD above somewhere questioning why The L.A. Times did not call Obama disengenous.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:21 pmThat’s a slant folks.
Mario thinks the Times is quite honest
The Limerick Avenger (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:21 pmThe rest of us he must admonish
Just ’cause he can’t see
The way that things be
His blindness has left me astonished.
Comment by The totally egalitarian Dana — 1/26/2009 @ 4:15 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:24 pmLOL! In that case I denounce myself. May God purge me of my incurable sexism.
#80 Hey Limerick, I don’t think the times is honest. I do however think they’re more honest than most here think they are.
And I do think that you are a lousy dyslexic poet.
Oiram (983921) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:26 pmMcCain said he would not have announced the pending closure of Guantanamo, as Obama did last week by signing an executive order, without having first decided what to do with the 245 detainees being held there.
And the senator said he would not support the stimulus plan in its current form, asserting that it should have more tax cuts and less emphasis on projects, such as repairing the National Mall or extending broadband access to rural areas.
“There’s got to be some kind of litmus as to whether it will really stimulate the economy,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding later: “There has to be major rewrites [of the legislation] if we want to stimulate the economy
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:37 pmIt’s funny how John McCain has suddenly found his voice again. Hey, Senator, what would you do differently on say, GiTMO? One of the promises you made in your campaign was to shut it down. Now Obama announces a plan to do so in a year and you come up with “I would not have announced the pending closure of GiTMO as obama did”. Who is using nuance now? Stop trying to impress those folks prodding you on. Don’t just oppose for the sake of opposing.
Like a stopped watch, Obama got one right. McCain is truly dreadful.
Peg C. (48175e) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:48 pmOiram wrote:
Our esteemed host certainly approaches things with a conservative perspective, as do I; that is why he was able to see a liberal bias, unconscious perhaps, but still there, in the way that the Times’ writers and editors — I am assuming that they still have editors — phrased things.
Please, note in his original, that he set forth the criterion for discerning this in September of 2004; it’s not like he has created something out of whole cloth for this post.
Who knows? Perhaps if you were a frequent reader of The Washington Times, you would have something similar to say about their coverage, from the opposite perspective. And our friends on the left are certainly vociferous in their complaints that Fox News is biased in favor the
goodright, while ignoring the fact that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC are biased in favor ofevilthe left. 🙂As with so many things, the term “the media” is too inclusive. Most of talk radio — at least based on audience size — is conservative, and there are a few conservatively oriented news organizations out there: The Washington Times and Fox News Channel.
But they are known for being conservative precisely because they are the exceptions to the rule; the majority of the major dailies in this country are left to moderate-left in opinion, a fact which seems to get ignored or washed out in their own claims of being unbiased, which they very obviously are not.
I’d give you three examples. First, think of CBS News in the “Rathergate” scandal. That the documents were forgeries was so obvious that bloggers, primarily Little Green Footballs and Powerline, were able to spot it, not from the paper copies but screen-captures, while CBS News, with all of its resources, and the paper copies in their hands, could not. And CBS News could not find the truth because, deep down, they didn’t want to find the truth. Due to their own biases, they wanted to believe the forgeries so much that they threw caution — and their reputation — to the wind.
Second, CBS once again. They had, jointly with The New York Times, the story about Iraqi weapons not being properly secured after the invasion, and some being lost. CBS scheduled breaking this story for the Sunday immediately prior to the election, to try to deprive the Bush campaign the time to respond. It was only because the Times saw it about to leak out that the Grey Lady published early, early enough to give the campaign a chance to respond.
Finally, almost all of the professional media jumped on the Duke rape case bandwagon, because it suited that left-wing meme about vicious, rich white boys abusing an innocent, poor black woman. It took conservative bloggers like Sister Toldjah to keep pushing back, to make the case against railroading what turned out to be three innocent men.
The Dana who is the soul of brevity (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:50 pmOiram wrote:
Hey, you try making words rhyme
The Limerick Avenger (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:54 pmWhen honest is ending the line
Just try going through it
I bet you can’t do it
With words nearly as good as mine!
It’s not whining…
It is called negotiations.
Geez. What sort of idiot walks into a car dealership and just accepts the first price thrown out by the salesperson… oh, wait… sorry about the name calling, it was inadvertant.
I never meant you personally there…
I mean come on, Franks is bailing out the gay bank with $12M, I am sure some Republican dickhead is doing the same somewhere in the fine print, so lets hash it out and wait a day or two rather than just signing on the bottom line…
SteveG (a87dae) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:57 pmIf Obama signed this bill right now he’d be a fool.
Obama is expecting the opposition to find where his party is bamboozling the taxpayers and is depending on his own party to double check the GOP…. that is how the system works best.
Sometimes I wonder
The Haiku Avenger (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:57 pmwhat all the fuss is about;
just don’t read that crap
Do you really expect The Los Angeles Times to give you it’s opinion or the news?
Comment by Oiram — 1/26/2009 @ 4:17 pm
We pretty much expect to get opinion mixed in with any political news coming out of the MSM. Pointing it out could be considered a form of therapy for those of us to the right of center. We don’t expect them to change anything. We just want it on the record when their day of reckoning comes and the creditors foreclose.
Chris (b886a5) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:58 pm1. “Barack Obama faced mounting criticism this weekend of his decision to break a pledge not to employ lobbyists in his administration. The latest sign of the growing concern with Obama’s decision to appoint [blah blah blah]”
2. In its latest attack on a popular president seeking to reform government, the Republican party unleashed a stinging attack on Barack Obama’s waiver of an unprecedented ethics requirement. Obama argued the waiver was necessary to appoint a uniquely qualified nominee. Casting aside the usual deference for a newly elected president, failed presidential candidate John McCain [blah blah blah]
Is this article closer to 1 or 2?
Patterico (da5b1a) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:01 pmIf we’d all just watch
The Haiku Avenger (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:01 pmthe American Idol
we’d forget this stuff
Comment by The Limerick Avenger — 1/26/2009 @ 4:54 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:09 pmIf you don’t know
Then you cant show
what it takes to be
when it makes for me
the change we need
Is a new man to lead.
Emperor7 wrote:
If your sexism is incurable, can God rid you of it? This calls to mind the conundrum question: if God is omnipotent, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
Consider this a clue as to how my mind works. 🙂
The philosophical Dana (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:10 pm“…Serioulsy folks, because I need more info on your idea of the liberal MSM slant…”
Comment by Oiram — 1/26/2009 @ 4:17 pm
But of course, how could the LAT have any liberal slant?
AD (cb5311) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:11 pmBeing part of the MSM (which everyone knows is only composed of RW Talk Radio)
would preclude them from being liberal.
Emperor7 wrote:
Durn tootin’ we do! It’s time to get rid of Barack Obama; we need a new man to lead! 🙂
The Dana who strives for precision (556f76) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:13 pmIf your sexism is incurable, can God rid you of it?
With man it is impossible but not with God; for with God, all things are possible! That gives me a lot of hope.
if God is omnipotent, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
Consider this a clue as to how my mind works.
Comment by The philosophical Dana — 1/26/2009 @ 5:10 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:26 pmThar’s the thing, Dana, no one knows how your mind works. Not even you! Except God, of course. 🙂
Sorry, I got it on special, and I carry it with me wherever I go. It was part of a package deal with my K&E loglog duplex decitrig slide rule.
But oiram wears it out, I might have to replace the fromitz board.
Steverino (b12c49) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:31 pm“Don’t just oppose for the sake of opposing.”
Lovey – Sort of like announcing the closing for the sake of announcing the closing? All optics, without any clue what’s going to happen. I see the big difference, yes I do!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:32 pmDurn tootin’ we do! It’s time to get rid of Barack Obama; we need a new man to lead!
Comment by The Dana who strives for precision — 1/26/2009 @ 5:13 pm
Away with Bush we did
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:37 pmAgain with change we did
What once was far to do
Obama’s come to do.
“#67 Daley at your request, I re-read the article. It is reporting the news.
Was Obama criitcised by Republicans or not?
The news of Obama’s choice being a lobbyist being reported 3 days before the said article is extremely relevent.”
Oiram – Obama was being criticized by Republicans and I disagree with you assertion of relevancy of a three day old article. The linked article stands on its own.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:38 pmI see the big difference, yes I do!
Comment by daleyrocks — 1/26/2009 @ 5:32 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:42 pmGood. Glad to see you are coming around, my new disciple. Others will soon follow. The Emperor has work for you. But you must first complete your indoctrination process.
Comment by daleyrocks — 1/26/2009 @ 5:38 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:52 pmNow say these words until you are hypnotized into absolute subjugation.
Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules!
Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules!
Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules! Obama is my master and he rules!
Obama is Obama is my master and he rules!
my master and he rules!……………………..
The Dog Trainer is not biased. You liberals can stop right there and agree with me. You conservatives can do a very quick bit of research and then agree with me. 😉
And yes, I’m being intentionally vague.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:26 pmEmp reminds me of an old Mike Warnke quip.
“Woe to you scabs and parasites, err I mean scribes and pharisees…”
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:31 pmPatterico #90: I wouldn’t dwell on the fact that several posters in this thread apparently see no difference between your two alternatives.
Or say they don’t, anyway.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:39 pmMaybe McCain means he’d have figured out what he’s going to do with the detainees before he suspended all the trials and set a closing date for Gitmo.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:08 pmIt was discussed today in closed democrat committees whether not voting democratic could be considered treason.
Republicans were given notice that any further fund raising or organized events will fall under the Homeland securities act of 2002 as the Republican party has been classified as an terrorist organization…
And thats the GOOD news
EricPWJohnson (852352) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:28 pmThat Mario intentionally misses the point is quite the SHOCKA. This is the same person that thinks that conservative talk radio is part of the MSM.
JD (d31b07) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:40 pmI like the way Boehner is thinking.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:41 pmI like the way Boehner is thinking.
Using Alcatraz, within the boundaries of loony leftwing San Francisco, in place of Gitmo? I say go for it!
As for the built-in biases that permeate an organization like the LA Times? I say fine. But just don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by being a member of such a publication and in a display of pure gall and dishonesty asking “What, me?! Oh, of course not! We’re non-partisan! We’re objective!”
But such nonsense really isn’t too surprising when, after all, quite a few people on the left can’t even be honest — or non-disengenuous — about their own belief system. So intead of coming out and proclaiming “I’m a liberal!”, they slightly cover their mouth and say “I’m a progressive!”
Mark (411533) — 1/26/2009 @ 8:13 pmJust remember which nations have placed “democratic” or “people’s” or both in their official names. Which political party can claim ownership of those nations?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/26/2009 @ 8:19 pmPatterico, obviously it’s #2. Reminds me how I found this site – via Oh, That Liberal Media.
carlitos (98b5b2) — 1/26/2009 @ 8:26 pmObama’s approval ratings have dropped from 83% a week ago to 68% to less than a week after actual governing.
Only the Obama-worshiping press could call a 15-point decline “soaring.”
RC (59f76f) — 1/26/2009 @ 10:45 pmI saw that video where the US Air jet soared into the Hudson
SteveG (a87dae) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:19 pmHey Obama uber a-hole, your bitterness and frustration is deeply satisfying. When people like you get this worked up and entertaining, the country is surely moving in the right direction.
Peter (67b2f5) — 1/26/2009 @ 11:51 pmEmperor7 wrote:
Could you translate that back into the original German? Thanks ever so much!
The Dana who does not blindly follow like a lemming (3e4784) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:27 amPeter wrote:
Then, by that logic, the country was surely moving in the right direction for the eight years between January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2009. The foaming-at-the-mouth BDS from some people was truly entertaining.
Heck, I have seen a couple of far-left sites — OpEdNews was one — which were still pressing for impeachment after the 2008 election.
The Dana who notices logical inconsistencies (3e4784) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:33 amTwo more corrupt officials convicted; did The Philadelphia Inquirer tell you they were Democrats?
Naw, no bias in the mainstream media at all!
The Dana who shamelessly plugs his own site. (3e4784) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:32 amWhen people like you get this worked up and entertaining, the country is surely moving in the right direction.
Petey emerges from his hole, realizes that his life still sucks, and subsequently lashes out with his tiny hands in frustration.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:24 amComment by The Dana who does not blindly follow like a lemming — 1/27/2009 @ 3:27 am
Okay Dana. Here goes.
Obama ist mein Meister und er ordnet an. Obama ist mein Meister und er ordnet an. Obama ist mein Meister und er ordnet an. Obama ist mein Meister und er ordnet an. Obama ist mein Meister und er ordnet an.
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:18 amYou’ve deliberately excluded the qualifying clause in McCain’s criticism. He said he wouldn’t have announced the closing of GTMO before he figured out what to do with the detainees there.
Who’s lying now?
Steverino (69d941) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:28 amIf you guys think there is one ounce of sincerity in Japanese Condom f/k/a pinhead2008 ….
She may speak English but she is no American. And no Christian, either. The only person who might wish Juggy to fail more than she does is Ahmadinejad. Her glee at Juggy’s election is over the fact that he is the worst thing that could happen to America and all the harm that he will do to us.
nk (bf9c84) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:33 amComment by nk — 1/27/2009 @ 8:33 am
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:40 amClassic.
“Obama’s approval ratings have dropped from 83% a week ago to 68% to less than a week after actual governing.”
Bush’s approval ratings were 63% two months into his first term even after the Democrats throwing all the stolen election crap at him, so I think it’s fair to say that Obama is now moving into Bush territory after week two.
Hope!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:45 amChange!
Who’s lying now?
Comment by Steverino — 1/27/2009 @ 8:28 am
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:00 amI don’t know. Are you?
Saying I wouldn’t announce the closure of GiTMO without first knowing where to send the prisoners to is just rhetoric. He is playing politics. How would he know that since he is not wearing Obama’s shoes? It’s easy to say what someone else should do when you are not in that person’s situation. When you make a promise to people during a campaign, it is expected you keep it when you come into office. Failure to do so will make people think you are not truthful. Even DRJ did not hesitate to chastise Obama when it looked as if he was going to renege on his promise to close down the facility. Now he has, someone has something to say against it. As expected, politicians will be politicians.
“When you make a promise to people during a campaign, it is expected you keep it when you come into office. Failure to do so will make people think you are not truthful. Even DRJ did not hesitate to chastise Obama when it looked as if he was going to renege on his promise to close down the facility. Now he has, someone has something to say against it.”
Lovey – Correction. He has only said he is going to close Gitmo. He has not actually done it. At this point as you pointed out in your comment relative to McCain it is pure rhetoric.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:10 amNo, it’s a valid criticism of Obama’s announcement: first figure out where the prisoners are going, then announce the closing. Not the other way around.
How would he know what he considers the proper sequence of events? You are kidding, right? Given your logic nobody should have criticized Bush, since no one was wearing his shoes.
The fact is, Emperor of Idiocy, you deliberately left off McCain’s qualifier. You made it sound like McCain was criticizing Obama for closing GTMO, when he was criticizing Obama for announcing the closure before figuring out where to put the prisoners. There’s a big difference between the two, and the fact that you are conflating them speaks volumes.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:13 amNuance, daley. Nuance.
It all depends on the meaning of “is,” don’t you know?
I think that the people who were and are all starry eyed about Barack Obama are starting to realize that he is…just…a…Chicago…politician.
With a very thin resume.
Let’s hope for the best.
Meanwhile, some of the Obamaniacs are still ranting in full force. Such as this breath-taking piece of leg tingling commentary:
http://kcet.org/socal/2009/01/commentary-10.html
Something tells me the author of that article has called GW Bush “Hitler” more than once. Overstatement and lack of perspective appear to be his forte.
I would also like to give that writer a quick test of basic facts of American history. I sense another Zinn fan.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:16 amThat Mario intentionally misses the point is quite the SHOCKA. This is the same person that thinks that conservative talk radio is part of the MSM.
Comment by JD — 1/26/2009 @ 7:40 pm
Talking to Oiram?
It’s quite the SHOCKA JD that you would say all that after expecting the Los Angeles Times news section (not opinion section) to tell you that Obama is “Disingenuous”.
JD’s #44 When the paper pointed out that Baracky lied makes no difference. The fact that they criticize McCain for pointing out that Baracky is being disingenuous, rather than pointing out that Baracky is being disingenuous, remains the point.
I’m glad I’ve gotten to know that many in this room are dyslexic, (that’s how I know I’m being addressed).
Make up the rules as you go along JD, you will be a ROCKSTA in this room.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:16 amComment by Steverino — 1/27/2009 @ 9:13 am
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:18 amCan we have this conversation without the name-calling? Please?
You cannot criticize Teh One unless you are a sitting President, huh, lovie?
It is a statement of fact. It is what a thoughtful person would do, rather than one that looks to pander to the nutroots.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:19 amSteverino:
You are right, but that wouldn’t be the right way to get a bunch of hard left voters to the voting booth.
I certainly hope that Obama was lying through his teeth about a number of things during the campaign, don’t you?
But he is hardly the LightWorker or the first “truly American President.”
Just a race-card playing Chicago pol, who believes in his own entitledness more than anything else.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:20 amOiram – I see that you still continue to, at best, mis-state my position, and obviously do not understand the nuance of the post in question. Plus, you are just tiresome.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:22 amStop calling me a liar, and I’ll take it under advisement. Besides, you call yourself an emperor, we’re just disagreeing over your realm.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:33 amOK, let’s go to the transcript:
What’s your problem with that, lovey?
AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:02 amThe Wall St. Journal agrees with Patterico.
I love the title –
carlitos (9e0bdf) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:05 amPliability Journalism
Change comes to the Associated Press.
Pablo – Her problem with that is that it will get in the way of Teh Narrative.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:19 amComment by JD — 1/27/2009 @ 9:19 am
Would you rather he comes out and says something like ” Even though I promised to shut the farking place down, I won’t. Not until we figure out where to send all these scumbags…” Maybe that would have been a good way to start his presidency. On the other hand, announcing he will close the place down in a year gives him enough time to resolve where they will be sent. It’s more like setting a goal and giving yourself a deadline so as to compel yourself to work towards the goal. Announcing the intention to shut the place down commits him to do it. Don’t you think?
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:26 amThat would have been refreshing, lovie.
Announcing the intention means nothing to Baracky. He stated that he was not running for President, and then immediate ran for President. He said he could no more disown Rev. Hatey and his Church, and then proceeded to do so.
Take a look at the 3958 positions he has had on Iraq, and then get back to me about intention.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:34 amYou people have forgotten one of the lessons of the Clinton legacy:
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:39 amTo announce a policy is just as important as to implement that policy, if not more so.
Once an announcement has been made, any further discussion will be dismissed as “talking about old news” as they have moved on to a new subject without ever implementing the policy.
It is another aspect of “Seinfeld” politics: Symbolism over Substance.
Dana, I gave Bushy 18 months to get his Sh*t together before it became glaringly apparent the man was a bad incompetent joke, which is now the consensus in the country with “Worst president in U.S. history” coming up quite handily to sum up his tenure again and again. (Except of course for those apologists and masochists with daddy issues and a desperate need for psychotherapy.) And that is probably 542 days MORE that some of the tiresome blowhards here will ever give Obama.
So we’re seven days into this and the knives come out form the WSJ –that bastion of objective journalism and blinkered editorializing. Enthusiastic throat jockey’s to the clowns on Wall Street, and in the banks and in the board rooms, and the ratings agencies and the castrated cuckolds at the SEC, OEM, FED RESERVE and acolytes and hand maidens to the the long dead rotten body politic of Ronald Reagan and those who worshiped his decaying coat-tails and founded and caused the failed repulsive unAmerican Republican revolution: Gingrich, Delay, Abramoff, PNAC, Gorver Norquist, the Neocons, Abramoff, Karl Rove still in progress– With the crowning jewel on that pile of human detritus and lies and BS and corruption being of course, always and forever one, George W. Bush.
Let’s get this straight: The “press” gave Bush an unheard of FREE RIDE for more than half his tenure. They were bullied, threatened, imprisoned, ignored, manipulated, sliced, diced and metaphorically spit on, by the Bush White house.
So seven days in the WSJ has the cajones to try and get away with writing a paragraph like this:
Yet one institution has changed dramatically, and in a very short time: the press. After spending the Bush years as a voice of opposition, American journalists have by and large turned on a dime and become cheerleaders for the man in power.
Pay close attention to the bolded part of that paragraph, because it is the stupidest thing I’ve read from a newspaper in a while.
The press an “opposition” to Bush. That’s just too silly for words, it’s not even worth addressing any further, because the WSJ and some of the people here may think people have a short memory and they can get away with that sort of self-serving mendacity, but I’m never going to forget and I’m never going to stop talking about the sad pathetic state of this nation under George W. Bush. And neither is the country, because everytime they check their portfolio’s or they get another pink slip they know exactly who is to blame. So the WSJ, and Patterico here (who usually I admire for his holding the LA times stuff to a higher standard), you doth protest too much. You seek to play a game you will lose over and over again because the truth is just too big to be ignored.
It’s time to move on to a more functional government. These BS-filled immature (childish) arguments that seek to drag the country down to this level again are forever done with. Evolve or (continue) to die as a party.
Conservatism is alive and well. Just not in the Republican party, but in the White House, with a DEMOCRATIC President. And when he or his administration is in the wrong it needs to be taken to task by the press, but this sh*t seven days into his administration, is yet more RIght-wing wankery and sour grapes and denial of just how little relevance their ideas have anymore, as is the game the Republicans in COngress are trying to play with the Stimulus package (yes, and how much of that money was going to to condoms anyway, oh a PITTANCE).
I say enough, keep crying into your beers WSJ and OBAMA UBER A-HOLE and whoever. Obama is still going to succeed spectacularly in spite of your wish that he fail.
Bye. Bye.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:00 amWhat a fuckin’ imbecile. That might be the biggest collection of projection and outright bullshit that I have read in quite some time. Brava, Peter.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:03 amDon’t tease us like that, Petey.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:04 amComment by Peter — 1/27/2009 @ 11:00 am
Further evidence of Peter’s complete divorce from reality, and why his opinions are discounted heavily, or disregarded completely.
Thanks for your visit Peter, just don’t let the door….
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:19 amWhile I strongly agree Peter is unwilling to see the true facts concerning just about anything, I must take exception to the patronizing fashion of mangling his name. We are better than the accepted commenters on liberal blogs. We don’t have to resort to the low-ball tactics of attacking names so openly.
Break down Peter’s argument, show the obvious rejection of fact in his assertions, ridicule him for saying “bye bye” and returning again, but don’t flame his name. Kay?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:22 amPeter, what a weird alternate universe you live in.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:42 amPeter wrote:
Well, let’s see, 18 months into the Bush Administration would have been July of 2002. According to the Pew Research Center, President Bush’s Job Approval ratings in July of 2002 were, measured twice, 67 and 65%.
And, beyond public opinion polls, in November of 2002 the voters increased the Republicans’ congressional majorities, the first time that the party of a sitting president had seen that happen on his first midterm election since 1934.
Then, in November of 2004, the voters gave President Bush a majority win for re-election, the first majority (rather than plurality) since his father’s win in 1988.
The “worst president in history” meme is one that our friends on the left have been trying to sell — unfortunately with some success — in the last year, but it’s simple propaganda; like Harry Truman, he’ll be a lot better respected after the political hubbub has died down.
Peter, perhaps you are unaware that almost every major daily endorsed Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. That alone ought to tell you that the press was in opposition. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran what they called a “21-gun salute,” editorials endorsing Senator Kerry for 21 days straight in October of 2004.
Then there was CBS News, which totally trashed its reputation by using forged documents to try to undermine President Bush before the 2004 election. The forgeries were obvious enough that they were spotted by bloggers — primarily Little Green Footballs and Powerline — not from the originals but from screen-caps of the originals, yet CBS, with all its resources, couldn’t see it.
Then, after the Rathergate fiasco, CBS tried yet again, wanting to hold a damaging story until the Sunday immediately prior to the election, to deny the Bush campaign a chance to respond; it was only because The New York Times, seeing that the story was going to leak, printed early that the campaign had the time to respond, and CBS’ attempts to influence the election were, once again, exposed.
I’d suggest that it’s not very effective for you to argue that “the WSJ and some of the people here may think people have a short memory” when you have not been much of an example of long-term memory here.
Try again.
The Dana who knows how to look up things (3e4784) — 1/27/2009 @ 12:16 pmOiram – I see that you still continue to, at best, mis-state my position, and obviously do not understand the nuance of the post in question. Plus, you are just tiresome.
Comment by JD — 1/27/2009 @ 9:22 am
Tired of dissenting voices eh JD? Sorry this can’t be a complete rah rah conservative club.
I still need a clarification on your nuance, narrative, or whatever the hell your calling it today. Do you, or do you not think that the L.A. times news section should call Baracky (sometimes I need to speak your language) disingenuous?
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:06 pmDana, You know, I can also look up and quote irrelevant statistics that have nothing to do with my argument. I’m not sure how pointing to Bush’s approval rating in mid-2002 has anything to do with opposition from the press. Not to mention that in the aftermath of 9/11 a doorknob with an American flag lapel pin would’ve polled at those numbers.
But I’m glad you bring it up, because it cements my point that Bush had an opportunity to reach for greatness as a leader. The whole country was behind him after 911, Dems and Repubs and everyone (as evidenced by your statistics, yet in that moment, did he ask for the best from the country? Did he use his influence and approval rating to better the nation? Did he ask for a united country focussed on undoing AQ?
No, he did not:
-He told us to go shopping.
-He lied to us that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was involved in 911.
-He and Rove and the GOP strategists, cynically (and criminally some might say) attempted to turn it into an opportunity for political gain…to cement a GOP majority for a generation.
You mistake the idea of opposition (which is really prejudice) with the idea of fair criticism for a floundering and pathetically inept administration. By 2004 it was obvious to any self respecting paper in the country that Bush was doing grievous harm to the nation with his short sighted, unwise and poorly thought out and executed policies.
Any opposition to Obama at this point is not only unbeleviebly premature, but also, and here’s the important point, in actuality a prejudice to the man and his ideas as president, because there is nothing to point to and say “that didn’t work” unlike the mountain, nay, verily..the solar systems, and planets, and astronomic curiosities in the UNIVERSE of FAIL that is the not only the Bush administration, but the GOP dominance of the nation these last couple of decades reaching it’s apotheosis in the spectacular economic sh*tstorm battering us at this very hour.
Oh and finally, you say CBS, I say FOX News, you say…oh that’s right. Rathergate was one specific incident wasn’t it? As opposed to the endless 911 mind-f*ckery of FOX NEWS.
Dan Rather was over-zealous, but he can hardly be blamed for feeling a real burning imperative to undo a dangerous liar and a fool. Plus, regardless of the forged letter, we all know that W. was a joke at the TEXAS AIR GUARD and his time there was a joke; the military equivalent of a sinecure job, like those doled out to the well-connected and and wealthy and other fortunate sons, who can shrug off the responsibilities that others can’t.
So to sum up: Opposition, seven days in, is ideological poo poo. Some out there just can’t wait to tear this administration apart, if they can because party comes before country. And they still can’t see that their lassiez faire ideology was wrong-headed and has imploded and dissolved in the wind forever. They can’t accept failure. And I leave you with W. Churchill:
Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
(Hint: Continuing means you should endeavor to NOT employ the same failed methodologies over and over again.)
Bye bye folks.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:10 pmSince Obama is most definitely disingenuous and since Obama has most definitely been dissembling, newspapers should report that. It is a fact and newspapers are supposed to be reporting facts, but their liberal agenda prevent them from reporting facts.
Should the Dog Trainer say Obama is being disingenuous? Yes. Why? Because it is fact and not opinion.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:16 pm#152 John, you don’t know how far you just unraveled your “Liberal Media” theory.
Keep it up.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:17 pmBush never said that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:17 pmThat’s the second time you’ve bid us farewell, yet you just can’t give us up, can you? Like a discarded lover who resorts to stalking it’s former amour, your obsessiveness is starting to show.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:19 pmAnd Peter, you really should go bye-bye.
Churchill came in and won the day after Chamberlain said “I work here is done.” You, Peter, keep saying “I work here is done” but you keep coming back and trying to add to your work.
Don’t bother quoting Churchill if you don’t understand Churchill, kay?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:19 pmKeep it up.
It speaks.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:19 pmComment by Dmac — 1/27/2009 @ 1:19 pm
I sure do speak, Dmac. Now that’s two Patterico loyalists above who apparently think two wrongs make a right. Are you a third? That is if you accept their reasoning behind the Media being left leaning.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand it does seem that the media is tilted from your point of view. But when two people here think that the L.A. times should call Obama disingenuous, the word hypocrite could only come to mind……. or vendetta.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:35 pmComment by Peter — 1/27/2009 @ 1:10 pm
They just can’t stand people who (1) Criticize George Bush and (2) Commend Obama. Like Rush, most here want him to fail so they can justify their cynicism. But keep trying your best. I believe they will soon be totally subjugated and indoctrinated. ( 😉 )
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:39 pmI am seeing the signs. (How do you do that “smiley” with a dark shade? Anyone?)
If the LAT is not a member of the MSM, and it is not Left-leaning, just what the Hell is it?
Since it incorporates Leftist talking-points into its’ news items, and the Ed Page could be a screen-cap of Puffington Host, it would seem to be disingenuous to think of in the same vein as the OpEd section of the WSJ.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:45 pmThe Penguin needs to understand that it is not a matter of if “The One” will fall on his arse,
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:48 pmit is just a matter of when, and how much he is going to hurt us, the People of the United States.
Setting goals is not something one does in an Executive Order, lovey.
AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:49 pmMe, I’d just like you to make a rational argument.
AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:50 pmPeter says …
He lied to us that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was involved in 911.
This, my friends, is a pure unadulterated lie.
We cannot miss you if you do not stay gone, Peter.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:05 pmTry an upper-case b.
I don’t want America to fail, I want it to succeed. I just don’t think it will if Obama implements all his policies.
As far as praising Obama, go right ahead. If I think it’s unwarranted, I’ll speak up. And I’d like to do so without be accused of wanting America to fail.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:06 pm#160 AD, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.
Do you really think the L.A. Times is as left leaning as all portray it here?
Case in point, the post we are commenting on makes it seem that a story was presented by way of criticism by Republicans.
I hate to harp, but of course I will.
Note how deftly that was done. The paper manages to tell you that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House
(ORIGINAL POST)
How else do I read that? I don’t read the L.A. Times religiously as most here don’t, so I had to search their records to find out that they did their job, and broke the story on the 23rd. The story that Patterico is referring to is about Republican reaction, specifically John McCain’s which was news on the 26th.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:10 pmOiram – The LA Times is even more “left-leaning” (nice euphemism) than it is portrayed here.
How do you read that? Apparently you read it while ignoring all of the context surrounding the sentence that you keep quoting.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:12 pmOiram:
One of the posters on here is still claiming that the Columbus Dispatch, which has not endorsed a democratic presidential candidate since 1916, is a liberal paper. I think you have to be a few miles to the right of Limbaugh to be sanctioned a conservative paper around here, so I am not sure if it is even worth debating that particular subject.
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:15 pm#167 I read the article in question JD, if it was the first time that the L.A. times was reporting it under the idea of Republican criticism, then you are absolutely right…….. but that’s not the case.
“Context”, you wrote it beautifully and it applies to the way news paper articles are criticized.
Still waiting for A “Clarification” JD(Read
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:20 pm#150).
#168 Ed, yeah I know. But here’s the thing, I’m not going to win an argument here on whether or not the media is liberal, they are dead set that it is. And that’s fine, let them think that.
But when I read comments telling me that the L.A. Times should call Obama disingenuous as McCain has, then I have to point out the hypocrisy of their narrative.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:27 pmHere is your clarification, Mario. Learn how to read, or at least reading for comprehension.
I will attempt one last time to explain it to you, and if that does not work, then it will be obvious that you are being intentionally obtuse, as opposed to simply being slow.
Patterico rightly highlights the fact that the Times managed to make McCain out to be the bad guy, playing politics and attacking Baracky, when the fact remains that Baracky was doing something that aboslutely flies in the face of his executive order in re. ethics. Somehow, that is an attack, as opposed to McCain pointing out that Baracky was being disingenuous.
Again, that they reported that Baracky was acting in a hypocritical/disingenuous manner 3 days prior has nothing, not one fucking thing, to do with the substance of this post.
Ed is still an idiot today. Keep praying for that hope and change, Ed.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:28 pmYou are not going to win that argument because the media is demonstrably liberal. That we are dead set on that fact stems from it being a fact.
So, it is not okay to note that Baracky is disingenuous, but it is okay to lie about Bush and Republicans for the last 8 years? Odd, that.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:30 pm#165 Steverino, very refreshing.
When you talk that way, no one should accuse you of wanting America to fail.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:32 pmThe Columbus Dispatch is left-center or left. The Republican party is centrist or right-center by and large. I tend to be further right than Rush Limbaugh. I have lived my entire life in Ohio; however, I have been to 48 states, 2 Canadian provinces, 2 Mexican states. Presidential endorsements =! all endorsements and can easily be misleading. EFP’s assertion, while taken as fact, has not been examined on my part. EFP often takes information out of context then mischaracterizes that information to benefit him. EFP has regularly been called on his misquoting of his out-of-context information. I am often castigated for my fact-based beliefs and my faith-based beliefs, and I doubt that will change in my lifetime.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:33 pmIf Ed and Mario contend that the media is not liberal, that says more about their political leanings and where they would fall on the political continuum than it does about the media.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:35 pm#171 Thanks JD, now was that so hard to change what you wrote way above?
You now think it’s not o.k. to call Baracky disingenuous right? Interesting
That’s all I wanted.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:36 pmIf Ed and Mario contend that the media is not liberal, that says more about their political leanings and where they would fall on the political continuum than it does about the media.
Comment by JD — 1/27/2009 @ 2:35 pm
If JD and the rest here contend that the media is liberal, that says more about their political leaning and where they would fall on the political continuum than it does about the media.
Sorry JD, all too easy to tweek.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:38 pmYou wrote #171, Mario. I should hope you would agree with yourself.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:39 pm#175
Dissembling.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:39 pmDisingenuous.
False victory.
Troll.
Hitch, you still have given me nothing but your opinion on that subject.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-Columbus-Dispatch
What does that link have to say about the paper? I don’t want to ruin the surprise for you, but it backs up my claim.
You claim that the media is liberal without any real basis other than your ‘gut feelings’. Aren’t you guys supposed to be proud of your stance against ‘feelings, not facts’?
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:41 pmThat the media is liberal is not some random opinion. It is a fact. Look at the UCLA studies. Look at their own polls where 80+% voted Dem. Look at what they write. Look at some of the examples Dana gave. You are arguing that the sky is purple with pink polka dots, when everyone knows it is blue (or grey this time of year).
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:43 pm#178 Hey John, did JD change his stance on whether or not a Newspaper should use an opinion and call a president disingenuous or not?
I still think your holding on to that lame hypocrisy.
Thanks for calling me a troll, it’s a great indicator of the logic calling up your need to name call.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:44 pmEd – Your own link says that the paper is centrist now, but had historically been more conservative. For the sake of arguing with an idiot, let’s say that the paper is conservative. How does that change the overall dynamic of the fact that the MSM is liberal?
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:46 pmMario – When the LA Times quits editorializing about Republicans in news articles, I will agree that they should refrain from calling Baracky disingenuous. I will not be holding my breath.
Where did I call you a troll today, Mario?
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:48 pmPresupposes an unstated premise.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:51 pmMSM uses opinion and agenda to write non-OpEd articles already.
Obama is disingenuous. That is fact and not opinion.
MSM is supposed to be reporting facts.
I wasn’t really apart of the liberal media discussion, JD (too much wasted time in that argument… it is too subjective and all debaters just end up even more entrenched in their original viewpoints), but Hitch was selling me that the paper is liberal after I posted an article and said “this was interesting”. Hitch kind of flipped out about it.
The link says the Dispatch has moved towards the center. I claim it hasn’t arrived there yet. Get your hands on the election addiction. The ratio of R’s to D’s that the paper endorsed is close to 5:1. That isn’t really a ‘centrist’ stance.
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:51 pmJD, I called him a troll. And he is a troll.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:52 pmaddition not addiction*
Limbaugh-ian slip
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:52 pmWhat is an election addiction?
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:54 pm#180 JD, beautiful arguments, all of them really……… especially now that you’ve apparently changed your stance on what the Los Angeles Times should call our president.
Keep talking about the liberal bias, thinking the above Los Angeles Times article was telling you about Obama being disingenuous for the first time could certainly add to your arguments 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:55 pmI do not disagree, John, but I wanted to point out that Mario knows not what it types.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:57 pmEFP, I do believe you are referring to one of the “100-0” threads. And I don’t remember any “flipped out” post I made. Also, as I continue to assert, (R) is not a conservative party. (R) is a centrist or right-center party that people on the right vote with for the most part. There is no viable conservative party at this time. Voinovich(R) is not conservative but centrist or possibly center-right.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:58 pmI was quite giddy when the Democrat Party lost the HoR and promptly veered further left. I thought that was the death-knell of the party. But then the Republican Party veered left to take up the vacant space and I realized both cars had the same 4-wheel alignment problem: the cars travel left without constant vigilance.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:03 pm#183 JD, thanks for not calling me a troll today 🙂 And thank you again John for not only calling me a troll, but for owning up to it.
JD, I re-read (now for the 4th time) the article in question. Did the Republicans criticize Obama or not? The ironic thing here is that they have a point, and that is what The Los Angeles times was reporting.
I don’t understand why you need to include this into your Los Angeles times bashing. Again, if you don’t read the article they presented on Friday Jan. 23rd, then I might understand where you are coming from.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:07 pmso I am not sure if it is even worth debating that particular subject.
Since you habitually confuse argument with debate, how could you engage in an actual discussion you have no idea how to conduct in the first place? Go look up the old Monty Python skits on YouTube headlined “argument room vs. debate room,” and then get back to us.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:10 pmAgain, an article from 3 days prior has not one fucking thing to do with the nature of the criticism in this post. I am going to have to assume that you are being intentionally obtuse, since you are obviously not learning challenged.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:11 pmPresupposes an unstated premise.
MSM uses opinion and agenda to write non-OpEd articles already.
Obama is disingenuous. That is fact and not opinion.
MSM is supposed to be reporting facts.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 1/27/2009 @ 2:51 pm
Two wrongs make a right then I guess 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:12 pmI love it, all of you want to Bash the L.A. Times by essentially guiding us to look only at an article printed 3 days after the original news report.
And then call anyone who calls you out on this a “Troll”.
Pathetic
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:16 pmNo, you mental midget, we note that the article printed 3 days earlier has not one damned thing to do with the criticism in this post. Maybe you are just slow …
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:19 pmComment by Steverino — 1/27/2009 @ 2:06 pm
Thanks Steve. B)
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:25 pmNote how deftly that was done. The paper manages to tell you that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House — but who’s the bad guy? Somehow, it’s John McCain. Obama tried to reach out to him, we are told, and McCain showed his gratitude by calling Obama “disingenuous.” The fact that Obama was disingenuous isn’t the point, you see. It’s all about how McCain and other Republicans are big jerks who are ignoring Obama’s bipartisan gestures.
Come on JD “The paper manages to tell you that Obama has reneged on a promise to ban lobbyists from the White House —” What does that tell us????? J.H.Christ!
That is not how the paper managed to tell those who have read previous articles…… which undoubtedly people here didn’t or chose not to report that they did.
It has everything to do with…… let me try this here “teh nerretive” sorry if I misspelled your obtuseness.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:27 pmComment by Dmac — 1/27/2009 @ 3:10 pm
I guess a humane post is miles above your childish level.
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:30 pmMaybe you are just slow …
It does not comprehend, nor communicate – it is locked into it’s own pod of confusion and madness. But it soldiers on, unaware of the vapidness of it’s own existence.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:30 pm#198
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:31 pmDidn’t work. 🙁
Who knows how to do the smiley with shades?
Anyone?
#200 Ed, ………….come on??
What level did you really expect here?
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:31 pmIt does not comprehend, nor communicate – it is locked into it’s own pod of confusion and madness. But it soldiers on, unaware of the vapidness of it’s own existence.
Don’t be too hard on the republican party Dmac, it will re-build itself someday 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:34 pmTwo more corrupt officials convicted; did The Philadelphia Inquirer tell you they were Democrats?…
But can you imagine The Philadelphia Inquirer failing to mention that two convicted judges were Republicans if they had actually been Republicans?
Common Sense Political Thought (73d96f) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:35 pm……
I guess that you have no idea what the word “humane” means, ED. And I think you should grow up.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:37 pmI told you all that a tsunami of stooopid was coming.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:37 pm#205 LOL yeah I can imagine them failing to report that two judges were Republicans.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:37 pmFirst we have this gem from Eddy:
Get your hands on the election addiction.
To which JD responds:
What is an election addiction?
To which Eddy offers no response (as usual), but we have this:
I guess a humane post is miles above your childish level.
But Eddy earlier offered this:
I think you have to be a few miles to the right of Limbaugh
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, a perfect trifecta for our Eddy! He achieved this monumental feat with another non – responsive posting, then added to his lead with a claim of victimhood, seasoned it with a dash of moral superiority, then finished the deed with an irrelevant Limbaugh reference. Eddy apparently still doesn’t understand how to search for any sources outside of Columbus, OH to buttress his points. Take a bow, Eddy – you truly deserve the honor.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:43 pmI told you all that a tsunami of stooopid was coming.
Comment by JD — 1/27/2009 @ 3:37 pm
I love it JD, what’s the matter out of arguments?
I’m still waiting. Did Republicans criticize Obama or not? And in the context of a 3 day previous article calling Obama out on his back steps, where is the left leaning slant??
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:45 pmAnd I think you should grow up.
I still believe that Eddy’s main reference point for these discussions is his collection of Highlights for Children, but that’s not really being fair to the actual editors of that magazine.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:45 pmI love it JD, what’s the matter out of arguments?
What’s the matter, out of commas?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:46 pmI am not out of arguments, Mario. I, and others, have explained this too you at length. That you ignore English and continue to maintain BS points and advance irrelevant positions is exasperating. And dull. You bore me. Yes, they criticized Baracky, and rightfully so. However, the LA Times focuses on the criticism, and makes them out to be the bad guy, other than Baracky for doing what he is being criticized for, and justifiably so.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:55 pm#212 Yeah, Dmac it is about time for you to criticize my grammar.
Good
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:56 pm“Focuses on the criticism”????
Unbelievable………. Did you read the L.A. times original article 3 days before on the subject or not???
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:57 pmPeter missed his own point:
Pete, you were the one who wrote that you
That’s where the July 2002 date came from.
Silly stuff. By November of 2004, the voters not only re-elected President Bush, but re-elected a Republican controlled Congress; that was the decision of the people, not the editors who had been against George Bush for his entire presidency. Remember, they had also endorsed Al Gore in 2000, so it wasn’t like they were Bush supporters who had changed their minds.
Yes, Fox News exists, the notable exception which proves the rule. You have Fox on one side, and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC on the other.
Now this is truly amusing. Now you are defending Dan Rather for lying through his scummy teeth, and trying to pass off a forgery as news, because you believe that he felt a duty — one which you apparently approve — to try to defeat the President. And yet you write this, with a straight face, on a thread concerning media bias!
You just proved our point, Pete, and undermined your own. 🙂
The ever-patient Dana (556f76) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:58 pmI don’t mind seeing insults, when they’re attached to statements. I don’t much like seeing unobtrusive monikers being defamed. Can we stick to insulting obvious idiocy of those leftist trolls instead of defaming their names?
And no, I’m not talking about trashing obviously offensive or flame-worthy names. I’m also not talking about the Oiram-mariO thing, either. I’m talking about switching Ed from PA to Eddy and other matters of that sort. EFP is fine, as that is no insult.
Attack the words, not the unoffensive name, please.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:00 pmAmen. B)
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:04 pmOiram-mariO
Makes me look like some sort of super hero.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:05 pmEmperor7 wrote:
The code is b-) (lower case b, minus sign, right parenthesis mark, in case it works) but it may not work here. WordPress has a set of expanded emoticons available, but I don’t believe that our esteemed host has them installed.
For a good look at the ranges allowed, check out Sister Toldjah’s comments section; she does have them installed.
The HTML Dana (556f76) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:06 pmAaargh! Why isn’t it working? I want my smiley to wear dark shades. Is that too much to ask for?
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:07 pmB:)
Just as a test, this is the entire set of codes, copied from Sister Toldjah, to see which ones work; I’ll bet it’s not many:
🙂 🙁 :d :”> :(( \:d/ 😡 8-| /:) 😮 😕 :-” :-w 😉 [-( :)>- #:-s (~~) **== *-:) o:-) 3:-o :(|) :)) :-ss <):) :d< @};- [-o< ^:)^ #-o $-) %%- (%) (*) (:| 8-x 8-} :-$ :-& :* :-\ :- :-@ :-b :-j :-l :p :-s 😐 :o) :@) :^o ;)) ;;) =(( =)) =d> =p~ >-) >:) >:/ >:p @-) b-( b-) |-) l-) o-+ o-> o=> x( [-x ~:> ~o) =;
The Dana unafraid to experiment on someone else's site! (556f76) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:09 pmThat’s okay, I like my left-handed bull smiley that I inverted from a righty I knew who used to MUD on the same MUD I used to play. (8:{
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:11 pmb-)
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:14 pmHey, Dana with extra words, decipher these:
:<8-<
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:14 pm8:<-<
:<3-<
oops, I forgot the smiley on each of them, so much for my perfect memory.
:)<8-<
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:16 pm8:)<-<
:)<3-<
Two of my favorites:
*-O)):~{>
(((:~Oالله
Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:20 pmComment by The HTML Dana — 1/27/2009 @ 4:06 pm
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:25 pmI just tried your formula over at Sister Toldjah’s and it worked! Wonder why it doesn’t work here. I know I have seen someone use it on this blog. Thanks for your help. The excess of help. 🙂
JD, I have to call it a day. I think we’ve exhausted our arguments on this thread (people are so bored they are finding new emotion faces).
As long as you don’t think the Los Angeles times needs to out right call Obama disingenuous (I could be wrong, but I don’t think they ever called Bush that) then your all right in my book.
Peace Brother
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:29 pmLOL!!!
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:41 pmMario is so disingenuous it’s hilarious.
Emperor7: It doesn’t work here because our esteemed host hasn’t installed the expanded emoticon plug-in.
The HTML Dana (556f76) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:44 pmMr Hitchcock @226: the girl on the bottom needs a bra.
Does that prove that I can decipher them? 😮
The HTML Dana (556f76) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:46 pmdid you miss the “addition not addiction” correction? How’s about we read the entire thread, sweetie?
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:15 pmComment by The ever-patient Dana — 1/27/2009 @ 3:58 pm
Republicans won on the “Smear, fear, and queer” tactic in 2004. The people were tired of it and/or didn’t buy it any more by 2008 (that and McCain, while still a politician, is not as slimy as Dubya).
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:18 pmUmm, try edition instead of addition. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:18 pmAnd Democrats never smear? Democrats never use class envy? (soak the rich) Democrats never use racist tactics? (Watts and Thomas are race traitors) Democrats never use fear tactics? (Without big government, this country will fail)
That isn’t smear?
Try again, EFP, but next time try accuracy and fact-based discourse. I know it’s a new idea for you, but you just might like it.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:23 pmI see that this is an active-troll discussion:
Ed fm PA is displaying his studied ignorance;
The Penguin is once more on a passive/aggressive flight of fancy; and,
mariO, has found a new trollish line of attack in disputing the Leftward slant of the Dog Trainer.
Ah, what else can one do during the long, cold nights of Winter?
Global Warming, anyone?
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 6:40 pmEd from PA:
I don’t speak Pennsylvania dialect very well, so perhaps you can help me out here. Is “slimy” Pennsylvanian for “effective?” That seems the most intuitive definition, seeing as both guys ran for President twice, each with a perfect record of sorts.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 1/27/2009 @ 6:50 pmHow’s about we read the entire thread, sweetie?
Oh, no – I was afraid this would eventually happen – Eddy’s coming on to me.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:38 pmDmac!
Karl (2491e1) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:43 pmDmac – It is so obviously racist of you to point out the mendoucheousness of EFP.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:53 pmEd from my home state wrote:
XRLQ got it right: apparently Ed is using “slimy” as a synonym for effective. But no, Mr X, that’s not how most Pennsyltuckians use the word.
I’d suggest that, in November of 2004, the voters approved of President Bush’s job performance, and did not think that Senator Kerry would do a better job.
“Smear, fear, and queer?” It wasn’t President Bush who put the infamous “I was for it before I was against it” into Senator Kerry’s mouth. It wasn’t President Bush who forced Senator Kerry, busily running against the war, to say, in August of 2004 that, even knowing what he knew right then, he’d still have voted to authorize the war.
The public rightly saw Senator Kerry as someone who wasn’t even honest about himself: rather than simply say what he felt, he tried to say everything to everybody, and not offend anyone.
As for “queer,” even in liberal California, which went 61% – 39% for Barack Husssein Obama, Proposition 8 passed 52% – 48%.
The Dana in Pennsylvania (3e4784) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:41 amThe ever conveniently missing the point Dana:
Silly stuff. By November of 2004, the voters not only re-elected President Bush, but re-elected a Republican controlled Congress;
Would that have happened if not for 911? Answer yes or no.
In spite of his incompetence in fighting the war on terror, 911 was the gift that never stopped giving for 6 years. Because considering that the GOP was talking about cementing their political control of the nation for half a century it says much that Bush won with a slim margin of 2.4% of the vote.
Now you are defending Dan Rather for lying through his scummy teeth, and trying to pass off a forgery as news, because you believe that he felt a duty — one which you apparently approve — to try to defeat the President
I don’t believe I ever said what Rather did was right. But you seem to think you can imply that, yet you pay no mind whatsoever that the essential charges and surmise of that story was true. W. was a fortunate son who never had to deal with the responsibilities of most people and was handed a vanilla military assignment, he barely attended too…because of his families vast and powerful connections. You know: Affirmative action (also known as a silver spoon) for the ultra-wealthy and connected that gets them everything they want, always.
You think Obama would’ve had that luxury? You think his rich, powerful and ultra connected family ever got him jack-sh*t? No, he actually had to work hard and work smart and keep it together when he could’ve fallen into so many bad traps. You think, in spite of his experimentation with recreational drugs he had a family who could’ve picked him up and put him right again and hide an addiction under the rug, the way W. had?
You probably know the answer to that.
Don’t you ever get tired of defending a failed incompetent fool?
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:00 amComment by Peter — 1/28/2009 @ 11:00 am
We will be tireless in defending you, Peter.
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:07 amSpeak for yourself, AD. Peter is making me sleepy already.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:16 amI hereby denounce myself for something I haven’t even said yet but am about to say. Other than the fact Peter doesn’t even attempt to state any facts whatsoever, Peter also doesn’t have one.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:40 am[…] employed classic techniques of liberal bias in describing Republican criticism of […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32) — 1/1/2010 @ 11:09 am