Time to Pay Off Obama's Allies.

[notyou2]

Player, I respect all opinions and listen to them, even though in the end I may not agree with them.

I said "high school" of which there are a great many players here that are of that age. A high school does not have in your words "young children". High school in most cases is comprised of students 15 to 18 years of age and 18 in many places is old enough to get married or to go to war and kill others.

As far as joining the discussion goes, I stopped posting in this thread after the OP asked me to stop, but Woodruff continued, so I felt I had to respond and show him the flaws in his argument. I would actually prefer it if a mod would break out the posts in this thread that are discussing the issue of the mods exhibiting moderation in their posts.

I will not post in this thread again on the mod issue.

[Woodruff]

Shouldn't the admins choose mods that are more mainstream in their views thus perhaps exercising "moderation" closer to the intent of the term moderator?

The problem has nothing to do with an individual's views (mainstream or not), but rather their ability to not allow their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views. It simply requires objectivity on the part of the individual...to be able to stand outside of the situation and view it with impartiality.

If a moderator is allowing their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views (even if they are mainstream views), then there is a very real problem.

Woodruff, I have stated here we are all entitled to our opinions, but it is the position some occupy and the airing of their opinions that bothers me. I have stated that when in a position of authority restraint should be shown and you seem to disagree with this. Fair enough, lets try a hypothetical situation.

Lets assume one is in a position of authority say as a high school principal. Lets assume there is a high school newsletter published by the students with help of the adminsistration. Lets assume the principal has a weekly column in the newsletter. One week he espouses his support for:
1. homosexuality
2. the war in Iraq
3. global warming
4. his stance against revamping medicare in the US

Now repeat what you stated previously in this thread.

You're seriously comparing the position of principal of a high school with the position of a moderator in a newsgroup and trying to pass it off as a valid comparison? That's ludicrous on the face of it. Public funding won't allow the principal to make those sorts of statements. As far as I'm aware, this site isn't receiving public funding.

[pimpdave]

this site isn't receiving public funding.

[Woodruff]

this site isn't receiving public funding.

Oh, I see...I've used adult language when I shouldn't have. I apologize for that error. Next time I'll take into account who I'm speaking to.

[pimpdave]

this site isn't receiving public funding.

Oh, I see...I've used adult language when I shouldn't have. I apologize for that error. Next time I'll take into account who I'm speaking to.

I see, so you flame in response.

Look, I don't know how to be any clearer about this, but exactly how does this site make money? Is it from people buying premium? Is that the public?

Therefore, shouldn't this site be a little bit more concerned with encouraging people to part with their hard-earned dollars?

It isn't advertised anywhere on the site that this is a Sean Hannity worshiping Christian fellowship. What's preventing anyone from filing a lawsuit against CC for discrimination? Even if it doesn't go anywhere, it would be a big headache, and would certainly get publicity the site doesn't want.

Also, for chrissakes, what's your deal anyway? You really want to be a mod? Is that it? How fucked up would that be if you were only constantly beating this drum because your whole mission in life is to be able to ban people for looking at you with literary crossed-eyes?

[Night Strike]

No pimpdave, this site receives private money. Private citizens choose to give their money to the site. Public money comes from the taxpayers, and school official are prohibited from pushing their political and religious views on those they work for. Same way clergy can not endorse political candidates because of their tax exemption status.

And for the final time, stay on topic.

[pimpdave]

No pimpdave, this site receives private money. Private citizens choose to give their money to the site. Public money comes from the taxpayers, and school official are prohibited from pushing their political and religious views on those they work for. Same way clergy can not endorse political candidates because of their tax exemption status.

And for the final time, stay on topic.

And the analogy could apply to private schools too. And in those cases, the parents who spend their money on those schools KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO WHEN ENROLLING.

Unlike here, where one is offered a game of world domination with interesting fora, only to be censored and slandered by the likes of you.

I'm so glad you're not the mod in here anymore.

Now back to Obama. I'm so glad you critics of him have to reach so hard to find things to complain about. It makes me laugh, really.

ps. Night Strike, I love how hypocritical you are. It's really funny how you engage in the off topic part of this thread (that Woodruff has been trolling big time) and then demand that people stop engaging the off topic part. Thanks for the laughs old buddy, you never cease to live up to my expectations.

[Night Strike]

Pimpdave, you're a troll. That was the only post that I made that was completely off the original topic, whereas all of yours have been. And that makes me the hypocritical one?


In on-topic news, Obama has another ally he has chosen to pay off. After the public and Senate forced Tom Daschle to withdraw from his nomination for HHS Secretary due to his failure to pay taxes, it seems like Obama has chosen to keep him around. If the public doesn't want him as an adviser to the president (because that is part of the job of the cabinet), why is he helping the white house with the health care issue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/health/policy/23daschle.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Daschle&st=cse

[PLAYER57832]

I am interested in your response to this:

NOW, to get back on topic:

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
The first case deals with David Axelrod. He is currently receiving a severage package from an advertising company that heavily advertises for democratic causes. They are currently producing ads costing $12 million to help support the health care reform. Not only did Axelrod found the organization, his son also works with the group. Any similarities with Cheney's relationship with Haliburton? Sounds somewhat similar to me, so is there outrage?

Sorry, but I fail to see how Obama hiring "friends" (won't even dispute the relationship for this discussion -- let's just say they were best friends), to construct an ad campaign admittedly putting forward his views, is somehow to be compared with the Bush administration allowing private contractors to act as mercenaries -- mercenaries who commited very henious acts. Acts far worse than what the US military, but with far less oversight -- a fact that, by all accounts was absolutely intentional (that is, they hired Blackwater to do dirty work so the military would not be so sullied). WE know the difference, but most of Iraq never did.

Add to that corruption, overcharges, etc... some money repaid, some not. Even the money involved with Blackwater is so much more the comparison to this ad campaign is just silly. And, its not as if Bush had no controversial ad campaigns himself. (that would be a fairer comparison)

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
This one is huge on two fronts. First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. I'm pretty sure drilling there has the same global warming emissions as drilling here, so why can we not get the benefits?
The second issue in this, and where the allies are getting paid off, has to do with certain shareholders of the company receiving the credit. George Soros, the insanely rich guy who lives and breathes liberalism, is a shareholder of the company. The largest holding for his hedge-fund firm is this company. Fishy much?

OK, ever look off the shores of California, in the Gulf of Mexico? Know anything of the biology and importance to the US ECONOMY of those regions? I do. California already has oil rigs up the ying-yang. There is a "blank" space up off the north coast, but you are also talking about strange currents, methane pockets, earthquake faults, etc. The cost of drilling up there is HUGE. Not only that, but the fisheries in those areas -- salmon once so plentiful it fed many a depression family who could not afford other meat. Those fisheries have finally begun to rebound. So, too many other industries. (I CAN get into much, much more detail, but I won't here).

I admittedly don't know that much about the Brazilian drilling sites. However, to allow them to damage their country is not exactly against our interests, even if it is perhaps not the nicest thing for us to do. The jobs from those wells there are not going to be as significant as the potential benefit from the oil we will almost certainly get as a result.

[Night Strike]

Sorry, but I don't know the details to every point/counter-point. I just know that when we have a 9.4% unemployment rate, the government should be supporting drilling in US territory rather than foreign territory. Even the state of California included a plan to open up more off-shore drilling sites in order to help bring their deficits under control, but once the environmentalists got involved, the provision was either dropped or blocked (I forgot which one). I don't know about the mercenary abuses in Iraq because I've never studied them. My analogy was comparing Cheney's ties to Halliburton with Rahm's ties to these advertisers. They're both making money off the decisions and policies of the federal government, but only 1 received a large outcry of attention.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, but I don't know the details to every point/counter-point. I just know that when we have a 9.4% unemployment rate, the government should be supporting drilling in US territory rather than foreign territory. Even the state of California included a plan to open up more off-shore drilling sites in order to help bring their deficits under control, but once the environmentalists got involved, the provision was either dropped or blocked (I forgot which one). I don't know about the mercenary abuses in Iraq because I've never studied them. My analogy was comparing Cheney's ties to Halliburton with Rahm's ties to these advertisers. They're both making money off the decisions and policies of the federal government, but only 1 received a large outcry of attention.

I'll make it very simple. Drilling would cost the US more... give us fewer jobs, offer us fewer benefits than NOT drilling. And would deplete what oil resources we have even faster.

Someday, the need will be greater and the technology better, allowing us to get that oil without harm and for greater return. Now is not that time.


Per Cheney/Rahm -- that Cheny benefitted would only have been a small issue if it were not for the extreme abuses excercised by Blackwater.

The mercenary abuses.. the part you say you never studied IS the critical part. That is why they are different.

Beyond that, there is a difference between rewarding a friend who helped Obama in the past with a contract and giving almost exclusive contract rights in a supposedly newly freed country, to a company directly tied to the Vice President. Blackwater and that whole contracting process are big reasons why Iraq was not rebuilt, are a big reason for the anger against us. Its about much more than just money.

[Anarkistsdream]

Night Strikes first post gave a link to Fox news...

That right there makes him incorrect...

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

[Timminz]

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

Truth. Some people already know, and the rest would just continue to ignore it.

[Night Strike]

Night Strikes first post gave a link to Fox news...

That right there makes him incorrect...

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

Oops, sorry that they don't call town hall protesters racist or stupid. They don't call people "tea-baggers". Basically, they are the ones actually discussing and investigating issues, not attacking people who don't praise Obama. Major Garrett investigated the spam emails coming from the White House, Glenn Beck has extensively researched ACORN and the czars, and O'Reilly continues on with the No-Spin Zone (top rated show in all of cable news). So, if you're going to attack the source of the information, you're going to have to actually provide facts (because that's what Fox reports).

[got tonkaed]

Pretty much everyone everywhere posts things that are "facts" so to speak. Given that most arguments are not statements of conditions but rather statements of policy or judgement, saying that someone is out there doing "just the facts" isnt actually a statement of condition to begin with. At that point, its rather simple to point out what you choose to view as a better argument because of its grounding in facts, has no bearing on what anyone else chooses to do. Goes for everyone as it were. But to argue that someone is not doing that, especially given the last two examples you gave, seems to be misunderstanding the issue.

[PLAYER57832]

Pretty much everyone everywhere posts things that are "facts" so to speak. Given that most arguments are not statements of conditions but rather statements of policy or judgement, saying that someone is out there doing "just the facts" isnt actually a statement of condition to begin with. At that point, its rather simple to point out what you choose to view as a better argument because of its grounding in facts, has no bearing on what anyone else chooses to do. Goes for everyone as it were. But to argue that someone is not doing that, especially given the last two examples you gave, seems to be misunderstanding the issue.

Sadly, this has become the truth.

The reality is that there are facts .. and there are opinions. What is written in the healthcare bill and is not written is a fact. The effect it might or might not have is opinion.

In this, whether Blackwater is like the Obama deal is a mixture of both. What I find incredible is that Nightstrike so willingly copied the comparison, insisted for several posts they were the same and yet admitted not knowing some of the most critical aspects about why Blackwater is considered so terrible.

That is a denial of facts, not simply opinion.

[notyou2]

As the commercial used to say, "You can't tell a Heinz pickle nothin'."

[PLAYER57832]

Night Strikes first post gave a link to Fox news...

That right there makes him incorrect...

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

Oops, sorry that they don't call town hall protesters racist or stupid. They don't call people "tea-baggers". Basically, they are the ones actually discussing and investigating issues, not attacking people who don't praise Obama. Major Garrett investigated the spam emails coming from the White House, Glenn Beck has extensively researched ACORN and the czars, and O'Reilly continues on with the No-Spin Zone (top rated show in all of cable news). So, if you're going to attack the source of the information, you're going to have to actually provide facts (because that's what Fox reports).

You might feel this way if you never bother to pay attention to other media, true.

Per Acorn, etc... you will have to provide real information first. My experience (and yes, I am familiar with Fox), is that Fox does give facts in their news shows, but they often leave out critical pieces of information. They don't provide a balanced view, not really. Ironically, there are times when NPR actually does a better job of putting forward conservative views than Fox, because they take the time to really report on the whole issue, not just their favorite view. And, they get flack for it from the more liberal listeners.

The bigger issue is that people confuse discussions of opinions with fact. Real, objective journalism is dying off because it is too expensive... but most people don't know enough to even really care.

[notyou2]

As an outsider looking in with access to all the major US networks, it appears to me that it is very difficult to find unbiased news in the US. We have the same problem in Canada, but it doesn't appear to come across so strongly on one side or the other.

Perhaps watching news and/or reading papers, online articles, etc, that do not originate in the states, may provide a different perspective.

But basically, people agree with what they want to hear. I believe very few people actually do the research, they simply hear/read/see something they agree with and latch on to it as their own.

[PLAYER57832]

As an outsider looking in with access to all the major US networks, it appears to me that it is very difficult to find unbiased news in the US. We have the same problem in Canada, but it doesn't appear to come across so strongly on one side or the other.

Perhaps watching news and/or reading papers, online articles, etc, that do not originate in the states, may provide a different perspective.

But basically, people agree with what they want to hear. I believe very few people actually do the research, they simply hear/read/see something they agree with and latch on to it as their own.

It is virtually impossible to be unbiased. That is why I do try to listen to varied perspectives.

[notyou2]

We all have our ingrained values, and I believe that to be the root of the bias. Some are more capitalist/free enterprise/no more taxes in their views, while others are more socialist/tax the rich to help the poor in their views. Media only serves to inflame one side or the other to a certain extent.

That's why it is so important to research the facts for ones self while always questioning the source of the written/spoken word.

[stahrgazer]

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. ...

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk. The mission of the Bank is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers. The Bank is chartered as a government corporation by the Congress of the United States; it was last chartered for a five year term in 2006.[1] Its Charter spells out the Bank's authorities and limitations. Among them is the principle that Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders, but rather provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept the political or commercial risks inherent in the deal.

Interesting. The import/export bank was last charted in what year was that? 2006? To end when? 2011? Which administration last chartered this bank? Bush's? Wow, poor Barack, continually blamed for all the country's ailments, regardless that someone else started them.

Besides, "drill, baby, drill" offshore in the US still would not feed our energy deficit, and as someone who likes to fish and swim in waters off Florida, I'd much rather other locations take the environmental risk, thank you very much.

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

[thegreekdog]

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

I think it's always been like this, at least in the US. In fact, I would probably say it was worse in the past than it is now (the yellow journalism anyway).

[pimpdave]

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

I think it's always been like this, at least in the US. In fact, I would probably say it was worse in the past than it is now (the yellow journalism anyway).

I'd say that yellow journalism is about as new as a dirt, but TGD, I do think in many ways it's worse now. Having seen what Goebbels was able to do in terms of manipulating a populace with moving pictures and images, I think that maybe back in the Lusitania's day, the yellow stories told were perhaps more outlandish, but certainly the means by which they were broadcast were not nearly so sophisticated.

Yet on the other hand, it all boils down to the herd mentality and getting people to enforce that upon themselves, so despite images and TV and their power, it still comes down to whether or not the manipulators at FAUX News can manipulate their viewing audience into talking about what FAUX wants them talking about, and silencing those who disagree.

[PLAYER57832]

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

I think it's always been like this, at least in the US. In fact, I would probably say it was worse in the past than it is now (the yellow journalism anyway).

Well, the term yellow journalism is has been around for over a century, so its hardly new.

However, the idea of journalistic integrity has been a mainstay of the US for a long while. Morrow, Cronkite, etc all engendered respect. In fact, Cronkite's power was so great he was pretty much excluded from having a voice in later years.

Real journalism is a lot more expensive than opinion. The sad part is that people just don't care any more. They don't care because while true investigation takes a great deal of time, even just listening or reading a full report takes time as well.

I know not everyone likes NPR, but they are one of the few news organization that has kept up its foreign press budget. They often have people on the ground when other agencies do not. I won't call them perfect by any stretch (though ironically, the biases are more toward some corporate sponsors than liberalism, despite what some conservatives wish to assert).

That said, it is important to listen to other sources to get a balanced view and to just be aware of what other people think, even if you don't agree.