This seems like a very ignorant comment to make. Don't get me wrong, much of his FOREIGN policy is very much continued (although, relations in Latin America have gotten much better). However, when were talking about national politics, social and environmental justice was not even on the table. And where is this "credit" to conservatives??
Name two examples of a socialist government in history - besides the Weimer Republic (the government in germany before it was run over by a bunch of bavarian rednecks) what else can you name? Who even knows what socialism is? Both socialism and communism stem from Karl Marx. But they are different things. Remember this: your minimum wage and the public education for your kids wouldn't be here either without Marx - your kids would probably be working now for less than it otherwise.
None of the pundits wish to be labeled a racist, and that is the term that would be their label if ANY of them dared to speak what was truly in their hearts and minds. The left-leaning machine of racial politics is a like a steamroller, ready to crush anyone who even thinks of criticizing their Messiah. The pundits, save for a very few, will never stick their necks out for the truth. They are weak-kneed, selfish blowhards who will only attack targets that don't bite back.
What planet do you come from? Its sad, because you get it.... you really get it...... BUT YOUR TOTALLY CONFUSED.The media is a machine, totally untrustworthy, and they could give a shit about giving you real and important news. But this has NOTHING to do with being responsible for what you say and what you do... We live in a new day where information travels fast.... So there WAS AN UPROAR about rev. wright... the media gives obama shit about healthcare everyday... what world do you come from?
Obama is an intellectual lightweight. He is utterly incapable of understanding the consequences of any of these sweeping changes he has made and continues to propose. The media pundits will not hold his feet to the fire until which time there is a serious crisis which is a direct outgrowth of his policies. His advisors know this. In fact, they count on it. It is an essential ingredient in the dish this administration is serving. He is a blissfully bewildered buffoon with a nice deep voice.
But don't think he didn't have to prove to them on some level that he was BLACK enough as well. You join hype to late into the game. I remember when he was running for junior senator. Thats basically ALL you heard. One attack after another. Continuing into the presidency, less of an issue but still there. As the first black president, is he black enough? I agree, it's a stupid question, but it was definitely stupidity he had to suffer through.
O'Reilly and all the other interviewers have been giving Obama a pass because of his race. There is no way they would ever stick their hands into that bees nest. They also expect a lot less from Obama in comparison to white peers. Yes, the pundits are inherently racist. Think about it.
Believe me, I have thought about it. However someones kindness to Obama for being black, would be no more different then if someone holds even more back to someone who is old. Or refrains from the big questions for someone who is a Woman. I mean any argument can be made regarding backgrounds or personal prognosis, but what needs to be understood is that to use Obama as the one pure example of your arguments is to ignore the rest. Hillary and Mccain received the same treatment.
And perhaps there is racism in punditry, but that would fall under the blame of the pundit, and not of Obama. Surely we can agree on that.
And what if we can't? One thing perhaps more difficult to understand was Obamas constant struggle with black Americans. Yes I know. how could black Americans have problems with Obama. Well, as many did during his run for the senate, they accused him of not being black enough because of his background and pigment. Racism goes in every direction.
Hence, the pundits are not being wholly objective, balanced, and forthright in their treatment of Obama and their interpretation of Obama's fitness to hold the office. Get it? This discussion has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and their personal beliefs concerning race. It has to do with disingenuous, manipulative, selfish, and dishonest media pundits painting false pictures of a person who wields the most power of anyone in the world and his disregard for the Constitution.
Clinton and McCain received the same treatment? Utter nonsense. Obama was given passes on everything. Could you have imagined the uproar if McCain attended church services and had a 25-year long relationship with a Rev. Wright type white "preacher"? Could you imagine the shitstorm that would have occurred if Hilary Clinton refused to make her academic records available when repeatedly asked? The Presidency of the US is the most powerful position in the world. He should be the BEST OF THE BEST.
Well if those 2 examples are what has you in a rut, then I think I can explain things to you more easily. You see...those are not issues. An issue is what to do about climate change. An issue is how to save America from economic collapse. An issue is what to do about the mexican borders. An issue is how can we better support health care for the people.
When defining a presidential candidate, it is better, at least to me, to define him by where he stands on REAL ISSUES.
After hearing all this about health care, I went back and watched Michael Moore`s SICKO!!! Can`t believe that morons are calling Obama Hitler when the health care system of the country is so detoriated and the man is trying to fix it!!! Beats my minds!!!
Smerconish is a conservative but he is not religous wacko con..he voted prez obama that is right but many liberals also voted prez bush coz they believe war on terrorism ...bush was the right
I mean it takes balls to be president, and it took balls when he went on the O'Reilly factor, to be attacked by Bill O'reilly. I don't really think I need proof that Obama is willing to take the tough questions anymore. He's cool under pressure. Obviously as president he really doesn't need to talk to anyway if he doesn't want to. Certainly Bush was never questioned in any format such as this.
O'Reilly? Do you really believe that O"Reilly is a true Conservative? He is driven principally by his ego and has too much of his personal and professional fortune at stake at this point in his career to take a truly Conservative stand. O'Reilly only bullies those whom he can do so without any substantive threat to his domain. He softballed Obama during their campaign interview. What he says in a one-on-one setting is one thing, but by himself to the camera is another. O'Reilly's just a showman.
Well I don't like O'reilly anymore then you do, but having just watched that interview again recently, the last thing he did IS SOFTBALL HIM. I mean is that some kind of joke that's only funny to you? O'reilly really went after him in that interview. Find 5 softball questions he gave to Obama, and I'll find 15 tough questions he gave him.
Let me clarify. It is one thing to ask a provactive question, it is another matter to just accept whatever answer the respondent chooses to give. O'Reilly let Obama carry away the store during that interview. Just like Smerconish, he didn't want to seem pushy or offensive to Obama and he just accepted the answers as given. What irritated me most about the interview was Obama's display of utter incompetence and lack of substantive knowledge.
O'Reilly also failed to ask him any truly relevant questions on topics to which many thoughtful Americans sought answers. Such as: How did your academic background prepare you for the presidency? With which racial group do you most identify? Why have you maintained close relationships with known radicals seeking to undermine the constitution? Why should Americans vote for a junior senator with absolutely no experience in international or national political matters? etc. etc. etc.
First of all "Why have you maintained close relationships with known radicals seeking to undermine the constitution?" is a loaded question, and by loaded, I mean with neocon rhetoric.
Secondly, your definition of a tough interview continues to be oddly defined. Lets redefine softball. Take a look at O'reillys interview with Mccain May 9th, 2008. Or how about his interview of Bush about Bushs critics. I mean SOFTBALL, after SOFTBALL, after SOFTBALL.
He was certainly much more on the attack with Obama then with Bush. To say otherwise, would be acting blind and deaf to the world around you. I mean it's inconceivable if you responded to this message by saying he is a tougher critic of Mccain or Bush after I've watched those interviews side by side with his interview of Obama for many times now. It would be just purely unfathomable. Now maybe what your argument really is, is that O'reilly is just a full fledged softball thrower.
However compared to other interviewers I would find your possible argument in that regard equally hard to make. Overall, I just believe you are talking behind a tinted window. Seeing things different then the rest of the world.
Schwarznasen - Great posts. I thought I was going to have to make these points. Smercon is anything BUT conservative. No true conservative would ever have voted for Obama. Anyone who did is not a conservative. You might like my show - internet radio, conservative without apology. thejimmyzshow . com
I would have been much more impressed by Obama's knowledge of and determination to fight for his health care proposals had he interviewed with a bona fide Conservative host such a Michael Savage, who would have thrown the hardball questions with courage, heart, and wisdom. This was just a piece of puff pastry in the mass media market. It was just another media moment for Obama, offered-up on a silver platter by Smerconish. I guess I can't blame him. But he is NOT a true conservative at all.
A meaningless comment, as politics is not physics. There are no relativistic effects on a person's political point of view. I would suggest, more appropriately, that you have your head so far up your own rectum that you can't see anything. Think about it.
You describe Savage as having courage, heart, and wisdom and you say I have my head up my ass? You don't think that Savage has an agenda that distorts his interest in honest dialog?
Savage has been banned from traveling to the UK because of his radio show. He is an independent thinker who jujst shares his views. He is a solitary figure, wholly unsupported by any group, political or corporate. None of the other commentators of his stature can make that claim. None. He must be doing something RIGHT.
That is your criteria for determining that someone must be right? Unless you mean RIGHT as very far RIGHT. I suppose that Savage is the rectum that you have jammed your head in. Pull it out for a while. The real world may not smell as bad.
Obama and his media advisors knew that Smerconish would never toss him any hardball questions, nor would he do or say anything to make Obama uncomfortable. Smerconish worships the man, for some unknown reason. Perhaps he feels empowered having an influential friend that he can rely on in future years when his ratings begin to inevitably slip
I believe that Michael Smerconish is a decent fellow. I believe, on the overall, he tries to be a fair-minded, pleasant, principled radio host. That being said, I do NOT believe that he is, by any stretch of the imagination, a true conservative. This exchange between Smerconish and Obama over the disastrous heath care reform proposal, advertised as an attempt to address Conservative America is comical at best. Smerconish has a secret crush on Obama and this is why his venue was chosen.
Your logic of Smerconish's "secret crush" on Obama undoubtedly falls under the category of "hypothetical truth".
If you're going to make a statement, then perhaps keep conspiracy theories out of it. I have no doubt that Smerconish respects the president, but at the same time can not show a blind eye to his incredible record based in the support of conservative ideology. If hypothesis was ever necessary here, lets hope it would be based in a mans long history, and not your assumptions.
Please go to YOUTUBE and watch The Real Reason Why People Defend Religion......Thank You
mjtf1113 1 year ago
smerconish is a douche bag
robbooey 1 year ago
BOYCOTT SMERCONISH he belongs on msnbc
phillynotebook 2 years ago
Lissen to 3.35 hes basicly admiting hes continuing Bush Policey. and giving all credit to conservitives for gov. take over.
TheSteve4200 2 years ago
This seems like a very ignorant comment to make. Don't get me wrong, much of his FOREIGN policy is very much continued (although, relations in Latin America have gotten much better). However, when were talking about national politics, social and environmental justice was not even on the table. And where is this "credit" to conservatives??
tunesoutmyear 2 years ago
Name two examples of a socialist government in history - besides the Weimer Republic (the government in germany before it was run over by a bunch of bavarian rednecks) what else can you name? Who even knows what socialism is? Both socialism and communism stem from Karl Marx. But they are different things. Remember this: your minimum wage and the public education for your kids wouldn't be here either without Marx - your kids would probably be working now for less than it otherwise.
Otherfolker 2 years ago
What an eloquent Son of a gun, too bad he's using it to install Socialism
ilaglobal 2 years ago 2
Even if you were right, its still a retarded comment to make. Considering how well our long beloved system is working.
tunesoutmyear 2 years ago
None of the pundits wish to be labeled a racist, and that is the term that would be their label if ANY of them dared to speak what was truly in their hearts and minds. The left-leaning machine of racial politics is a like a steamroller, ready to crush anyone who even thinks of criticizing their Messiah. The pundits, save for a very few, will never stick their necks out for the truth. They are weak-kneed, selfish blowhards who will only attack targets that don't bite back.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
What planet do you come from? Its sad, because you get it.... you really get it...... BUT YOUR TOTALLY CONFUSED.The media is a machine, totally untrustworthy, and they could give a shit about giving you real and important news. But this has NOTHING to do with being responsible for what you say and what you do... We live in a new day where information travels fast.... So there WAS AN UPROAR about rev. wright... the media gives obama shit about healthcare everyday... what world do you come from?
tunesoutmyear 2 years ago
Obama is an intellectual lightweight. He is utterly incapable of understanding the consequences of any of these sweeping changes he has made and continues to propose. The media pundits will not hold his feet to the fire until which time there is a serious crisis which is a direct outgrowth of his policies. His advisors know this. In fact, they count on it. It is an essential ingredient in the dish this administration is serving. He is a blissfully bewildered buffoon with a nice deep voice.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Black people on a whole LOVE Obama. Please...
rlaurencin01 2 years ago
But don't think he didn't have to prove to them on some level that he was BLACK enough as well. You join hype to late into the game. I remember when he was running for junior senator. Thats basically ALL you heard. One attack after another. Continuing into the presidency, less of an issue but still there. As the first black president, is he black enough? I agree, it's a stupid question, but it was definitely stupidity he had to suffer through.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
O'Reilly and all the other interviewers have been giving Obama a pass because of his race. There is no way they would ever stick their hands into that bees nest. They also expect a lot less from Obama in comparison to white peers. Yes, the pundits are inherently racist. Think about it.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Believe me, I have thought about it. However someones kindness to Obama for being black, would be no more different then if someone holds even more back to someone who is old. Or refrains from the big questions for someone who is a Woman. I mean any argument can be made regarding backgrounds or personal prognosis, but what needs to be understood is that to use Obama as the one pure example of your arguments is to ignore the rest. Hillary and Mccain received the same treatment.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
And perhaps there is racism in punditry, but that would fall under the blame of the pundit, and not of Obama. Surely we can agree on that.
And what if we can't? One thing perhaps more difficult to understand was Obamas constant struggle with black Americans. Yes I know. how could black Americans have problems with Obama. Well, as many did during his run for the senate, they accused him of not being black enough because of his background and pigment. Racism goes in every direction.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
Hence, the pundits are not being wholly objective, balanced, and forthright in their treatment of Obama and their interpretation of Obama's fitness to hold the office. Get it? This discussion has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and their personal beliefs concerning race. It has to do with disingenuous, manipulative, selfish, and dishonest media pundits painting false pictures of a person who wields the most power of anyone in the world and his disregard for the Constitution.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Clinton and McCain received the same treatment? Utter nonsense. Obama was given passes on everything. Could you have imagined the uproar if McCain attended church services and had a 25-year long relationship with a Rev. Wright type white "preacher"? Could you imagine the shitstorm that would have occurred if Hilary Clinton refused to make her academic records available when repeatedly asked? The Presidency of the US is the most powerful position in the world. He should be the BEST OF THE BEST.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Well if those 2 examples are what has you in a rut, then I think I can explain things to you more easily. You see...those are not issues. An issue is what to do about climate change. An issue is how to save America from economic collapse. An issue is what to do about the mexican borders. An issue is how can we better support health care for the people.
When defining a presidential candidate, it is better, at least to me, to define him by where he stands on REAL ISSUES.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
After hearing all this about health care, I went back and watched Michael Moore`s SICKO!!! Can`t believe that morons are calling Obama Hitler when the health care system of the country is so detoriated and the man is trying to fix it!!! Beats my minds!!!
BadSsen 2 years ago
Smerconish is a conservative but he is not religous wacko con..he voted prez obama that is right but many liberals also voted prez bush coz they believe war on terrorism ...bush was the right
Baaadiyoow 2 years ago
Can we say "man crush?"
tpsu129 2 years ago
I mean it takes balls to be president, and it took balls when he went on the O'Reilly factor, to be attacked by Bill O'reilly. I don't really think I need proof that Obama is willing to take the tough questions anymore. He's cool under pressure. Obviously as president he really doesn't need to talk to anyway if he doesn't want to. Certainly Bush was never questioned in any format such as this.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
O'Reilly? Do you really believe that O"Reilly is a true Conservative? He is driven principally by his ego and has too much of his personal and professional fortune at stake at this point in his career to take a truly Conservative stand. O'Reilly only bullies those whom he can do so without any substantive threat to his domain. He softballed Obama during their campaign interview. What he says in a one-on-one setting is one thing, but by himself to the camera is another. O'Reilly's just a showman.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Well I don't like O'reilly anymore then you do, but having just watched that interview again recently, the last thing he did IS SOFTBALL HIM. I mean is that some kind of joke that's only funny to you? O'reilly really went after him in that interview. Find 5 softball questions he gave to Obama, and I'll find 15 tough questions he gave him.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
Let me clarify. It is one thing to ask a provactive question, it is another matter to just accept whatever answer the respondent chooses to give. O'Reilly let Obama carry away the store during that interview. Just like Smerconish, he didn't want to seem pushy or offensive to Obama and he just accepted the answers as given. What irritated me most about the interview was Obama's display of utter incompetence and lack of substantive knowledge.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
O'Reilly also failed to ask him any truly relevant questions on topics to which many thoughtful Americans sought answers. Such as: How did your academic background prepare you for the presidency? With which racial group do you most identify? Why have you maintained close relationships with known radicals seeking to undermine the constitution? Why should Americans vote for a junior senator with absolutely no experience in international or national political matters? etc. etc. etc.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
First of all "Why have you maintained close relationships with known radicals seeking to undermine the constitution?" is a loaded question, and by loaded, I mean with neocon rhetoric.
Secondly, your definition of a tough interview continues to be oddly defined. Lets redefine softball. Take a look at O'reillys interview with Mccain May 9th, 2008. Or how about his interview of Bush about Bushs critics. I mean SOFTBALL, after SOFTBALL, after SOFTBALL.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
He was certainly much more on the attack with Obama then with Bush. To say otherwise, would be acting blind and deaf to the world around you. I mean it's inconceivable if you responded to this message by saying he is a tougher critic of Mccain or Bush after I've watched those interviews side by side with his interview of Obama for many times now. It would be just purely unfathomable. Now maybe what your argument really is, is that O'reilly is just a full fledged softball thrower.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
However compared to other interviewers I would find your possible argument in that regard equally hard to make. Overall, I just believe you are talking behind a tinted window. Seeing things different then the rest of the world.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
Cash for Clunkers is crazy, destroying perfectly good vehicles because the govt doesn't LIKE them? Oh Lord.
thejimmyzshow 2 years ago
Schwarznasen - Great posts. I thought I was going to have to make these points. Smercon is anything BUT conservative. No true conservative would ever have voted for Obama. Anyone who did is not a conservative. You might like my show - internet radio, conservative without apology. thejimmyzshow . com
thejimmyzshow 2 years ago
I would have been much more impressed by Obama's knowledge of and determination to fight for his health care proposals had he interviewed with a bona fide Conservative host such a Michael Savage, who would have thrown the hardball questions with courage, heart, and wisdom. This was just a piece of puff pastry in the mass media market. It was just another media moment for Obama, offered-up on a silver platter by Smerconish. I guess I can't blame him. But he is NOT a true conservative at all.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Maybe you have gone so far right that you can't see the middle anymore.
carloz1 2 years ago
A meaningless comment, as politics is not physics. There are no relativistic effects on a person's political point of view. I would suggest, more appropriately, that you have your head so far up your own rectum that you can't see anything. Think about it.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
You describe Savage as having courage, heart, and wisdom and you say I have my head up my ass? You don't think that Savage has an agenda that distorts his interest in honest dialog?
carloz1 2 years ago
No.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Savage has been banned from traveling to the UK because of his radio show. He is an independent thinker who jujst shares his views. He is a solitary figure, wholly unsupported by any group, political or corporate. None of the other commentators of his stature can make that claim. None. He must be doing something RIGHT.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
That is your criteria for determining that someone must be right? Unless you mean RIGHT as very far RIGHT. I suppose that Savage is the rectum that you have jammed your head in. Pull it out for a while. The real world may not smell as bad.
carloz1 2 years ago
Obama and his media advisors knew that Smerconish would never toss him any hardball questions, nor would he do or say anything to make Obama uncomfortable. Smerconish worships the man, for some unknown reason. Perhaps he feels empowered having an influential friend that he can rely on in future years when his ratings begin to inevitably slip
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
I believe that Michael Smerconish is a decent fellow. I believe, on the overall, he tries to be a fair-minded, pleasant, principled radio host. That being said, I do NOT believe that he is, by any stretch of the imagination, a true conservative. This exchange between Smerconish and Obama over the disastrous heath care reform proposal, advertised as an attempt to address Conservative America is comical at best. Smerconish has a secret crush on Obama and this is why his venue was chosen.
Schwarznasen 2 years ago
Your logic of Smerconish's "secret crush" on Obama undoubtedly falls under the category of "hypothetical truth".
If you're going to make a statement, then perhaps keep conspiracy theories out of it. I have no doubt that Smerconish respects the president, but at the same time can not show a blind eye to his incredible record based in the support of conservative ideology. If hypothesis was ever necessary here, lets hope it would be based in a mans long history, and not your assumptions.
AnimeIntroStyles3 2 years ago
OK...B.S. that my comments CRITICAL of smerconish and oBAAAma...not posting????
45gunner 2 years ago
Thx for the full unedited airing MrT!
Excellent stuff, very informative.
nevursleep 2 years ago