This is what happens when you have a Superpower with no counterpart. America has Atlantis syndrome. China, get off your ass and rise already so people in America with common sense can get control back!
Someday the paradigm of following a "savior" will be discarded just like all other failed paradigms. Self reliance is the only answer, along with individual co-operation. Government and politics will always be corrupt. it's the nature of the beast.
The marketing of "Brand Obama", i.e. the Obama Campaign was such an overwhwelming success that less savvy marketers bought it too. Obama was a brand that worked. Americans are very easy to trick. Too very easy.
Nope...have to call you on this one Freemaniac. I researched the story you mentioned and the source you referenced was actually a lawyer defending some auto dealers who were being threatened with closure. He was speculating. He's a lawyer. That's what they do.
From the story: A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the decision to cut a quarter of the dealers was "not coming from the task force."
Now what would have happened if the auto industry wasn't loaned the money? Boom go way more jobs.
And by the way, the notion of Republican's being targeted for closure was debunked quite a while ago. Considering that 80-90% of political donations by car/automobile dealers go to the GOP it wasn't hard to do.
Damn buddy...we were SO close to being on the same page. lol
I'd have to look into it more I guess... I'd heard a quick blurb about the closings a few months back and I guess I didn't dig deep enough before bringing it up. Still, I think the auto industry, particularly GM, has problems on both the labor and corporate sides that seriously need to be resolved before the government commits any more funds.
For that reason alone it would be worth having a Republican president. At least then people would be aware of it, actively engaged and applying pressure to the politicians to relent on their market manhandling
I'd provide the Reuters source if I could include hyperlinks, but Obama's automotive task force pressured Chrysler into closing 789 of its car dealerships (25%), over 100,000 jobs lost. Interestingly enough, out of all of those dealerships, all of them but one donated to Republican candidates. There have been accusations that the targeting was partisan in nature and that the action was unconstitutional. It's easy enough to find sources, just google the Chrysler dealership closings.
Painful to watch some of these..I am not degrading any of them, just so deluded both spiritually (WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT), but also politically/mentally!?
TURN TO CHRIST, NOT A POLITICIAN, REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT (the Anti-Christ will be a politician)!!
Lady from Indonesia... Barry Soetoro's true homeland... And Chicago neighbor-lady sure looks familiar. Did I see her on a vid about ACORN? Must be following up on her work. ='[.]'=
I had to fast forward through a lot of the interviews. To listen to people not only in the U.S. but from all over the world worshipping this communist-leaning man makes me physically sick.
I'm not sure I agree with you that the tide has turned, though. There are so many people that I know personally who, despite the complete disaster his presidency has been thus far, are STILL worshipping him!
But it does seem some folks are waking up. That's a good sign.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So THIS is how you Right Wing parrots act when you join together in Fear World. Yeah...about what I expected.
The absolute evil genius of those that feed you your thoughts is mind blowing. They've convinced you that the very entities that are working for you are actually working against you. They've found their golden key. Create an enemy, promote emotion over fact, wrap yourself up in the flag and you've got a recipe for....
Nothing.
Keep living on the fringe parrots. You're impotent.
I find it slightly entertaining that you the right of being overly emotional, while it was the left which, as clearly demonstrated by this video, was completely enamored with the vague intangibles of "hope" and "change," making teary-eyed and incomprehensible statements of support while repeatedly referencing those two sentiments as if their substance were self-explanatory. Now we're saddled with $1.4 trillion after just one year, and the job market's in the tubes. How's that working out, again?
Naaah...you don't lie. Takes a little time to clean up what was left by 8 years of Republican rule. Of course, we can go back and include Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and definitely Bush 2 for turning this country in to a corporation. Bush left at 7.2% unemployed. And we both know that the lack of regulation that caused the economic collapse led to companies drastically cutting jobs. Those jobs are coming back. And without funding the banks, millions more would have been lost.
How can you say jobs are coming back when unemployment is still rising? Reagan pulled this country out of Carter's stagflation, but Obama is positioning us to fall right back into it. With $1.4 trillion in new debt (3x Bush's worst deficit in 2008 under a Democratic congress), the gov't will have to print or borrow to make up the difference and inflation will take off. Also, the crash wasn't caused by the gov't not having enough control, but because of irresponsible lending and credit practices.
Irresponsible lending and credit practices due to the lack of regulation. I mean, do you think we should have trusted corporations to do the 'right thing?" Just like we've trusted the insurance companies to do the 'right thing?" It seems you are expecting the President, who as you know has very limited power, to somehow wave a magic wand and fix a recession that wasn't his doing overnight. All while not infusing capital into a system that was on the verge of total collapse.
The deficit is actually about 160 billion dollars less than what was anticipated. And do you think that if this administration wasn't saddled with a recession fueled by a collapse of the housing market on top of the ridiculous tax cuts provided to the very wealthy under Bush that we would be talking about these kinds of numbers? Now you may have your feelings about the Obama Administration and that's fine but I think pinning all the woes of our society on him is just a bit disingenuous.
I don't blame him for all the woes of society. But I do hold him and his party responsible for our burgeoning national debt. Now, to clarify, I am not a republican, and I will not defend Bush's fiscal policies either. But I think, through these bailouts, the government is doing far more harm than good. Blundering forward full-speed ahead with unread, pork-laden bills and doubling the federal debt just so it looks like the government is doing something is worse than doing nothing at all.
Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs. It may look like the government is doing good for a troubled industry, but beneath the front page we're devaluing our currency and taking massive foreign loans w/interest in order to cover the cost of these bailouts.
A simpler, cheaper approach to health care reform would be to open up competition across state lines. Over half of the federal budget goes to SS and Medicare; we can't afford another massive entitlement program.
I just don't see what the option was other than to keep the banks afloat. As I'm sure you've learned we were a hair's breadth away from a complete collapse of our banking system. And if that had happened I'm sure you can imagine the consequences.
Actually, about 40% of the budget is earmarked for SS and Medicare. But that also includes Medicaid and CHIP. Now perhaps you aren't a recipient of any of those funds but I'm sure you can imagine what would happen if they no longer existed.
I know, it's a messy situation. SS and all that have been simmering for decades, as the old analogy goes, they're the 500-pound gorilla in the room that will beat you to death if you don't feed it. It would be almost impossible to discontinue those programs, but it's still galling that it eats around 15% of my pay and it won't be there by the time I reach the age where I'm supposed to start collecting. The system is unsustainable as it is; adding socialized healthcare will only make it worse.
Many economists actually feel that a devalued dollar is good for our economy as it will spur manufacturing.
I think competition across State lines should have always been in place but it's important to remember who would continue to make the rules. I'm sure you agree that can't take place. We, the people, will always lose. Corporations win.
We keep politicians in place when they serve our needs. Obama is personally invested and I believe he will deliver. And I, for one, want him to succeed.
SS is definitely problematic but I think most everyone agrees that it can't be dismantled. Money will need to be infused in the system from other sources. Its definitely overhaul time.
But I have to respectfully disagree with the term 'socialized healthcare.' I truly believe that phrase has been coined to instill fear. What will (hopefully) be offered is an option which I see as the only way to promote competition. I think America is about choice. Right now, our choices are severely limited.
I agree our choices are limited. And it would certainly promote competition to open it up across state lines. But the problem I see with a public option (not sure if you support it or not, don't want to make assumptions) is that it would not be accountable to balancing its own budget - the government can up taxes or borrow money to keep running. Businesses have to balance their books if they want to survive. Faced with a competitor (government) who doesn't, they couldn't compete.
I have no problem with him succeeding, but I'm more leery about a massive, irresponsible and inefficient government bureaucracy being placed in charge of my health care than an insurance company. The best thing, I think, would be if people could choose their own health care plans rather than being packaged up with their job. How many people stay with jobs they hate rather than pursuing new opportunities or starting their own businesses out of fear of losing their health insurance coverage?
I would typically agree with you in that I know that there are times when the government just churns out inefficient bureaucracy. But I've read many studies where those who are part of Medicare are much happier with their care and plans than those with private insurers. And the reality is that we're all paying for the uninsured and unhealthy now. I agree that people should choose. But the choice needs to offer something other than insurance company dictated terms.
I also think it's time that we began a paradigm shift in this country by rewarding people who do the right thing as opposed to making them pay for those who don't. Case in point is the housing crisis. And of course, health care. Why should I as a healthy individual pay for those who don't take care of themselves and frequently visit the doctor? Why should I as a homeowner be limited in my options because of the foolishness of others? Reward good..penalize bad. Now THAT'S an incentive.
We are in total agreement there. I would extend that principle to the industries the government chooses to support through bailouts. Ideally, there ought to be no bailouts to industry; companies should succeed or fail on the merit of the quality of their product. I see no good reason to place added strain on successful businesses by taxing them in order to prop up others that are failing due to unscrupulous or incompetent CEOs and equally greedy labor unions.
Right on. See how we brought that around to a point we could agree upon?
Not sure what you're doing later this week but we both may want to catch a plane to D.C. and take over the health care reform meetings. We could get the job done! :)
Notice the vague terminology used there. "Something" is going to happen? Something is always happening! Obama did not invent that, and "something" is not good by mere proxy.
It's a little like fumbling around in what you can only assume is a dark room, and you "hope" there is a light switch. Man, politics never change........
"Hope and Change". These fawning idiots never bother to ask, 'Hope for what? Change what?" And they elected the first Marxist president. Fortunately, the sheeple are finally waking up.
People are told FoxNews is right wing propaganda. Personally, I get my news from multiple sources, but clearly Fox dominates cable news for a reason. If you only got your news from the other networks last year, you would probably never have heard of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and ACORN.
@RogerOnTheRight No. The complaint I have against CNN is that they mine controversy for the sake o ratings. They mine controversy no matter which side it favors.
Fox is totally different. Fox creates it's own facts & reality and feeds the ignorant the type of dummed down bullshit they want to hear.
Fox is the GOP propaganda arm 24/7.
Fox even donated $1M to the Republican party.
Fox has 3 past Republican presidential candidates on the payroll.
@RogerOnTheRight Fox package's their predetermined message with glitz, short skirts on pretty Fox chicks, manufactured outrage, fictional story line complete with "good guys" and "villains", conspiracies and intrigue.
A large viewer audience reflects the number of people who have no deep understanding of complexity of issues but are just happy to hear what they want to hear, emotional, action packed, and fed to them on a spoon.
@RogerOnTheRight Fox ratings occur mostly because it is the only network that is always and only right wing. The rest of news networks are far more neutral and the rest of America is divided among the real news networks, and leaves Fox Fiction alone. Outside of wossy Colmes (if he's still there) name one Fox personality who is not extreme right wing. On MSNBC there is Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, plus right wing guests. CNN is pretty much neutral
By "personality", do you mean those paid by FoxNews, or anyone who regularly appears?
For people with their own shows, the first obvious people who come to mind are, Geraldo Rivera, Sheppard Smith and Greta Van Susteren. All of them are fairly described as either "liberal" or "certainly not conservative".
For paid analysts, you have to add Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, and a bunch of others I'll have to recall later.
@RogerOnTheRight Another factor in fox's ratings: Only idiots actually believe the bullshit on fox, and since there are more idiots on the right, and since Fox is the only network always right wing, well, you do the math.
Hmm... I know you are really really smart, since your name says so. Maybe you can explain how, if most voters went for Obama-- clearly not a right winger himself--- how is it that most news watchers are tuned in to FoxNews?
And by most, I mean two or three times the total viewers of all other cable news channels combined.
Either lots and lots of Democrats watch FoxNews, or Democrats simply don't pay attention to news at all.
@RogerOnTheRight GOP/Fox’s many nearly identical ominous projections from the right are not misunderstandings or even simple exaggerations. They're falsehoods. Whoppers. Lies. And they're spread by cynics who are secure in the knowledge that most people will be riled into ever greater stages of anger by their ceaseless repetition rather than provoked to skeptical, objective inquiry.
So, when leftists are invited on the various shows as guests, they present their views to the public. Since Fox has about double or triple the audience of all the rest of cable news combined, those radical leftist views get aired to the widest possible audience.
@RogerOnTheRight Fox is dedicated to repetition of the GOP talking points, slogans, buzz phrases & the dismissing of any alternative points of view with slogans & platitudes.
They do that because if the debated any of the specific issues on their merits they would lose.
You want to try it. Pick a specific issue or piece of legislation & I'll debate you.
1. You have already betrayed yourself by launching mindless blather entwined with personal invective. I have no reason to believe you are interested in any sort of debate, nor are you interested in learning anything.
2. YouTube comments are limited to 500 characters, which does not lend itself to expository writing. Bad venue.
3. Most of the topics you listed are either false premises or heavily biased in their wording. eg 'tax cuts for the rich'.
1) Oh but I am interested in "real" debate, a debate that actually involves facts & logic on a particular issue. So don't use that as an excuse to weasel out of a challenge to debate.
2) You can just say "see next" & continue your comments on the next 500 character block, so that's no excuse.
3) Since you can pick the issue, you can frame the wording. For example, re: "tax cuts for the rich" you can specify "tax cuts for those making more than $250K per year".
No, self-described genius, you are not interested in a real debate. You already, reflexively revealed your hand.
Besides which, debating in YouTube is like breathing through a cocktail straw. And then to insist on avoiding terms you find frightening just adds to the absurdity.
And, ideology is essential. The "issues" are all about ideology, and without ideology, there are no issues.
I can't imagine why someone as *brilliant* as you does not see that.
Leftists always want to avoid labels-- being applied to them. Judging by your language toward me so far, you don't seem to have much problem applying labels to others.
And, of course, you have no idea where I get my news or even what I really think. And, you really don't care, either.
You insist you want everyone to be civil, but have shown no such civility so far.
Here is where you fail: you presume your logic lacks ideology, but it is entirely based on it. For example, the presumption tax policy adds to the deficit or not ignores the possibility a deficit can have other causes. So, even though you think your argument lacks ideology, your leftist ideology creates a blind spot in your reasoning. I won't even bother to explain taxes and deficits-- clearly you are not going to pay attention anyway. Ideology blinds you.
You see, the thing about ideology is, we all have it. Pretending it does not exist is foolish. The only meaningful purpose of a debate on something like tax policy is to support or defend an ideology. Otherwise, you have to imagine "good" policy exists a priori. Yet, "good" and "bad" are tied directly to the underlying premises of one's ideology.
Another example, "rich poor gap". Why is that important at all? Who cares about such a gap? Has there ever not been one?
Or, "economic stimulus". Why is that important to you? Or is it important? Is the purpose of tax policy to provide economic stimulus? What about "social justice"? Or some notion of "fairness"?
In order to discuss tax policy, there first has to be some agreement as to its purpose. And, that preferred purpose is going to be determined largely by ideology.
Pretending not to have an ideology, or that it is irrelevant, makes the discussion meaningless.
A debate does not constrain the presentation of ideas. Your demand is to do just that-- in fact, to specifically exclude the mention of ideology itself.
Without ideology, what issues exist?
You simply fear your own ideology. Should you have to admit to it, you might what? Melt? Cry? Be made to look foolish?
@RogerOnTheRight Ideology is the absence of empiricism. It's acceptance based on criteria, not rational thought.
All politics in America's 2 party system are based on ideology, that is, an adherence to dogma as opposed to consideration of issues on individual merit or lack thereof.
Obama is a failure because his ideology is a failure.
Ideology, being one's core beliefs, is the basis of all thought and action. Without ideology, "individual merit" does not exist, since we have no concept of "merit".
In fact, ideology is the basis of all rational thought. Think "first principles". You have to agree on that before you can delve into the scientific method or any empiricism.
I agree Obama's ideology is a failure, but not because he has one. It's that his ideology stands in conflict with human nature.
Furthermore, limiting language by omitting "conservative", etc serves no purpose. If we are to discuss ideology, then you cannot omit the terms identifying the ideology.
@RogerOnTheRight As for "leftists" invited on Fox shows, the vast majority of guests on Fox are GOP or right wing like Carl Rove. When Fox does have someone from the left on, it's for segments too small to go in depth, and usually the "guest" is being talked over or even shouted down by Fox host(s).
100% of the regular "talking heads" on Fox spew the GOP talking points.
CNN regularly has segments with the non-partisan factchek.org,, Something you will never see on Fox.
@RogerOnTheRight One point we should return to. You said, regarding ACORN & reverend Wright, that "you probably would never have heard of them if you watched networks other than Fox.
Again, both of those stories were repeated over and over for weeks on CNN for eg.
So either
a) you were lying, or
b) you ONLY get your news from Fox & therefore didn't know about the ceaseless repetition of those stories on CNN for eg.
Zogby (left of center) did a poll after the election, illustrating my point. He revealed Obama supporters knew almost nothing of Wright and Ayers, among other issues related to the election, but only if their primary news source was anything other than FoxNews.
So, while CNN may have covered the story in some manner at some time, the probability of voters actually knowing the spectrum of issues is greatly reduced when they rely on CNN and the like.
Actually, the Ayers question was there, you just missed it.
But, I cited the wrong poll. The original poll was the Zogby poll, only conducted for Obama voters. Zogby was embarrassed, having revealed uncomfortable truths of his fellow Democrats, so when Dems insisted Republicans would have fared worse, Zogby refused to do a Republican poll.
So, Ziegler contracted Wilson to do a new poll of both Dems and Repubs.
Questions 1 to 5 did not test knowledge. They just established the respondents category.
Of the rest of the questions (6 to 17), none were on substantive issues. They were more just "trivia" type questions.
Questions 6,7,10,11,17 were trivia used to reflect negatively on McCain. Obama supporters showed greater knowledge in 4 out of 5 of those question, and even with McCain supporters on one.
Questions 8,9,18,14,15,16 were trivia used to reflect negatively on Obama. McCain supporters scored higher on all 6.
So all this poll showed is that Obama supporters were more “knowledgeable” about negative trivia used against McCain, & McCain supporters were more knowledgeable about negative trivia used against Obama.
It was a Wilson poll. Chris Wilson is a Republican & political strategist who was Exec. Director of the Republican Party of Texas, working directly for Karl Rove.
@RogerOnTheRight Overall results are skewed by “ringer” questions like the one on Ayers. Obama's seemingly scant relationship with Ayers has been a favorite story of Fox News, & Fox fans have been treated to a seemingly never ending use of that scant relationship to attack Obama. So OF COURSE Fox watchers would be more aware of it. However, even on that question 68% of Obama supporters had the right answer.
Regarding Ayers, you forcefully made the point earlier that CNN offered extensive coverage of Ayers. So, how is that a "ringer" question that only Fox viewers would know?
Your argument lacks consistency. You start with a conclusion and fit "facts" to it, even though your "facts" were stated otherwise earlier.
But, we were led to believe you are of superior intellect. After all, you are "megarational", aren't you?
@RogerOnTheRight It's a ringer question because even though the issue was covered on CNN, Fox saturated their programming for a much longer period of time with it.
Geeze, why does even the simplest thing have to be explained to you?
@RogerOnTheRight Liar. I didn't say "only Fox viewers would know". I said that "it was a favorite story of Fox News & Fox fans have been treated to a seemingly never ending use of that...to attack Obama. So of course Fox watchers would be MORE aware of it."
Is it that you can't even read one comment correctly? Or is it that lying about what someone said is a main part of your debating style?
You sure are quick to call someone a "liar" when you disagree with them. Coupled with your propensity to cuss and use vile insults, you sure seem angry?
What is bothering you so much? You seem obsessed with this.
You conveyed the clear impression you think CNN is a better news source than Fox. And, they cover the same stories, just as well.
But, when Fox viewers know more about a story, it is because they are inundated. So, I guess "too much" is bad when it comes to news?
@RogerOnTheRight So even your cherry picked poll puts the lie to your claim that if you listened to other than Fox you probably wouldn't have heard of Reverend Wright or Ayers.
No, actually, the meaningful finding of the poll, if you study it, is that ideology was not the greatest determinant of knowledge. It was news source. Regardless of ideology, people who watch CNN and MSNBC knew less.
Wilson's numbers validated Zogby's, and Zogby is biased toward the left. So, bias of the pollster was not a factor.
Apparently you did not read the poll crosstab. Each question was analyzed with respect to party affiliation, voting record, geography, education as well as news source.
And it shows a stronger correlation between news source and party affiliation for key questions-- eg the Bill Ayers question.
@RogerOnTheRight So it looks like you have adopted another of the favorite Fox/GOP tactics: If you get caught in a lie, no problem, just cover it up with another lie.
This isn't surprising so its not really a big deal and is better for Obama in the long run. Expectations are now sobering. Good.
For 8 years hundreds of companies made a butt-load of money off of anti-Bush merchandise. Its all about catering to certain markets. When the people who celebrated Obama won the election... the euphoria wares down becuase they won. No need to fight or be angry or impassioned. Now its the Rights turn to fill up the shoes Liberals wore for the last 8 years.
The last shots of the video show the reason these people are losers--their utter stupidity in the way they use the word "change." Even smarter people are slowly beginning to realize what it means, thanks to Glenn Beck.
What a crowd of loosers, compared to the tea party faces. Of course, socialism is good for loosers. Or is it? Under socialism they can lose their own home, mortgage or no mortgage. It would all belong to faceless state.
The reasoning of the Indonesian woman frightens me especially. That dream that "everyone is similar" is still alive, and call me crazy, but I will 'cling bitterly' to my own individuality.
I'm continually astonished by how little substance there is behind people's support for Obama. There's so much emotional groupthink. Excellent work on the video, Evan.
I agree this is an stellar piece. It is interesting on how much emotion played into the marketing of Obama. I have a little more optimism after listening to the teeshirt vendors. Capitalism is alive. Shame on the mainstream media for propagating and exploiting the the "vibe". I predict disappointment on a grand scale when the man so many put their hope in is shown to be a mere mortal.
Bwahahahahahahahahahah! Haaaaaaah! Don't the Obamabots know that materialism is out - aren't we supposed to be sacrificing for the collective good? They given the money that they spent on all that cheap junk to some kind of charity - or put it in a big pot to fund health care for the uninsured! There are many things they should have done with it, but - no - now this stuff will be clogging up our landfills (don't tell Algore). Silly, silly people.
I can't help but wonder how many of these boneheads feel the same now that obama has proved that he's a failure at everything he does and wants only the worst for America and Americans?
This is what happens when you have a Superpower with no counterpart. America has Atlantis syndrome. China, get off your ass and rise already so people in America with common sense can get control back!
BierBomber 7 months ago
Someday the paradigm of following a "savior" will be discarded just like all other failed paradigms. Self reliance is the only answer, along with individual co-operation. Government and politics will always be corrupt. it's the nature of the beast.
pretorious700 10 months ago
Suckers, I feel sorry for the family at the end tho, they seemed nice. very sad.
Oh, can I get fries and a pepsi with my hope?
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
The marketing of "Brand Obama", i.e. the Obama Campaign was such an overwhwelming success that less savvy marketers bought it too. Obama was a brand that worked. Americans are very easy to trick. Too very easy.
ConstitutionFirst178 1 year ago
the truth is hard to swallow while a lie has greater taste
Darkatanforever 1 year ago
8:12
I have nothing but admiration for this guy.
trbewick 1 year ago
We ought to talk to these same people today. How may would have the same view ?
Auggie56 1 year ago
Pepsi will forever leave a bad taste in my mouth. Don't touch the stuff anymore. Coke is the ONE!
veryprincess5 1 year ago
Thanks Evan for all your hard work. It means a lot for us arm-chair politicians.
SeanG200 2 years ago
Ooh-bahhhhh-ma, Ooooh-bahhhhh-maahhh, oohh baahhhh-maahhhhh, bahhhhhh, bahhhhhhhh, bahhhhhhh, bahhhhhhh......
leocat99 2 years ago 2
All I hear is socialism socialism socialism, collective thinking instead of promoting individuality
samuils 2 years ago 5
I grew up under communism, all these people waxing orgasmic about Obama don't know what they are asking for.
acmeseed 2 years ago 10
Agreed
earwax12321 2 years ago
I think it is less Obama, and more what he symbolizes which is communism/marxism, but in a coded, underground way. We're in deep doo, doo.
tjttzcspplt 2 years ago 4
8:12
"Nine out of ten people buying obama shirts couldn't tell you anything about him and his policies, it's just like a Che Guevara shirt"
That's one of the smartest things I've heard someone say.
BloodiCheeseCake 2 years ago 8
Haha it really is.
Speedeefeet 2 years ago
Nope...have to call you on this one Freemaniac. I researched the story you mentioned and the source you referenced was actually a lawyer defending some auto dealers who were being threatened with closure. He was speculating. He's a lawyer. That's what they do.
From the story: A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the decision to cut a quarter of the dealers was "not coming from the task force."
Now what would have happened if the auto industry wasn't loaned the money? Boom go way more jobs.
teejate 2 years ago
And by the way, the notion of Republican's being targeted for closure was debunked quite a while ago. Considering that 80-90% of political donations by car/automobile dealers go to the GOP it wasn't hard to do.
Damn buddy...we were SO close to being on the same page. lol
Oh well...that's America!
teejate 2 years ago
I'd have to look into it more I guess... I'd heard a quick blurb about the closings a few months back and I guess I didn't dig deep enough before bringing it up. Still, I think the auto industry, particularly GM, has problems on both the labor and corporate sides that seriously need to be resolved before the government commits any more funds.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
I'm sure we'll reach the same page sooner or later :)
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Ha! Nice while it lasted.
If we had unemployment like this when a Republican was president, the media would be blasting him every single day.
They would be interviewing so-called experts that would conclude that the president doesn't care about all the unemployed.
Wake up America.
spacemanspiff2012 2 years ago 2
For that reason alone it would be worth having a Republican president. At least then people would be aware of it, actively engaged and applying pressure to the politicians to relent on their market manhandling
TheSweetwaterJones 2 years ago
Could you please provide me with one specific example of how this Administration has grown the unemployment rate? Thank you.
teejate 2 years ago
I'd provide the Reuters source if I could include hyperlinks, but Obama's automotive task force pressured Chrysler into closing 789 of its car dealerships (25%), over 100,000 jobs lost. Interestingly enough, out of all of those dealerships, all of them but one donated to Republican candidates. There have been accusations that the targeting was partisan in nature and that the action was unconstitutional. It's easy enough to find sources, just google the Chrysler dealership closings.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
ground n pound me baby, yeah thats how i want it!!
jennbootz349 2 years ago
Liberals are the cancer of human history.
CrimeReport 2 years ago 3
Which is why i will never buy another Pepsi as long as i live. and haven't bought one since the logo change.
SouthernFriedGood 2 years ago 3
Painful to watch some of these..I am not degrading any of them, just so deluded both spiritually (WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT), but also politically/mentally!?
TURN TO CHRIST, NOT A POLITICIAN, REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT (the Anti-Christ will be a politician)!!
JSenator06 2 years ago 2
Lady from Indonesia... Barry Soetoro's true homeland... And Chicago neighbor-lady sure looks familiar. Did I see her on a vid about ACORN? Must be following up on her work. ='[.]'=
Raycheetah 2 years ago 3
Simply awesome...
But I bet them doods selling anti-Bammy tees in Union Square voted for Pres. Wonderful
ENJOY YOUR TAX INCREASES BAMBOTS....LOLOLOLOLOL
stinky125 2 years ago 5
Wow...just wow. It's like they had their minds erased and re-programmed with Obama campaign one liners...very disturbing...but hilarious too.
wharfrattt 2 years ago 7
And it was great to see the anti-Obama merchandise!
Yesica1993 2 years ago 8
I had to fast forward through a lot of the interviews. To listen to people not only in the U.S. but from all over the world worshipping this communist-leaning man makes me physically sick.
I'm not sure I agree with you that the tide has turned, though. There are so many people that I know personally who, despite the complete disaster his presidency has been thus far, are STILL worshipping him!
But it does seem some folks are waking up. That's a good sign.
Yesica1993 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So THIS is how you Right Wing parrots act when you join together in Fear World. Yeah...about what I expected.
The absolute evil genius of those that feed you your thoughts is mind blowing. They've convinced you that the very entities that are working for you are actually working against you. They've found their golden key. Create an enemy, promote emotion over fact, wrap yourself up in the flag and you've got a recipe for....
Nothing.
Keep living on the fringe parrots. You're impotent.
TJFUSA 2 years ago
So THIS is how you Left Wing parrots act when you join together in Obama-worship world. Yeah... about what I expected.
Yesica1993 2 years ago 7
I find it slightly entertaining that you the right of being overly emotional, while it was the left which, as clearly demonstrated by this video, was completely enamored with the vague intangibles of "hope" and "change," making teary-eyed and incomprehensible statements of support while repeatedly referencing those two sentiments as if their substance were self-explanatory. Now we're saddled with $1.4 trillion after just one year, and the job market's in the tubes. How's that working out, again?
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Good point. I could say the same thing about religion.
I'll be excusing myself from this discussion now. Based solely on your final two references I know that I'd be wasting my time.
teejate 2 years ago
The CBO just announced a $1.4 trillion deficit in the 2009 federal budget and unemployment is nearly 10%. Do I lie?
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Naaah...you don't lie. Takes a little time to clean up what was left by 8 years of Republican rule. Of course, we can go back and include Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and definitely Bush 2 for turning this country in to a corporation. Bush left at 7.2% unemployed. And we both know that the lack of regulation that caused the economic collapse led to companies drastically cutting jobs. Those jobs are coming back. And without funding the banks, millions more would have been lost.
You know that.
teejate 2 years ago
How can you say jobs are coming back when unemployment is still rising? Reagan pulled this country out of Carter's stagflation, but Obama is positioning us to fall right back into it. With $1.4 trillion in new debt (3x Bush's worst deficit in 2008 under a Democratic congress), the gov't will have to print or borrow to make up the difference and inflation will take off. Also, the crash wasn't caused by the gov't not having enough control, but because of irresponsible lending and credit practices.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Irresponsible lending and credit practices due to the lack of regulation. I mean, do you think we should have trusted corporations to do the 'right thing?" Just like we've trusted the insurance companies to do the 'right thing?" It seems you are expecting the President, who as you know has very limited power, to somehow wave a magic wand and fix a recession that wasn't his doing overnight. All while not infusing capital into a system that was on the verge of total collapse.
teejate 2 years ago
The deficit is actually about 160 billion dollars less than what was anticipated. And do you think that if this administration wasn't saddled with a recession fueled by a collapse of the housing market on top of the ridiculous tax cuts provided to the very wealthy under Bush that we would be talking about these kinds of numbers? Now you may have your feelings about the Obama Administration and that's fine but I think pinning all the woes of our society on him is just a bit disingenuous.
teejate 2 years ago
I don't blame him for all the woes of society. But I do hold him and his party responsible for our burgeoning national debt. Now, to clarify, I am not a republican, and I will not defend Bush's fiscal policies either. But I think, through these bailouts, the government is doing far more harm than good. Blundering forward full-speed ahead with unread, pork-laden bills and doubling the federal debt just so it looks like the government is doing something is worse than doing nothing at all.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs. It may look like the government is doing good for a troubled industry, but beneath the front page we're devaluing our currency and taking massive foreign loans w/interest in order to cover the cost of these bailouts.
A simpler, cheaper approach to health care reform would be to open up competition across state lines. Over half of the federal budget goes to SS and Medicare; we can't afford another massive entitlement program.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
I just don't see what the option was other than to keep the banks afloat. As I'm sure you've learned we were a hair's breadth away from a complete collapse of our banking system. And if that had happened I'm sure you can imagine the consequences.
Actually, about 40% of the budget is earmarked for SS and Medicare. But that also includes Medicaid and CHIP. Now perhaps you aren't a recipient of any of those funds but I'm sure you can imagine what would happen if they no longer existed.
teejate 2 years ago
I know, it's a messy situation. SS and all that have been simmering for decades, as the old analogy goes, they're the 500-pound gorilla in the room that will beat you to death if you don't feed it. It would be almost impossible to discontinue those programs, but it's still galling that it eats around 15% of my pay and it won't be there by the time I reach the age where I'm supposed to start collecting. The system is unsustainable as it is; adding socialized healthcare will only make it worse.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Many economists actually feel that a devalued dollar is good for our economy as it will spur manufacturing.
I think competition across State lines should have always been in place but it's important to remember who would continue to make the rules. I'm sure you agree that can't take place. We, the people, will always lose. Corporations win.
We keep politicians in place when they serve our needs. Obama is personally invested and I believe he will deliver. And I, for one, want him to succeed.
teejate 2 years ago
SS is definitely problematic but I think most everyone agrees that it can't be dismantled. Money will need to be infused in the system from other sources. Its definitely overhaul time.
But I have to respectfully disagree with the term 'socialized healthcare.' I truly believe that phrase has been coined to instill fear. What will (hopefully) be offered is an option which I see as the only way to promote competition. I think America is about choice. Right now, our choices are severely limited.
teejate 2 years ago
I agree our choices are limited. And it would certainly promote competition to open it up across state lines. But the problem I see with a public option (not sure if you support it or not, don't want to make assumptions) is that it would not be accountable to balancing its own budget - the government can up taxes or borrow money to keep running. Businesses have to balance their books if they want to survive. Faced with a competitor (government) who doesn't, they couldn't compete.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
I have no problem with him succeeding, but I'm more leery about a massive, irresponsible and inefficient government bureaucracy being placed in charge of my health care than an insurance company. The best thing, I think, would be if people could choose their own health care plans rather than being packaged up with their job. How many people stay with jobs they hate rather than pursuing new opportunities or starting their own businesses out of fear of losing their health insurance coverage?
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
BTW, re: 40%, thanks for correcting my numbers.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
I would typically agree with you in that I know that there are times when the government just churns out inefficient bureaucracy. But I've read many studies where those who are part of Medicare are much happier with their care and plans than those with private insurers. And the reality is that we're all paying for the uninsured and unhealthy now. I agree that people should choose. But the choice needs to offer something other than insurance company dictated terms.
teejate 2 years ago
I also think it's time that we began a paradigm shift in this country by rewarding people who do the right thing as opposed to making them pay for those who don't. Case in point is the housing crisis. And of course, health care. Why should I as a healthy individual pay for those who don't take care of themselves and frequently visit the doctor? Why should I as a homeowner be limited in my options because of the foolishness of others? Reward good..penalize bad. Now THAT'S an incentive.
teejate 2 years ago
We are in total agreement there. I would extend that principle to the industries the government chooses to support through bailouts. Ideally, there ought to be no bailouts to industry; companies should succeed or fail on the merit of the quality of their product. I see no good reason to place added strain on successful businesses by taxing them in order to prop up others that are failing due to unscrupulous or incompetent CEOs and equally greedy labor unions.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Right on. See how we brought that around to a point we could agree upon?
Not sure what you're doing later this week but we both may want to catch a plane to D.C. and take over the health care reform meetings. We could get the job done! :)
Thanks for the 'back and forth.' Well done.
teejate 2 years ago
Dialog like this is so important... America really needs more of it. We usually find we have more in common than we think. It's been a pleasure.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago
Notice the vague terminology used there. "Something" is going to happen? Something is always happening! Obama did not invent that, and "something" is not good by mere proxy.
It's a little like fumbling around in what you can only assume is a dark room, and you "hope" there is a light switch. Man, politics never change........
AntiSCO 2 years ago 3
"Hope and Change". These fawning idiots never bother to ask, 'Hope for what? Change what?" And they elected the first Marxist president. Fortunately, the sheeple are finally waking up.
8thRRFS 2 years ago 5
Obama is and always has been a FRAUD!
TheCiscokiddie 2 years ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"My name is Maime, and I approve of this message."
-MEOW MEOW, MEOW-MEOW
-MEOW MEOW, MEOW-MEOW
-MEOW MEOW, MEOW-MEOW MEOW MEOW, MEOW-MEOW...
picked2click 2 years ago
how can people be so brainwashed?
TheWiretap 2 years ago
People are told FoxNews is right wing propaganda. Personally, I get my news from multiple sources, but clearly Fox dominates cable news for a reason. If you only got your news from the other networks last year, you would probably never have heard of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and ACORN.
RogerOnTheRight 2 years ago 19
@RogerOnTheRight What bullshit. CNN for example blanked the network with the "Jeremiah Wright" story for about 2 weeks 24/7.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight If you watched anything BUT Faux News you'd know that those two stories were flogged to death on other channels like CNN.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
So, you are saying they spout "right wing propaganda" as much as Fox?
If so, how do you explain their dismal ratings? How is it possible for Fox to surpass the granddaddy of cable news?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight No. The complaint I have against CNN is that they mine controversy for the sake o ratings. They mine controversy no matter which side it favors.
Fox is totally different. Fox creates it's own facts & reality and feeds the ignorant the type of dummed down bullshit they want to hear.
Fox is the GOP propaganda arm 24/7.
Fox even donated $1M to the Republican party.
Fox has 3 past Republican presidential candidates on the payroll.
Fox has a history of intentional deception.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
How might you explain Fox's astoundingly dominant market share? Do they somehow force a majority of the audience to watch their shows?
Or is it that the majority of Americans watching news is stupid?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Fox package's their predetermined message with glitz, short skirts on pretty Fox chicks, manufactured outrage, fictional story line complete with "good guys" and "villains", conspiracies and intrigue.
A large viewer audience reflects the number of people who have no deep understanding of complexity of issues but are just happy to hear what they want to hear, emotional, action packed, and fed to them on a spoon.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight See, that's why Fox Fiction & GOP talking points work so well on idiots like you.
You simply don't want to be bothered to understand any complexities.
You just want something simple and emotional and something that agrees with what you wanted to hear in the first place.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Gosh, I sure wish I was smart like you. You have have a smart name. Golly jeepers!
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Fox ratings occur mostly because it is the only network that is always and only right wing. The rest of news networks are far more neutral and the rest of America is divided among the real news networks, and leaves Fox Fiction alone. Outside of wossy Colmes (if he's still there) name one Fox personality who is not extreme right wing. On MSNBC there is Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, plus right wing guests. CNN is pretty much neutral
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
By "personality", do you mean those paid by FoxNews, or anyone who regularly appears?
For people with their own shows, the first obvious people who come to mind are, Geraldo Rivera, Sheppard Smith and Greta Van Susteren. All of them are fairly described as either "liberal" or "certainly not conservative".
For paid analysts, you have to add Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, and a bunch of others I'll have to recall later.
And for unpaid regulars, the list is huge.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Another factor in fox's ratings: Only idiots actually believe the bullshit on fox, and since there are more idiots on the right, and since Fox is the only network always right wing, well, you do the math.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Hmm... I know you are really really smart, since your name says so. Maybe you can explain how, if most voters went for Obama-- clearly not a right winger himself--- how is it that most news watchers are tuned in to FoxNews?
And by most, I mean two or three times the total viewers of all other cable news channels combined.
Either lots and lots of Democrats watch FoxNews, or Democrats simply don't pay attention to news at all.
Hint: it's a numbers thing. Do the math.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@megarational
Oh, bear in mind, Fox News' audience necessarily includes a great many people who voted for Obama.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight GOP/Fox’s many nearly identical ominous projections from the right are not misunderstandings or even simple exaggerations. They're falsehoods. Whoppers. Lies. And they're spread by cynics who are secure in the knowledge that most people will be riled into ever greater stages of anger by their ceaseless repetition rather than provoked to skeptical, objective inquiry.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
So, when leftists are invited on the various shows as guests, they present their views to the public. Since Fox has about double or triple the audience of all the rest of cable news combined, those radical leftist views get aired to the widest possible audience.
But, it's all right wing propaganda to you.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Fox is dedicated to repetition of the GOP talking points, slogans, buzz phrases & the dismissing of any alternative points of view with slogans & platitudes.
They do that because if the debated any of the specific issues on their merits they would lose.
You want to try it. Pick a specific issue or piece of legislation & I'll debate you.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
I won't pretend to have a debate with anyone who immediately resorts to personal invective.
When your "logic" consists of gutter language and personal insults, toward people you don't know, you have ceded the argument.
If your ideas had merit, you would not feel compelled to hide your reasons under a canopy of vile.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight You are as bad as the Faux channel you mindlessly watch.
I'll debate any point with you & here are the rules
- no insults
- cannot use the words "liberal", "conservative", right (as in "right-wing"), left (as in "left wing", or any words that end in "ism" or "ist".
In other words you will have to actually debate an issue on it's merits, using fact & logic.
Topics can include any claim you regularly heard on Fox. Some examples follow:
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Sorry, this won't work.
1. You have already betrayed yourself by launching mindless blather entwined with personal invective. I have no reason to believe you are interested in any sort of debate, nor are you interested in learning anything.
2. YouTube comments are limited to 500 characters, which does not lend itself to expository writing. Bad venue.
3. Most of the topics you listed are either false premises or heavily biased in their wording. eg 'tax cuts for the rich'.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
1) Oh but I am interested in "real" debate, a debate that actually involves facts & logic on a particular issue. So don't use that as an excuse to weasel out of a challenge to debate.
2) You can just say "see next" & continue your comments on the next 500 character block, so that's no excuse.
3) Since you can pick the issue, you can frame the wording. For example, re: "tax cuts for the rich" you can specify "tax cuts for those making more than $250K per year".
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
No, self-described genius, you are not interested in a real debate. You already, reflexively revealed your hand.
Besides which, debating in YouTube is like breathing through a cocktail straw. And then to insist on avoiding terms you find frightening just adds to the absurdity.
And, ideology is essential. The "issues" are all about ideology, and without ideology, there are no issues.
I can't imagine why someone as *brilliant* as you does not see that.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
I want to avoid "labels" and debate on the issues.
I know that scares the hell out of you since you get your talking points from Fox & the GOP who use "labels" to avoid a real debate on the issues.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Leftists always want to avoid labels-- being applied to them. Judging by your language toward me so far, you don't seem to have much problem applying labels to others.
And, of course, you have no idea where I get my news or even what I really think. And, you really don't care, either.
You insist you want everyone to be civil, but have shown no such civility so far.
For a guy with such a smart name, too.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
Comment removed
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Your statement that "without ideology there are no issues" shows almost unbelievable stupidity.
example: extending Bush tax cuts for those making more than 200K per year, regardless of any ideology:
- either adds to the deficit or doesn't
- either provides a greater economic stimulus than alternative uses of the money or it doesn't
- either widens the rich poor gap or it doesn't.
Those are the some of the important criteria to measure it's effect, regardless of your ideology
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Here is where you fail: you presume your logic lacks ideology, but it is entirely based on it. For example, the presumption tax policy adds to the deficit or not ignores the possibility a deficit can have other causes. So, even though you think your argument lacks ideology, your leftist ideology creates a blind spot in your reasoning. I won't even bother to explain taxes and deficits-- clearly you are not going to pay attention anyway. Ideology blinds you.
cont...
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@megarational
You see, the thing about ideology is, we all have it. Pretending it does not exist is foolish. The only meaningful purpose of a debate on something like tax policy is to support or defend an ideology. Otherwise, you have to imagine "good" policy exists a priori. Yet, "good" and "bad" are tied directly to the underlying premises of one's ideology.
Another example, "rich poor gap". Why is that important at all? Who cares about such a gap? Has there ever not been one?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
Are you on some sort of medication?
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Or, "economic stimulus". Why is that important to you? Or is it important? Is the purpose of tax policy to provide economic stimulus? What about "social justice"? Or some notion of "fairness"?
In order to discuss tax policy, there first has to be some agreement as to its purpose. And, that preferred purpose is going to be determined largely by ideology.
Pretending not to have an ideology, or that it is irrelevant, makes the discussion meaningless.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
Translation: if you can't use labels & buzz words, you are unable to debate.
Well, stick to your bullshit, labels, and talking points mother Fox sat you on her knee & fed you.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
A debate does not constrain the presentation of ideas. Your demand is to do just that-- in fact, to specifically exclude the mention of ideology itself.
Without ideology, what issues exist?
You simply fear your own ideology. Should you have to admit to it, you might what? Melt? Cry? Be made to look foolish?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Ideology is the absence of empiricism. It's acceptance based on criteria, not rational thought.
All politics in America's 2 party system are based on ideology, that is, an adherence to dogma as opposed to consideration of issues on individual merit or lack thereof.
Obama is a failure because his ideology is a failure.
pretorious700 10 months ago
@pretorious700
Ideology, being one's core beliefs, is the basis of all thought and action. Without ideology, "individual merit" does not exist, since we have no concept of "merit".
In fact, ideology is the basis of all rational thought. Think "first principles". You have to agree on that before you can delve into the scientific method or any empiricism.
I agree Obama's ideology is a failure, but not because he has one. It's that his ideology stands in conflict with human nature.
RogerOnTheRight 10 months ago
@megarational
Furthermore, limiting language by omitting "conservative", etc serves no purpose. If we are to discuss ideology, then you cannot omit the terms identifying the ideology.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight That's the whole point. We debate issues, not ideology.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
You don't debate, you sling mud. Waste of time.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight I'll give you another example: "Was eliminating the banks as middle men in student loans a beneficial piece of legislation?
megarational 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@megarational
The point is, you start your comments as a shouting match. Take this very comment, "You are as bad as the Faux channel you mindlessly watch".
Now, in the very same comment you say "no insults".
You have no idea who I am, but you presume to know where I get my news, and that I am somehow "mindless".
Which would make your own comments pretty much mindless.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
- if you don't buy health insurance you will go to jail
- the h.c. reform is "socialized medicine" & "government take-over of the h.c. system"
- the housing crisis was caused by gov't pressuring banks & mort. co's to give more loans to lower incomes, & by actions of ACORN.
- extending tax cuts for the rich would be good for America
- Obama made a mistake in bailing out the auto industry
- no jobs were created by the stimulus package
- etc.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight One other "debate" rule. Also omit the words "Democrats" or "Republicans".
These rules are for one reason: to ensure the debate is actually on the issue itself.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight As for "leftists" invited on Fox shows, the vast majority of guests on Fox are GOP or right wing like Carl Rove. When Fox does have someone from the left on, it's for segments too small to go in depth, and usually the "guest" is being talked over or even shouted down by Fox host(s).
100% of the regular "talking heads" on Fox spew the GOP talking points.
CNN regularly has segments with the non-partisan factchek.org,, Something you will never see on Fox.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight One more thing regarding Fox ratings.
Jerry Springer and professional wrestling both enjoy larger viewership that W5 documentaries, and for the same reason. It' nothing but entertainment.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight One point we should return to. You said, regarding ACORN & reverend Wright, that "you probably would never have heard of them if you watched networks other than Fox.
Again, both of those stories were repeated over and over for weeks on CNN for eg.
So either
a) you were lying, or
b) you ONLY get your news from Fox & therefore didn't know about the ceaseless repetition of those stories on CNN for eg.
Which is it?
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Zogby (left of center) did a poll after the election, illustrating my point. He revealed Obama supporters knew almost nothing of Wright and Ayers, among other issues related to the election, but only if their primary news source was anything other than FoxNews.
So, while CNN may have covered the story in some manner at some time, the probability of voters actually knowing the spectrum of issues is greatly reduced when they rely on CNN and the like.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Wow. You really are a bald-faced liar.
I goggled "Zogby post presidential election poll", clicked on the pdf file of the actual poll results on the questions asked of Obama supporters.
1) nowhere in the poll was there any questions on Wright or Acorn.
2) nowhere in the poll did it compare knowledge results of Obama supporter with knowledge results on McCain supporters
3) nowhere in the poll was there any information on what news channels the respondents watched.
next...
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Actually, the Ayers question was there, you just missed it.
But, I cited the wrong poll. The original poll was the Zogby poll, only conducted for Obama voters. Zogby was embarrassed, having revealed uncomfortable truths of his fellow Democrats, so when Dems insisted Republicans would have fared worse, Zogby refused to do a Republican poll.
So, Ziegler contracted Wilson to do a new poll of both Dems and Repubs.
cont...
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@megarational
...cont
The new poll confirmed Zogby's Dem numbers and added questions about personal news sources. Republicans clearly knew more about the issues.
But, the overlooked salient finding was, the greatest determinant of "knowledge" was not ideology, but news source.
Read that poll, very interesting.
But, while I was wrong about the Wright issue, the Ayers question was in both polls, along with other questions.
As a "smart" person, I am surprised you did not already know this.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight I just read the actual Wilson poll, and even went further.
You are right. I found it VERY interesting. But not for the reasons you think. You will get an earful later, but right now I have to go to work.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
I read the Zogby poll and the Wilson poll.
Here is what I found.
Questions 1 to 5 did not test knowledge. They just established the respondents category.
Of the rest of the questions (6 to 17), none were on substantive issues. They were more just "trivia" type questions.
Questions 6,7,10,11,17 were trivia used to reflect negatively on McCain. Obama supporters showed greater knowledge in 4 out of 5 of those question, and even with McCain supporters on one.
see next...
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
Questions 8,9,18,14,15,16 were trivia used to reflect negatively on Obama. McCain supporters scored higher on all 6.
So all this poll showed is that Obama supporters were more “knowledgeable” about negative trivia used against McCain, & McCain supporters were more knowledgeable about negative trivia used against Obama.
No one should need a poll to know those results.
So why the poll?
see next....
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
It was a Wilson poll. Chris Wilson is a Republican & political strategist who was Exec. Director of the Republican Party of Texas, working directly for Karl Rove.
megarational 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Overall results are skewed by “ringer” questions like the one on Ayers. Obama's seemingly scant relationship with Ayers has been a favorite story of Fox News, & Fox fans have been treated to a seemingly never ending use of that scant relationship to attack Obama. So OF COURSE Fox watchers would be more aware of it. However, even on that question 68% of Obama supporters had the right answer.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Regarding Ayers, you forcefully made the point earlier that CNN offered extensive coverage of Ayers. So, how is that a "ringer" question that only Fox viewers would know?
Your argument lacks consistency. You start with a conclusion and fit "facts" to it, even though your "facts" were stated otherwise earlier.
But, we were led to believe you are of superior intellect. After all, you are "megarational", aren't you?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight It's a ringer question because even though the issue was covered on CNN, Fox saturated their programming for a much longer period of time with it.
Geeze, why does even the simplest thing have to be explained to you?
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Well, you suggested already CNN gave massive coverage to the issue. Now you are saying they didn't. Make up your mind.
If CNN is such a brilliant news source and provides great coverage, then why would Fox viewers know more about specific issues?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Liar. I didn't say "only Fox viewers would know". I said that "it was a favorite story of Fox News & Fox fans have been treated to a seemingly never ending use of that...to attack Obama. So of course Fox watchers would be MORE aware of it."
Is it that you can't even read one comment correctly? Or is it that lying about what someone said is a main part of your debating style?
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
You sure are quick to call someone a "liar" when you disagree with them. Coupled with your propensity to cuss and use vile insults, you sure seem angry?
What is bothering you so much? You seem obsessed with this.
You conveyed the clear impression you think CNN is a better news source than Fox. And, they cover the same stories, just as well.
But, when Fox viewers know more about a story, it is because they are inundated. So, I guess "too much" is bad when it comes to news?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@megarational
See, the problem is, your comments are not quite rational. So, you might consider changing your name.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RogerOnTheRight So even your cherry picked poll puts the lie to your claim that if you listened to other than Fox you probably wouldn't have heard of Reverend Wright or Ayers.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
No, actually, the meaningful finding of the poll, if you study it, is that ideology was not the greatest determinant of knowledge. It was news source. Regardless of ideology, people who watch CNN and MSNBC knew less.
Wilson's numbers validated Zogby's, and Zogby is biased toward the left. So, bias of the pollster was not a factor.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
The poll listed the number of responses only by whether the respondents voted for Obama or for McCain.
The poll did not break down the responses by News network watched.
For fuck sake, you even lie about your own cherry picked poll.
Ether you have no qualms about lying, or you're dumber than a post.
megarational 1 year ago
@megarational
Apparently you did not read the poll crosstab. Each question was analyzed with respect to party affiliation, voting record, geography, education as well as news source.
And it shows a stronger correlation between news source and party affiliation for key questions-- eg the Bill Ayers question.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight So it looks like you have adopted another of the favorite Fox/GOP tactics: If you get caught in a lie, no problem, just cover it up with another lie.
megarational 1 year ago
These are Obamabots.
Salford999Red 2 years ago 3
This isn't surprising so its not really a big deal and is better for Obama in the long run. Expectations are now sobering. Good.
For 8 years hundreds of companies made a butt-load of money off of anti-Bush merchandise. Its all about catering to certain markets. When the people who celebrated Obama won the election... the euphoria wares down becuase they won. No need to fight or be angry or impassioned. Now its the Rights turn to fill up the shoes Liberals wore for the last 8 years.
HabitualNightOwl 2 years ago 3
"Everybody all together, thinking as one...being of like mind."
Yep. That's what it is all right. Resistance is futile.
antodav 2 years ago 7
I noticed that too. This is scary stuff. These people are allowed to vote. Which means that we need to vote them down.
kellynch 2 years ago 2
Pity fool, With the help of God, mabe we won't starve.
out2gtme 2 years ago 2
Well, I didn't catch the pepsi logo change.
My household and family have banned pepsi products and any known affiliates.
TheSaturnV 2 years ago 3
I remember the Pepsi logo change. Haven't bought Pepsi sense and I try to avoid thier affiliates like Frito-Lay where ever possible.
Yakko77 2 years ago 2
Hope in what, who...? Do this people even know what they are saying?
8:50 sums it all up, "It wasn't based on anything real."
teton99 2 years ago 2
"It's like a Che shirt."
Ayup. Roger that.
justinhoffma 2 years ago 3
Another nice piece from Mr. Maloney.
One of these days I will convince you to show Indoctrinate U out here in North Dakota like you promised! :P
slayzar 2 years ago
The last shots of the video show the reason these people are losers--their utter stupidity in the way they use the word "change." Even smarter people are slowly beginning to realize what it means, thanks to Glenn Beck.
focus21x 2 years ago 3
What a crowd of loosers, compared to the tea party faces. Of course, socialism is good for loosers. Or is it? Under socialism they can lose their own home, mortgage or no mortgage. It would all belong to faceless state.
focus21x 2 years ago 3
u mean communism. there is private property in socialism. you would still own your house. but libertarian ftw.
silentthreat1739 2 years ago
There is private property only until the moment 'the people' determines your property should be their property.
sodequis 2 years ago 6
Wow is that sad. Talk about worshiping a false idol.
JoeJeffersonn 2 years ago 10
wow, can you say cult.
brntobme 2 years ago 3
No American flags!
BlueSkies360 2 years ago 2
The Tea party crowd looks so much better :) Tea Party folks are true American patriots. Obamazombies= stupid collectivists.
BlueSkies360 2 years ago 7
People can say what they want, but at least the tea party crowd cleaned up after themselves :)
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago 5
I noticed that too at the Tea Party I went to back in April. American flags EVERYWHERE.
As for these cultists... truly frightening.
Yakko77 2 years ago 3
Wow...these people are zombies, carried away by an empty suit. Obama is nothing but image, not substance. Pathetic...
atlashrugg 2 years ago 9
is that "Oh-Bah-Maa" lady in the hummer selling suppositories?
hopey-changey-hopey-changey
mmm mm mmm
wolfgangfaust 2 years ago
Obamunism is a mental disease.
VonStierlitz 2 years ago 4
It's like a rhetoric tidal wave.
jhohcable 2 years ago
The reasoning of the Indonesian woman frightens me especially. That dream that "everyone is similar" is still alive, and call me crazy, but I will 'cling bitterly' to my own individuality.
ACPUSA 2 years ago 5
Obama is a synonym for ______.
goodrichardsalmanac 2 years ago
Just be glad you've got a job! We'll accept any change! Doesn't matter what it is. Give up your freedom, give up your rights, let's do this!
I think these Obama lovers had the worst hangover in history. Let's take the country back 2010. Vote every Democrat out of office.
IndieFrogStudios 2 years ago 7
Nice!
txfirehawk 2 years ago
I'm continually astonished by how little substance there is behind people's support for Obama. There's so much emotional groupthink. Excellent work on the video, Evan.
FreemanicParacusia 2 years ago 11
Kinds scary when people vote for someone because of his/her Sex, Color, religeon - a Personality.
What ever happened to voting for who would be the BEST President on the Cadidates Merits, Skills, Voting Record, Policies, Experience and MORALS.
We live in a "reality Television" political system. Crap.
red5llaw 2 years ago 4
I agree this is an stellar piece. It is interesting on how much emotion played into the marketing of Obama. I have a little more optimism after listening to the teeshirt vendors. Capitalism is alive. Shame on the mainstream media for propagating and exploiting the the "vibe". I predict disappointment on a grand scale when the man so many put their hope in is shown to be a mere mortal.
irisojects 2 years ago 4
No hope and only change for the worst
MostHumbleManOnEarth 2 years ago 5
Bwahahahahahahahahahah! Haaaaaaah! Don't the Obamabots know that materialism is out - aren't we supposed to be sacrificing for the collective good? They given the money that they spent on all that cheap junk to some kind of charity - or put it in a big pot to fund health care for the uninsured! There are many things they should have done with it, but - no - now this stuff will be clogging up our landfills (don't tell Algore). Silly, silly people.
miazagora 2 years ago 4
I can't help but wonder how many of these boneheads feel the same now that obama has proved that he's a failure at everything he does and wants only the worst for America and Americans?
pitter43 2 years ago 8
Great job!
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago 4
Good damn piece of work man! You presentation was flawless.
I love how his supporters say that you have to "just be thankful you gotta job". Obama drives people to strive for mediocrity.
brian38383838 2 years ago 9
Brilliant!
JamesTHarris1 2 years ago 7
Very good, been waiting for something like this for a while.
halolauren 2 years ago 7
evan I am thoroughly impressed good sir. cheers!
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago 10
You need to make these more often, Evan. Excellent work.
Atreus21 2 years ago 13