Iosef Stalin apologist says Sarah Palin was right about Obama.

[knapplc]

OK, fine. Correction noted, and please note that I tried to be nice in my first attempt.

 

Any further personal discussions will merit a time-out. Period. We are not going to debate what constitutes a personal discussion. That's the end of it.

[bhamHusker]

nm - incoming PM instead.

 

I'll just say here that I think you misunderstood the intent of my post.

[knapplc]

If I did, that's on me. There's nothing going on in this thread that's a problem, and I didn't want to make a big deal of this. Just a friendly reminder not to engage in personal disputes - and I wasn't implying that it was getting out of hand. Just trying to head it off at the pass if that's where it was going.

 

You can PM if you want. But the shelf life on this sidebar is already expiring. I don't think it's worth getting into more than we already have. Groovy, everyone?

[Yossarian]

If I did, that's on me. There's nothing going on in this thread that's a problem, and I didn't want to make a big deal of this. Just a friendly reminder not to engage in personal disputes - and I wasn't implying that it was getting out of hand. Just trying to head it off at the pass if that's where it was going.

 

You can PM if you want. But the shelf life on this sidebar is already expiring. I don't think it's worth getting into more than we already have. Groovy, everyone?

 

Groovy? Indeed!

[JJ Husker]

So Palin makes a few uninformed or ill advised comments and is given some lame talking points and phrases (ie. Maverick) by her handlers and it becomes widely accepted in some circles that she is a complete and steadfast idiotic moron but Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, or BHO himself make similar uninformed or ill advised comments and all that is heard about those from the same circles is crickets chirping. IIRC, Dan Quayle had much the same effect on pretty much the same type people. It's almost as if, if a person tends to be in that camp, they simply parrot the popular perception. Nah, that can't be it, you guys all think for yourselves and would never let others give your opinion to you. Would you? Let's face facts, if a person is conservative in anyway or opposed to liberal left policies in anyway, they will be excoriated by the mainstream media. Calling Sarah Palin an idiot in all matters is akin to saying Nickleback sucks. It's no different. Thanks for being original and forming your own opinions.

[knapplc]

So Palin makes a few uninformed or ill advised comments and is given some lame talking points and phrases (ie. Maverick) by her handlers and it becomes widely accepted in some circles that she is a complete and steadfast idiotic moron but Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, or BHO himself make similar uninformed or ill advised comments and all that is heard about those from the same circles is crickets chirping. IIRC, Dan Quayle had much the same effect on pretty much the same type people. It's almost as if, if a person tends to be in that camp, they simply parrot the popular perception. Nah, that can't be it, you guys all think for yourselves and would never let others give your opinion to you. Would you? Let's face facts, if a person is conservative in anyway or opposed to liberal left policies in anyway, they will be excoriated by the mainstream media. Calling Sarah Palin an idiot in all matters is akin to saying Nickleback sucks. It's no different. Thanks for being original and forming your own opinions.

 

Can you tell me - what is the "mainstream media?" Because Fox News is the single most-watched media outlet out there, and not only do they not do what you're claiming the "mainstream media" does, they're the banner-carrier for the exact opposite behavior. If they're not "mainstream," who is?

 

As for the rest of this... just.... wow. Talk about "parroting" things.

[JJ Husker]

So Palin makes a few uninformed or ill advised comments and is given some lame talking points and phrases (ie. Maverick) by her handlers and it becomes widely accepted in some circles that she is a complete and steadfast idiotic moron but Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, or BHO himself make similar uninformed or ill advised comments and all that is heard about those from the same circles is crickets chirping. IIRC, Dan Quayle had much the same effect on pretty much the same type people. It's almost as if, if a person tends to be in that camp, they simply parrot the popular perception. Nah, that can't be it, you guys all think for yourselves and would never let others give your opinion to you. Would you? Let's face facts, if a person is conservative in anyway or opposed to liberal left policies in anyway, they will be excoriated by the mainstream media. Calling Sarah Palin an idiot in all matters is akin to saying Nickleback sucks. It's no different. Thanks for being original and forming your own opinions.

 

Can you tell me - what is the "mainstream media?" Because Fox News is the single most-watched media outlet out there, and not only do they not do what you're claiming the "mainstream media" does, they're the banner-carrier for the exact opposite behavior. If they're not "mainstream," who is?

 

As for the rest of this... just.... wow. Talk about "parroting" things.

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, PBS, NPR, AP, UPI, Reuters, New York Times, LA times, USA Today, Washington Post, and most every other large city newsapaper. In some aspects, Fox News could be considered mainstream but I think, if we're being honest, we know why they are not considered the same as the others because they do present an opposing viewpoint. And yes, in many cases, they do the exact same but opposite thing of those other outlets. It is basically Fox News and Rush Limbaugh vs everyone else. I think that fact gets them kicked out of the "mainstream" club.

 

Please explain the "wow, as for the rest of this, talk about parroting things" What or who do you feel I am parroting? It felt very much like my own opinion and considering I extremely rarely watch Fox News or listen to Rush, apparently I need to be enlightened as to what/who I am parroting. I simply think Palin has been treated extremely unfairly and in no way equally as compared to liberal or left leaning democrats. I don't think she is the sharpest knife in the drawer but if she were as bad as most people portray her, she would be too stupid to remember to breathe and would thus be dead already.

[bhamHusker]

So Palin makes a few uninformed or ill advised comments and is given some lame talking points and phrases (ie. Maverick) by her handlers and it becomes widely accepted in some circles that she is a complete and steadfast idiotic moron but Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, or BHO himself make similar uninformed or ill advised comments and all that is heard about those from the same circles is crickets chirping. IIRC, Dan Quayle had much the same effect on pretty much the same type people. It's almost as if, if a person tends to be in that camp, they simply parrot the popular perception. Nah, that can't be it, you guys all think for yourselves and would never let others give your opinion to you. Would you? Let's face facts, if a person is conservative in anyway or opposed to liberal left policies in anyway, they will be excoriated by the mainstream media. Calling Sarah Palin an idiot in all matters is akin to saying Nickleback sucks. It's no different. Thanks for being original and forming your own opinions.

Setting aside the imaginary liberal media bias claims for the moment, I think that something I said in another thread is relevant here and bears repeating. Anyone that spends enough time in the public eye will eventually say something ridiculous, flub a line, twist their facts or otherwise present themselves as an idiot. The difference for Palin is the consistency with which she manages to do it. Now, regarding the media, if every person with a conservative thought in their head is, as you claim, excoriated by the MMSM (the extra M is for 'mythical', by the way) for simply being a conservative, could you explain why most legitimately qualified, intelligent members of that political wing are not the victims of such smear campaigns? Why are Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, Cantor, Romney, Christie, McCain, et al. treated with great personal respect and dignity by the evil MSM even when challenging their policy positions? Would you care to explain how only conservatives are lampooned for their moments of foolishness to Howard Dean?

 

Finally, regarding the bolded portion of your quoted post, thank you for making a lot of unfounded assumptions. You don't know how or from where anyone on this board gets their news other than yourself. You know exactly nothing about the process by which any of us arrive at our opinions, but don't let that stop you from slinging the mud, eh?

 

Please explain the "wow, as for the rest of this, talk about parroting things" What or who do you feel I am parroting? It felt very much like my own opinion and considering I extremely rarely watch Fox News or listen to Rush, apparently I need to be enlightened as to what/who I am parroting. I simply think Palin has been treated extremely unfairly and in no way equally as compared to liberal or left leaning democrats. I don't think she is the sharpest knife in the drawer but if she were as bad as most people portray her, she would be too stupid to remember to breathe and would thus be dead already.

I can't and won't try to speak for Knap, but whether you formed the opinion independently or not, it certainly sounds to me like the same tired and debunked victim-of-the-liberal-media pablum that's forwarded by any number of right-wing talk show hosts, columnists and commentators. I'll take your word for it that this is just a coincidence, and not evidence that you unthinkingly parrot the thoughts of people that happen have similar political / social opinions as yourself

[JJ Husker]

So Palin makes a few uninformed or ill advised comments and is given some lame talking points and phrases (ie. Maverick) by her handlers and it becomes widely accepted in some circles that she is a complete and steadfast idiotic moron but Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, or BHO himself make similar uninformed or ill advised comments and all that is heard about those from the same circles is crickets chirping. IIRC, Dan Quayle had much the same effect on pretty much the same type people. It's almost as if, if a person tends to be in that camp, they simply parrot the popular perception. Nah, that can't be it, you guys all think for yourselves and would never let others give your opinion to you. Would you? Let's face facts, if a person is conservative in anyway or opposed to liberal left policies in anyway, they will be excoriated by the mainstream media. Calling Sarah Palin an idiot in all matters is akin to saying Nickleback sucks. It's no different. Thanks for being original and forming your own opinions.

Setting aside the imaginary liberal media bias claims for the moment, I think that something I said in another thread is relevant here and bears repeating. Anyone that spends enough time in the public eye will eventually say something ridiculous, flub a line, twist their facts or otherwise present themselves as an idiot. The difference for Palin is the consistency with which she manages to do it. Now, regarding the media, if every person with a conservative thought in their head is, as you claim, excoriated by the MMSM (the extra M is for 'mythical', by the way) for simply being a conservative, could you explain why most legitimately qualified, intelligent members of that political wing are not the victims of such smear campaigns? Why are Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, Cantor, Romney, Christie, McCain, et al. treated with great personal respect and dignity by the evil MSM even when challenging their policy positions? Would you care to explain how only conservatives are lampooned for their moments of foolishness to Howard Dean?

 

Finally, regarding the bolded portion of your quoted post, thank you for making a lot of unfounded assumptions. You don't know how or from where anyone on this board gets their news other than yourself. You know exactly nothing about the process by which any of us arrive at our opinions, but don't let that stop you from slinging the mud, eh?

 

Please explain the "wow, as for the rest of this, talk about parroting things" What or who do you feel I am parroting? It felt very much like my own opinion and considering I extremely rarely watch Fox News or listen to Rush, apparently I need to be enlightened as to what/who I am parroting. I simply think Palin has been treated extremely unfairly and in no way equally as compared to liberal or left leaning democrats. I don't think she is the sharpest knife in the drawer but if she were as bad as most people portray her, she would be too stupid to remember to breathe and would thus be dead already.

I can't and won't try to speak for Knap, but whether you formed the opinion independently or not, it certainly sounds to me like the same tired and debunked victim-of-the-liberal-media pablum that's forwarded by any number of right-wing talk show hosts, columnists and commentators. I'll take your word for it that this is just a coincidence, and not evidence that you unthinkingly parrot the thoughts of people that happen have similar political / social opinions as yourself

If you don't realize and/or won't admit that there exists a very real (not imaginary) liberal media bias, nothing I say is likely to sway your opinion. I understand that it must be hard, if not virtually impossible, to recognize a bias when that bias happens to coincide and agree with much of a persons own tendencies. Conversely, it is a lot more obvious when that bias runs counter to a persons beliefs and policy preferences. Thus I am maybe more cognizant of the media bias against conservatives and in favor of more liberal positions.

 

I think the reason the 7 people you named are not treated like total trash is that they are so far relatively insignificant to the public discourse, are all pretty mild, don't rock the boat politicians, are a lot more careful about saying what they really think or feel, and pose little threat to the advancement of liberal policies or politicians. Personally, I think Palin's relatively fast rise to prominence scared the liberal machine so much that they had to crush her forever and repeatedly. It has basically happened to every leading republican candidate in this cycle. The leader of the pack has suffered much more severe vetting than anything Obama has ever experienced. Granted most of them have been total deserving of getting fried by the media but it is also deserved on the other side of the aisle and I have not seen the same level of scrutiny applied. I said it a long time ago and I'll say it again; Romney is so bland and such a politician that he was who the media wanted as an opponent for Obama. He does not generate the level of support or conservative base rallying that the repubs would need to overtake the White House. The media has the matchup it wanted all along- one that favors Obama. If that is ever in doubt before November, you will see Romney treated much the same as Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, Palin, Quayle, Bush, etc.

 

Personally, I don't care much for any of the repub candidates this go round although I didn't mind Gingrich and Cain (with the exception of some personal life issues). Commence villifying me for admitting as much. I just wish the media would apply the same standards to all candidates instead of being so obvious about it's bias. They could have a heyday with Pelosi and Biden and they should have done at least some cursory vetting of Obama. It didn't and hasn't happened. Simply compare the level of scrutiny of VP candidate Palin and the top of the ticket Obama. Lightyears apart.

[bhamHusker]

There's so much in that post begging to be debunked that I almost don't know where to begin, and I don't really have time to get into it at the moment anyway. I'll be back for this one, though, I promise...

 

For now let me just address this one little gem:

 

Personally, I don't care much for any of the repub candidates this go round although I didn't mind Gingrich and Cain (with the exception of some personal life issues). Commence villifying me for admitting as much.

 

What is with you conservative religious types and the persecution complex that you drag around like a cross on your way to Calvary? Isn't it tiring to bear such a load? Let it go - no one's out to get you. While I can't understand how anyone would support either of these guys, obviously there's something that appeals to at least a few conservatives out there. I'm certainly not going to vilify you for being one of them just because I disagree with you in the most vehement of ways.

 

I'll have more to say about the rest later, or maybe tomorrow depending on how many beers there are in my immediate future.

[JJ Husker]

"you conservative religous types"? Nice.I believe in God, go to church regularly, and tend to be conservative in fiscal matters and somewhat middle of the road on social issues but to you I am simply one of those types. At least I know where you are coming from. Thanks for the heads up.

[huskerXman]

Hmmm...I post a video of Noam Chomsky and you emerge from under the bridge to tell me I don't know what I am talking about when the video speaks for itself. Then you go to name-calling. Who knew that posting videos of a left wing nut-job hero, Chomsky, making light of Barack Obama's record is trolling? I didn't. And you are correct in your assessment of Sarah Palin. That makes Chomsky's agreement with her all the more hilarious. And calling Noam Chomsky a blind squirrel will get you banned from ever getting to watch Rachel Maddow cut her own hair.

*I'm* the one that emerged from under the bridge? You need to look inward, sir. You haven't posted in months after your self imposed "ban," and you pop on yesterday with a video that you claim is evidence of Obama losing the hard left when it doesn't do that at all. Further you call Chomsky a Stalinist (not the first time you've made this absolutely dumb claim) which itself is patently absurd and demonstrates that you don't even understand the words you throw around. He says *in the video that YOU linked* that he generally doesn't find much to agree upon with Sarah Palin, but this ONE little bit is it. That's what prompted my use of the "blind squirrel" idiom (directed at Palin, btw - I assume you know that and are being deliberately thick about it for trollish effect). The video simply does not make the point you seem to think it makes. In that regard, it does speak for itself, and what it says is about you.

 

Isn't that usually how it works when you are gone for a while? You pop back on? Hey, just like me, I haven't posted in a long time but I just popped out of nowhere.

[bhamHusker]

"you conservative religous types"? Nice.I believe in God, go to church regularly, and tend to be conservative in fiscal matters and somewhat middle of the road on social issues but to you I am simply one of those types. At least I know where you are coming from. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Of course there's more to you than that, just as there's more to me than "godless anti-capitalist leftist," but this forum is about politics and religion, not our shared fondness for good beer, food, football or any of the other thousands of things that make you you and me me. Now, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a religious conservative with a smattering of moderate opinions on a handful of social issues is still a religious conservative. I didn't use the term as a pejorative, but merely as an efficient and, I think, accurate description of you based on the positions you've espoused in this subforum. Even if you didn't just refer to yourself as a conservative person that's religious, your posting history in this forum is more than enough to earn that description, so I hope you'll understand if I take your indignation at being called a religious conservative as yet more evidence of a tendency to cry persecution where there is none.

 

If you don't realize and/or won't admit that there exists a very real (not imaginary) liberal media bias, nothing I say is likely to sway your opinion. I understand that it must be hard, if not virtually impossible, to recognize a bias when that bias happens to coincide and agree with much of a persons own tendencies. Conversely, it is a lot more obvious when that bias runs counter to a persons beliefs and policy preferences. Thus I am maybe more cognizant of the media bias against conservatives and in favor of more liberal positions.

 

I think the reason the 7 people you named are not treated like total trash is that they are so far relatively insignificant to the public discourse, are all pretty mild, don't rock the boat politicians, are a lot more careful about saying what they really think or feel, and pose little threat to the advancement of liberal policies or politicians. Personally, I think Palin's relatively fast rise to prominence scared the liberal machine so much that they had to crush her forever and repeatedly. It has basically happened to every leading republican candidate in this cycle. The leader of the pack has suffered much more severe vetting than anything Obama has ever experienced. Granted most of them have been total deserving of getting fried by the media but it is also deserved on the other side of the aisle and I have not seen the same level of scrutiny applied. I said it a long time ago and I'll say it again; Romney is so bland and such a politician that he was who the media wanted as an opponent for Obama. He does not generate the level of support or conservative base rallying that the repubs would need to overtake the White House. The media has the matchup it wanted all along- one that favors Obama. If that is ever in doubt before November, you will see Romney treated much the same as Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, Palin, Quayle, Bush, etc.

 

Personally, I don't care much for any of the repub candidates this go round although I didn't mind Gingrich and Cain (with the exception of some personal life issues). Commence villifying me for admitting as much. I just wish the media would apply the same standards to all candidates instead of being so obvious about it's bias. They could have a heyday with Pelosi and Biden and they should have done at least some cursory vetting of Obama. It didn't and hasn't happened. Simply compare the level of scrutiny of VP candidate Palin and the top of the ticket Obama. Lightyears apart.

 

My weekend was a bit more eventful than I anticipated it would be. After a weekend of fun, good beer and good food with my family and friends, I find myself just not caring about this as much as I did on Friday, so I'm not going to give this the time or effort that I had originally intended.

 

I will be the first to agree that there is a media bias, but that bias is towards the center, not to the left. Numerous studies have found the notion of a liberal media to be at best flawed and at worst unfounded. While you see yourself as being more "tuned in" to liberal bias, I see conservatives as being overly sensitive to it. Every perceived instance of liberal bias is amplified while coverage that's friendly to conservative positions or critical of liberal ones is disregarded. Ultimately, I think that much of what you, and most other conservatives see as bias is often easily explained by the fact that the details as they're reported reported do not align with your own deeply held political and social positions, and are therefore suspect to you. As Stephen Colbert once said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

 

As for the vetting process that Obama was subjected to in '08 or so far during this cycle, I cannot think of another candidate in recent memory that had their past dissected with greater detail than Obama. In '08, his past associations (however tenuous), records as a student, as an activist, as an attorney, his voting record in the state senate, and his limited record in the US Senate, the status of his citizenship, his years spent abroad as a child were all laid bare in painstaking detail. Now his record as president is and will be equally scrutinized. Analysis of TV coverage of Obama and McCain during the '08 campaign found that coverage of Obama was more negative than was coverage of McCain. The difference between Obama's coverage versus Palin's can largely be attributed to Obama being disciplined and staying on message while not making dumb and/or false statements constantly. Palin, being a near constant source of gaffes and BS, rightly invited greater scrutiny. In the end, she presented herself as little more than an empty suit with a fragile ego and a nasty attitude, and was generally - and accurately - reported as such. Similarly, the other people you claim are victims of smears are in actuality victims of their own incompetence and wacky positions. The media isn't biased because they reported on the missteps and outlandish claims made by the candidates - that's their job. Mitt survived simply because he didn't do as much to wound his own candidacy as his opponents did to their own.

[JJ Husker]

 

Of course there's more to you than that, just as there's more to me than "godless anti-capitalist leftist," but this forum is about politics and religion, not our shared fondness for good beer, food, football or any of the other thousands of things that make you you and me me. Now, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a religious conservative with a smattering of moderate opinions on a handful of social issues is still a religious conservative. I didn't use the term as a pejorative, but merely as an efficient and, I think, accurate description of you based on the positions you've espoused in this subforum. Even if you didn't just refer to yourself as a conservative person that's religious, your posting history in this forum is more than enough to earn that description, so I hope you'll understand if I take your indignation at being called a religious conservative as yet more evidence of a tendency to cry persecution where there is none.

 

 

My weekend was a bit more eventful than I anticipated it would be. After a weekend of fun, good beer and good food with my family and friends, I find myself just not caring about this as much as I did on Friday, so I'm not going to give this the time or effort that I had originally intended.

 

I will be the first to agree that there is a media bias, but that bias is towards the center, not to the left. Numerous studies have found the notion of a liberal media to be at best flawed and at worst unfounded. While you see yourself as being more "tuned in" to liberal bias, I see conservatives as being overly sensitive to it. Every perceived instance of liberal bias is amplified while coverage that's friendly to conservative positions or critical of liberal ones is disregarded. Ultimately, I think that much of what you, and most other conservatives see as bias is often easily explained by the fact that the details as they're reported reported do not align with your own deeply held political and social positions, and are therefore suspect to you. As Stephen Colbert once said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

 

As for the vetting process that Obama was subjected to in '08 or so far during this cycle, I cannot think of another candidate in recent memory that had their past dissected with greater detail than Obama. In '08, his past associations (however tenuous), records as a student, as an activist, as an attorney, his voting record in the state senate, and his limited record in the US Senate, the status of his citizenship, his years spent abroad as a child were all laid bare in painstaking detail. Now his record as president is and will be equally scrutinized. Analysis of TV coverage of Obama and McCain during the '08 campaign found that coverage of Obama was more negative than was coverage of McCain. The difference between Obama's coverage versus Palin's can largely be attributed to Obama being disciplined and staying on message while not making dumb and/or false statements constantly. Palin, being a near constant source of gaffes and BS, rightly invited greater scrutiny. In the end, she presented herself as little more than an empty suit with a fragile ego and a nasty attitude, and was generally - and accurately - reported as such. Similarly, the other people you claim are victims of smears are in actuality victims of their own incompetence and wacky positions. The media isn't biased because they reported on the missteps and outlandish claims made by the candidates - that's their job. Mitt survived simply because he didn't do as much to wound his own candidacy as his opponents did to their own.

 

It wasn't so much indignation or "crying persecution" as I simply felt you were off base with your assessment and seemed to be lumping me in with some of the far right wing nuts. I recognize plenty of religous right conservatives that are well right of me so I just felt it telling that you feel I am so far right. I really don't mind being referred to as conservative or religous but the nuts are pretty far down the scale from me. (maybe not on HB though) I guess it is all relative to a persons position on the spectrum. Given that you have described yourself as a "godless anti-capitalist leftist" and have stated numerous positions to back that up. I would posit that you are so far left that you may have lost sight of where center or moderate position really are. I am not even going to touch on your claims that Obama was scrutinized more than any others in recent history or that the vast majority of the media shows a clear liberal bias. We simply do not see the same events in remotely the same way. Your take away from these events is so far from what I see as reality that it would be pointless to continue this discussion. When I see something that is red but you call it blue, it is time to give up.

 

Anyway I hope you enjoyed your weekend of good beer, food, & friends. Possibly we can agree on Husker football to some degree.