Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election


  • Please log in to reply
2022 replies to this topic

Poll: Obama vs Romney (329 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you vote for?

  1. Obama (279 votes [85.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 85.32%

  2. Romney (48 votes [14.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.68%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#331 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,119 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 11:48 PM

Bill Clinton is a rock star.

That is all.
  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#332 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:30 AM

Bill Clinton is a rock star.

That is all.


While i think bill actually gave a crap about the american people , his economic policy was suspect to say the least We now have just such an unsparing scrutiny of Clintonomics in the form of Robert Pollin's "Contours of Descent," subtitled "U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity."

Across his 238 pages Pollin is unambiguous. "It was under Clinton," he points out, "that the distribution of wealth in the U.S. became more skewed than it had at any time in the previous forty years. Inside the U.S. under Clinton, the ratio of wages for the average worker to the pay of the average CEO rose from 113 to 1 in 1991 to 1 to 449 when he quit. In the world, exclusive of China, between 1980 and 1988, and considering the difference between the richest and poorest 10 percent of humanity, inequality grew by 19 percent; by 77 percent, if you take the richest and poorest 1 percent.

The basic picture? "Under the full eight years of Clinton's presidency, even with the bubble ratcheting up both business investment and consumption by the rich ... average real wages remained at a level 10 percent below that of the Nixon-Ford peak period, even though productivity in the economy was 50 percent higher under Clinton than under Nixon and Ford. The poverty rate through Clinton's term was only slightly better than the dismal performance attained during the Reagan-Bush years." We had a bubble boom, pushed along by consumer spending by the rich.

Through the Clinton era, the bargaining power of capital to cow workers, to make them toil harder for less real money, increased inexorably. Speculative rampages were given a green light.

To be sure, in accord with the captious laws of class-based mechanics, the bubbling tide did raise boats, albeit unevenly. The yachts of the rich lofted magnificently on the flood. Meaner skiffs rose an inch or two. In those bubble years businesses needed more workers, and for a brief moment, the labor shortage gave them some leverage to get more pay.

At the end of eight years, when the bubble tide had ebbed, what did workers have by way of a permanent legacy? Clinton, Pollin bleakly concludes, "accomplished almost nothing in the way of labor laws or the broader policy environment to improve the bargaining situation for workers ... Moreover, conditions under Clinton worsened among those officially counted as poor."

Nowhere is Pollin more persuasive than in analyzing the causes of the fiscal turnaround from deficit to surplus, an achievement that had Al Gore in 2000 pledging to pay down the entire federal debt of $5.8 trillion. Was this turnaround the consequence of economic growth (producing higher tax revenues), along with the moderate rise in marginal tax rates on the rich in 1993? If indeed these were the causes of fiscal virtue, we might take a benign view of Clinton's fiscal policies. On the other hand, if surplus was achieved by dint of hacking away at social expenditures and at social safety nets, plus gains in capital gains revenues stemming from the stock market bubble, then progressives, even Democratic candidates, might not so eagerly extol the Clinton model.

In a piece of original and trenchant analysis Pollin shows that almost two-thirds of Clinton's fiscal turnaround can be accounted for by slashes in government spending relative to GDP (54 percent) and on capital gains revenues (10 percent). Pollin then asks the question: Suppose there really had been a peace dividend after the end of the Cold War was won. We could have had a few less weapons systems, 100,000 new teachers, 560,000 more scholarships, 1,400 new high schools and still had a budget surplus of $220 billion.

Wall Street applauded the surpluses, and the ordinary folk paid the costs of all those slashes in the budget: fewer teachers, a dirtier environment.

You think the next Democratic nominee is going to address the long and short-term horrors engendered by the neo-liberal credo to which Clinton paid such fealty? Of course not. What, at minimum, would have to be done? Pollin doesn't shirk the questions, and he suggests answers that steer past easy rhetorical flourishes about trade protections. If we are to move toward a world in which families don't have to line up outside churches to stay alive and teenagers don't have to work for 20 cents a day in Third World sweatshops, we have to have policies here that promote full employment and income security.

Such policies would have to include a strengthening of workers' legal rights to organize and form unions, and also to fight on a level playing field in the conduct of strikes. To get a measure of fairness and stability in the financial system, financial institutions would have to honor asset-based reserve requirements, of which one example would be the margin requirements Greenspan failed to impose in September 1996. This same policy instrument could be used to channel credit to socially beneficial projects such as low-income housing.
excerpt from an article by Alexander Cockburn

it is disgusting the way the ratio of wage's exploded under clinton in a matter of 8 years a ceo goes from 139 dollars for every dollar earned by the average worker to 449 dollars for every dollar earned .

and then it was under clintons watch that the glass-stegall act was repealed ,

In the year previous to the Financial Services Modernization Act, the thing that overruled Glass-Steagall, Citibank spent $100 million on lobbying and public relations, which is a good indication. Yes. They spent a small fortune, a king’s ransom, if you will, getting rid of Glass-Steagall. In fact, when thrown in with other financial firms’ lobbying, it was closer to $200 million over the short period of time.

To give you some idea of the magnitude of this effort, the Center for Public Integrity reports


The pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent more than $800 million in federal lobbying and campaign donations at the federal and state levels in the past seven years, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found. Its lobbying operation, on which it reports spending more than $675 million, is the biggest in the nation. No other industry has spent more money to sway public policy in that period. Its combined political outlays on lobbying and campaign contributions is topped only by the insurance industry.

In other words, in one year Sandy Weill and his buddies spent 1/4 of what the next biggest lobbying effort on record spent in 8 years! In a paper on the repeal of Glass-Stegall in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology Jill Hendrickson wrote:


The Industry’s efforts to jump-start progress on the [Senate] bill is a case study in how a well-heeled and well-organized interest group can swiftly prod Congress to move, even on an issue about which most people outside Washington and New York have little knowledge. Nor is it surprising, according to both political science and economic literature, that the interest groups played a vital role in the timing of the 1999 deregulation. Without persistent lobbying by commercial and investment interests it is unlikely that reform would have taken place in this century.

GLB repealed Sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act:
•Section 20 – prohibited any member bank from affiliating in specific ways with an investment bank;
•Section 32 – prohibited investment bank directors, officers, employees, or principals from serving in those capacities at a commercial member bank of the Federal Reserve System.

There was only one problem: the bill had to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions. The House version differed in two important ways: 1) It took regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve and gave it to the Secretary of the Treasury and 2) it refused to extend to insurance companies obligations under the Community Re-investment Act to provide information about their patterns of mortgage lending.

Democrat Barney Frank was among those who especially opposed the second, telling the BBC


We can we try to do a little bit for those who are being left behind. This is an inappropriate continuation of a pattern of helping those who need a benefit but ignoring those who are left behind.

It was the Community Reinvestment Act provision in particular that threatened to derail the conference committee. Here is the now oft-quoted Frontline description of what happened:


On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill’s effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

Frontline‘s pregnant pause says it all.

What Happened That Night

So why did Well call Clinton, and what did Clinton do? One take comes from a National Housing Institute article by Malcolm Bush and Katy Jacob.


In an unusual move, the three key Republican Chairmen bypassed the usual conference committee debates by writing a “final compromise” themselves. That bill’s CRA provisions resembled the original Senate bill. (House Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach had fought in the House for a bipartisan bill with no anti-CRA measures while Senate Banking Chair Phil Gramm had insisted on the Senate’s anti-CRA provisions.)

At this point, tremendous pressure was exerted on the Clinton Administration, which had earlier threatened to veto the Senate version, to sign the legislation, and intense negotiations continued over community reinvestment and consumer privacy provisions.

The Community Reinvestment Act required regulated banks and thrifts to offer loans and banking services throughout their service areas, including lower-income communities. But here is the wrinkle–the CRA essentially served to protect low and moderate income communities from predatory lending–such as subprime mortgages. In 1999, shortly after passage of GLB, National Community Reinvestment Coalition president John Taylor wrote:


We must step up our efforts to identify and eradicate predatory lending. Horror stories abound of minority and low- and moderate-income families losing their homes and wealth due to unfair and deceptive tactics. On a national level, the banking industry increased their subprime mortgage lending from less than 1 percent of all conventional mortgage loans in 1993 to 6 percent in 1998. Our efforts will be to support and promote state and/or federal legislation, similar to that recently passed in North Carolina, that curbs abusive lending.

So we know that the topic of that late night phone call between Bill Clinton and Sandy Weill, the man whose career began in the subprime mortgage business, was the Community Reinvestment Act. We know that Phil Gramm, who was the one most strongly pushing for gutting CRA (Leach actually supported it) threatened to torpedo the legislation if the White House did not reach an agreement.

By the way, Phil Gramm is also currently co-chair of John McCain’s Presidential campaign and one of his chief economic advisors. So if you are thinking about voting Republican because of Bill Clinton’s role in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, remember that the man whose name is on the bill will probably be in John McCain’s cabinet, possibly as Treasury Secretary. Gramm still remains unrepentant about repealing Glass-Steagall. In March Gramm told U.S. News


I see no evidence whatsoever that the subprime problem was in any way caused by making our financial structure more competitive by allowing banks and securities companies and insurance companies to compete against each other. I have seen no evidence whatsoever to substantiate that claim.

So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval. And why is it Sandy Weill who makes the phone call to Clinton? Woodward and Bernstein where are you when we need you?

The Key to it All

GLB created a financial Brave New World where institutions have become “too big to fail,” even if they skirted or even violated regulations and the financial entanglements of banks, investment companies and insurers have become difficult to sort out and virtually impossible to regulate. The reason TBTF has placed the United States economy at risk is perhaps best stated by Ed Mierzwinski at the U.S. Pirg Consumer Blog:


The reason for the bailout, from the regulator point-of-view is simple: everything is now connected to everything else. Regulators thought that the interconnected economy would absorb and diffuse risks. Instead, these interconnections and use of exotic financial instruments no one understands — coupled with the moral hazard created by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allows would-be lords of the universe on Wall Street (their term, not mine) to play with taxpayer-insured deposits at commercial banks — has force-multiplied local or individual financial problems into world-wide financial crises.

So now we find ourselves in the midst of a Presidential campaign in which the chief financial advisor to one candidate authored the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall and another candidate’s husband acquiesced in the deal. The third candidate has already stated he would not reinstate Glass-Steagall. When asked if he would restore Glass-Steagall Barack Obama notes


Well, no. The argument is not to go back to the regulatory framework of the 1930′s because, as I said, the financial markets have changed substantially.

I would be remiss by not adding four of Obama’s top six contributors include Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and–guess who–Citigroup.

None of this promise the next four years will be any easier on the American consumer. And meanwhile I am still waiting after six months for some reporter to ask Hillary Clinton what she thinks of her husband’s repeal of Glass-Steagall and whether she would favor rolling it back.

The reason for the silence may be that for the Clintons the repeal of Glass-Steagall may prove far more embarrassing in the long run than Monica Lewinsky. The Liberal American .








  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#333 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,803 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:03 AM

^ good read but your source isn't cited. It contains subtitles and reference to a McCain cabinet, clearly written in 2008.

Clinton had his flaws - Glass-Steagall being the biggest. Interesting to note that liberals have no intention of undoing the Glass-Steagall, in as much as investment and commercial banks have the ability to merge deregulation becomes a side effect - something their platform is against.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#334 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:37 AM

^ good read but your source isn't cited. It contains subtitles and reference to a McCain cabinet, clearly written in 2008.

Clinton had his flaws - Glass-Steagall being the biggest. Interesting to note that liberals have no intention of undoing the Glass-Steagall, in as much as investment and commercial banks have the ability to merge deregulation becomes a side effect - something their platform is against.

at the end of the first article i have written it is an excerpt from an article by alexander cockburn , and the glass-stegall piece was written by a person called the liberal american , who i have credited .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 06 September 2012 - 02:38 AM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#335 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:13 AM

ok... prove to me how "balanced" they are.. let's see some links to several "anti-dem" videos. I agree that there are many times when someone on the right opens their mouth and put their foot into it, but you can't tell me that dems don't do it MANY times.

and I'm not looking for a 50-50 split here. But if the split is 70-30... that's rather slanted (especially in politics.)

Personally I like to follow "politifact.com" since they rate both sides with the same scale (so even if someone is telling the truth.. they show that it really was the truth.)

There are many, I found these by searching "Obama" on their channel but there are also many others targeting Dems as a whole.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW5KSVBPbAM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thb-mZmPv70
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2lXEk6LPDU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=toEjMwMdVd4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Trh8iwNt8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLrn8Bcudp8

But you're missing my point. You don't need it to be 50/50, or any given fraction, for it to be fair. Shows like TYT regularly target things like deception and corruption, and if one side is ten times more deceitful or corrupt than the other, you've got to represent that in the stories and analysis you do. Probably the biggest failure of the mainstream media is to take both sides and say "this guy said this; that guy said that; let's call it even." That doesn't mean you're unbiased; it actually biases you to the side that is in the wrong. The Republicans are on the wrong side of history on so many things, and to try to always be equating everything is a disservice to the public, and the reason why American politics as a whole is shifted so enormously to the right these days. Being unbiased and being perfectly balanced are not the same thing.
  • 3

#336 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:18 AM

Wow... no freaking way was that 2/3rds, the proposition failed, should have just dropped it instead of trying 3 more times.

50/50 at best. The "opinion" of the chair leaves much to be desired, IMHO....


...and Zaibatsu, quit with the lol emoticons. Nobody believes that you're actually laughing out loud at every single one of your so-called posts. It actually cheapens your arguments, such as they are...
  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#337 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:22 AM

Anyone else like Elizabeth Warren's speech? I'd rather listen to her talk for 50 minutes than listen to Clinton hit the notes for his lemmings.

Except when she said "this is my fight, this is Obama's fight". That second half is hardly true.

Edited by Satan's Evil Twin, 06 September 2012 - 07:23 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#338 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:37 AM

For Dems, "Internet freedom" means "vigorously" protecting copyrights

Both parties are in denial about the need for copyright and patent reforms.


by Timothy B. Lee - Sept 4 2012, 4:15pm PDT

134


Posted Image
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) campaigning in Iowa in 2007. Today Obama is president of the United States and Dodd leads the Motion Picture Association of America.
Jeremiah Ro

Tech policy issues play a prominent role in the Democratic Party's 2012 platform, released this week for the party's national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. The document touts an active federal role in a wide variety of tech policy issues, from copyright enforcement to the expansion of broadband Internet access.
Both major US party platforms endorse "Internet freedom"—but for both parties the phrase comes with important caveats. Last week, the Republicans called for "vigorous enforcement of current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity," as well as the preservation of the ban on online gambling. The Democrats are silent on pornography and gambling, but they make the case for "vigorous" copyright enforcement efforts.
Vigor!

"The administration is vigorously protecting US intellectual property," the new Democratic platform declares, through "better enforcement and innovative approaches such as voluntary efforts by all parties to minimize infringement while supporting the free flow of information." That's a reference to things like the "graduated response" system in which ISPs would penalize their users if they were accused of copyright infringement six times. (The White House helped brokered the deal between major ISPs and Hollywood.)
Another policy that fits the theme of "vigorous" enforcement (though it isn't named specifically) is Operation In Our Sites. Under that program, the federal government has seized hundreds of allegedly infringing domain names before the site owners had a chance to be heard.
President Obama also has his party's backing on the use of trade negotiations as a lever to pressure other countries to adopt American-style copyright and patent laws. While it doesn't mention the controversial ACTA treaty, the Democratic platform promotes the Trans-Pacific Partnershipagreement and praises "free trade" agreements with Panama and Colombia for "protecting labor rights, the environment, and intellectual property."
Democrats also take credit for having "reformed the patent system to speed approval of investors’ patents and provide alternatives to wasteful litigation." That's a reference to last year's America Invents Act, which—as we predicted—has not slowed down the surge in patent litigation. The platform contains no mention of the continued problems with the patent system or the need for more substantive reforms.
The Republican platform, released last week, was largely silent on patent and copyright issues. These issues are mentioned only in the context of accusing foreign countries—especially China—of failing to protect Americans' copyright and patent rights.
Defining freedom

The Democrats' stance on these issues is especially frustrating because many advocates of copyright and patent reform hail from the political left. (Copyright reformer Larry Lessig was a strong supporterof the Obama campaign in 2008, for instance). Yet advocates of reforming the copyright and patent systems appear to have had modest impact on either Obama administration policies or on the 2012 Democratic platform. If anything, the Democrats appear to have adopted an even more Hollywood-friendly stance than the Republicans.
Some public interest groups have gamely tried to spin the two platforms as a victory for Internet freedom. David Segal of Demand Progress, a group that played a key role in stopping the Stop Online Piracy Act earlier this year, called it a "huge victory for the Internet" that both the Democratic and Republican platforms formally endorse the concept.
But specifics speak louder than generalities. Obviously, everyone is happy to endorse "Internet freedom" in the abstract. But the administration's actions over the last three years suggests that it places a premium on currying favor with Hollywood, just as the Republicans' nominal commitment to Internet freedom takes a back seat to conservatives' opposition to pornography and gambling. Or consider net neutrality, where supporters want to use government power to keep the Internet "free" for users, while opponents want to keep the Internet "free" from the application of such power. Both sides use the same words, but they're not talking about the same things.
http://arstechnica.c...ing-copyrights/
  • 0

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#339 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:22 AM

the administration's actions over the last three years suggests that it places a premium on currying favor with Hollywood

Change I can believe in.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#340 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:29 AM

Change I can believe in.


Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) campaigning in Iowa in 2007. Today Obama is president of the United States and Dodd leads the Motion Picture Association of America.


I wonder if they have each other on speed dial. "Hey Barry, can you try shoving an ACTA-like bill through the TPP's back end so all participating nations abide by our copyright policies?" "I'll see what I can do Chris".
  • 0

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#341 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 06 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

As much as the DNC is as full of rhetoric as the RNC, I'd rather that rhetoric be about love and hope rather than fear and anger.
  • 1

#342 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 11:11 AM

Anyone else like Elizabeth Warren's speech? I'd rather listen to her talk for 50 minutes than listen to Clinton hit the notes for his lemmings.

Except when she said "this is my fight, this is Obama's fight". That second half is hardly true.


She was great. I've admittedly had a crush on her for a couple of years now though. I could listen to her for a very long time as well. Smart and succinct is the only way I could describe her.

And I thought Clinton did well in delivering a motivating speech.....which is what is was designed to be for the audience in the building, comprised of mainly confirmed supporters, and for those at home, many who are also supporters of the Dem party....but also for those who haven't made up their minds. If you want to pejoratively call supporters of political party or the face of one or of an ideology, then I suppose that's ok. We're all 'lemmings' then in some form or fashion, aren't we? And by we, I mean you as well.

And by hardly true, do you mean there's a little truth to it, or none at all and the suggestion that there's a little truth is unbelievable?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#343 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 06 September 2012 - 11:16 AM

There are many, I found these by searching "Obama" on their channel but there are also many others targeting Dems as a whole.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW5KSVBPbAM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thb-mZmPv70
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2lXEk6LPDU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=toEjMwMdVd4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Trh8iwNt8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLrn8Bcudp8

But you're missing my point. You don't need it to be 50/50, or any given fraction, for it to be fair. Shows like TYT regularly target things like deception and corruption, and if one side is ten times more deceitful or corrupt than the other, you've got to represent that in the stories and analysis you do. Probably the biggest failure of the mainstream media is to take both sides and say "this guy said this; that guy said that; let's call it even." That doesn't mean you're unbiased; it actually biases you to the side that is in the wrong. The Republicans are on the wrong side of history on so many things, and to try to always be equating everything is a disservice to the public, and the reason why American politics as a whole is shifted so enormously to the right these days. Being unbiased and being perfectly balanced are not the same thing.


3 of those videos go after Obama for not being "progressive" enough. Last time I checked... that equates to "not being on the left." Wouldn't that be the same as Fox going after Bush for not being "conservative" enough? So half of your clips you posted, were biased to the left (out of the 6) which would be a 50/50 split (based only on how many clips you posted.) But if we are to use that as the "norm" for TYT, that means half of the "anti-Obama" clips are critical of him for not being "progressive enough." Which means even more videos are biased to "the left."

I do understand the point you are making... that's why I said how I follow "politifact.com" and how they rate things on a scale no matter what side of the isle a person is on. There is almost zero bias on that site (really there is no such thing as being totally unbiased.. everything/everyone will lean a little more left or right.) If the biggest target on the right (Bachmann) says something that is true... they rate it as true, clean and simple. If it's a total farce (the more likely outcome) she gets a "pants on fire" rating. And then based on that, you see it as being unbiased (if it's true... it's true, if it's false... it's false.) There is no "well she should have been more conservative in her view of this" which is what we see from TYT.

I do applaud you for posting those links for me. Based on that, I would assume they aren't as biased as Fox, MSNBC, etc.
  • 0

#344 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:46 PM

She was great. I've admittedly had a crush on her for a couple of years now though. I could listen to her for a very long time as well. Smart and succinct is the only way I could describe her.

And I thought Clinton did well in delivering a motivating speech.....which is what is was designed to be for the audience in the building, comprised of mainly confirmed supporters, and for those at home, many who are also supporters of the Dem party....but also for those who haven't made up their minds. If you want to pejoratively call supporters of political party or the face of one or of an ideology, then I suppose that's ok. We're all 'lemmings' then in some form or fashion, aren't we? And by we, I mean you as well.

And by hardly true, do you mean there's a little truth to it, or none at all and the suggestion that there's a little truth is unbelievable?

That's a cute straw man to avoid introspectively taking responsibility for being gaga for a politician because of his using celebrity status to articulate speeches you already agree with.

Especially on this forum I'd without a doubt refer to Clinton's supporters as lemmings.

While I agree most at this point in time with Ron Paul, particularly on economic policy, I certainly haven't fallen in love with him like you guys have with Obama/Clinton. They're just politicians being hired for a job, not the politician version of Blind Date/Love Connection.

Edited by zaibatsu, 06 September 2012 - 12:47 PM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#345 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:02 PM

That's a cute straw man to avoid introspectively taking responsibility for being gaga for a politician because of his using celebrity status to articulate speeches you already agree with.

Especially on this forum I'd without a doubt refer to Clinton's supporters as lemmings.

While I agree most at this point in time with Ron Paul, particularly on economic policy, I certainly haven't fallen in love with him like you guys have with Obama/Clinton. They're just politicians being hired for a job, not the politician version of Blind Date/Love Connection.



I wouldn't fall in love with Paul either.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#346 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,803 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:08 PM

I just read Eva Longoria will speak tonight.

This makes me happy... in my pants.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#347 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:10 PM

3 of those videos go after Obama for not being "progressive" enough. Last time I checked... that equates to "not being on the left." Wouldn't that be the same as Fox going after Bush for not being "conservative" enough? So half of your clips you posted, were biased to the left (out of the 6) which would be a 50/50 split (based only on how many clips you posted.) But if we are to use that as the "norm" for TYT, that means half of the "anti-Obama" clips are critical of him for not being "progressive enough." Which means even more videos are biased to "the left."

I do understand the point you are making... that's why I said how I follow "politifact.com" and how they rate things on a scale no matter what side of the isle a person is on. There is almost zero bias on that site (really there is no such thing as being totally unbiased.. everything/everyone will lean a little more left or right.) If the biggest target on the right (Bachmann) says something that is true... they rate it as true, clean and simple. If it's a total farce (the more likely outcome) she gets a "pants on fire" rating. And then based on that, you see it as being unbiased (if it's true... it's true, if it's false... it's false.) There is no "well she should have been more conservative in her view of this" which is what we see from TYT.

I do applaud you for posting those links for me. Based on that, I would assume they aren't as biased as Fox, MSNBC, etc.


Fair enough, I understand what you're saying. By the way, I hadn't checked out politifact.com before you mentioned it, now I have, and you're right, they seem to have no biases at all.

Here is one problem I have with only looking there though. For people like you, who are presumably intelligent, open-minded, and well informed about current issues, it's great, because you can look at the facts and make up your own mind. But for those less in tune than you (i.e. most Americans), you can run into the same problem I was mentioning before - you look at the site, say "well look, both sides clearly lie a lot" and call it even again. Which would be completely wrong if one side lies way blatantly and way more often than the other. You don't really get the big picture... for example, right now the DNC is the big media event, so every quote on that page is from Dems. A lot of them aren't rated "completely true" so if I just look at that, it looks like Dems are the big liars. Right now I have to go pretty far back to see GOP lies.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while this site is an incredibly valuable tool, it needs analysis to go with it. Politifact tells you how accurate certain individual statements were, but it doesn't tell you much about either party's platform or how they'll affect Americans. That's what the media's job should be, and I think we can agree that they fail terribly. You're right now that you mention it, most of TYT's anti-Obama videos attack him for not being progressive enough. But if you watch all their videos in-depth, you'll see that they provide facts to support everything they say, they won't shy away from attacking Dems, and they'll always do their best to weed out biases. They may be personally biased towards an ideology, but within that context they'll still give you the plain and honest truth, which separates them from most others. Also, Cenk (the main host) unrelentlessly attacks both sides for all the money that's in politics and time after time calls it the biggest problem in America, which other media outlets would never dare do.

So to sum up... politifact.com is an extremely useful and unbiased tool. But for the general public, you need proper analysis to put everything into context. The mainstream media isn't doing their job, so you need to look elsewhere, and for now, TYT is the best I have seen.

edit, also wanted to add - when TYT attacks Obama for not being progressive enough, it is almost always in the context of his own campaign promises.

Edited by Columbo, 06 September 2012 - 03:28 PM.

  • 0

#348 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:12 PM

That's a cute straw man to avoid introspectively taking responsibility for being gaga for a politician because of his using celebrity status to articulate speeches you already agree with.

Especially on this forum I'd without a doubt refer to Clinton's supporters as lemmings.

While I agree most at this point in time with Ron Paul, particularly on economic policy, I certainly haven't fallen in love with him like you guys have with Obama/Clinton. They're just politicians being hired for a job, not the politician version of Blind Date/Love Connection.


OK folks .. to the tune of El Condor Pasa:

"I'd rather be a lemming than a rat, or a cat, or fat like that ..
I'd rather have a brain I called my own, yes my own, not be a clone .. "

(Develop optional lyrics as you wish) .. :rolleyes:

Edited by Tearloch7, 06 September 2012 - 01:12 PM.

  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#349 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,803 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

^ Lol, just ignore Zaibatsu. I welcome the opposing point of view but when most of his comments become incendiary it is difficult to acknowledge his viewpoint as a valuable contribution.

Star studded cast tonight for the DNC: http://www.ibtimes.c...06/dnc-2012.htm

Appeal to younger voters perhaps?
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#350 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:27 PM

I wouldn't fall in love with Paul either.

I wouldn't fall in love with any but I'll be cheering on your next baby step epiphany about the Democratic party. ;)
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#351 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,817 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:30 PM

^ Lol, just ignore Zaibatsu. I welcome the opposing point of view but when most of his comments become incendiary it is difficult to acknowledge his viewpoint as a valuable contribution.

Star studded cast tonight for the DNC: http://www.ibtimes.c...06/dnc-2012.htm

Appeal to younger voters perhaps?


women, youth, latino, blacks. that's what they need to win to overcome the non-college educated white men votes. that's political analysts speak, not my opinion.
  • 0
Posted Image

#352 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:58 PM

I wouldn't fall in love with any but I'll be cheering on your next baby step epiphany about the Democratic party. ;)


There aren't any illusions for me about the Democratic Party, the current administration, previous administrations, current policies, previous policies, the current re-election platform, etc, save for an abrupt inclusion of pro-sky daddy rhetoric during the 2nd day of a political convention, though i doubt i was the only one who found it surprising.

I appreciate the cheerleading efforts nonetheless.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#353 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:11 PM

Bill Clinton is a rock star.

That is all.


Posted Image
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#354 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:28 PM

Good performance by Foo Fighters at the DNC.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 06 September 2012 - 04:31 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#355 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,803 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:34 PM

Lol ya, Foo slayed but DNC delegates do not know how to enjoy a rock show.

Grohl was better at Sasquatch anyway :P
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#356 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,803 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:37 PM

Oh god, ScarJo is up next. She never struck me as a bright one.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#357 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:40 PM

Lol ya, Foo slayed but DNC delegates do not know how to enjoy a rock show.

Grohl was better at Sasquatch anyway :P


Yeah, woulda been better with a mosh pit. B)

They really toned it down naturally, but I really enjoyed the 'chilled' versions of 'My Hero' and 'Walk', nonetheless.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#358 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:43 PM

Oh god, ScarJo is up next. She never struck me as a bright one.


Rep. Clyburn first.

Love listening to this man speak. Everything sounds like a Civil Rights era speech.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#359 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:47 PM

Rep. Clyburn first.

Love listening to this man speak. Everything sounds like a Civil Rights era speech.


Did you catch John Lewis' speech earlier? .. that man has the heart of a lion .. he is one of the very few politicians I would like to hug ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#360 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:49 PM

Posted ImageDon't care.
  • 0
CANUCKS TILL I DIE




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.