Will Trump and the Birthers now shut up?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

I do actually. I also hope that they will go after Exxon-Mobile, Conico-Phillips, Delta Airlines, and United-Continental, as well.

These companies have quasi monopolies and those are neither good for business, competition, or the consumer.

Don't forget the insurance companies - except that they and health care companies have been given an exemption from the anti-trust laws. The lobbyists were able to keep the health care bill from eliminating that exclusion. Gotta love our one dollar/ one vote system.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Don't forget the insurance companies - except that they and health care companies have been given an exemption from the anti-trust laws. The lobbyists were able to keep the health care bill from eliminating that exclusion. Gotta love our one dollar/ one vote system.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, the insurance companies to tick me off as well! Here in Germany, doctors and hospitals are told by the government exactly what they can change. Shortly after I arrived, I twisted my ankle really bad and ended up in the emergency room. Thankfully, nothing was broken or torn, just bruised pretty bad. Because I didn't have insurance yet, we paid about $130 Euros total, for the visit including three x-rays. The problem they are having here, is that there is a severe shortage of medical professionals because the pay is relatively low and the hours are dreadfully long.

A balance needs to be found between the German and US systems. A grumpy physician, at the end of 48 hour shift is not that effective I would think.

[merrylander]

Lester Pearson solved that problem in Canada.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by simi

I question everything when a politician opens his mouth.. but at first I wondered about where he was born, but I'm pretty satisfied he's an American... We've got bigger things to worry about.

Excellent reply,i dont even know where to begin!!

1) YES WE SHOULD USE OUR MINDS AND QUESTION EVERYTHING!

2) Yes we have much more important things to worry of,THIS FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ONLY FOOLED THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY BRAINWASHED..

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Dude111

Excellent reply,i dont even know where to begin!!

1) YES WE SHOULD USE OUR MINDS AND QUESTION EVERYTHING!

2) Yes we have much more important things to worry of,THIS FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ONLY FOOLED THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY BRAINWASHED..

Kind of ironic how those on the right want to paint Obama as incompetent and incapable of achieving anything, but are nevertheless willing to credit him with achieving the incredibly difficult task of brainwashing the vast majority of Americans.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Kind of ironic how those on the right want to paint Obama as incompetent and incapable of achieving anything, but are nevertheless willing to credit him with achieving the incredibly difficult task of brainwashing the vast majority of Americans.

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray... he isn't brainwashing the "vast majority of Americans" himself. That has already been accomplished by the general media which continues to fawn over this man (although their drooling has been reduced somewhat), by a media which routinely demonizes all opposition to him, by a press which sweeps the not so pretty aspects under the rug without investigating them.

The prime example of this behavior is that many media outlets, members of liberal groups, and even so-called "journalists", have run a campaign calling on people not to watch Fox News. I have never, ever, heard a single instance where a conservative came out and stated: don't watch MSNBC. Are liberals really so insecure that they cannot allow the public to make up their own mind? That is exactly what is going on here.

Another example are the mindless attacks against Sarah Palin especially. I generally do not agree with her, but why does she scare the crap out of the liberal media. She is relentlessly thrashed for her opinions. Oprah Winfrey, a person (certainly one of the 1% the Democrats love to thrash) is given a blank-check in regards to her rather questionable political assertions strictly in support of Barrack Obama. Herman Cain, is labeled a racist and an "uncle tom" for his views, as is Dr. Condoleezza Rice for hers (regardless of the fact that she is utterly brilliant). How about General Powell? Before he lent his support to Barrack Obama in 2008, he was harshly demonized. After he did so... all this demonization stopped instantly.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

D-Ray... he isn't brainwashing the "vast majority of Americans" himself. That has already been accomplished by the general media which continues to fawn over this man (although their drooling has been reduced somewhat), by a media which routinely demonizes all opposition to him, by a press which sweeps the not so pretty aspects under the rug without investigating them.

The prime example of this behavior is that many media outlets, members of liberal groups, and even so-called "journalists", have run a campaign calling on people not to watch Fox News. I have never, ever, heard a single instance where a conservative came out and stated: don't watch MSNBC. Are liberals really so insecure that they cannot allow the public to make up their own mind? That is exactly what is going on here.

Another example are the mindless attacks against Sarah Palin especially. I generally do not agree with her, but why does she scare the crap out of the liberal media. She is relentlessly thrashed for her opinions. Oprah Winfrey, a person (certainly one of the 1% the Democrats love to thrash) is given a blank-check in regards to her rather questionable political assertions strictly in support of Barrack Obama. Herman Cain, is labeled a racist and an "uncle tom" for his views, as is Dr. Condoleezza Rice for hers (regardless of the fact that she is utterly brilliant). How about General Powell? Before he lent his support to Barrack Obama in 2008, he was harshly demonized. After he did so... all this demonization stopped instantly.

I have not seen a reputable journalist do any of the things that you have accused in the above post. Are you going to post citations, or should we rely instead on your credibility?

Personally, I haven't seen the corporate media fawning over the President. I haven't seen his political opponents being demonized by the press. I have seen legitimate questioning of such folks as Oraly whatshername, who has seen fit to discredit herself before several courts, or the Trumpster, who became a parody of himself. I have occasionally seen the neutral press reveal attacks based only on innuendo for what they are.

I'm afraid the only thing that we right wing would consider a neutral press is one that marches in lock-step with them. I prefer to rely on several sources for information, but I am skeptical of any source who finds it necessary to constantly trumpet itself as being fair and balanced.

As far as Sarah Palin - maybe the news is slow to get to Germany, but she has become irrelevant.

Herman Cain called an Uncle Tom - haven't seen it. I have seen legitimate criticism of the prejudice he has shown toward Muslims. (Just a hint, Mr. Cain; the constitution does not permit religious tests for public office)

Condoleeza Rice called a racist - haven't seen it. A neocon - yes; discredited foreign policy - yes.

Colin Powell demonized, nope. Being used and set up by the Bush administration, yep.

Concrete examples to support your accusations - nope.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I have not seen a reputable journalist do any of the things that you have accused in the above post. Are you going to post citations, or should we rely instead on your credibility?

Personally, I haven't seen the corporate media fawning over the President. I haven't seen his political opponents being demonized by the press. I have seen legitimate questioning of such folks as Oraly whatshername, who has seen fit to discredit herself before several courts, or the Trumpster, who became a parody of himself. I have occasionally seen the neutral press reveal attacks based only on innuendo for what they are.

I'm afraid the only thing that we right wing would consider a neutral press is one that marches in lock-step with them. I prefer to rely on several sources for information, but I am skeptical of any source who finds it necessary to constantly trumpet itself as being fair and balanced.

As far as Sarah Palin - maybe the news is slow to get to Germany, but she has become irrelevant.

Herman Cain called an Uncle Tom - haven't seen it. I have seen legitimate criticism of the prejudice he has shown toward Muslims. (Just a hint, Mr. Cain; the constitution does not permit religious tests for public office)

Condoleeza Rice called a racist - haven't seen it. A neocon - yes; discredited foreign policy - yes.

Colin Powell demonized, nope. Being used and set up by the Bush administration, yep.

Concrete examples to support your accusations - nope.

Regards,

D-Ray

I guess it all depends on point of view, who you consider to be credible and reputable journalists....

"right wing would consider a neutral press..." - wow!

You haven't seen "corporate media fawning over the President (Obama)"?

Denial is a glorious mechanism. Would any source ever be enough.. I am beginning to wonder. If you believe that the media is generally not "in lockstep" with the Democrat political machine, that is your good right. Then you might want to explain why so many in the mainstream media are so fanatical in their message that one should not watch Fox News? Do you consider these direct attempts to suppress freedom of speech, to be standard fare for "respectable journalists" in an "neutral press"? Or will you make the claim that this behavior does not occur?

You speak of fairness, yet you attack, ridicule, and degrade prominent people who voice their opinions: "Trumpster who became a parody of himself." Yet if someone, as I have, ridicules Barrack Obama... What happened.... I was attacked and labeled as a "troll". There is a sizable portion of Americans that seriously questions or have doubts about Obama's origins. Are these approximately 130 million people all stupid, insane, or crazy?

Returning to the "Trumpster": You are asserting that anyone who question various things about Barrack Obama's origins is a fruitcake at the very least, and quite possibly dangerous. Is this view accurate? In your view, as you have hinted at, I have ZERO credibility anyway... because I voice my opinions. I back them with sources which are, paraphrasing Al Gore, "inconvenient". I don't see admonishments of others with the demand for sources. Why is this? Is it because their opinions are in sync with yours?

What a discussion is not, is a blanket demand for sources; then when they are produced, they are always ridiculed and summarily dismissed as being not credible. I suggest, viewing many broadcasts of ABC news and MSNBC, Bill Maher's political commentary... Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Joe Biden didn't call Tea Party members "terrorists", Perhaps ACORN (a group central to Obama) never did anything wrong, perhaps eight years of constant attacks against President Bush never took place, the total silence surrounding Obama's unconstitutional Tsars, and perhaps even his beloved, ultra-racist pastor, Rev. Wright... where Obama, after supposedly 20+ years of sitting in the front row never heard Wright say any of these things. And yet - no, the press isn't fawning over Obama with their unquestioned support. Yes, that might be your view. If it is, it is one I find deeply troubling and quite disturbing in its lack of objectivity.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I prefer to rely on several sources for information, but I am skeptical of any source who finds it necessary to constantly trumpet itself as being fair and balanced.

So do I. I am quite disturbed, however, when some many people involved journalism and liberal movements, constantly, with fanatical zeal, tell you never to listen to Fox News. That is scary! In East Berlin, in the 1970s and 80s, there were nine major newspapers, with Neues Deutschland being the largest. Yet all the opinions were the same. Some articles were even carried over from one to another, verbatim. They too implored the public not to listen to other sources. They demanded that the public not listen to West German radio or watch West German television. After all, only sources approved by the state were seen fit for consumption; only one opinion was considered true and accurate. What is happening in the USA right now, would make Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, and especially Erich Mielke, very proud; they would see a order of "Parteilichkeit". ---- THAT ---- needs to be prevented at all costs.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

I guess it all depends on point of view, who you consider to be credible and reputable journalists....

"right wing would consider a neutral press..." - wow!

You haven't seen "corporate media fawning over the President (Obama)"?

Denial is a glorious mechanism. Would any source ever be enough.. I am beginning to wonder. If you believe that the media is generally not "in lockstep" with the Democrat political machine, that is your good right. Then you might want to explain why so many in the mainstream media are so fanatical in their message that one should not watch Fox News? Do you consider these direct attempts to suppress freedom of speech, to be standard fare for "respectable journalists" in an "neutral press"? Or will you make the claim that this behavior does not occur?

You speak of fairness, yet you attack, ridicule, and degrade prominent people who voice their opinions: "Trumpster who became a parody of himself." Yet if someone, as I have, ridicules Barrack Obama... What happened.... I was attacked and labeled as a "troll". There is a sizable portion of Americans that seriously questions or have doubts about Obama's origins. Are these approximately 130 million people all stupid, insane, or crazy?

Returning to the "Trumpster": You are asserting that anyone who question various things about Barrack Obama's origins is a fruitcake at the very least, and quite possibly dangerous. Is this view accurate? In your view, as you have hinted at, I have ZERO credibility anyway... because I voice my opinions. I back them with sources which are, paraphrasing Al Gore, "inconvenient". I don't see admonishments of others with the demand for sources. Why is this? Is it because their opinions are in sync with yours?

What a discussion is not, is a blanket demand for sources; then when they are produced, they are always ridiculed and summarily dismissed as being not credible. I suggest, viewing many broadcasts of ABC news and MSNBC, Bill Maher's political commentary... Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Joe Biden didn't call Tea Party members "terrorists", Perhaps ACORN (a group central to Obama) never did anything wrong, perhaps eight years of constant attacks against President Bush never took place, the total silence surrounding Obama's unconstitutional Tsars, and perhaps even his beloved, ultra-racist pastor, Rev. Wright... where Obama, after supposedly 20+ years of sitting in the front row never heard Wright say any of these things. And yet - no, the press isn't fawning over Obama with their unquestioned support. Yes, that might be your view. If it is, it is one I find deeply troubling and quite disturbing in its lack of objectivity.



So do I. I am quite disturbed, however, when some many people involved journalism and liberal movements, constantly, with fanatical zeal, tell you never to listen to Fox News. That is scary! In East Berlin, in the 1970s and 80s, there were nine major newspapers, with Neues Deutschland being the largest. Yet all the opinions were the same. Some articles were even carried over from one to another, verbatim. They too implored the public not to listen to other sources. They demanded that the public not listen to West German radio or watch West German television. After all, only sources approved by the state were seen fit for consumption; only one opinion was considered true and accurate. What is happening in the USA right now, would make Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, and especially Erich Mielke, very proud; they would see a order of "Parteilichkeit". ---- THAT ---- needs to be prevented at all costs.

I responded directly to your points, and suggested that they were not supported. Rather than providing support, you decry unfairness. You suggest some sort of conspiracy to censor Fox, but don't provide any evidence of that occurring.

By the way, the corporate media marches in lock step with the interests of the corporate media.

As far as credibility - You suggest that Joe Biden called tea party members terrorists. He did not. He suggested that negotiating with the tea party wing of the GOP was like negotiating with terrorists. That is called an analogy. The tea party folks in congress didn't care if they brought economic collapse, which made it hard to negotiate reasonably with them. Terrorists are ready to blow everybody up, which makes it hard to negotiate with them. The situations are comparable even if the actors are not. That context should temper your accusation - does it?

Let me be as clear as possible about my reference to trolling. I did, by the way, cite a reference to support my definition of trolling - participation in on-line discussions primarily with a purpose to provoke an emotional response. I referred to your own words in which you indicated that you would insult the President in order to piss off another poster. In other words, you stated that you would post insults in order to invite an emotional response.

Look at your language in the instant post. You use all sorts of invective, such as referring to a figure as ultra racist. You bring up the right wing's favorite whipping boys, ACORN and Rev. Wright. The tone and language of the post are clearly designed to provoke an emotional response. That would lead me to conclude that you are more interested in obtaining an emotional response than in promoting a discussion.

Now, I have given you a direct explanation of why I described your online conduct as trolling. I invite you to provide a reasoned and measured response that would demonstrate why I might have mis-perceived your words or motivation. If you choose to play the victim, that is your prerogative. It will not serve to enhance your credibility.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JJIII]

Ahhhh... I remember the passion of youth.