US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #7 - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2008, 10:46 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,252
Local Time: 03:54 AM
So, any other Nader Raiders here at Interference? Or am I the only one voting for true socialized health care, an immediate end to the war, and making corporations accountable?
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 07-29-2008, 10:58 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,249
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
am I the only one voting for true socialized health care, an immediate end to the war, and making corporations accountable?
I hope so.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 07-29-2008, 11:13 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:54 AM
Are you sure?

if they don't vote Nader?
who will they pull the lever for?

socialized health care,
an immediate end to the war,
and making corporations accountable
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 07-29-2008, 11:23 PM   #79
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
So, any other Nader Raiders here at Interference? Or am I the only one voting for true socialized health care, an immediate end to the war, and making corporations accountable?
I was once a big nader fan but over time have come to actually dislike the guy. I do agree with many of his stances but I think his ego gets in the way of his message often and I really don't think he has a solid plan on how to achieve his agenda.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-29-2008, 11:33 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:54 AM
McCain = Bush 3
Obama = McCain Lite


Vote Nader !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 07-30-2008, 12:23 AM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I hope so.
Nader Hater !!
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 12:43 AM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,249
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Are you sure?

if they don't vote Nader?
who will they pull the lever for?

socialized health care,
an immediate end to the war,
and making corporations accountable
Good point.

Go Ralph go!
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 12:57 AM   #83
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Trying to be evenhanded is dishonest.
Why?

I'm not advocating feigning indifference nor shrinking from taking positions on the issues, rather ruing the amount of time spent on trifles and settling for damage control on the same, rather than a more substantive dialogue on policy issues and a willingness to critically examine both candidates, not just the one you don't prefer.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 01:04 AM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
So, any other Nader Raiders here at Interference? Or am I the only one voting for true socialized health care, an immediate end to the war, and making corporations accountable?
a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 01:44 AM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Why?

I'm not advocating feigning indifference nor shrinking from taking positions on the issues, rather ruing the amount of time spent on trifles and settling for damage control on the same, rather than a more substantive dialogue on policy issues and a willingness to critically examine both candidates, not just the one you don't prefer.
I should rephrase, claiming to be unbiased is dishonest in most cases, and there is a distinction between that and being evenhanded.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 08:04 AM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.

By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 27, 2008
Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week.

Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals.


Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond.

But now there's additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at three broadcast networks.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.


Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall.

I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing.

That earned a spasm of e-mails that described me as irrational, unpatriotic and . . . somehow . . . French.

But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.

Here's a bit more on the research, so you'll understand how the communications professor and his researchers arrived at their conclusions.

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.

Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.

The media center's most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas trip.

Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.

That was a reversal of the trend during the primaries, when the same researchers found that 64% of statements about Obama -- new to the political spotlight -- were positive, but just 43% of statements about McCain were positive.

Such reversals are nothing new in national politics, as reporters tend to warm up to newcomers, then turn increasingly critical when such candidates emerge as front-runners.

It might be tempting to discount the latest findings by Lichter's researchers. But this guy is anything but a liberal toady.

In 2006, conservative cable showmen Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly had Lichter, a onetime Fox News contributor, on their programs. They heralded his findings in the congressional midterm election: that the networks were giving far more positive coverage to the Democrats.

More proof of the liberal domination of the media, Beck and O'Reilly declared.

Now the same researchers have found something less palatable to those conspiracy theorists.

But don't expect cable talking heads to end their trashing of the networks.

Repeated assertions that the networks are in the tank for Democrats represent not only an article of faith on Fox, but a crucial piece of branding. On Thursday night, O'Reilly and his trusty lieutenant Bernard Goldberg worked themselves into righteous indignation -- again -- about the liberal bias they knew was lurking.

Goldberg seemed gleeful beyond measure in saying that "they're fiddling while their ratings are burning."

O'Reilly assured viewers that "the folks" -- whom he claims to treasure far more than effete network executives do -- "understand what's happening."

By the way, Lichter's group also surveys the first half-hour of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Fox News' answer to the network evening news shows.

The review found that, since the start of the general-election campaign, "Special Report" offered more opinions on the two candidates than all three networks combined.

No surprise there. Previous research has shown Fox News to be opinion-heavy.

"Special Report" was tougher than the networks on Obama -- with 79% of the statements about the Democrat negative, compared with 61% negative on McCain.

There's plenty of room for questioning the networks' performance and watching closely for symptoms of Obamamania.

But could we at least remain focused on what ABC, NBC and CBS actually put on the air, rather than illusions that their critics create to puff themselves up?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 08:15 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Good news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A biopsy conducted on skin taken from the face of U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain showed no skin cancer, medical authorities said on Tuesday.

McCain, who has suffered from skin cancer in the past, had a spot removed from his face during a routine checkup in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday and had it checked to ensure it was not cancerous.

"The biopsy that was performed did not show any evidence of skin cancer," said Michael Yardley, a spokesman for the Mayo Clinic. "No further treatment is necessary."

The spot, visible on the Arizona senator's face and not covered by a bandage, appeared to be about the size of a small coin.

McCain, who turns 72 in August, has had four malignant melanomas -- a potentially lethal type of skin cancer -- surgically removed since 1993. Three of them were limited to the top layers of the skin and were not invasive.

The fourth melanoma, removed from his left temple in 2000, was invasive. During that surgery, doctors also took out lymph nodes to see if the cancer had spread. The lymph nodes showed no evidence of cancer.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 09:18 AM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
She is well traveled, and has seen some of the horrors this world has to offer.

I guess she has some concerns about Obama,

I can relate.
The more likely scenario is that she is politically shrewd enough to want to work with both sides. She has done so for many years in her work with refugees and has not hesitated to praise even the current administration when they did something right. I think she operates much the same way as Bono does, at least that is the sense I got from reading her interviews and the book.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 09:30 AM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 03:54 AM
The Washington Post has basically called McCain a liar, and I think this story is important to highlight because a few people even here bought into it:

Quote:
For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

...

Despite serious and repeated queries about the charge over several days, McCain and his allies continued yesterday to question Obama's patriotism by focusing attention on the canceled hospital visit.

...

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct, and that Obama canceled the visit because he was not allowed to take reporters and cameras into the hospital.

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here."

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.
The article is very comprehensive in debunking this nonsense, and it's a bit on the lengthy side, but you can find it here.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-31-2008, 07:40 AM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:54 AM
YouTube - Celeb
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com