Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-28-2012, 9:08 AM Reply   
THE LIBERAL MEDIA HITS OBAMA
It's about time!!! Take a few minutes to read this -- The liberal Washington Post and Newsweek hit Obama.


THE LIBERAL MEDIA HITS OBAMA

Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, The Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.
___________________________

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and, finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling Associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal-dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?

As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office
Attached Images
 
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-28-2012, 10:13 AM Reply   
Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition by Paul Krugman


There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:


The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.

Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.

More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for subsidies — finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he’s completely ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.

We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?
Old    Meathead (meathead65)      Join Date: Sep 2006       10-28-2012, 11:06 AM Reply   
I'm sure fact checkers on both side are actively picking apart every sentence....to me the story is that a part at the "main stream media", although admittedly a fast fading soon to be defunct part of it, has had the balls to " turn" on the Chosen One.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-28-2012, 11:08 AM Reply   
Everybody wants their 15 minutes, especially when, as you say, they are fast fading... =)
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-28-2012, 12:53 PM Reply   
The "Chosen One"? This is what is crazy about you conservatives. Liberals look at Obama as a president and a human and nothing more, conservatives are the ones that gave Obama the labels "Chosen One" or similar. It speaks volumes of your mindset.
Old    Meathead (meathead65)      Join Date: Sep 2006       10-28-2012, 1:25 PM Reply   
Jeremy, you are far from qualified to determine what my "mindset" is. As I've stated here before, I don't consider myself either Conservative or Liberal. I am however free to speak my opinion, yet also feel that I am open minded enough to make my decisions not based on Party Lines. I've said in previous posts that I personally feel the best President of my generation was Clinton. He got a lot done.

I'm also of the opinion that if you replaced Obama during the last 4 years with a balding, 55 year old Republican and the results of the presidency were exactly the same.....economy the same, same unemployment numbers, same deficit results, same foreign policy outcomes.....I for one would demand change. Not because Obama is a Liberal, or even because he is a democrat. Simply because we gave him 4 years and IN MY PERSONAL OPINION he has not delivered on his promises. Therefore he will not get my vote next month.

As far as my referring to him as The Chosen One.....again my opinion. In all my time of paying attention, I've never seen so much one sided coverage of any politician. I feel that much of it stems from America's need to feel some kind of victory over the racial tension that still runs rampant in this nation, although it's now been pushed deep inside many peoples hearts and minds, and not as outwardly manifest as it was for the last 200 years.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       10-28-2012, 7:32 PM Reply   
"How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment"
Looks like this Patterson guy has been listening to the right nut-jobs who believe Obama hasn't run a lemonade stand.
Obama was a lawyer for ten years, I think that would be a "professional accomplishment", but not for these right wing nut jobs or whoever listens to them!
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       10-29-2012, 9:46 AM Reply   
Being a lawyer for 10 yrs is a pretty low bar for "Professional Accomplishment" worthy of the Presidency don't you think?

Not to mention, no one can really hang their hat on any actual accomplishments with his name on them during those 10 yrs.

My plumber has been doing that job for +30 yrs. He must be 3 times as qualified.

I think a better reply to that issue would be to point out that he wrote a best selling autobiography without having actually done anything worth reading about. That's a pretty big accomplishment. (Although some assert that he didn't even write it, someone else did)
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-29-2012, 10:48 AM Reply   
At this point, Obama has had the job for four (well 3.75) years. Whether he had enough experience in 2008 doesn't really matter because he's got the experience now.

That said, I agree with the point above that I'd be looking for a change if the president were republican. Not because I believe a different pres. could do better with the economy (no president is a wizard), but because I fear the ramifications on social issues if a republican gets to make supreme court appointments.

So many of us are hoping for the dream candidate of a socially liberal but fiscally conservative pres. I have very little hope that a social liberal will ever come from the republican party.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-29-2012, 10:59 AM Reply   
Romney used to be a social liberal. But then he used to be a lot of things, and then he wasn't, and then he was again, etc.

It would be really great if, following a Romney loss, the Republican party finally realizes how ridiculously far to the right it's been dragged by the fundamentalist/theocracy-loving loons and really shakes things up. The Jack Kemps and Barry Goldwaters have all been chased away and replaced with knuckle-dragging young-earth nutjobs like Akin and Mourdock - leaving no one to keep the democrats honest.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2012, 11:41 AM Reply   
> many of us are hoping for the dream candidate of a socially liberal but fiscally conservative pres

This is me. Romney is my best bet now. I am betting that his social agenda is talk only. He has always been moderate in this area.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-29-2012, 11:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
> many of us are hoping for the dream candidate of a socially liberal but fiscally conservative pres

This is me. Romney is my best bet now. I am betting that his social agenda is talk only. He has always been moderate in this area.
Too bad he's not a fiscal conservative.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2012, 12:34 PM Reply   
> Too bad he's not a fiscal conservative.

Relative to Obama, I think he is a very fiscally conservative.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-29-2012, 12:40 PM Reply   
I hear people saying this but I have yet to see anything that points to Romney actually being fiscally conservative - other than rhetoric. His record shows quite the opposite, and his aggressive stance on Iran and the war machine just means we're going to see military spending continue to rise.

http://www.businessinsider.com/repub...ressive-2012-8
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-29-2012, 1:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
> Too bad he's not a fiscal conservative.

Relative to Obama, I think he is a very fiscally conservative.
You do realize that deficit spending has not increased under Obama, right? The highest level of deficit spending, which was the first year he was in office was passed before he took office. What you are upset about is that he did not slash the spending level he inherited in the middle of a severe recession. Hardly what you would expect from a President elected with a mandate of stemming the employment loss.

So which is it that Romney is going to do? Slash spending or work towards reducing unemployment? Doubtful that he can do both.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2012, 1:53 PM Reply   
From Forbes--not Fox "If George W. Bush bears a lot of responsibility for FY2009, then Mr. Obama bears even more responsibility for the three years that followed — responsibility for both the very high spending and the questionable composition of the spending. President Obama inherited a government moving in the wrong direction and he put his foot on the gas pedal. But he didn’t change course. His record on spending, debt, and deficits is quite bad, but he is not a radical departure from the American presidential ethos." http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-predecessors/
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       10-29-2012, 2:11 PM Reply   
Pound, really? I don't know any plumber that could ever be a lawyer. Talk about setting the bar low! Obama actually won the presidency by beating Hillary Clinton in the primary and she was very highly qualified. Nobody could have beaten Hillary except Obama, so that was quite an accomplishment right there.
Old    Hate N Pain (hatepain)      Join Date: Aug 2006       10-29-2012, 2:59 PM Reply   
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office."

This was as of last March.

(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-29-2012, 3:09 PM Reply   
Slyly misleading article.

from the comments: OK, you have to take a trillion of national debt away from the Obama column and put it back in the Bush column, for the debt increase during the first year of the Obama administration. That was caused by Bush's last budget, with his spending and revenue numbers and with Bush's signature on the authorizing legislation. Obama's main influence on the deficit began when he submitted his first budget.

Then you need to acknowledge that 60% of the debt increase during Obama's presidency was the result of the Bush tax cuts. Does anyone remember why the Bush tax cuts came with a 10-year expiration? The price tag for the tax cuts was considered too high to get through Congress if they had been made permanent from the start. So they put the 10-year expiration on them to make Congressmen feel better about voting for them, knowing that this planted a fiscal time bomb for some unlucky guy 10 years down the road. No responsible president could let those tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession, resulting in a fiscal-cliff-like slam to the economy.

If you examine the history of our national debt, starting with Ronald Reagan inheriting one trillion total of debt and then tripling that through his policies, you see that most of our national debt has resulted from Republican policies, raising spending for a military buildup (Reagan) or two wars and a new entitlement program (Bush) without bringing in the revenue to pay for these programs. The fantasy that we can have a modern first-world country and the world's most powerful military - without the necessity of raising the revenue to pay for it - is a uniquely Republican concept. But it has been good politics.

No, Mr. Romney, the solution for our fiscal problem is not another tax cut for the wealthy.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2012, 3:44 PM Reply   
The "you did not build that" quote is SO repulsive to a fiscal conservative who believes strongly in harnessing the power of greed (capitalism).
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-29-2012, 3:51 PM Reply   
You guys are hilarious!
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       10-29-2012, 4:33 PM Reply   
"I don't know any plumber that could ever be a lawyer."
Amen to that. Most plumbers have higher ethical standards than to become a lawyer.

Yes it was an accomplishment to beat the Clinton Machine... but again, he didn't do that. the media did. ;-) Hence the entire necessity for this thread... The fact that the media has written two bad articles about him is so "OMG" that it warrants it's own thread on WW.com! ha ha.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
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 On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us