Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Solid Lifters]

They didn't even bother showing anyone who thought it was a cool idea. They even mentioned that it happened to Bush and H. Clinton, but then said now that Obama has gotten the treatment it's suddenly over the line.

Well, that's liberals for you. Everything is fair and good, until it's against them.

 

[YSSMAN]

It goes both ways, silly. That's politics.

I vote "both should shut the hell up and do their jobs."

 

[orimarc]

i vote "both should shut the hell up and do their jobs."

Where do I have to sign?!

 

[FoolKiller]

So, it seems someone has created a solution poster in response to the Obama/Joker Socialism poster.

 

[Solid Lifters]

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index....stId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04

 

[Joey D]

Glenn Beck is a moron, I'm trying to figure out what this "oligarhy" he's trying to pass off on us is?

 

[Eric Demory]

Glenn Beck is awesome!!!!!!!

 

[Omnis]

Glenn Beck is a moron, I'm trying to figure out what this "oligarhy" he's trying to pass off on us is?

There is an oligopoly in insurance providers. The link doesn't work for me if that's what you're talking about.

 

[YSSMAN]

Glenn Beck is a moron, I'm trying to figure out what this "oligarhy" he's trying to pass off on us is?

I don't think poor spelling will bring back his sponsors any time soon.

Side Note: I'm taking a course this semester on politics and the news media. A good time so far, and certainly, a good way to increase my disappointment in the current state of affairs with the media in general. Oh well.

 

[Keef]

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index....stId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04

A quick question fr the British members: In this video Glenn Beck states that after England "banned guns in 1998", "For the next 7 years the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes increased...340%". Is that true? I'm just curious if he's being a typical media person and picking and choosing numbers to make it look more dramatic.

Glenn Beck is a moron, I'm trying to figure out what this "oligarhy" he's trying to pass off on us is?

How is he a moron? Explain it. What is an "oligarhy"? Explain it. If you mean "oligarchy", then it's not Glenn Beck trying to pass off anything on you. The government is already working on it. Ever seen The American Form of Government?

I do agree with you though that he is a moron. Caring about where you country came from and where it's going is for weak people. I'd never be caught doing such a thing.

 

[Joey D]

He spelled the word wrong on national TV. He spelled it oligarhy.

 

[Keef]

That's a trivial point.

The fact is that he's trying to make people aware of the government's antics. If it weren't for people who happen to have the tools to communicate to large audiences I'd have never even considered that the government would do that to their own people. But now after hearing it I've done a little research here and there--you don't have to do much to realize we're all heading in the wrong direction. Whether Glenn Beck actually is a moron in person I don't know, and it doesn't matter, but his message is pretty sound. Agreed?

 

[Solid Lifters]

A quick question fr the British members: In this video Glenn Beck states that after England "banned guns in 1998", "For the next 7 years the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes increased...340%". Is that true? I'm just curious if he's being a typical media person and picking and choosing numbers to make it look more dramatic.


How is he a moron? Explain it. What is an "oligarhy"? Explain it. If you mean "oligarchy", then it's not Glenn Beck trying to pass off anything on you. The government is already working on it. Ever seen

?

I do agree with you though that he is a moron. Caring about where you country came from and where it's going is for weak people. I'd never be caught doing such a thing.

Oh, I agree. Anybody who gives a damn about this country are themselves a moron. The idiots! It's like, they actually think they can stop the progression of totalitarianism/socialism/communism.

Pbpbpbpbthththtththththhhh! I mean, the dip-🤬!

 

[Joey D]

The man can't spell, nor do I think he's a good commentator. I don't even really understand the message he is trying to promote other than "booo liberals, hooray conservatives". Honestly I don't need some idiot on the TV to tell me what to think about the government. I can make up my own mind, I think the government is full of idiots from both sides of the spectrum.

 

[FoolKiller]

That live TV, it'll get you every time you forget that you have Czars sitting right there on the board.

Anyway, here's an interesting piece from John Stossel on why the current healthcare plan is broken and why Obama's plan will just make it worse.

 

[Solid Lifters]

The man can't spell, nor do I think he's a good commentator. I don't even really understand the message he is trying to promote other than "booo liberals, hooray conservatives". Honestly I don't need some idiot on the TV to tell me what to think about the government. I can make up my own mind, I think the government is full of idiots from both sides of the spectrum.

Glen Beck is on what side?

Oh, and I've seen a lot of pieces of John Stossel's view point about health insurance over the years, and people still don't get it. ABC should air it weekly until people finally get it.

 

[Joey D]

Glen Beck is on what side?

I'm pretty sure I answered that. He's a conservative I'm pretty sure.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I'm pretty sure I answered that. He's a conservative I'm pretty sure.

Nope. Well, not completely. He has both liberal and conservative views, but like most of us, he's a bit of both. He hates current day republicans and points out how appalling the liberals/demos are.

 

[Keef]

And that's why he's trying to say that both, all sides suck these days, and that we should get back to the way it used to be.

As far as I can tell the only reason anyone wouldn't understand him is because they refuse to understand them. People are stubborn, and I can't figure it out. Get over your prejudices and just pay attention.

 

[Joey D]

Nope. Well, not completely. He has both liberal and conservative views, but like most of us, he's a bit of both. He hates current day republicans and points out how appalling the liberals/demos are.

He describes himself as a conservative and libertarian.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09047/949391-129.stm

And he would be a hypocrite to point out how appalling liberals are without realising that conservatives are just as appalling.

And that's why he's trying to say that both, all sides suck these days, and that we should get back to the way it used to be.

As far as I can tell the only reason anyone wouldn't understand him is because they refuse to understand them. People are stubborn, and I can't figure it out. Get over your prejudices and just pay attention.

I don't understand him because he's awful to listen to, the man is all over the board and seems to have ADD. Why he has a TV show is beyond me, and why people listen to him is even further beyond me. I still want to know why people need some else to give them opinions on something, especially when they are derived from skewed or selective facts?

 

[YSSMAN]

The fact is that he's trying to make people aware of the government's antics. If it weren't for people who happen to have the tools to communicate to large audiences I'd have never even considered that the government would do that to their own people. But now after hearing it I've done a little research here and there--you don't have to do much to realize we're all heading in the wrong direction. Whether Glenn Beck actually is a moron in person I don't know, and it doesn't matter, but his message is pretty sound. Agreed?

Actually, I disagree. Glenn Beck's job is to entertain. He has even said it himself. He is selling a "brand" (if you will) of thought, or political perspective, or whatever you want to call it to viewers who (for the most part) agree with his opinion of the matter. Keith Olbermann does the same thing, albeit, with a different political perspective. Glenn Beck has made his money riding on a wave of populism, twisting facts and misrepresenting truths.

Sure, I can agree to it being very important to have both Conservative and Liberal voices out there, but I'd prefer both sides to make sound arguments. For the most part, Glenn Beck has not.

 

[Solid Lifters]

He describes himself as a conservative and libertarian.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09047/949391-129.stm

And he would be a hypocrite to point out how appalling liberals are without realising that conservatives are just as appalling.

That's your opinion, and not fact. Liberals are far more appalling that conservatives. It's the common liberal that has destroyed this former great nation of ours. FDR was the worst president we ever had. Most of the laws that have screwed us to irreparable harm have come from liberals.

 

[Joey D]

That's your opinion, and not fact. Liberals are far more appalling that conservatives. It's the common liberal that has destroyed this former great nation of ours. FDR was the worst president we ever had. Most of the laws that have screwed us to irreparable harm have come from liberals.

Wow so you go ahead and present your opinion as fact too. Way to go 👍.

Fine I'll rephrase my statement, I think he's a hypocrite because I find conservatives and liberal equally appalling. Happy?

 

[YSSMAN]

That's your opinion, and not fact. Liberals are far more appalling that conservatives. It's the common liberal that has destroyed this former great nation of ours. FDR was the worst president we ever had. Most of the laws that have screwed us to irreparable harm have come from liberals.

I'd say that you're walking a line between opinion and fact as well. There are plenty of people, on both sides of the aisle mind you, that would say that Roosevelt was one of our better presidents, and that his reforms have done a large amount of good for millions of Americans. Of course, much of that depends on your own political views.

The great thing about this country is that we're allowed to have these differences, and that we're allowed to argue over them. However, its better to do this with facts and figures and a civil discussion. The extreme politicization of history, and even small disagreements, don't allow for any forward progress these days. I don't think our forefathers would like where we are, just on that point alone.

 

[FoolKiller]

I keep hoping that one day people will stop arguing about liberals and conservatives and recognize that statists are the problem in this country. Of course, that is hard to achieve when both liberals and conservatives have their own statist agendas.

One day someone, that people are actually willing to listen to, will pick up a copy of the Constitution and explain to everyone how we have all been screwing it up for quite a while.

Actually I wouldn't mind if plain old everyday individuals actually took the time to read the Constitution and compare it to what their government is doing.


Which reminds me, anyone seen the FCC's possible universal ratings system? When a Bush appointee, backed by Republicans, went after Howard Stern there was an uproar, but when an Obama nominee, backed by Democrats, is going after All Media mostly only videogame sites notice.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aP9DO.D35St0

U.S. Will Consider Single Rating System for TV, Phones, Games
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Todd Shields

Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. regulators will consider a single ratings system that would warn parents of programming on television, video games, and wireless telephones that could be inappropriate for children, officials said.

The Federal Communications Commission will begin the inquiry after an agency report to be delivered Aug. 31 to Congress on media blocking and rating techniques, said two commission officials, who declined to be identified because the information hasn’t been made public.

The FCC action follows congressional queries into whether children are harmed by inappropriate content, such as sex, violence and obscenity. Senators want to know whether revisions are needed to the law to protect children, said Senator Jay Rockefeller. The West Virginia Democrat, who chairs the Commerce Committee, said at a July 22 hearing that constituents are “horrified” by some programming.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told Congress in July he was “hopeful that the evolving media landscape” will enhance parents’ power “to pick and choose” what their child sees and hears.

The report to Congress won’t make any recommendations about what steps the government or industry should take, the officials said. They said that in the report, the FCC will state that it intends to start the inquiry, which could be an initial step toward rulemaking. The inquiry also may ask whether devices should be able to accommodate more than one rating system.

Major broadcasters, along with trade groups for wireless providers including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Wireless and for software makers such as Microsoft Corp., have voiced opposition to the plan. TV programs already are assigned ratings by broadcasters, and TV sets contain technology called the V-chip that can block display of all programs with a common rating.

Increased Scrutiny

Lawmakers have expressed concern over the appropriateness for children of programming that once was confined to television, and now may appear on less-easily monitored platforms such as computer and telephone screens.

The Senate, in language accompanying the 2007 law that mandated the FCC report, said it wanted the agency to gather information about the availability of “alternative blocking technologies.” Because television content is available over the Internet and over mobile devices, the legislation also required the FCC to consider blocking technologies “that may be appropriate across a wide variety of content distribution platforms,” the Senate report said.

Senator Mark Pryor, the Arkansas Democrat who sponsored the 2007 law requiring the FCC’s report, is to receive the document Aug. 31, Lisa Ackerman, a Pryor spokeswoman, said in an interview.

Parents Playing ‘Zone Defense’

The FCC said in a March 2 document asking for comments for its report that children aged 8 to 18 used media, including television, video players, video games and computers, for close to five hours each day. The agency said it wanted to examine ways “to shield children from inappropriate content in this rapidly changing media environment.”

“Parents worry not only about the TV in the den, but about the computer in the kitchen, the gaming console in the basement, and the mobile phones in their kids’ pockets,” Genachowski said in testimony July 22 at the Commerce Committee. “No wonder parents increasingly find themselves playing the digital media equivalent of a ‘zone defense’ across this increasingly wide playing field.”

Industry Concerns

Major broadcasters told FCC officials in an Aug. 4 meeting that a compulsory ratings system run by a third party would constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, according to a disclosure filing at the FCC. Those present at the meeting included representatives of The Walt Disney Co., News Corp., General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal, and CBS Corp., according to the filing.

The Entertainment Software Association, a Washington-based trade group, said in a May 18 filing at the FCC that the agency has no jurisdiction over video games and their ratings systems. Members include Microsoft,Viacom Inc.’s MTV Games unit and units of Sony Corp., according to the association’s Web site.

CTIA-The Wireless Association told the FCC in an April 16 filing that regulation isn’t necessary because the industry has worked voluntarily to meet parents’ demands. Members of the Washington-based trade group include the two largest U.S. wireless companies, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless is owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC.

And before someone says it, no there are no legally enforced ratings systems in the United States.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not really bothered by a rating system to be honest, it gives parents the tools to know what the media contains and they can make the decision on whether they want their child to use it or not.

What irritates me is when they want to ban X form of media outright.

And I'm more concerned about this thing I keep hearing that say Obama can take control of the US internet whenever he needs too. I'm not real sure what it's all about though because I've only herd it through internet rumours.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not really bothered by a rating system to be honest, it gives parents the tools to know what the media contains and they can make the decision on whether they want their child to use it or not.

I'm not bothered by a ratings system either. In fact, I like the non-government enforced ones that work extremely well now. There does not need to be an FCC content ratings board to enforce media ratings. Government intervention, bad.

And I'm more concerned about this thing I keep hearing that say Obama can take control of the US internet whenever he needs too. I'm not real sure what it's all about though because I've only herd it through internet rumours.

Its because the bill has yet to get out of committee in a final form. Basically, its an emergency thing that would allow the president to declare an Internet form of martial law and take down private networks during a national security emergency.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not bothered by a ratings system either. In fact, I like the non-government enforced ones that work extremely well now. There does not need to be an FCC content ratings board to enforce media ratings. Government intervention, bad.

It would probably be more or less the same thing, it would just take longer. I'm not that bothered by it. Like I said I'll only be bothered if they start banning X media for Y reason.

Its because the bill has yet to get out of committee in a final form. Basically, its an emergency thing that would allow the president to declare an Internet form of martial law and take down private networks during a national security emergency.

Gotcha, either way I don't like that at all. I can see where that easily could be abused.

 

[FoolKiller]

It would probably be more or less the same thing, it would just take longer. I'm not that bothered by it. Like I said I'll only be bothered if they start banning X media for Y reason.

My issue is two-fold. 1) It is a waste of time and money to even discuss it. We already have a system and it works without the government spending a dime of taxpayers' money. Just talking about it is using money that could be cut from the budget. 2) It is an issue of government wanting to control something that has no need of government control. It is a blatant power grab by the FCC to control media that is not in their control.

Then you combine the two to come to the big big point: Forty-three bills attempting to regulate just video game content have been proposed this past year, according to ESA statistics, and none became law. Of the ones that passed their respective state's bill to law process, none could pass Constitutional challenges. It can be assumed that the FCC is working to create a bill as a power grab, just to eventually have it beaten down in a Constitutional challenge. Then all the money to come up with the plan, defend it in court, and pay the challengers' legal fees also will come from taxpayers. It is an illegal power grab that will only result in millions of taxpayer dollars wasted.

Looking at that last sentence, I am not surprised this came from an Obama appointee.

 

[Joey D]

Ya I suppose I can see where you are coming from, there really is no need for it.