oh, and I disagree that MSNBC is biased.

I'm not surprised.

You can't have it both ways.

Well monkey - maybe the people you hang around are racists and biased based upon something as insignificant as another persons color, but not in my world.
Stop promoting that partisan bullshit, and yes, it's BULLSHIT.

Why is it, when its the other side, its always partisan bullshit, but when its your own side, its the truth?

lol - ask yourself that question. Perhaps it will allow for some enlightenment.

There isn't a lot of anger or animosity among the people I hang around, so I'm not sure where you're coming from there.

But if "a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven" "among the uninformed/ignorant", then the premise that "a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven" isn't bullshit.

I think the problem here is that "only among the uninformed and ignorant" could mean "only among X% of the population" where the value of X could be higher than most of us would like to admit.

That's a pretty big "only" group, by quite a lot of estimates.

I'm not going to say that MSNBC is unbiased, just that they are more credible than Fox. I'm still trying to find left wing nutjobs that MSNBC has given a platform to on par with Ann Coulter's access to Fox.

I watch Morning Joe on MSNBC with a former moderate Republican Congressman as host frequently flanked by Pat Buchanan a conservative Republican/Independent.

When Barney Frank gets to host a show on Fox with Al Gore as a guest, I'll declare them less biased.

Rich.

When the lefty NY Times publishes conservative voices for its opinions columns, it tries hard to get the most solid thinkers it can. David Brooks, and now, Ross Douthat. That's credibility. Putting Pat Buchanan on as your token conservative means you're actually harder left, and less credible. You've chosen a voice that is A) not well representative of conservativism, B) often deeply anti-Semitic/racist and C) easily dismissed.

I've never made the claims you do about partisan bullshit.

That's fine. From my perspective, it is very easy to see.

You already conceded that "if" when you said a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven

Incorrect, I never said that. I initially disagreed with her statement and still do. Sorry. Again, for the record - I disagree with that premise except perhaps,

Then you don't disagree with the statement.

Again, the statement is bullshit unless you are uninformed and/or ignorant.

If the statement does apply to uninformed/ignorant people, as you have conceded, and said uninformed/ignorant people exist, which your concession implies, then the statement is true.

Wait--he only implied that uninformed/ignorant "exist" (based on your interpretation of his post). Maybe they don't, and then he wins.

Either way, we're still stuck with an idiot for a president. I have a feeling nobody will win at this game.

That's because we are all just pawns in the game. Cannon fodder, if you will.

Sounds like bullshit to me. I did hear a a black woman on CNN make a very emotional statement supporting this notion that all this opposition to Obama is race driven. All she could offer to support her statements were some very loose associations and connections which bordered on conspiracy theory and really discredited her. CNN gave her a pass and never once challanged her statements. So far no one can prove any racial connection between opposition to Obama's policies. So until that happens it is all Bullshit. Talk about fear mongering among the supporters of Obama to get people to support them. Wow, sounds just like what the Republickins did to get people to support the WOT.:rolleyes:

And the study sheet the Obama Administration put out for school use pending Obama's upcoming speech was astonishingly personality-cultish for the United States. It is more what would be expected for Cuba, Albania, or Ingushetiya. Obama's people thought this would be a good idea. Well, when half your "special advisors" are communists, this is the sort of thing you have to expect.

And that lunatic Radar thought Obama was "the more libertarian candidate." Dear God, what ineptitude and imperception. Radar voted not his wisdom, but his wildly anti-Republican prejudices. It's a dumb thing to vote with your limbic system.

FACT CHECK: Biden ignores problems with stimulus

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...c--RgD9AGCLEG0

Its Bush's fault - they're just tryin to clean up the mess.

Why of course it is...

"the Obama administration used stimulus money to pay for 50 airport projects that didn't meet the grant criteria and approved projects at four airports with a history of mismanaging federal grants."

This is so far out there as to contention over nothing that I don't understand how you could read this and not be saddened by the turn of events. There was a time when children were taught to have faith in the country, to at least respect the leader even if it's not the leader you hoped for. I said this last line to nudge Merc and classic. Come on guys, what did Obama say that would warrant such hatred? I have no idea, because the speech hasn't happened yet. It seems to center around the importance of education, and staying in school, which seems to be pretty routine as agenda. Your cohorts believe this is a partisan effort? To do what? To encourage kids to stay in school, by our President? Egads, that asshole!

Someone should be very ashamed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/...ols/index.html

I have no problem with Obama speaking to school children. I do respect the right of parents or States Rights.

All politicians build personality cults. For instance, Bush still holds you in his grasp even as his very unRepublican interventionist programs continue to kill American soldiers and yield little in the way of democratic self government. Both major parties are cult-like. People compromise their beliefs for the necessary group think that governing requires. It is both creepy and inevitable for successful government.

I also think it's quite distasteful to be bashng a former dwellar who isn't here any more. Hasn't been here for a heck of a long time. Not only is it distasteful, as he isn't around to mount a defence, but it's more than a little creepy as it shows a level of obsession that surprises me somewhat.

I must have missed something: what former dwellar?

I believe it is ref to Radar in UG's comments.

I agree with you but in principle, if you continue the policy and practice of the previous administration then they de facto become your responsibility and you have to assume responsibility for them. Otherwise you have the power to terminate them or at least make it well known that you are supporting them but want them to stop immediately.

Radar's been around. He's hardly "former." Last log-in...today! :confused:

True, he ran for the job knowing what he was facing.

I thougt he was no longer a member? Self-requested ban i thought.

Back to the non-story of Obama Obamanizing our school children:

Truth-o-meter says: liar liar pants on fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ill-indoctrin/

Did I hear the words Uncle Tom somewhere before?
This guy is a true abomination!
What Americans won't do to make a buck, huh.
Capitalism a it's best or worst?
I like how he uses Mack Daddy but "He" is a half breed? Whole thing doesn't make any sense. Propaganda at work again.

Huh? What did I do now?

One of the great things about America is that you have the freedom to hate whoever you want.

Our schools are not broadcasting the speech. I think they got it right. Let the parents decide if they want their kids to watch it. It isn't up to the schools.

I don't see a problem with the President addressing school children about the importance of education. I'd have a serious problem if he was talking about policy, unless it was as part of a class on politics and citizenship and was primarily structural in nature.

When I was in third grade the President addressed school children about drug use. We not only were ushered out of class to watch it, three of us were interviewed about our opinion on his speech for the local evening news.

It isn't a problem. The problem is the right wingers fabricating bullshit lies, just to cause as much trouble as they possibly can. To create as many diversions as possible from the business at hand, by misinforming the gullible, racists, and people with selfish agendas.

Well, it's up to the schools what they teach them in science class. It's up to the schools whether or not they run citizenship programmes. And it's up to the schools whether or not to show the kids videos on the progress of a bill through congress. Why shouldn't it be up to the schools whether or not the kids listen to a non-political message from their president about the importance of working hard in school and aiming high?

Obama is showing what's called leadership--- by addressing the school children.
Are you a "True American" if you refuse to let your child listen to the US President's Address?

Noted without comment:

From Larry Elder.

Some people are remarkably thick, and can prove it beyond doubt. This unnamed woman ought to move in with Radar's family. She and he would have so much to talk about.

In my case the one thing it shows is normal memory -- of a vivid impression to be sure, but normal in any case. The guy did say he voted for Obama on the grounds he thought Obama was the more libertarian candidate. Mistaking Obama for a libertarian... words just fail. So does Radar.

I understand Radar's situation is he's busy first with moving, then fixing up the new house. Not a lot of time to sit on his fatty acids and do the Seinfeldian yadda yadda in the Cellar just yet.

Griff, I can recognize libertarian-like thinking and policymaking in Republicans even when you can't. Bush41 didn't, but Reagan did, as did Bush43. To how much effect, particularly inside the Beltway, there is plenty of room for debate. I'd imagine at least three thick books' worth.

I am no intellectual puppet, but you may be, as suggested by your "holds you in his grasp" blather. It's the kind of thing puppet people would say, no? I challenge you to show otherwise. For starters, interventionism against totalitarianism cannot be wrong, and you cannot show it to be so. Don't remain misled by white liberal guilt; democracy in its several flavors is really the only way for humans to live well vis-a-vis their governments. Anything less than democratic inescapably ends up being all about the oppression. Such things are quite the enemy of mankind. See if you can show otherwise. I don't think you can manage that one either; not and stay committed to liberty you can't.

You're a stimulating thinker, Griff, but you still manage to piss me off a lot, for somebody I've probably got a lot in common with.

Ahhh....dunno why I had scanned your reply and though it said Radar, I 'saw' rkzenrage lol.

Soz about that :P

Link

I dunno what to make of this. Is it more fear-mongering from the right or an example of the current administration getting a little too involved for comfort?
I'm not familiar enough with either of these organizations to really know what it is they are supposed to do. I did find it an interesting read though and thought I'd share it.

Nothing new about the US government commissioning art. There's a good exhibit going on at the Smithsonian American Art Museum where government sponsored art that was commissioned as part of the New Deal is showcased. It's some really good work. You might even recognize some of it.

Ahhhh but glatt - you missed the point - was that intentional?

Maybe I did miss the point. I thought the point was that the government was using artists to get a political message out. What did you think the point was?

That the Gov't was using them to get their message out.

Well they did that during the New Deal too, and it resulted in some nice art. Some of it was simple documentation of the work that the government was doing, but the message then was that the government was there to improve your life and that the New Deal was a good thing. Like this painting of a Binghamton underpass.

I like that one. Very understated, yet it still has a certain aura to it.

I'm missing the issue here.

But I havent seen anything that would suggest the intent is to use the arts to promote a political agenda...nor do I think it is about government funding of the arts, but rather to demonstrate- through encouraging artists to share specific examples of art, theater, music dance - and how the arts can play a positive role in the "community"...whether the "community" is local or national.

A continuation of the Bush Sr. and the arts component of the "thousand points of light", Clinton's role of the arts in the Community Service Corps and the same in GW Bush's USA Freedom Corps.