U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Kasierith]

The topic at hand , which you ignore, is that obama offended the polish people by using the phrase "polish death camp". I understand you did not bother to read any of the 5 story links. You chose to ignore the story and say it was because of fox news, then when linked by 4 others sources, you continued to ignore it. You ignored the main point and attacked me, that was the gist of your last post. I think you are playing the part of (your term) bleeding heart liberal. Feel free to keep ignoring what obama does and attacking the messenger. In November, if he does not win, you will have no clue about the many stories that are continually ignored that actually matter to p"eople. People see through the attacks and see what is going on.

If you wish to know about my source, which I immediately went to when I read the top of the Fox News article, here you go: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sh-death-camp/. Now, lets compare and contract Fox News and NYT, and exactly why I dismissed the Fox News article after a cursory glance.

First, the titles: NYT - "White House Says President Misspoke on ‘Polish Death Camp." Fox News: "Poles outraged over Obama's words on death camps"
Which one is more sensational, and which one is reporting on events? One is reporting on a more abstract concept (I truly doubt all of Poland was upset. I doubt that there was even a large number. From the air of both articles, I gathered the general feeling was exasperation over the continued reference, especially coming from the president, and the desire to set the issue straight once and for all). I'll give you a hint.. one of them is talking about human emotions, one is giving a solid fact.

Next, the background. What background does Fox News give? Lets see.. "The White House said the president misspoke Tuesday in bestowing the Medal of Freedom posthumously on Jan Kozielewski, alias Karski, a Polish emissary who in 1943 alerted Allied leaders to mass killing of Jews. In order to gather first-hand evidence he risked his life and was secretly smuggled into the Warsaw Ghetto and a death camp." 5th paragraph from the Fox News presentation. Now, the NYT: "Mr. Obama made the comment while posthumously awarding the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, to Jan Karski, born Jan Kozielewski, a Polish courier who was one of the first to alert President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Allied leaders to the killing of Jews in German-occupied Poland. “Before one trip across enemy lines,” Mr. Obama said, “resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.” As the second paragraph. Which one actually gave what Obama said? Which one of them commented on the background that led up to Obama making the mistake, as opposed to leaving it up in the air and throwing in a weak attempt to form a background near the end of the presentation? Fox news used a lack of information to drive sensationalism about it, essentially giving the impression that Obama was messing up the good name of a hero, while the other actually gave fine details about it.

Next part. Isn't this fun?
"The phrasing is considered hugely offensive in Poland, where Nazi Germany murdered Poles, Jews and others in death camps it built during World War II on Polish and German territory. Poles have responded with outrage, maintaining Obama should have called it a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland," to distinguish the perpetrators from the location"

vs

That phrase — “Polish death camp” — quickly reverberated in Poland, where citizens are quick to note that the death camps were run by Nazis who had occupied the country at the time.

Which is sensationalized, which is news?

Last part: what Obama actually said. Where did Fox News put this? Nowhere. They failed to actually go into detail about how it was the White House apologized for it. They skipped exactly what the apology said, even though that was a large focus of the entire presentation. In the NYT version, it very cleanly and clearly states: "In a statement released by the White House on Wednesday morning, Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president had misspoken. “He was referring to Nazi death camps in German-occupied Poland,” Mr. Vietor said in the statement. “We regret this misstatement, which should not detract from the clear intention to honor Mr. Karski and those brave Polish citizens who stood on the side of human dignity in the face of tyranny.”

Now, please, look at these two articles, and try to understand the difference between sensationalized news media and actual presentation of facts in the world. I don't care about the 4 other articles that you listed because they too focus on sensationalism over reporting.

As for people, "Seeing through the attacks," and implying that they trust Fox News more than other sources... would you like me to link you several sources saying that people are starting to distrust Fox News, and start turning away from it?

[Bobdoletoo]

...?

The title of the video is "Lawsuit revives fight between Catholic Church and white house."

The first minute of the video is talking about the lawsuit, and the rest of the discussion is about ramifications of it.

Then that was my computer not loading it, because it had a 13 sec commercial then nothing. Regardless of the fact that, i guess i owe yet another apology because the lowest watched news of any kind had a story that the mainstream news media completely ignored. As penance i offer up the Catholics being mad about it. http://www.mrc.org/node/40180

---------- Post added 2012-05-30 at 12:33 PM ----------

If you wish to know about my source, which I immediately went to when I read the top of the Fox News article, here you go: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sh-death-camp/. Now, lets compare and contract Fox News and NYT, and exactly why I dismissed the Fox News article after a cursory glance.

First, the titles: NYT - "White House Says President Misspoke on ‘Polish Death Camp." Fox News: "Poles outraged over Obama's words on death camps"
Which one is more sensational, and which one is reporting on events? One is reporting on a more abstract concept (I truly doubt all of Poland was upset. I doubt that there was even a large number. From the air of both articles, I gathered the general feeling was exasperation over the continued reference, especially coming from the president, and the desire to set the issue straight once and for all). I'll give you a hint.. one of them is talking about human emotions, one is giving a solid fact.

Next, the background. What background does Fox News give? Lets see.. "The White House said the president misspoke Tuesday in bestowing the Medal of Freedom posthumously on Jan Kozielewski, alias Karski, a Polish emissary who in 1943 alerted Allied leaders to mass killing of Jews. In order to gather first-hand evidence he risked his life and was secretly smuggled into the Warsaw Ghetto and a death camp." 5th paragraph from the Fox News presentation. Now, the NYT: "Mr. Obama made the comment while posthumously awarding the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, to Jan Karski, born Jan Kozielewski, a Polish courier who was one of the first to alert President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Allied leaders to the killing of Jews in German-occupied Poland. “Before one trip across enemy lines,” Mr. Obama said, “resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.” As the second paragraph. Which one actually gave what Obama said? Which one of them commented on the background that led up to Obama making the mistake, as opposed to leaving it up in the air and throwing in a weak attempt to form a background near the end of the presentation? Fox news used a lack of information to drive sensationalism about it, essentially giving the impression that Obama was messing up the good name of a hero, while the other actually gave fine details about it.

Next part. Isn't this fun?
"The phrasing is considered hugely offensive in Poland, where Nazi Germany murdered Poles, Jews and others in death camps it built during World War II on Polish and German territory. Poles have responded with outrage, maintaining Obama should have called it a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland," to distinguish the perpetrators from the location"

vs

That phrase — “Polish death camp” — quickly reverberated in Poland, where citizens are quick to note that the death camps were run by Nazis who had occupied the country at the time.

Which is sensationalized, which is news?

Last part: what Obama actually said. Where did Fox News put this? Nowhere. They failed to actually go into detail about how it was the White House apologized for it. They skipped exactly what the apology said, even though that was a large focus of the entire presentation. In the NYT version, it very cleanly and clearly states: "In a statement released by the White House on Wednesday morning, Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president had misspoken. “He was referring to Nazi death camps in German-occupied Poland,” Mr. Vietor said in the statement. “We regret this misstatement, which should not detract from the clear intention to honor Mr. Karski and those brave Polish citizens who stood on the side of human dignity in the face of tyranny.”

Now, please, look at these two articles, and try to understand the difference between sensationalized news media and actual presentation of facts in the world. I don't care about the 4 other articles that you listed because they too focus on sensationalism over reporting.

As for people, "Seeing through the attacks," and implying that they trust Fox News more than other sources... would you like me to link you several sources saying that people are starting to distrust Fox News, and start turning away from it?

So actually your problem now is with the associated press, not fox news. You just posted a whole thing about fox news when all they did was post an associated press story.

[Wells]

...?

The title of the video is "Lawsuit revives fight between Catholic Church and white house."

The first minute of the video is talking about the lawsuit, and the rest of the discussion is about ramifications of it.

Yeah I think my work is done.

[Bobdoletoo]

Yeah I think my work is done.

Yes, you completely deflected offending a country and Europeans and proved that the lowest watched cable news showed a story that the mainstream network news ignored. Done for the day.

[Wells]

Yes, you completely deflected offending a country and Europeans and proved that the lowest watched cable news showed a story that the mainstream network news ignored. Done for the day.

I never said a thing about the Polish incident until later. What I took issue with was your unproven claim that only Fox covered the story about the Catholic Church suing the white house, a claim I just categorically disproved.

[Kasierith]

So actually your problem now is with the associated press, not fox news. You just posted a whole thing about fox news when all they did was post an associated press story.

I have a problem with the associated press overall, thus why I dismissed the additional articles and found it amusing that you would attack me for not using "real news" while posting such articles. Fox News is, however, the largest part of the media, with the highest number of viewers, so as such a large body they do have a large part in directing the press. Unless you're going to disagree with me on this point? If not... because of Fox New's size, it stands to reason that anyone who dislikes sensationalist media, of any sort, is going to dislike Fox News to a greater extent than other such news sources. And, as I hinted at in my first post... their clear bias mixed with a complete lack of accountability make them one of the most unreliable sources when discussing the opposing political faction. I would have just as much distrust in looking at a liberal media's presentation of a Republican candidate, but at least the liberal media sources are clear about their bias, instead of adopting the motto "fair and balanced."

---------- Post added 2012-05-30 at 07:44 PM ----------

Yes, you completely deflected offending a country and Europeans and proved that the lowest watched cable news showed a story that the mainstream network news ignored. Done for the day.

The reason mainstream media ignored it would be a lack of interest by the majority of viewers and the fact that, if you really dig down into it... it was a political misunderstanding, not a grievous offence towards Poland.

[Grizzly Willy]

I have a question. Is there anybody here who is planning on voting for Obama? And, as a follow up, why do you want to re-elect him? Trying to word this as politely as I can; would just like to see a supporter's perspective. I'm probably going to ask the same question for Romney supporters in the Republican thread.

[Wells]

yeah I'll be voting for him. I agree with many, though not all of his positions, at least far more than I do with Romney. I think he's done a reasonably good job given the circumstances.

Additionally a Romney whitehouse is a green light for the worst of Congress's GOP.

[Kasierith]

I have a question. Is there anybody here who is planning on voting for Obama? And, as a follow up, why do you want to re-elect him? Trying to word this as politely as I can; would just like to see a supporter's perspective. I'm probably going to ask the same question for Romney supporters in the Republican thread.

Well I won't be voting.. but I would support Obama because I feel he'd handle things far, far better than Romney would. Obama is very moderate, moderate enough to be pushed around yes, but I don't see him helping to push anything that could drastically harm the nation, while in terms of Romney I could see him passing things that could easily hinder or stop social progress and alienate a diverse part of the United States who are fundamentally different from the majority. Obama is not a strong person, but he has sound policies, and if he could actually grow some backbone and the Democrats take back congress (since the Democrats messed up Ohio, probably won't happen unless Ron Paul gets nominated) he could do a lot of things that are very progressive and beneficial to the country

[eriseis]

I don't like marriage amendments.

[Teriz]

I have a question. Is there anybody here who is planning on voting for Obama? And, as a follow up, why do you want to re-elect him? Trying to word this as politely as I can; would just like to see a supporter's perspective. I'm probably going to ask the same question for Romney supporters in the Republican thread.

I'm voting for Obama because I agree with the majority of his policies and future goals. Also the country is better now than it was when he took office in 2009.

Also the Republicans are simply insane right now, and I don't want them to get any more power.

[Maharishi]

I have a question. Is there anybody here who is planning on voting for Obama? And, as a follow up, why do you want to re-elect him? Trying to word this as politely as I can; would just like to see a supporter's perspective. I'm probably going to ask the same question for Romney supporters in the Republican thread.

He did get out of Iraq. He did get OBL. I think healthcare reform was direly needed. Libya was a resounding success. The GM bailouts were a resounding success. He's a great figurehead for this country in terms of international relations.

Perhaps the most important issue for me, though, is that I could not live with myself thinking I, in any way, endorsed the GOP's social agenda.

[mistuhbull]

Nothing getting done due to Obama cockblocking a Republican Congress/House scares me far less than Romney rubber stamping a Republican Congress/House.

Also there is the chance that Obama, with having no fear of reelection, stops pandering to Republicans and actually gets something done

[Jaxi]

My point: Fox news is biased
Your point: Bleedheart liberal! You get all of your information from bad sources! Anyone who disagrees with Fox News must by association agree with these sites that you never once mentioned.

Such a wonderfully twisted way of looking at it. Let me flip your argument a full 180.
Their point: Here is an article from Fox News.
Your point: Fox news sheeple! Open your eyes to the machinations of the American pravda! Everything ever posted by Fox is republican propoganda made to keep you blind and in the dark!

See? By using similarly charged diction as you did, I can turn the argument around. This back and forth of the fox news bias argument is silly. Read the article, if you dispute a claim then make it known instead of passing it off simply because of who wrote it. I might not like Huffington Post, but at least I have the decency to read my opponent's argument instead of dismissing it.

[Teriz]

Nothing getting done due to Obama cockblocking a Republican Congress/House scares me far less than Romney rubber stamping a Republican Congress/House.

Also there is the chance that Obama, with having no fear of reelection, stops pandering to Republicans and actually gets something done

You have that backwards.

The guy who recently beat Dick Luger ran on a platform of "no compromise with Obama". The GOP are the ones cockblocking. Anything Obama supports they reactively oppose. This includes things the GOP used to support when they had some common sense.

[obdigore]

You have that backwards.

The guy who recently beat Dick Luger ran on a platform of "no compromise with Obama". The GOP are the ones cockblocking. Anything Obama supports they reactively oppose. This includes things the GOP used to support when they had some common sense.

Hes aware. He is saying that he would rather have Obama in the White House for 4 more years and vetoing everything the a (maybe) GOP Congress/House can do, instead of handing the GOP the presidency and both chambers.

[Kasierith]

Such a wonderfully twisted way of looking at it. Let me flip your argument a full 180.
Their point: Here is an article from Fox News.
Your point: Fox news sheeple! Open your eyes to the machinations of the American pravda! Everything ever posted by Fox is republican propoganda made to keep you blind and in the dark!

See? By using similarly charged diction as you did, I can turn the argument around. This back and forth of the fox news bias argument is silly. Read the article, if you dispute a claim then make it known instead of passing it off simply because of who wrote it. I might not like Huffington Post, but at least I have the decency to read my opponent's argument instead of dismissing it.

I did read it after he expanded it to several articles, as was covered by the long list of posts. Tacking on in the middle has its disadvantages. The reason that I sensationalized it in that post in particular was that I was addressing the fact that I made a statement about a news source, than he turned it around and made a statement about me personally, making assumptions both about my tendencies and assuming that my disagreement immediately associated me with certain news sources. Now, do you wish me to lay it out in a much more simplified fashion for you?

All news sources are biased. Recognizing this... do not use republican favorable media to research democratic candidates. Do not use democratic favorable media to research republican candidates. The more one leans towards a political party the more skewed its presentation of the other side will be. I would care just as much as someone linking an MSNBC site criticizing Romney as I did about Fox News addressing Obama.

[obdigore]

And now for something completely different, Prove Romney isn't a Unicorn!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/politi...html?hpt=hp_c2

Call them "unicorners." A liberal group says it has collected more than 19,000 e-mails requesting Arizona officials to confirm Mitt Romney is not a unicorn.

[Willeonge]

And now for something completely different, Prove Romney isn't a Unicorn!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/politi...html?hpt=hp_c2

If he was a unicorn, I'd be more tempted to vote for him.

[Shadowmelded]

If he was a unicorn, I'd be more tempted to vote for him.

Not gonna lie, if I was a US citizen and he was a unicorn, I'd vote the shit out of him.