The Briefing Room
General Category => Health/Education => Topic started by: Rapunzel on November 21, 2013, 08:03:57 pm
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/21/On-Further-Review-the-Shutdown-May-Have-Been-a-Win
On Further Review, the Shutdown May Have Been a Win
by Joel B. Pollak 21 Nov 2013, 6:07 AM PDT
The federal government shutdown was rated by most observers as a disaster for Republicans. Yet the failure of Obamacare has sent Democrats into a panic, and should prompt a re-evaluation of the October fight. There is no doubt that Democrats would not be in the same political mess if they had agreed to a one-year delay in Obamacare, perhaps in exchange for passage of immigration reform. Now they have no way out.
Republicans who were willing to shut down the government in order to stop Obamacare now look prescient. If it can be said that the "defund Obamacare" movement was brash to believe that Republicans could govern from one house of Congress, that belief is less foolish than Democrats' fercent faith that Obamacare was going to work--a conviction that ignored all of the warning signs that were visible long before Oct. 1.
Before the shutdown, I suggested that a one-year delay was an "obvious" win-win solution. It would allow Republicans to say they had done all they could to stop Obamacare, and would allow Democrats the time they needed to fix it. I was wrong (as I later acknowledged), because I underestimated President Barack Obama's refusal to make any deal--and I overestimated Democrats' knowledge about their own policy.
Democrats were being told by propaganda outlets like Media Matters that the policy was going well. In one infamous post on Oct. 1, "Right-Wing Media Frantically Spin Obamacare Exchange Success Into Failure," Media Matters actually claimed: "millions of Americans are signing up for the health care program." That is more delusional than anything conservatives told themselves about the prospects of defunding Obamacare.
Now it is even more obvious that Democrats should have taken Republicans' offer to fund the federal government but delay the individual mandate for a year. Look at all they would have avoided: the public loss of trust in President Obama; the outrage over being forced to buy insurance on a faulty website after losing individual coverage; and, above all, the collapse of public confidence in the prospects of big government.
Republicans were blamed for the shutdown--but not much more than the president. The shutdown also reminded voters that the GOP stands firmly for repeal. It also saw the Democrats cast votes against delaying or amending Obamacare. Yes, the Tea Party looked rash. But its approval ratings are not quite so bad in the ABC/WaPo poll. On further review, the shutdown does not look so bad. It may even have been a win.
-
(http://i44.tinypic.com/707uyf.jpg)
-
You can't push the country in the right direction unless you win elections.
I have a friend who says Congress should be held by one party, and the presidency by the other, always. It slows the ability of politicians to cheat the people. I can't say I disagree. But, there is another element.
Try to be objective. I think by any objective measure, the mainstream media is biased to the left. Now assume both parties are equally corrupt and incompetent, (just for argument sake). Now, would you rather have the party in power that has a friend in the media, constantly trying to cover for their missteps and bad deeds? Or would you rather have the party in power that will be scrutinized by the media. Every move analyzed, and any flaws magnified.
Now, consider that the public is less than educated, distracted, and generally unconcerned and is strongly influenced by the media.
Which would result in a better government for the people?
Without considering policy, it's incredibly stupid to vote Democrat.
-
Now, would you rather have the party in power that has a friend in the media, constantly trying to cover for their missteps and bad deeds? Or would you rather have the party in power that will be scrutinized by the media. Every move analyzed, and any flaws magnified.
That is what the media is supposed to do. Inform people and investigate both sides equally.
-
I think the media is biased towards government. I think it is there to quell the masses and perpetuate the illusion of freedom and choice.
-
I think the media is biased towards government. I think it is there to quell the masses and perpetuate the illusion of freedom and choice.
With that view, you are either willfully ignorant, blindly partisan, or stupid.
Compare the coverage of George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama.
Nancy Pelosi vs. John Boehner.
-
That is what the media is supposed to do. Inform people and investigate both sides equally.
Agreed. The media always has had a bit of a bias to the left. But in the last 5 years, they've all but dropped any pretense of objectivity.
So, as a matter of pragmatism, it's safer for the citizens to elect Republicans.
-
With that view, you are either willfully ignorant, blindly partisan, or stupid.
Compare the coverage of George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama.
Nancy Pelosi vs. John Boehner.
George Bush got trashed on liberal media just like Obama gets trashed on conservative media. Are you seriously trying to tell me Obama doesn't get criticized in the news? He has his supporters just like Bush did, and just like Bush did he has hoards of angry people that spend their days talking about how horrible he is. It is an intentionally unwinnable game of tug of war.
-
George Bush got trashed on liberal media just like Obama gets trashed on conservative media. Are you seriously trying to tell me Obama doesn't get criticized in the news? He has his supporters just like Bush did, and just like Bush did he has hoards of angry people that spend their days talking about how horrible he is. It is an intentionally unwinnable game of tug of war.
My statement stands.
Liberal media is ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc.
Conservative media is Fox and the Washington Times.
The vast majority of the public is influenced by the liberal media.
This is all very basic. Easy to google, easy to document the Journolist, various media members admitting a liberal bias.
You've said nothing to contradict my statement: you are either willfully ignorant, blindly partisan, or stupid.
-
Agreed. The media always has had a bit of a bias to the left. But in the last 5 years, they've all but dropped any pretense of objectivity.
So, as a matter of pragmatism, it's safer for the citizens to elect Republicans.
Sadly, I have to agree with you about the lack of objectivity and the bias. It shouldn't be that way, but the world is as it is, so your rational for electing Republicans makes sense.
-
The vast majority of the public is influenced by the liberal media.
So why is Obama sitting at sub 40% approval and sinking by the minute? Even Reddit has for the most part turned on Obama, and they tend to be liberal/libertarian. If the media is nothing but his left wing henchmen that are bound and determined to make him look good, shouldn't his approval be higher than that? The vast majority of Americans get their news from the MSM.
-
So why is Obama sitting at sub 40% approval and sinking by the minute? Even Reddit has for the most part turned on Obama, and they tend to be liberal/libertarian. If the media is nothing but his left wing henchmen that are bound and determined to make him look good, shouldn't his approval be higher than that? The vast majority of Americans get their news from the MSM.
Are you really that lacking in critical thinking skills?
OBAMACARE
The media has shielded Obama whenever possible. The press room has been a softball contest. For you to try to claim that the media doesn't adore and cover for Obama is stupid. Yes, stupid. I can cite plenty of examples. But, you seem to be unwilling or unable to see, so I will just direct you to: http://www.mrc.org/
The lead story there is about NBC dropping all coverage of Obamacare. I wonder why that is?!
The bottom line is, Obamacare is a mess. The website, something people notice, is beyond horrible. And the stories about premiums and 5 million people losing coverage can't be ignored. As powerful as the liberal media is, they can't hide everything. The public is now beginning to scrutinize Obama's credibility on their own, sparked by: "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Remember all those delightful media pieces on GWB, about how stupid he was, how he was just a gaffe-tastic moron?
I don't recall any American, aside from Obama, claiming we have 58 states. He's been to 57 and has one more to go. The Obama gaffes are largely ignored, up until now. I could go on and on, but I suspect you are unable to examine the difference.
-
Are you really that lacking in critical thinking skills?
OBAMACARE
The media has shielded Obama whenever possible. The press room has been a softball contest. For you to try to claim that the media doesn't adore and cover for Obama is stupid. Yes, stupid. I can cite plenty of examples. But, you seem to be unwilling or unable to see, so I will just direct you to: http://www.mrc.org/
The lead story there is about NBC dropping all coverage of Obamacare. I wonder why that is?!
The bottom line is, Obamacare is a mess. The website, something people notice, is beyond horrible. And the stories about premiums and 5 million people losing coverage can't be ignored. As powerful as the liberal media is, they can't hide everything. The public is now beginning to scrutinize Obama's credibility on their own, sparked by: "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Remember all those delightful media pieces on GWB, about how stupid he was, how he was just a gaffe-tastic moron?
I don't recall any American, aside from Obama, claiming we have 58 states. He's been to 57 and has one more to go. The Obama gaffes are largely ignored, up until now. I could go on and on, but I suspect you are unable to examine the difference.
We can continue having a conversation when you can do it without trying to insinuate that I am stupid.
-
We can continue having a conversation when you can do it without trying to insinuate that I am stupid.
I'm losing patience with people who are ignorant, willfully or not. The points that you gloss over are basic, obvious points. I'm not a great thinker, but I am observant.
In daily life, I have to be nice to people who approach things the way you do. I have a liberal brother who, in the interest of harmony in the family, I can't call out for the stupid things he says. He thinks MSNBC is unbiased, that's how far left he is.
I don't have to do that here.
If you ignore obvious things, if you want to fight from an untenable position, I will tell you what I observe.
-
So why is Obama sitting at sub 40% approval and sinking by the minute? Even Reddit has for the most part turned on Obama, and they tend to be liberal/libertarian. If the media is nothing but his left wing henchmen that are bound and determined to make him look good, shouldn't his approval be higher than that? The vast majority of Americans get their news from the MSM.
Imagine Obama's approval rating without the media covering for him. It would be lower than Congress's. His ratings are on par with Bush's at this time in his term, but Bush didn't have the media helping him. The media needs to report the news and let people decide, but it has interjected itself into partisan politics, and could care less what republicans think. After all, the media has made the opposite party the enemy.
-
I'm losing patience with people who are ignorant, willfully or not. The points that you gloss over are basic, obvious points. I'm not a great thinker, but I am observant.
In daily life, I have to be nice to people who approach things the way you do. I have a liberal brother who, in the interest of harmony in the family, I can't call out for the stupid things he says. He thinks MSNBC is unbiased, that's how far left he is.
I don't have to do that here.
If you ignore obvious things, if you want to fight from an untenable position, I will tell you what I observe.
I have no problem with you getting frustrated with me and passionate over the points you're trying to make; that is an inevitability in politics. We should be able to have a conversation and hash out our disagreements without name calling.
-
Imagine Obama's approval rating without the media covering for him. It would be lower than Congress's. His ratings are on par with Bush's at this time in his term, but Bush didn't have the media helping him. The media needs to report the news and let people decide, but it has interjected itself into partisan politics, and could care less what republicans think. After all, the media has made the opposite party the enemy.
Where do conservatives get their news? Close to half of the country votes Republican; those people are getting their information somewhere. I have no problem admitting that several of the big name news organizations have a left wing bias, but there are equally large and influential news sources that have a right wing bias. Most voters are low information voters, and whether or not anybody wants to admit it, there is an abundance of these voters on both sides of the fence. I feel that if one side had significantly more influence over people than the other that truth would be reflected by the way people vote.
I believe instead that the media is owned by the government and is used to manipulate people into screaming at each other and increase intolerance on both sides. I don't believe the evil that exists in and controls our government is liberal or conservative, and I also don't believe that electing new presidents will change it.
-
I have no problem with you getting frustrated with me and passionate over the points you're trying to make; that is an inevitability in politics. We should be able to have a conversation and hash out our disagreements without name calling.
The mainstream media are biased to the left. The msm are powerful. The msm cover for Obama unlike any president in my 50+ year lifetime.
Those are all givens. I've read, researched, hashed over all of those things. Believe it or not, I was once a Democrat, I'm open minded, and on other sites I've been called a liberal. But, those things are true. The beauty of a forum with like minded people is, we don't have to prove 1+1=2. We've all figured it out.
Not only have you not figured it out, you want to argue that 1+1=3. You have a tendency to ignore crucial points. It causes me to see you in a negative way, and I express that. You can deal with it, or not, I don't care.
We had a discussion on another thread, how it's just amazing that I can look at something that seems so clear, and obvious, and have a liberal pipe up with something that has no logic, but indicates they see the situation 180 degrees out from what I see.
-
Where do conservatives get their news? Close to half of the country votes Republican; those people are getting their information somewhere. I have no problem admitting that several of the big name news organizations have a left wing bias, but there are equally large and influential news sources that have a right wing bias. Most voters are low information voters, and whether or not anybody wants to admit it, there are an abundance of these voters on both sides of the fence. I feel that if one side had significantly more influence over people than the other that truth would be reflected by the way people vote.
I believe instead that the media is owned by the government and is used to manipulate people into screaming at each other and increase intolerance on both sides. I don't believe the evil that exists in and controls our government is liberal or conservative, and I also don't believe that electing new presidents will change it.
The media is not owned by the government. Say what you want about who owns them, but to state the government owns the media without strong evidence makes you look foolish. Like a conspiracy nut.
Generally speaking,
People 40 years and older tend to get their news from ABC, CBS, NBC, and newspapers.
People younger than 40 get their news from websites, Reddit, MSNBC, etc. and The Daily Show.
I get my news from these forums, and various websites.
The left has done an amazing job of negating Fox. If you tell someone who is moderate to left you heard something on Fox, they roll their eyes as if it can't possibly be true if it came from Fox. I don't like Fox's food fight style, so I quit watching. And on these forums, I've posted over and over, if it's not reported in a msm source, it didn't happen.
-
The mainstream media are biased to the left. The msm are powerful. The msm cover for Obama unlike any president in my 50+ year lifetime.
Those are all givens. I've read, researched, hashed over all of those things. Believe it or not, I was once a Democrat, I'm open minded, and on other sites I've been called a liberal. But, those things are true. The beauty of a forum with like minded people is, we don't have to prove 1+1=2. We've all figured it out.
Not only have you not figured it out, you want to argue that 1+1=3. You have a tendency to ignore crucial points. It causes me to see you in a negative way, and I express that. You can deal with it, or not, I don't care.
We had a discussion on another thread, how it's just amazing that I can look at something that seems so clear, and obvious, and have a liberal pipe up with something that has no logic, but indicates they see the situation 180 degrees out from what I see.
I really don't want to argue over it anymore. We can simply ignore each other if you dislike my presence here and don't want to defend and explain your stances without name calling at the same time.
-
Oh, don't start this whiny bullshit again, please: I really don't want to argue over it anymore. We can simply ignore each other if you dislike my presence here and don't want to defend and explain your stances without name calling at the same time.
-
If you tell someone who is moderate to left you heard something on Fox, they roll their eyes as if it can't possibly be true if it came from Fox.
Anybody on the right of the line does the same thing when you bring up sources with a left wing bias. There is no shortage of intolerance on either side.
-
Oh, don't start this whiny bullshit again, please
If I started calling people here stupid and ignorant they would get offended and I would get banned almost immediately.
-
I really don't want to argue over it anymore. We can simply ignore each other if you dislike my presence here and don't want to defend and explain your stances without name calling at the same time.
So, what you're saying is you want to come to a conservative site, spout unsupportable nonsense, but be treated like a deep thinker because you're hanging with those evil conservatives?
I treat posters as their posts demand they be treated. And I have no interest in reaching across the aisle like that moron McCain. If you want to come here, be mindful of what you post. If you aren't, someone will call you on it. Then you'll have bruised feelings.
8888crybaby
-
Anybody on the right of the line does the same thing when you bring up sources with a left wing bias. There is no shortage of intolerance on either side.
But Fox is the ONLY right biased broadcast source. You don't see the significance?
-
If I started calling people here stupid and ignorant they would get offended and I would get banned almost immediately.
Not if they are stupid and ignorant.
-
Now assume both parties are equally corrupt and incompetent, (just for argument sake).
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/10985400253_0d8a2516c9.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105575503@N07/10985400253/)
-
Not if they are stupid and ignorant.
:silly: But stupid people don't know they are stupid! Good comeback!
-
If I started calling people here stupid and ignorant they would get offended and I would get banned almost immediately.
I have a suggestion. Change your screen name. I think you make valid points. But your name gets in the way of people hearing those points. Don't tell people you're liberal, just make your points. Let them figure it out.
Just my humble opinion.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/10985400253_0d8a2516c9.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105575503@N07/10985400253/)
George Carlin was more of a philosopher than a comedian.
-
I have a suggestion. Change your screen name. I think you make valid points. But your name gets in the way of people hearing those points. Don't tell people you're liberal, just make your points. Let them figure it out.
Just my humble opinion.
You're probably right. I honestly made this name for shock value, because I never expected a conservative forum to tolerate my presence for more than 10 minutes.
-
George Bush got trashed on liberal media just like Obama gets trashed on conservative media. Are you seriously trying to tell me Obama doesn't get criticized in the news? He has his supporters just like Bush did, and just like Bush did he has hoards of angry people that spend their days talking about how horrible he is. It is an intentionally unwinnable game of tug of war.
You ARE willfully and woefully ignorant. How dare you compare the two equally?
The "liberal media" is to the major leagues.....as the "conservative media" is to PeeWee T-ball in terms of reach.
-
The "liberal media" is to the major leagues.....as the "conservative media" is to PeeWee T-ball in terms of reach.
Everybody sees the world through a different pair of eyes. I disagree with you.
-
Everybody sees the world through a different pair of eyes. I disagree with you.
Well...all I will say is that you need to get to the eye doctor pronto.
Prove I'm wrong.
The conservative media is outnumbered at least 10 to 1.
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
-
The broadcast media and local newspapers inform the vast majority of the American public. And they are overwhelmingly liberal in their point of view.
-
Well...all I will say is that you need to get to the eye doctor pronto.
Prove I'm wrong.
The conservative media is outnumbered at least 10 to 1.
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Regardless of which bias has more TV stations, I still feel that the influence of left and right wing media is accurately displayed by the way people vote. I think they've done a wonderful job of splitting this country right down the middle. I believe that if the left wing media really had that much more influence than right wing media, the Republicans would be hopelessly outnumbered come election time. However, for the sake of moving past this I will just concede the point and say that regardless of any of this I feel that the mainstream media (the left media AND the right media) is nothing but a propaganda machine used to manipulate people.
-
Regardless of which bias has more TV stations, I still feel that the influence of left and right wing media is accurately displayed by the way people vote. I think they've done a wonderful job of splitting this country right down the middle. I believe that if the left wing media really had that much more influence than right wing media, the Republicans would be hopelessly outnumbered come election time. However, for the sake of moving past this I will just concede the point and say that regardless of any of this I feel that the mainstream media (the left media AND the right media) is nothing but a propaganda machine used to manipulate people.
Your argument is idiotic.
It's why I have refused to communicate with you directly on the forum and had voted in the poll that you be asked to leave.
A nice kid perhaps, but a big waste of time.
Toodaloo! :seeya:
-
Your argument is idiotic.
It's why I have refused to communicate with you directly on the forum and had voted in the poll that you be asked to leave.
A nice kid perhaps, but a big waste of time.
Toodaloo! :seeya:
I'm sorry you feel that way. For what it's worth I enjoyed the exchanges we had.
-
I agree with you, Anomalism.
-
I have a suggestion. Change your screen name. I think you make valid points. But your name gets in the way of people hearing those points. Don't tell people you're liberal, just make your points. Let them figure it out.
Just my humble opinion.
Actually he throws a bunch of bull out there and then when anyone pins him on it we get the "if you don't want me here I'll leave" baloney.... I won't ever post with him because he never - EVER - answers a direct question...
-
"if you don't want me here I'll leave"
I've only ever said that or something similar in response to what I felt was excessive aggression on a forum. It was never my intention to disrupt this community or step on any toes. I came to this forum labeled "Liberal_Spy" making absolutely no attempt to hide my political identity. From day one I put it out there that I was here to have discussions with a large body of people that disagrees with me, and that if that wasn't acceptable, I have no problem leaving. At that time more people than not seemed happy to have some opposition to throw opinions back and forth with.
I think some here are just angry that despite their many attempts to change my mind, I am still not a conservative. I listen to the things you say, but sometimes I choose to silently disagree with them. Look how heated some people got towards me for disagreeing with them in this thread. That is what leads me to drop conversations and stop responding to some threads; I'm not trying to piss anybody off. I am not closed off to information you present, and believe it or not, despite not being a conservative, my political views have evolved as a direct result of using this forum.
-
I've only ever said that or something similar in response to what I felt was excessive aggression on a forum. It was never my intention to disrupt this community or step on any toes. I came to this forum labeled "Liberal_Spy" making absolutely no attempt to hide my political identity. From day one I put it out there that I was here to have discussions with a large body of people that disagrees with me, and that if that wasn't acceptable, I have no problem leaving. At the time more people than not seemed happy to have some opposition to throw opinions back and forth with.
I think some here are just angry that despite their many attempts to change my mind, I am still not a conservative. I listen to the things you say, but sometimes I choose to silently disagree with them. Look how heated some people got towards me for disagreeing with them in this thread. That is what leads me to drop conversations and stop responding to some threads; I'm not trying to piss anybody off. I am not closed off to information you present, and believe it or not, despite not being a conservative, my political views have evolved as a direct result of using this forum.
People only ask that you actually ANSWER their questions if you are going to discuss on a thread...... you duck and dive like Mohammad Ali on everything you post to.
-
People only ask that you actually ANSWER their questions if you are going to discuss on a thread...... you duck and dive like Mohammad Ali on everything you post to.
I am sometimes trying to respond to five different people at once depending on how active a topic is. When people reiterate questions they asked that I didn't get to, I DO make an effort to respond to them fairly, but sometimes a subject is just too touchy. As an example I will bring up the abortion thread I was part of. There were people posting there that were getting legitimately upset at me for disagreeing with them and not seeing their point of view, and because of that I chose to not respond to certain posts. Getting people riled up is exactly how I will get banned from this forum, and is exactly what I try to not do. I make an effort to be low impact.
I hope you will change your mind and continue to challenge my views with your own, because you are legitimately one of my favorite posters here.
-
I am sometimes trying to respond to five different people at once depending on how active a topic is.
Do you have any interest in philosophy of politics, like the material I linked regarding "classical liberalism?"
That would seem to me to be of supreme interest and importance to a graduate level student of history.
-
Do you have any interest in philosophy of politics, like the material I linked regarding "classical liberalism?"
That would seem to me to be of supreme interest and importance to a graduate level student of history.
I did read the material you linked me from the Rand Paul thread, and it is interesting. I've had a few members here suggest that I read things related to what you linked me.