Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I cannot agree with that.
One example: Obama was charged with the responsibility for overseeing the disbursement of $50 million Ayers got in the grant.
How well did he handle this responsibility?
Who got the money?
What were the objectives the recipient's were charged with?
How well were the objectives met?
Were they successful?
I could go on.
OK, one more. Frank Davis is mentioned in Obama's book as his early mentor (IMO, Obama is 0-for2) in luck choosing mentors); what do you know about Frank Davis from the MSM?
Are you familiar with Davis's book (*autobiography* under a pen name)?
Alright another one: Did Obama travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport when a young man of 20 yrs as alledged in the pending court case? Why did he travel there? Is there any legal merit to the court filing citing US law at that time that would have meant he lost US citizenship?
OTOH, McCain's (unconfirmed) rumored affair was front page news on the nations largest paper. BTW: he story died and they were chastized by their own Omnibudsman.
Fern
On October 19th 1987, McCain was at my high school. When we asked him about his economic outlook, he replied that he strongly believed that the fundamentals of the economy were wrong. The market crashed that day. Go Figure.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Thats an awful lot of questions. How about we assume the questions were asked and investigated, and that the answer wasn't worthy of a news story? I'm confident that is what happens to candidates that spend money, people always ask questions about how they spent it. How else do you think we got the 'bridge to nowhere' controversy?
yes it appears as though a candidates associates are all the rage this election. Maybe we can smear Frank Davis as well as we smeared Rev Wright? A man works for 20-30 years and in that period of time he does some pretty good things and some not so good things. But lets just focus on the negative like we all did with Rev Wright. Nevermind that for 20-30 years he helped raise kids and helped them get out of the ghetto, nevermind the jobs he helped create in his low income black community, the education he helped establish for inner city youth...etc etc. Naw....Rev Wrights just a racist prick.
I am sure Frank Davis is more of the same.
this one earned a big WTF. Alright you got me on this one, I don't even know what the problem is let alone whether or not its been investigated. Gonna have to take your word on it that it hasn't yet been investigated.
LOL. :thumbsup:
Also, most 18-22 year olds have no concerns about obtaining legal drugs, so this sounds a little far-fetched.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
This is a lie, Fern. A person named "Frank" (but presumably Davis) is mentioned in "Dreams of my Father," but only as a "friend of my grandfather" who "came by the house a couple times," and Obama said that he thought Frank had hopelessly backward views on race relations and lived "in a 60s time warp." Now does that sound like a mentor to you?
See, this is why you guys are getting zero traction on these attacks. There's nothing there in the first place, so you pad them with lies, and thus destroy your credibility.
More likely the problem is that they are simply parroting things they have heard from someone or somewhere else. How many of the people here attacking Obama have read either of his books you think? One, maybe two? (at best)
Now as desperation sets in they are grabbing anything and everything that sounds incriminating and trying to stick it on Obama, this is making even people who are normally reasonable grasp at straws, so we have even our better conservative posters writing things that from an objective viewpoint look pretty absurd.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
You think?
Your own words say clearly that info from other sources are to be discounted - really? Well, please don't quote me any more so-called studies. That's just info "from someone or somewhere else".
That statement, taken at face value, is patently absurd; yet people wonder why we have threads about no one tolerating any questions about/or critism of Obama?
Google Frank Davis and Obama, you've got sources from the right, the left, and foreign all speaking of their relationship ( and the word "mentor" is freely used by all).
But since CNN & MSNBC haven't mentioned it it ain't valid, right?
But the whole point is the MSM isn't investigating; so how is one to know? Follow Orbyte's advice and assume it isn't valid because they (MSM) don't mention it? (Gee, gotta wonder why they bothered to dispute the whole Muslim thing.) Don't I constantly see complaint's about this *methodology* WRT the Iraq *war* and the GWB admin?
Some here have lost rationality and objectivity, some are *true believers* and the (recent addition of the) 11th Commandment states that that shalt not be questioned.
Politically, I'm all alone (a conservative abandoned by the Repub party) - ain't nobody offering me any kookaid, can others say the same?
Fern
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
That's a good idea... let's just assume the media did its job and everything they haven't reported on isn't worth talking about. :roll:
BTW the media ignored the Rev. Wright story for a year, must not have been worthy of a news story, then all of a sudden they spent days and days talking about it...
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
The HRC campaign did try this angle; then as now the MSM beat them down.
The rampant circular logic about his topic is amazing: the MSM hasn't missed investigating anyything worthy, because if they didn't investigate is was - ergo - non-worthy, therefore everything that was worthy has been investigated. I for one am now glad to see that our MSM has finally become omniscient.
Fern
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Hold on, ive been consistent in saying that the media is out to make its own buck and not "in the bag" for any particular party. If the media isn't vetting these candidates correctly then THAT in and of itself is a conflict of interest for the media imho.
If I am wrong on this then fine, but I think will stant behind my point. Claims are made by people all the time. Palins baby isnt hers, Obama went to a madrassa, Palin joined the AIP, Obama is a muslim. And eventually the truth comes out because the media has a financial incentive to look into it and make money off the story. Why are people assuming that the truth hasn't yet come out on the Ayers, ACORN, and Frank Davis stories? I think it might have more to do with the fact that the truth isn't what some people want it to be and less to do with the fact that the media hasnt looked into it.
My opinion is that the stories have been around long enough, there is a financial incentive for the media to break these stories if they COULD. And the fact that no story exists or has BROKEN leads me to believe that there is no meat there for the media to bite into. This same thing applies to the candidates.
HRC had her chance to investigate everything into Obama's past. All we got was Rev Wright, Rezco, and Ayers. I dont think people were talking about ACORN back then.
This is a difficult point to make, especially around here. Was Palin being hypocritical? Absolutely, unquestionably, no doubt. Does it refute her point? Not a chance.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The MSM has investigated the Davis angle. There's nothing to report. Obama's grandfather knew a well-known black poet, who also lived in Hawaii, and who, like countless other artists, got caught up in HUAC and the Red Scare of the 50s, because he wrote for a union newspaper at one time and because he openly expressed socially liberal views. Ooh... there's a story. In the meantime, there is ZERO evidence that Davis was actually a communist and even less that he was Obama's "mentor."
I mean, the Ayers thing has already tanked with the public, let's come up with something even more tenuous and desperate!
And the 11th Commandment is (and always will be) "Don't get caught."
That makes both of us, which is precisely why I no longer support him. But again, I'm not sure what that has to do with Obama. I think what bothers me most at this moment in time - a time when it's quite evident Obama is going to be our next president - is people still can't ask pointed questions about him without a fallacious defense structured around McCain being brought up.
McCain/Palin are irrelevant at this point. They are no longer viable shields for justifiable questions about Obama or his policies.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
gosh I guess that MSM is omnipotent as well as omniscient.
IF the MSM is as powerful as everyone seems to think it is. IE, if the mainstream media is in control of the stories it covers...the ACORNs, the AYERs what have you, then one thing would be clear (at least in my head):
GWB would have never been reelected.
With that said, imho the MSM is only in this thing for itself. Take away MSNBC on one side and Foxnews on the other and you will see that the bulk of our MSM is calling the election pretty evenly, and that the MSM is not in the drivers seat here, money is. The driving force is money folks. If there is a story worth reporting (Madrassa, AIP, troopergate, Ayers, ACORN, 'bitter clingers' etc etc) then the MSM will milk the hell out of it for all its worth then move onto the next controversy. The MSM makes its living this way.
I will admit though that the Ayers, ACORN, story may be overshadowed by the more interesting and $$ making story of the bitter and incindiary rally's for McCain and Palin. Around the same time Palin and McCain started introducing the Ayers and ACORN narrative in its campaign stops and TV ads the intensity and vitrol increased on the campaign trail...and I think the media covered it from that angle moreso than actually looking into the issues presented by McCain.
But really who's fault is that? If McCain chose early on to discuss things like Ayers and ACORN and Wright I think you would have had a muuch different outcome because people would have introduced these topics into the national narrative early on and wouldnt be too focused on the public reaction (generally negative at this point) to having these issues spotlighted. ALso, the public reaction would be much more muted if these topices were introduced by McCain and Palin 60-90 days ago as opposed to 20 days from the election.
These are all just my thoughts on the matter. I dont want to defend the MSM for anything it does because I do actually believe that the media doesnt do a good enough job covering issues. But I don't think it is fair to lay all the blame at the media. The strategy employed by McCain from the start, never worked. He tried to play a clean game and it got him no where. Only by his gimic moves (selecting Palin, attack ads) did he finally become relevant, and I would argue not in a good way.
It has to be said too, that Obama wasn't relevant until Super Tuesday against HRC. Only after he ramrodded HRC on Super Tuesday did he start to take momentum away. If HRC did what she had to do on Super Tuesday she would be the nominee. The media didn't make any of that happen, Obama did. Hillary was virtually coronated by the media up till Super Tuesday. Just like the media didnt make any of this happen for McCain, McCain only has himself to blame.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter