• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Newsweek gives Obama the thumbs down

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
boomerang said:
Why do you continue to paint yourself as some sort of centrist? Is it to fool yourself because it certainly isn't fooling me. I would suspect that it fools few others that spend any time here also. Personally, I have more respect for someone that has core principles that they believe in and that defends them. I think it's important to stand for something. Fluttering in the wind trying to catch a stiff breeze to carry you off gains no respect from me.
Click to expand...

Then I trust you wont be voting for Mr Flip-Flop and will vote for obama. His views are that America needs to be destroyed at all costs and so far he is sticking to them perfectly.
 
If Fox News would have said that Bush must go, all of the libby posters here would have been giddy as a school girl and each would be racing here to post first and we would have a biggest circle jerk that AT has ever seen....
 
spacejamz said:
If Fox News would have said that Bush must go, all of the libby posters here would have been giddy as a school girl and each would be racing here to post first and we would have a biggest circle jerk that AT has ever seen....
Click to expand...

No, because Fox News doesn't have any more credibility than Newsweek does.
 
zsdersw said:
No, because Fox News doesn't have any more credibility than Newsweek does.
Click to expand...

you keep telling yourself that...meanwhile back in the real world, if that would have happened, there would have been at least 5 new threads here within 10 minutes of that happening...
 
Fox News is owned by the Republican party, and MSNBC increasingly by the Democratic party. Newsweek isn't analogous at all, it's more like if someone bought up Drudge's domain name and started putting up Gawker-like Top 10 lists and faux-controversial editorials in a desperate bid for attention and money. It's barely even a news magazine anymore. That's why it also didn't matter at all when they put out a "Mitt the Wimp" front cover a little while ago.

http://www.businessinsider.com/news...wimp-election-tax-returns-offshore-bank2012-7

Edit: MSNBC, not NBC, my mistake

http://www.businessinsider.com/news...wimp-election-tax-returns-offshore-bank2012-7
 
Last edited:
berzerker60 said:
Fox News is owned by the Republican party, and NBC increasingly by the Democratic party. Newsweek isn't analogous at all, it's more like if someone bought up Drudge's domain name and started putting up Gawker-like Top 10 lists and faux-controversial editorials in a desperate bid for attention and money. It's barely even a news magazine anymore. That's why it also didn't matter at all when they put out a "Mitt the Wimp" front cover a little while ago.

http://www.businessinsider.com/news...wimp-election-tax-returns-offshore-bank2012-7
Click to expand...

So they've become equal opportunity bashers. Kind of like the "independents" on this site.
 
berzerker60 said:
Fox News is owned by the Republican party, and NBC increasingly by the Democratic party. Newsweek isn't analogous at all, it's more like if someone bought up Drudge's domain name and started putting up Gawker-like Top 10 lists and faux-controversial editorials in a desperate bid for attention and money. It's barely even a news magazine anymore. That's why it also didn't matter at all when they put out a "Mitt the Wimp" front cover a little while ago.

http://www.businessinsider.com/news...wimp-election-tax-returns-offshore-bank2012-7
Click to expand...

I think you've confused NBC with MSNBC.
 
Texashiker said:
So we attack the person, rather then addressing the facts?

obama promised a lot of stuff, and almost none of it has happened.
Click to expand...


Counting is hard work, yessiree.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/


He's delivered more than the boob that came before him, and that's with the most worthless repubs in history making obstructing him their number one priority.

I think rage over him delivering on his foremost national security issue is still causing people to be extra stupid.
 
Doppel said:
Four years ago I was still under the illusion that the president mattered a great deal, now I realize he's just a marginally bigger cog in the wheel.
Click to expand...

And he has more Foreign policy power than domestic power because the spending bills originate in the House. If the democratic party in the Congress can't or won't help the president enact policies that he advocates he's got a lot less options on the domestic front.

Texashiker said:
obama promised a lot of stuff, and almost none of it has happened.
Click to expand...

read the above. The majorities that the Democrats supposedly enjoyed for two years weren't exactly that long because of the recounting of the Al Franken election and also the fact that Sen. Kennedy wasn't healthy enough to always vote in 2009.

Yeah, the Health Care debate should probably have been a secondary concern for the economy but it does impact the economy in important ways. For example a majority of bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to illness and the medical expense from that. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH Bankruptcies don't help the economy.

Texashiker said:
If we want real change in government, we need to realize there is no real difference between the democrats and republicans.
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree with that but in one way you are definitely right. They're both now too dependent on Big International Corporation money to really do what is right by the people who vote for them.

monovillage said:
Guys, it's a single negative to Obama magazine cover, don't get all flustered, the media is still overwhelmingly Democratic.
Click to expand...

the underlined word FTFY

While the majority or reporters may lean toward the democratic party, the owners of the stations where they work are probably wealthy.
So why would those owners want to hurt the party that wants to give them tax cuts?

If reporters were really free to muckrake like they did decades ago the Democratic and Republican parties would probably be screaming in frustration.

Gonad the Barbarian said:
Full fact check of OP's article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...usons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this up. will definitely read.

Incorruptible said:
Its good to see them with some decency and attack obama
Click to expand...
we need some humor in this thread 😛

Incorruptible said:
Its good to see them with some decency and attack obama
Click to expand...

I think most people who read these threads know MSNBC has "left" leaning shows and therefore would look for a corroborating story from somethere like AP or Reuters before posting a thread about a story they found there.
I'm not so sure about how it is with people who quote Fox News though 😛


As far as Newsweek in general they have been going downhill with their sensationalist covers.
 
No Blankslate, I had it right. The press is overwhelmingly Democrat and it skews and biases their coverage and has for decades.
 
monovillage said:
No Blankslate, I had it right. The press is overwhelmingly Democratic and it skews and biases their coverage and has for decades.
Click to expand...

FTFY again. it check the underlined word.

Yeah in the past before Clinton signed the telecommunications act your argument would have had more weight.

today you are wrong.

The media now fixes stories to get more viewers it doesn't matter if they have to skew it left or right.

If it helps the media to get more viewers by portraying a candidate as more centrist than his record shows so be it done.
If it helps the media to get more viewers by portraying the candidate as a rabid fundamentalist or a rabid radical well that'll be done too. As well at portraying them as either slightly fundamentalist or radical...
 
Last edited:
blankslate said:
FTFY again. it check the underlined word.

Yeah in the past before Clinton signed the telecommunications act your argument would have had more weight.

today you are wrong.

The media now fixes stories to get more viewers it doesn't matter if they have to skew it left or right.
Click to expand...

Stop changing what I say. I said what I meant and I don't want you lying about it.
 
monovillage said:
Stop changing what I say. I said what I meant and I don't want you lying about it.
Click to expand...

I changed one word. You wrote
monovillage said:
overwhelmingly Democrat
Click to expand...
when the grammatically correct term would be overwhelmingly Democratic. Did you pay attention in english class?
Or maybe you like to make that error because the last syllable in the word you like sounds like rat? :hmm:
After all it's the same word choice many republicant commentators make...

What you said is in now in error because...

blankslate said:
While the majority or reporters may lean toward the democratic party, the owners of the stations where they work are probably wealthy. So why would those owners want to hurt the party that wants to give them tax cuts?
Click to expand...

In the past reporters had more freedom to skew their stories how they wanted because there weren't so many media conglomerates. Thanks President Clinton, yeah he fucked up signing the telecommunications act imo.

Now they don't have that much freedom as many stations are owned by a media conglomerate.
 
Last edited:
the obama fad is over. There was never a lot of support for the obama specific to issues. At best he is a media created novelty. The obama's view of the world is a view most americans fail to agree with.
 
waggy said:
this

I do disagree that it does not matter who is in the seat. in reality only thing that changes is what business actually is in charge.

in reality it scares me on what and where we are headed. Obama has set a bad precedent with a few things (witch again he pushed from what bush has done).
Click to expand...

Obama has pushed the envelope that he criticized Bush of doing.

When Congress did not deliver; Bush did an end-around.

Now, that Congress is unable to deliver anything anymore to Obama; he chooses to do an end-around for his proposals rather than obeying the rule of law.
If he does not like it; he finds a way to circumvent the inconvenience of the constitution.

The more Congress has abdicated it's power; the more a president will fill in the void.

And congress can not get it's act together to take it back; they just ignore what happens.

Whether Obama gets re-elected or not; we will start to see much more end- arounds; the precedent has been set that the rejection of a law is no longer an impediment to a goal to implement what the law was intended to do.
 
Last edited:
Obama's gotta go because Republicans obstructed almost everything in their quest to make him a one term president? Seems like it's the GOP that's gotta go
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
So what exactly was Obama supposed to do with a Congress that flat out obstructs everything he's tried to implement thus far?
Click to expand...
Compromise. But this was next to impossible due to those who signed the no tax increase pledge. Boehner's hands were essentially tied by the Tea Party giving him little power to effectively compromise with Democrats or Obama. The power of the Tea Party should not be underestimated.
 
What a cush 2012 Journalistic assignment can now be defined by telling us what is wrong with, Obama, Romney, and the Fibertarian alternative in Gary Johnson. Such Newsweek articles practically write themselves, and the reasons to cite are almost infinite. As the only real problem in writing such an article that can fit in just a magazine thinner than the New York City phone directory, is in paring down the number of sources cited.

The problem now is in convincing we, the American voter, why we should vote for any of those alternatives. As the far harder 2012 Journalistic challenge is to find which of the three is the lesser of all evils.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top