• 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

boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
I saw this at a number of locations over the weekend and thought the cover was a fabrication. Come to find out it's real. This is the cover of the current Newsweek. I'm totally shocked and I'm not saying that for effect. If the media turns against Obama, he's gone. Without their support he's a one term president.

The article is not a puff piece. It's a slam of the man, his policies and his numerous failures.

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.
Click to expand...


HitTheRoad.jpg
 
Makes me wonder who they propose since they hit out at Romney a few weeks ago.


I'm realizing that Newsweek is becoming far less relevant for what they write in their magazines and known now for their covers. I actually get this magazine ( no idea why, it comes for free) and I've been finding less and less to read in it over the past several months, seems 2012 has been a poor year for them.
 
Demo24 said:
Makes me wonder who they propose since they hit out at Romney a few weeks ago.


I'm realizing that Newsweek is becoming far less relevant for what they write in their magazines and known now for their covers. I actually get this magazine ( no idea why, it comes for free) and I've been finding less and less to read in it over the past several months, seems 2012 has been a poor year for them.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised they slammed Romney as they've leaned heavily left for as long as I can remember. Maybe they're just floundering around trying to find a new market with an anti-Obama cover. Trying to survive. Print media is pretty much dead although I don't think it will ever go away in its entirety.
 
boomerang said:
I'm not surprised they slammed Romney as they've leaned heavily left for as long as I can remember. Maybe they're just floundering around trying to find a new market with an anti-Obama cover. Trying to survive. Print media is pretty much dead although I don't think it will ever go away in its entirety.
Click to expand...

Yeah they tend to lean left nearly all the time, but can generally backup what they say. Can be amusing at times.

My guess is just trying to get passersby with flashy covers. Ever since their redesign though its been horrible to read.
 
The sad thing is that as right as the points, there's no alternative at the moment that's going to be any better.

This election is far more calming to me than the prior. 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. When you realize it doesn't matter much you stop getting emotionally invested.

Upon further considering I find Niall's article very uninteresting. He admits to being a partisan hack in the first sentence, referring to having "lost" when Obama got in office, using the lingo of a sports fan, then admits he was on McCain's team. If after 8 years of seeing Bush in office he still thought another GOP four years ago was a good idea he's got no credibility. The rest of his article is basically just finding random things to hate Obama on, some relevant, some completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
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. When you realize it doesn't matter much you stop getting emotionally invested.
Click to expand...

Really good post Dop



Im not surprised at the article in the sense that magazines and news organizations for generations have included opposition pieces. Media has slowly eroded over the last 25 years to demographic pandering plain and simple. Marketing driven ANYTHING is not news.

In regards to the actual article there are many people who are dissatisfied with Obama. Alternatives as yoda would say have we not.
 
Last edited:
Doppel said:
The sad thing is that as right as the points, there's no alternative at the moment that's going to be any better.

This election is far more calming to me than the prior. 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. When you realize it doesn't matter much you stop getting emotionally invested.

Upon further considering I find Niall's article very uninteresting. He admits to being a partisan hack in the first sentence, referring to having "lost" when Obama got in office, using the lingo of a sports fan, then admits he was on McCain's team. If after 8 years of seeing Bush in office he still thought another GOP four years ago was a good idea he's got no credibility. The rest of his article is basically just finding random things to hate Obama on, some relevant, some completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I've sometimes wonder how Bush became the face of the GOP. It's been said numerous times that the Bush policies and the Obama policies are very similar. IMO, Obama has greatly intensified them. How then, is it that the answer is a Dem candidate, and one that has held the office for four years with an overall worsening of conditions? How is it that a Dem with no budget proposal, with no record to run on is better than a candidate from the party of his predecessor?

GOP = Bush
Bush = Bad
Therefore GOP = Bad
Obama = Bush on steroids
Obama = Good

Does not compute unless you factor in that the party is what matters the most. Which is obviously the underlying principle.

It used to be that the office of the Presidency was one of limited power. One branch of the government and all that. What has changed is the casual means with which the rule of law is determined by the President and not Congress. So while in the past I may have agreed with you, I now don't agree that who holds the highest office is not of great consequence. Our government is gradually shifting towards the rule of one and we're sitting on our hands allowing it to happen. And yes, I know, it's OK if it's your candidate. But is it really?
 
boomerang said:
I've sometimes wonder how Bush became the face of the GOP. It's been said numerous times that the Bush policies and the Obama policies are very similar. IMO, Obama has greatly intensified them. How then, is it that the answer is a Dem candidate, and one that has held the office for four years with an overall worsening of conditions? How is it that a Dem with no budget proposal, with no record to run on is better than a candidate from the party of his predecessor?

GOP = Bush
Bush = Bad
Therefore GOP = Bad
Obama = Bush on steroids
Obama = Good

Does not compute unless you factor in that the party is what matters the most. Which is obviously the underlying principle.
Click to expand...

Of course party matters most. As your posts in P&N regularly demonstrate, criticizing one's own team when they do wrong is sacrilege and must be avoided at all costs.

And yes, I know, it's OK if it's your candidate. But is it really?
Click to expand...

For you, yes, it's OK if it's your candidate.
 
boomerang said:
I saw this at a number of locations over the weekend and thought the cover was a fabrication. Come to find out it's real. This is the cover of the current Newsweek. I'm totally shocked and I'm not saying that for effect. If the media turns against Obama, he's gone. Without their support he's a one term president.

The article is not a puff piece. It's a slam of the man, his policies and his numerous failures.

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go




HitTheRoad.jpg
Click to expand...
Do you agree with the article? Or are you posting it because you just think it's a point for your team?
 
boomerang said:
I've sometimes wonder how Bush became the face of the GOP. It's been said numerous times that the Bush policies and the Obama policies are very similar. IMO, Obama has greatly intensified them. How then, is it that the answer is a Dem candidate, and one that has held the office for four years with an overall worsening of conditions? How is it that a Dem with no budget proposal, with no record to run on is better than a candidate from the party of his predecessor?

GOP = Bush
Bush = Bad
Therefore GOP = Bad
Obama = Bush on steroids
Obama = Good

Does not compute unless you factor in that the party is what matters the most. Which is obviously the underlying principle.

It used to be that the office of the Presidency was one of limited power. One branch of the government and all that. What has changed is the casual means with which the rule of law is determined by the President and not Congress. So while in the past I may have agreed with you, I now don't agree that who holds the highest office is not of great consequence. Our government is gradually shifting towards the rule of one and we're sitting on our hands allowing it to happen. And yes, I know, it's OK if it's your candidate. But is it really?
Click to expand...

I think it mostly just comes down to not liking the other team using your own strategies to beat you. Oh, and he looks black..cant have that.

Or maybe Bush just had an easier time communicating with his sheeple 😛
 
Demo24 said:
Makes me wonder who they propose since they hit out at Romney a few weeks ago.


I'm realizing that Newsweek is becoming far less relevant for what they write in their magazines and known now for their covers. I actually get this magazine ( no idea why, it comes for free) and I've been finding less and less to read in it over the past several months, seems 2012 has been a poor year for them.
Click to expand...

maybe they are coming to understand both fucking suck.


i really think the 2 party system is failing the US. well throw in greed and curruption
 
I can agree with a lot of the criticisms listed about Obama in the piece however to represent that Romney has anything like an actual plan (or even who's plan that might be) is dishonest. He has not made a convincing case for his limited/vague proposals and the ones that he's made are conservative window dressing (repeal Obamacare, etc..).
 
boomerang said:
I've sometimes wonder how Bush became the face of the GOP. It's been said numerous times that the Bush policies and the Obama policies are very similar. IMO, Obama has greatly intensified them. How then, is it that the answer is a Dem candidate, and one that has held the office for four years with an overall worsening of conditions? How is it that a Dem with no budget proposal, with no record to run on is better than a candidate from the party of his predecessor?

GOP = Bush
Bush = Bad
Therefore GOP = Bad
Obama = Bush on steroids
Obama = Good

Does not compute unless you factor in that the party is what matters the most. Which is obviously the underlying principle.

It used to be that the office of the Presidency was one of limited power. One branch of the government and all that. What has changed is the casual means with which the rule of law is determined by the President and not Congress. So while in the past I may have agreed with you, I now don't agree that who holds the highest office is not of great consequence. Our government is gradually shifting towards the rule of one and we're sitting on our hands allowing it to happen. And yes, I know, it's OK if it's your candidate. But is it really?
Click to expand...

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).
 
The reason this is so surprising is because of who it is they are blasting. This is like the DNC blasting Obama on the front page of their website.
 
So, a Newsweek cover story would never be the point of a thread started by the OP unless that story blasted the same guy/party he opposes. Otherwise Newsweek is a joke and not to be taken seriously?

Wow... it's refreshingly pathetic to see someone's biases so blatantly showcased.
 
zsdersw said:
So, a Newsweek cover story would never be the point of a thread started by the OP unless that story blasted the same guy/party he opposes. Otherwise Newsweek is a joke and not to be taken seriously?

Wow... it's refreshingly pathetic to see someone's biases so blatantly showcased.
Click to expand...
Newsweek has always been considered a liberal rag and lost all credibility years ago imo. Given their history, I'm actually quite surprised that they did a hit piece on Obama. Perhaps they're finally concerned about their image?
 
Magazines don't write articles. People do.

Newsweek didn't "do a hit piece" on Obama, a Republican columnist who used to be an advisor to John McCain did so.

Why did they put it on the cover? Controversy sells. Nothing more to it than that.
 
Texashiker said:
So we attack the person, rather then addressing the facts?
Click to expand...

How am I attacking anyone?

I haven't read the article, and I didn't bring up the term "hit piece". I'm just saying that there should be no bewilderment that Newsweek has an anti-Obama piece, when Newsweek publishes opinion pieces by Republicans.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Newsweek has always been considered a liberal rag and lost all credibility years ago imo. Given their history, I'm actually quite surprised that they did a hit piece on Obama. Perhaps they're finally concerned about their image?
Click to expand...

If they lost all credibility, why should their piece on Obama be taken seriously? I'm just sick of the double standard; that a publication only has credibility when they criticize those you oppose.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
How am I attacking anyone?

I haven't read the article, and I didn't bring up the term "hit piece". I'm just saying that there should be no bewilderment that Newsweek has an anti-Obama piece, when Newsweek publishes opinion pieces by Republicans.
Click to expand...

If we want real change in government, we need to realize there is no real difference between the democrats and republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top