The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

The "outrage" isn't about him going "on a date". It's the fawning coverage...

 

AWWWWW... OBAMA GOES OUT ON A DATE! DROOOOLZZZZZ! :wub: :wub:

 

It's stupid and didn't need reported on at all.

[lostfan]

The "outrage" isn't about him going "on a date". It's the fawning coverage...

 

AWWWWW... OBAMA GOES OUT ON A DATE! DROOOOLZZZZZ!

 

It's stupid and didn't need reported on at all.

No, actually. But, kap, I'm impressed. I didn't know you had direct access to data that my eyes pick up and could read and recall the same things I read.

 

I don't recall seeing any unusual amount of coverage actually. When Bush would fly home to Crawford it'd get reported. When Obama travels, it gets reported. Pretty normal. He's the president.

[kapkomet]

No, actually. But, kap, I'm impressed. I didn't know you had direct access to data that my eyes pick up and could read and recall the same things I read.

 

I don't recall seeing any unusual amount of coverage actually. When Bush would fly home to Crawford it'd get reported. When Obama travels, it gets reported. Pretty normal. He's the president.

I didn't mean what you read, I mean that there shouldn't be any outrage about it at all - other then the fawning about every fart he has.

 

FYI, the story was on all the headline tickers Sunday night/Monday morning, which is just stupid.

[lostfan]

I didn't mean what you read, I mean that there shouldn't be any outrage about it at all - other then the fawning about every fart he has.

 

FYI, the story was on all the headline tickers Sunday night/Monday morning, which is just stupid.

Yeah I agree on the bolded part, that's pretty annoying. But then again, the day Anna Nicole Smith died, North Korea was conducting more tests, and guess which part got a full day's worth of attention, and which one quietly scrolled by the ticker (ironically, that was also the day Obama announced his candidacy, which also scrolled on the same ticker).

[HuskyCaucasian]

Here comes healthcare... strong and hard:

Democrats and the Obama administration are shoving aside issues that divide their party to clear the deck for healthcare reform, which is likely to dominate the rest of the legislative year.

 

In doing so, the administration appears to be learning from the experiences of the Clinton administration, which engaged in divisive intra-party battles over trade and gays in the military as it fought unsuccessfully for healthcare reform. It also reflects a pivot from earlier this year, when the White House brushed off concerns that its agenda was too ambitious.

 

The Obama administration put the Panama free trade agreement negotiated by the Bush administration on the backburner after dozens of lawmakers expressed their displeasure in a May 21 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Weeks ago, it appeared the administration wanted to move soon on Panama, but now the agreement is not expected to be submitted to Congress until Obama outlines a broad strategy on trade.

 

“Healthcare is what’s on everyone’s mind,” said Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), who appreciated what he described as a shift from the administration’s intent to move quickly on the deal. “We should focus on the major issues rather than dealing with something small like the Panama trade agreement.”

 

Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.), who signed the letter to Pelosi and has taken note of the administration pulling back, said Panama would be a distraction to higher-profile issues. “There’s a lot of us in the House that don’t want to see a Bush trade agreement move,” Hare said.

 

Business lobbyists and House aides said they believe the administration changed its strategy on Panama because of healthcare reform.

 

“The sense we’re getting is, the reasons they pulled back is the fear of stirring things up when they need everyone to come together,” one Democratic aide said. The fact that the administration backed off on Panama indicates “they realize the deep concern about stirring up a fight on something that’s nonessential,” the aide said.

 

While Congress will certainly be working on issues other than healthcare reform, Obama has made it clear that getting a health bill done in 2009 is his top domestic agenda priority.

 

Obama last week said, “If we don’t get [healthcare reform] done this year, we’re not going to get it done.”

 

Fresh off passing a climate change bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Pelosi is eyeing a summer vote on the measure this summer. While Obama is committed to addressing global warming, he has talked about healthcare reform far more often.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The "outrage" isn't about him going "on a date". It's the fawning coverage...

 

AWWWWW... OBAMA GOES OUT ON A DATE! DROOOOLZZZZZ! :wub: :wub:

 

It's stupid and didn't need reported on at all.

 

Then you'll be happy to see that on msn.com right now on the front page are links to an article on "A Day in the Life of President Obama" as well as a video of "Grabbing burgers with Obama"

[FlaSoxxJim]

Then you'll be happy to see that on msn.com right now on the front page are links to an article on "A Day in the Life of President Obama" as well as a video of "Grabbing burgers with Obama"

 

My daughter was stoked because it turns out the President gets exactly the same topping on his Five Guys burger as she does.

[kapkomet]

My daughter was stoked because it turns out the President gets exactly the same topping on his Five Guys burger as she does.

That's too funny.

[HuskyCaucasian]

RNCC, please remember that you need include complete quotes:

The National Republican Congressional Committee yesterday issued a provocative fundraising email that hit President Obama on the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. "Iran as a nuclear power. Does that sound appealing to you?" the email asked. "Because it does to President Obama, who, according to The Washington Post, believes that a country flush with oil, '…has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations.'"

 

The NRCC, however, omitted Obama's following statement that he wants to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Here is Obama's full quote, per his interview with the BBC: "Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region."

 

The NRCC email also criticizes the president for not pushing his party to develop more nuclear power for THIS country. From the email: "So to recap, Obama and the Democrats believe an unstable country, which has pledged to wipe Israel off the map and is awash with oil, has legitimate needs for nuclear power. Yet, America which continues to see rising energy prices, does not need nuclear power."

Edited June 3, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[kapkomet]

RNCC, please remember that you need include complete quotes:

 

DNCC, please take the same advice.

[Soxbadger]

I just dont get why people even care what the Media does. The media is there to make money, not to report the news. As capitalists it should be understood that what they report is based on their desire to make money, not on their desire to give information to the public.

 

As such any news report should always be looked at with extreme skepticism as its main purpose is to generate money, not to inform people.

 

So why is Obama getting headlines for nonsense?

 

Because that is what is selling right now.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I just dont get why people even care what the Media does. The media is there to make money, not to report the news. As capitalists it should be understood that what they report is based on their desire to make money, not on their desire to give information to the public.

 

As such any news report should always be looked at with extreme skepticism as its main purpose is to generate money, not to inform people.

 

So why is Obama getting headlines for nonsense?

 

Because that is what is selling right now.

The media is not there just to make money. The media is given an extraordinary role in society; it is specifically protected by the first amendment of the constitution of the united states not so that it can make money, but to allow for an informed populace. The electronic media; television and radio, are able to use the public airwaves at below what that space should reasonably cost because they are expected to perform a public service; to allow for an informed populace. Saying that the media's purpose is to generate profit is to ignore the fact that the government has granted it special permission on repeated occasion on the grounds that it performs a vital public service.

[lostfan]

I just dont get why people even care what the Media does. The media is there to make money, not to report the news. As capitalists it should be understood that what they report is based on their desire to make money, not on their desire to give information to the public.

 

As such any news report should always be looked at with extreme skepticism as its main purpose is to generate money, not to inform people.

 

So why is Obama getting headlines for nonsense?

 

Because that is what is selling right now.

I've said this many times.

[lostfan]

The media is not there just to make money. The media is given an extraordinary role in society; it is specifically protected by the first amendment of the constitution of the united states not so that it can make money, but to allow for an informed populace. The electronic media; television and radio, are able to use the public airwaves at below what that space should reasonably cost because they are expected to perform a public service; to allow for an informed populace. Saying that the media's purpose is to generate profit is to ignore the fact that the government has granted it special permission on repeated occasion on the grounds that it performs a vital public service.

Technically true, but as a corporate entity (or series of entities) its primary motivation/bottom line is to make money. Which explains so many things.

 

If Obama was a Republican, and was as popular as he is now, he would be getting nonsense headlines like "Obama likes cheeseburgers" or "Obama's wife wears a short skirt."

[StrangeSox]

The media is not there just to make money. The media is given an extraordinary role in society; it is specifically protected by the first amendment of the constitution of the united states not so that it can make money, but to allow for an informed populace. The electronic media; television and radio, are able to use the public airwaves at below what that space should reasonably cost because they are expected to perform a public service; to allow for an informed populace. Saying that the media's purpose is to generate profit is to ignore the fact that the government has granted it special permission on repeated occasion on the grounds that it performs a vital public service.

 

What they ought to do isn't necessarily what they actually do.

 

If you don't turn a profit, you'll be out of business. Ergo, media companies are looking to turn profits. I would hope that, as a society, we would value accurate, relevant information and discussion/ debate highly so that the most honest and objective media outlets perform the best, but I think we can clearly see that this isn't the case.

[StrangeSox]

Technically true, but as a corporate entity (or series of entities) its primary motivation/bottom line is to make money. Which explains so many things.

 

If Obama was a Republican, and was as popular as he is now, he would be getting nonsense headlines like "Obama likes cheeseburgers" or "Obama's wife wears a short skirt."

 

Doesn't their fiduciary duty legally obligate them to pursue higher profits?

[lostfan]

What they ought to do isn't necessarily what they actually do.

 

If you don't turn a profit, you'll be out of business. Ergo, media companies are looking to turn profits. I would hope that, as a society, we would value accurate, relevant information and discussion/ debate highly so that the most honest and objective media outlets perform the best, but I think we can clearly see that this isn't the case.

We prefer stories about Bristol Palin's baby mama drama and we like our political news condensed into 5-10 second headlines to meet our attention spans, which collectively are slightly longer than that of a retarded goldfish. We like hearing about Paris Hilton or Rihanna.

 

We protest that this isn't the case, but ratings show otherwise.

[lostfan]

Doesn't their fiduciary duty legally obligate them to pursue higher profits?

Dumb that down for me please

 

lol @ the irony of me asking you to dumb this down, immediately following the last post I made

Edited June 3, 2009 by lostfan

[Soxbadger]

The media is not there just to make money. The media is given an extraordinary role in society; it is specifically protected by the first amendment of the constitution of the united states not so that it can make money, but to allow for an informed populace. The electronic media; television and radio, are able to use the public airwaves at below what that space should reasonably cost because they are expected to perform a public service; to allow for an informed populace. Saying that the media's purpose is to generate profit is to ignore the fact that the government has granted it special permission on repeated occasion on the grounds that it performs a vital public service.

 

I completely disagree with all of this.

 

The reason why its protected by the First Amendment is so that the press would not be intimidated by the govt and therefore could say things against the govt. It had nothing to do with "an informed populace" as the text of the amendment states nothing about the populace or the media having a duty to inform:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

So the point of the Amendment was to prevent the govt from stifling criticism (warranted or not), not about "informing the populace."

 

The second part I have no clue about whether or not they are given the airwaves at a reduced rate.

 

Even if they are I do not consider private entities as being required to "perform a public service" in fact I think that its best the govt stays completely away from the media. If the govt has oversight or is giving breaks, that makes the media less free to do what they want.

 

I dont know that much about this "special permission" either, or what that even relates to.

 

Im not a media expert so if you have further information I would be very interested in it.

[StrangeSox]

Dumb that down for me please

 

lol @ the irony of me asking you to dumb this down, immediately following the last post I made

 

Basically, publicly-held companies have a duty to protect the best interests of their shareholders/ bondholders (unless you're GM! ). So, they're required to *try* to earn a good return-on-investment. I'm not a banker or financial guy, so I could have this completely backwards. ss2k5, nss, ck or some others might be able to explain it better/ correctly.

 

edit: added "try", obviously its not illegal to suck at business and lose money.

Edited June 3, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Basically, publicly-held companies have a duty to protect the best interests of their shareholders/ bondholders (unless you're GM! ). So, they're required to earn a good return-on-investment. I'm not a banker or financial guy, so I could have this completely backwards. ss2k5, nss, ck or some others might be able to explain it better/ correctly.

Oh, I thought that's what you were saying but I wasn't sure. But yeah, absolutely. If you run a large for-profit business and you aren't trying to make profits, you're either a philanthropist, you're extremely generous to your employees, or you're just really dumb.

[Balta1701]

Oh, I thought that's what you were saying but I wasn't sure. But yeah, absolutely. If you run a large for-profit business and you aren't trying to make profits, you're either a philanthropist, you're extremely generous to your employees, or you're just really dumb.

(Checks to see that its the Dem thread)...or, you could just be working as a banker and realizing that you can rape the company when no one's looking and leave the government holding the bill now that all the rules are gone.

[lostfan]

(Checks to see that its the Dem thread)...or, you could just be working as a banker and realizing that you can rape the company when no one's looking and leave the government holding the bill now that all the rules are gone.

You're just pissed you didn't think of it first.

[Soxbadger]

Board of Directors, Corporate Officers, etc. have fiduciary duties,

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-fiduciary-duty

 

While im not sure the duty is expressly to make "profits" the duty would be to run the business in the best interests of the shareholders.

 

So in some limited circumstances you could run a deficit and not be in breach of your fiduciary duty.

 

But generally the directors have a duty to run the company as best as possible for the shareholders, which would be to make the most money, to benefit the shareholders.

[Chet Lemon]

I just dont get why people even care what the Media does. The media is there to make money, not to report the news. As capitalists it should be understood that what they report is based on their desire to make money, not on their desire to give information to the public.

 

As such any news report should always be looked at with extreme skepticism as its main purpose is to generate money, not to inform people.

 

So why is Obama getting headlines for nonsense?

 

Because that is what is selling right now.

 

I fully concur.