Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Grab Your Pitchforks!
- Thread starter Temerit
- Start date
It wasn't that long ago that Newsweek ran this cover with an article by the same guy.
wha'supwit'dat???
wha'supwit'dat???
no
I would call that bias in favor of Democrats and that is not how the news is supposed to be reported. That cover proclaiming Obama the first gay president is hilarious to be honest. I didn't know supporting gay rights made you gay. I wonder why no one in favor of civil rights became black? Perhaps it's because being for their rights doesn't make you anything but a sensible human being.
In the meantime, Obama's Export-Import bank guy promises to continue tax breaks for corporate jets.
From another Non-Disgusting Non-Hater media source.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ges-1-billion-support-for-executive-jets.html
From another Non-Disgusting Non-Hater media source.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ges-1-billion-support-for-executive-jets.html
Temerit said:
I would disagree with you on your assertion that the article is not biased at all. Indeed I would argue it is biased in favour of Obama and misrepresents his track record. In particular I am thinking of the way it presents the liberal critiques of his presidency. It treats them as being infantile and bemoans that if only the liberals could understand the seer like genius of Obama.
A video of Cenk Uygur responding to the article.
http://youtu.be/YMzXrXr1RPg
There were a lot of problems with Cenk's criticism.
He said Obama's policies aren't working. This isn't the case. With the health care reform bill, as shitty as it was, insurance premium increases are limited, you can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, children can stay on their parents plans until age 26, universal insurance will be achieve and medical bankruptcy will be greatly curbed.
He criticized what the fed was doing as if Obama has any control whatsoever over what it does. And he acted like the Frank-Dodd reform bill was never passed.
I can't remember anything else.
He said Obama's policies aren't working. This isn't the case. With the health care reform bill, as shitty as it was, insurance premium increases are limited, you can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, children can stay on their parents plans until age 26, universal insurance will be achieve and medical bankruptcy will be greatly curbed.
He criticized what the fed was doing as if Obama has any control whatsoever over what it does. And he acted like the Frank-Dodd reform bill was never passed.
I can't remember anything else.
Before I address the content of your response, I would remind you that we are discussing this in the context of your assertion that the article in question was not biased at all.
This is a gross distortion. Quite frankly I thought you had more integrity than this. His major critique was the stance the article took that Obama is playing the long game, whereas the people who criticize his policies, from a progressive perspective, are only looking at things in the short term.
The universal coverage of healthcare is something he acknowledges as being an achievement of the reform. However he argues that it is not positive to have people forced to buy healthcare from private insurance companies. On this point I strongly agree that a public option should have been included.
You mean that watered down financial reform? To present this as being sufficiently capable legislative move to address underlying causes of the recession is a debatable stance at best. Economists such as Nebuloussph Stiglitz have cautioned that it is too weak.
Temerit said:
This is a gross distortion. Quite frankly I thought you had more integrity than this. His major critique was the stance the article took that Obama is playing the long game, whereas the people who criticize his policies, from a progressive perspective, are only looking at things in the short term.
Temerit said:
The universal coverage of healthcare is something he acknowledges as being an achievement of the reform. However he argues that it is not positive to have people forced to buy healthcare from private insurance companies. On this point I strongly agree that a public option should have been included.
Temerit said:
You mean that watered down financial reform? To present this as being sufficiently capable legislative move to address underlying causes of the recession is a debatable stance at best. Economists such as Nebuloussph Stiglitz have cautioned that it is too weak.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]His very last words are his policies are nowhere near progressive and not at all successful.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I took this to mean that are not working and not effective. This I would contend.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I agree, and Obama did too, but it is easy to pretend away the dialogue that was taking place at the time. Congress decided not to include it in the bill that was finally passed, Obama supported what was possible. It sucks because it means that single-payer probably isn't coming any time soon, but it's much better than what we had. Considering no such reform had been passed any time in recent history, and past failures to do so by Hillary Clinton for example, I think he does deserve some credit. There were several elements of the bill that the heritage foundation wasn't pushing for as much as Cenk would like to pretend otherwise.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]It is, but it's a start, the bill was completely opposed by Republicans.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I took this to mean that are not working and not effective. This I would contend.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
Scarlet Rose said:
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I agree, and Obama did too, but it is easy to pretend away the dialogue that was taking place at the time. Congress decided not to include it in the bill that was finally passed, Obama supported what was possible. It sucks because it means that single-payer probably isn't coming any time soon, but it's much better than what we had. Considering no such reform had been passed any time in recent history, and past failures to do so by Hillary Clinton for example, I think he does deserve some credit. There were several elements of the bill that the heritage foundation wasn't pushing for as much as Cenk would like to pretend otherwise.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]It is, but it's a start, the bill was completely opposed by Republicans.
Temerit said:
I took it as meaning they are not sufficiently addressing the specified targets. His earlier comments within the video demonstrated that he was not making any such assertion as you are attributing to him. Rather that they are too ineffective.
I am not convinced that Obama ever really wanted the public option to be included in the Health Care Reform. Nor am I impressed with his track record in fighting for progressive legislation. Although I doubt very much that he even is a progressive.
http://www.salon.com...6/21/obama_137/
Edit: Although I guess you are still standing by your earlier claim that the Newsweek article is bias free.
Also, Cenk is being very disingenuous by ignoring the critical role that democrats played in passing Bush era legislation. Republicans on the other hand have been a rigid opposition, with none voting for health care reform, wall street reform, the stimulus and many other pieces of legislation.
So it is only the Republicans standing in the way?
Damn.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote
Damn.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote
To your credit, no, you never exactly said it that way.
But you sure as hell implied it.
But you sure as hell implied it.
In those specific votes I mentioned (well at least healthcare) every single Republican voted against.
But what you're saying only reinforces my point. With the current state of congress, it's amazing that Obama got done what he has gotten done.
But what you're saying only reinforces my point. With the current state of congress, it's amazing that Obama got done what he has gotten done.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
And especially for those assholes in CONGRESS
And especially for those assholes in CONGRESS
Temerit said:
I am not entirely sure what your stance is. As such, I hope you wouldn't mind take a few min to express whether or not you agree with the following three assertions.
Obama is a progressive and seriously wants to introduce progressive legislature which would fundamentally change the way U.S.A political culture operates.
Due to circumstances beyond his control such as the Blue Dog Democrats and the immovable Republican wall, he has been unable to introduce progressive legislature.
As the article asserted he is manipulating the situation in such a way that in the long term his progressive goals will be achieved.
Similar threads
