Barack Obama

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Wow using WorldNetDaily as a source...guess it's better than the FreeRepublic.
Guess this means DailyKaos and EntertainmentTonight are valid sources to. *shrug*

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, why has Obama's legal people reversed the conviction of Black Panther members who were charged and convicted with voter intimidation? There are videos showing them flashing weapons at voters to intimidate them into voting for Obama.

WHY?!!

[cheersm8]

Hi all, just adding a thought. Nothing to do with Barack Obama, but still relative. I'm a Brit, so I'm asking this, as a Brit. Do you Americans ever feel that you country is to big, both geographiclay, and population wise, to ever have a satisfactory 'please all' president? OK OK, I know that many countries do, and all countries are diverse in the attitudes of their populace, but I do feel that the USA has such varying ideals, beliefs wants and don't wants etc, often town by town differences, not just state by state, that having one President could never be a worthy representative of your nations wishes.
So, whoever the luckless soul is who has the presidential seat is going to be dog wipe to some, and candy to others.

[TracyCoxx]

Cheersm8, good question. It takes a president without the audacity to believe that he is the solution to everyone's problems. He should recognize what you say - that America is large and diverse, and also recognize that Americans are capable of solving many of their own problems.

The US is (supposed to be at least) a government for the people, by the people. It was recognized early on that different regions will have different needs. Thats why there are states, and the states are supposed to be largely self governing. The president should also be well aware of the self correcting nature of capitalism. He should strive to keep the government small and lean. Otherwise, they are inefficiently manging what can be better managed by states who can tailor policies for their specific population.

That said, capitalism isn't perfect. And for that, and other things there are places where US govt can and should step in as a stabilizing force. The US government needs to manage foreign policy, the economy and foreign trade. The president is also commander in chief and is therefore responsible for national security. Other than those things, the national government needs to get out of the way.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

1) You are correct, and I think the Internet is doing a horrid thing wrt proper investigative journalism. If opinion can be counted as valid news, and editorializing by the reporter is accepted as fact "news" and "source" become meaningless terms.

2) WND has a deplorable history of fuzzing facts, omitting important bits that don't confirm their intended outcome, fail to cover stories. In short they are only a hair better than the Freepers (the Free Republic).