Nobody respects Obama.

[Diogenes]

Yeah, what was the deal with Romney and the dog in his roof? Meh, didn't really convince me to change my vote. Maybe just the choir preaching to the choir. I see a lot of that. Who cares?

And I saw the obama drug stuff on the news. If he was still doing it, yeah, maybe a problem. But, from what little I heard, I just don't care.

And if the media reported it constantly, as they did the dog on Romney's roof,



(Or Tina Fey saying "I can see Russia from my house)



do you not think over time it's importance would increase in the public consciousness? Do you not know how propaganda works?


You say something derogatory, and your repeat. The first time, you don't get much of a response, but by the time you've repeated it a hundred times, it begins to bite. You say you "Just don't care", but had you listened to it being reported as a big deal, you would have been manipulated into caring.

Shady land deals? Gay partners? Nothing. And I frequent a fair bit of Hannity and the like. I don't *recall* hearing anything about this.

Therefore it does not exist. If the media does not report it, it didn't happen. Hannity is part of the mainstream media, and Roger Ailes keeps him under some control. I could give you links to both the Shady land deals (Look into How Obama bought his Chicago home.) and the Gay Partners, but you don't really seem receptive to hearing about it, so i'll save us both the trouble.

The gay partners thing? Don't care - unless someone got hurt.

If you've kept up with the story, you are well aware that a lot of people appear to have gotten hurt, but again,if the media didn't report it, it didn't happen.

The shady land deals, I would need more info. If true, why wasn't this jumped on by Hannity and folks? Maybe they needed more evidence? And the other stuff? Are there links to Limbaugh and others with this info? I will read up on it. Of course, too late for this go around.

Yes it is. Sounds like it might have been useful information had it gotten reported BEFORE the election, but we had to hear about Romney's dog, and Tina Fey's mockery of Sarah Palin.

I'm not sure how many Cajuns Romney had. From the few I know, it was an even split. Now, your N'awlins Cajuns love Obama. But your country Cajuns, well, that can be a surprisingly tough call.


A friend of ours says he can't wait for Chris Christie and Colin Powell to get the RINO party off the ground so he can vote for them. They are slowly convincing me.

If you think that a RINO party can win without the existing base, you might as well vote directly for the Democrat. It will have the same result, and be more honest.

[Diogenes]

You should read Machiavelli. He asserts that being loved is good, but being feared is best.

Yes but he stated that both was the prefered but only if you have to choose between the two should you choose fear.. Not that fear was prefered [/quote]


You generally DO have to chose between the two. It takes an exceptionally talented man to achieve both.

He also said "Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear"
"My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved."

Exactly. Fear gets you respect. When it does not, it's time to make the fear a reality. The survivors will give you respect thereafter.

[Betruger]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

Yep. Pissing in the little-er guy's flakes won't earn his respect, probably not so much as patient resentment.

[ladajo]

@ D,
Your understanding of fear and respect is jaded.

I would offer that one of the leading casues of conflict is misuse of language and the resultant miscommunication leading to misunderstanding.

You are intent to misuse the words. So be it. You wish to slur slang usage with proper meaning, validating improper use by uneducated propaganda. Ok, but it does not change to actual intent of the words.

Fear is not respect, and respect is not fear, unless it is a Rap song.

I respect my motorcycle, and I also fear it to a degree. They are distincly two different things. But the day I realize that I have lost either respect or fear of it, is the day I will no longer use it.

[Betruger]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

In General usage the word "Respect" has more than one meaning, but in regards to conduct between nations, (Diplomacy) it generally has only a single meaning. "Fear." Nations that do not have some sort of leverage, being it a resource, a strategic position, or military capabilities, do not have to be treated with the same degree of respect as those who do, because there are lesser consequences for treating them with disdain.


People may say they respect electricity, or say they respect explosives, or animals, or any number of things, and the only thing about them that would engender "respect" is the ability to hurt someone who isn't wary.

That notion of "respect" based on admiration, is generally a small sociological interaction sort of thing. When it comes to nations, the word "respect" means "they can be dangerous."

Canada sure fits this description. As that recent blurb reported.

[williatw]

They talked about Romney's dog on his car roof, but they never mention the men who claim to have been Obama's homosexual sex partners. They don't mention his weird real estate deals, or his membership in communist organizations, his drug usage, his drunk driving, his lying on his bar exam, or any number of other details that might make people think worse of him.
The Liberal Democrat Media corporations routinely give Democrat candidates a massive edge in elections, and it has nothing to do with how competent is their candidate. The media is a Democrat Weapon, and that's why Obama got elected.

The people who swing elections are the muddled middle who aren't in to politics. They watch general news and entertainment and generally don't pay attention to specifically political shows. The Liberal Democrat Media complex has virtually the entire demographic of low information voters, and few if any even know who Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is.

For that matter your man Romney must have known about the allegations of bathhouse homosexual love partners.

Don't call him "My Man" because I disliked him intently. He was my LAST choice, and only then because he was the ONLY choice left. Obama is so bad, I would have voted for that Idiot Biden as an improvement.

If your man had had any Cojones he would have ran ads featuring them, interviews etc. If he had proof and didn't have the balls to use it he deserves to lose.

There is a Penalty for a candidate doing such a thing. With the Media doing it FOR Obama, he doesn't have to suffer the penalty, while Romney would have. Again, the Media are the shock troops for Democrats.

There is nothing in the law that says the media is supposed to be without bias. The 1st amendment in theory only says that the government can't interfere with the freedom of speech and the press.

What is in the law is irrelevant to the point. The System of Democracy relies on the electorate having the CORRECT information from which to make a decision. You interfere with the ability of the Electorate to receive accurate facts, and you undermine the legitimacy of the Democratic process.

What the media have been doing is violating the longstanding but unwritten law of providing fair and accurate information necessary to make an informed decision. The public regards them as objective referees, not as players for the other team. It is this manipulation of this public trust which is undermining the well being of the nation, and the media is indirectly responsible for enabling the damage thereby caused.

The media in this country is not now nor was it ever unbiased. Back in the day there were pro-union newspapers and anti-union newspapers, pro civil rights papers and anti-civil rights papers. They reflected the bias and prejudices of their publishers/owners. No other way it would work in a free society.

The Media used to make efforts to be reasonable and fair to both sides, even the side with which they disagreed. They actually took to heart the old adage of "defending someone's right to say it. "


Now they are manipulative little con people covering up the ugly on their side, and fabricating ugly on the other side in an effort to STEER elections in the direction they prefer. Each media personality using their influence, is equal to thousands if not millions of votes for their man.

They simply keep steering us left, because they are left minded, and have the power to manipulate the masses.


It will be fatal to Democracy.[/quote]

If you believe that so much a pox on your party(and the country). Romney had the money, he had the organization (RNC), he had the network (FOX) with its Obama hating talking heads (Sean Hannity, definitely; Bill O'Reilly probably), also Talk Radio (Limbaugh, etc.) & of course the internet; and he had the ammunition (Bathhouse Barry; et. al.). If Obama is this full scale existentialist treat to all you hold near and dear you should have pulled all legal stops to stop him. Doubt if Nixon, Reagan, or even Abe Lincoln would have hesitated; they would have found their Lee Atwater and gone for broke. If you side doesn't have the nuts to do so they you deserve to lose.

[Diogenes]

@ D,
Your understanding of fear and respect is jaded.

I would offer that one of the leading casues of conflict is misuse of language and the resultant miscommunication leading to misunderstanding.

Problematic when a word has multiple meanings and nuance.

You are intent to misuse the words. So be it. You wish to slur slang usage with proper meaning, validating improper use by uneducated propaganda. Ok, but it does not change to actual intent of the words.

This conflation between the two words has some how aroused your ire. Not seeing it, but cannot help but see the evidence of it. You think i'm slurring the meaning, I'm suggesting the meaning itself is slurred, and always has been.

Fear is not respect, and respect is not fear, unless it is a Rap song.

I respect my motorcycle, and I also fear it to a degree. They are distincly two different things. But the day I realize that I have lost either respect or fear of it, is the day I will no longer use it.

What is it about your motorcycle which engenders "respect", in YOUR usage of the term.

Is it wise, and scholarly? Does it comport itself with a kind of graceful dignity?

[Diogenes]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

In General usage the word "Respect" has more than one meaning, but in regards to conduct between nations, (Diplomacy) it generally has only a single meaning. "Fear." Nations that do not have some sort of leverage, being it a resource, a strategic position, or military capabilities, do not have to be treated with the same degree of respect as those who do, because there are lesser consequences for treating them with disdain.


People may say they respect electricity, or say they respect explosives, or animals, or any number of things, and the only thing about them that would engender "respect" is the ability to hurt someone who isn't wary.

That notion of "respect" based on admiration, is generally a small sociological interaction sort of thing. When it comes to nations, the word "respect" means "they can be dangerous."

Canada sure fits this description. As that recent blurb reported.

For many Americans, the Canadians are merely a reflection of themselves. They pay little attention to the distinctions between the two countries and their citizenry. They have far more in common than they do in distinction.

[Diogenes]

If you believe that so much a pox on your party(and the country). Romney had the money, he had the organization (RNC), he had the network (FOX) with its Obama hating talking heads (Sean Hannity, definitely; Bill O'Reilly probably), also Talk Radio (Limbaugh, etc.) & of course the internet;

You think Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly balance all the rest of the Television channels, Movies and Magazines? You sir, are ignorant. (And apparently intent on remaining so.)

and he had the ammunition (Bathhouse Barry; et. al.). If Obama is this full scale existentialist treat to all you hold near and dear you should have pulled all legal stops to stop him. Doubt if Nixon, Reagan, or even Abe Lincoln would have hesitated; they would have found their Lee Atwater and gone for broke. If you side doesn't have the nuts to do so they you deserve to lose.

Romney was P*ssy in a fight with a thug. He was also too nice to realize the Media were utterly his enemy. His Rino faction has the money and connections to win nominations, (The country club wing has the bulk of the party money) but insufficient balls to make a fight of it.

You talk about this like it's a football game with the notion that one side loses and one side wins, and that next year they get to play again. The notion that the country loses and people suffer and die as a result is simply not on your radar. What this says to me is that you simply haven't the grasp of the topic sufficient to warrant a discussion with you.

[rj40]

Thanks for the links re: Obama being gay. I totally missed this one. Of note to me is that at least one of the links point to a David Frum article ridiculing the belief that Obama is gay. I can see why Fox would not report. And the mention of "convenient" deaths. Hmmmm... For me, I don't find this convincing. Some folks on the internet said...whatever. And I can understand why Romney would not have bothered either. It's...uh...interesting. Gay and implied murder. Fascinating. Unbelievable, but fascinating what people will believe, or seriously consider.

It reminds me of the all the bad stuff I heard about Bush and Iraq from the left. But for some reason he was never prosecuted for his crimes. All sorts of nasty websites. Some guy said this or so and so has proof of that.

I see much of this as fodder for folks who already agree. Just self reinforcing. It will change few minds, but it will make each side angrier. That's a big reason why I cannot watch MSNBC or Fox anymore. I used to watch Stossel, but his audience and topics just reinforce what they they came expecting to see. All of this can be like watching a show about Newtons laws of motion. After awhile the point has been made. But the show goes on. "Look! It is next week and they still work! See you next week when we'll do it again."

[Diogenes]

Thanks for the links re: Obama being gay.

It is but one of many i've seen since 2008. For awhile, they were so ubiquitous that I found it incredible other people hadn't heard of it.

I totally missed this one. Of note to me is that at least one of the links point to a David Frum article ridiculing the belief that Obama is gay.

My experience with reading Frum is that he is always wrong.

I can see why Fox would not report. Is it libel when you write it and slander when you say it?

I dunno, is the condition of being "gay" considered a bad thing nowadays? If you are one of the people who claim it to be "normal" then it's a hard argument to call it "slander."

And the mention of "convenient" deaths. Hmmmm... For me, I don't find this convincing. Some folks on the internet said...whatever. And I can understand why Romney would not have bothered either. It's...uh...interesting. Gay and implied murder. Fascinating. Unbelievable, but fascinating what people will believe, or seriously consider.

Dismissing it without serious consideration is just as much of a knee jerk reaction as believing it without serious consideration.

It reminds me of the all the bad stuff I heard about Bush and Iraq from the left. But for some reason he was never prosecuted for his crimes. All sorts of nasty websites. Some guy said this or so and so has proof of that.

One or more people claim to have participated in or witnessed homosexual acts by Obama. They are identified by name, and are sticking to their story. Seems like a bit more proof than can simply be waved away by asserting "Bush did something too."

I assure you, if it were Bush, or Cheny, or any Republican who had been accused of such a thing, the media would repeat it endlessly in an effort to damage them. This speaks to my main point; That those people whom the American people trust to give them accurate information, are really partisan operatives intent on manipulating the Electoral system.

I see much of this as fodder for folks who already agree. Just self reinforcing. It will change few minds, but it will make each side angrier.

If it were reported to the same extent as Romney's Dog on his roof, it would have cost Obama the election. Rumors of Republican's being gay are ALWAYS broadcast as begging the question.Again, the point here is that the Media covers up ugly information about Democrats, and Manufactures it against Republicans.

They aren't objective, they are partisan and using their positions of influence to tamper with the election process.

That's a big reason why I cannot watch MSNBC or Fox anymore. I used to watch Stossel, but his audience and topics just reinforce what they they came expecting to see.

I think Stossel actually makes inroads into the mindsets of nonpolitical individuals. He simply doesn't do so in sufficient numbers to have any beneficial consequences. Also, many cannot connect the dots between policy and results, and so his lessons are generally lost on such people.

They may agree with him that something is silly, but it doesn't translate into a need to change governmental policy. His message is too abstract for them to "get" it.


Anyway, did you bother looking up how Obama bought his Chicago home? In this case it's not witness testimony, there are actual records of the dubious (seemingly corrupt) means by which he accomplished it.


Had the media reported it, (and the Blagoyavich business) it would have damaged his political image. That's why they did not report it, though it be pretty easy to establish as a valid issue.

[williatw]

Thanks for the links re: Obama being gay. I totally missed this one. Of note to me is that at least one of the links point to a David Frum article ridiculing the belief that Obama is gay. I can see why Fox would not report. And the mention of "convenient" deaths. Hmmmm... For me, I don't find this convincing. Some folks on the internet said...whatever. And I can understand why Romney would not have bothered either. It's...uh...interesting. Gay and implied murder. Fascinating. Unbelievable, but fascinating what people will believe, or seriously consider.

It reminds me of the all the bad stuff I heard about Bush and Iraq from the left. But for some reason he was never prosecuted for his crimes. All sorts of nasty websites. Some guy said this or so and so has proof of that.

I see much of this as fodder for folks who already agree. Just self reinforcing. It will change few minds, but it will make each side angrier. That's a big reason why I cannot watch MSNBC or Fox anymore. I used to watch Stossel, but his audience and topics just reinforce what they they came expecting to see. All of this can be like watching a show about Newtons laws of motion. After awhile the point has been made. But the show goes on. "Look! It is next week and they still work! See you next week when we'll do it again."

The point is it was a tool that Romney and the Republicans could have used against Obama, but lacked the nuts to. Don't know whether the "bathhouse Barry" allegations are true or not, but there is the curious thing about how next to nothing is known about Obama's relationships (if any) with women prior to his marrying Michelle at I think 27 or so. Maybe it would have worked like the Willey Horton ads maybe not....point is he didn't try. They didn't seem to have the balls to do what they had to do to win. Obama in 2012 was beatable, yes Romney was a lackluster uninspiring candidate, but a lot of people were tired of Obama's hope and change shtick combined with a weak economy. I got the general impression that Romney just thought he was going to win anyway and didn’t need to tarnish himself by fighting “dirty”.

[williatw]

Romney was P*ssy in a fight with a thug. He was also too nice to realize the Media were utterly his enemy. His Rino faction has the money and connections to win nominations, (The country club wing has the bulk of the party money) but insufficient balls to make a fight of it.

You talk about this like it's a football game with the notion that one side loses and one side wins, and that next year they get to play again. The notion that the country loses and people suffer and die as a result is simply not on your radar. What this says to me is that you simply haven't the grasp of the topic sufficient to warrant a discussion with you.

Well P*ssy usually lose fights with a thug, that why it is better to be the later in a fight than the former. If you are in a fight you fight to win, or don't fight at all. That is why Republicans had their Lee Atwater; you can always apologize for Willey Horton after you win. Or Obama and his Rom Emmanuel. I don't think it is a "football game" far from it, nations rise and fall based on the outcome of elections. That is the morale justification for fighting with dirty politics, that the stakes are sufficiently high that one can't afford to be a nice effete aristocratic drawing room gentlemen like your Romney thought he was. Look at what the NRA has been able to do, which only has a fraction of the numbers & resources the Republican have, to expand gun rights, fighting against gun control, in spite of the implacable hatred of the main stream media. The difference is they are led by people like Wayne Lappiere who do have a pair, don't care whether they are "liked" or not, and will fight like tigers for what they believe in. Contrast that with the NRA decades ago trying to accommodate themselves to gun control, even supporting various measures taking the gun control people at their word, that they did "respect" gun owners, only to be betrayed by them and vilified anyway.

[hanelyp]

re: Obama being gay, against the tapestry of everything else known about him I consider it insignificant.

With such issues as
- Close connections to an unrepentant terrorist, and a racist America hating pastor.
- Being raised in a 3rd world country by a non US citizen.
- Lines such as "spreading the wealth around" and higher taxes in the name of "fairness".

[Diogenes]

Well P*ssy usually lose fights with a thug, that why it is better to be the former in a fight than the later. If you are in a fight you fight to win, or don't fight at all. That is why Republicans had their Lee Atwater; you can always apologize for Willey Horton after you win. Or Obama and his Rom Emmanuel. I don't think it is a "football game" far from it, nations rise and fall based on the outcome of elections. That is the morale justification for fighting dirty politics, that the stakes are sufficiently high that one can't afford to be a nice effete aristocratic drawing room gentlemen like your Romney thought he was. Look at what the NRA has been able to do, which only has a fraction of the numbers & resources the Republican have, to expand gun rights, fighting against gun control, in spite of the implacable hatred of the main stream media. The difference is they are led by people like Wayne Lappiere who do have a pair, don't care whether they are "liked" or not, and will fight like tigers for what they believe in. Contrast that with the NRA decades ago trying to accommodate themselves to gun control, even supporting various measures taking the gun control people at their word, that they did "respect" gun owners, only to be betrayed by them and vilified anyway.

I see nothing in your statement with which I disagree. Romney thought he had a lock, and simply didn't fight like his life depended on it. Obama had the advantage of executive position and incumbency, and Romney simply refused to drag him down into the mud.


In Politics, the Marquis of Queensberry rules will get you killed.