hbo's "newsroom"

[dayman]

Thank you B. TheNewBills and NoSaint have offered several examples of this phenomenon throughout this thread. Even if people don't want to be preached to by the media or don't believe they have been influenced by 'Newsroom' type propaganda, they frequently are. It's hard to avoid (and most don't even try) in our 24x7 information culture. Here's another example:

 

 

 

Wow, so this particular 12% of Congress is the main reason for its dis-functionality?? I guess I didn't realize that prior to 2010 Congress was all hugs and kumbaya. It's too bad Congress isn't as harmonious as in 1995 when they SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for 3 weeks over the budget battle! Your premise above is simply nonsense and more evidence that you are just regurgitating (intentional or otherwise) the successful campaign to paint all opposition to Obama as "radical ideas from unreasonable Tea Partiers".

 

If you want a reason why Congress has become less functional over time it's because of resentments from multiple events that have built upon each other going back decades (Watergate, '92 election, Ken Starr's scandal hunting, '94 Republican Revolution/'95 Shutdown, Clinton Impeachment, 2000 election dispute, Bush & Obama both abusing recess appointments, battles over SC nominees, Iraq, the ACA, etc).

 

 

 

 

We would kill for the '95 Congress. Did things come to a head? Yes. Did things get worked out? Yes. Compare that to today.

 

And this whole % of Congress thing is getting old. I'm basically being polite by focusing on the Tea Party in this discussion b/c I don't want to turn this into a partisan **** throwing contest. I want to focus on the aspect of the GOP that I think is counter productive and not the GOP generally. But we all know the real issue is not the most extreme of the GOP...but the hold their sentiment has over the "active core GOP base" and thus what used to be "reasonable Republican Congressman." It's about the Tea Party's role in radicalizing the rest of the GOP to the point of nonsense b/c they have to play along ... and the lack of stones one time reasonable GOP members have (for example John Boehner) to stand up and tell them "Yes, I hear you, but we're going to behave and you are going to participate and we're going to speak with the other side in order to legitimately compromise a deal to move us forward."

 

 

 

And I like how at the end you, like everybody I've even met, deny self-identifying with them. You defend them, you agree with them and think they are great, but you aren't one of them. "No no, not me. I'm not a Tea Party guy." LOL...is there a reason nobody associates with them including you?

Edited July 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[NoSaint]

Thank you B. TheNewBills and NoSaint have offered several examples of this phenomenon throughout this thread. Even if people don't want to be preached to by the media or don't believe they have been influenced by 'Newsroom' type propaganda, they frequently are. It's hard to avoid (and most don't even try) in our 24x7 information culture. Here's another example:

 

 

 

Wow, so this particular 12% of Congress is the main reason for its dis-functionality?? I guess I didn't realize that prior to 2010 Congress was all hugs and kumbaya. It's too bad Congress isn't as harmonious as in 1995 when they SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for 3 weeks over the budget battle! Your premise above is simply nonsense and more evidence that you are just regurgitating (intentional or otherwise) the successful campaign to paint all opposition to Obama as "radical ideas from unreasonable Tea Partiers".

 

If you want a reason why Congress has become less functional over time it's because of resentments from multiple events that have built upon each other going back decades (Watergate, '92 election, Ken Starr's scandal hunting, '94 Republican Revolution/'95 Shutdown, Clinton Impeachment, 2000 election dispute, Bush & Obama both abusing recess appointments, battles over SC nominees, Iraq, the ACA, etc).

 

 

 

Huh? Now it's my Tea Party? Are you sure? I haven't seen any royalty checks yet.

 

to be fair, i just dont particularly care for the ones ive been exposed to. im not crying that they will ruin the entire free world. from what ive seen a good chunk seem to have bigger balls than brains. which is well and good, and sometimes what makes america great. im just not seeing the greatness here. ive asked you guys about a half dozen times to offer some of it up.... and i just keep getting insulted.

 

i get how the media works, and i think critically (better some days than others!). if we can get past that, and move on from the "you just dont get it" nonsense.... I understand that ideals dont need a singular leader but there are a number of people that have been exhalted into legislative power. of the ones that have been given that designation, regardless of if you consider them leaders or representatives, or just ordinary joes fighting the cause or anything else - i am curious which would be the ones you would point to if someone wanted to get an idea of what its all about. who has shown policies that embody the ideals well, and communicates them effectively? Whether its one or a few, or..... All I get is disowning of people whenever i try to talk to anyone about this. if i bring up specific names - that person is suddenly a dumb decoy, or isnt what its all about... while i enjoy some of the basic principles of the movement, this lack of great men that i find with it does in fact worry me. that really makes me a brainwashed 5th grader? good lord.

[KD in CA]

We would kill for the '95 Congress. Did things come to a head? Yes. Did things get worked out? Yes. Compare that to today.

 

And this whole % of Congress thing is getting old. I'm basically being polite by focusing on the Tea Party in this discussion b/c I don't want to turn this into a partisan **** throwing contest. I want to focus on the aspect of the GOP that I think is counter productive and not the GOP generally. But we all know the real issue is not the most extreme of the GOP...but the hold their sentiment has over the "active core GOP base" and thus what used to be "reasonable Republican Congressman." It's about the Tea Party's role in radicalizing the rest of the GOP to the point of nonsense b/c they have to play along ... and the lack of stones one time reasonable GOP members have (for example John Boehner) to stand up and tell them "Yes, I hear you, but we're going to behave and you are going to participate and we're going to speak with the other side in order to legitimately compromise a deal to move us forward."

Of course it's 'getting old' because it flies in the face of your ridiculous premise. But it's a fact and I see it's finally gotten you to admit you are just a partisan shill who blames everything on Republicans and assigns no blame at all to the WH.

 

 

And I like how at the end you, like everybody I've even met, deny self-identifying with them. You defend them, you agree with them and think they are great, but you aren't one of them. "No no, not me. I'm not a Tea Party guy." LOL...is there a reason nobody associates with them including you?

First, I haven't defended anyone. I have criticized your characterizations and generalizations. That's not the same thing. Second, where have I said or inferred anyone in Washington is "great"? Really, please point it out because maybe I need to be in rehab or something. Pretty sure I haven't described anyone in Washington as 'great' is a very long time.

 

I don't actually know what a 'Tea Partier' is supposed to be because all I ever hear about them is nonsensical mud-slinging such as I've described above by the media and such as you are doing in this thread. I'm not a member of any political party or movement. Rather than getting hung up on labels, why can't you just discuss the particulars?

 

Do I think our country is completely out of control on spending and that we have put our country on an unsustainable path because of it? Yes

Do I think our elected officials have completely abandon responsibility in favor of personal gain? Yes.

Do I think being $15T in debt and climbing is a problem and am I appalled that this gets a fraction of the attention as 'gay marriage' or a dozen other political topics? Yes

Do I think liberals completely ignoring the debt a generation after they were in hysterics over Reagan's $2T debt is incredibly irresponsible and hypocritical? Yes

 

Feel free to share your responses.

[3rdnlng]

Does anyone know if the House has passed a budget in the last three years or so? How about the Senate?

[dayman]

Of course it's 'getting old' because it flies in the face of your ridiculous premise. But it's a fact and I see it's finally gotten you to admit you are just a partisan shill who blames everything on Republicans and assigns no blame at all to the WH.

 

 

 

First, I haven't defended anyone. I have criticized your characterizations and generalizations. That's not the same thing. Second, where have I said or inferred anyone in Washington is "great"? Really, please point it out because maybe I need to be in rehab or something. Pretty sure I haven't described anyone in Washington as 'great' is a very long time.

 

I don't actually know what a 'Tea Partier' is supposed to be because all I ever hear about them is nonsensical mud-slinging such as I've described above by the media and such as you are doing in this thread. I'm not a member of any political party or movement. Rather than getting hung up on labels, why can't you just discuss the particulars?

 

Do I think our country is completely out of control on spending and that we have put our country on an unsustainable path because of it? Yes

Do I think our elected officials have completely abandon responsibility in favor of personal gain? Yes.

Do I think being $15T in debt and climbing is a problem and am I appalled that this gets a fraction of the attention as 'gay marriage' or a dozen other political topics? Yes

Do I think liberals completely ignoring the debt a generation after they were in hysterics over Reagan's $2T debt is incredibly irresponsible and hypocritical? Yes

 

Feel free to share your responses.

 

1) Yes sort of

2) Not entirely ... even the completely retarded "far right" (as distinguished from "the right") think they're helping. And the personal gain aspect while obviously true in some circumstances is overblown IMO.

3) Of course it's a problem

4) Nobody in Washington ignores the debt. Different ideas on how to address it.

 

 

You deny characterizations of something that you don't ...uh...even know what it is supposed to be? Why don't you just talk straight for a change and quite waiving in the wind. The "tea party" is not the victim of some unholy and ungodly media attack. Hell the tea party was in large part propelled by the media in the first place to help it take off once it got started. I've hated the Tea Party long before it became popular to do so, b/c I hate idiots waiving around a Constitution (who don't have a clue what is in it or what it means as interpreted by the courts) and I hate extremists. So yes, there are people who straight up dislike the Tea Party...not b/c of the "media." Just b/c people talk badly of it, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. In many instances, it just means they deserve it. Which they do. Elect better leaders, maybe they'll catch a break.

 

The bottom line is you SHOULD be disgusted at the way Washington is running and you should condemn any rhetoric or candidate who is going to continue a firm "my way or the highway" attitude. As I said over and over, THAT'S the unifying theme to the Tea Party. Attitude. And it produces a bunch of idiots in Congress, and then a sentiment that pulls the ENTIRE GOP closer to the fringe and further away from the TRUE American people...people somewhere near the middle whether leaning right or left.

 

Simply put, the Tea Party has scared people like John McCain, like the old John Boehner, etc...they're neutered. And the fact is to address our issues we are going to have to reach across the isle. And they can't, if they try the'll just get the boot (they should just do it anyway btw). China's leaders are looking at us in awe that we aren't coming together in a time where it's more necessary than ever. We're a joke b/c we can't work things out and the most contributing factor to that is extremist right wing ideals. That is just the way it is.

Edited July 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[GG]

To be more accurate w/r/t the Tea Party: they're moderate in goals and philosophy (largely), but oh-so-crazy extremist when it comes to the practical matters like, oh, tying budget negotiations to a debt ceiling increase and playing ridiculous brinksmanship with it to the point where US debt is downgraded...

 

In the end, the Russian Roulette paid off for them.

 

And yet, again no one is willing to address the reason for the Tea Party's birth as the antidote to what the Hill became prior to 2010.

[dayman]

Does anyone know if the House has passed a budget in the last three years or so? How about the Senate?

 

 

And to comment on this so as not to brush it off. Absolutely fair point. By no means is the letf not a contributing factor, and in need of some better leadership. It absolutely swings both ways I'm not pointing my finger at one side or the other exclusively. But I am pointing my finger at extremists making it impossible to get anywhere and the most active and influential extremists in politics today are the "tea party" and/or the "far right"...ostrasize them and the country can get working at finding some sense of balance. Which would include the damn Democrats compromising some of the issues they resist compromise with.

Edited July 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

And to comment on this so as not to brush it off. Absolutely fair point. By no means is the letf not a contributing factor, and in need of some better leadership. It absolutely swings both ways I'm not pointing my finger at one side or the other exclusively. But I am pointing my finger at extremists making it impossible to get anywhere and the most active and influential extremists in politics today are the "tea party" and/or the "far right"..

 

And Obama.

[3rdnlng]

And to comment on this so as not to brush it off. Absolutely fair point. By no means is the letf not a contributing factor, and in need of some better leadership. It absolutely swings both ways I'm not pointing my finger at one side or the other exclusively. But I am pointing my finger at extremists making it impossible to get anywhere and the most active and influential extremists in politics today are the "tea party" and/or the "far right"...ostrasize them and the country can get working at finding some sense of balance. Which would include the damn Democrats compromising some of the issues they resist compromise with.

 

When Santelli had this moment is when the Tea Party got its start. His message resonated and people started coming together who felt the same way. At some point in time when what is going on is just flat out wrong someone needs to be there to yell "stop". The Tea Party has proposed an intervention and in interventions you must stand firm.

 

 

[dayman]

And Obama.

 

No doubt Obama too. It would be nice if we had a truly great president, but we aren't going to get one any time soon and maybe never again. Hell maybe it's impossible to even be a great president these days. We certainly haven't even had any "serious contenders" as of late that would come close. There's no savior looming. There won't be one man. It will take a coalition of cooperative Americans willing to be level headed and somewhat moderate in their approach and expectations even if their perfect world result would be extreme...you can believe that a somewhat radical change is necessary but you can't throw a fit when reality kicks in and you have to work with other people who have different views.

 

When Santelli had this moment is when the Tea Party got its start. His message resonated and people started coming together who felt the same way. At some point in time when what is going on is just flat out wrong someone needs to be there to yell "stop". The Tea Party has proposed an intervention and in interventions you must stand firm.

 

 

youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA

 

LOL I don't know whether or not that's "when it started" but he was certainly loud and obnoxious and blabbering away there. So I'll give him credit. Congratulations to that man. What a difference he's made.

Edited July 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

Simply put, the Tea Party has scared people like John McCain, like the old John Boehner, etc...they're neutered. And the fact is to address our issues we are going to have to reach across the isle.

 

Let's revisit something very simple. Stay with me.

 

Did the Tea Party exist prior to the election of Barack Obama? No.

 

Did the Tea Party even exist as early as Jan. 23rd, when the President pushed through his stimulus? No.

 

At the time he pushed through his party-line stimulus...a time BEFORE the Tea Party existed...do you recall the widely reported and confirmed comments from Barack Obama to the GOP? Two words: "I won." The line was drawn. Obama had two years with full control of all houses, and he had no use for anyone who wasn't a Democrat.

 

You think McCain and Boehner are afraid of the Tea Party? You're a fool, because the only people afraid of the Tea Party are the Dems, and the only way you know how to address is to revise history as if Obama was a reach-across-the-aisle bipartisan post-racial great American of his time. It's BS and everyone knows it.

 

People will suggest, wrongly, that Rick Santelli gave birth to the Tea Party, but they'd be wrong. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi gave birth to the Tea Party because they publicly had NO INTEREST in reaching across the aisle. None. "We won. You lost. Suck ass."

 

Let's go back in time to reality, not your mythical belief that the Tea Party has been the antagonist the whole time. It was moments like the one below that got everything going.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLZUyxVB9I

[3rdnlng]

No doubt Obama too. It would be nice if we had a truly great president, but we aren't going to get one any time soon and maybe never again. Hell maybe it's impossible to even be a great president these days. We certainly haven't even had any "serious contenders" as of late that would come close. There's no savior looming. There won't be one man. It will take a coalition of cooperative Americans willing to be level headed and somewhat moderate in their approach and expectations even if their perfect world result would be extreme...you can believe that a somewhat radical change is necessary but you can't throw a fit when reality kicks in and you have to work with other people who have different views.

 

 

 

LOL I don't know whether or not that's "when it started" but he was certainly loud and obnoxious and blabbering away there. So I'll give him credit. Congratulations to that man. What a difference he's made.

 

 

It's things like this that grate on people and make them want to say "enough"!

 

 

http://talesfromatribble.blogspot.com/2012/03/federal-government-adget-in-shape-with.html

 

Let's revisit something very simple. Stay with me.

 

Did the Tea Party exist prior to the election of Barack Obama? No.

 

Did the Tea Party even exist as early as Jan. 23rd, when the President pushed through his stimulus? No.

 

At the time he pushed through his party-line stimulus...a time BEFORE the Tea Party existed...do you recall the widely reported and confirmed comments from Barack Obama to the GOP? Two words: "I won." The line was drawn. Obama had two years with full control of all houses, and he had no use for anyone who wasn't a Democrat.

 

You think McCain and Boehner are afraid of the Tea Party? You're a fool, because the only people afraid of the Tea Party are the Dems, and the only way you know how to address is to revise history as if Obama was a reach-across-the-aisle bipartisan post-racial great American of his time. It's BS and everyone knows it.

 

People will suggest, wrongly, that Rick Santelli gave birth to the Tea Party, but they'd be wrong. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi gave birth to the Tea Party because they publicly had NO INTEREST in reaching across the aisle. None. "We won. You lost. Suck ass."

 

Let's go back in time to reality, not your mythical belief that the Tea Party has been the antagonist the whole time. It was moments like the one below that got everything going.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLZUyxVB9I

 

Don't get me wrong, Santelli's rant was the start of people coming together, not the cause of the anger that brought about the Tea Party. He made people say, "you know, that's exactly how I've been feeling". His mentioning of "tea party" in his rant sort of caught on too.

Edited July 12, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[NoSaint]

Let's revisit something very simple. Stay with me.

 

Did the Tea Party exist prior to the election of Barack Obama? No.

 

Did the Tea Party even exist as early as Jan. 23rd, when the President pushed through his stimulus? No.

 

At the time he pushed through his party-line stimulus...a time BEFORE the Tea Party existed...do you recall the widely reported and confirmed comments from Barack Obama to the GOP? Two words: "I won." The line was drawn. Obama had two years with full control of all houses, and he had no use for anyone who wasn't a Democrat.

 

You think McCain and Boehner are afraid of the Tea Party? You're a fool, because the only people afraid of the Tea Party are the Dems, and the only way you know how to address is to revise history as if Obama was a reach-across-the-aisle bipartisan post-racial great American of his time. It's BS and everyone knows it.

 

People will suggest, wrongly, that Rick Santelli gave birth to the Tea Party, but they'd be wrong. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi gave birth to the Tea Party because they publicly had NO INTEREST in reaching across the aisle. None. "We won. You lost. Suck ass."

 

Let's go back in time to reality, not your mythical belief that the Tea Party has been the antagonist the whole time. It was moments like the one below that got everything going.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLZUyxVB9I

 

No doubt. And if I identified left I'd be embarassed to have that associated with me. The answer to pig headed morons isn't to out stubborn them though. I mean, I suppose you can, but it just isn't sustainable if you want a happy productive long term. At some point it gets to be one child with his fingers in his ears screaming "lalala I can't hear you" and one with his finger 2 inches from the others face yelling "im not touching you." watching these guys on both sides is just getting to be more and more childish. What happened to great leaders? Or have Americans gotten to the point that they don't really want that anymore?

[DC Tom]

No doubt. And if I identified left I'd be embarassed to have that associated with me. The answer to pig headed morons isn't to out stubborn them though. I mean, I suppose you can, but it just isn't sustainable if you want a happy productive long term. At some point it gets to be one child with his fingers in his ears screaming "lalala I can't hear you" and one with his finger 2 inches from the others face yelling "im not touching you." watching these guys on both sides is just getting to be more and more childish. What happened to great leaders? Or have Americans gotten to the point that they don't really want that anymore?

 

American's don't want leaders, because leaders invariably look like !@#$s on TV.

[Jim in Anchorage]

American's don't want leaders, because leaders invariably look like !@#$s on TV.

I have to except Reagan from that.

[dayman]

I have to except Reagan from that.

 

 

Oooh that sexy Reagan with his dashing good looks and friendly public disposition.

Edited July 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Oooh that sexy Reagan with his dashing good looks and friendly public disposition.

 

He had vision, principles, a steel will, a sense of humor and charm. He was intelligent. He inspired a country that was in the doldrums. He was a great communicator and didn't need to sound like a preacher to get his message across. Make fun of him all you want, but he was exactly who we needed at the time and is exactly what we could use now.

[IDBillzFan]

Oooh that sexy Reagan with his dashing good looks and friendly public disposition.

I know it's fashionable these days for liberals to mock Reagan while they stare down the double-barrel reality of Obama taking the Worst President Belt away from Carter, but Reagan was the kind of leader that someone like Obama can only try to compare himself to. And does. Which is like Ryan Leaf comparing himself to Jim Kelly.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Oooh that sexy Reagan with his dashing good looks and friendly public disposition.

Did you read the post I was replying to? Attack the leader part if you feel you must.

[dayman]

LOL back off guys, I wasn't trying to attack Reagan. I was being dead serious. The sexy part was goofy but seriously...yes Jim I read it and I was agreeing with you. Reagan was made for TV. That's not inherently a knock.