# bin laden died, obama...played cards...



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

We now know exactly what President obama was doing the night of the raid that killed the most wanted man in American history...he was playing cards...apparently he told all those people in the situation room that he couldn't sit through the raid...he must have been really bored...

We also know from the same interview that obama only works half days on the weekend...

None of this is surprising...is it?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/14/Was-Obama-Playing-Cards-During-The-Benghazi-Attack




> President Barack Obama expressed mainly disinterest on the night of  the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, according to a high-level White  House staffer.
> 
> During an Artists & Athletes Alliance forum at UCLA, Obama's  former personal assistant Reggie Love said the president played card  games instead of remaining in the White House Situation Room to watch  the raid unfold.





> Regarding May 2, 2011, Love said:  "We sat around in the private dining room. Most people were like down  in the Situation Room and [Obama] was like, 'I'm not going to be down  there, I can't watch this entire thing.' So he, myself, [White House photographer] Pete Souza, and Marvin, we must have played 15 hands, 15 games of spades."
> 
> Ryan Zinke, former  Commander at SEAL Team Six and Chairman of Special Operations for  America, told Breitbart News that "while America's best risked their  lives to take out the world's most notorious terrorist, the President  chose to play cards. Afterwards, he cynically took credit for directing  the operation for political gain. One can only wonder what our  Commander-in-Chief was doing the night of the Benghazi attacks."


----------



## arnisador (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> We also know from the same interview that obama only works half days on the weekend...



Wow. It's over, dude--you've topped yourself. You can stop now.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 15, 2013)

I am not dismayed that he would have taken a break until the nitty-gritty was going down.  He was easily reached if a decision was needed from him.  Otherwise, that is what he has subordinates for.

I am dismayed that someone would talk about that.  I'm not sure what non-disclosure statements they may have signed, but the office and the person in it deserves some respect, and loyalty.

Oh, I try very hard not to work on weekends at all.  And if I do, I can expect overtime.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, and I am not a supporter of President Obama, but I don't see a problem with him trying to relieve the pressure a bit.  If you haven't done it, you just haven't been in a high pressure situation.


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

It's the impression they tried to show, with that photo op of him in the situation room...as if he was actually there the whole time.  If this had been Bush, and he had been caught playing cards while this particular raid was going down, and taking credit for being there, in the moment, as it happened...can we be real...it would be 24/7 coverage of how disconnected, unconcerned and unfit Bush was...


----------



## granfire (Aug 15, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I am not dismayed that he would have taken a break until the nitty-gritty was going down.  He was easily reached if a decision was needed from him.  Otherwise, that is what he has subordinates for.
> 
> I am dismayed that someone would talk about that.  I'm not sure what non-disclosure statements they may have signed, but the office and the person in it deserves some respect, and loyalty.
> 
> ...



I am sure it's all in a days work for bill to order a bunch of people being killed...
16 hands of spades...that's not but a half hour...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> I If this had been Bush, and he had been caught playing cards while this particular raid was going down



...rather than continuing to read a children's book after being informed that the U.S. was under attack on 9/11...


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> It's the impression they tried to show, with that photo op of him in the situation room...as if he was actually there the whole time.  If this had been Bush, and he had been caught playing cards while this particular raid was going down, and taking credit for being there, in the moment, as it happened...can we be real...it would be 24/7 coverage of how disconnected, unconcerned and unfit Bush was...



He's not Bush.  Either of them.  He's not Reagan.  He's not Clinton, Carter, or Nixon.  Or Ford.  Or even Washington.

Yes, the media certainly seem willing to cut him slack and support him more than any other President I can recall.  I don't agree with that; I think it highlights the degradation of the professionalism of the news media.  I don't like that he's going on the talk shows.  I'm going by memory only, but I don't think anyone but maybe Clinton did that.  I think it harms the dignity of the office.

But pouting rants about how he handled things, that he dares to only work a half day on weekends (how many hours do YOU work on the weekend?  how much time did Bush or Reagan take as "vacation?")...  That just makes you and the others going on about it look petty.  It's like someone seeing a well performed kata from a super-commercial school, and the only thing they can complain about is that the guy's belt ends were uneven.  Or getting a delicious, perfectly prepared steak, and complaining that it wasn't perfectly centered on the plate.

There are plenty of things to legitimately complain about in Obama's performance.  Why not try to pay attention to those, and let the petty stuff slide?  Here's a challenge for you -- personal, not official.  For a week, limit your anti-Obama posts to one or two per day.  Pick the best, most important... rather than just forwarding everything that pops up.  Tell us why YOU think this is the most significant issue of the day regarding Obama.


----------



## granfire (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> It's the impression they tried to show, with that photo op of him in the situation room...as if he was actually there the whole time.  If this had been Bush, and he had been caught playing cards while this particular raid was going down, and taking credit for being there, in the moment, as it happened...can we be real...it would be 24/7 coverage of how disconnected, unconcerned and unfit Bush was...



Well, Bush had 8 years to be in that position. I do believe he actually gave the hunt little to no priority...
oops?



arnisador said:


> ...rather than continuing to read a children's book after being informed that the U.S. was under attack on 9/11...


As much as I think W was a disaster, that is NOT one thing I can fault him for.


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

The so called "petty" stuff can be just as important as the real issues because it creates an image that he and other politicians use to empower themselves and destroy opponents.  The left uses these tactics against each and every republican that threatens them electorally, if it wasn't an important technique they wouldn't use it.  Every republican is attacked as being dumb, racist and cold hearted and with the help of the government/democrat media this image gets traction in the public mind.  

How else could e party of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the Kkkk, and all manner of racism (the democrats) have convinced the very people they hurt with those practices to vote democrat.  Itcomes from years and years of democrat attacks, both petty and major, and years and years of republicans thinking that those attacks can't work...and yet they do.

Bush, who did better in school than Kerry and gore and who has a masters in business from Harvard, is seen as the dumb guy.   why?  Years of attacks that were never answered by him or his supporters.

To this day, people think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house....when she never said it...Tina Fey said it in the very type of attack I am pointing to here.

People keep saying Obama was a law professor...he wasn't, he was simply a guest lecturer, and yet he gets great points for his alleged intelligence because of it.  

So what may seem minor and petty can actually be important, especially when it is repeated and highlighted.  If you only allow the media to frame the image of Obama...he gets reelected to a second term...instead of being voted out because he is a poor leader.



> Here's a challenge for you -- personal, not official. For a week, limit your anti-Obama posts to one or two per day.



That is simply your bias showing.  I haven't posted about Obama for quite some time, and it isn't as often as you have convinced yourself that it is.  

Her is a challenge for you...once or twice a week, find an article that shows the anti-conservative, anti-tea party bias from a main stream media source, it won't be hard, and point out why it is unfair and misrepresents the targeted conservative/tea party, or (with Rand Paul now a threat) or libertarian.  

it might help to put my posts in perspective.  Keep in mind, the "petty" things you think are a waste of time...they are in the regular news media, education, and all throughout the entertainment media...

They don't seem to think they are a waste of time.


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

> ...rather than continuing to read a children's book after being informed that the U.S. was under attack on 9/11...




This is exactly the uninformed attack that undermined President Bush.  The left never stopped the attack and never let any moment pass.  since Bush was in secure location and the secret service was determining a course of action before they possibly walked the President into an ambush...

Also, Bush himself points out that he was watching the fact that the second tower was attacked by radical Muslim terrorists being relayed to the entire press corps. In the back of the room where we couldn't see them and he didn't want the situation to get out of hand...With a press feeding frenzy on top of the need to get out of the building especially with a room full  of young children....

And yet, they pound him with that...and let the guy who was AWOL on the night of the Bhengazi attack, where our ambassador and three other people were murdered, get off without any tough questions...

Of course...we do have that image of him watching the bin laden raid in that bomber jacket...


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

> Well, Bush had 8 years to be in that position. I do believe he actually gave the hunt little to no priority...
> oops?



Unlike Obama, Bush seems to have realized that the problem with radical Muslim terrorism was a lot bigger than just bin laden...Obama may just now be beginning to realize that...

Keeping in mind that if Obama had been in office we would never have found Obama, since Obama objected to everything Bush did that actually allowed Obama to find bin laden...and then take all the credit...and reveal the name of the unit that did it, endangering them and their families,  so he could constantly spike the football...


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

keep on mind as well, the media has allowed a serial sexual predator, bill Clinton, with two credible accusations of rape against him to become a popular and continue to be a public figure.  the press is also going to help give the impression that his corrupt and incompetent wife is exactly the opposite, simply because they like her stand on the issues.  
pRemember, she led the team that silenced all of his victims and girlfriends, she was the one who allowed Bhengazi to happen....and yet, she is supposed to be really smart...and yet, pointing out the "petty" things is wrong?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> keep on mind as well, the media has allowed a serial sexual predator, bill Clinton, with two credible accusations of rape against him to become a popular and continue to be a public figure.  the press is also going to help give the impression that his corrupt and incompetent wife is exactly the opposite, simply because they like her stand on the issues.
> pRemember, she led the team that silenced all of his victims and girlfriends, she was the one who allowed Bhengazi to happen....and yet, she is supposed to be really smart...and yet, pointing out the "petty" things is wrong?


Why? What does this have to do with the card game?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> Unlike Obama, Bush seems to have realized that the problem with radical Muslim terrorism was a lot bigger than just bin laden...



We're talking about George "Mission Accomplished" Bush, right?


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> We now know exactly what President obama was doing the night of the raid that killed the most wanted man in American history...he was playing cards...apparently he told all those people in the situation room that he couldn't sit through the raid...he must have been really bored...
> 
> We also know from the same interview that obama only works half days on the weekend...
> 
> ...



I guess that video with the pentagon heavyweights watching live was fabricated.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

Jks9199,

Just to be accurate, I've scrolled down the list of threads started by me, and you aren't even close in saying I should only post on Obama once or twice a week...I have maybe one or two Obama specific threads in the last 15 days, if that.  The threads that I have posted about are mainly the I.R.S. scandal global warming and obamacare, the zimmerman trial, gun control issues and other topics, the ones related to Obama deal with policy or actual scandals, all of which aren't being covered properly by the government/democrat media.

I 





> guess that video with the pentagon heavyweights watching live was fabricated.



You would have to ask his friend in the video who actually made the comments.  check his interview in the article.


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

Okay jks9199,

I've scrolled to page two of the thread list and still haven't found all of the Obama based threads you say I have started...remember how many you said there were?  I think a quick check would show you have made a point not based in fact.



It's 





> like someone seeing a well performed kata from a super-commercial school, and the only thing they can complain about is that the guy's belt ends were uneven. Or getting a delicious, perfectly prepared steak, and complaining that it wasn't perfectly centered on the plate.
> 
> 
> There are plenty of things to legitimately complain about in Obama's performance. Why not try to pay attention to those, and let the petty stuff slide? Here's a challenge for you -- personal, not official. For a week, limit your anti-Obama posts to one or two per day. Pick the best, most important... rather than just forwarding everything that pops up. Tell us why YOU think this is the most significant issue of the day regarding Obama.



If you look at a lot of my posts...they cover the scandals that this president has presided over...Fast and furious, The I.R.S. targeting political opposition groups, the disaster that is obamacare, the failure and coverup of Bhengazi...the green jobs scams...hardly petty stuff...actually really serious stuff that isn't being covered by the government/democrat media...

So, I try to cover a full range of material, mainly things I am interested in, and that covers a lot of politics...not just the "petty"stuff...

But the "petty" stuff helps create a false image of this guy which in turn helps isolate him from the consequences of his decisions...


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

How about this...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fast-furious-guns-mexico/2013/08/15/id/520629



> Three more weapons from the failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation have turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, while an estimated 1,400 more sold in hopes of catching drug cartel leaders are still either on the streets or unaccounted for.
> 
> 
> Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fast-furious-guns-mexico/2013/08/15/id/520629#ixzz2c65KgIBf
> Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!





> Many of the guns have since been recovered at crime scenes both in Mexico and the United States. However, an estimated 1,400 of them are still unaccounted for, CBS reports.
> 
> The Justice Department still refuses to provide a full account of the weapons to Congress, even after the House voted last year to hold Attorney General *Eric Holder in contempt* for refusing to hand over requested information.
> 
> ...



Need I point out that if eric holder was John Ashcroft, every time he had a story about him...on a scandal this size...the report would say that he had been held in contempt by congress...


----------



## billc (Aug 15, 2013)

As to the false meme generated by paying attention to "petty," attacks by the left on conservatives and members of the Tea Party and soon the Libertarian party...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...epublicans-Better-at-Diversity-than-Democrats



> Buried within an article on Newark Mayor Cory Booker's run for U.S. Senate,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you see, these "petty," and false,  attacks take their toll on the truth when it concerns Conservatives and Tea Party members...that is why the left does it non-stop...in the case of obama, the posts aren't petty, they are simply highlighting the truth about the man that the media doesn't want to cover...the real man behind the myth of obama...


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 15, 2013)

billc said:


> Okay jks9199,
> 
> I've scrolled to page two of the thread list and still haven't found all of the Obama based threads you say I have started...remember how many you said there were?  I think a quick check would show you have made a point not based in fact.
> 
> ...


Everything involving Democratic party.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

Its kinda interesting topic.  As my commander and Chief Id much rather he have been in the room paying attention to what was going on.  On the flip side once the order to go was given there was not much left for him to do but wait.  Id want to watch it myself out of respect for the guys on the mission but again not much I can do.  I dont think people should be ratting him out however if that guy was his assistant or whatever he was he should keep his trap shut.

I also find the double standard of the press just kinda sickening.  I dont mind them being hard on Bush if they were equally hard on Obama but to show favorites is bad.  Part of the reason for freedom of press was to be a watch dog of the Govt not a lap dog to one party.


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2013)

I think we see what we look for.  Media simply struggles for relevance.  Billc posts many legitimate issues.  Frankly, I agree with some of the big issues.  But billc doesn't post any article criticizing or taking to task the GOP.  Is it intentional?  Maybe.  But my guess is he sees what he looks for.  We all do it.

The problem with being unaware of this is that we can begin to believe that if we don't acknowledge things, they don't exist, and in turn become apologists.  So, while billc often posts interesting articles, some are a little whacky, and all represent only one position.

People make excuses for Benghazi or fast and furious, just as they excuse Iran contra or the blatant war profiteering in Iraq and Afghanistan with Halliburton and Kellogg brown and root. 

 But regarding media, I think there are two kinds.  Those that push agendas and those push angles and stories that they will believe increase their revenue and viewership.  It's not difficult to distinguish them.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

The problem with the media is most people don't take time to look for other sources.  Most people sit down after work and watch the nightly news and don't know they are getting half truths or even no truths.  Many here see it but we also debate politics on the internet and most people don't.  So when the evening news pushes an agenda regardless of which side they push its bad for everyone.  Like I said they were supposed to be keeping the people informed on the goings on of the Govt not picking sides.


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

> But billc doesn't post any article criticizing or taking to task the GOP.



Actually, it is intentional.  I post the problems that the other party has...why?  Because the main sources of news for the general public, the main sources of entertainment for the general public and the main sources of education for the general public all lean to the left and do not take the democrat party or it's politicians to task.  So there is no reason for me to take on the GOP because they are already hammered by all the "legitimate," sources in our society.  When you have the level of opposition to one political party in journalism, the entertainment community and our education system, that you have in our country it creates a huge problem in finding the right people to serve in public office.

Notice, in the most recent scandals involving democrat politicians...they rarely if ever identify them as democrats.  Any scandal involving Republicans...they lead the story with their party affiliation.  

So I don't feel the need to use my time going after the problems in the GOP...after all, the GOP establishment even has the Tea Party, a group I support, going after them.  The GOP establishment also has the biggest names  in talk radio going after them as well...Rush, Hannity, Beck, Mark Levin, so I am more than knowledgeable about the problems with the GOP because I listen to all these guys and the other critics of the GOP, it is hard not to hear the GOP being criticized in this country...so they have more than enough critics and attackers...the democrat party needs more...and obama needs to have a lot more as well.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> As to the false meme generated by paying attention to "petty," attacks by the left on conservatives and members of the Tea Party and soon the Libertarian party...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...epublicans-Better-at-Diversity-than-Democrats
> 
> ...



Some truth to that, but you do seem to take it to an extreme sometimes.

Of course, we have liberal posters who I think do the same thing.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> ...How else could e party of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the Kkkk, and all manner of racism (the democrats) have convinced the very people they hurt with those practices to vote democrat.  Itcomes from years and years of democrat attacks, both petty and major, and years and years of republicans thinking that those attacks can't work...and yet they do.
> ...
> 
> So what may seem minor and petty can actually be important, especially when it is repeated and highlighted.  If you only allow the media to frame the image of Obama...he gets reelected to a second term...instead of being voted out because he is a poor leader.
> ...



Don't let yourself look less than informed.  You do bring up some good points sometimes.  But the above disregards the Great Society and War on Poverty.  When I was a kid, one of our neighbors (our properties co-joined in some places) was black.  He once mentioned voting republican.  Back then, since my parents were democrats, as well as most people in that area, I figured I was too.  So I asked him why he would vote republican.  He told me it was because the republican party had helped his people.  I had a lot of respect for him so I still wished he had voted democrat ( :lol2: ), but I sure understood his position.

But President Johnson, like it or not, changed the perspective of blacks about the democrats.  He wasn't someone in history, who might still once in a while do things for blacks.  He was a live person, leading the democratic party, to do good things for blacks, and others.  Whether you like what he did or not, that's when the big change happened.  

And before him, President Truman had gotten blacks attention as well.  He had fought the KKK in local politics, and as president, he had ordered the military desegregated.  

That is all from my perspective of course.  If I have distorted anything from a black perspective, I hope someone will correct me.


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The problem with the media is most people don't take time to look for other sources.  Most people sit down after work and watch the nightly news and don't know they are getting half truths or even no truths.  Many here see it but we also debate politics on the internet and most people don't.  So when the evening news pushes an agenda regardless of which side they push its bad for everyone.  Like I said they were supposed to be keeping the people informed on the goings on of the Govt not picking sides.


That sounds less like a problem with media and more like a problem with the consumer.  


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> Actually, it is intentional.  I post the problems that the other party has...why?  Because the main sources of news for the general public, the main sources of entertainment for the general public and the main sources of education for the general public all lean to the left and do not take the democrat party or it's politicians to task.  So there is no reason for me to take on the GOP because they are already hammered by all the "legitimate," sources in our society.  When you have the level of opposition to one political party in journalism, the entertainment community and our education system, that you have in our country it creates a huge problem in finding the right people to serve in public office.
> 
> Notice, in the most recent scandals involving democrat politicians...they rarely if ever identify them as democrats.  Any scandal involving Republicans...they lead the story with their party affiliation.
> 
> So I don't feel the need to use my time going after the problems in the GOP...after all, the GOP establishment even has the Tea Party, a group I support, going after them.  The GOP establishment also has the biggest names  in talk radio going after them as well...Rush, Hannity, Beck, Mark Levin, so I am more than knowledgeable about the problems with the GOP because I listen to all these guys and the other critics of the GOP, it is hard not to hear the GOP being criticized in this country...so they have more than enough critics and attackers...the democrat party needs more...and obama needs to have a lot more as well.


It's a shame to hear that you do it on purpose. 


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

Hmmm...why should I devote my time to attacking the GOP, when paid professionals in journalism, entertainment, and education do it 24/7 with more access to main stream America than a little post on martialtalk?  I think the world can get by without me airing all my complaints about the GOP on this little website...


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

Now here is an excellent example of what I mean...from the entertainment wing...the new movie "The Butler," ...and it's distortions...

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/08/16/5-ways-lee-daniels-the-butler-rewrites-history-to-suit-liberals/




> *5. It overstates its case.
> *
> 
> Whitaker&#8217;s Butler is a tortured soul (largely the creation of  screenwriter Danny Strong, who also wrote the Sarah Palin hatefest _Game Change_) who has known all kinds of heartbreak, but the _Washington Post_ article about a real long-serving White House butler that was the original basis for the movie is free of the anguish or anger  with which the movie is loaded. In the first two or three minutes there  are references to two lynchings, a rape (of the butler&#8217;s mother) and a  racist murder (of his father). None of these things happened to the  actual butler, who also didn&#8217;t have an activist son nor another son who  died in the Vietnam War.





> *3. It says Ronald Reagan was an enemy of civil rights&#8230;.
> *
> 
> Though Dwight Eisenhower (played by Robin Williams) is favorably portrayed in _The Butler_,  fellow Republicans Richard Nixon (John Cusack) and Ronald Reagan (Alan  Rickman) are thrown under the bus because the modern Left is obsessed  with the fiction that Republicans are enemies to black people...
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its kinda interesting topic.  As my commander and Chief Id much rather he have been in the room paying attention to what was going on.  On the flip side once the order to go was given there was not much left for him to do but wait.  Id want to watch it myself out of respect for the guys on the mission but again not much I can do.  I dont think people should be ratting him out however if that guy was his assistant or whatever he was he should keep his trap shut.
> 
> I also find the double standard of the press just kinda sickening.  I dont mind them being hard on Bush if they were equally hard on Obama but to show favorites is bad.  Part of the reason for freedom of press was to be a watch dog of the Govt not a lap dog to one party.



How much should he have watched?  He gave the go-no go, and they got into their transport.  The actual raid was probably only a fraction of the total operation time; did he need to be hovering in the situation room while they were in transit?  Should he have moved in several days prior as they began to plan and prepare?  (Folks, prep for an op like that, in a unit like that, gets near as dangerous as the real thing, because they were almost certainly doing run throughs with live weapons...)


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> Now here is an excellent example of what I mean...from the entertainment wing...the new movie "The Butler," ...and it's distortions...



So...you're saying that fictional movies aren't always exactly accurate, as you perceive the facts to be?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> Jks9199,
> 
> Just to be accurate, I've scrolled down the list of threads started by me, and you aren't even close in saying I should only post on Obama once or twice a week...I have maybe one or two Obama specific threads in the last 15 days, if that. The threads that I have posted about are mainly the I.R.S. scandal global warming and obamacare, the zimmerman trial, gun control issues and other topics, the ones related to Obama deal with policy or actual scandals, all of which aren't being covered properly by the government/democrat media.
> 
> ...



Gotta love that search function-100 threads started by the OP where he mentions "Obama." 

Granted, many of those have absolutely nothing to do with Obama-the fact that he winds up mentioned by the original poster is indicative to me of a degree of obession...:l;fao:


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmm...why should I devote my time to attacking the GOP, when paid professionals in journalism, entertainment, and education do it 24/7 with more access to main stream America than a little post on martialtalk?  I think the world can get by without me airing all my complaints about the GOP on this little website...



Do you think that rush, Sean, Michelle, Ann and the good folks at fox, brietbart and all of the other places you get your information from are volunteers?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

No, but they do not have immediate access to the American  people, as the rest of the government/democrat media do.  You have to go to am radio, or cable news networks to see them, while ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS are right there on everyones television.  Watch any television show...and you are likely to see jabs at conservatives or the groups they support...inserted into regular, popular television shows.  The hosts of the Sunday news shows on regular networks, by and large, are all left leaning and sympathetic to the democrats and their policies, if not having worked for them directly before they became hosts of those shows...so the people you mentioned Steve, Rush, Sean, Hannity, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter have a much more limited audience and less exposure to the American people.  They are also more than likely not brought up in a positive way, if at all,  in the education system the majority of American children attend.  So again, it is the combination of easy access and saturation of the "petty," comments made about conservatives and their groups that create a false image that becomes accepted as "ordinary," and has a real impact on the culture and the outcome of elections.

So why should I devote my time to attacking the GOP?  Fairness?  As Rush always says, he is fairness because so much of the rest of the media are already on the opposite side...and have easy access to the American people...



> So...you're saying that fictional movies aren't always exactly accurate, as you perceive the facts to be?



In the case of this movie...it fits what I have posted here...it takes shots at Republican President's that may not  be in the original material, and puts in events that focus on race issues, of the past, for the sake of keeping them alive, when the original material doesn't include them...showing that the race hustlers will take absolutely any opportunity to push their "petty," attacks, even in a movie that isn't about the racism they show...

The idiots promoting the movie oprah and the lead, Forrest Whitaker, even went so far as to compare Trayvon Martin to Emmet Till, when they were doing interviews for this movie...about a butler in the White House...

For the record, the death of Trayvon Martin was tragic and sad...but he was not Emmet Till or even close to Emmet Till...but the people who need racsim to continue for their own fortunes and mental well being need to generate new victims of racism...even if there is no way race had anything to do with Martin's death...

The non-stop "petty," attacks from the left and the race hustlers have an effect because of the saturation in the culture...

Everyone keeps saying...when will we get past the issue of race...welll things like this movie are meant to keep us from getting past the issue of race...


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> Okay jks9199,
> 
> I've scrolled to page two of the thread list and still haven't found all of the Obama based threads you say I have started...remember how many you said there were?  I think a quick check would show you have made a point not based in fact.
> 
> ...



OK.  Let's amend the challenge to simply picking a few of the most significant, important, or demonstrative stories that depict the so-called leftist agenda.  I probably align most closely with a conservative libertarian mindset.  Your posts push the hard right agenda, heavily.  I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf; when you post so much of the minor stuff, it's easy to discount some real significant stories.

In this particular instance, it's a non-story.  Obama is only working half-days on the weekends!  Wow!  How many hours do you work on your days off?  I try to do as little work related stuff as I can; I'm working on breaking the habit of checking my work email regularly on my days off.  As President, Obama doesn't have the luxury of a true day off; he's THE MAN and the phone will ring at 3 AM (_a la_ a recent campaign), there'll be work he has to do on a day off or when he's on a vacation.  You think he doesn't get a daily briefing on vacation?  That would be a concern, if he let things slide like that.

During a military operation, a man with NO military experience (that's a different discussion about qualifications for the President) didn't hang out in the Situation Room for hours, essentially cluttering things up.  He went upstairs, where he was still available instantly, and relaxed a little.  I don't see a huge concern; he didn't go to a show at the Kennedy Center, he wasn't spending time with an intern in the Oval Office...  Maybe I'm seeing things from a different perspective, but I never assumed that he would be sitting in the Situation Room all day during that op.  I figured he'd be there when they were close, to when they were safe.


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

100 or more out of...8,926....


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

> he's THE MAN and the phone will ring at 3 AM (_a la_ a recent campaign)



Except when it is a call from the Ambassador in Bhengazi...he didn't seem to take that call...

The problem is the image...I believe he is just as accessible anywhere in the White House or anywhere in the country...the problem is the image put out by the White House was that he was in that room...the whole time...on the edge of his seat...and the media ran with it...and it wasn't true...it has helped to build up a myth about this guy that helped him get reelected...and if it was a Republican instead of him...it wouldn't have been allowed to happen...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> How much should he have watched?  He gave the go-no go, and they got into their transport.  The actual raid was probably only a fraction of the total operation time; did he need to be hovering in the situation room while they were in transit?  Should he have moved in several days prior as they began to plan and prepare?  (Folks, prep for an op like that, in a unit like that, gets near as dangerous as the real thing, because they were almost certainly doing run throughs with live weapons...)


How much should he have watched?  All of the raid.  How much would you watch?  In my opinion he sent these men in on one of the most dangerous and important missions of the war and he owed it to them to show some interest in the outcome.  Thats not a knock on Obama it a knock on any President that wouldn't at a very min be in the room.  Its what a leader does.  Its what I expect from my commander and chief.  And trainig with live weapons is not even close to as dangerous as the real thing.  Nobodys shooting back at you in training. You dont agree thats fine its your opinion mine is a leader would have been there not playing cards.  Say your a LT  in charge of a SWAT Unit and send them into a barricaded gun man as the LT would you be in the Command Post playing cards?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> That sounds less like a problem with media and more like a problem with the consumer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites?  How can the consumer know there is a problem if they trust the news to report news not agenda? You dont know what you dont know.

Edit 
I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> Everyone keeps saying...when will we get past the issue of race...welll things like this movie are meant to keep us from getting past the issue of race...



You don't think the producers might have had a capitalist angle in making the movie?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

billc said:


> The problem is the image...



Then smart people like us shouldn't worry about it. The _substance _is that he made a risky call to greenlight an operation that might well have come up empty--no OBL--embarrassing him and his administration and further straining relations with Pakistan. Where he sat doesn't matter. I was watching Teenage Mutant Ninjas 3 while I sat beside my wife who had been in labor all day long with our second child. (My wife was drifting off between contractions by that point in the day.) I still love both her and the Turtles (and she knows about this story).


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites?[...]I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?



I think many of us see a lot less favoritism than the right-wingers do: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I think many of us see a lot less favoritism than the right-wingers do: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."



I understand people that people have a natural bias and most journalist are more left leaning then right but that's not really an excuse not to do a good job.  I'm a right winger but I don't go around hunting for and stopping cars with Obama stickers.  A job is a job you leave personal feelings at home.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand people that people have a natural bias and most journalist are more left leaning then right but that's not really an excuse not to do a good job.  I'm a right winger but I don't go around hunting for and stopping cars with Obama stickers.  A job is a job you leave personal feelings at home.



I don't penalize my Christian students even though I find their views anti-scientific; if they can do the exam, they get the credit.

But I believe the reporters are trying to be objective and what they see as objective is seen as bias by the right wing. Consider it: It could be that they're being as neutral as they can manage as human beings and those on the far right incorrectly and unfairly see that as bias.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't penalize my Christian students even though I find their views anti-scientific; if they can do the exam, they get the credit.
> 
> But I believe the reporters are trying to be objective and what they see as objective is seen as bias by the right wing. Consider it: It could be that they're being as neutral as they can manage as human beings and those on the far right incorrectly and unfairly see that as bias.


So in your opinion the media is just as critical of Obama as they were on Bush?


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites?  How can the consumer know there is a problem if they trust the news to report news not agenda? You dont know what you dont know.
> 
> Edit
> I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?



American TV is what it is. I do watch network news but I also watch PBS, BBC and other non partisan sources to look through the "worlds eyes". And stay clear of anything far right or far left.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So in your opinion the media is just as critical of Obama as they were on Bush?



I'm not suggesting no bias--I'm suggesting much less than the right-wingers believe they see. It's a fact that Fox News viewers are less well informed than those who watch other, or no, news channels. So I think the perception of bias is swamping what actual unavoidable bias may exist.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm not suggesting no bias--I'm suggesting much less than the right-wingers believe they see. It's a fact that Fox News viewers are less well informed than those who watch other, or no, news channels. So I think the perception of bias is swamping what actual unavoidable bias may exist.



Fair enough.  I dont agree with you but thats not a shock.
I did just read an article from Media Matters saying the media is way harder on Obama then they ever were on Bush so I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 16, 2013)

I think the public in general is way harder on Obama than Bush.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 16, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I think the public in general is way harder on Obama than Bush.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



 I dont know I think this more vocal oppisition started under Bush and keeps growing.  I think more people are just fed up in general with Govt. then they ever were and regardless of who won things will keep getting worse.


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you think its ok for the media to play Favorites?  How can the consumer know there is a problem if they trust the news to report news not agenda? You dont know what you dont know.
> 
> Edit
> I guess the better question should be do you think there is a bias at all?



I think that some media is motivated by money.  I think other media is motivated by agenda.  Unlike you, I don't see any difference between agenda driven media that is liberal or that is conservative.  Either way, they play favorites, and as you have said in the past, it's up to the buyer to beware.   Your words; not mine, if I remember correctly.

Since you think it is wrong for liberal media to play favorites, Why is it okay for conservative media to play favorites?  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So in your opinion the media is just as critical of Obama as they were on Bush?



Unless you're on team Obama.  We see what we look for.  If you're on team bush, he is a hapless victim of media bias because you see what you expect to see. If you're on team Obama, you will probably see him as the victim.

I just don't understand why this is a radical idea to some here.  It just seems self apparent to me.  Obvious, really.  But, for some, politics is a religion, I guess.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

> It's a fact that Fox News viewers are less well informed than those who watch other, or no, news channels.



Say it enough and you can pretend it's true...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-fox-news-viewers-least-informed/



> *Are Fox News Viewers Least Informed?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8d_1321970922



> Here, the range of results was much wider. Once again, Fox News was
> just about at the national average -- 19 percent of Fox viewers scored
> in the high knowledge category, compared to 18 percent of all
> respondents -- but this time a handful of news outlets scored lower than
> ...



http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/05/24/fox-news-viewers-least-informed-hardly/



> I read this story about Farleigh Dickinson&#8217;s latest &#8220;study&#8221; which claims viewers of the Fox News Channel are the &#8220;least-informed&#8221; national audience and let out an audible chuckle.  _Seriously?_I suppose if the measure of how well informed someone might be is based on how well they recite liberal talking points, then the study _might_ have a case.  But how informed are Fox viewers compared to others when it comes to issues that _actually matter_?Take for instance the lawsuits filed by various Catholic groups against the ObamaCare contraception mandates.  If you&#8217;re a Fox News viewer, you&#8217;ve undoubtedly heard about this piece of news &#8212; arguably one of the biggest stories on the defense of religious freedom against an encroaching federal government in U.S. history. But how much do viewers of other networks know &#8212; how &#8220;well-informed&#8221; are they on this topic?The May 21 editions of ABC&#8217;s _World News _and NBC&#8217;s _Nightly News _failed to report the story altogether and _CBS Evening News _gave this historic news story a mere *19 seconds* of air time.​



http://www.examiner.com/article/jon...ws-viewers-most-consistently-uninformed-false



> We found two polling organizations that have produced periodic &#8220;knowledge&#8221; surveys differentiated by the respondent&#8217;s frequent news sources. One is the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the other is worldpublicopinion.org, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland&#8230;
> Viewers of at least one show on Fox scored quite well &#8211; _The O&#8217;Reilly Factor_, of whom 51 percent made it into the high knowledge group. That made it equal to National Public Radio &#8212; a longtime target of conservative complaints about liberalmedia bias &#8212; and only three percentage points behind Stewart&#8217;s own show, at 54 percent&#8230;​After explaining a number of polls and the methodology used in each, Politifactreports:
> So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn&#8217;t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as _The O&#8217;Reilly Factor _and Sean Hannity&#8217;s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart&#8217;s own audience.​But the bottom line for Politifact is that Stewart was wrong in his assertion - something that doesn't surprise most who are center-right:


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

Of course the ones doing the surveys...hmmm...any bias there...of course there is...but again...keep telling yourself fox viewers are dumb...and you will believe it...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31348



> Dana Loesch at BigJournalism
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Aug 16, 2013)

And on promoting false memes through the movie "The Butler," to damage Republicans...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/08/16/top-5-butler-inaccuracies

One of the false memes...




> The Butler disliked President Reagan: The real Eugene Allen has expressed affection for all the presidents he served, noting he voted for each when they were inhabiting the White House. A framed picture of the Reagans was displayed on Allen's living room wall, and he noted that Nancy Reagan gave him a warm hug when he finally retired. Hardly sounds like the character in the movie, played by Forest Whitaker, who appeared to be fed up with the Reagans and quit for that very reason.


----------



## billc (Aug 17, 2013)

> I also watch PBS, BBC and other non partisan sources



Your definition of "non-partisan," may need some work...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ely-to-Air-Liberal-Leaning-Stories-Says-Study



> The new study by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London-based, center-right think tank, says that it has compiled enough statistics to show the BBC's left-wing bias.
> "Our results suggest the BBC exhibits a left-of-centre bias in both the amount of coverage it gives to different opinions and the way in which these voices are represented," said Oliver Latham, author of the _Bias at the Beeb_ report.
> The study, to be released in September, compared the BBC&#8217;s coverage of what has appeared in the _Daily Telegraph_, which is considered Britain's Right wing paper, and that of the left-leaning _Guardian_. The report found that the BBC covered seven out of ten stories that appeared in the left-wing paper while only covering three out of ten from the right-wing paper.
> But the more telling detail is how the BBC treats its sources.
> ...



PBS...really?  Non-partisan...really?


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2013)

billc said:


> Your definition of "non-partisan," may need some work...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ely-to-Air-Liberal-Leaning-Stories-Says-Study
> 
> ...



Quoting breitbart.  Hah.  You are hilarious 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think that some media is motivated by money.  I think other media is motivated by agenda.  Unlike you, I don't see any difference between agenda driven media that is liberal or that is conservative.  Either way, they play favorites, and as you have said in the past, it's up to the buyer to beware.   Your words; not mine, if I remember correctly.


Certain things shouldnt be buyer beware certain professions shouldnt let political, religious, or other personal beliefs enter their work.  Like Arni said he shouldnt be grading one kid differently because of his religious differences, I should target cars with Obama stickers, or refuse to remove protesters from Abortion clinic, my job is my jobs and I can seperate the from other parts of my life and News reporters should report news equally.  I have no issue with them being hard on Bush or Clinton or any president in fact thats their jobs and why we have freedom of the press to keep watch on the Govt, I have issue with them when they are not hard on everyone and choose sides.  that goes fior all news conservative and liberal.  News should be just news. 


> Since you think it is wrong for liberal media to play favorites, Why is it okay for conservative media to play favorites?


When did I say it was?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> Unless you're on team Obama.  We see what we look for.  If you're on team bush, he is a hapless victim of media bias because you see what you expect to see. If you're on team Obama, you will probably see him as the victim.
> 
> I just don't understand why this is a radical idea to some here.  It just seems self apparent to me.  Obvious, really.  But, for some, politics is a religion, I guess.
> 
> ...



I was asking his personal opinion on the topic not what team hes on.  Im not on either team I voted 3rd party in 2012


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not on either team I voted 3rd party in 2012



The rise of a viable third party might make them have to change their tune but might just make them join together long enough to beat it back and keep the two-party system for themselves.


----------



## billc (Aug 17, 2013)

> Quoting breitbart. Hah. You are hilarious



See that's the thing...Breitbart.com doesn't pretend to have no bias...unlike ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR,  the BBC, and Breitbart  people acknowledge they are conservative or libertarian in their political views.  The "journalists" of the government/democrat media claim to be objective when it is obvious they have a built in bias that effects their reporting.
The average American, watching the evening news doesn't know that the guy reporting the news will cover liberals and their agenda differently than conservatives and their issues.  also, when you go to breitbart...you are going there knowing their point of view.


----------



## billc (Aug 17, 2013)

See, here you have CBS downplaying the card playing story, defending Obama, where if this had been a republican, especially Bush, they would not have made these excuses and would have portrayed him in the worst light possible.  

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/17/CBS-news-excuses-bin-laden-raid



> When Reggie Love, President Obama's ex-assistant, revealed in an interview that the president left the Situation Room during the bin Laden raid to play 15 games of Spades with Love and a few others, the revelation threatened the White House's carefully crafted mythology surrounding that night. Thursday morning, though, it was Norah O'Donnell and Charlie Rose of CBS News to the rescue of that mythology.



Af





> ter broadcasting video of Love's comments on CBS This Morning, co-hosts O'Donnell and Rose immediately dropped every pretense of being objective journalists to spin the news and pre-empt critics:
> 
> 
> O'DONNELL: That video from the event was just posted online this week. 15 games of spade (sic) &#8211; it was a long raid that was cared out. It took a long way &#8211; that operation. And clearly, the President, I think, needed to take a break. But I think some people are going to take that headline out of context today.
> ...



Does anyone seriously believe that these same "journalists" would have said the same thing in defense of Bush?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The rise of a viable third party might make them have to change their tune but might just make them join together long enough to beat it back and keep the two-party system for themselves.



The way things work right now, the main parties have a stranglehold on the debates and other media access during the election cycle.  In the last election, 4 theoretically viable candidates were denied access to debates and a lot of there attention.  I describe them as theoretically viable because they were on the ballot in enough states to win enough of the electoral college and be elected... but if they're not given a fair shake... how can they be elected?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2013)

billc said:


> See that's the thing...Breitbart.com doesn't pretend to have no bias...



Yet, it's almost the only site you ever use to support your positions.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> The way things work right now, the main parties have a stranglehold on the debates and other media access during the election cycle.  In the last election, 4 theoretically viable candidates were denied access to debates and a lot of there attention.  I describe them as theoretically viable because they were on the ballot in enough states to win enough of the electoral college and be elected... but if they're not given a fair shake... how can they be elected?



Gary Johnson was saying some things that should have been part of the national conversation this past time around. It's a loss to public discourse. But they've written the two-party system so strongly into the law that there's not much you can do.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 17, 2013)

billc said:


> 100 or more out of...8,926....



That's 100 *threads started by the OP*-I don't think Bob has enough bandwidth to search for all the posts made about Obama...:lfao:

Anyway......

We bombed Hiroshima at 8:15 in the morning. 8:15 AM in Japan is 9:15 PM in Washington, D.C.

We bombed Nagaskaki at 11:01 in the morning. 11:01 in Japan is 1:01 AM in Washington, D.C.

By all accounts, Harry Truman-a notorious "early to bed, early to rise" midwesterner-was fast asleep when we dropped both A-bombs-what was, arguably, the most momentous military decision in U.S. history. 

Of course, he gave the order, and was likely awakened as soon as word reached Washington, but he had no reason to be awake awaiting word, any more than Obama did while the raid was going on.

In fact, some might paint him as a cool customer for being able to kill some time playing cards,allowing those he had given a job to to do their jobs, rather than micro-managing to disaster, like Jimmy Carter did with the failed attempt to rescue U.S. Embassy personnel in Iran back in '79.......just sayin'....


----------

