Maybe some of the “main stream” media hucksters will finally get it when ad revenue tanks along with viewership and the economy and they have to hit the bricks looking for another livelyhood.

Obama = A terrible waste of Air Time.

The American Public is starving for news regarding good events and good people.

The Public’s head is stuffed so full of Baloney these days that America may turn into a sausage factory to feed the rest of the world.

There has been a LOVE FEST with Obama since he spoke at the Democratic convention 4 years ago. This man has been LOVED, LOVED, LOVED BY THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA FOR YEARS and it hasn’t stopped and WILL NOT STOP until this man does something REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, STUPID. They won’t make him accountable on a REAL blunder, it will have to be really, really, really BIG befor they stop slobbering all over this guy. GOD HELP US BECAUSE THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS PUT US IN DANGER. MARK MY WORDS.  GOD HELP US. GOD HELP US.

Ignorance, Perversion, Hate and Criminal Acts are easy.

Wisdom, Purity, Love and Honesty take hard work.

Obama is proof that people are lazy.

Obama wants all of this airtime to get more people on his side to accept his Marxist policies that lots of people do NOT want. He thinks if he makes all of those teleprompter speeches, he will get more people to agree with him, but I believe it is having the opposite effect. I got tired of looking at him every day, so I quit watching his speeches. He is doing everything he can to destroy this country, but the more he gets on TV, the more people will turn away.

You know—the credit should go to TOTUS not POTUS.

Thanks Boston Beaner, thanks Joy – you have correctly identified the problem AND the future if something doesn’t happen to change the lazy, uneducated populace of America.  I’m an old lady with memories of the “way things used to be” and today’s USA is but a copy of the political way Britain, Europe, and Russia, have already tried and failed.  Alas, what to do?  How do we stop voters from voting on an IDOL?  Can Obama sing and dance?  He’s but a tool and mouthpiece for the Democratic party and the media.

America has become a Sty full of lazy Pigs that just wallow in their ignorance waiting to be fed more slop after party and sex.

The figures regarding coverage are meaningless in the light of the fact that outlets like CNN are shameless boosters of Obama and are absolutely uncritical in virtually all reporting. Since they repeat this 24 hrs per day the figures are hopelessly skewed and these networks are little more than propaganda outlets.

Was it always so?

I cannot say -I am only 65 -not 250 -but it has definitely become worse over my few years of observation.

Particularly comparing the first 100 dats of Obama and George Bush the discrepancy is terribly obvious. I am a fan of neither -but Bush was not given anything approaching a fair shake. At this point in time for Bush the media were still discussing whether or not he was actually the President!

Regards

Jock Williams

Totally right on -  regarding Bush – can’t say I agree with some of the decisions he made, but the present administration is still trying to indict Bush and his counterparts, useless retribution posturing for the venous left.  Jock – you are on point – Bush never had a chance – he was a decent fellow, with the best interests of America in mind, but he was classified as a stupid, ill speaking, CHRISTIAN – omg, isn’t that scary.  Really blistered for his religions belief, and God help us, along comes Obama with no discernible religious mindset – and that suits the media just fine.

The present Whitehouse Administration is symbolic of a Swine Flu. They have infected the entire nation with a disabling physical/mental disease.

Hey Boston Beaner – I’m watching for the fallout!  Hopefully! 
Glad to see you’re in Boston – Markey is a part of all that indictment stuff – get him out of there!  Next election!  I’m countin’ on you!

L-O-T-S of hot air here.

Eisenhower had similar media and public adulation (and genuine support) in his first few months in office – as did Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.  AND – broad public support is probably the most important element that one has to have in order to be a truly successful President – and – Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton are generally regarded as pretty successful presidents.

Johnson, Nixon and Ford each began their terms under one kind of a cloud or another – and, of course, the disputed election of 2000 DEFINITELY started George W. Bush off, not only under a cloud, but also, way down in a pretty deep hole.

Public and media support are necessities if a president is to be effective and successful – - and whenever a president is successful – - we are ALL successful!

We can only hope and pray that Obama is NOT successful in taking over the car companies, the banking industry, the insurance companies, the health industry,and yes, the socialization of America. Did anyone mention Carter?  Was Clinton successful?  Pass the koolaid.  I can only quote Abraham Lincoln, “But we have forgotten God.  We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.” And Obama thinks he is Lincoln?  Oh, yeah…

Those who focus on blame have a value system that typically says ‘The wicked should be punished’ and finger-pointing and blame is a part of this punishment. They take the moral high ground, sitting as prosecutor, judge, and jury, and pronounce guilt and sentence. They blame others in order to distract or deflect attention from themselves.  Lets be real honest here, the current President, has never set the an example of leadership or moral certainty in the past (at least as far as can be verified with certainty… more over it is not like he did NOT know what he was seeking… well perhaps he did not because he really was in the Senate all that much.  Perhaps has been there, he could have used all that charm and Charisma to effect some beneficial change.  The reality is he was elected… he is the President.. Perhaps the found fathers had it right after all –-

Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government the real power lies in the majority of the community….
         
—JAMES MADISON

With regard to “Public and media support are necessities if a president is to be effective and successful – - and whenever a president is successful – - we are ALL successful!” I could not in disagree more… this is “utter balderdash.” In addition, inaccurate on so many points it is not even worth rebutting.

Obama successful at what TK?

Re: Post 15;

MY comment – and your comment on it:

Me:  “Public and media support are necessities if a president is to be effective and successful – - and whenever a president is successful – - we are ALL successful!”

You:  “I could not in disagree more… this is “utter balderdash.” In addition, inaccurate on so many points it is not even worth rebutting.”
________________________________

So – you believe a president can be “successful” even after saying “screw the public and screw the media”?  (Didn’t Hitler do that?)

Far out, man!  But, I guess, to each his own.

Re: Post 16;

Nowhere did I say “Obama was successful”.

What I said was: ” … whenever a president is successful – - we are ALL successful! …”

I also said that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton were generally considered by most historians and experts on the subject of the presidency to be successful.

And, Obama was certainly successful in winning his party’s nomination and the election.  Beyond that, only time will tell – BUT – I sure do hope that he turns out to be a good and successful president – at least comparable to Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton!  (To hope otherwise, I think, would be, first, absurd and, second, unAmerican.)

TK: Re 17>
Clearly you are no history student.. so I will not even to address the “Hitler” reference, for fear you will make the discussion into something it is not..

popularity with the media does not equate to success..(I.e Jimmy Carter) but the first item to engage in such a discussion is define Success.. If you do not you cannot determine who was successful—but that is a factual matter, something I notice many do not care to engage in.

Nice try however- but trying “aint doing”

regards

BTW
Hitler allowed the Nazi party to dominate all other aspects of life. moreover by the mid 1930 he was a a brutal, but successful and POLULAR dictator. Everyone was employed again, and national dignity was restored. Employment was full partly because a huge chunk of the national budget was spent and the the Nazi state regime created a huge number of new jobs in the multiple party organizations. …Odd however you chose such a figure to try to make your point with…

TK, What is your definition of Success?

My definition of success is, “The people of American society to be successful at the Persuit of Happiness”. The election of a President or the President’s successes are not the successes of the people. Those are the successes of people in the government. Success at the ability to conduct our livlihoods as we see fit, not how the decree of some self promoted potentate decides for us.

No where do you read, “Government of the people by the government for the government”.

Maybe in a Prison Society.

Just an opinion.

Oh I get it! 

“Success of the Government, for the Government, by the Government”. = Success of Obama.

How wonderful!

Can we get that for Christmas too?

Re: Post 21;

In my comment, my use of the word “successful” applied only to the administration of a president – and my definition coincides, in that regard, with the general assessments of presidential historians and other relevant experts on various presidential administrations – and the definition as commonly-used is relative among and between those administrations, e.g., most presidential scholars view the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton as relatively and generally “successful” – and those of Nixon, Ford and Carter (and I would have to guess, George W. Bush) NOT so comparably successful.

If, on the other hand, you feel a president was “successful” if he made YOU “happy” – well – you’re entitled to maintain that perspective if you wish.

In my context, I would say that George W. Bush was NOT a “successful” president as evidenced by the fact that he generally DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT of 60% to 70% of the American people most of the time during his administration – nor did he have the support of most of the American media. So – in your terminology – he failed to make the people and media “happy”.

Really, though, I think most people “get” the difference between those presidencies generally considered successful and those considered not so successful.

Interesting. That should be put on display at the Smithsonian next to the Constitution to display the difference between the Modern American Thought and that of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution has evedintly become a Political Football.

Re: Post 19;

I guess I wrongly assumed that most people would understand that a presidential administration could not be fairly judged “successful” or “unsuccessful” IN ITS ENTIRETY – UNTIL IT WAS OVER!

Hitler was elected president at the same time and with the same high level of public and media support as was Franklin Roosevelt.  HOWEVER – AFTER THEY CONCLUDED their respective runs in office – I believe most people would readily understand (and agree) that Roosevelt was “successful” as U.S. President – and that Hitler clearly was not as leader of Nazi Germany.

Obviously, my judgment of presidential success or failure comes AFTER the term has been completed; if you choose to measure that success or failure on a daily, monthly or annual basis, that is your prerogative.

And, BTW, years ago and along the way – I taught history over a 13-year period at a very highly-regarded private school in the northeast – and among several higher education degrees – I do happen to have one in American History – from a very highly-regarded private school in the northeast.  So … and I’m sure you know what they say about one who is always “making assumptions”, don’t you, Jer???

Re: Post 23:
With all considered respect,… you did not “define anything” in “any regard” with “any general assessment of any presidential historian”… Again with all considered respect you toss around a lot of pontificated commentary purported to be supported by all kinds of experts –but you never offer a predicate or foundation… which in itself is fine just stop being intellectually dishonest and simply say “it is your opinion.”

Trying to validate a commentary with verbose and indeterminate pseudo intellectual “support” does not add weight to any positions.

– are you creating measurement based on …. Presidential vision, public persuasion, character and integrity, foreign standing, presidential appointments, crisis management, policy leadership or what they accomplished before …  these seem to be the quantified areas common to must evaluations and BTW – they can even be found in “Evaluating President,  for Dummies”

Regards

Years 40 years ago an old friend ‘Dr. Hjalmer Emanuel Berg’ advised me of the evils of “Highly Educatd Ignorance growing in the American Higher Educational System”. Halmer was Dean at Eaton and Yale after that.

I think it is interesting to see how quickly intellectual debate can change to personal attack.

My initial point was simply that the media basically created and supported Obama -and that this is generally not a great idea -the role of the media is supposedly to inform -not to sway.

As a Canadian I do not care whether you have Obama or McCain or Sharpton in the presidency -but obviously I cannot help but have preferences -and my further point is that I don’t think that this election you came up with the best and brightest from either party.

On the other hand -I can see why the “best and brightest” no longer present themselves as candidates!  Who needs the grief of the public scrutiny and constant criticism? Who needs the constant pressure to please a populace that essentially will no longer be pleased?

This is not a prediction -but an observation -but I expect that is correct. Before Obama leaves office it will be “revealed” that he has had an affair or other indiscretion. This may or may not eventually prove to be true -but no matter -someone will make the accusation -and it will fill CNN for 5 or 6 months minimum.

And further -if McCain had won -it would be the same.

Remember the expression “If it bleeds -it leads”? Well trust me -the media is always after blood -and they will either find it or invent it!

Too bad we have come to this!

Nonetheless -we all have our own opinions -and it saddens me to see personal attacks crowding out intellectual discussion on a polite and impersonal basis.

“When the name Hitler is mentioned -in any context -watch out! What follows is not going to be pretty!”  Williams 2009

Regards

Jock Williams

Well MR TK:

. You sound very much like another poster around here..  but for the records and for someone whit a (self touted) pedigrees– one could claim honest surprise at your pronouncements- particularly regarding Hitler (or even why you raised him as a debate item)..

First –You raised the person in support of an argument… not me.. and the argument was flawed on its face.

Second– I have not assessed the administration, beyond a few key points, which are clearly quantifiable

Third- Again you fail to add historical context to you so called determination of success as with regard to Roosevelt.

Fourth- Again you are incorrect… Hitler was CLEARLY the leader of Nazi Germany, in fact he was the Chancellor of Germany from 1933, and Leader of Germany from 1934, until his death in 1945 April 30 if memory serves… ; He was also leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party–– better known as the NAZI Party.

Hitler gained power in Germany using charismatic oratory, appealing to economic need, nationalism to establish an authoritarian regime.. but then as a renowned HISTORY teacher you should know this…

Mr Williams. I agree– and am a little guilty of getting pulled into the traps on occasion.

I agree with your other assessment as well ..  we no longer advance our “best and brightest.” I would disagree with the “grief of the public scrutiny” … but if by that you mean the “grief of MEDIA scorn” that so often slanted and one sided ..to the point of being dishonest… I 100% agree with you.

Also, in my opinion, I think that MOST who seek federal elected offices are no longer doing for the “god and country” but for their own self interest–  as John Locke said “I no sooner perceived myself in the world than I found myself in a storm,”

itto on the Hitler commentary..

This is certainly not the place for personal attacks. Think of this as a classroom of debate. We are not here to judge eachother but to try to clarify what many post as fact. In America, a Farmer has equal right to opinion and debate as the Collegian. The Farmer knows about the creation and preservation of life, the Collegian knows what he knows from the thoughts and findings of others. One creates, the other thinks on the creation.

We are all here to learn. The bigger university is on the Farm. The University a place to dream and create ideas and data.

As for me, I stick with the Farmer. He is down to earth. The Collegian, somewhere in the heavens.

One can feed you. The otheryou never know what he will come up with next.

Re: Posts 26 and 29;

Lots of hot air there, Jer.  Much of what you say makes no sense to me whatsoever and the rest seems to be some sort of exercise in misdirection – or something (???)

And, Ace, I didn’t “self-tout” any “pedigrees”.  You made the ridiculous and “ad hominem” assertion that …“Clearly you are no history student”… so I simply pointed out how clearly wrong your unsubstantiated and unsupported assumption was by providing some relevant personal information.

I’m not interested in signing up with you for the apparently endless “Hot-Air Follies” taking place here – or the hopeless activity of trying to herd cats – so – you just stick to your opinions and I’ll stick to mine – with agreement that NEVER the twain shall meet.

Geez.  Like trying to bottle smoke – or something (???)

Re: Post 31;

It might take a “collegian” lawyer to come “down from the heavens” to save that “farmer’s” farm from other “collegians” who may be trying to foreclose on it and it might well require that the “collegian” lawyer has “to dream and create ideas” of how best he might actually succeed in saving that farmer’s farm – - don’t you think?

Mr. TK; RE: 32 et al.

Couple of points,

One I never gave you leave to call me “Jer”, this is another of those liberties you assume.
Second- I have not engaged in any “Ad Hominem” attacks,. 
I have admonished your commentary as being factualy wrong and lacking in foundation.. Beyond claims of “the experts say ..” or the ever popular “general assessments of presidential historians and other relevant experts on various presidential administrations – ..” and did suggest you should use more intellectual honesty. Also I did suggest your history is weak regarding your injection of Hitler…. that is far from an “Ad Hominem” attack..  Since my posting, rebut yours on points… 
An ad hominem attacks is more Person A makes claim “X”. 
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.

I simply point out your claims are not supported OR they (your argument) is/are false on their face…hardly Ad hominem…  this may be a pot…kettle thing as it were.

Regards

Re: Post 34;

As I’ve said, Jer … “Hot Air” … and now … “Baloney”, too!

And, Jer, “ad hominem” means “against the person” – and in common English useage today, it means “attacking the person rather than the person’s statement or claim”.  Your comment (just one among several others) – “Clearly you are no history student” – was BOTH “ad hominem” and “false on its face” – so, as I said – “Hot Air” and “Baloney”!

Vade in pace.

There is a differance between Collegian and Carpet Bagger. Please do not confuse the two, they are two completely different animals.

The overtly educated seem shameful of their roots. A tree cannot live without the roots nor can the Parasite live without the Tree.

It seems the overtly educated have lost touch with their origins. Is not Confusion a kind of Bliss? Chaos?

Those who use strong language know their error.

Re: Post 36;

Who mentioned “Carpet Bagger”?  Not me.

Anway – don’t most of those “Farmers” have their own collegian “Country Lawyers” living right out there with them amongst all those fields of waving grain?

And – Good Luck, wherever, with all those roots and parasites. (I guess???)

Mr TK:
Again you validate my position.

The term literally means “Argument against the man” (Latin)  or [Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom?, man.](1)

However the USE as you inject it means quite literally to negate an argument by negating the person..  In it most misused instance, ad hominem is one of the most frequently misidentified fallacies, probably because it is one of the best known ones. Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy.(2)—so again..

So far you are batting a perfect score..

(1) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1996). “Example: Ad Hominem”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One. Retrieved on September 10 2007.

(2) Alan Brinton, “The Ad Hominem” in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 213-222.

“Of all we loved and honored, naught
    Save power remains,—
A fallen angel’s pride of thought,
    Still strong in chains.

All else is gone; from those great eyes
    The soul has fled:
When faith is lost, when honor dies,
    The man is dead!”

              Whittier, Ichabod!

“Tout est soldat pour vous combattre”

Hold with the Maker, not the Made.
Sit with the cause, or grim or glad.

                Carlyle

Ok.. La Marseillaise aside.. I think this topic id done.. now if we can only survive the unbelievable debt, the so called religion of peace and the current social experiment—the next thing will be a locust plague..

Re: Post 39;

And The Merry Continues To Go ‘Round.

Fervens ventus.

Last Word