Jump to content

The Testing of a New President


ricco67

Recommended Posts

I've been seeing some very interesting developments over the past month or so;

China is flexing its muscles and harassing the Navy in the area, claiming that the U.S. Navy nearly colliding with an unarmed survey ship in international waters in the South China Sea. This has resulted in the Navy sending in additional ships in support.

Now, adding to to this, Cuba and Venezuela have offered their territories for Russian bombers, who have started doing "long range patrols" a year or so ago, to use their territories.

As it's being reported, the bombers would do nothing more than Land, refuel, and take off back to Russia.

Initially, I was kinda' blowing this stuff off, until I remembered that this is pretty much what they did when President Bush first took over in 2001.

For those of you that might have forgotten, there was a major incident in which a Chinese jet collided with a Naval EP-3, which resulted in an emergency landing on Hainan Island in Chinese Territory.

Here is a link if you need a refresher for your memory.

The point is, I wonder if this typical. I don't exactly recall the same thing happening to other Presidents (Clinton,GHBush, Reagan, etc), but it sure does seem like a nice little pattern to see how a new President will react.

Normally, I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda' person, but this is a bit creepy.

Let's keep it on topic, M'Kay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Chinese hold two trillion in bonds, a few vessel issues and jib jabbing, should be the least of our worries. It's would no surprise me to see a correlation in new administrations and boundary testing. Not that far fetched if you think about it. They just may be checking his oil. It's not like there isn't enough distractions around as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Chinese hold two trillion in bonds, a few vessel issues and jib jabbing, should be the least of our worries. It's would no surprise me to see a correlation in new administrations and boundary testing. Not that far fetched if you think about it. They just may be checking his oil. It's not like there isn't enough distractions around as it is.

its absolutely a test of his willingness to respond to actions with military force as in the past, or with just weak talk. I am pretty sure that he will respond with more appeasement talk. Im sorry our boat got in your way, let me send a battle fleet over there for appearances, but at the same time dismantle all the weapons we have. Our president has no backbone. He is canceling defense programs & military spending, denying necessary health care to veterans wounded in combat, and attempting to disarm the country.

Just watch - as we are tested over and over, and we respond with nothing but more weak talk and military cuts - it will only be a matter of time until someone finally decides that its time to take us on. China is expanding its military, as they grow - we are contracting ours and wasting all of our money on social programs of little or no value to the bulk of the taxpayers.

Its the beginning of the end. To steal from a crazy - a nation without defined borders, language, and culture is no nation at all. We are becoming a defenseless hodgepodge of cultures none of which are intent on protecting what this country was originally built for. Its a test and we are failing it miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, I wonder if this typical. I don't exactly recall the same thing happening to other Presidents (Clinton,GHBush, Reagan, etc), but it sure does seem like a nice little pattern to see how a new President will react.

Normally, I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda' person, but this is a bit creepy.

Actually, this did happen with Clinton. Saddam Hussein tested him by violating the terms of surrender. I seem to recall that there were incidents with the No Fly Zone. Bush was tested with the ousting of UN weapons inspectors.

It's not really that creepy. It's just good strategy. You want to know how an opponent is going to react so that you know how to push the envelope without incurring a response that goes beyond lip service from the State Department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we all know how much Dems around here rely on POLLS. So, this is probably one that they are turning a blind eye to. It is still fun reading though. To think, Obama is below George W. Bush levels in the same timeframe is just hilarious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Of course, the WSJ opinion page picks whatever poll fits their conservative viewpoint. I can do the same. On that note, I find it impressive that Obama is polling ahead of George W. Bush at this point in his presidency considering that we're in the worst economic slump since the depression.

Obama's Approval Equal To or Better Than Bush's, Clinton's

xrpwgramtuk2hrx66nttna.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116845/Obama-Ap...sh-Clinton.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been seeing some very interesting developments over the past month or so;

China is flexing its muscles and harassing the Navy in the area, claiming that the U.S. Navy nearly colliding with an unarmed survey ship in international waters in the South China Sea. This has resulted in the Navy sending in additional ships in support.

This sort of thing goes on all the time and has for years, regardless of who is the president. My father spent his career in the Navy and told me about all the cat and mouse games that went on from the 60's through the 80's between the US Navy and the Russians and Chinese. We would probe their defenses and reactions and they would probe ours. It's just standard military practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the WSJ opinion page picks whatever poll fits their conservative viewpoint. I can do the same. On that note, I find it impressive that Obama is polling ahead of George W. Bush at this point in his presidency considering that we're in the worst economic slump since the depression.

WSJ..........conservative ??? OK, perhaps you didn't read this part at the bottom of the page chief.

"Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company."

Pollster for King Bill himself, YEAH, real Conservative. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we all know how much Dems around here rely on POLLS. So, this is probably one that they are turning a blind eye to. It is still fun reading though. To think, Obama is below George W. Bush levels in the same timeframe is just hilarious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Yeah, you can definitely compare the two :rolleyes:. Bush's Presidency was a cakewalk until 9/11. Obama came in with one of our worst recessions. The best way to compare is Bush's last approval rating to Obama's, since they are around the same time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSJ..........conservative ??? OK, perhaps you didn't read this part at the bottom of the page chief.

"Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company."

Pollster for King Bill himself, YEAH, real Conservative. :rolleyes:

Like I said, they picked the poll showing the worst numbers so they could argue that Obama's popularity is crashing. It's the same conservative drivel the WSJ op-ed page has long been known for. I didn't expect that would change when Fox News, I mean, NewsCorp, bought the WSJ.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903130007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, they picked the poll showing the worst numbers so they could argue that Obama's popularity is crashing. It's the same conservative drivel the WSJ op-ed page has long been known for. I didn't expect that would change when Fox News, I mean, NewsCorp, bought the WSJ.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903130007

Ahhh yes - media matters - a completely unbiased organization. Oh wait - the stated purpose of media matters is to combat conservative views in the media. In fact - media matters ACTUALLY thinks that the main stream media is CONSERVATIVE - which I find laughable.

At any rate - anything coming from media matters should be taken for exactly what it is - partisan hack reporting not worthy of anyones time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes - media matters - a completely unbiased organization. Oh wait - the stated purpose of media matters is to combat conservative views in the media. In fact - media matters ACTUALLY thinks that the main stream media is CONSERVATIVE - which I find laughable.

At any rate - anything coming from media matters should be taken for exactly what it is - partisan hack reporting not worthy of anyones time.

... and Fox News actually thinks they are fair and balanced.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and Fox News actually thinks they are fair and balanced.... :lol:

Unlike Media Matters - Fox though right leaning in its reporting - DOES report the news even the negatives for the right. Media Matters ONLY attacks media that it feels does not advance its progressive agenda. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Even with its right slant - fox is more fair and balanced (in my perceptions) than any of the other outlets. You wont get perfectly fair or balanced, but Fox is closer when just reporting the news as news than CNN, MSNBC,CBS, Etc. You just have to be able to separate the news from the entertainment programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Media Matters - Fox though right leaning in its reporting - DOES report the news even the negatives for the right. Media Matters ONLY attacks media that it feels does not advance its progressive agenda. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Even with its right slant - fox is more fair and balanced (in my perceptions) than any of the other outlets. You wont get perfectly fair or balanced, but Fox is closer when just reporting the news as news than CNN, MSNBC,CBS, Etc. You just have to be able to separate the news from the entertainment programs.

Really? Like this past week when Fox tried to say that the Obama Administration said that our economy was "fundamentally strong" and then tried to say that....well....just watch the clip:

http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2009/03/fox-...abrication.html

You're so right. Fox News is definitely fair and balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Like this past week when Fox tried to say that the Obama Administration said that our economy was "fundamentally strong" and then tried to say that....well....just watch the clip:

http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2009/03/fox-...abrication.html

You're so right. Fox News is definitely fair and balanced.

Didnt say it was fair and balanced - said it was MORE fair and balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Media Matters - Fox though right leaning in its reporting - DOES report the news even the negatives for the right. Media Matters ONLY attacks media that it feels does not advance its progressive agenda. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Even with its right slant - fox is more fair and balanced (in my perceptions) than any of the other outlets. You wont get perfectly fair or balanced, but Fox is closer when just reporting the news as news than CNN, MSNBC,CBS, Etc. You just have to be able to separate the news from the entertainment programs.

Yes, but at least Media Matters states up front that's what they are about... go to their website and it says that they correct misinformation from conservative U.S. media. They admit it! Fox News goes on and on about how they are "fair and balanced" when they are anything but... they lean way to the right. Watch Fox News and all you hear is whining and crying about how the media is so liberal and bias media is evil... if that's so true why do they have a conservative bias?... such hypocrisy. Oh... and another thing... someone please tell all of the crybabies on Fox who constantly whine about the "mainstream media" that THEY ARE PART OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!. Morons. <_<

The most "fair and balanced" news network is CNN, though they do lean a bit to the left. MSNBC leans far left... Fox News leans far right.

CNN is easily the most balanced out of the cable networks. MSNBC is to the left, Fox is to the right. It's simple.

Bingo... yes, it is very simple. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes - media matters - a completely unbiased organization. Oh wait - the stated purpose of media matters is to combat conservative views in the media. In fact - media matters ACTUALLY thinks that the main stream media is CONSERVATIVE - which I find laughable.

At any rate - anything coming from media matters should be taken for exactly what it is - partisan hack reporting not worthy of anyones time.

I would argue that most media outlets are more conservative than you realize when it comes to the news. Consider the complete failure of the MSM to challenge the Bush administration on grounds for invading Iraq. No major news organization made any real attempt to challenge the status quo. That's because corporate media is conservative; they're more interested in maintaining the status quo and distracting viewers with cheap commentary than bothering with expensive, risky, and time-consuming news reporting that could hurt their bottom line or embarrass their thousands of corporate advertisers. These mega corporations, like the Disney Corporation, General Electric, and NewsCorp, have more profitable business interests anyway. They have little desire to shake things up or really investigate serious issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people tend to think they're right, that anybody else on the political spectrum is wrong to varying degrees, and because they believe their opinions to be the only logical ones, they believe that most people would readily accept them if only they were exposed to that set of opinions; this is the foundation of centrism bias. Compounding this internal bias is that most individuals tend to socialize with like-minded individuals, influencing a mistaken perception of belonging to a majority.

Radicals of any sort will tend to believe that all media is biased against them. A card-carrying Communist, for instance, is pissed off that nuclear families are depicted at all on television. A hood-wearing KKK member is pissed off that all the major networks and that most local news have any staffers other than whites. In either case, it appears to them that they're coming from a place of reason, that there are a lot of people out there that think just like them, and that the media is profoundly biased against them. And the kicker...it is biased against them. It is only a business, and these groups are in actuality on the far fringes of the population. You can't accommodate them with any form of mass media, and the news networks that we do have are just competently practicing market segmentation.

This all leads to my point: media is a mirror of society. There was a time when racism was readily accepted. It was a centrist attitude, not only among the public but in its treatment among the media. The public changed, so the media changed. And now it is an extremist attitude. There is no one set of policies that actually is the definitive center; it is up to what is popular. ...and ultimately it comes down to who can be influenced to watch commercials.

Let's keep it on topic, M'Kay?

That was good advice, but you knew that it would inevitably degenerate to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, they picked the poll showing the worst numbers so they could argue that Obama's popularity is crashing. It's the same conservative drivel the WSJ op-ed page has long been known for. I didn't expect that would change when Fox News, I mean, NewsCorp, bought the WSJ.

'Cuda, the WSJ didn't write the story, a Clinton pollster did, an obvious Democrat. I know it is hard for you to hear the truth.

"Cuda, do you agree with Htown that MSNBC is far left and that Fox is COnservative like the WSJ, as you claim ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who wouldn't agree that MSNBC is far left and Fox is FAR right? CNN is in the middle, but leans to the left more.

MSNBC is much farther left than Fox is right - I cant stand CNN - I get physically sick watching CNN - CNN is as far left as Fox is right.

Though I would agree with Barnes there is no middle ground on this one - they are all leaning one way or the other and its all about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Cuda, the WSJ didn't write the story, a Clinton pollster did, an obvious Democrat. I know it is hard for you to hear the truth.

"Cuda, do you agree with Htown that MSNBC is far left and that Fox is COnservative like the WSJ, as you claim ?

TJones, it's obvious that Schoen and Rasmussen are not democrats. Why else would they only reference poll results that fit their argument while ignoring poll results that dispute their argument?

I see MSNBC and Fox News as primarily entertainment channels, devoted to dissecting the days news in partisan manners. MSNBC does have their liberal commentators (Olbermann and Maddow), their fence jumper (Chris Matthews, who became liberal recently as it became fashionable again), and their conservative (Scarborough). I'm not sure I would pin MSNBC as a liberal network, but they certainly have more liberal commentators than any other cable news network.

What's funny is that Fox News feels so threatened by the competition that their attack dogs (like Bill O'Reilly) feel the need to frequently vent on the air about how liberal MSNBC is, all the while claiming they themselves are 'fair and balanced'. Yet Fox News has no regular liberal commentators and is easily the most partisan network in the country.

So much BS. I honestly can't stand most cable news network programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess it will REALLY make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that NBC and WSJ run their polls together. That's pretty daring of WSJ, for such a strict conservative outlet, wouldn't you say ?

So, you are saying that somebody who used to work for the Clintons is capable of jumping ship. Perhaps that is the "hope" and "change" that Obama was speaking of. :rolleyes:

Keep turning that blind eye, It has to pay off at some point 'Cuda.

Schoen is as Democrat as they come my ill-informed friend.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Douglas_Schoen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSNBC is much farther left than Fox is right - I cant stand CNN - I get physically sick watching CNN - CNN is as far left as Fox is right.

Pass me what you're smoking. There is no way MSNBC is farther left than Fox and CNN is still easily the most balance. You don't see CNN reporting lies like Fox does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...