those dirty 3rd parties stealing votes...

Abookamongstthemany

Danny Boy wrote:

Uh, he delivered the speech at the DNC which was televised. And this has to do with...???

Did you read the thread?

Abookamongstthemany

Danny Boy wrote:

Yes, my initial exposure to Senator Obama was on the television. What does this have to with anything? Did you not read the entirety of my post??? I like how you pick out one sentence to make some justification for your premise, that I've been spoonfed Obama by a loving media. Please feel free to tell me where Obama reached saturation level in the media before announcing his candidacy. And by the way, after I did my reasearch and became a supporter in 2004, word of mouth provided some people's first insight into the man because I shared my thoughts.

A very Hannity-esque move on your part, Kabong. You should be proud. You've posted countless youtube links. Last time I checked, youtube was a pretty popular media machine in many regards. Sure, it's not as widespread as the tele, but nonetheless your mode of sequestering information isn't any different than mine other than the fact more outlets are available to learn about Obama than the candidate you support.

Youtube is at least a form of media that everyone has access to, unlike channels ran by large corporations with agendas.

Danny Boy

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Youtube is at least a form of media that everyone has access to, unlike channels ran by large corporations with agendas.

If somebody can afford a computer and internet access, they could probably afford a used television and/or basic cable subscription.

So by your standards, somebody who accesses information via television is doing nothing more than sucking up corporate agenda when listening to a candidate or watching a debate?

A dandy of a statement, really. You should be commended for accessing your information sans television. We all know that internet information is not at all prone to bias.

Do you think Obama's a muslim? Do you think it's fair that people make such insinuations? Funny, outside of FoxNews all of the television coverage concerning this specific notion has provided truth whereas the internet has generated all of the bullshit information. I guess corporate America doesn't ant us to believe he's the muslim Manchurian candidate.

Abookamongstthemany

Danny Boy wrote:

If somebody can afford a computer and internet access, they could probably afford a used television and/or basic cable subscription.

So by your standards, somebody who accesses information via television is doing nothing more than sucking up corporate agenda when listening to a candidate or watching a debate?

A dandy of a statement, really. You should be commended for accessing your information sans television. We all know that internet information is not at all prone to bias.

Do you think Obama's a muslim? Do you think it's fair that people make such insinuations? Funny, outside of FoxNews all of the television coverage concerning this specific notion has provided truth whereas the internet has generated all of the bullshit information. I guess corporate America doesn't ant us to believe he's the muslim Manchurian candidate.

I don't think we should limit ourselves to one view which is all tv offers.

I think it's fair to be able to express whatever your opinion is and let the people weed out what to take stock in or not

Danny Boy

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't think we should limit ourselves to one view which is all tv offers.

I think it's fair to be able to express whatever your opinion is and let the people weed out what to take stock in or not

I concur wholeheartedly. But when there are statements/questions such as...

El_Kabong wrote:

but the media is where you first heard of him, right?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Where did you see this keynote speech, again? Most people saw it on TV

... it kind of belittles opinion and or support that deviates from your notions and to a lesser extent the manners in which we seek our information. These two diddies from you and Kabong make some sort of insinuation that because the first place I was exposed to Obama was on a television that my support and knowledge are somehow lesser.

Had I watched Obama's keynote speech on youtube instead of msnbc would my opinions be more valid or valued?

You say tv offers only one view. Television generally offers the best opportunity to watch a candidate in interviews or debates. Many people like getting their information right from the horse's mouth. The same speech that can be seen on tele can be see online, so I don't understand your relentless hacking away at television.

It's all media anyhow, unless you only gather information in person with the candidate and/or his/her supporters. I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.

Not everybody watches various political shows to ape pundit opinion. I'm sure not every Fox News viewer thinks Hillary's a lesbian or Barack's a muslim.

Abookamongstthemany

Danny Boy wrote:

I concur wholeheartedly. But when there are statements/questions such as...





... it kind of belittles opinion and or support that deviates from your notions and to a lesser extent the manners in which we seek our information. These two diddies from you and Kabong make some sort of insinuation that because the first place I was exposed to Obama was on a television that my support and knowledge are somehow lesser.

Had I watched Obama's keynote speech on youtube instead of msnbc would my opinions be more valid or valued?

You say tv offers only one view. Television generally offers the best opportunity to watch a candidate in interviews or debates. Many people like getting their information right from the horse's mouth. The same speech that can be seen on tele can be see online, so I don't understand your relentless hacking away at television.

It's all media anyhow, unless you only gather information in person with the candidate and/or his/her supporters. I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.

No, that wasn't the point. The point was you saw him on tv in the first place and that lead to your interest in him. Whereas Nader is hardly ever on tv much less allowed to give a speech during a primetime huge event like the DNC.

Danny Boy

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No, that wasn't the point. The point was you saw him on tv in the first place and that lead to your interest in him. Whereas Nader is hardly ever on tv much less allowed to give a speech during a primetime huge event like the DNC.

Big fucking deal. What are you trying to prove by reiterating the fact that the first time I saw Obama was on television? You never answered my question ~ if I had seen the speech on youtube rather than television, what does it change? And just in case you didn't read it earlier, please revisit these sentiments:

Danny Boy wrote:

I, like many, was first exposed to Obama when he delievered the keynote at the 2004 DNC. After I saw his speech, I told my dad that guy needed to run for president. I learned he had scribed a book and went out and bought it and motored through it voraciously. Spent a lot of time on his website long before the whisper of a presidential run surfaced and agreed with most of his legislation and speeches. I also think many of his proposals receive too scant attention based on his race and oratory abilities and go underappreciated or unnoticed.

The media boom had nothing to do with my support for him and many people out there would echo my sentiments. Obama moved me much the same way Nader moves you and in some fashions using the media as the main antecedent for his poplularity diminishes the opinions and aspirations of people like me who did the research and threw their hats in the ring.

Does Nader's lack of television exposure make him a more credible candidate or his supporters somehow better versed because you don't get your information from television? There's just as much bullshit online as there is on TV. Is it my fault that Nader can't gain traction??? You'd think, as somebody alluded to earlier, that with his 40 years of public service, presidential runs, books etc. that he wouldn't have such a difficult time finding some coverage.

And just in case you missed this thought:

Danny Boy wrote:

I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.

I used the term laughable earlier in this thread, and find it befitting again considering your lackluster and weak insinuations.

Danny Boy

And by the way ~ Nader was on television a wee bit before Obama. You might want to consider that when trashing other people's opinions.

Abookamongstthemany

Danny Boy wrote:

And by the way ~ Nader was on television a wee bit before Obama. You might want to consider that when trashing other people's opinions.

You need to relax. No one trashed your opinion.

norm

saturday night live in 1978 isn't exactly media exposure

Danny Boy

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You need to relax. No one trashed your opinion.

Okay, and you are right. My apologies. 'Questioning' would have been a better term than 'trashing'.

Again, you've yet to answer my question ~ had I first heard Obama's speech online how dies it differ from hearing it on television? I understand that you think tv is a biased outlet, but you keep going back to asking if the first time I saw him was on television. I don't get the logic. If I was passing Keith Olberman's thoughts as my own, I could understand your line of questioning.

Where and when did you first hear about Ralph Nader? If it wasn't word of mouth, odds are that it came from a media outlet.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think it's fair to be able to express whatever your opinion is and let the people weed out what to take stock in or not

so it is ok for biased opinions and lies to be expressed via the internet for people to "weed out", but it is not OK for the same biased opinions to be expressed via TV and weeded out?

danny boy made an excellent point, the same people that question everything coming through their corporate controlled TV, rely on another corporate controlled outlet where this is no filter on the lies and bullshit

if i believed everything i saw on the internet, compared with if i believed everything i saw on the TV. i think the TV would leave me better off and more accurately informed becasue it is scrutinized more thoroughly.

not defending TV at all, becasue it is actually pretty lame in my opinion. but he made a great point on that one

my2hands

Danny Boy wrote:

Where and when did you first hear about Ralph Nader?

Television


the same place he announced he was running for president a few weeks ago. on the most respected and watched political news show in america, "Meet the Press" on the nations largest newtwork NBC

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Youtube is at least a form of media that everyone has access to, unlike channels ran by large corporations with agendas.

you're right, no one has an agenda on youtube :cool:

my2hands

seriously though...






























































































i love my seatbelt

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

so it is ok for biased opinions and lies to be expressed via the internet for people to "weed out", but it is not OK for the same biased opinions to be expressed via TV and weeded out?

Where did i say anything about people not being to weed stuff out on tv?

my2hands wrote:

danny boy made an excellent point, the same people that question everything coming through their corporate controlled TV, rely on another corporate controlled outlet where this is no filter on the lies and bullshit

the point in this thread has nothing to do with what you and dannyboy are trying to argue right now.

my2hands wrote:

if i believed everything i saw on the internet, compared with if i believed everything i saw on the TV. i think the TV would leave me better off and more accurately informed because it is scrutinized more thoroughly.

You couldn't believe everything you read on the internet because there's a ton of differing opinions. You have to believe that contradictory views were all true and that amkes no sense. TV has more a narrowed down selection of what views they put on the air and it has an agenda, as well.

my2hands wrote:

not defending TV at all, because it is actually pretty lame in my opinion. but he made a great point on that one

He made a point that no one was even arguing. But whatever. That's why I didn't bother replying. It's like he's having some conversation that's not even there.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

you're right, no one has an agenda on youtube :cool:

That's what I said right? The agenda I'm speaking of from TV is one of supressing info not pushing your own views via a youtube video...two different things completely.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

seriously though...

i love my seatbelt

totally dig mine, too...along with all these:

A long history

Just some of the organizations Ralph Nader founded or helped start:

*

American Antitrust Institute

*

Appleseed Foundation
*

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
*

Aviation Consumer Action Project
*

Buyers Up
*

Capitol Hill News Service
*

Center for Auto Safety
*

Center for Insurance Research
*

Center for Justice and Democracy
*

Center for Science in the Public Interest
*

Center for Study of Responsive Law
*

Center for Women Policy Studies
*

Citizen Action Group
*

Citizen Advocacy Center
*

Citizen Utility Boards
*

Citizen Works
*

Clean Water Action Project
*

Congress Project
*

Congress Watch
*

Connecticut Citizen Action Group
*

Corporate Accountability Research Group
*

Critical Mass Energy Project
*

Democracy Rising
*

Disability Rights Center
*

Equal Justice Foundation
*

Essential Information
*

FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
*

Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
*

Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
*

Georgia Legal Watch
*

Global Trade Watch
*

Health Research Group
*

Litigation Group
*

Multinational Monitor
*

National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
*

National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
*

National Insurance Consumer Organization
*

Ohio Public Interest Action Group
*

Organization for Competitive Markets
*

Pension Rights Center
*

Princeton Project 55
*

PROD - truck safety
*

Public Citizen
*

Retired Professionals Action Group
*

Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
*

Student Public Interest Research Groups nationwide
*

Tax Reform Research Group
*

Telecommunications Research and Action Center
*

The Visitor's Center
*

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice



http://www.votenader.org/about/achievements/

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

Television


the same place he announced he was running for president a few weeks ago. on the most respected and watched political news show in america, "Meet the Press" on the nations largest newtwork NBC

And when have you seen Ralph Nader give a speech on primetime tv during a highly anticipated convention? Or anything even remotely close?

Oh he was on tv a hand full of times where he's constantly painted as a long shot before the first poll is even taken. And even before he's allowed to talk about his platform and issues with the other candidates, he's subjected to the same 'spoiler, you're taking away votes from Dems' line of questioning.

Yeah, that's the same thing as Obama mania on CNN and various other tv channels.

Abookamongstthemany

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

totally dig mine, too...along with all these:

A long history

Just some of the organizations Ralph Nader founded or helped start:

*

American Antitrust Institute

*

Appleseed Foundation
*

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
*

Aviation Consumer Action Project
*

Buyers Up
*

Capitol Hill News Service
*

Center for Auto Safety
*

Center for Insurance Research
*

Center for Justice and Democracy
*

Center for Science in the Public Interest
*

Center for Study of Responsive Law
*

Center for Women Policy Studies
*

Citizen Action Group
*

Citizen Advocacy Center
*

Citizen Utility Boards
*

Citizen Works
*

Clean Water Action Project
*

Congress Project
*

Congress Watch
*

Connecticut Citizen Action Group
*

Corporate Accountability Research Group
*

Critical Mass Energy Project
*

Democracy Rising
*

Disability Rights Center
*

Equal Justice Foundation
*

Essential Information
*

FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
*

Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
*

Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
*

Georgia Legal Watch
*

Global Trade Watch
*

Health Research Group
*

Litigation Group
*

Multinational Monitor
*

National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
*

National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
*

National Insurance Consumer Organization
*

Ohio Public Interest Action Group
*

Organization for Competitive Markets
*

Pension Rights Center
*

Princeton Project 55
*

PROD - truck safety
*

Public Citizen
*

Retired Professionals Action Group
*

Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
*

Student Public Interest Research Groups nationwide
*

Tax Reform Research Group
*

Telecommunications Research and Action Center
*

The Visitor's Center
*

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice



http://www.votenader.org/about/achievements/

And what has Obama done seen he's been in office or before then?

What are his accomplishments, any activism or qualifications?