The Uniter strikes again

[bga1]

These two Obama moves are shades of the Nixon and Clinton White House years:

Big partisan politics:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

With a dose from the dirty tricks department:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/exclusive-partisan-dirt-digger-joins-wh-counsels-o/

[Stan]

Bga1, honestly, could you pick a non-biased source to link? It is so obvious that you get your news from conservative sources. It's OK to get a different point of view from time to time.

Let me ask you this, I don't remember you making a single post about W not being a "uniter" yet he ran on the basis of being a "uniter not a diveder" and I fricking fell for it and voted for the destroyer twice. Can you point to any time you criticized him for not being a "Uniter" like you are doing Obama after just two weeks?

[Oscar Munson]

Try linking to a legitimate news source for once, FNC is bad enough but even they are a bastion of journalistic integrity compared to the Washington Times. I thought we cured you of linking to that absolute joke of a newspaper, run by the Moonie cult.

[Jike Spingleton]

Obama-bashing thread #7 from BeeGee on the front page alone.

I suggested back in June that when Obama won, we would have to get him his own board. Looks like I was correct.

[jamiche]

He doesn't really bash. He expresses "concern".

[Schnoodler]

I can't even get disgusted enough to battle it anymore. It's just so tiresome. I just pop in and out to get my dissenting view counted so people don't confuse his frequent posts with the general view of the board.

I ran a poll a couple of years back, and it showed a pretty evenly dispersed curve between right and left with 20% on each extreme and 60% just right and left of center. Yet by frequency of posts you'd think this was the 900 club. And you'd think every one who failed to lock step with him was Wellstone. So not representative of this board. It's a sorry state when topics have no possibility of dialogue because of such extremism. It's too bad. but it is what it is. and i personally like BGA and G4L, and they deserve a home too. So they've won it fair and square by sheer determination.

i'll defend personal liberty when pressed, which is not the same thing as socialism (sorry boys), and possibly correct improper use of the terms Capitalism and free market (which are not the same thing, again sorry). I will also defend republican cornerstones while vigorously attacking republicanism, figure that one out. And i'll cozy up to libertarian ideals while hating on libertarians (ron Pual, not CRG or Diehard aka rockraven), even tougher to figure out. but such is the complexity of such things once you get beyond sophmoric arguments.

back to sniping.

[bga1]

Bga1, honestly, could you pick a non-biased source to link? It is so obvious that you get your news from conservative sources. It's OK to get a different point of view from time to time.

Let me ask you this, I don't remember you making a single post about W not being a "uniter" yet he ran on the basis of being a "uniter not a diveder" and I fricking fell for it and voted for the destroyer twice. Can you point to any time you criticized him for not being a "Uniter" like you are doing Obama after just two weeks?

Stan- there is NO SUCH THING as a non-biased source. You give me an article written by a human and I'll tell you there is potential bias. The question is whether or not what is said is fact or not. Is it a fact that Obama has appointed such an individual? It appears that it is. Is it a fact that Obama has attempted to put Emmanuel in charge of the Census. I think it is. Refute those facts and you are onto something.

Bush was stupidly bi-partisan and everytime he was - he got burned. Immigration, no child left behind, and many other of his major efforts had bi-partisan backing.
If you don't like the war in Iraq - even that was bi-partisan look up the votes.

[walleyedude]

lol, I'm not clicking on the Fix news site.

What a joke

[Gopher4Life]

>>Is it a fact that Obama has attempted to put Emmanuel in charge of the Census.<<

That's correct. He's removing the ten-year national census from Commerce and putting his partisan staff in charge of it. Hmmm...I wonder what he's up to. The "recovery" package includes millions for ACORN. Even a blind man should be able to add it up and expose the plot.

[Frink]

Oh please. Where was the outrage when Tom Delay was gerrymandering districts in Texas? Oh that's right, there was none because it helped get more hard right Repubs in theTexas House. Plus this is coming shortly after the Bush admins ugly politicizing of the Justice Dept. I don't like the Census being run by Emmanuel either but spare me the hypocritical outrage.

[monk10]

Stan- there is NO SUCH THING as a non-biased source. You give me an article written by a human and I'll tell you there is potential bias. The question is whether or not what is said is fact or not. Is it a fact that Obama has appointed such an individual? It appears that it is. Is it a fact that Obama has attempted to put Emmanuel in charge of the Census. I think it is. Refute those facts and you are onto something.

Bush was stupidly bi-partisan and everytime he was - he got burned. Immigration, no child left behind, and many other of his major efforts had bi-partisan backing.
If you don't like the war in Iraq - even that was bi-partisan look up the votes.

There is no reason to get defensive. The community demands to know where the source comes from. All you have to say is this is very, very right wing sources. And then people will be able to know the bias.

[Gopher4Life]

Frink,

There's no outrage, but politicizing the national census is wrong and we both know it. We won't even hear the main stream media discuss it. They created Obama and they're not about to embarrass him now.

[jamiche]

These two Obama moves are shades of the Nixon and Clinton White House years:

Big partisan politics:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

With a dose from the dirty tricks department:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/exclusive-partisan-dirt-digger-joins-wh-counsels-o/

I don't recall you expressing the same concern when Tom DeLay and his fellow repubs used a loophole to redistrict Texas a few years ago. Can I assume that you were outraged?