It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WSJ: Obama Speech 'Most Dishonest in Decades'

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
heres why you shouldn't cut defense

globalization as long as americans want to buy cheap and live the lifestyle they do we will always be out there

outsourcing as long as business is overseas and not here and home we will always be out there.

oil as long as the entire world economy is based on that thing everyone just loves to hate.

until we start buying our own products and services and get off oil you people can't even think about cutting defense.

and since we will never withdraw from the world business and industry and oil that is we will always be out there.

cutting defense and you people are doing nothing but cutting your own throats.


lets give give it up for all the people who pushed for globalization!!

hip hip horrah!!!! NOT!

obama the most dishonest speech in decades i didn't need an article to know that was the truth every word uttered from his mouth and been nothing but lies for 2 years every future word that will come from it will be lies to
once i liar always a liar.


from the sage MR T. " i pitty the fool" who believes anything that man has to say.
edit on 14-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
An opinion article by someone who supports the right bashing something done by Obama? Nothing to see here.


Education:

Opinion pieces are vetted by the editors of any media outlet based on the agendas of those editors.

And in the past, those same editors have decided against posting anti-obama opinions.

Last, if an editorial opinion is unsigned - as this one was - it means it comes from the editorial staff of the paper, and not some outside contributor. The editorial staff DOES reflect the agenda of that paper or they wouldn't be working there.

Hope that helps you understand better how it all works.




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Uh, whatever. It's still an opinion article. I'm sure there's a response from someone who liked the speech. That other stuff you're talking about doesn't matter.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
When Obama says "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America" in regards to the Republican proposal, I totally agree.

Isn't it true that Ryan's proposal includes reducing the top 2% tax from 35% to 25%? I find that totally absurd and offensive on so many levels.

As far as I'm concerned Obama has spent way too much of his time as President in trying to placate the Republicans and it's been, for the most part, unproductive. Hopefully (although I doubt it's the case) this speech is a sign that he's done trying to placate the Republicans, who are, IMO, just pushing forth an agenda that will put even more strain on everyone except the rich.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Uh, whatever. It's still an opinion article. I'm sure there's a response from someone who liked the speech. That other stuff you're talking about doesn't matter.


Then instead of putting your fingers in your ears and repeating, "la-la-la-la", as you are effectively doing, why not provide us all with some quotes from reputable MSM of the same caliber as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post showing that people on their editorial staff liked the speech? To be fair, why not find us an example from MSM that were generally opposed to obama's agenda, but liked the speech?

Absent that, it's really what you say that doesn't matter.


edit on 4/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
And so pick any source you like and you will find that spending on HHS and entitlements is larger then the defense budget. You can't try to get out of admitting your error by just saying that the defense budget is large.

You said it was the largest part of the budget, and that - to be nice - is often repeated (by the left) false information.


Oh I admit if you take just the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan that HHS exceeds that.

But add in the cost of caring for those vets that return and other relevant discretionary spending for defense and defense wins out at 800 Billion...did you not see this in my last post



The Defense amount is just the Department of Defense and includes spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but excludes certain defense-related spending in the Discretionary bucket (e.g., Homeland Security, Veteran's Affairs). Details on these departments are available in the President's budget document. Including these departments would move defense-related spending into the $800 billion range.



I am still curious as to why you are debating this rather than your own OP. I think the answer is that you can't really support your own posts.

Let me ask this again...why do you believe any cuts to defense spending would result in violence in our streets?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
me thinks Joe Wilson was right when he
shouted "You Lie !!!" during Obama speech.



and so, the lies continue.
That's not a surprise
is it?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
The OP title is basically from the Drudge website. Here is the actual quote from the article:


The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards


Please review and comment ...
edit on 4/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: forgot the source


You did notice that Obama's campaign speech for more taxes and welfare happened in the afternoon. Because the television stations weren't going to waste valuable prime time evening hours to Obama's tomfoolery. Not in a non-election year.

Besides, in the afternoon, all the unemployed were available to watch. Obama wouldn't want employed people watch him recite foolishness off his teleprompter.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Let me ask this again...why do you believe any cuts to defense spending would result in violence in our streets?


Because it has been a tenet of American miliary policy since the War of 1812 - when the British burned Washington DC - that we should try to fight any wars somewhere else than here. To accomplish that, it takes more military power than it does to just try and defend your borders and/or shores.

So, I'm saying that if the defense budget is cut as much as obama and the progressives want to cut it, then we risk not having the military power to keep the wars from coming here. Something I doubt even progressives would want to see happen - if they had a clue ...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Throwback
An opinion article by someone who supports the right bashing something done by Obama? Nothing to see here.


Education:

Opinion pieces are vetted by the editors of any media outlet based on the agendas of those editors.

And in the past, those same editors have decided against posting anti-obama opinions.

Last, if an editorial opinion is unsigned - as this one was - it means it comes from the editorial staff of the paper, and not some outside contributor. The editorial staff DOES reflect the agenda of that paper or they wouldn't be working there.

Hope that helps you understand better how it all works.



Wow are you in the dark...Ruport Murdoch bringing his agenda to the paper after he bought it is exactly why editors RESIGNED.

WSJ editor quits as Murdoch puts stamp on paper
www.reuters.com...

Roy Greenslade: Wall Street Journal magazine editor quits
www.guardian.co.uk...

Gordon McLeod Resigns As President, WSJ Digital

News Corp. Duo Set To Lead Dow Jones As Zannino Resigns - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com...

Blowing Up at the Murdoch Journal
www.cjr.org...

"Now you can’t quite trust The Wall Street Journal like you used to"
mediamatters.org...





WSJ Europe editor resigns
edit on 14-4-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

So, I'm saying that if the defense budget is cut as much as obama and the progressives want to cut it, then we risk not having the military power to keep the wars from coming here. Something I doubt even progressives would want to see happen - if they had a clue ...


There is a ton of bloated military spending, notably with "Private contractors" which could be cut without resulting in the Alarmist Hyperbole/Spin that it will result in war inside the USA.

It is not just the Dems that think so ....I am confused why you keep trying to pretend the same?

GOP congressman claims military spending cuts needed
www.dailykos.com...

Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts
www.rawstory.com...

There a tons of links for other GOP ...so you disagree with these folks?

edit to ad:
Tea party to GOP: Don't spare Pentagon from budget ax
www.csmonitor.com...

Eric Cantor: Defense Cuts "On The Table"
motherjones.com...

edit on 14-4-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Whatever the conservative Tea Party lackeys of the rich say, Obama, who I rarely support, told some truths in that speech.

The truth that tax cuts for the rich, first by Ronald Reagan in the early eighties and again tax cuts for the rich by George Bush in the early 90’s is what is chiefly responsible for the huge deficit. As well the war in Iraq and war on terrorism.

Forget the right-wing nonsense of the Rupert Murdock WSJ. They always are and have been mouth pieces for the elite millionaires and billionaires, the Gods of the Tea party.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


None of that changes that it is an OPINION article. Bias aside, it's what one person thought. I don't understand this agenda thing you're blabbering about. Is the WSJ's agenda to make Obama look bad through little read opinion articles? That actually makes more sense than whatever you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
Wow are you in the dark...Ruport Murdoch bringing his agenda to the paper after he bought it is exactly why editors RESIGNED.





There you go again, agreeing with me and proving what I said to be correct. But since you thought you were actually proving me wrong, I still have to give you a big


The Murdoch editors "RESIGNED" because they couldn't go along with the owner's agenda.

Therefore ...

So, if the editors at WSJ are still there, they do agree with the owner's agenda - which up until now has been to support obama. Since no editor resigned, it also means that they agree with what was said about obama's (dishonest) speech.


edit on 4/15/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by centurion1211
 


None of that changes that it is an OPINION article.


I can see that educating you on this subject is going to take some time.

An opinion piece. Yes, but an opinion piece from people that are the "movers and shakers" of American business. Opinions that millions of other people read and thus use to affect their own opinions. The people writing these opinions are (unlike obama) leaders that other people follow - not because they are forced to - but because they make sense.

The bottom line point - now pay attention - of this thread is that the tide of public opinion is turning against obama. You can read it in editorials like in the OP, you can hear it on MSM that once rabidly suppported obama, you can see it in the polls, and you can even feel it if you pay close enough attention and watch obama running around in sort of a "trying to plug all the leaks in the dike" mode. Explanation for you: that means obama is being totally reactive to events now, rather than being a proactive leader.

And like the OP, you may not like what I just said, but none of it is false.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


No offense, but you obviously didn't read the links. WSJ editors resigned AFTER Murdoch took over becuase he brought his political agenda to a paper that was up until then non-partisan.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
What is their "agenda"? Letting both sides of the aisle both post a reaction to the President's speech?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is commonly against Obama... often employing the likes of Karl Rove to write editorials on 'why Obama is losing'.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
that is hilarious it really is hilarious

if murdoch had so much power that the left gives him obama would not be president.






posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.


The WSJ, owned by rupert murodoch, is often enthusiastically in support of Obama? Can you provide some examples of that?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join