• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era

Alrighty... :rolleyes:

You don't agree? More and more these days we're bombarded with junk. Entertainment, celebrity stories, bloggers with no real news credentials passing themselves off as legitimate, talk show hosts bombarding us with their opinions 24 hours a day. Information overload. Think about how much time you spend on the internet doing nothing.
 
You don't agree? More and more these days we're bombarded with junk. Entertainment, celebrity stories, bloggers with no real news credentials passing themselves off as legitimate, talk show hosts bombarding us with their opinions 24 hours a day. Information overload. Think about how much time you spend on the internet doing nothing.

So what do you propose we do about it?
 
So what do you propose we do about it?

In my house, we watch television shows/commercials, etc. and we talk about what the intended point was. Was there spin? What did the advertiser want us to do? Was evidence presented?

I want my kids to be able to think, logically, and be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Kids also need to be taught about sources, use of evidence, and critical thinking in school. When they write a term paper, for instance, part of the grade should be whether they used appropriate sources, interpreted that information accurately, and provided a reasonable thesis.

I understand, however, that I am not at all normal because we are surrounded by sheep.
 
In my house, we watch television shows/commercials, etc. and we talk about what the intended point was. Was there spin? What did the advertiser want us to do? Was evidence presented?

I want my kids to be able to think, logically, and be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Kids also need to be taught about sources, use of evidence, and critical thinking in school. When they write a term paper, for instance, part of the grade should be whether they used appropriate sources, interpreted that information accurately, and provided a reasonable thesis.

I understand, however, that I am not at all normal because we are surrounded by sheep.

ZOMGWTF!!??!!? You actually take responsibility for how you integrate the information you receive into your and your childrens' lives.

Who knew that was even an option?
 
And your post only proves his point.

When an entire nation begins to confuse opinion with fact, we have a serious problem.

WE are a good part of the problem.

Now just where do you suppose you get those 'facts'? From the intrepid and couragous 'journalists' with honor and integrity?

What the modern information age has done is enabled people to read from the major news dotcoms, the drudges, the APs, Huffpos...all in a relatively quick time. The 'facts' are usually hidden somehwere in there. What we arent is force fed drivel from one authoritarian 'source' and expected to swallow it as 'fact'.
 
ZOMGWTF!!??!!? You actually take responsibility for how you integrate the information you receive into your and your childrens' lives.

Who knew that was even an option?

It's this weird thing called parenting. Some people still do it, but they're mostly old-fashioned throwbacks to an earlier era.
 
Who knew Playstations and Xboxs were news sources?

Why is this news, anyway? I sure as hell don't give a damn what our Assclown-In-Chief opines about the media.

He's just being the pompous, elitist, assclown he always has been. Pretty sure I can tell if something's biased.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunate, but not surprising. Elitists hate that what was once an elite-run industry - the information industry - is now becoming open for all to use and contribute to. While everything in a newspaper can be unquestionably accepted as fact, those darned untamed masses can now post anything they want to and people might not be smart enough to check it. If they aren't, though, the ones we have to blame are the ones who treated the news media as the word of God in the first place and created such an attitude.

Ironically, thanks to the openness of the new media, it is now easier than ever to double-check a claim presented by the news media, which didn't even use to be really possible.

Also... XBOX? Where the heck does that come in?
 
Huh.

Message one: John McCain is an out-of-touch old coot for never having sent an email (which he's too crippled to do)!

Message two:
Obama said:
With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work

Wasn't he supposed to be the guy who got elected by spreading information via the new media? And now he's complaining that there's too much information in the new media? :confused:
 
Is it wrong that the first thing that jumped out at me, more so than his message, was the utter bull**** nature of it?

Its actually one of the things I detest most about Barack Obama. He is a 100%, complete, wholey, political machine. There's essentially NOTHING else there when he speaks. I can not listen to the man without immediately realizing and viewing it through the filter that he's the truest definition of the bull**** politician I have ever seen in my life.

Why did this immediately jump out at me?

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction"

So, aside from the message that we're a culture that is SO information rich that we're inundated with so much info that its hard to tell fact from opinion and pure fiction, is the notion that somehow much of this technology we have is actually bad. That its distracting, that its something to not even bother learning or using, to the point where our President himself doesn't bother with it.

And yet, if my memory serves me from a year or so back...

Barack Obama gifts for the Queen: an Ipod your Majesty

Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia.

Wait, so President Obama gave the Queen of England an object of distraction and diversion that is so damaging to our very culture that Barack Obama doesn't even bother to learn how to use one? A piece of technology he's seemingly attributing part of the blame for the downfall of intellectual observation of fact from fiction?

But...wait a moment. He doesn't know how to use an iPod. But...I could've swore, in 2008, back when it was important to make him look hip and cool for the youngin's that...ah yes, rolling stone

Barack Obama's iPod: Bob Dylan, Yo-Yo Ma, Sheryl Crow, Jay-Z

The Illinois senator's playlist contains these musicians, along with about 30 songs from Dylan and the singer's "Blood on the Tracks" album.

That's right, there was an entire piece about what's on Barack Obama's Ipod, making him identifiable and "hip" to the youth of America who were tired of backwards out of touch politician...you know, like that cowboy George Bush or old guy John McCain.

Sorry, this is what I can't stand about the guy and why even when he makes relatively decent points I can't take them at face value and ASSUME he's saying them for wholly benevolent reasons and not specifically for calculated, planned, political reasons.

This statement by him was not simply about misinformation or people being to easily led by what's "Fake" or not. This was not him speaking just as much about the Michael Moore's and John Stewarts of the world as he is the Rush Limbaugh's and Bill O'Riely's. This is completely and utterly him attempting to use a school ceremony at a predominantly black school to push a political message to spread out into the masses.

Perhaps at some point I may've been able to give him a break, but I just can't anymore. His dishonesty, his disingenuous attitude, his utter and complete fake "above the frey" persona is nothing but a cheap, insulting, cover of a pure political beast to the very core.
 
I do think that people are less scrupulous about fact-checking information they receive through technology. They think if it is online, it's true. I've seen you fall prey to this, Vicchio. If it reinforces your existing paradigms, you believe it is true.

The same guy who was hailed at being the most tech savvy presidential candidate in history.

You don't see the incredible hypocrisy in crying about modern technology when he used it without reservation to get elected?


This guy is a massive walking hypocritical troll who loves technology when he can use it to his advantage but cries when its used against him.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, everyone is more prone to believe information that matches their beliefs then to believe information that goes against it. The Climate forum is a great example of this in action. The warmers refuse to accept ANYTHING that doesn't support AGW 100%.

This is not true to the extent that you are insinuating. People tend to accept information that matches their belief system, however, what I am taking about is people who completely shut off when their belief system is challenged and a point is proven inaccurate.


CC does this all the time in reference to Progressives. Anytime someone posts anything from or about a Progressive that doesn't conform to his standard of what a "Progressive" is, he dismiss it.

Not in the least. You just cannot accept that your position on what a progressive is falls perfectly into what I am discussing. Worse yet, because it does, you cannot even see your error.



The underlying problem with Obama's commentary is that he laments the lack of CONTROL over the media message that once existed. People are no longer reliant on the Big Three and a few newspapers for their news. This means that people learn things from a different source, that may not have the approved spin on it.

I agree to some extent. I think that having such a variety of sources to examine is, in essence a good thing. The problem is figuring out what is news and what is spin, what is information and what is info-tainment. This is more of what Obama seems to be discussing.
 
This is not true to the extent that you are insinuating. People tend to accept information that matches their belief system, however, what I am taking about is people who completely shut off when their belief system is challenged and a point is proven inaccurate.
I'd give what you say more credence, but you've proven yourself one of the worst on this forum for doing just what your lamenting.

You are after all, the only person I know that claims he knows what motivated the Founding Fathers in their creation of the Constitution better then their own words. So you'll have to excuse me if I take this commentary of yours as... "Do as I say not as I do" in action.



Not in the least. You just cannot accept that your position on what a progressive is falls perfectly into what I am discussing. Worse yet, because it does, you cannot even see your error.
We know, we know. Only YOUR version and vision, belief of what a Progressive is, counts. All others are just wrong. Hubris, they name is CC.






I agree to some extent. I think that having such a variety of sources to examine is, in essence a good thing. The problem is figuring out what is news and what is spin, what is information and what is info-tainment. This is more of what Obama seems to be discussing.

Variety is the spice of life... however you agree with Obama's spin... You're a Progressive, he's a Progressive. You see his commentary as thoughtful, and on the mark. Your agreeing with him is as shocking as the sun rising in the east, or a rooster crowing at dawn.
 
Last edited:
You took a perfectly good commentary on the information age and turned it into Obama socialism hysteria. Thanks for destroying a potentially good discussion before it could even get off the ground, as usual.

Oh please it is clear what he is referencing when he throws "certain talk radio hosts" into his little tirade. Yes Mr. Obama to much information is a bad thing, we should only consume what the 4th estate aka the white house ministry of propaganda sees fit to feed us.
 
I'd give what you say more credence, but you've proven yourself one of the worst on this forum for doing just what your lamenting.

You are after all, the only person I know that claims he knows what motivated the Founding Fathers in their creation of the Constitution better then their own words. So you'll have to excuse me if I take this commentary of yours as... "Do as I say not as I do" in action.

Now, now, let's not start a CC-MrV war in this thread. You usually end up on the short end of the stick in those. If you want to debate who's more credible in this forum, start a poll, somewhere. I'll happily accept the results. Will you? :lol:



We know, we know. Only YOUR version and vision, belief of what a Progressive is, counts. All others are just wrong. Hubris, they name is CC.

Since you have demonstrated that you have no idea what progressivism stands for, nothing you say above applies in any way.


OF course you agree with Obama. You're a Progressive, he's a Progressive. You see his commentary as thoughtful, and on the mark. Your agreeing with him is as shocking as the sun rising in the east, or a rooster crowing at dawn.

Still not able to see past your nose, eh, MrV? You are doing more to prove what I say is correct by your posts than I could EVER do by myself.
 
Variety is the spice of life... however you agree with Obama's spin... You're a Progressive, he's a Progressive. You see his commentary as thoughtful, and on the mark. Your agreeing with him is as shocking as the sun rising in the east, or a rooster crowing at dawn.

Just as shocking as your constant attacks on him, I'd say. :roll:
 
Just as shocking as your constant attacks on him, I'd say. :roll:

There is a difference, though. Obama is an elitist, which is pretty anti-progressive. Further, I don't agree with everything that Obama says or does, unlike certain folks on this thread, who blindly disagree with everything.
 
Now, now, let's not start a CC-MrV war in this thread. You usually end up on the short end of the stick in those. If you want to debate who's more credible in this forum, start a poll, somewhere. I'll happily accept the results. Will you? :lol:
Sure thing, as long as it's a poll on whether your version of the Founders motives or THEIR motives are more legit (since that's my position anyway..) I'm game.

Since you have demonstrated that you have no idea what progressivism stands for, nothing you say above applies in any way.
Right-o big guy. Like I said, you're version, vision and belief > anything that doesn't agree with you.



Still not able to see past your nose, eh, MrV? You are doing more to prove what I say is correct by your posts than I could EVER do by myself.

I merely point the mirror towards you, nothing more. I get my satisfaction from the "Thank you" PM's I get. What do you get of this?
 
Just as shocking as your constant attacks on him, I'd say. :roll:

Attacks on who? Obama or CC? I don't attack CC until his hypocrisy shows itself.

As for Obama, he's the President, what for I should do on a POLITICAL DEBATE FORUM? Not discuss decisions and comments he makes I find wrong/repulsive/dangerous/dumb? Should I just wait till he does something I agree with then cheer him on?
 
There is a difference, though. Obama is an elitist, which is pretty anti-progressive. Further, I don't agree with everything that Obama says or does, unlike certain folks on this thread, who blindly disagree with everything.

I agree. They are just as bad as the hardcore liberals who attacked Bush for everything. They feel turnabout is fair play, which is understandable. However, they end up looking just as bad as the people that they are getting back at. The sad thing is, they don't realize that by attacking Obama for EVERYTHING, it kind of dismisses their argument when they complain about things that are actually worthy of criticism.
 
Attacks on who? Obama or CC? I don't attack CC until his hypocrisy shows itself.

As for Obama, he's the President, what for I should do on a POLITICAL DEBATE FORUM? Not discuss decisions and comments he makes I find wrong/repulsive/dangerous/dumb? Should I just wait till he does something I agree with then cheer him on?

No need for hyperbole. You and a few others on this site attack Obama for everything. Even when there is nothing there to attack about you come up with some wacked out way of blaming him for something. Why not wait for things that are blatantly worthy of criticism? Lord knows there's plenty there to work with.
 
Sure thing, as long as it's a poll on whether your version of the Founders motives or THEIR motives are more legit (since that's my position anyway..) I'm game.

Ok with me, though you did overgeneralize credibility issues. I do think a problem that would develop is your penchant for completely misrepresenting what I post, but if you want, go to it.

Right-o big guy. Like I said, you're version, vision and belief > anything that doesn't agree with you.

Like I said. When you can demonstrate any understanding of progressivism, get back to me.

I merely point the mirror towards you, nothing more. I get my satisfaction from the "Thank you" PM's I get. What do you get of this?

I get my satisfaction by destroying your positions and watching you get angry when I do so... along with the thanks that I receive. I'd LIKE to get the satisfaction of you actually looking, critically, at what you do, but I suppose there are just some things that cannot occur. Thanks for asking, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom