• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's Enemies List

It's not an enemies list. It's simply showing who Romney's donors are.

Politics 101
 
Noted. But it was her implication, not mine. I just liked the scare fonts on the donors page... ooooohhh.. a "registered lobbyist"... spooky.
 
Working for Murdoch what else would she say?

The WSJ has no legitimacy in politics any longer. It is no different than Faux News.
 
Does any publication have legitimacy in politics?
 
RJKarl said:
Working for Murdoch what else would she say?

The WSJ has no legitimacy in politics any longer. It is no different than Faux News.
Click to expand...

What? The only change that I have noticed is that the paper covers too much fashion and silly sports, like soccer.
 
The WSJ has become Faux News. They used to be right leaning, but now they are simply an arm of Ailes, Rove, et al.

As many of us posted, the sale of the WSJ would lead it to becoming a bastion of hack journalism. It has.
 
Taranto is fun, though. For a low-horsepower, corn-fed southern boy such as myself, he makes a lot of sense.
 
I don't see the big deal in it, apart from the usual political labeling and BS like "betting against America."
 
DeacMan said:
The overall point of the article isn't unfair. What his campaign is doing is sort of slimey. What would be interesting to know is whether other President's have engaged in this type of thing in the past.
Click to expand...

Any candidate for any federal office (and probably many state offices) who have the technical capability will have done this.

Exactly why is it "slimey" to tell the truth (with back up) about who supports your opponent?
 
RJKarl said:
Working for Murdoch what else would she say?

The WSJ has no legitimacy in politics any longer. It is no different than Faux News.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the New York Times (J. Blair-much?), NBC News (they of the doctored 911 call, exploding GM cars, leg-tingling 24 hour opinion cable arm, etc., etc., etc.), See B.S. News (Hey, where did Dan Rather go?)...do we really need to go on, RJ?

Let RJ Pronounce Legitmacy tag in 3, 2....
 
Dumb article...you could just as easily make this list for Obama with scary font. Both sides have rich people donating to them, and a lot of rich people got rich at the expense of other people (most probably). The world is now dumber for having to read that sort of diatribe.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I don't see the big deal in it, apart from the usual political labeling and BS like "betting against America."
Click to expand...

I think the big deal in it is labeling people as having a less than reputable reputation who don't have criminal records. That is the slimey part.

And yes, Caturday, I think you could beat Obama in a debate about the economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top