Pat Oliphant for August 06, 2009

Can we move on to a real issue?

Agree with ya there nomiee.

fresh as a stinky fish – move on please

McCain wasn’t born in the US either.

Amen. If Obama really hadn’t been born in the US it would have been discovered during the election and used to destroy his campaign. The conspiracy theorist is the biggest nut of them all.

Nebulous, since Obama WAS born in the U.S., your sentence should really say “McCain wasn’t born in the US” … otherwise some of the nutso birthers here will think you’re one of them

http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

Yeah this is old, but don’t tell Oliphant, tell the birthers; they’re the ones prolonging this issue, not him.

Nebulous, that bullshit is even crazier than the garbage the Birthers are spewing. Get over it - the child of an American IS a ‘natural born citizen’. It doesn’t matter if the child was born on American soil, in a foreign country while the parent was on active military duty, or even if the parent was on vacation in Russia.

PlainBill, pushing aside the birther nutjobs, you can’t really declare that “the child of an American IS a ‘natural born citizen” as the phrase “natural born citizen” has never been officially defined.

It would actually help us out if one of the nutjob’s lawsuits would reach the Supreme Court, who could then make a definitive ruling.

Unless the Bush-stacked court decided to exclude anyone of Kenyan blood.

The birther nutjobs don’t have anything better to do with their time and I agree that media attention should be focused on things like how many people are medically uninsured and why, and what a self employed family has to pay for health insurance, and the facts that socialized medicine in other countries Does Work and why it works.

We have many conspiracy theory crackpots in this country. I hear much less from the liberal press about the Truthers who are equally demented.

Just yesterday I saw a new play Off-Broadway about the real JFK killer on the grassy knoll.

It’s old news, but, dang, it is funny, and accurate to the intellect.

Who cares where he was born? Even if he was born in China, doesn’t the fact that he has an American mother make him an American born citizen? Doesn’t it mean American by birth, not necessarily born on American soil?

I can’t imagine that the people who created that law thought to disqualify children born abroad while their parents were traveling.

People pushing this issue need to stop and think…If Obama is removed from office over this, 2 very bad things would happen:

1 - Democracy would be over-ruled, and 2 - Joe Biden would be president! BLECK!

Anthony, stacking the court involves adding more justices, which was someting Roosevelt tried to do, not Bush. And I do believe it’s time to get over this. BHO is President, PERIOD! The people who are trying to carry this on are mostly leftwing nuts trying to make rightwing nuts look like nuts. So they are all in the same can of mixed nuts. Lets get to some real issues.

GNW, there’s a big difference between entertainment, a play, and what is supposed to pass for “news.”

BCS If you actually think there is a difference between political views in this country and what we see on TV, movies and the theater 20 times a day you are very very naive.

^ I said there is a difference between news and entertainment.

Some political “views” in this country are so tragically comical they’re Shakespearian.

Maybe he could just get “born again.”

BCS I agree about the tragically comical views expressed by many. My guess we would differ on what those views are.

perhaps. When a “view” is devoid of any factual basis, it’s tragic, no matter what the bent.

BCS amazing the dream world liberals live in. 89% of Washington based national reporters voted Democratic. But they are not liberal.

Literally today in the NYT the question arose (by them?) were liberals more crooked? To disprove that point they discussed the recent NJ politician arrests. 44 people were arrested. 43 were Democrats. To prove Republicans were crooks also they published one single lonely photograph of an arrested politiican. Who did they choose? Yep, the one Republican.

BCS, I once wrote you seemed reasonable. If you don’t recognize the MSM is liberal you must be an ostrich. The NYT own public editor wrote “Of course the NYT is a liberal newspaper” But somehow you are not convinced.

So is a testtube baby elligible to be President? Natural Born Citizen and all?

Wachs: Why don’t you give us your personal definition of “fair and balanced”, and they we’ll know how to respond to you.

WestTex: To answer your question, first we need to know where the test tube baby was conceived and raised. Second, we’d have to know the relevant Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the matter.

Can you educate us on these matters?

@ Anthony

Not certain what you mean by fair and balanced. We have a wonderful 1st Amendment. The press can say or write whatever. The NYT can be as far left as they wish with no need to be balanced. ditto WSJ.

But I find it insulting when people pretend that the NYT is not liberal. Their own public editor said “of course we are liberal”. I recently had a discussion with someone who called me a liar because of a letter i posted as found in the libertarian press was not printed by the NYT or WaPo and therefore couldn’t be true.

Seriously read the front page of the NYT and see how often the stories they chose to publish or the angle they take coincidentally confirms their editorial policy. That is no accident.

“Not certain what you mean by fair and balanced.”

It’s the slogan of Fox News.

Or do you not count them as MSM?

I don’t watch TV news. Fox has a reputation for being to the right of center. CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN have a reputation for being to the left of center. Every time anyone points out the leftist tendencies of any of the MSM the only retort is look at Fox.

CBS, NBC, ABC- center right. MSNBC-center left. CNN-right, even Wolf Blitzer has stated that, some time ago.. Fox- so far right they’re in their own little universe. PBS- flip flops, some, but tends toward the middle and with intelligent fact-based “news”, with more liberal leanings in their “commentary” programs.

The “media” are essentially OWNED by right to very right wing corporations, it does show in often subtle slanting of reporting. Print “news” magazines are definitely “conservative’ in ownership and commentary, though they do have liberal columnists as well.

trout: I am confused. Trying to understand where you are coming from if we start with the assumption that Obama is dead center and anyone to his right is conservative I guess I can see what you are saying. But in a real world Obama is far left and the NYT owners are equally far left as are the owners of the WaPo and Newsweek. Media ownership? NYT, WaPo, Chi Trib, LATimes Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle all happily gladly endorsed Obama.

If you are a true socialist, and there is nothing wrong with that, see Sen Saunders, then CBS etc are to your right but if you are a blue dog Democrat they are to your left. of course if you are a republican they are far to your left. Time/Newsweek/US News are openly liberal. The Economist is to the right.

By your definition is there a “left” publication anywhere?

^ (1) By your definition, is there a non-biased news organization anywhere?

ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are mainstream middle. And they are all corporate owned now. MSNBC, left of center. Fox, far right of center.

Time began as an openly far right publication … (2) on what basis do you now call it “openly liberal?” (3) Same question for the L.A. Times, which began as right of center, pro-business, pro-development.

(4) To be clear, are you claiming the news coverage of the media outlets you named is biased, or that the editorial voice is biased?

What’s the difference. He’s now our president– Amoung the rest is there anyone to choose from– Nancy Pelosi– ha-ha.

Good points, DrCanuck.

@BCS Do you ever actually read the NYT? Do you ever agree with the news view point they print? Do you ever disagree? I almost never agree because they print with a political purpose.

If you read the paper may i suggest you actually read the articles with a political viewpoint.

Little things- 1st draft of the Eliot Spitzer hooker story they never mentioned once that he was a Democrat. This is a news story not an op-ed. but whenever there is a similar Republican malfeasance the fact he is a Republican is in the first sentence.

Last week 44 people were arrested in NJ. story made all the papers. 43 Democrats and 1 Republican. NYT said it was bipartisan.

You won’t believe the next one but i sent it to all my friends. yesterday they actually published a photo of one of the 44. Coat over his head doing a perp walk. Now make a wild guess which of the 44 they chose to publish. Right- the one and only Republican. They do this constantly and since you agree it never catches your eye. Look at their selection carefully. If you really are interested there are 2 different web sites that publish every day the deliberate liberal bias in the daily paper.

GNW, how about answering my four questions?

(and you’d have to live in Siberia not to know Spitzer was a Democrat. But if you’ll send me the link to the article that failed to mention his political party, I’ll review it. Similarly, if you send me the link to the NJ story, I’ll review it too. The article I read identified the partisan affiliations quite clearly — overwhelmingly Democrats.)

BTW, I’ve said many times corruption and graft is the most bipartisan activity on the Hill.

I read NYT Times online daily. I review realclearpolitics.com to get an overview of a variety of news sources. I don’t read all the commentaries, however, when I’m looking for news.

http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/are-liberals-more-corrupt/?scp=1&sq=democrats%20corruption&st=cse

Are liberals more corrupt Gail Collins

I see you’ve maintained your perfect batting average of never answering a question.

and BZZZZZZZT wrong answer. You linked to a commentary, not a news article.

^Commentary in the news pages not op-ed pages. The NYT sees no difference which is the point I was making.

Commentary is commentary. News coverage is news coverage. This dialogue was about “news coverage,” not op/ed, not editorials, not commentary. That was clearly stated at the outset.

You just failed to back up your claim.

BCS: this gets subtle and I hope I can convey my opinion cogently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/08leonhardt.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

News article. By coincidence (?) it also confirms the NYT opinion as they write on the editorial page. You will read the news article and be happy with your political view, which is the same as the Times. I read the article and don’t agree with the main thrust. This is the way the NYT operates. They chose articles and the way they direct the articles to coincide with their political views. Think every time you read a NYT news article and see how it confirms your political thoughts while for me I disagree. That is how they operate and why they are very left leaning.

There are many interpretations of the facts as they are coming out. The NYT chooses those that coincidentally back up their views.

As i said very subtle and I hope I was able to explain it.

Natural born would require that the baby be conceived naturally correct the place of birth and methods of rearing would be inconsequential there.. but if you stick strickly to natural born then artificial insemination, c-section etc would be rejected because those are not normative births.. Its the citizen part for the location etc.. Just having fun here..

It should be noted that C-sections were extremely rare at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Not something the authors would have considered (any more than shoulder-mounted tactical nuclear arms when they wrote the second amendment).

I enjoy watching news from other countries … it’s instructive and interesting to see how other countries perceive our events …. I need to do it more often …. thanks for the reminder oldlego !

I get most of my news from the BBC. It’s a quality source for unbiased information that doesn’t freely mix news with commentary. This is what “Fair and Balanced” /really/ looks like.