Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Oprah bans Palin

Jump to new
Garpal Gumnut said:
Just announced.

Oprah Winfrey has refused to interview Sarah Palin.

What a shame. Democracy is threatened when the media is controlled.

The left media are running for President.

http://drudgereport.com/flash3os.htm

gg
Click to expand...

Could it be because she's black, and perhaps wants a black man to win? :eek: Naughty me! Oh come on, you were all thinking it as well.

Oprah being biased, wow - that's a stunner! :rolleyes:

Edit:
What idiot still believes in democracy anyway? None of us are free, the slobs never had and never will have any power - even when folks vote ... it isn't really their own opinions and thoughts they're voting on - it's those of the media! Representatives are bought and sold, money is all that counts. So get your hands on some, and to hell with everyone else :p:

A touch too much to drink tonight I believe. My apologies
 
Nyden said:
Could it be because she's black, and perhaps wants a black man to win? :eek: Naughty me! Oh come on, you were all thinking it as well.

Oprah being biased, wow - that's a stunner! :rolleyes:

Edit:
What idiot still believes in democracy anyway? None of us are free, the slobs never had and never will have any power - even when folks vote ... it isn't really their own opinions and thoughts they're voting on - it's those of the media! Representatives are bought and sold, money is all that counts. So get your hands on some, and to hell with everyone else :p:

A touch too much to drink tonight I believe. My apologies
Click to expand...

Do not apologise, drink will be with us long after the thought police have retreated back into their holes.

The charge of Racism is a clownish device which the left typically use against the right, often on slim pretexts.

I'd prefer to label Oprah's refusal to have Sarah Palin on her show not as naked racism but rather as vested interests desperately trying to entrench their perceived advantage against ordinary citizens.

It is wonderful to see the lefties exhibiting their true colours by strangling free speech.

gg
 
Nyden said:
C
Edit:
What idiot still believes in democracy anyway? None of us are free, the slobs never had and never will have any power - even when folks vote ... it isn't really their own opinions and thoughts they're voting on - it's those of the media! Representatives are bought and sold, money is all that counts. So get your hands on some, and to hell with everyone else
Click to expand...

Nyden, I don't accept that for a moment. Some people might be influenced by the media, but I believe most people are more thoughtful and objective than they are frequently given credit for. (apologies for the bad grammar).
 
She's obviously trying to smooth things over as fast as she can. (From that Drudge Report...)

OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."
Click to expand...

But she has already gone on stage to support Obama.

At the 4m20s mark
(some women said to me "How could you Oprah, you're a traitor to your gender " ...
"The truth is I'm a free woman" etc applause etc
"I'm following my own truth, and that truth has lead me to Barack Obama"
Click to expand...

Oprah rips hillary gender card (race card, too)

But assuming she has a big following of
a) black Americans and
b) women

then group a) would like to see her support Obama,
and group b) would like to see her support Hillary and/or Sarah.
So there would potentially be great symbolism etc

I'm guessing she didn't have Hillary on her show either (??) (might be wrong)

Is she pro-Obama? hell yes.
Is her (apparently) heavily biased? almost certainly.
Is that surprising in USA? probably not.
(Do I like Oprah? hell no)
 
2020hindsight said:
She's obviously trying to smooth things over as fast as she can. (From that Drudge Report...)



But she has already gone on stage to support Obama.

At the 4m20s mark


Oprah rips hillary gender card (race card, too)

But assuming she has a big following of
a) black Americans and
b) women

then group a) would like to see her support Obama,
and group b) would like to see her support Hillary and/or Sarah.
So there would potentially be great symbolism etc

I'm guessing she didn't have Hillary on her show either (??) (might be wrong)

Is she pro-Obama? hell yes.
Is her (apparently) heavily biased? almost certainly.
Is that surprising in USA? probably not.
(Do I like Oprah? hell no)
Click to expand...


2020 mate, I've always believed that good people of the right and left have more in common with each other than the vankers from the extremes of their views, and the uncommitted constipated.

I dips me lid to you.

I couldn't have said it better.

And in 4 or 8 years time I hope to be able to post as eloquent and honest a response as you have when the left get close again to winning.

Now where is my beer !!!!!

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
2020 mate, I've always believed that good people of the right and left have more in common with each other than the vankers from the extremes of their views, and the uncommitted constipated.
Click to expand...

See you say stuff like that, and yet you've already said stuff like this

The charge of Racism is a clownish device which the left typically use against the right, often on slim pretexts.

I'd prefer to label Oprah's refusal to have Sarah Palin on her show not as naked racism but rather as vested interests desperately trying to entrench their perceived advantage against ordinary citizens.

It is wonderful to see the lefties exhibiting their true colours by strangling free speech.
Click to expand...

The first quote (along with the respect shown for 2020) indicates you may be a rational person and perhaps even a respectable person. The second quote (and one of many of similar ilk I have seen you write) indicates you are passionately biased to the extent of blind delusion. I mean seriously mate - where do you live and how many lefties do you actually speak to? You are the first person I have ever seen try and suggest that there is a conspiracy in the modern democracy of the US that lefties are out to squash free speech!!!! YOU ARE SERIOUSLY AND SEVERELY DELUDED. I have no doubts that my capitalised sentence will not convince you.

You seem to suggest that only left leaning people push vested interests. If that indeed is what you are suggesting, I am flabbergasted by your blindness. If it is not what you are suggesting, then how can you so stridently complain about it, as though it is a problem of one side of the political debate only (and not your side conveniently).

While I have no doubt you will not believe me, being the model 'righty' and only knowing 'good' right wingers yourself, I have plenty of 'life experience' to know that racism can regularly be associated with the right wing (I mean seriously GG, surely you read right wing journalists right? How can you deny it?). You can hardly deny that Pauline Hanson attracted this particular kind of vote, nor that JWH fought hard to, and successfully, regained this vote. Now since we are in the business of generalising, lets put a simple equation up for you to summarise my argument. Pauline Hanson = ignorant (and stupid, but not entirely relevant) = racist = alienation and mistreatment of refugees, paternalism/dismission of aboriginals, derision/ignoring of asians = Liberal policy = another yah for right wing voters. Now how can you refute that?
 
Nashezz said:
See you say stuff like that, and yet you've already said stuff like this



The first quote (along with the respect shown for 2020) indicates you may be a rational person and perhaps even a respectable person. The second quote (and one of many of similar ilk I have seen you write) indicates you are passionately biased to the extent of blind delusion. I mean seriously mate - where do you live and how many lefties do you actually speak to? You are the first person I have ever seen try and suggest that there is a conspiracy in the modern democracy of the US that lefties are out to squash free speech!!!! YOU ARE SERIOUSLY AND SEVERELY DELUDED. I have no doubts that my capitalised sentence will not convince you.
Click to expand...

We all have our world view mate, the media is overwhelmingly left in its bias, in my opinion. Its just an opinion. Occasionally ordinary folk get a chance to be heard.

Its got nothing to do with refugees or indigenous people.

This global spray of people who don't have your perspective is intolerant.

Lighten up a bit.

gg
 
I am intolerant for right wing opinions/mindsets though GG, convinced as I am that they appeal to the base and horrible side of peoples nature.

I still have many right leaning friends (cant afford to cut out half the population) but that doesn't mean to say that I think the reason they are right leaning doesn't come from some serious failing generally. Whether it be greed, ignorance (fear), bigotry or all the others I have mentioned previously, I have to say that one or more of these qualities is overwhelming the reason behind a person associating with the right in my experience.

How can you tell me lighten up when you make your strident condemnations of the 'left'. Argue my points GG and realise that you are spewing just as much global vitriole as I am.
 
Nashezz said:
I am intolerant for right wing opinions/mindsets though GG, convinced as I am that they appeal to the base and horrible side of peoples nature.

I still have many right leaning friends (cant afford to cut out half the population) but that doesn't mean to say that I think the reason they are right leaning doesn't come from some serious failing generally. Whether it be greed, ignorance (fear), bigotry or all the others I have mentioned previously, I have to say that one or more of these qualities is overwhelming the reason behind a person associating with the right in my experience.

How can you tell me lighten up when you make your strident condemnations of the 'left'. Argue my points GG and realise that you are spewing just as much global vitriole as I am.
Click to expand...
The right left conundrum:

The so called right are socially authoritarian and economically liberal.

The so called left are socially liberal and economically authoritarian.

That's confusing to me.

Let's give anarchy a chance! :D
 
Nashezz said:
I still have many right leaning friends (cant afford to cut out half the population) but that doesn't mean to say that I think the reason they are right leaning doesn't come from some serious failing generally. Whether it be greed, ignorance (fear), bigotry or all the others I have mentioned previously, I have to say that one or more of these qualities is overwhelming the reason behind a person associating with the right in my experience.
Click to expand...

This spray illustrates one of the main objections that right voting people have against the current left.

The whingeing canting berating of folk with another mind view. You and you alone are right.

Global warming is an example, communism as a working system of government another and the dangers of nuclear power is another.

All have been pushed to exhaustion by the left. In spite of cogent argument to the opposite.

But what I find particularly offensive is the attempt by the left to strangle argument, to close off access to media (the ABC is a gross example) to those who do not agree with their world view.

It reminds me of the stranglehold the Christian churches had over peoples lives in the 20th century, deciding who they should marry, how many children they should have, what they should read and how they should vote.

Its the same prissy attitude though cloaked in a thin veneer called fabianism. Thus anyone who is against further immigration is racist and anyone who wants to educate indigenous people up to a western standard is a child stealer or committing genocide.

This is what i find offensive about Oprah's ban on Palin.

By the way I wouldn't know Oprah if she fell over me. I believe she is a black female commentator. I've never seen her show. Perhaps I shouldn't raise the possibility of her falling over me. They tell me she is rather overweight.

And Nash mate don't use that last paragraph to accuse me of being anti fat people, racist or misogynist. Thank God you don't control a gulag mate.

gg
 
Spanning Tree said:
Oprah runs a private talk-show program, so her decision not to speak to Palin would even be supported by so-called Right Wing people.
Click to expand...

Her show may be private; but the fact that it's so popular gives Oprah a responsbility to allow for both sides to speak.



Julia, I may have been under the influence last night; but I still stand by my general remark. Oprah is a prime example here. Through voicing her support for Obama; who knows how many people have been swayed over to his side simply by this vow of support. That just seems utterly wrong to me; the convincing should be up to the candidates - and never celebrities!

People are sheep, they follow - it's all they do. They read books Oprah tells them to, they try recipes Oprah tells them to - individual thought? Ha! Surely you jest.

I used to know a couple of people (slobs - my definition for ill-educated folk ... by a harsh generalization - usually ethnic car enthusiasts :)) that blindly followed Labor. They didn't follow Labor because they understood the differences of government; but voted because it's what Unions wanted, voted because it's what their parents raised them to do, voted because they thought it was their best chance for a free-ride.

These are the sorts of folk that believe "compo" to be the holy-grail of employment; not a ripple of thought between those ears if you ask me. Whoever dangles the largest carrot gets their vote.

There's a reason shows like ACA/Today Tonight are so very popular - because they enable the followers to sit back in their lounges and believe they have some form of power. They're idiots; simple as that.

Know how many people use ACA as some sort of threat? It really is quite staggering - i.e. if someone isn't pleased with a service; "I'm going to A current affair with this!"

Power never actually changes, it's merely traded around between a select few. The whole George Bush fiasco should be evidence enough of that.

I believe you're giving society too much credit Julia; we're unfortunately surrounded by idiots in this world.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
This spray illustrates one of the main objections that right voting people have against the current left.

The whingeing canting berating of folk with another mind view. You and you alone are right.

Global warming is an example, communism as a working system of government another and the dangers of nuclear power is another.

All have been pushed to exhaustion by the left. In spite of cogent argument to the opposite.

But what I find particularly offensive is the attempt by the left to strangle argument, to close off access to media (the ABC is a gross example) to those who do not agree with their world view.

It reminds me of the stranglehold the Christian churches had over peoples lives in the 20th century, deciding who they should marry, how many children they should have, what they should read and how they should vote.

Its the same prissy attitude though cloaked in a thin veneer called fabianism. Thus anyone who is against further immigration is racist and anyone who wants to educate indigenous people up to a western standard is a child stealer or committing genocide.

This is what i find offensive about Oprah's ban on Palin.

By the way I wouldn't know Oprah if she fell over me. I believe she is a black female commentator. I've never seen her show. Perhaps I shouldn't raise the possibility of her falling over me. They tell me she is rather overweight.

And Nash mate don't use that last paragraph to accuse me of being anti fat people, racist or misogynist. Thank God you don't control a gulag mate.

gg
Click to expand...

GG sounds like you have a very biased opinion.

The ABC thing was done to death just bullying from Howard and Co when tested it didn't seem to stack up very well.

I guess if you start reporting on and asking difficult questions about social issues such as the effects and failings of work choices etc then you must be a biased left wing commo organization.

Personally I prefer the very deep, comprehensive, thought provoking emotional crap lost dog news / current affair / reality programs the FTA channels run.

BTW Labor has accursed the Western Australian News paper here in the West of exactly what you are throwing around. Typical shoot the messenger to cover up the story mentality.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The whingeing canting berating of folk with another mind view. You and you alone are right....

....But what I find particularly offensive is the attempt by the left to strangle argument, to close off access to media (the ABC is a gross example) to those who do not agree with their world view....
Click to expand...

You need to reread your posts GG. You do exactly what you are accusing me of with exactly the same intolerance or dismissiveness (yes, it's a new word) of an opposing viewpoint.

I have stated and you have yet to refute that the overwhelming media bias is to the right. To hold up one low-rating example of the ABC and suggest that the public broadcaster is some 'attempt by the left' to strange debate is back in the realm of delusions. We people who actually lean towards the left do not have underground meetings once a month so we can collude and conspire in ways to control the media against you.....

What reason do you vote for the Liberal party?
I used to know a couple of people (slobs - my definition for ill-educated folk ... by a harsh generalization - usually ethnic car enthusiasts ) that blindly followed Labor. They didn't follow Labor because they understood the differences of government; but voted because it's what Unions wanted, voted because it's what their parents raised them to do, voted because they thought it was their best chance for a free-ride.
Click to expand...

And I still know university educated, apparently intelligent people (as society judges them anyway) that voted Liberal and could give no reason why when questioned either. Some of them managed to mention that they were vaguely aware the Liberal party was supposed to look after wealthy people and they were earning good money. I tend to agree, society is full of idiots but they are throughout the whole gamut of society and on both sides of the political fence. Not that I would say my friends are 'idiots', but they are certainly politically naive and apathetic.
 
Nasheez, like many of the left you selectively quote, and in your most recent post you have attributed a quote to me which I did not make.

It is the second quote which you make appear to be mine, as it reads in your tilt, post #19.

Please correct your post and attribute the second quote correctly to Nyden from post #17 in this thread.

Unlike you or Nyden I do not call friends or working people slobs or the other epithets you quote in your many posts about your long suffering friends who happen to disagree with your politics.

Please apologise and correct the misquotation in post #19 directly.

gg
 

Similar threads

Garpal Gumnut
Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
ducati916
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
sptrawler
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
ducati916
ducati916
basilio
How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Value Collector
Top