media unbiased?

[ironroad 218]

In all fairness, I had some support for mangina, I mean Obama in the beginning. I thought, "now here is a straight player who could not only bridge racial gaps, but cultural, and social ones as well." I knew he was a little too left for my taste, but I was interested to see where he was going to go. To be honest I was torn, I did not want to Clinton in office and I really liked McCain's center to center right style, especially his record in the Senate.

 

The problem now as I see it, Obama is a mangina plain and simple. Now I respected him for running a decent and clean Campaign against Bill, I mean Hillary, but this man is starting to show his a$$ (lets not even get into the Wright fiasco.)

He is bending over backwards to get media attention, his wife can't keep her cool (and runs him around like a child), and he has gone the extra mile as of late to not only trash men but disrespect our men and women in uniform.

 

Ok he is against the surge and the war...fine(although all evidence has shown that he was wrong) but you do not take your anger and arrogance out on the people who keep you safe at night.

 

He wants to court Clinton's block, fine play politics, but you do not go that extra mile to put down one group in favor of getting a "treat" from another.

 

You do not want to wear a flag pin, ok maybe it does not go with your dress, I mean suit. But do not give some bs excuse of why you do not want to wear one.

 

You have "daddy" issues, cool, but did you have to trash fathers on Father's day?

 

Your wife has a alpha personality, fine, but how about she not use every family interview as an excuse to emasculate you, and lets not forget how she will loose her temper when the audience or commentators do not first "hail the queen."

 

It is those little nuisances which have turned me off from him. And if you are a supporter of Obama, that is fine, it is your vote and you have every right to exercise as you see fit, and you should not have any shame (unless you do not vote or you let the media choose for you.) But when voting for any candidate on any level, make sure you pay attention to the little things, and not the media glamor and hype. Also do not forget, just because the media publicizes a race does not make it any more profound. Local and state elections have a more immediate impact on your lives.

 

In closing, If Obama just happens to get elected I can live with that. But rest assure, I will help to vote in a Congress that will fight him tooth and nail to the bitter end.

[+whiteknight06604 931]

If JFK was running today he would be considered a consevative repubican.If JFK saw this crap and was being compaired too he's be spinning in his grave.While I think he was a good president in a lot of was his legacy has been hyped a bit over the years.If he lived it would have been very interesting to see how he would have handled the Veitnam issue and the Moral (hippies) decline.History might not have been as kind though I don't see him ever sinking to the levels Nixon did.I see Mcains main problem as he dosn't seem to have any balls left.For all the BS thrown at him he never fights back,He really comes off as some dottering old grandpa not the lion that survived REAL torture.The first time Obama gave one of his snide little jabs he should have given him the verbal equivilent of a b1tch slap.Treat him like the liberal novice he is let him know he's not in his sterilized little world his cronies in Chicago or in the media safe zone around him.Please show some ball Mcain please you know that the Media matters/Move on scum are not going to play fair if your going down fight every lie every falsehood and every rumor.If Katie Couric,who wouldn't know a hard question if it hit her in the head,had Obama stamering and stalling then Mcain should have this pretender on the ropes.Everytime he's asked a remotley tough question he stutters like a 12 year old just caught with his daddies playboys.It's a perfect storm against the republicans this ellection cycle some of it there own fault some not Obama should be 20+ points ahead at this point but the fact he isn't speaks volumes about his abilities.

 

 

"Obama '08

 

No really, the parallels are seriously creepy. This is Nixon vs Kennedy all over again."

 

Kennedy not in one million years,Reagan never, all he is is Carter with a tan.

Edited July 25, 2008 by whiteknight06604

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Oh my... You should see French and European media on him today! The rock-star is making his tour here and is welcomed as the Messiah Himself!

 

That should be the wake-up call, the alarm for you, American fellows... If Europe is definitively in love with that man, this is not a good sign. Not at all.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Emp_Palpatine

[MigBuster 2,861]

Oh my... You should see French and European media on him today! The rock-star is making his tour here and is welcomed as the Messiah Himself!

 

That should be the wake-up call, the alarm for you, American fellows... If Europe is definitively in love with that man, this is not a good sign. Not at all.

 

 

 

From what I remember the press over here hated George Bush Jnr and didnt want him in power - so thankfully whatever the press here thinks it means jack S (and so it should)- Our press is so biased and corrupt anyway.

 

There hasnt been any bad coverage on Mccain that ive seen - hes just been mentioned a lot less - they are defo giving obama about 80% of the coverage - probably based on how he looks (seems to be how the press works)

 

 

UK Press =

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

From what I remember the press over here hated George Bush Jnr and didnt want him in power - so thankfully whatever the press here thinks it means jack S (and so it should)- Our press is so biased and corrupt anyway.

 

There hasnt been any bad coverage on Mccain that ive seen - hes just been mentioned a lot less - they are defo giving obama about 80% of the coverage - probably based on how he looks (seems to be how the press works)

 

 

UK Press =

The bad signal is not about any european press influence, it's about the overall enthousiasm... If he's so much loved, it's because it's the closest US can get to an european progressive.

You are warned US electors!

[JediMaster 451]

The Daily Show these past few days has been covering the McCain campaign as "McCain Quest: The Search for Attention" and playing Eric Carmen's "All By Myself" at the start.

The funniest thing was a clip from CNN where Blitzer was asking this panel if the media was paying too much attention to Obama...only to interrupt one of the guys speaking to report "breaking news" that Obama had just disembarked a plane in Israel.

[eraser_tr 29]

Not in a million years, even conservative republicans then wouldn't be conservative republicans now. The Goldwater/Reagan crowd was always the lunatic fringe in the party and somehow they became the party. And the arrogance is astounding, where did they think they received sole ownership of patriotism or the right to define what is American?

 

But don't take it from me, take it from lifelong republicans from that time who remember republicans like Eisenhower or Rockefeller firsthand.

[+Tailspin 3]

There are very few real Conservatives in politics today. These days, in terms of general "60's" ideology, the conservative Democrats (what used to be known as Southern Democrats) are "mainstream" Republicans and the Radical Left are "mainstream" Democrats. I used to be a Democrat...then I got older and wiser...and maybe more than a little jaded. To borrow Stewart's term, "Dreamerica" is just that. An impractical, already discredited, pipe dream of the Radical Left fraught with socialistic and communistic ideals. Note: Before anyone gets all excited, no reference to Marxism is intended or implied.

[+Typhoid 231]

John F Kennedy's policies were very much in line with what Reagan did. More accurately stated, Reagan completed what JFK tried to start - particularly his tax policies.

 

Reagan and his part of the GOP were not by any stretch a fringe element of the party. I don't know where you get that idea, treraser. Well, actually I do know where you get that crazy notion - from the deranged liberal press and the agenda-journalists who write that trash.

 

Yes, there are multiple factions within the GOP just as there are within the DNC. And yes, the GOP in the Northeast is largely made up of the Rockfeller "Democrat Light" wing.

 

Those of US in the conservative wing of the GOP honor Reagan for the sound principles that he brought to DC and used to great effect. He was right on the issues (no pun intended) and only the failure of his successors to adhere to those principles have brought the GOP to its present status of minority and our country to its present peril.

 

Within the DNC the radical left fringe is presently in control of that party as evidenced by the demonization of Democrats who don't adhere to the current, radical party line (Lieberman just being the most obvious, recent example).

 

Obama as a presidential candidate is a deeply flawed candidate who cannot and does not stand up to hard scrutiny. He only does well in tightly controlled situations with a fawning, complicit press. He does poorly in an open, fluid forum which is why he avoids those. He won't be able to avoid those in the actual, general election race and it will become increasingly evident. Mark my words and just wait for the examples to mount up.

 

Of course, McCain is not the greatest of candidates either. So the race of the liliputs............

 

 

"Oh my... You should see French and European media on him today! The rock-star is making his tour here and is welcomed as the Messiah Himself!"

 

a great satire (I hope!) in the UK press today.

 

 

UK Times Editorial on Obama. Funny

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4392846.ece

 

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

 

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action

- and a blessing to all his faithful followers

 

Gerard Baker

 

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

 

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

 

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"

 

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

 

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

 

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

 

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

 

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

 

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

 

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

 

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

 

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

 

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

 

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

 

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

 

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

 

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

 

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

 

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

 

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

 

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes.

And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

 

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

 

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

 

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and

singing: "Yes, We Can."

[+Typhoid 231]

here is another article with another gent's comments added. This really illustrates and explains the media bias as nothing else can.

 

Note how much the right-wing Bush sychophants (that would be Fox) gave to which parties.....

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

 

 

 

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

 

Even the Associated Press - no bastion of conservatism - has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

 

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

 

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

 

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

 

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric - one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. - save one.

 

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

 

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans - a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

 

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

 

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama - who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists - has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

 

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

 

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

 

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

 

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year - timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

 

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

 

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

 

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

 

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader - in this case, Big Media - and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

 

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

 

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans - most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

 

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

 

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans - a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Typhoid

[eraser_tr 29]

errr, beyond speaking ability and bringing a refreshing change to the white house, the comparisons are weak. And that information about goldwater and reagan comes from a book highly critical of democrats and republicans. Anyway, we've had a long eight years of continuing reagan's policies, they haven't been working.

 

As for money, well look at the broader picture of donors across several elections, the right has nothing to complain about.

[+Dave 2,318]

Well I am not voting for Obama, his little stunt in Germany really solidified that. He is a typical democrat, talks with 2 heads. He has no experience to lead this nation. I thought at one time he may put a new look on things but the more he talks the more I dislike him. His arrogance will be his down fall.

[Canadair 16]

Very intersting thread: I wish I could understand more of your politics.

I wish USA the best President possible. A good Leader of USA is determinant for Our World's order and safety.

[eraser_tr 29]

I don't see how anyone can look arrogant in comparison to the bush gang.

 

Really, what makes him so much more arrogant than McCain?

[+Typhoid 231]

just another example of Obama's arrogance, disdain and media manipulation.

 

turns out that Obama made the decision not to visit the wounded troops because he couldn't take his adoring fans (press corps) and political handlers (campaign staff) with him for a photo op.

 

I've included the entire article which is Obama's staff (lame) response and bolded the key part.

 

DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules

 

[uPDATED]

 

Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied.

 

"Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator," Morrell said in a brief interview. "But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance."

 

Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff.

 

"We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him," Morrell said of Obama. "We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it."

 

Military personnel at Ramstein Air Force Base, where the senator was to fly into, had already made arrangements to accomodate Obama's traveling press pack and campaign staff while he visited the wounded troops, Morrell said.

Obama's campaign tells a different story.

 

Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Pentagon "viewed this as a campaign event, and therefore they said he should not come."

 

In a briefing to Obama's traveling press corps, another adviser stopped short of saying they were told to not come but also suggested that even a visit by Obama alone may have been at issue.

 

Robert Gibbs said one of Obama's military advisers had been informed by the Pentagon that the visit may be seen as a campaign stop.

 

"They cited a regulation," Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary.

 

"We believed that based on the information we received that any presence, even his own and only his own, would get into a back and forth on whether his own presence was a campaign event," Gibbs said.

 

Gibbs also pointed out that that their plane had been cleared to land at Ramstein and the Pentagon subsequently issued the reminder about political activity at military posts.

 

Obama, who was not traveling with any Senate staffers, decided on the flight Wednesday from Tel Aviv to Berlin not to visit the hospital.

 

Trying to make clear that this was not an attempt to undercut the Democratic nominee, Morrell also noted that when McCain officials asked the Pentagon for permission to let Cindy McCain visit the massive U.S. hospital ship, the U.S.N.S. Comfort, the request was rejected.

 

"Had she gone with Sen. McCain, it would have been OK," Morrell said, underlining the delineation between what are official and campaign activities.

[+Dave 2,318]

I don't see how anyone can look arrogant in comparison to the bush gang.

 

Really, what makes him so much more arrogant than McCain?

 

Having been in the business of reading people for most of my USAF career (being a Basic Training Instructor makes me very qualified to make judgments of peoples demeanor) I get his arrogance from his mannerisms, they way he talks and carries himself. I have not seen Sen McCain in that capacity at all. Now do not get me wrong I have not jumped into anyone's camp for voting. I am undecided. But these are my observations.

[+Typhoid 231]

"we've had a long eight years of continuing reagan's policies, they haven't been working."

 

no, we haven't had eight years of continuing Reagan policies. Reagan's policies worked magnificantly across the board.

 

Neither Bush the Elder nor Bush the Younger held to Reagan's policies nor were either of them able to put their own policies through against a deranged, liberal DNC block in the Congress. In the last eight years in particular, the obstructionist tactics of the left in Congress have prevented any semblance of Reagan policies to be passed or kept to. The closest we've had has been the Bush tax cuts which were temporary and no where far enough. Those tax policies by the way, have worked just fine.

 

Here is a news flash for you.

 

Conservative principles, when applied and adhered to, work everytime, over time.

 

Liberal policies have failed everywhere and whenever they've been tried. The only time they work is when they follow a conservative administration and are able to piggeyback/take credit for the results of the preceeding conservatives.

 

Conservatives always have to clean up the mess the liberals cause.

 

"As for money, well look at the broader picture of donors across several elections, the right has nothing to complain about."

 

For donations that is correct. The point that you seem to have lost sight of is the media bias, try to stay on topic. The donations represent the "follow the money" that proves the overwhelming media bias against conservatives and explains the fawning, adoring press falling over themselves in orgasmic bliss of the liberal candidates.

 

"I don't see how anyone can look arrogant in comparison to the bush gang."

 

just run clips of pelosi, reid, clinton (both), kerry, kennedy (all except the deceased), algore the warmer, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing from that deranged crowd except arrogance, hatred and dripping condescension.

[eraser_tr 29]

So how is that any different from Cindy McCain?

 

What tax bracket are you living in? Your logic is extremely fuzzy. How exactly have the bush tax cuts worked out? We coupled the largest drop in revenue in history with the largest increase in spending in history. A budget surplus was immediately turned into a deficit.

 

When have liberals ever caused a mess? The market screwups from deregulation, nope, free market conservatives. The most expensive and needless war in history? conservatives. The only time since the great depression we didn't create more jobs than we lost? conservatives. Unprecedented divisivness? conservatives. The failure to respond to the greatest humanitarian disaster inside the US? conservatives.

 

But then again, I'm being unfair, what's being passed as conservative isn't conservative at all. Why not talk to some people who are classic conservatives. What happened to fiscal responsibility? What happened to individual liberty?

Edited July 25, 2008 by eraser_tr

[+Tailspin 3]

Typhoid...that first piece was hilarious. Sadly it is also spot on. The nearly religious zeal of those who have fallen for Obama's dog and pony show is beyond rationalization. Obama's campaign is like a beautifully wrapped gift with nothing in the box. The combination of electing Obama (based upon his campaign rhetoric) with Democratic control of Congress will be like giving a crack-head a credit card and expecting him pay the rent.

 

The second is more clearly definable evidence of what we are talking about. The FOX news revelation, IMHO, just supports the notion that newscasters are just paid actors following the script.

[eraser_tr 29]

newscasters are just paid actors following the script.

 

Did you ever expect otherwise?

[+SkippyBing 8]

Observing this from the UK I find the original title of the post unintentionally hilarious. Here we know our press is biased, certain papers support the Conservatives (Republican-ish party) others Labour (Democrat-ish party) and the Sport essentially provides pictures of topless ladies and the results of yesterdays horse racing. The broadcast media is almost totally left wing, with Channel Four at least occasionally trying to even the balance by broadcasting such programmes as 'Climate Change is a complete fallacy made up by the Green Party so they can tell you what to think' Ok that wasn't the title of the program but you get the idea. Amusingly when the 'Lesbian single mothers who bother whales at weekends' tried to get the program censured the broadcasting complaints commission response was 'err... actually they've got a point, it may actually all be b*******ks', again paraphrasing, it's Friday and I'm drinking so I can't guarantee 100% accuracy. And yes I should be out being knocked back by young ladies but I've got 5 hours of airborne assessment Monday and Tuesday so I'm trying to cut back.

Anyway back to the point, all media is biased if only because people who are drawn to that kind of thing tend to do media studies, which lets be honest is at least slightly left wing. Plus a right wing journalist won't survive long at a predominately left wing establishment and vice versa, so they tend to gravitate towards what they know. As long as you accept the bias it's not a problem, you know what you're getting, I've even taking the step of reading papers I 'disagree' with to balance my view, or at least have something to get angry with, after all if you only get your news from people who have the same world view as you you'll rapidly end up somewhere right of Kenghis Khan or left of Trotsky.

Edited July 25, 2008 by SkippyBing

[+NeverEnough 78]

"When have liberals ever caused a mess? "

 

JFK first committed U.S. combat troops in Vietnam. Johnson micro-managed the Vietnam War, even drawing up daily bombing target lists. The Democrats vote to de-fund any assistance to the Republic of Vietnam. The "War on Poverty". Jimmy Carter's "foreign policy". Jimmy Carter's "energy policy". Bill Clinton's intervention to save Haiti. Bill Clinton's lack of intervention in Rawanda. Bill Clinton's intervention in Yugoslavia. Mandating significant increases in the use of corn based biofuels (ethanol) without even considering the impact of food prices.

 

That's just off the top of my head....

[+Typhoid 231]

So how is that any different from Cindy McCain?

 

What tax bracket are you living in? Your logic is extremely fuzzy. How exactly have the bush tax cuts worked out? We coupled the largest drop in revenue in history with the largest increase in spending in history. A budget surplus was immediately turned into a deficit.

 

When have liberals ever caused a mess? The market screwups from deregulation, nope, free market conservatives. The most expensive and needless war in history? conservatives. The only time since the great depression we didn't create more jobs than we lost? conservatives. Unprecedented divisivness? conservatives. The failure to respond to the greatest humanitarian disaster inside the US? conservatives.

 

But then again, I'm being unfair, what's being passed as conservative isn't conservative at all. Why not talk to some people who are classic conservatives. What happened to fiscal responsibility? What happened to individual liberty?

 

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!

 

Are you kidding?!! How did you ever fall for that?!!

 

first a description of the migration of a liberal to conservatism;

 

-----------------------------------

 

While I was visiting friends in Seattle last month and talking to their little girl, Catherine, she said she wanted to be President someday.

 

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats were standing there with us and I asked Catherine, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

 

Catherine replied, 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.'

 

'Wow, what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine.' I told her, 'but you don't have to wait until you're President. You can start now by coming over to my house and cleaning up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.'

 

Catherine (who is about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5 dollars?'

 

'Ah', I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

now for your comments -

 

"What tax bracket are you living in?" according to you guys, I'm rich. but somehow still qualify for financial aid to send my kids to school. Without any of the so-called "tax breaks" your guys promised but refused to deliver.

 

"with the largest increase in spending in history. "

 

and therein liesthe problem. runaway spending. Democrats spend like drunken sailors. Republicans when they achieved control of Congress also spent like drunken sailors and thereby lost the support of conservatives, and were then defeated by the Dems who proceeded to triple the runaway spending of the previous, Republican drunken sailors. Bush, to his everlasting discredit, failed to find his veto pen until he faced a Democrat Congress. But look at the promises made by the two parties - Republicans to scale back spending and Democrats to spend into oblivion.

 

"We coupled the largest drop in revenue in history" ABSOLUTELY WRONG. That is not true. The only decline in revenue occured after 9/11 due to a business contraction caused by the attacks. Which also led to a substantial increase in defense spending. Surely you are not arguing against the need for that defense increase after the infamous defense gutting of the previous decade by the (ahem) previous regime?

 

tax data through 2004 (looking for more recent data);

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

 

Here is an absolute truth that has been validated many times. Low tax rates stimulate business growth which stimulates employement, all of which increases tax revenue. JFK understood that, Reagan followed his lead, and Bush the Younger also followed that prescription although all he could achieve against the Obstructionist Democrats in Congress was a temporary tax rate reduction. The above table verifies that. Those tax reductions are about to expire and will result in the biggest tax increase in US history, which Obama has declared is not enough and will double.

 

"The most expensive and needless war in history? conservatives." really?

 

WWI - Wilson (which party again?)

WWII - FDR (which party again?)

Korea - Truman (which party again?)

Vietnam - JFK and LBJ (which party again?)

 

I presume you are trying to claim that the current war is both the most expensive war in history (absurd) and was needless (highly debateable and I shall avoid discussing that hot button further. Suffice it to say that substantial numbers of people do not agree with you, including almost the entire Senate at the time that voted for it)

 

"The only time since the great depression we didn't create more jobs than we lost? conservatives."

 

complete fiction without any substance in fact and utterly absurd. Job growth has been pretty solid with the exception of the 9/11 post-attack slump caused by those attacks and the reduction in air travel. THAT you cannot blame on conservatives. We had a business expansion under almost every administration except Carter. You need to read some facts rather than DNC propaganda.

 

"Unprecedented divisivness? conservatives." nope - that was Clinton and has been raised to a new level by the DNC and the looney left. You hear very little personal attacks from conservatives. You hear nothing but from liberals. Tune into Air American and listen to that derangement - all hatred all the time. On the other side you hear mostly solid discussion on the issues rather than personal divisivness. That's a fact.

 

"The failure to respond to the greatest humanitarian disaster inside the US? conservatives." I presume you mean Katrina. I will tell you absolutely, without any reservation (from my position within NORTHCOM at the time) that is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people. The utter failure in responsibilities was by the city, parish and state governments which had and have the primary responsibility for the safety of their populace - all Democrats. Their failure to meet their mandated responsibilities hampered federal and military efforts. The idiot press laid all of that onto the administration (and to be fair there were substantial shortfalls in certain areas) but failed utterly to hold the State and local offices to account.

 

"But then again, I'm being unfair, what's being passed as conservative isn't conservative at all." certainly different levels just as there are liberals. The failures of the Republicans is not a failure in conservative principles at all. You've heard the term "RINO" - refers to non-conservative Republicans who, not surprisingly, have adopted liberal ideas and failed.

as I have stated. Liberalism fails every time.

 

rant off.....

Edited July 25, 2008 by Typhoid

[eraser_tr 29]

We had a presence in Vietnam well before JFK. Did you know Ho Chi Minh was previously very pro american? He helped us against Japan in exchange for us backing their independance after the war. He based the vietnamese constitution off of ours, then we turned around and backed the french. We were there right after the french got creamed and pulled out. McNamara(slimeball) was the one micromanaging things actually.

 

How is fighting poverty a bad thing?

 

Jimmy Carter, sorry about that, our bad. Not quite sure how a peanut farmer became president, but Gerald Ford's lack of understanding the cold war was a big reason. As for foreign policy, should we have raised tension with the soviets and provoked world war 3?

 

Clinton's interventions.....WTF? 2 interventions are mistakes, but a lack of intervention is also a mistake? I don't hear anyone criticizing Bush's Haiti intervention do I? Kosovo was a UN/NATO action, and we didn't have any boots on the ground. Rwanda, deserved intervention though.

 

Food prices were just fine until the cost of transporting them (oil) skyrocketed. But are you actually criticizing alternate energy when oil is over $120 a barrel?

 

Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean the dog poop? He can't unless he knows the job is offered to him.

 

"Without any of the so-called "tax breaks" your guys promised but refused to deliver." Who's been in control of congress the past 12 years before 2006? Since 2006, bush simply vetoes anything the democrats do to help.

 

Err, the democrats have been calling for spending cuts all the same....the only ones claiming democrats are about to go on a spending spree are republicans and their attacks.

 

"We coupled the largest drop in revenue in history ABSOLUTELY WRONG. That is not true." So the government made the largest cut in taxes (haven't seen much here, but we don't make hundreds of millions) But the government had the exact same ammount of money flowing in?

 

Defense cutting would have happened regardless of who was in government. Without the soviet union, the massive spending was totally unnecessary.

 

Then why have we lost so many (real) jobs? We've been losing mid-high level knowledge based jobs. People with multiple master's degrees can't find work. My father has only had sporadic work since the tax cuts (which favor shipping jobs overseas) While most jobs being created are low end retail/service jobs. The only fields with good salaries that are growing are nursing and teaching. Notice businesses haven't been hiring much, they keep a skeleton staff, layoff as many people as possible and work the ones who keep their jobs to the bone. Show me a single company hiring thousands of people. The unemployment figures are also extremely misleading. The figures are for people receiving unemployment benefits, which run out after six months. So if you're still unemployed after six months, you drop from the statistic. Nor does that take into account underemployment, people having to take jobs way below their experience and education (the local home depot is staffed almost exclusively by outsourced IT workers)

 

It would be the largest tax increase because its the end of the largest tax decrease. They basically balance out to the pre-bush level, under which there was plenty of growth (and the wealth gap was shrinking, not growing)

 

Wars?

WWI - attacked by germany, hardly needless.

WW2 - attacked by Japan, same deal

Korea - defending against aggression ( to say korea was unjustified would be to say vietnam and the gulf war were completely unjustified as well)

 

Iraq is without a doubt the most expensive war in history. To date, nobody has leveled with the public what the true original cause for war was. So until something shows otherwise, it looks like they simply wanted to go to war for the hell of it. Only because of the botched job has iraq become a threat to our national security.

 

I'm really beginning to think the internet is a link with an alternate universe. Because all McCain and the republicans have done is attack, while every one of obama's ads have been about his campaign promises. The only DNC attack ad I've heard or seen is the one with the baby and 100 years in iraq statement. Whereas McCain outright accuses obama of being responsible for high gas prices, the republicans are the ones who attack people's patriotism, not democrats. The bush crowd's strategy is to divide, thats universally recognized. They get on their "moral" high horse and refuse to compromise about anything to get something done.

 

I distinctly remember the utterly careless response from the federal government before and after, I'll have to go find the articles, but its the other way around. Never mind things like the comment barbara bush made about how the (toxic) FEMA trailers were a better quality of living for the poorer people in New Orleans.

 

So let me get this straight? liberalism failed to prevent nuclear war with the soviets, put a man on the moon, provide healthcare for the extremely poor and old, end segregation and ensure equal rights for minorities, turn around a gigantic deficit from the reagan years. Tell the vast majority of europeans and canadians that liberal principles have failed. Why are the most thriving states all predominantly liberal?

 

True conservative principles work once a stable equilibrium has been attained. If republicans followed conservative principles after the clinton years, we'd be fine. The Neoconservative corporatist ideology we've been dealing with has utterly failed America, and people are finally shaking off the fear and realizing it.

Edited July 26, 2008 by eraser_tr

[+whiteknight06604 931]

"Food prices were just fine until the cost of transporting them (oil) skyrocketed. But are you actually criticizing alternate energy when oil is over $120 a barrel? "

 

Oil would drop some if we expanded drilling.If someone developes somthing that works better than oil I'll be the first to buy it.I just hate it when the oil companies are villified for making money from oil.I don't see somone going into home depot and telling them to start selling food?I think it's in there best interest to expand into other forms of energy but it there company let them sell what they like.nobody was feeling sorry for the oil companies when oil was 20 bucks a barrel and they were laying off people why now when it's high do they get crucified for making a profit.Oil company profits are at record highs because they are huge companies dealing with massive quantities of product.if Coke sold as much as them they would be making similar profits.Oil company profit margines are nowere near as high as many other corpoations.the make about 20 cents per dollar invested yet Microsoft or Apple make abot double that yet noone is crying foul.I can only imagine what Starbucks or Pepsi make.

 

 

 

Until somone can figure out a way to make alternative energy cheap it's a moot point.I think there is a need for more drillling a massive increase in nuc power and all the others wind solar rabbit poop whatever works. .Nuclear is the best chioce followed buy the rest but it seems there is such an irational aversion to it.