DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Scheavo on June 07, 2011, 11:11:10 AM
-
Simple question. Discussion relating to why or why not.
I say no. As a liberal, I rarely see true liberal stories, and in fact see much more pandering to moderates, conservatives and the status quo then anything liberal. Could it have been? Sure, but I think Fox News has done enough in this country to completely change the dynamics of much of the media into (basically) right wing propaganda.
-
It depends on who's broadcasting what. You can't really say the entire media community is liberal. You've got your CNNs, your NPRs, and your NY Times as well as your Foxes, your EIBs, and your Wall Street Journals.
-
Considering that most of the media I focus on is about the middle east, id say no. Not sure how american media looks though.
-
Yes...EXTREMELY!
-
As a whole? No.
And actually, as far as news reporting goes, they're all pretty neutral. Where you get bias is from the commentators; Glenn Beck and the like. They don't report the news, they give their take on it. Even FOX, on raw news reporting, is pretty neutral.
Yes...EXTREMELY!
OP asks why or why not. Why do you think it is?
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
-
And actually, as far as news reporting goes, they're all pretty neutral. Where you get bias is from the commentators; Glenn Beck and the like. They don't report the news, they give their take on it. Even FOX, on raw news reporting, is pretty neutral.
Yeah, this is a point I think a lot of people forget.
-
I disagree. As PC and I discussed in the chat thread last week, their actual news reporting isn't much better. There's often a bias in what you choose to [or not to] report. And their headlines are often quite sensationalized, as well.
-
Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.
-
And the moderates say it varies!
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
-
He did mention that there's plenty of bias on the other side. He didn't name any networks specifically, but he didn't say anything that suggested he ignored liberal bias.
-
As a whole? No.
And actually, as far as news reporting goes, they're all pretty neutral. Where you get bias is from the commentators; Glenn Beck and the like. They don't report the news, they give their take on it. Even FOX, on raw news reporting, is pretty neutral.
Yes...EXTREMELY!
OP asks why or why not. Why do you think it is?
Fox is most certainly bias in there reporting. I don't think that makes them liars but they certainly are always going to cater to there viewers just as msnbc does, and goof balls like Bill Maher on HBO. You understand your demographic and you try to appeal to it.
I think a guy like Jon Stewart is actually quite fair in his comedic approach to politics, where as Maher is a fool.
Every network has there own slant. They are generally taking one side or the other.
Most news is not fair and balanced, its very liberal.
Tell me a news outlet besides Fox that isn't in the tank for the president?
Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.
-
Aside from the last 2 sentences, that was a very good post tick. :)
-
Aside from the last 2 sentences, that was a very good post tick. :)
Well, if you approved of any of it, its more then I usually get.
I'll take it! :lol
-
As a whole? No.
And actually, as far as news reporting goes, they're all pretty neutral. Where you get bias is from the commentators; Glenn Beck and the like. They don't report the news, they give their take on it. Even FOX, on raw news reporting, is pretty neutral.
Yes...EXTREMELY!
OP asks why or why not. Why do you think it is?
Fox is most certainly bias in there reporting. I don't think that makes them liars but they certainly are always going to cater to there viewers just as msnbc does, and goof balls like Bill Maher on HBO. You understand your demographic and you try to appeal to it.
I think a guy like Jon Stewart is actually quite fair in his comedic approach to politics, where as Maher is a fool.
Every network has there own slant. They are generally taking one side or the other.
Most news is not fair and balanced, its very liberal.
Tell me a news outlet besides Fox that isn't in the tank for the president?
Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.
You have proved your point quite convincingly. :lol Seriously though, besides the last two sentences it was a pretty good post with nothing really wrong about it. I liked the comedian point. Maher always came off as mean-spirited to me, while Jon Stewart goes after both sides (though usually after conservative presenters because its almost too easy) but he never does it maliciously.
-
Why when the word media comes up no one talks about anything besides the News Media? Media, in general, is liberal. Look at music. For the most part music has always been more on the liberal side of things. It is always pushing boundaries and questioning the status quo. Same thing with art. Art is very liberal and art is media. Television shows often put in liberal ideas within the show. Look at the show Weeds.
So yes it is safe to say that in general the Media is more on the liberal side. There is also conservative media, but the majority of media slants to the liberal side. This does not make media a Democrat.
-
I thought it was understood that when we're talking about "media" in this sense, we're talking about news media. NPR, EIB, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, Acronyms Inc, etc. Yes, art is a form of media, but its not really relevant in this context.
-
I don't think "the media" gives a crap about political affiliations. Sure individual "newscasters" have their own biases, they are just American people like you and me after all, but "the media" as a whole is probablly only concerned about money, ratings, etc. It kind of ties into the politics=sports analogy I made in the Obama thread. When a group they support fails, people like to blame it on some higher-up conspiracy. "The liberal media is in the tank for Obama." "(My team) never had a chance, the refs were in the tank cuz the league wants (the opposing team) to win."
-
I thought it was understood that when we're talking about "media" in this sense, we're talking about news media. NPR, EIB, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, Acronyms Inc, etc. Yes, art is a form of media, but its not really relevant in this context.
Well the thread title asks is the media liberal. Media is not the same thing as news media. So I think I answered the question pretty well. If you want to talk news media, why bother. It just depends on what station you are in on.
-
Context still should have clued you in that the conversation has been about the news since the OP. :P
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
-
Context still should have clued you in that the conversation has been about the news since the OP. :P
Read my first sentence questioning why everyone just jumps straight to news media and does not talk about any other kind of media.
-
The thing is, for me I try to keep my ears open and listen to all sides of any argument. In the end ultimately you will be on one side or the other. In all due respect to Epicview, who I actually like, I don't think he is willing to listen to the other side. His mind is made up.
That's not a good place to be for anyone, and I would encourage people who think conservatives are a complete joke to at least always listen with an open mind because all our futures are at stake.
I used to have an "I HATE OBAMA!" attitude but have learned to soften my stance and take every issue on a case by case basis rather then let my disdain for him impair for ability to keep an open mind.
Its an Epiphany I had recently.
I actually find myself feeling sorry for the man and the hand he has been dealt. There are no easy solutions to America's problems so its easy to make a wrong call when you have no idea if something will work. I believe in his heart, he has America's best interest in his decisions.
Its like watching a sporting event where you feel the manager should have went to the bullpen one batter earlier rather then leave the pitcher in who gives up a homerun costing his team a victory.
hindsight is always 20/20.
The bottom line in the media is certainly more liberal then conservative. I know this by watching various news sources instead of being in a comfortable bubble that feeds me what I want to hear.
I want to hear it all. My future is in jeopardy just as much as those who oppose my views, and I wish us all well in the end.
-
I wish us all well in the end.
And that's what it its all about anyways right? People get so wrapped up in the liberal/conservative fight that they forget to listen to each other's ideas and fail to realize we are all on the same team trying to get to the same ends most of the time.
-
Media as a whole - No. But there isn't a broadcast out there that only states facts without some kind of slant. That wouldn't be very entertaining.
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
-
I rarely watch TV, especially for news, but from my observation, Fox and MSNBC aside, I'd say the media is pretty status quo/establishmentarian. I think the OP is pretty accurate.
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
I don't know what Yolked means, but I did say that I think they balance out pretty evenly. If you were to put all of the outlets on a seesaw, I suspect that it'd stay pretty balanced.
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
I don't know what Yolked means, but I did say that I think they balance out pretty evenly. If you were to put all of the outlets on a seesaw, I suspect that it'd stay pretty balanced.
That actually makes the most sense....especially from a business point of view. As the country is essentially split politically, so will the businesses that serve the public be split. it just doesnt make sense to have the media be extremely slanted to one ideology unless the population is slanted to that degree. It just doesnt pass the common sense test that the media is so biased one way or the other. Individual outlets for sure....but not as a whole.
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
I don't know what Yolked means,
According to urban dictionary, it means having large muscles.
-
To add to my post, the media's job is to make us wonder, "Who would you rather have as President? Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton?" :justjen
-
As a whole? No.
And actually, as far as news reporting goes, they're all pretty neutral. Where you get bias is from the commentators; Glenn Beck and the like. They don't report the news, they give their take on it. Even FOX, on raw news reporting, is pretty neutral.
Yes...EXTREMELY!
OP asks why or why not. Why do you think it is?
Fox is most certainly bias in there reporting. I don't think that makes them liars but they certainly are always going to cater to there viewers just as msnbc does, and goof balls like Bill Maher on HBO. You understand your demographic and you try to appeal to it.
Well, I think Fox does take it a leap farther than other news organization. To equivocate Fox with MSNBC is true in some ways, but ignores the methods Fox employs.
I think a guy like Jon Stewart is actually quite fair in his comedic approach to politics, where as Maher is a fool.
More people need to watch the Daily Show, especially Fox viewers. I wish I could somehow force the Daily Show to air at like 8pm on Fox News.
Most news is not fair and balanced, its very liberal.
See, I just don't get this. The stories that are covered, how they are covered, etc, is not liberal. I say this as a liberal who follows the news, and am often angered at how little coverage liberal issues actually get. If you follow the social dialogue that occurs in this country, that entire discussion is not a liberal discussion. The stories which are covered, how the discussion progresses, etc, are not liberal - meaning, what people take away from the media is not a liberal slant.
Tell me a news outlet besides Fox that isn't in the tank for the president?
What do you mean "in the tank for"? Liberals have attacked Obama for many things he done, an rightfully so, and they've done it on MSNBC. I remember a "special comment' by Keith Olbermann aimed directly at Obama. Liberals aren't afraid to criticize Obama, whereas Fox News like never criticizes a Republican.
Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.
Fox News does way more brainwashing then any other news source. It's inception was to "combat" the "liberal media," which makes it inherently more biased then a media which is biased due to the nature of existence. I recommend watching "Out Foxed" sometime, I think its on Netflix.
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
I don't know what Yolked means,
According to urban dictionary, it means having large muscles.
It means unbalanced.
-
Equally Yolked
A Christian dating service
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
I don't know what Yolked means,
According to urban dictionary, it means having large muscles.
It means unbalanced.
Oh you mean Yoked. :)
-
I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers.
Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum. There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally. So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media, but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly.
Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?
Please folks, lets keep it real huh?
WTF? Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.
I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.
I don't know what Yolked means,
According to urban dictionary, it means having large muscles.
It means unbalanced.
Oh you mean Yoked. :)
Damn it, you know I can't spell for shit! :tick2:
-
I don't think "the media" gives a crap about political affiliations. Sure individual "newscasters" have their own biases, they are just American people like you and me after all, but "the media" as a whole is probablly only concerned about money, ratings, etc.
Remember the people behind the networks have political affiliations too. And of course they're primarily concerned about money; there is a LOT of money in politics.
-J
-
Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.
Like many others have said this is kind of a dumb statement but I only say that because my grandfather watches FOX News all day every day and the stuff he spews out that he hears on there is absolutely ridiculous. I mean one time he insisted he heard on FOX that Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue was the second best selling book of all time behind The Bible.
My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.
-
Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.
Like many others have said this is kind of a dumb statement but I only say that because my grandfather watches FOX News all day every day and the stuff he spews out that he hears on there is absolutely ridiculous. I mean one time he insisted he heard on FOX that Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue was the second best selling book of all time behind The Bible.
My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.
The difference between me and your grandfather is Fox is probably his only news source, whereas it is only one perspective for me.
I still think they are a very necessary news outlet whether you think so or not.
-
My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.
That's what I see every day from their headline feed, which is why I tend to dispute when people say that their news is fine and it's only the commentary that's biased. Currently showing:
ObamaCare Shocker: 1 in 3 Employers to Ax Benefits
ObamaCare Shocker? Really?
-
I disagree. As PC and I discussed in the chat thread last week, their actual news reporting isn't much better. There's often a bias in what you choose to [or not to] report. And their headlines are often quite sensationalized, as well.
This 1000% El Barto, remember when the new was just reporting and we could make up our own mind?! Now every reporter has to inject there feeling and thoughts.
-
I don't really think the media so much leans liberal as Democrat. Considering that 70-80% of the people who work in the media are registered Democrats, I don't see why anyone would be shocked by the notion of a liberal media or find it offensive. In what other entity in the world are the political leanings of its members irrelevant? Why is the media the exception?
One of the headlines on MSNBC right now is "American Lesbian Blogger reportedly seized in Syria." I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I'd almost say it's a good thing in many ways. But is this story a headline because it's good business or because it tickles the fancy of the people who run the website?
I'm not trying to say conservatives don't have a voice in the media. Talk Radio and Fox News have a lot of eyes and ears and therefore a lot of power. But except for their specific viewers/listeners (which aren't even a majority of the country's population), they don't frame the debate about the issues in this country in any broader way. Outside of people who watch FOX News or listen to Rush, taking anything they say seriously makes you look like an idiot*, even though all the TV networks do a terrible job at actually informing anyone about anything.
But to say a democratic/liberal/whatever bias doesn't permeate the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and on and on and on and on is unrealistic and purely reacting to conservatives who complain about liberal media bias.
And yes, ultimately members of the media care about satisfying their egos and making money than they do about promoting their politics. But it's still not a good thing.
*FOX News sucks less than people think and CNN/MSNBC suck more than people think, but you still should never watch FOX News for any reason. At least CNN and MSNBC are still pretending to be news networks.
-
*FOX News sucks less than people think and CNN/MSNBC suck more than people think, but you still should never watch FOX News for any reason. At least CNN and MSNBC are still pretending to be news networks.
That's hilarious! You think MSNBC is more credible then Fox news? :lol
MSNBC is real news? :lol
Chris Mathews is a real journalist? :lol
You'd be hard pressed to even have the bunch who post in this section to agree with that notion.
MSNBC is comedy central without the laughs.
-
Wut?
First of all, nobody said anything about Chris Matthews. And he is technically a journalist. But not necessarily a reporter of the news.
Second, MSNBC is a good news outlet. It's just about on par with CNN and FOX as far as news reporting goes. Again, you can't judge a news network by their COMMENTATORS. But you CAN judge them on the news the anchors report
-
One of the headlines on MSNBC right now is "American Lesbian Blogger reportedly seized in Syria." I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I'd almost say it's a good thing in many ways. But is this story a headline because it's good business or because it tickles the fancy of the people who run the website?
For the record, she's been a headline on every outlet all day, including FOX. FOX just replaced her with a story about the Iranian women's soccer team*, but there headline was "'Gay Girl in Damascus' Blogger Kidnapped in Syria".
*It looks like FIFA has banned the wearing of niqabs, so they were disqualified.
-
Wut?
First of all, nobody said anything about Chris Matthews. And he is technically a journalist. But not necessarily a reporter of the news.
Second, MSNBC is a good news outlet. It's just about on par with CNN and FOX as far as news reporting goes. Again, you can't judge a news network by their COMMENTATORS. But you CAN judge them on the news the anchors report
"Wut?" ::)
I said something about Chris Mathews, so now someone did.
MSNBC is a complete joke and there abysmal ratings only had credence to that statement.
Your entitled to respect there channel, but I do not, and I'm not alone.
-
I mean I don't understand why you brought him up. It's really irrelevant. Especially since he's a commentator, not a newscaster.
I'm not sure why you think it's a complete joke though. I don't think you've explained your POV
-
I don't really think the media so much leans liberal as Democrat. Considering that 70-80% of the people who work in the media are registered Democrats, I don't see why anyone would be shocked by the notion of a liberal media or find it offensive. In what other entity in the world are the political leanings of its members irrelevant? Why is the media the exception?
I think there's a difference between the natural bias everyone has, as in how liberals will naturally have a liberal bias, and the proactive bias done by Fox News. Fox News isnt' simply conservatives showing off a natural bias, it's a "news" network specially designed to "combat" the liberal bias in the media. This is what makes it worse, and what makes it pretty much propaganda.
-
My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.
That's what I see every day from their headline feed, which is why I tend to dispute when people say that their news is fine and it's only the commentary that's biased. Currently showing:
ObamaCare Shocker: 1 in 3 Employers to Ax Benefits
ObamaCare Shocker? Really?
I've read some headlines from FOx News, and other conservative sites, only to click on the article, read through it, and find that the article directly contradicts the headline.
-
I mean I don't understand why you brought him up. It's really irrelevant. Especially since he's a commentator, not a newscaster.
I'm not sure why you think it's a complete joke though. I don't think you've explained your POV
Ok, since your young and have not been able to watch the networks were talking about for very long, I will tell you this. Back in the early 90's these networks were quite different then they are now. They were way more credible. All of them!
MSNBC in the 90's employed decent news reporters unlike now.
Its not just that there bias, they are nauseating.
People like, Keith Olbermann(at least he's gone now), Rachel Maddow, and Chris Mathews are not just TV personality's, they often anchor coverage for events like election night. There sniveling whining is unbearable to listen to, and I have.
As bias as Fox is, so is MSNBC. That was my original point, and its indisputable. So to say "don't watch Fox, watch MSNBC, because they are still a credible news outlet" is a joke comment.
To say MSNBC is credible, and Fox is not in not a credible viewpoint. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.
I'm smart enough to know they are both the same type of coverage, except they reside on opposite sides of the fence.
Am I crystal clear enough for you now?
I hope so.
-
The majority of media outlets are liberal, such as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, ABC, CBS, and then you have just about every major newspaper in the country.
Conservatives have Fox News (which features more liberal talking points than the other networks feature conservatives), the WSJ, and the NY Post.
Fox News destroys the other networks in ratings and the WSJ/NY Post are actually making money, unlike the NY Times (for example).
Conservatives dominate AM Radio though. Liberals used to have "Air America" but that was an abysmal failure.
-
Compared to the internet, no, not really.
-
The majority of media outlets are liberal, such as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, ABC, CBS, and then you have just about every major newspaper in the country.
Conservatives have Fox News (which features more liberal talking points than the other networks feature conservatives), the WSJ, and the NY Post.
Fox News destroys the other networks in ratings and the WSJ/NY Post are actually making money, unlike the NY Times (for example).
Conservatives dominate AM Radio though. Liberals used to have "Air America" but that was an abysmal failure.
Do better ratings make a better news station though? I learned that people will watch what they already agree with, and not who reports the news the best. Thus conservatives tend to watch FOX and liberals CNN, etc. But just because more people watch it does NOT necessarily mean that they do a better job.
-
The US media on the whole, when compared with the rest of the world, is actually conservative, if anything.
rumborak
-
Here's my point:
Anthony Wiener's Scandal is gaining a lot of coverage from the media (left and right), much more than it deserves. It's getting more press coverage then Jon Ensign, even though Jon Ensign did majorly illegal things, and pretty much raped the women he was having an affair with.
Why? Because he's a liberal. The media, since it follows conservative talking points and dialogue, is covering it more than it should.
-
Nah, its not that the media is more conservative. It's that its funny, involves sex and nudity and gets the most viewers.
-
Nah, its not that the media is more conservative. It's that its funny, involves sex and nudity and gets the most viewers.
Basically this. And also I didn't think most networks were giving it that much attention at all. Of course it's all they've been talking about for weeks on Fox News (as expected), but when I flip through the major news stations, none of the others have done much more than acknowledge it.
-J
-
I'm pretty tired of hearing about Wiener's wiener as well, but he did bring a lot of it on himself. He tried for days to deny the whole thing, and any outlet in the world is going to try and nail him for it. I certainly am seeing some bias in reports about whether or not he should continue to serve, though. And, I'm unfamiliar with the Ensign affair, so that might suggest some coverage bias, as well.
-
FOX will pound on it because for once a Democrat gets into the news with stuff that almost is a sole province of Republicans. In general, it's of course not as much fun to see this happen to a Democrat, since it's the Republicans who pound on their family values so much.
rumborak
-
Nah, its not that the media is more conservative. It's that its funny, involves sex and nudity and gets the most viewers.
Which is why the daily show covers it.
But you don't actually disprove my point. If the media was truly liberal, as how Fox News is conservative, they wouldn't even cover the issue. They pander to their consumer much more than they ever try and convince their viewers of something specific (as fox news does).
And Fox News is the biggest news source for Americans. More people watch Fox than anything else. You can't just ignore Fox because it's lol-worthy, they're a large part of the media, drive a lot of the stories, and influence a lot of Americans.
Which brings me back to my original post, and why it was simple yes or no to the media being liberal, and not an option for it being "conservative" (because it wouldn't be quite that either). I'm not asking if sections are liberal, but my entire life I've been hearing about the "liberal media" and how it drives what people think in this country. That just hasn't been true for my entire adult life. The drudgereport is also a highly influential media source, and drives much of the news cycle, whether people actually visit the site or not (it gets news stories a lot of hits, which make them popular, which get other people to look at the story). Same for Fox News.
-
I'm pretty tired of hearing about Wiener's wiener as well, but he did bring a lot of it on himself. He tried for days to deny the whole thing, and any outlet in the world is going to try and nail him for it. I certainly am seeing some bias in reports about whether or not he should continue to serve, though. And, I'm unfamiliar with the Ensign affair, so that might suggest some coverage bias, as well.
Exactly! People don't even know about Ensign, not unless you watch MSNBC. He actually has pending criminal charges, and the senate ethics committee was goin to kick him out of the Senate, but he resigned right before they could.
Basically, he forced his best friends wife to have sex with him, largely against his desires, and when the husband found out, he paid him off, and gave him a job. I think i'm summarizing that correctly, but look for yourself. He did illegal things, whereas Anthony Weiner was simply internet-cheating on his wife.
-
perhaps the real question: Is the media biased? '
Yes it is... some biased liberal media and some biased conservative media. However, there is no way i'm going to say that 'the media' as a whole is liberal when the most watched news station is Fox.
-
Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.
Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask. Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view. There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.
-
Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.
Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask. Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view. There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.
YOu mean like how FOx News does?
-
Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view.
Really? Because FOX is also well known for being biased towards the right. Or at least that's what I hear.
-
Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.
Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask. Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view. There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.
Come on, dude, even conservatives, when they're honest with themselves, know that FOX is a pretty low-quality station. Look at the news item about the SWAT item, which turned out to be wrong on at least one key item. No respectable news station picked it up because they knew it probably was hyped, only the really cheapo internet sites picked it up, and FOX News. Or, remember the Photoshop thing? Such blatant abuse of news power is really only with FOX.
rumborak
-
I tend to find that arguments that say the media is too liberal are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are talk shows on MSNBC that are very liberal (not really news though) but for the most part I tend to find the media to be pretty much middle of the road.
When you think about it, all these media companies are owned by extremely wealthy people that are (probably) conservative (at least economically, since they are loaded) so if anything news outlets are a little on the conservative side (at least when it comes to business)
Also, I think the bigger problem is how shitty the media actually is overall (severe lack of professional journalism from both camps, left and right). Political leanings is lesser of an issue, since any competent person should be able to see blatant bias.
-
I keep seeing people mention CNN as being liberal. I have to wonder if the only reason they're saying it is because it doesn't prop up the right so, they think that means that it's liberal. The whole "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality? I will agree that their documentaries do tend to be liberal but, their news delivery(while being somewhat sleep inducing at times) seems to be fairly neutral to me.
Neutral in this case means center/right.
-
"The Media" isn't anything. The only people who think "the media" is liberal are conservatives who don't see the things they think are important discussed all the time in "the media."
-
Can't speak for the US, but there is definitely a right wing editorial bias in the media in england, by and large.
-
I think if anything, the media reflects the interests of the power structure that controls it.
-
"The Media" isn't anything. The only people who think "the media" is liberal are conservatives who don't see the things they think are important discussed all the time in "the media."
Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. I find it hard to believe with statistics like these, their isn't liberal bias?
-
First, just out of curiosity, did they establish if FOX sought to hire GOP leaning newscasters?
Second, all that means precisely nothing. The quality that makes one a good journalist is the ability to set personal opinions aside. Cronkite could have voted exclusively for transgendered communists, but nobody would have cared because his reporting was sincere.
-
First, just out of curiosity, did they establish if FOX sought to hire GOP leaning newscasters?
Second, all that means precisely nothing. The quality that makes one a good journalist is the ability to set personal opinions aside. Cronkite could have voted exclusively for transgendered communists, but nobody would have cared because his reporting was sincere.
You forgot to add, "in my opinion"
-
First, just out of curiosity, did they establish if FOX sought to hire GOP leaning newscasters?
Second, all that means precisely nothing. The quality that makes one a good journalist is the ability to set personal opinions aside. Cronkite could have voted exclusively for transgendered communists, but nobody would have cared because his reporting was sincere.
You forgot to add, "in my opinion"
To which part? Are you implying that Cronkite sucked or that good journalists don't keep their personal opinions out of their reporting? I didn't figure that either point needed qualification.
-
First, just out of curiosity, did they establish if FOX sought to hire GOP leaning newscasters?
Second, all that means precisely nothing. The quality that makes one a good journalist is the ability to set personal opinions aside. Cronkite could have voted exclusively for transgendered communists, but nobody would have cared because his reporting was sincere.
You forgot to add, "in my opinion"
To which part? Are you implying that Cronkite sucked or that good journalists don't keep their personal opinions out of their reporting? I didn't figure that either point needed qualification.
No, Cronkite did not suck. I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run. Thinks that's untrue? If so, there is not more I can say because the media was a joke during that election. Fact.
-
I can't really make much of a comment tick, so I don't pay much attention to American politics or how the media reports them, but the only real attacks I heard about Obama during his run were the whole birth certificate thing, and being a muslim terrorist.
-
First, just out of curiosity, did they establish if FOX sought to hire GOP leaning newscasters?
Second, all that means precisely nothing. The quality that makes one a good journalist is the ability to set personal opinions aside. Cronkite could have voted exclusively for transgendered communists, but nobody would have cared because his reporting was sincere.
You forgot to add, "in my opinion"
To which part? Are you implying that Cronkite sucked or that good journalists don't keep their personal opinions out of their reporting? I didn't figure that either point needed qualification.
No, Cronkite did not suck. I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run. Thinks that's untrue? If so, there is not more I can say because the media was a joke during that election. Fact.
What do you think they were protecting him from? What legitimate attacks were there?
-
the media is definitely liberal and doesn't appeal to conservatives like me who just want to live a good, christian life with jesus in my heart and the gays oppressed as god intended
(https://www.tmponline.org/wp-content/What-if-we-make-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg)
-
Yeah, we never heard about Rev. Wright, his middle name and about his birth certificate over and over again until it became a blurr in the back ground noise from the "mainstream media". Death panels, bowing too low to the Japanese Emporer and not putting his hand over his heart during the pledge are just a few more things we don't know about because of that evil liberal media. They sure did protect him didn't they?
Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure that if I spent any time thinking about it I'd easily be able to come up with some more.
/voted Perot in the 90's
/support Paul now
/never voted a straight republican or democratic ticket
/can't believe some of the shit people fool themselves into believing
-
I think if anything, the media reflects the interests of the power structure that controls it.
Well, I guess the question then is - what's the power structure?
-
I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run. Thinks that's untrue? If so, there is not more I can say because the media was a joke during that election. Fact.
Not a fact. He didn't get "protected" at all. It's just that most of the shit stirred up against was stupid.
-
the media is definitely liberal and doesn't appeal to conservatives like me who just want to live a good, christian life with jesus in my heart and the gays oppressed as god intended
(https://www.tmponline.org/wp-content/What-if-we-make-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg)
You have a phobia of God, and a mocking spirit.
-
I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run.
Not entirely true, but most of the "attacks" were silly and irrelevant anyway, and deserved protecting from an unbiased standpoint.
Fact.
Opinion.
-
I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run. Thinks that's untrue? If so, there is not more I can say because the media was a joke during that election. Fact.
Not a fact. He didn't get "protected" at all. It's just that most of the shit stirred up against was stupid.
Please. If he was a Republican, there would have been the biggest shit storm of all time against him. Look at what the media did to Palin. You really don't think they could have done the same thing to Obama? They certainly had plenty of ammo they chose not to use. They didn't. If Sarah Palin had associates like Bill Ayers or communist like Frank Davis, she would have been nailed to a cross.
This forum is filled with mostly liberal minded folks so I'm getting the expected reaction, and nothing I could say will change that.
Watch the movie, media malpractice.
-
I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run.
Not entirely true, but most of the "attacks" were silly and irrelevant anyway, and deserved protecting from an unbiased standpoint.
Fact.
Opinion.
So your conceding its mostly true?
-
No I'm not. The "not entirely true" was referring to your saying that Obama was protected from "any and all attacks", and as I explained, when the media was on his side against an attack, it was generally because of how frivolous it was. Maybe my wording was wrong or something.
So, you really consider Frank Davis or Bill Ayers "ammo"? In my opinion those are exactly the kind of things that get made into a big deal when they aren't.
-
No I'm not. The "not entirely true" was referring to your saying that Obama was protected from "any and all attacks", and as I explained, when the media was on his side against an attack, it was generally because of how frivolous it was. Maybe my wording was wrong or something.
So, you really consider Frank Davis or Bill Ayers "ammo"? In my opinion those are exactly the kind of things that get made into a big deal when they aren't.
Bill Ayers as an associate of Palin. Honest answer. What would the media have done with that one?
Do you really consider the stuff the media drummed up against Palin ammo? Your not being fair, because saying you can see Russia from the part of Alaska she was in didn't make her the dumb ass they claimed she was.
There is such a double standard, and your part of the people who make it so.
-
Sarah Palin can only blame herself with how she was treated in the media. That's not even debatable.
-
tick, Palin produced one gaffe after the other right after nomination for VP. She clearly had no idea about international politics back then, but tried to convince the world otherwise, with hilarious results. I do not understand why conservatives don't drop the woman immediately. She does more harm to your cause than anybody else.
rumborak
-
Yeah, having a few questionable personal associations certainly doesn't amount to a number of ridiculous political blunders.
-
the media is definitely liberal and doesn't appeal to conservatives like me who just want to live a good, christian life with jesus in my heart and the gays oppressed as god intended
(https://www.tmponline.org/wp-content/What-if-we-make-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg)
You have a phobia of God, and a mocking spirit.
Well Tick, I don't know if you know this, but a while ago I invited a little someone named Jesus to live in my heart, so exactly which one of us are you saying that to?
-
I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run. Thinks that's untrue? If so, there is not more I can say because the media was a joke during that election. Fact.
Not a fact. He didn't get "protected" at all. It's just that most of the shit stirred up against was stupid.
Please. If he was a Republican, there would have been the biggest shit storm of all time against him. Look at what the media did to Palin. You really don't think they could have done the same thing to Obama? They certainly had plenty of ammo they chose not to use. They didn't. If Sarah Palin had associates like Bill Ayers or communist like Frank Davis, she would have been nailed to a cross.
This forum is filled with mostly liberal minded folks so I'm getting the expected reaction, and nothing I could say will change that.
Watch the movie, media malpractice.
Sarah Palin has some "sketchy" associated of her own, ya know. Do some research.
And considering Sarah Palin can be quoted verbatim, and have it be a comedy sketch, I don't think any comparison is possible.
Watch the move, "out foxed."
-
the media is definitely liberal and doesn't appeal to conservatives like me who just want to live a good, christian life with jesus in my heart and the gays oppressed as god intended
(https://www.tmponline.org/wp-content/What-if-we-make-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg)
You have a phobia of God, and a mocking spirit.
Well Tick, I don't know if you know this, but a while ago I invited a little someone named Jesus to live in my heart, so exactly which one of us are you saying that to?
I made the statement to you. You feeling that mocking Christianity with snide condescending remarks is a good testament to the body of Christ? Glad you accepted Jesus though.
-
I think if anything, the media reflects the interests of the power structure that controls it.
Well, I guess the question then is - what's the power structure?
The giant corporations that own our news sources
-
I'm implying the media is liberal in there views in general and they proved it by protecting Obama from any and all attacks during his run. Thinks that's untrue? If so, there is not more I can say because the media was a joke during that election. Fact.
Not a fact. He didn't get "protected" at all. It's just that most of the shit stirred up against was stupid.
Please. If he was a Republican, there would have been the biggest shit storm of all time against him. Look at what the media did to Palin. You really don't think they could have done the same thing to Obama? They certainly had plenty of ammo they chose not to use. They didn't. If Sarah Palin had associates like Bill Ayers or communist like Frank Davis, she would have been nailed to a cross.
This forum is filled with mostly liberal minded folks so I'm getting the expected reaction, and nothing I could say will change that.
Watch the movie, media malpractice.
Sarah Palin has some "sketchy" associated of her own, ya know. Do some research.
And considering Sarah Palin can be quoted ver batum, and have it be a comedy sketch, I don't think any comparison is possible.
Watch the move, "out foxed."
I will certainly try and acquire a copy. I always want to hear both sides.
I hope you watched the movie I mentioned. Its got a lot of good stuff in it.
-
Hey Tick. Do you really think that Katie Couric treated her unfairly? Asked loaded questions? Sought to make her look foolish? She lobbed softballs at her and Palin's replies were weak and insipid. And lets not forget that Palin had some corruption issues of her own that never got pressed.
-
tick, Palin produced one gaffe after the other right after nomination for VP. She clearly had no idea about international politics back then, but tried to convince the world otherwise, with hilarious results. I do not understand why conservatives don't drop the woman immediately. She does more harm to your cause than anybody else.
rumborak
1,000 times this. There wasn't even a need to dig up any dirt on her because we're talking about a woman that couldn't even name a single newspaper when prompted.
-
Is tick the new EV?
-
No.
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
-
I don't know about "defending Obama", but to be fair to tick, I seem to recall MSNBC pretty much fellating him all the way into office. And I certainly have no allegiance to either party over the other.
By the same token, I think Fox was trying to usher things in the opposite direction. Of course both of those things were hardly unexpected.
And Sarah Palin, God bless her, is a complete imbecile. I wish her the best, far away from a position of power in this country.
-J
-
Is tick the new EV?
Why, because my view is a minority one? Should I just agree with everyone here, or not post at all?
Do I disrespect you or anyone else?
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
For the record, I never said I wanted Sarah Palin to be president. I said the media had a different standard for her then they did towards Obama.
That's how I feel.
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
For the record, I never said I wanted Sarah Palin to be president. I said the media had a different standard for her then they did towards Obama.
That's how I feel.
Well I think a fair share of that had to do with what exactly the "charges" against each were. Palin was being ridiculed for things she said and did, Obama was being attacked for things that were proven to be untrue and his associations. Someones actions usually demand more coverage than random insults and phantom assaults on people. And even then, the news was loaded with stories about Obama being from Kenya, his association with whatever his name was, and so forth.
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
For the record, I never said I wanted Sarah Palin to be president. I said the media had a different standard for her then they did towards Obama.
That's how I feel.
Well I think a fair share of that had to do with what exactly the "charges" against each were. Palin was being ridiculed for things she said and did, Obama was being attacked for things that were proven to be untrue and his associations. Someones actions usually demand more coverage than random insults and phantom assaults on people. And even then, the news was loaded with stories about Obama being from Kenya, his association with whatever his name was, and so forth.
and you know personally that all accusations against Obama are false why? If my argument that the media is bias is accurate then most of the sources are bogus anyway.
I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore, I promise, because I fully understand that no matter what I would say would be disregarded anyway.
I'm done.
-
Is tick the new EV?
Far from it. He's as passionate about his views but can actually word a logical argument. And he types correctly.
-
Is tick the new EV?
Why, because my view is a minority one? Should I just agree with everyone here, or not post at all?
Do I disrespect you or anyone else?
No, that's not what I meant at all. I was stating this because you have an opinion that can't be swayed but it appears that everyone thinks they can. That you are the minority and feel the need to try to prove your side to no end. Not really sure why you took it as an insult.
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
For the record, I never said I wanted Sarah Palin to be president. I said the media had a different standard for her then they did towards Obama.
That's how I feel.
Well I think a fair share of that had to do with what exactly the "charges" against each were. Palin was being ridiculed for things she said and did, Obama was being attacked for things that were proven to be untrue and his associations. Someones actions usually demand more coverage than random insults and phantom assaults on people. And even then, the news was loaded with stories about Obama being from Kenya, his association with whatever his name was, and so forth.
and you know personally that all accusations against Obama are false why? If my argument that the media is bias is accurate then most of the sources are bogus anyway.
I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore, I promise, because I fully understand that no matter what I would say would be disregarded anyway.
I'm done.
I'm sorry if I came across as harsh Tick, I didn't mean. The "false" accusations I was referring to were that he was born in Kenya, and that he was Muslim and those kinds of things. I didn't mean to imply that every accusation against him is false.
-
I thought that was obvious...
-
The fact that the American media still generally considers Sarah Palin a viable presidential candidate is proof enough that there's no 'liberal bias', not to mention more than a bit terrifying.
I mean, I know those pesky reporters are always asking her 'gotcha questions' like 'what newspapers do you read?' and 'what have you seen on your tourstop today?', but seriously, I'm always at a loss for how any sane person can defend her. Any right winger out there should be distancing themselves from her as much as possible.
-
The fact that the American media still generally considers Sarah Palin a viable presidential candidate is proof enough that there's no 'liberal bias', not to mention more than a bit terrifying.
The media considers her a viable candidate because republicans are still creaming themselves over her. I don't think anybody outside of the GOP considers her anything other than an imbecile, but as long as she's still a contender for the GOP nomination, they're going to continue to report her as such.
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
For the record, I never said I wanted Sarah Palin to be president. I said the media had a different standard for her then they did towards Obama.
That's how I feel.
Well I think a fair share of that had to do with what exactly the "charges" against each were. Palin was being ridiculed for things she said and did, Obama was being attacked for things that were proven to be untrue and his associations. Someones actions usually demand more coverage than random insults and phantom assaults on people. And even then, the news was loaded with stories about Obama being from Kenya, his association with whatever his name was, and so forth.
and you know personally that all accusations against Obama are false why? If my argument that the media is bias is accurate then most of the sources are bogus anyway.
I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore, I promise, because I fully understand that no matter what I would say would be disregarded anyway.
I'm done.
tick, you can't compare the things that Obama was attacked for and the things that Palin was attacked for. Come on.
-
I'd say the balance would be better if the media was almost entirely liberal, seeing that we live in a massively conservative country.
-
I think the media should just stick to the fact ma'am!!
Most News outlets are not reporting the news anymore, they spin the news, both ways.
-
I think the media should just stick to the fact ma'am!!
Most News outlets are not reporting the news anymore, they spin the news, both ways.
I don't think that actual reporting news is really being swayed, at least not to a particularly bias degree. I mean, with political commentators, sure. They're put on air to do that, but actual news programs from most of the major television stations are pretty fair most of the time.
-
Seth, if you grew up in my era you'd see it for yourself. It has changed over the years. Look at the main news shows at 6:30 on the main 3 networks. that being said, I think that people watch way less of that like newspapers because of new mediums like the internet.....and Jon Stewart. ;)
-
Any time I see American news, it makes me very appreciative of the CBC.
-
I hate Sarah Palin because every time I mention my conservatism I get loudmouth replies like "You want that stupid tea partybag woman as president??/????/ lololololol" before I get to explain that the GOP is not how conservatives should actually be and that I'm pretty dang moderate. :P
For the record, I never said I wanted Sarah Palin to be president. I said the media had a different standard for her then they did towards Obama.
That's how I feel.
Well I think a fair share of that had to do with what exactly the "charges" against each were. Palin was being ridiculed for things she said and did, Obama was being attacked for things that were proven to be untrue and his associations. Someones actions usually demand more coverage than random insults and phantom assaults on people. And even then, the news was loaded with stories about Obama being from Kenya, his association with whatever his name was, and so forth.
and you know personally that all accusations against Obama are false why? If my argument that the media is bias is accurate then most of the sources are bogus anyway.
I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore, I promise, because I fully understand that no matter what I would say would be disregarded anyway.
I'm done.
tick, you can't compare the things that Obama was attacked for and the things that Palin was attacked for. Come on.
Fuck yeah I can! Paaaalease! C'mon.
Were on different sides of the fence. You really think arguing this stuff will make a difference?
Allow me to answer my own question.
Nope.
-
The stuff raised against Palin was literally the shit that spews out of her mouth.
The stuff raised against Obama was attacking his associates, raising conspiracy theories, and basically everything but what came out of his mouth.
-
Exactly. Palin was being singled out for being able to see Russia from her house and messing up softball questions (though to be fair if they sent her to people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity there might have been a more positive vibe about her from the get-go). Obama was being singled out for being a secret Kenyan Muslim assassin who hates America and very little to do with his actual policymaking (mostly Obamacare in that latter case).
-
Three weeks ago, the journalism navel-gazing community was abuzz over an academic study of more than 700 news articles and 20 network news segments from 2009 that addressed a single controversial claim of the health care reform debate.
Was it President Obama's oft-repeated whopper that he was nobly pushing the reform rock up the hill despite the concentrated efforts of health care"special interests?" Was it his oft-repeated promise that "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan," something that is getting even less true by the minute? Was it the way Obama and the Democrats brazenly gamed and misrepresented the Congressional Budget Office's price-tag scoring of the bill? No. The cause for Obamacare-coverage reconsideration was not the truth-stretching claims made by a president seeking to radically reshape an important aspect of American life, but rather the Facebook commentary of ... Sarah Palin. "In more than 60 percent of the cases," the authors found, "it's obvious that newspapers abstained from calling [Palin's] death panels claim false." Horrors.
How liberal of hte media, to let a lie from Palin go unchallenged!
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin would have been viciously attacked by the media if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years. Just as Obama was.
-
Any time I see American news, it makes me very appreciative of the CBC.
I can imagine that it must be nice to get news that are not the equivalent of a reality t.v. show.
Yes yes, we should all be very concerned over what politicians are doing with their genitals, please don't report anything that has an actual impact on our lives thank you very much.
Oh, unless you want to report a news story to scare everyone, yes, like another bird or swine flu that is supposed to kill half of all americans and never does.
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Well, I think a lot of people (myself included) would pay more attention to the actual actions and quotes of someone and not focus as much on a few associations of that person. So no, I don't think the response for Sarah having a pastor like Wright would be much different from the response about Obama either. I mean, it's just a pastor after all. Why the in the fuck could that possibly be that big of a deal, especially compared to a blunder from the individual him/herself?
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin would have been viciously attacked by the media if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years. Just as Obama was.
Except Obama was not, except by Fox. You want to tell me the mainstream was vicious on him for that? Really, Adami?
I'd love for someone to find and post just one single video of the media ripping him viciously about anything, including Wright?
Please, by all means, post just one?
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Well, I think a lot of people (myself included) would pay more attention to the actual actions and quotes of someone and not focus as much on a few associations of that person. So no, I don't think the response for Sarah having a pastor like Wright would be much different from the response about Obama either. I mean, it's just a pastor after all. Why the in the fuck could that possibly be that big of a deal, especially compared to a blunder from the individual him/herself?
A persons faith is part of there character so it is a big deal. At least as far as I'm concerned it is.
-
Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.
Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask. Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view. There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.
Come on, dude, even conservatives, when they're honest with themselves, know that FOX is a pretty low-quality station. Look at the news item about the SWAT item, which turned out to be wrong on at least one key item. No respectable news station picked it up because they knew it probably was hyped, only the really cheapo internet sites picked it up, and FOX News. Or, remember the Photoshop thing? Such blatant abuse of news power is really only with FOX.
rumborak
Whatever. If you can't name a "perfect" news station, then you should just move on. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't come here to debate with people like you.
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin has some sketchy religious associations. You don't know about them because the mainstream media doesn't cover it. Wasn't quite the same as with Obama, and the comlete denigration of Rev Wright is absurd. For starters, the video that played over and over about "the chicken's coming home to roost," is a very fucking accurate and true remark about 9/11. Ron Paul pretty much says the same thing, but since he's not a black person, it's acceptable.
As for Ayers, McCain had just as a disreputable associations with people, but once again, it got mostly passed over.
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin has some sketchy religious associations. You don't know about them because the mainstream media doesn't cover it. Wasn't quite the same as with Obama, and the comlete denigration of Rev Wright is absurd. For starters, the video that played over and over about "the chicken's coming home to roost," is a very fucking accurate and true remark about 9/11. Ron Paul pretty much says the same thing, but since he's not a black person, it's acceptable.
As for Ayers, McCain had just as a disreputable associations with people, but once again, it got mostly passed over.
blah blah blah.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I'm waiting.
-
blah blah blah.
I get that you are mocking him, but he makes a good point. The media glosses over a lot of things, both Republican and Democratic screw ups are often overlooked because the media cares more about who Bill Clinton is sleeping with or which Jonas Brother just got caught with his dick in a bagel.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I've worked with and under some pretty horrible people. Pastors aren't perfect either, and their behavior shouldn't really tarnish the reputation of the people in their church. My friend's pastor is extremely anti-gay people, to a point where it's pretty ridiculous, but I wouldn't ever judge my friend because of his pastor's views. My boss at my old job was a terrible racist, and some of my co workers at my current job are extremely racist, but that doesn't mean that I am at fault or to blame at all for their behavior. I don't see why Obama is an exception.
-
blah blah blah.
I get that you are mocking him, but he makes a good point. The media glosses over a lot of things, both Republican and Democratic screw ups are often overlooked because the media cares more about who Bill Clinton is sleeping with or which Jonas Brother just got caught with his dick in a bagel.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I've worked with and under some pretty horrible people. Pastors aren't perfect either, and their behavior shouldn't really tarnish the reputation of the people in their church. My friend's pastor is extremely anti-gay people, to a point where it's pretty ridiculous, but I wouldn't ever judge my friend because of his pastor's views. My boss at my old job was a terrible racist, and some of my co workers at my current job are extremely racist, but that doesn't mean that I am at fault or to blame at all for their behavior. I don't see why Obama is an exception.
That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
Surely Obama should have been aware of who Wright is after all that time?
Sometimes its just futile to even bother.
I'm not going to continue to argue a point that clearly you think is meaningless, but it sure isn't.
-
I'm gonna sound like a terrorist for saying this, but I don't think Reverend Wright or the things he said were all that bad.
-
blah blah blah.
I get that you are mocking him, but he makes a good point. The media glosses over a lot of things, both Republican and Democratic screw ups are often overlooked because the media cares more about who Bill Clinton is sleeping with or which Jonas Brother just got caught with his dick in a bagel.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I've worked with and under some pretty horrible people. Pastors aren't perfect either, and their behavior shouldn't really tarnish the reputation of the people in their church. My friend's pastor is extremely anti-gay people, to a point where it's pretty ridiculous, but I wouldn't ever judge my friend because of his pastor's views. My boss at my old job was a terrible racist, and some of my co workers at my current job are extremely racist, but that doesn't mean that I am at fault or to blame at all for their behavior. I don't see why Obama is an exception.
That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
Surely Obama should have been aware of who Wright is after all that time?
Sometimes its just futile to even bother.
I'm not going to continue to argue a point that clearly you think is meaningless, but it sure isn't.
Obama hates whitey. It's so fucking obvious it's not even funny anymore. Wright is a piece of shit and so is ANYONE that attends his "church."
-
Obama is a racist who hates all white people? And every person who has gone to Wrights church is a piece of fecal matter?
Just making sure you said that.
-
People have a really, really strange way of ignoring/forgetting that Obama is of mixed race, and is just as white as he is black.
-
Obama hates whitey. It's so fucking obvious it's not even funny anymore. Wright is a piece of shit and so is ANYONE that attends his "church."
:facepalm:
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin has some sketchy religious associations. You don't know about them because the mainstream media doesn't cover it. Wasn't quite the same as with Obama, and the comlete denigration of Rev Wright is absurd. For starters, the video that played over and over about "the chicken's coming home to roost," is a very fucking accurate and true remark about 9/11. Ron Paul pretty much says the same thing, but since he's not a black person, it's acceptable.
As for Ayers, McCain had just as a disreputable associations with people, but once again, it got mostly passed over.
blah blah blah.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I'm waiting.
Wow. I'm done talking with you, ever. You don't even want to try and listen to other people, or have an actual discussion.
Never said Palin sat under a racist, way to read.
-
GET BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE
THANK YOU
-
I think to anyone that is truly non-partisan and basically un-biased, it is clear that there is no general bias across the media as a whole one way or the other. You have differing outlets leaning in both directions, with varying degrees.
It does appear that when one is so emotionally invested in one political party, one will see bias everywhere.
-
Obama hates whitey. It's so fucking obvious it's not even funny anymore. Wright is a piece of shit and so is ANYONE that attends his "church."
Oh lawd
-
People have a really, really strange way of ignoring/forgetting that Obama is of mixed race, and is just as white as he is black.
Funny how that works. People try to invoke "race" as some all-encompassing attribute that involves culture and background, when in reality, all they care about is what they see. Racism has really come a long way in disguising itself.
Anyway, this thread needs to be purged from existence. Christ.
-J
-
GET BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE
THANK YOU
I think talking about how the media treated candidates is a fair discussion on whether or not the media is liberal. A case study, if you will.
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin has some sketchy religious associations. You don't know about them because the mainstream media doesn't cover it. Wasn't quite the same as with Obama, and the comlete denigration of Rev Wright is absurd. For starters, the video that played over and over about "the chicken's coming home to roost," is a very fucking accurate and true remark about 9/11. Ron Paul pretty much says the same thing, but since he's not a black person, it's acceptable.
As for Ayers, McCain had just as a disreputable associations with people, but once again, it got mostly passed over.
blah blah blah.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I'm waiting.
Wow. I'm done talking with you, ever. You don't even want to try and listen to other people, or have an actual discussion.
Never said Palin sat under a racist, way to read.
Seriously?
Are you really saying I don't add anything to the discussions I take part in?
Tell me about Palins religious skeletons. I'm listening?
Your not willing to concede anything is shady about Obama. That makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion.
I asked a few posts back for someone to post just one link showing the mainstream media ripping Obama for a single thing during the 08 campaign. All I can say is I'm still waiting, and good luck with that.
-
Fox isn't part of the mainstream media?
-
I had said in my post, any news source besides obviously, Fox news.
Now that were clear, are you up for that challenge?
I would really love to see one single link. Just one.
I have the feeling I will be waiting like Linus in the pumpkin patch for this one.
-
Since all the stuff against Obama is just crap can someone tell me why none of his question associations like Ayers and the racist pastor, Rev, Wright are without any valor?
What would the media do to Sarah Palin if Wright had been her pastor for 20 years?
Can I get some honestly in response?
Sarah Palin has some sketchy religious associations. You don't know about them because the mainstream media doesn't cover it. Wasn't quite the same as with Obama, and the comlete denigration of Rev Wright is absurd. For starters, the video that played over and over about "the chicken's coming home to roost," is a very fucking accurate and true remark about 9/11. Ron Paul pretty much says the same thing, but since he's not a black person, it's acceptable.
As for Ayers, McCain had just as a disreputable associations with people, but once again, it got mostly passed over.
blah blah blah.
Wright is a racist. Tell me about the racist Palin sat under?
I'm waiting.
Wow. I'm done talking with you, ever.
Wow! :omg:
Are you going to tell your mommy on me as well?
Seriously. You want to say Palin has a checkered religious past but you don't expound upon it? That's weak.
At least we know what Wright is. I guess if you don't think he is a bad guy, I can't change that.
What is Palins transgression your speaking of?
Oh, I forgot, your done talking to me....ever. ::)
-
Obama is a racist who hates all white people?
I thought it was White people like me who are racist towards Obama?
-
I had said in my post, any news source besides obviously, Fox news.
Now that were clear, are you up for that challenge?
I would really love to see one single link. Just one.
I have the feeling I will be waiting like Linus in the pumpkin patch for this one.
What on Earth are you talking about? People "linked" to Palin? I was always under the impression that her lack of experience with anything or anyone was the reason they went for her. She was pretty much a clean slate. The party just underestimated her capacity to bullshit convingly, something Obama has down-pat. But honestly? The fact that she's on record saying the Iraq war was "god's will" was enough for me. She seems to have gotten slightly better recently and made a real commitment to actually learning about what she's talking about, but she's not there yet. Maybe she will be one day. Probably not. If, when that time comes, she hasn't amassed a slew of sleazeball political connections you can count me surprised.
And I really don't see what the big deal with Reverend Wright is. He's a black man who's pointing out that America has committed atrocities toward to colored people, which is the grim reality. No amount of Patriotism can erase that, and if it does your Patriotism is just Nationalism in disguise, I'm afraid to say. McCain's preacher, on the other hand, believed that Hurricane Katrina happened because God wanted to punish the gays for holding a parade in New Orleans. I'm far more offended about that than I am anything Wright has ever said.
The same goes for most of Obama's affiliations on the far-left. They don't bother me one bit. In fact, it's a shame he hasn't listened to his so-called commie friends more. Maybe then the Corporate bail-out would have never happened and the middle-eastern occupation would come to an end.
-
I had said in my post, any news source besides obviously, Fox news.
Now that were clear, are you up for that challenge?
I would really love to see one single link. Just one.
I have the feeling I will be waiting like Linus in the pumpkin patch for this one.
What on Earth are you talking about? People "linked" to Palin? Honestly, the fact that she's on record saying the Iraq war was "god's will" was enough for me.
And I really don't see what the big deal with Reverend Wright is. He's a black man who's pointing out that American has committed atrocities toward to colored people, which is the grim reality. No amount of Patriotism can erase that, and if it does your Patriotism is just Nationalism in disguise, I'm afraid to say. McCain's preacher, on the other hand, believed that Katrina happened because God wanted to punish the gays for holding a parade there. I'm far more offended about that than I am anything Wright has ever said.
The same goes for most of Obama's affiliations on the far-left. They don't bother me one bit. In fact, it's a shame he hasn't listened to his so-called commie friends more. Maybe then the Corporate bail-out would have never happened and the middle-eastern occupation would come to an end.
I asked for one single link from any media source besides Fox bashing Obama during the 08 campain.
That was my request. Can you deliver one or not???
As far as Wright goes. You can't erase history. God is supposed to be love, period. He is a radical jackass focusing his energy on his own racist agenda and not the word of God. If he wants to be a political activist, go for it, but keep the racism off the pulpit. Its helps in no way and does not heal anyone. It only causes more strife and division amongst people. Way to go pastor!
-
I completely disagree with that, tick. If you don't think your beliefs about god and universe should move you to some sort of action, then what are they? Just something to prop up on the mantle-piece of your life that says 'hey, I'm a normal good church going guy just like I should be'?
This country has and continues to treat people of color and people with alternative lifestyles unfairly. Reverend Wright was spot-on about that. I'd imagine many of Obama's "commie" friends have been spot-on on quite a few issues, too, that are just too inconvenient for America to admit to itself.
-
A quick search of CNN shows that they spent a huge amount of time on Jeremiah Wright back in the campaign days. I don't think we'll agree on whether or not that's bashing, but it really doesn't matter.
One thing I can say is that we heard a whole helluva lot more about Wright than we did about Palin using her office in a vendetta against a former in-law. An act which cost the state a great deal of money defending itself from the subsequent lawsuits.
-
A quick search of CNN shows that they spent a huge amount of time on Jeremiah Wright back in the campaign days. I don't think we'll agree on whether or not that's bashing, but it really doesn't matter.
One thing I can say is that we heard a whole helluva lot more about Wright than we did about Palin using her office in a vendetta against a former in-law. An act which cost the state a great deal of money defending itself from the subsequent lawsuits.
I heard plenty about Palin and that suit. Plenty.
-
I completely disagree with that, tick. If you don't think your beliefs about god and universe should move you to some sort of action, then what are they? Just something to prop up on the mantle-piece of your life that says 'hey, I'm a normal good church going guy just like I should be'?
This country has and continues to treat people of color and people with alternative lifestyles unfairly. Reverend Wright was spot-on about that. I'd imagine many of Obama's "commie" friends have been spot-on on quite a few issues, too, that are just too inconvenient for America to admit to itself.
So that's what the church platform is for? Ok, I didn't realize it was all about mans racial injustice? I thought they went there to worship God? They can be activists for social justice. Totally acceptable. Wrong venue, imo.
We don't agree on this and never will so lets just move on to the next no win argument.
-
I completely disagree with that, tick. If you don't think your beliefs about god and universe should move you to some sort of action, then what are they? Just something to prop up on the mantle-piece of your life that says 'hey, I'm a normal good church going guy just like I should be'?
This country has and continues to treat people of color and people with alternative lifestyles unfairly. Reverend Wright was spot-on about that. I'd imagine many of Obama's "commie" friends have been spot-on on quite a few issues, too, that are just too inconvenient for America to admit to itself.
So that's what the church platform is for? Ok, I didn't realize it was all about mans racial injustice? I thought they went there to worship God? They can be activists for social justice. Totally acceptable.
Many churches have long taken it as their responsibility to speak out against social injustices, whether they be corruption in other churches or government, wars, slavery, racial injustice, etc. Your dismissive sarcasm doesn't take away the fact that that's an equally valid way of approaching faith and the religious community.
-
Christ, churches down here tell you who to vote for. There was actually a pretty big ruckus over that with the Presbyterians, as I recall.
-
Christ, churches down here tell you who to vote for. There was actually a pretty big ruckus over that with the Presbyterians, as I recall.
Then there wrong. I'm not the defender of churches? I never said they do it right. Few do.
I think any church that over steps there boundaries in out of line.
-
tick, you may want to calm down a little. You're coming across as a little beligerent.
BTW, all of the classical prophets from the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as Jesus, spoke at length about social justice. I can think of few places other than churches where such discussions are more warranted.
-
BTW, all of the classical prophets from the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as Jesus, spoke at length about social justice. I can think of few places other than churches where such discussions are more warranted.
The notion down here, and I agree with it, was that if they wanted to effect political causes then they should be paying taxes like everyone else.
-
tick, you may want to calm down a little. You're coming across as a little beligerent.
I'm belligerent?
Ok, I'm done with this section of the board for the time being.
Peace.
-
I support Tick.. period.. every word he said was spot on. and of course when he asked others to back up their views, after trashing Palin.. suprise..they couldnt back their wild accusations of Palin up..
and Yes , Wright is a bigot and a racist, he is Farakans man, and married the Obamas.. and only Hannitty broke the story, when it was common knowledge.
Obama is not experienced enough to run a hot dog stand. if one wants EPIC Fail then Obama is your guy.
it wouldnt take the media long to do a story about his Uncle Odinga and Obama going to campaaign for Sharia law in Kenya if it was Palins Uncle Odinga she would be crucified.!!. but the media is soooo far left to debate it its just a waste of time. its a stone cold FACT the media is liberal, and they whine that one station FOX is FAIR, they cant handle fair.. my whole life I had to deal with the monopoly of the left controling the message, and I am thankful for FOX
I bet many still dont even know about Obama's Uncle..
-
I never payed much attention to him, but I never got the impression Wright was racist. Am I missing something?
-
I never payed much attention to him, but I never got the impression Wright was racist. Am I missing something?
Thats why this winner Obama is the President.. the media covered for him. I call him the Trojan Horse. you cant attack him or you are a racist. he was made by Soros, Soros is the media.
now I will be told Im off topic.. 3 ...2...1..
-
How bout this epicview:
you can tell him EXACTLY what was said that proves Wright is a racist. That would still be on topic because I'm assuming it was covered by the media, no?
-
How bout this epicview:
you can tell him EXACTLY what was said that proves Wright is a racist. That would still be on topic because I'm assuming it was covered by the media, no?
very simple..its Black Liberation Theology.. Thats what Wright "teaches"
Im not a teacher.. if you care about the subject take a look. I already know all this.
why do I have to prove everything? then my links will be mocked.. I dont see anyone linking to a thing but me...
-
Why do you keep avoiding answering people's questions? It would be so easy to prove a quote. Why can't you do that?
And you haven't asked for anything to be linked. If you had, i'm sure whoever you asked would have done it in a heartbeat
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Well said.
I am with both of you.
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
No it started in the primaries. It was always Hillary and Obama. The others didn't even stand a chance. I remember because I was in a politics class solely based on the presidential race at the time. And his rockstar coverage was a huge part of his media coverage. I mean, it was huge.
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Thats why the media proclaimed Hillary Clinton the democratic nominee two years before the election....
C'mon, it was only 3 years ago. Let's not forget history so quickly.
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Thats why the media proclaimed Hillary Clinton the democratic nominee two years before the election....
C'mon, it was only 3 years ago. Let's not forget history so quickly.
who is George Soros? This is spot on subject
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Thats why the media proclaimed Hillary Clinton the democratic nominee two years before the election....
C'mon, it was only 3 years ago. Let's not forget history so quickly.
who is George Soros? This is spot on subject
What does that have to do with anything you quoted?
-
Im bored..^^^
who funded Obama against Hillary?
answer: Soros
again..Im spot on subject
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4FIa1kaGto
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
How can you just ignore fox, when fox is over 50% of the media? I remember a LOT of talk about Obama's lack of experience.
Btw, I'd like to see one clip from Fox that attacks any republican, ever.
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Thats why the media proclaimed Hillary Clinton the democratic nominee two years before the election....
C'mon, it was only 3 years ago. Let's not forget history so quickly.
]
What are you talking about? Who cares when Hillary Clinton was announced? I just said Obama was under the radar, but then once the whole white woman vs black man card was played, the media ran with it and turned it into this huge drama.
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4FIa1kaGto
comedy..thats a slam? really?
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Thats why the media proclaimed Hillary Clinton the democratic nominee two years before the election....
C'mon, it was only 3 years ago. Let's not forget history so quickly.
]
What are you talking about? Who cares when Hillary Clinton was announced? I just said Obama was under the radar, but then once the whole white woman vs black man card was played, the media ran with it and turned it into this huge drama.
Hillary was the proclaimed front runner for a long time, it wasn't until Obama actually won that the media turned to him. Thats how the events unfolded, so anything else you say is basically you rewriting history.
-
You know, I have to say, I agree with EPICVIEW in that the media made Obama. No one knew who Obama was before the election unless you lived in Illinois. He wasn't on anyone's radar. Then he runs for president and the media grabbed hold of him. It became this larger than life black man vs white woman in the Democratic primaries. It was all about that. The media latched onto hillary and obama and that is why they made it. The media could have latched on to the other candidates instead, and one of them would now be president.
The whole thing was a media fest. "Obama the rock star!!" was practically every headline back then. It was ridiculous how in love the media was with Obama.
Thats why the media proclaimed Hillary Clinton the democratic nominee two years before the election....
C'mon, it was only 3 years ago. Let's not forget history so quickly.
]
What are you talking about? Who cares when Hillary Clinton was announced? I just said Obama was under the radar, but then once the whole white woman vs black man card was played, the media ran with it and turned it into this huge drama.
Hillary was the proclaimed front runner for a long time, it wasn't until Obama actually won that the media turned to him. Thats how the events unfolded, so anything else you say is basically you rewriting history.
Until Obama won what?
-
The Primary.
My post earlier was meant to say that Obama got attention when it became him/Hillary in the primary
-
The Primary.
My post earlier was meant to say that Obama got attention when it became him/Hillary in the primary
No Obama was getting a lot of media attention just during the debate phase. Before the election even happened. The other candidates hardly got any time to speak. All the time was given to Hillary and Obama. They were the only ones the media talked about during the entire primary campaign leading up to the election. Saying Obama got no attention until he won the primary is really wrong.
-
The Primary.
My post earlier was meant to say that Obama got attention when it became him/Hillary in the primary
No Obama was getting a lot of media attention just during the debate phase. Before the election even happened. The other candidates hardly got any time to speak. All the time was given to Hillary and Obama. They were the only ones the media talked about during the entire primary campaign leading up to the election. Saying Obama got no attention until he won the primary is really wrong.
This X 10000
-
The Primary.
My post earlier was meant to say that Obama got attention when it became him/Hillary in the primary
No Obama was getting a lot of media attention just during the debate phase. Before the election even happened. The other candidates hardly got any time to speak. All the time was given to Hillary and Obama. They were the only ones the media talked about during the entire primary campaign leading up to the election. Saying Obama got no attention until he won the primary is really wrong.
The first Woman with a real chance of becoming President, and wife of a former President....and the first Black Man with a real chance at becoming President.
One would think that these reasons alone were sufficient for the media frenzy....not some sense of bias or string pulling.
-
I seem to recall Obama being touted as the rising star in the Democratic party, and then getting lots of coverage. I don't think it was the media that started it. The same thing's happened to Republicans, as well. Remember when that guy from Louisiana was supposed to be the next GOP star, before his terrible showing in the SotU rebuttal? Both parties produce up and comers, and the media follows that. I don't think it's the other way around. For that matter, Palin probably falls into that category as well.
-
I seem to recall Obama being touted as the rising star in the Democratic party, and then getting lots of coverage. I don't think it was the media that started it. The same thing's happened to Republicans, as well. Remember when that guy from Louisiana was supposed to be the next GOP star, before his terrible showing in the SotU rebuttal? Both parties produce up and comers, and the media follows that. I don't think it's the other way around. For that matter, Palin probably falls into that category as well.
Exactly. My whole point is that the media basically chooses our next president. To the extent that the media HEAVILY influences the last 2 standing candidates. If the media chose not to focus on the whole white woman vs black man thing, and focused on the other candidates because maybe one of them had some story going on, it would have been a different ball game. That whole election was completely dominated by the media.
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4FIa1kaGto
Nice try and a valiant effort, except for the fact I asked for a clip of him being criticized during the campaign. It was easy for old liberal Jack to throw a soft criticism at Obama after he was elected. Mission was already accomplished. How clever of him.
Show me one of Jack Cafferty or anyone else slamming Obama just once during the campaign. Good luck with that one.
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
How can you just ignore fox, when fox is over 50% of the media? I remember a LOT of talk about Obama's lack of experience.
Btw, I'd like to see one clip from Fox that attacks any republican, ever.
Well, here ya go, Scheavo....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ORc6WAL3o
Your turn now. :tick2:
tick...tick...tick..........
-
The problem, Tick, is that the "slamming" people doesn't really occur. CNN never called Bush or Palin an idiot and FOX never called Obama a Muslim or a racist. CNN might well slant their coverage to portray them as such, just like FOX might harp on the birth certificate thing, but I wouldn't consider either one to be outright hostility. And to the extent that CNN might have drawn considerable attention to Palin's feeble-mindedness, they also spent quite a bit of time on Jeremiah Wright. You want people to demonstrate something which would be overly simplistic.
-
I dont think I can be much more clear:
" the media is Liberal, its more in what they DONT REPORT"..
again.. most logical thinking humans believe Obamas campaigning for his Uncle Odinga in Kenya is a vaild issue, Odinga is a Muslim , who supports Sharia law, Obama went arm in arm with him campaigning for him, as violence and murder was conducted against the Christians"... this is a FACT. as Obama sat in Wrights Church for 20 years...the list of Obama radical associations was " not an issue" ..but Palin somehow was portrayed as " her baby is not hers, shes an idiot, she says "Golly Gee" and correctly she said as a metaphor she can see Russia, and she didnt take Courics bait on "Newspapers" ( a bait question to see if she reads Liberal or conservative papers)
Id think Odinga is a PARAMOUNT and valid news story....but did anyone even hear it? no.. we couldnt even say Obamas middle name.. that was "offensive" this story still wont be brought up. it would have destroyed Obama's chances.. not one news source but Fox touched on it... you can tahnk George Soros for that story not making it out..
now I want people to tell me where they saw the story on Odinga? and why didnt they hear about it?
but somehow Palin ( who only came in as a VP nominee late) was scrutinized every day, and fake stories on McCains "affair" were on the front page of some Newspapers.
anybody?
crickets ...
-
The problem, Tick, is that the "slamming" people doesn't really occur. CNN never called Bush or Palin an idiot and FOX never called Obama a Muslim or a racist. CNN might well slant their coverage to portray them as such, just like FOX might harp on the birth certificate thing, but I wouldn't consider either one to be outright hostility. And to the extent that CNN might have drawn considerable attention to Palin's feeble-mindedness, they also spent quite a bit of time on Jeremiah Wright. You want people to demonstrate something which would be overly simplistic.
Wow, Barto, that is weak. Playing the everyone is above it all card, besides Fox. That's a complete crock.
Networks like MSNBC and there people like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are some of the biggest douches on the planet and are extremely rude and classless when they talk about Palin. But that's ok though, because she deserves it.
Its only Obama that received the get out of jail free card for any and everything during the 08 campaign. Surely they could have challenged him in some manner and found something to criticize about him?
He must have been perfect because he received the royal treatment throughout the entire 08 campaign.
Prove me wrong? You can't.
-
https://www.tressugar.com/What-Sarah-Palins-Ties-Alaska-Independence-Party-2337497
But the McCain/Palin ticket has dubious associations of its own. One example: Palin's connection to the separatist Alaskan Independence Party, founded by Joe Volgar who died buying explosives and said while alive: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
There, look at those connection she has. Ridiculous? Yes, and just as ridiculous as Obama's. Her's didn't get reported, because she's not a black man. Yes, I said it, race had a big part to do with the outrage, and the un American cries laid against Obama. Reverend Wright especially - the calls of him being a racist are as racist as Reverend Wright could be.
-
I remember that. But they only started focusing on him AFTER he became a true contender. I remember most of the spotlight being on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the beginning.
The whole rockstar thing was nonsense, I agree. But I don't think it made up a large portion of his media coverage
What did make up a large portion of media coverage? Was it talk of Obama's wealth of experience that made him the top candidate to be president?
Why was Obama so bullet proof? Why didn't the media knock him at all? Why did they never question his amount of experience?
I challenged you all several times to find just one clip of the media ripping Obama for anything at all.(besides Fox.)
I'm still waiting patiently for that. Its gonna be awhile.
How can you just ignore fox, when fox is over 50% of the media? I remember a LOT of talk about Obama's lack of experience.
Btw, I'd like to see one clip from Fox that attacks any republican, ever.
Well, here ya go, Scheavo....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ORc6WAL3o
Your turn now. :tick2:
tick...tick...tick..........
Ya, that was a little bit of an overreach by my part, and I could easily find comments made against Obama. Not during his electino, but look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0dIKy3d2s
He also attacked his position on wiretapping, and Guantanamo. That's KEITH OLBERMANN.
Thad Chochran who? Let's look at foxes coverage of McCain or Palin.
-
https://www.tressugar.com/What-Sarah-Palins-Ties-Alaska-Independence-Party-2337497
But the McCain/Palin ticket has dubious associations of its own. One example: Palin's connection to the separatist Alaskan Independence Party, founded by Joe Volgar who died buying explosives and said while alive: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
There, look at those connection she has. Ridiculous? Yes, and just as ridiculous as Obama's. Her's didn't get reported, because she's not a black man. Yes, I said it, race had a big part to do with the outrage, and the un American cries laid against Obama. Reverend Wright especially - the calls of him being a racist are as racist as Reverend Wright could be.
Bwaahahhhh..... youre joking right.??
You blew off my Odinga Facts
-
Did you read what I said? They're ludicrous connections, but they're connections as firm as anything on Obama.
Plus, you didn't provide any links or any proof to what you say, so why should I accept it?
https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
Odinga facts? Unlikely.
-
The problem, Tick, is that the "slamming" people doesn't really occur. CNN never called Bush or Palin an idiot and FOX never called Obama a Muslim or a racist. CNN might well slant their coverage to portray them as such, just like FOX might harp on the birth certificate thing, but I wouldn't consider either one to be outright hostility. And to the extent that CNN might have drawn considerable attention to Palin's feeble-mindedness, they also spent quite a bit of time on Jeremiah Wright. You want people to demonstrate something which would be overly simplistic.
Wow, Barto, that is weak. Playing the everyone is above it all card, besides Fox. That's a complete crock.
Networks like MSNBC and there people like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are some of the biggest douches on the planet and are extremely rude and classless when they talk about Palin. But that's ok though, because she deserves it.
Its only Obama that received the get out of jail free card for any and everything during the 08 campaign. Surely they could have challenged him in some manner and found something to criticize about him?
He must have been perfect because he received the royal treatment throughout the entire 08 campaign.
Prove me wrong? You can't.
First off, I never differentiated between FOX and the other networks. I said they both report roughly the same way. Second, are we talking about pundits or newscasters? And if we're talking about pundits, how are you going to differentiate between Matthews and Olbermann and O'Reilly? Anyhoo, a search for Olberman criticizes Obama turns up plenty of hits, as does the same search for Matthews. I'd be willing to bet that there'd probably be hits for O'Reilly complimenting Obama as well.
Like I've said all along, you've got plenty of biases on both sides of the equation, and in the end it stays pretty equal.
-
Did you read what I said? They're ludicrous connections, but they're connections as firm as anything on Obama.
Plus, you didn't provide any links or any proof to what you say, so why should I accept it?
https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
Odinga facts? Unlikely.
You should be well versed on the facts of Odinga.. its true.. go look it up..Unlikely? sorry..its true.. nice try..make sure you watch the yout tubes of them together..nothing debatable here.
https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77508
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6eVVVKFHu0
now why wasnt this BIG news?.... I know why
-
Yeah, sure. There's nothing debatable about Youtube and WorldNetDaily.
-
The problem, Tick, is that the "slamming" people doesn't really occur. CNN never called Bush or Palin an idiot and FOX never called Obama a Muslim or a racist. CNN might well slant their coverage to portray them as such, just like FOX might harp on the birth certificate thing, but I wouldn't consider either one to be outright hostility. And to the extent that CNN might have drawn considerable attention to Palin's feeble-mindedness, they also spent quite a bit of time on Jeremiah Wright. You want people to demonstrate something which would be overly simplistic.
Wow, Barto, that is weak. Playing the everyone is above it all card, besides Fox. That's a complete crock.
Networks like MSNBC and there people like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are some of the biggest douches on the planet and are extremely rude and classless when they talk about Palin. But that's ok though, because she deserves it.
Its only Obama that received the get out of jail free card for any and everything during the 08 campaign. Surely they could have challenged him in some manner and found something to criticize about him?
He must have been perfect because he received the royal treatment throughout the entire 08 campaign.
Prove me wrong? You can't.
First off, I never differentiated between FOX and the other networks. I said they both report roughly the same way. Second, are we talking about pundits or newscasters? And if we're talking about pundits, how are you going to differentiate between Matthews and Olbermann and O'Reilly? Anyhoo, a search for Olberman criticizes Obama turns up plenty of hits, as does the same search for Matthews. I'd be willing to bet that there'd probably be hits for O'Reilly complimenting Obama as well.
Like I've said all along, you've got plenty of biases on both sides of the equation, and in the end it stays pretty equal.
You don't think Bill O'Reilly isn't more fair then Keith Olbermann? I sure think he is.
-
Yeah, sure. There's nothing debatable about Youtube and WorldNetDaily.
Oh mother of sweet irony.... thats my point. The mainstream media for the most part never even touched thise valid story..and trust me, its valid..
did you watch the youtube? if I grabbed the right one its airtight..but if you are wanting any sort of validatiing of this, trust I am correct, and will back it up all day
thank you for making my point
-
I think you should look up the word "doublethink."
-
Did you read what I said? They're ludicrous connections, but they're connections as firm as anything on Obama.
Plus, you didn't provide any links or any proof to what you say, so why should I accept it?
https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
Odinga facts? Unlikely.
You should be well versed on the facts of Odinga.. its true.. go look it up..Unlikely? sorry..its true.. nice try..make sure you watch the yout tubes of them together..nothing debatable here.
https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77508
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6eVVVKFHu0
now why wasnt this BIG news?.... I know why
Because the association being made, and the accusation that this somehow makes Obama culpable, is completely unfounded and false. That's why.
Oh my god, he hugged Odinga? Well that's a downright admission right there! Forget Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, or Reagan entertaining numerous African head's of states which commited atrocities; while we're at it forget every President since like ever holding hands with Arab heads of states. I noticed something in that video: pretty much all the sound is cut off, even though Obama is speaking. Ronald Reagan propped up Osama bin Laden. Reagan propped up Saddam Hussein, and he also helped the Sha of Iran. The speech at the end of the video is almost a contradiction to what you're saying. He says there a lot that needs to be done in Kenya, and that it has a long ways to go. He says it needs a government free of corruption - and that in Kenya this problem is a crisis. Seriously.
He made a visit to his state country, and toured with the important political figures. That hardly constitutes support for what Odinga has done since then.
And any comments tick? You've ignored my posts with what I was talking about, and 'bout Olbermann ripping into Obama.
-
^^
Scheavo,,,, You can keep spinning but it is what it is..its his Uncle, he went to campaign with him, for him..and Obama just sent him 2 million of our dollars.
if you doubt me let me know..
The point being can you imagine in your words " Palin went to Kenya to campaign for her Muslim Uncle, against the Christians"...
I think it would make the news EVERY MINUTE, NON STOP... The New York Times would print it 24/7 on the front page.
obviously you never heard of this Uncle Odinga... correct?
-
HOLY FUCK.
It did not happen.
-
HOLY FUCK.
It did not happen.
what didnt?
-
Hey epicview, remember what I told you about arguing and backing up your positions?
Start doing that. It looks like you're trying to bait everyone arguing against you, and you can stop it by forming coherent and well thought responses
-
The point being can you imagine in your words " Palin went to Kenya to campaign for her Muslim Uncle, against the Christians"...
I think it would make the news EVERY MINUTE, NON STOP... The New York Times would print it 24/7 on the front page.
And so why doesn't the media do that for Obama? What does the media have to gain by perpetuating this lie? Because he's a democrat? That's fucking stupid. There's plenty of other democrats they could support, and they could distance themselves from Obama. Hillary Clinton had the media claiming she was the front runner, why'd they change to Obama? Really, just ask yourself some simple questions, like why they have anything to gain, why they would do it, and why they wouldn't jump all over this story if it were true.
Do you have any other source then WND and Corsi - whose been known to have flat out lies and distortions in everything he prints?
Unless the next response is drastically different, I'm gonna opt out of discussions with you. It's clear from my short time back that it could only drag down the board, and it'll lead nowhere. I'll let you enjoy your conspiracy theories.
-
Hey epicview, remember what I told you about arguing and backing up your positions?
Start doing that. It looks like you're trying to bait everyone arguing against you, and you can stop it by forming coherent and well thought responses
I have no idea what you are talking about? I have backed up every word... and have said if some one wants more back up Im more then willing to provide.
people are welcome to agree with me...so its really up to them?
once again, I cant be more confused ...
please quote what you pereive as is not coherent?
-
Hey epicview, remember what I told you about arguing and backing up your positions?
Start doing that. It looks like you're trying to bait everyone arguing against you, and you can stop it by forming coherent and well thought responses
Back one day from a ban and we already have threads being derailed back into Odinga and Birth Certificates.
It really is discouraging and very counterproductive for good PR discussions.
-
Hey epicview, remember what I told you about arguing and backing up your positions?
Start doing that. It looks like you're trying to bait everyone arguing against you, and you can stop it by forming coherent and well thought responses
I have no idea what you are talking about? I have backed up every word... and have said if some one wants more back up Im more then willing to provide.
people are welcome to agree with me...so its really up to them?
once again, I cant be more confused ...
please quote what you pereive as is not coherent?
I dont think anyone buys the "Im confused" bit anymore.
-
Hey epicview, remember what I told you about arguing and backing up your positions?
Start doing that. It looks like you're trying to bait everyone arguing against you, and you can stop it by forming coherent and well thought responses
Back one day from a ban and we already have threads being derailed back into Odinga and Birth Certificates.
It really is discouraging and very counterproductive for good PR discussions.
I have to agree with this...
-
Hey epicview, remember what I told you about arguing and backing up your positions?
Start doing that. It looks like you're trying to bait everyone arguing against you, and you can stop it by forming coherent and well thought responses
Back one day from a ban and we already have threads being derailed back into Odinga and Birth Certificates.
It really is discouraging and very counterproductive for good PR discussions.
This is a point about liberal bias.. and from what I can tell I commented on the new birth certificate..
in ANOTHER thread..
-
is the question directed just at media in the form of television, or others as well?
I wouldn't say the media as a whole are liberal, but most major networks broadcast from at least somewhat of a liberal point of view. (CNN slightly, MSNBC a little more so).
fox obviously is the exception, as they are undeniably a conservative station. i personally don't like bias towards either side, which is why i stick to the bbc. they're the most impartial i've found, at least in my opinion.
-
This is a point about liberal bias.. and from what I can tell I commented on the new birth certificate..
in ANOTHER thread..
Actually, where media bias would come into play would be if they kept trying to perpetuate bullshit claims. What your liberal media is doing is NOT reporting things that are clearly bogus. First off, the claim is that they're cousins, not uncle/nephew, and that's been disputed by everybody. Secondly, Odinga is by all accounts a fucking Christian. Get your conspiracies straight.
The reason you're having issues with the posters here isn't because of what you think. It isn't even because of how you express it. It's because you've made it crystal clear that you're completely inflexible in your beliefs. What you're engaging in here isn't debate. It's a lecture on a topic that nobody buys into because it's thoroughly disproved. Nobody wants to keep harping on Odinga or birth certificates once they realize that there's absolutely nothing to be gained by the discussion.
-
It's a bummer when certain threads are rendered unreadable.
rumborak
-
It's a bummer when certain threads are rendered unreadable.
rumborak
I hear ya... such a pity, all the wasted pixels..oh the humanity..LOL. is it "unreadible? or is it beyond your knowledge"..hmmmmmmmmmmmm
please stay on subject and we can save the thread!!! LOL.
-
my computer is gliching..
but whatever EB, Im in 4 threads here, I dont bother anyone in threads that are not my baliwick, If people dont like my convictions, then they should learn to be more understanding and just move on and leave me be..
but Im trying to stay on subject. I dont want to be the subject
-
my computer is gliching..
but whatever EB, Im in 4 threads here, I dont bother anyone in threads that are not my baliwick, If people dont like my convictions, then they should learn to be more understanding and just move on and leave me be..
but Im trying to stay on subject. I dont want to be the subject
The problem is that you want people to be more understanding of your convictions, and if not, leave you be....yet you by all accounts are completely unable to be understanding of convictions that run contrary to your own.
And you do try to stay on subject....your subject...and that subject is Obama = Devil. The problem is every discussion you participate in here in PR ultimately goes there.
-
my computer is gliching..
but whatever EB, Im in 4 threads here, I dont bother anyone in threads that are not my baliwick, If people dont like my convictions, then they should learn to be more understanding and just move on and leave me be..
that's the thing, when you have given little to no effort in supporting your many easily-disprovable beliefs, you have given people very little reason to respect them.
-
Is this going to be a monthly occurrence?
-
Is this going to be a monthly occurrence?
The temptation to make a cheap one-liner here is almost irresistable...
Back to the topic. Here's a black prof on CNN calling Obama a white man in black skin; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIKpWR-fFP0
Hillbillary on CNN slamming Obama over Wright during the campaign; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASWvyAxeSxQ
Here's a fun one that's about selective editing; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwbB02-rCVw
Enjoy...
-
my computer is gliching..
but whatever EB, Im in 4 threads here, I dont bother anyone in threads that are not my baliwick, If people dont like my convictions, then they should learn to be more understanding and just move on and leave me be..
that's the thing, when you have given little to no effort in supporting your many easily-disprovable beliefs, you have given people very little reason to respect them.
Then tell me which ones you dont agree with?..and post your source to refute them since my views are so easy to disprove?... I know you cant.
-
I'll show you my sources if you show me yours. My source is bigger than your source.
-
EV, you don't get to make posts like that when you wont' do the same thing
-
EV, you don't get to make posts like that when you wont' do the same thing
again, I guess I should just do slapstick.. and cut on other people here.. that appears to be the way.
again..point to a thing I said that I have not given back up on? and again.. why is that you only seam to gravitate to me? I see people cutting on me or Tick " ( off topic Id assume)
if you want to be productive quote what I have said that is the issue??? quote it!!! Im not a mind reader.
-
So tick, can I take your tacit avoidance of this thread since my post as confirmation that you cede the point? Or what?
There are very very few true liberal view points expressed in the news. If the media is "liberal," it is so god damn moderate as to verge on being nothing. EV makes a point about it's what the media doesn't report, which is exactly my point. The media doesn't report the liberal agenda, or something like that. Where are the big stories about ending the foreign wars? That's quite a liberal thing. Where are the big stories about changing our energy us to something more efficient? That gets very little news, and to what extent you hear about it, it mostly talks about it "destroying jobs," or something else unsubstantiated and easily disprovable. As a liberal, I can tell you, if I wanted to make a liberal media, and make it biased, it wouldn't be close to the crapfest we have now.
I mena, there's really no journalism left in the media, that's one large problem. It's all zeitgeist and tabloidal gossip. OMG Weiner showed his Weiner! Let's ignore the current sitting Republicans who had sex scandals, and broke the law.
-
my computer is gliching..
but whatever EB, Im in 4 threads here, I dont bother anyone in threads that are not my baliwick, If people dont like my convictions, then they should learn to be more understanding and just move on and leave me be..
that's the thing, when you have given little to no effort in supporting your many easily-disprovable beliefs, you have given people very little reason to respect them.
Then tell me which ones you dont agree with?..and post your source to refute them since my views are so easy to disprove?... I know you cant.
The thing is that you're often the accuser in your posts, so the burden of proof is on you.
then again you're going to completely disregard this so why even bother. have a great life dude.
-
So tick, can I take your tacit avoidance of this thread since my post as confirmation that you cede the point? Or what?
There are very very few true liberal view points expressed in the news. If the media is "liberal," it is so god damn moderate as to verge on being nothing. EV makes a point about it's what the media doesn't report, which is exactly my point. The media doesn't report the liberal agenda, or something like that. Where are the big stories about ending the foreign wars? That's quite a liberal thing. Where are the big stories about changing our energy us to something more efficient? That gets very little news, and to what extent you hear about it, it mostly talks about it "destroying jobs," or something else unsubstantiated and easily disprovable. As a liberal, I can tell you, if I wanted to make a liberal media, and make it biased, it wouldn't be close to the crapfest we have now.
I mena, there's really no journalism left in the media, that's one large problem. It's all zeitgeist and tabloidal gossip. OMG Weiner showed his Weiner! Let's ignore the current sitting Republicans who had sex scandals, and broke the law.
Say what? Did I miss something? Did you fulfill my request?
No?
Ok, bye.
Actually I'm just breaking your balls. That was great hearing Olbermann baste Obama. Wish he had done that kind of shit when Obama was running.
-
He was probably far too occupied dealing with the insanity that was McCain/Palin. McCain's campaign was horrible, it switched messages constantly, and often at the ignorance of facts.
-
So tick, can I take your tacit avoidance of this thread since my post as confirmation that you cede the point? Or what?
There are very very few true liberal view points expressed in the news. If the media is "liberal," it is so god damn moderate as to verge on being nothing. EV makes a point about it's what the media doesn't report, which is exactly my point. The media doesn't report the liberal agenda, or something like that. Where are the big stories about ending the foreign wars? That's quite a liberal thing. Where are the big stories about changing our energy us to something more efficient? That gets very little news, and to what extent you hear about it, it mostly talks about it "destroying jobs," or something else unsubstantiated and easily disprovable. As a liberal, I can tell you, if I wanted to make a liberal media, and make it biased, it wouldn't be close to the crapfest we have now.
I mena, there's really no journalism left in the media, that's one large problem. It's all zeitgeist and tabloidal gossip. OMG Weiner showed his Weiner! Let's ignore the current sitting Republicans who had sex scandals, and broke the law.
Say what? Did I miss something? Did you fulfill my request?
No?
Ok, bye.
Actually I'm just breaking your balls. That was great hearing Olbermann baste Obama. Wish he had done that kind of shit when Obama was running.
Two of the clips I posted were from the time of the '08 campaign. So, I posted proof of what you were asking for from him.
-
That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
And just because you had a good pastor doesn't mean that you are a good Christian. It goes both ways. Regardless of whether or not Obama was at the church, his pastor's attitude, views or sermons reflect absolutely nothing on him. Nothing at all. The same way that your pastors attitude, views or sermons don't reflect on you.
Surely Obama should have been aware of who Wright is after all that time?
Sometimes its just futile to even bother.
I'm not going to continue to argue a point that clearly you think is meaningless, but it sure isn't.
Again, I went to a church for a while (with the friend I mentioned earlier) and their pastor is very anti-gay people. I eventually left the church but it doesn't mean that the pastor's views reflect me at all. What is so difficult to grasp about this? Do you really think that listening to someone speak magically makes you responsible for what they are, do or say?
-
That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
And just because you had a good pastor doesn't mean that you are a good Christian. It goes both ways. Regardless of whether or not Obama was at the church, his pastor's attitude, views or sermons reflect absolutely nothing on him. Nothing at all. The same way that your pastors attitude, views or sermons don't reflect on you.
On top of that, I wasn't aware that a person is static for 20 years. The Wright Obama met and started going to church with is not the same Wright we all became acquainted with thanks to Fox News.
-
The media is very conservative, corporatist, and status-quo. Both US political parties are conservative. This thread's example, Rev. Wright, and the fact that he was tarred and feathered by the media and both political parties including Obama eventually, is really all the proof you need.
Sadly, it's still the best media in the world.
-
The media is very conservative, corporatist, and status-quo. Both US political parties are conservative. This thread's example, Rev. Wright, and the fact that he was tarred and feathered by the media and both political parties including Obama eventually, is really all the proof you need.
Sadly, it's still the best media in the world.
How are you defining conservative?
And how is Rev. Wright an example of that?
-
That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
And just because you had a good pastor doesn't mean that you are a good Christian. It goes both ways. Regardless of whether or not Obama was at the church, his pastor's attitude, views or sermons reflect absolutely nothing on him. Nothing at all. The same way that your pastors attitude, views or sermons don't reflect on you.
On top of that, I wasn't aware that a person is static for 20 years. The Wright Obama met and started going to church with is not the same Wright we all became acquainted with thanks to Fox News.
So? Fox hates Obama so they bring this stuff up. The bottom line is, they don't create stuff that doesn't exist.That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
And just because you had a good pastor doesn't mean that you are a good Christian. It goes both ways. Regardless of whether or not Obama was at the church, his pastor's attitude, views or sermons reflect absolutely nothing on him. Nothing at all. The same way that your pastors attitude, views or sermons don't reflect on you.
Surely Obama should have been aware of who Wright is after all that time?
Sometimes its just futile to even bother.
I'm not going to continue to argue a point that clearly you think is meaningless, but it sure isn't.
Again, I went to a church for a while (with the friend I mentioned earlier) and their pastor is very anti-gay people. I eventually left the church but it doesn't mean that the pastor's views reflect me at all. What is so difficult to grasp about this? Do you really think that listening to someone speak magically makes you responsible for what they are, do or say?
In my opinion, you are who you surround yourself with.
No, sitting under a good pastor does not make me a good person, but it helps, in my opinion.
If you surround yourself with quality people you will have a better shot at being a quality person, in my opinion.
If you surround yourself with drug addicts, their is a good chance you will start doing drugs, in all likelihood.
I would just like to know why Obama thought this guy was worthy of sitting under for 20 years? I guess to most here it doesn't matter. I get it. Don't want to beat that horse anymore, he's had enough.
The reason I am wearing thin of the politics religion section of the board is because I'm never going to see eye to eye on issues with people whose views are polar opposite. Its futile and a waste of time. Your never going to change someones mind no matter how hard you try.
That being said, I'd be willing to bet if we all hung out at a show we would laugh about it and have a good time.
Its cool.
Regardless of everything he is, Obama hasn't solved much as far as our countries economy. That task is probably too daunting for any president right now.
Peace.
-
What has Reverend Wright said that's earned him such a toxic reputation in the media and minds of mainstream America?
"Damn America?"
Considering the treatment colored people have undergone in the history of this country, and considering the continued problems they face (which will get now worse because, since the president is half black, I guess that means blacks are equal now and nothing is keeping them down in society and we can ignore the problem now amiright?) I think the powers that be are pretty damn lucky that n liberation theology preacher ranting "damn america" is the worst thing they can dig up.
Reverend Wright's tradition of preaching is a uniquely American one, and it's a valuable one. And, frankly, anyone who dares to openly question the government's fairness toward their own community is a valuable member of a free society. But I guess since his point of view is offensive to most American's latent sense of nationalism, he gets lampooned in the public sphere. Voices which genuinely go against the grain should be valued in a free society, but instead they get shut out by people who don't care about or understand them.
We get what we ask for, I supposed. I just wish everyone would think about whether the president or any of the GOP contenders reflect their actual views about how America should be run. The answer is probably no. So, just remember, mainstream Americans who repeatedly shun radical viewpoints are the same people who are responsible for things like the atrocious echo-chamber that this week's GOP debate was. Everyone would do well to remember that whilst choosing between Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Ginrich in the primary.
-
What has Reverend Wright said that's earned him such a toxic reputation in the media and minds of mainstream America?
"Damn America?"
Considering the treatment colored people have undergone in the history of this country, and considering the continued problems they face (which will get now worse because, since the president is half black, I guess that means blacks are equal now and nothing is keeping them down in society and we can ignore the problem now amiright?) I think the powers that be are pretty damn lucky that n liberation theology preacher ranting "damn america" is the worst thing they can dig up.
Reverend Wright's tradition of preaching is a uniquely American one, and it's a valuable one. And, frankly, anyone who dares to openly question the government's fairness toward their own community is a valuable member of a free society. But I guess since his point of view is offensive to most American's latent sense of nationalism, he gets lampooned in the public sphere. Voices which genuinely go against the grain should be valued in a free society, but instead they get shut out by people who don't care about or understand them.
Bet you don't share that same sentiment about Born Again Christians and their rights and views. Just a hunch.
-
Bet you don't share that same sentiment about Born Again Christians and their rights and views. Just a hunch.
Wrong.
-
That's bull, Quad. Obama sat in that pastors church for 20 years. I had the same pastor for many years and he was a quality man. Certainly a godly man.
And just because you had a good pastor doesn't mean that you are a good Christian. It goes both ways. Regardless of whether or not Obama was at the church, his pastor's attitude, views or sermons reflect absolutely nothing on him. Nothing at all. The same way that your pastors attitude, views or sermons don't reflect on you.
On top of that, I wasn't aware that a person is static for 20 years. The Wright Obama met and started going to church with is not the same Wright we all became acquainted with thanks to Fox News.
So? Fox hates Obama so they bring this stuff up. The bottom line is, they don't create stuff that doesn't exist.
Actually, fox news does create stuff that doesn't exist, they do it on a daily basis. The most recent event I can think of is the faux outrage over Common going to the white house. A bunch of white people on Fox News got riled up over a rapper going to the white house, completely misunderstood and distorted his lyrics, his motives, etc, all to make it sound as if Obama was a gangster or something. It was suspiciously racist - especially when the same outrage wasn't incited over white singers singing just as bad of stuff and visiting the white house.
There's also the doctored photos.
https://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fox-20080702-steinberg.jpg)
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fox-20080702-redicliffe.jpg)
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Whenever a republican get's in trouble, Fox News has a "mess up," and during the news conference, puts a D instead of an R for the politicians party. I could go on and on and on, but the idea that Fox News doesn't distort the truth in a big way is demonstrably false.
-
What has Reverend Wright said that's earned him such a toxic reputation in the media and minds of mainstream America?
"Damn America?"
Considering the treatment colored people have undergone in the history of this country, and considering the continued problems they face (which will get now worse because, since the president is half black, I guess that means blacks are equal now and nothing is keeping them down in society and we can ignore the problem now amiright?) I think the powers that be are pretty damn lucky that n liberation theology preacher ranting "damn america" is the worst thing they can dig up.
More importantly, the "God Damn America" part was specifically about 9/11, and how we basically asked for 9/11 by having the foreign policy we have. It was the "roosters coming home to nest." He was basically saying we deserved 9/11 to happen, because we were being un Christian like, creating war, and dominating a region. He was pretty much saying the exact same thing as Ron Paul says. More colorful and fitting language perhaps, but the message is the same.
Why doesn't Ron Paul get attacked like Rev. Wright? Because Ron Paul is white, and Rev. Wright is black. (Btw, I use the "race card" a lot, but I'm a white man who grew up in Montana, so that should say something about my predisposition to spotting this sort of thing).
-
More importantly, the "God Damn America" part was specifically about 9/11, and how we basically asked for 9/11 by having the foreign policy we have. It was the "roosters coming home to nest." He was basically saying we deserved 9/11 to happen, because we were being un Christian like, creating war, and dominating a region. He was pretty much saying the exact same thing as Ron Paul says. More colorful and fitting language perhaps, but the message is the same.
And that's actually pretty tame compared to Pat Robertson. In Wright's case, there's some potential merit to his words. Robertson is just bat-shit insane.
And wow on those pictures.
-
Good point, I forget bout McCain and Pat Robertson and the other pastors he associated with. If we wanted to associate peole along those lines, McCain tink's 9/11 happened because we're somewhat tolerant towards gays in our society, and that Katrina happened because of gay people in NO.
-
Why doesn't Ron Paul get attacked like Rev. Wright? Because Ron Paul is white, and Rev. Wright is black. (Btw, I use the "race card" a lot, but I'm a white man who grew up in Montana, so that should say something about my predisposition to spotting this sort of thing).
This is completely ridiculous. And your "pulling the race card" in the name of a minority to which you don't belong doesn't say anything. There are plenty of white people who do the same thing for all manner of reasons, political and personal. And quite frankly, it tends to do more harm than good. You answered your own question right here:
More colorful and fitting language perhaps, but the message is the same.
It was Wright's inflammatory language, along with conservatives' lame-ass attempts to discredit Obama by association, that brought it to the forefront. Ron Paul is outspoken and already considered a fringe candidate by most. There is little incentive for anyone to harp on his views on foreign policy which in particular, by the way, are shared by many mainstream politicians.
For the record, I agree that the Wright "controversy" was complete bullshit.
Actually, fox news does create stuff that doesn't exist, they do it on a daily basis. The most recent event I can think of is the faux outrage over Common going to the white house. A bunch of white people on Fox News got riled up over a rapper going to the white house, completely misunderstood and distorted his lyrics, his motives, etc, all to make it sound as if Obama was a gangster or something. It was suspiciously racist - especially when the same outrage wasn't incited over white singers singing just as bad of stuff and visiting the white house.
Let me start by saying that I fully agree that Fox has frequently engaged in some reprehensible, vile, dishonest distortions of the facts, and is as untrustworthy as a news source as any other major outlet, probably moreso. But the thing with Common was because he had spoken out in defense of Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal, two activists who were convicted of killing police officers. IMO, still not a legit reason to be so upset about his invitation to the WH, but you went all Fox News on this controversy in your synopsis above: it bears almost no resemblance to the reality of it. :lol
Being so quick to jump on the "RACIST!" bandwagon does no one any favors. Racism will always exist; it's a sad fact of human nature. But trust me, this country has come a very, very long way, just in my lifetime alone. At this point, I'd hope we would be above invoking institutionalized racism and the slavery era at every turn.
-J
-
I bring up my race and upbringing becuase I don't have the up bringing to be aware of this kind of racism. It's clear to me that the outrage over Obama, is associated, questioning of his birth, etc, is largely motivated becuase he's a black man. He's one of the most moderate Presidents in decades, and yet he's labeled a radical. There is no justificatn, and the exact same rhetoric and questions raised by white people gets a complete pass. You ignore the fact that Ron Paul has never gotten attacked for being un American and hating America, even though he's saying the same fucking thing as Rev. Wright. Its the same message, done by someone else, in a different community, and it scared the fuck out of a lot of white people in the south.
Also, Common said he thinks the charges were bogus, which is not something completely inconceivable. Black people have an unfair shake in our legal system in many area's of teh country, and at no point did Common ever endorse cop killing. Even if he did, just look at Mike Huckabee and Ted Nugent, or Reagan and Johnny Cash. Google Jon Stewart on O'Reilly talking about Common if you want to see how ridiculous Fox News was being.
You can call a lot of the outrage over Obama as racist, and not be claiming everything is racist. You have to be able to make that distinction, I do.
I don't get why pointing out institutionalized racism is wrong, it exists and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Too many people took the election of a black Presidnet as the "end of racism" in America, but it's a ludicrous claim.
-
I bring up my race and upbringing becuase I don't have the up bringing to be aware of this kind of racism. It's clear to me that the outrage over Obama, is associated, questioning of his birth, etc, is largely motivated becuase he's a black man. He's one of the most moderate Presidents in decades, and yet he's labeled a radical. There is no justificatn, and the exact same rhetoric and questions raised by white people gets a complete pass. You ignore the fact that Ron Paul has never gotten attacked for being un American and hating America, even though he's saying the same fucking thing as Rev. Wright. Its the same message, done by someone else, in a different community, and it scared the fuck out of a lot of white people in the south.
Also, Common said he thinks the charges were bogus, which is not something completely inconceivable. Black people have an unfair shake in our legal system in many area's of teh country, and at no point did Common ever endorse cop killing. Even if he did, just look at Mike Huckabee and Ted Nugent, or Reagan and Johnny Cash. Google Jon Stewart on O'Reilly talking about Common if you want to see how ridiculous Fox News was being.
You can call a lot of the outrage over Obama as racist, and not be claiming everything is racist. You have to be able to make that distinction, I do.
I don't get why pointing out institutionalized racism is wrong, it exists and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Too many people took the election of a black Presidnet as the "end of racism" in America, but it's a ludicrous claim.
NO its not motivated by that..its motivated by his history, his own books, his associations...stop it already ,
-
To be clear EV, I'm not calling you a racist. I'm calling the attention brought to it racist.
-
sorry for the double post but 'My typos are motivated by my tech issue witht he screen being under the screen and it jumping" LOL
Im part minority. I have dealt with bigotry, trust me, nobody cares about his skin color. if anything he he was given more leeway becasue of it. we are upset by his associations, lack of love for this country, his not wanting to wear lapel pin, put his hand over his heart for the pledge, his apology tour to our enemies, his ignorance on what we face as Jihad is on the move against the west..He was a MISTAKE. His stimulus plan was TRILLION to UNIONS.. we know it cant work.
His treatment of our allies has been a disgrace..
-
People do care about his skin color. I could find you a poll from the time of hte election that showed ~20% of America saying they wouldn't vote for Obama because he was black - and thats the amount willing to admit it to someone over the phone.
Lack of love for this country? Show me where that has happened; the lapel pin? Do I need to show you McCain not wearing one? I put my hand over my heart for the pledge, when I did it, it's what I was taught, the apology tour was needed becuase we are fucking up the entire region and blaming it on them, and the Jihad movement is not a serious threat - just look at the Arab Spring.
-
we are upset by his associations,
Many of which aren't as bad as some people make them out to be.
lack of love for this country,
...what? Really? You think he became President without some kind of love for this country? This doesn't make sense. To go through all the stress of being President isn't worth it if you don't have some love for the country you're meant to lead.
his not wanting to wear lapel pin, put his hand over his heart for the pledge,
What does this matter about anything?
his ignorance on what we face as Jihad is on the move against the west..
Call me naive but I think the Commander in Chief is pretty well aware of any potential military movements against us.
His treatment of our allies has been a disgrace..
How? And what instances are you talking about? Links?
-
Scheavo...I know your not calling me a racist ( we cool ;D).. but I still dont agree with you. yes, I know aholes exist, and racism exists.. but its NOT a card that should be played here.. its not the real issue with Obama..
to SDN, many are far worse then you may think..
-
Scheavo...I know your not calling me a racist ( we cool ;D).. but I still dont agree with you. yes, I know aholes exist, and racism exists.. but its NOT a card that should be played here.. its not the real issue with Obama..
to SDN, many are far worse then you may think..
Agreed that racism is not a card to be played in regards to Obama. The other cards not to be played are:
-His lapel pin choice
-He doesnt love his country
-He isnt a US citizen
-He had a bad man for a preacher
-and about 20 others discussed in PR
-
heck, maybe it would be better to have a president who actually hated america. at least then they would try to change something.
-
Scheavo...I know your not calling me a racist ( we cool ;D).. but I still dont agree with you. yes, I know aholes exist, and racism exists.. but its NOT a card that should be played here.. its not the real issue with Obama..
It's the issue behind Rev. Wright and all his sketchy associates. It's not the issue behind him continuing Bush era surveillance, creating more wars, not standing up for health care, whimpering out to wall street, etc. Why don't you talk bout those things? Why bring up Rev. Wright at all, when it's ridiculous to do so, and as I think is fairly obvious, the only reason it got the media attention and furor it did was because of the color of their skin?
There's plenty of actual things to get upset with Obama about. Let's talk about those.
-
You can call a lot of the outrage over Obama as racist, and not be claiming everything is racist. You have to be able to make that distinction, I do.
Fair enough, and I agree that there is definitely racism at work in some peoples' distaste for Obama. But I don't buy for a second that it's a very significant part of it, and I don't see how it could be "clear" to you or to anybody that the opposite is true. All that does is kill discussion of the man's actual accomplishments and/or failings.
On another note, I'm not sure what US news outlet you were tuning into during the presidential campaigns, but Obama was treated VERY favorably by every major network except Fox. In fact, Fox was the only place I can recall hearing anything about the Reverend Wright bullshit or the William Ayers thing, or other similar stuff. MSNBC straddled him all the way into office, and while I think CNN tends to be easily the most neutral major network, I seem to remember them leaning Obama's way a bit too.
While I don't have a conflicting partisan allegiance motivating me to see it one way or the other, I could be remembering incorrectly. Did other people here REALLY feel like Obama was treated unfairly by any network other than Fox? If anything, I'd say the opposite is closer to the truth.
-J
-
Fox is the major network though, they get way more traffic than CNN and MSNBC - I think combined. To ignore when talking about this ignores the elephant in the room. Ya, MSNBC is obviously rather liberal, but it doesn't compete in the slightest with Fox News; and I have also never seen anything like the distortions Fox News constantly goes at.
I mean, what has Obama done that is so radical, so completely different than anyone else? I think someone did a great story the other week about how Obama is basically a 90's republican. He's not very liberal, not in office at least. He's very pragmatic, very neutral. Yet, you hear constantly about how radical he is, how he's transforming America into something un-American. This kind of talk and rhetoric has no justification in the facts; pile on top of this the conspiracy related to his birth certificate, was born in Kenya, or is somehow a secret Muslim, or his college records, the claim made by some regarding his speaking ability, and I think you start to see what I'm saying. A lot of these are traditional racist talking points about black people, and a lot of these talking points are made by the Republicans running for President.
https://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-5-fake-fox-news-racist-scandals/
And J, to be clear, I'm talking about the media here. The average joe who dislike Obama is more often than not, not racist (though ~15-20% are); a lot more people, though, are gonna be swayed by the media and the narrative created theirin, which has often had visible racism underlying the charges and the narrative.
-
In fact, Fox was the only place I can recall hearing anything about the Reverend Wright bullshit or the William Ayers thing, or other similar stuff.
Because FOX is pretty much a tabloid when it comes to things like that. In reality none of those types of stories really matter but FOX will try its damnedest to build up a stigma behind it them.
-
Fox is the major network though, they get way more traffic than CNN and MSNBC - I think combined. To ignore when talking about this ignores the elephant in the room. Ya, MSNBC is obviously rather liberal, but it doesn't compete in the slightest with Fox News; and I have also never seen anything like the distortions Fox News constantly goes at.
Yeah, point taken. I agree Fox is the worst offender. I didn't know they got THAT much more traffic than the other networks though, that seems strange to me.
I mean, what has Obama done that is so radical, so completely different than anyone else? I think someone did a great story the other week about how Obama is basically a 90's republican. He's not very liberal, not in office at least. He's very pragmatic, very neutral. Yet, you hear constantly about how radical he is, how he's transforming America into something un-American. This kind of talk and rhetoric has no justification in the facts; pile on top of this the conspiracy related to his birth certificate, was born in Kenya, or is somehow a secret Muslim, or his college records, the claim made by some regarding his speaking ability, and I think you start to see what I'm saying. A lot of these are traditional racist talking points about black people, and a lot of these talking points are made by the Republicans running for President.
It's all intertwined though. Republicans want to discredit Obama because he's the opposing party's candidate. That's par for the course: each party digs up all kinds of shit on the opposition, anything that could be twisted to seem controversial. Like I said, I'm sure there is some racism at work in some situations, I just don't see anything outside the realm of what would be done to a candidate of ANY race.
And J, to be clear, I'm talking about the media here. The average joe who dislike Obama is more often than not, not racist (though ~15-20% are); a lot more people, though, are gonna be swayed by the media and the narrative created theirin, which has often had visible racism underlying the charges and the narrative.
This is possibly true. Cynic though I am, I can't really take that 15-20% number at face value though, particularly applied to the general population. I'd be skeptical of that unless I could somehow verify its legitimacy.
Because FOX is pretty much a tabloid when it comes to things like that. In reality none of those types of stories really matter but FOX will try its damnedest to build up a stigma behind it them.
Trust me, I know. I live in Texas, I've watched more Fox News than any reasonable person should. :loser:
-J
-
https://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/aps-racist-poll-if-obama-loses-its-because-hes-black
Well, on Saturday, the Associated Press and Yahoo News released results of a new poll, and the major take by AP writers Ron Fournier and Trevor Thompson was that if Obama loses, it's because of "[d]eep-seated racial misgivings" held by "one-third of white Democrats."
Read more: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/aps-racist-poll-if-obama-loses-its-because-hes-black#ixzz1PW6ytHR5
This isn't the poll I remember reading about during the election, but damn, 33% of Democrats have racial misgivings... Unless I can find this poll at some point (leaving town for 4 days), I'll take back the numbers I'm using about the number that wouldn't vote for him. I remember it being somewhere ~15% of the total populace, but maybe that was people's best guess after accounting for people not telling a surveyor the truth, and perhaps this was only for a certain sector of the population. Seeing as how I can't find what I remember, I'm becoming suspicious of my memory.
I'd be happy to find out I'm wrong on this. It would be a good day if there were less racists in America than I thought (though I still think it's a problem in the media's narrative).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZQyk8-md4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xkRgXEb73M
Interesting interview for anyone who cares. Also interesting is that Fox News apparently edited the video to makes him look more emotional, and less rational; and that they edited out Chris Wallace saying that Fox News is a "counter balance" to the liberal media (I posted the non-edited versions). Making them not fair and balanced, but heavily conservative and purposefully countering what they perceive as a liberal media.
-
I watched that earlier today. I always enjoy when Stewart goes on Fox.
-
I love Stewart.