Fuck Fox News, fuck them fuck them fuck them
- Thread starter Rukas
- Start date
actually i wouldn't say that it isn't. apparently the media's tactics have been somewhat successful, because i've read some quotes in the paper from voters who actually think the fact that Obama doesn't wear a flag pin is a big issue. about a week before Hillary conceded, there was an article in my local paper about how the campaign has hurt the democratic party because it divided them so much that the public is picking sides. to prove this they printed quotes from several voters who said that if Hillary concedes they would not vote for Obama. i can't remember the exact quote, but one guy was quoted as saying something like "he's not even patriotic, he doesn't wear a flag pin. why would i vote for someone who doesn't care about America?" luckily these types of people seem to be in the minority, but the fact that anyone thinks this is even an issue disturbs me.
what jokerman said is actually dead on. when it comes to actually reporting the news nobody complains about the show. you don't see people getting upset at shepard smith or bret hume's shows where they just report the news. the shows that get the heat are NOT news shows. they are people paid to give their opinions. i swear people can't see the difference
and rukas, you say said "The headline wasnt about bloggers. It was a poor choice, it was like one blog comment and Fox ran with it like it is a general opinion." lol how can it not be about bloggers when you even say they are talking about a blog comment? you contradicted yourself
and the post from roaches that many of you are drooling over is from media matters. do you guys even know anything about media matters? do you know that they are a left wing liberal organization that ONLY reports and sometimes even lies about conservative biasness in the media? omg conservative biasness oh no! that can't be fair, the only biasness allowed should be liberal biasness in the news! you are not exactly getting a very balanced opinion when you read media matters.
devious, how can you say the media is trying to turn the public against obama? the majority of the mainstream media has been in the tank for obama. i can show you quotes from "reporters" that are supposed to be objective that say it is hard to be when reporting on obama. chris matthews has said on his show that obama "gives him a funny feeling up his leg" (of course chris matthews show is about opinions not news but i just think it is funny that this man gets a hard on for obama). the majority of the media throws softball questions to obama on a regular basis and constantly giving him favorable coverage. especially against hillary.
and rukas, you say said "The headline wasnt about bloggers. It was a poor choice, it was like one blog comment and Fox ran with it like it is a general opinion." lol how can it not be about bloggers when you even say they are talking about a blog comment? you contradicted yourself
and the post from roaches that many of you are drooling over is from media matters. do you guys even know anything about media matters? do you know that they are a left wing liberal organization that ONLY reports and sometimes even lies about conservative biasness in the media? omg conservative biasness oh no! that can't be fair, the only biasness allowed should be liberal biasness in the news! you are not exactly getting a very balanced opinion when you read media matters.
devious, how can you say the media is trying to turn the public against obama? the majority of the mainstream media has been in the tank for obama. i can show you quotes from "reporters" that are supposed to be objective that say it is hard to be when reporting on obama. chris matthews has said on his show that obama "gives him a funny feeling up his leg" (of course chris matthews show is about opinions not news but i just think it is funny that this man gets a hard on for obama). the majority of the media throws softball questions to obama on a regular basis and constantly giving him favorable coverage. especially against hillary.
it is probably easy to laugh if you take it out of context. i think some of you must of failed to read the post where i said i rarely even watch cable news, that includes fox news. that means hardly at all if ever. the only news i really watch is local news.
it just amazing that people seem to get so upset at fox news for shows that are about opinions and people are paid to give their opinions and they scream biasness, yet they turn a blind eye to any other network and their biasness.
the only thing i defended was that this headline was really nothing to get bent out of shape over and it was pretty dumb to get so upset over. there was no rasicm in it. people tend to play the race card too much when it is not even warrented. also i asked a question which nobody seems to even want to bother responding to. which was does that headline not fit the context of the discussion. rukas dosen't seem to think so even though he contradicted himself in his reasoning.
it just amazing that people seem to get so upset at fox news for shows that are about opinions and people are paid to give their opinions and they scream biasness, yet they turn a blind eye to any other network and their biasness.
the only thing i defended was that this headline was really nothing to get bent out of shape over and it was pretty dumb to get so upset over. there was no rasicm in it. people tend to play the race card too much when it is not even warrented. also i asked a question which nobody seems to even want to bother responding to. which was does that headline not fit the context of the discussion. rukas dosen't seem to think so even though he contradicted himself in his reasoning.
yes, that's a good question puff. you always come in and refute posts like this, saying "that source is biased, blah blah blah." ok, so i'll bite. post some evidence to refute anything in that article that you think is inaccurate. you also always say you don't watch Fox News or any of the news networks, yet whenever anyone attacks Fox you're the first one in to defend them and criticize the other networks. if you don't watch, then why do you care if people don't like them? i don't get it.
also i think it's funny that everyone else sees one thing going on and you see something totally different. maybe you don't see the subtle way the media has been chipping away at him because you don't want to see it. but who ran the footage of Jeremiah Wright every day, over and over again? who showed the picture of Obama in the turban over and over again? who are the ones who criticize him for not being for the people, who are the ones calling him an elitist because he plays pool and can't bowl? who are the ones seeming to insinuate that because he doesn't wear a flag pin that somehow he's not a real American, not a patriot? it's not me, is it you? no? oh, that's right, it's the media. do you see anyone making comments like this about McCain in the media? about Hillary Clinton when she was running? sure they talked about them, but they didn't have the sniper rifle trained on them the way they do for Obama. the only logical conclusion i can come to for why you don't see this is because you don't want to. maybe if you put your bias toward Obama to the side for a second and look objectively at the situation you might see it.
also i think it's funny that everyone else sees one thing going on and you see something totally different. maybe you don't see the subtle way the media has been chipping away at him because you don't want to see it. but who ran the footage of Jeremiah Wright every day, over and over again? who showed the picture of Obama in the turban over and over again? who are the ones who criticize him for not being for the people, who are the ones calling him an elitist because he plays pool and can't bowl? who are the ones seeming to insinuate that because he doesn't wear a flag pin that somehow he's not a real American, not a patriot? it's not me, is it you? no? oh, that's right, it's the media. do you see anyone making comments like this about McCain in the media? about Hillary Clinton when she was running? sure they talked about them, but they didn't have the sniper rifle trained on them the way they do for Obama. the only logical conclusion i can come to for why you don't see this is because you don't want to. maybe if you put your bias toward Obama to the side for a second and look objectively at the situation you might see it.
i never said there were any. but media matters for america IS liberal organization that does not like difference of opinion and makes it their mission to call out what they see as conservative biasness, even if there isn't any. media matters for america has been caught in the past trying to create controversy where it does not exist and taking things out of context to pursue their own agenda.
if someone at fox news called obama by osama they would be all over it, but if someone at cnn did they wuold ignore it. this has happened too. so are you really getting an objective view from media matters? i find it funny that they say.
"But journalists need to do more than understand the intent and effect of false rumors pushed by the right. They need to understand how their own reporting and commentary have similar effects, regardless of their intent. They need to understand that they have a responsibility that goes beyond being careful not to spread (intentionally or otherwise) these bogus right-wing themes; they also have a responsibility to aggressively report the truth. There is a broad smear campaign being waged against Barack Obama, and it is long past time for the media to expose and debunk those smears, not play into them "
they have spread false rumers and pushed left wing agenas. they do it all the time. clearly they want it their way or nor way. they are not open for difference of ideas and opinions, which is in no way the traditional meaning of being a liberal.
and the best smears against obama have come from his own party.
if this site really wanted to be objective they would say that there is a smear campaign being waged against bost obama and mccain, which there is. mccain has been getting smeared too.
if someone at fox news called obama by osama they would be all over it, but if someone at cnn did they wuold ignore it. this has happened too. so are you really getting an objective view from media matters? i find it funny that they say.
"But journalists need to do more than understand the intent and effect of false rumors pushed by the right. They need to understand how their own reporting and commentary have similar effects, regardless of their intent. They need to understand that they have a responsibility that goes beyond being careful not to spread (intentionally or otherwise) these bogus right-wing themes; they also have a responsibility to aggressively report the truth. There is a broad smear campaign being waged against Barack Obama, and it is long past time for the media to expose and debunk those smears, not play into them "
they have spread false rumers and pushed left wing agenas. they do it all the time. clearly they want it their way or nor way. they are not open for difference of ideas and opinions, which is in no way the traditional meaning of being a liberal.
and the best smears against obama have come from his own party.
if this site really wanted to be objective they would say that there is a smear campaign being waged against bost obama and mccain, which there is. mccain has been getting smeared too.
i never said anything in the article was inaccurate. i was being critical of the source.
i have stated more than a few times my opinion of the headline. there is no need to go further.
the majority of the time when people are so obviously angry at the fox news it is over something so asinine. i don't care if people like them or not. but this is the section of the board for debate. so i will debate things and point out how irrational people are being.
. unless you think all of the media is fox news i do not see how you can say they are chipping away for him. the vast majority of the media has given obama nothing but positive coverage over hillary or mccain. reporters have done nothing but throw him softball questions in this race.
the footage of wright was on every news channel. it was the topic of discussion at the time. now if a show that is about OPINIONS, where people are paid to talk about their opinions want that to be the topic then they are going to do so. but that is not the news.
the turban picture was put out there from the hillary camp. like i said, it is his own party that has done the best smears against him. the first person to ask the question if he is a muslim was a member of his own party.
the only person on this board who seems to ever bring up the flag thing is YOU. nobody cares about that but you.
in a political sense, obama does fall into the elitist catagory.
you dont think people make comments abuot mccain? really? his age has been brought over and over again. "is he too old to be president"? it was on cnns website yesterday or today. gore vidal has a piece in the nyt just today trying to say that mccain wasn't a prisoner of war.
when it came to hillary and obama hillary got far more negative coverage than obama. the media would ask her hard questions while throwing softballs obama. it was so bad saturday night live did a freaking skit about it.
you are saying i don't see this biasness? lol. clearly you do not pay attention to american politics as much as you would like to think you do. there are far more examples of the media, in this race, giving better coverage to obama than hillary or mccain. the only thing you focus on is a flag pin.
i have stated more than a few times my opinion of the headline. there is no need to go further.
the majority of the time when people are so obviously angry at the fox news it is over something so asinine. i don't care if people like them or not. but this is the section of the board for debate. so i will debate things and point out how irrational people are being.
. unless you think all of the media is fox news i do not see how you can say they are chipping away for him. the vast majority of the media has given obama nothing but positive coverage over hillary or mccain. reporters have done nothing but throw him softball questions in this race.
the footage of wright was on every news channel. it was the topic of discussion at the time. now if a show that is about OPINIONS, where people are paid to talk about their opinions want that to be the topic then they are going to do so. but that is not the news.
the turban picture was put out there from the hillary camp. like i said, it is his own party that has done the best smears against him. the first person to ask the question if he is a muslim was a member of his own party.
the only person on this board who seems to ever bring up the flag thing is YOU. nobody cares about that but you.
in a political sense, obama does fall into the elitist catagory.
you dont think people make comments abuot mccain? really? his age has been brought over and over again. "is he too old to be president"? it was on cnns website yesterday or today. gore vidal has a piece in the nyt just today trying to say that mccain wasn't a prisoner of war.
when it came to hillary and obama hillary got far more negative coverage than obama. the media would ask her hard questions while throwing softballs obama. it was so bad saturday night live did a freaking skit about it.
you are saying i don't see this biasness? lol. clearly you do not pay attention to american politics as much as you would like to think you do. there are far more examples of the media, in this race, giving better coverage to obama than hillary or mccain. the only thing you focus on is a flag pin.
so even if what they are saying is the truth, which you say it is, it's no good because it's a biased source? the truth is the truth no matter where it comes from.
i don't think all the media is Fox News, and i don't only see these things happening on Fox News. CNN and MSNBC are all pitching in on this, as well as the newspapers. after all you read the article roaches posted and even agree that what they say is right. did you not notice that it is pointing the finger at all media. Fox is not the only ones doing this. it amazes me you can't see the tactic they are employing, smile in his face and then stab him in the back. sure they ask him all these fluff questions, but then they turn around and have their commentators take shots at him all day, making snide comments and "jokes" about him that have more impact on the public than the fluffball questions.
wow, you really have your blinders on tight don't you. the footage of Wright was played on every network, almost nonstop, which goes to prove my point that it isn't just Fox taking shots at him. they could show the clip, discuss it, and drop it. but did that happen? no, instead every news network showed it practically on an hourly basis and continued to talk about it, and reinforce the image of Obama supporting hate speech. the turban picture was put out by the Hillary camp, but did they force the media to run with it and show the picture every 15 minutes? no, the media did that on their own. it is irrelevant who put the picture out there, what is relevant is that the media, all the media, had a field day with it.
the only reason the flag pin is on my mind so much is that it blows my mind that the media even tried to make this an issue. who gives a fuck if he wears a pin or not. if he wore a suit made out of the American flag, would that make him a better president? so why does a stupid pin matter? i focus on this because it points out the sheer absurdity of the media today and the levels they stoop to to attack people.
yeah, and so does almost every President and every presidenttial candidate. why is it an issue with him only?
yeah they make comments about Hillary and they make comments about McCain, but i don't see them constantly taking shots at McCain the way they do with Obama. for example lets go back to the Reverend Wright thing. so Obama has a preacher that espouses hate in his sermons. ok, what about John McCain? how come it's not an issue that he accepts endorsements from hateful preachers? why is it an issue for Obama but its not an issue when McCain accepts endorsements from guys who say things like 9/11 was caused because America allows homosexuality to run rampant? sure i saw it mentioned on a few shows here and there, but where were the round the clock airings of the film footage? i didn't see it.
for every piece of good coverage Obama gets there are at least 5 commentators on every network quick to take shots at him and chip away at him. smile in your face, stab you in the back. how can you not see the game the media has been playing? again, the only logical conclusion that i can come to is that you don't want to see it.
i don't think all the media is Fox News, and i don't only see these things happening on Fox News. CNN and MSNBC are all pitching in on this, as well as the newspapers. after all you read the article roaches posted and even agree that what they say is right. did you not notice that it is pointing the finger at all media. Fox is not the only ones doing this. it amazes me you can't see the tactic they are employing, smile in his face and then stab him in the back. sure they ask him all these fluff questions, but then they turn around and have their commentators take shots at him all day, making snide comments and "jokes" about him that have more impact on the public than the fluffball questions.
wow, you really have your blinders on tight don't you. the footage of Wright was played on every network, almost nonstop, which goes to prove my point that it isn't just Fox taking shots at him. they could show the clip, discuss it, and drop it. but did that happen? no, instead every news network showed it practically on an hourly basis and continued to talk about it, and reinforce the image of Obama supporting hate speech. the turban picture was put out by the Hillary camp, but did they force the media to run with it and show the picture every 15 minutes? no, the media did that on their own. it is irrelevant who put the picture out there, what is relevant is that the media, all the media, had a field day with it.
the only reason the flag pin is on my mind so much is that it blows my mind that the media even tried to make this an issue. who gives a fuck if he wears a pin or not. if he wore a suit made out of the American flag, would that make him a better president? so why does a stupid pin matter? i focus on this because it points out the sheer absurdity of the media today and the levels they stoop to to attack people.
yeah, and so does almost every President and every presidenttial candidate. why is it an issue with him only?
yeah they make comments about Hillary and they make comments about McCain, but i don't see them constantly taking shots at McCain the way they do with Obama. for example lets go back to the Reverend Wright thing. so Obama has a preacher that espouses hate in his sermons. ok, what about John McCain? how come it's not an issue that he accepts endorsements from hateful preachers? why is it an issue for Obama but its not an issue when McCain accepts endorsements from guys who say things like 9/11 was caused because America allows homosexuality to run rampant? sure i saw it mentioned on a few shows here and there, but where were the round the clock airings of the film footage? i didn't see it.
for every piece of good coverage Obama gets there are at least 5 commentators on every network quick to take shots at him and chip away at him. smile in your face, stab you in the back. how can you not see the game the media has been playing? again, the only logical conclusion that i can come to is that you don't want to see it.
i've arleady given one
i never said what media matters is saying is the truth. i was critical of the source based on their past actions and behavior as well as their mission statement. also i felt it was important to point out who exactly they are because i don't think many people understand what it is they do.
i've seen nothing but pro-obama support over at msnbc. even from the commentators. unless you count chris matthews asking a senator that is an obama supporter to name obama's legislative accomplishments and the senator couldn't think of any as being negative and chipping awawy. but that is just the simple truth, he only has one legislative accomplishment and most people, even obama supporters can't name anything he has done in the senate.
when it came to actual news programs the wright footage wasn't showed as much as compared to commentators. but it was a hot topic at the time during a tight primary race. of course the commentartors are going to focus on it. there wasn't much more to focus on. but it did bring up valid points and questions, such as how can you be a member of a church for as long as he did and know this man who is your rev. and claim to not know his views.
when it comes to the commentators focusing so much on it at the time proves is that it was the big topic at the time and there wasnt much more to talk about.
mostly because he tries to act like he isn't
i never said what media matters is saying is the truth. i was critical of the source based on their past actions and behavior as well as their mission statement. also i felt it was important to point out who exactly they are because i don't think many people understand what it is they do.
i've seen nothing but pro-obama support over at msnbc. even from the commentators. unless you count chris matthews asking a senator that is an obama supporter to name obama's legislative accomplishments and the senator couldn't think of any as being negative and chipping awawy. but that is just the simple truth, he only has one legislative accomplishment and most people, even obama supporters can't name anything he has done in the senate.
when it came to actual news programs the wright footage wasn't showed as much as compared to commentators. but it was a hot topic at the time during a tight primary race. of course the commentartors are going to focus on it. there wasn't much more to focus on. but it did bring up valid points and questions, such as how can you be a member of a church for as long as he did and know this man who is your rev. and claim to not know his views.
when it comes to the commentators focusing so much on it at the time proves is that it was the big topic at the time and there wasnt much more to talk about.
mostly because he tries to act like he isn't
yeah they make comments about Hillary and they make comments about McCain, but i don't see them constantly taking shots at McCain the way they do with Obama. for example lets go back to the Reverend Wright thing. so Obama has a preacher that espouses hate in his sermons. ok, what about John McCain? how come it's not an issue that he accepts endorsements from hateful preachers? why is it an issue for Obama but its not an issue when McCain accepts endorsements from guys who say things like 9/11 was caused because America allows homosexuality to run rampant? sure i saw it mentioned on a few shows here and there, but where were the round the clock airings of the film footage? i didn't see it.[\QUOTE]
there have been smears done on mccain. there was one in the new york times a few months ago claiming he had an affair with some women when it had no proof. mccains preacher did come up but mccain did publicly say that he doesn't agree with the preacher or something along that level.
democrats in general always get more coverage in the media than republics. i've seen plenty of studies that have shown this. hell most negative stories about any democrat involved in a scandal wont even have a party label in it connecting the person to the democratic party where as a republican will get mentioned they are republicans at least 2 times and the word conservative will get thrown in there a few times.
the comment of having blinders on and not seeing the games can go either way so it's not really a good arguement. i see lots of positive and pro coverage for obama especially from commentators (mostly at msnbc than any other)
the chipping away, as you put it, has been done on mccain too. an example from today:
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
this isn't the greatest example, and i could find more if i wasn't at work, but it is more of the media taking shot at his age which shouldn't even be an issue but the media keeps trying to make it one.
and if this isn't positive coverage...
Obama sees possible win without Ohio, Florida - Barack Obama News - MSNBC.com
do you know how many people really look at his man a god. you can type obama + god in google and see how many hits you get. look at the pictures of him that are depicting him as jesus. lol up until yesterday you could type "God: A Biography." into a barnes and noble search and it would bring back a result of "Audacity of Hope". this was an "error" claimed by barnes and noble.
compare that picture to this one
i believe both of them were associated press pictures
Analysis: Age an issue in the 2008 campaign? - CNN.com
you wont find a picture in the mainstream media that depicts obama looking angry. they do exist. i've seen some, but they wont get show in the media. the majority of the ones i see of mccain depict him as benig old (well that one is hard to not do lol) and angry.
there have been smears done on mccain. there was one in the new york times a few months ago claiming he had an affair with some women when it had no proof. mccains preacher did come up but mccain did publicly say that he doesn't agree with the preacher or something along that level.
democrats in general always get more coverage in the media than republics. i've seen plenty of studies that have shown this. hell most negative stories about any democrat involved in a scandal wont even have a party label in it connecting the person to the democratic party where as a republican will get mentioned they are republicans at least 2 times and the word conservative will get thrown in there a few times.
the comment of having blinders on and not seeing the games can go either way so it's not really a good arguement. i see lots of positive and pro coverage for obama especially from commentators (mostly at msnbc than any other)
the chipping away, as you put it, has been done on mccain too. an example from today:
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
this isn't the greatest example, and i could find more if i wasn't at work, but it is more of the media taking shot at his age which shouldn't even be an issue but the media keeps trying to make it one.
and if this isn't positive coverage...
Obama sees possible win without Ohio, Florida - Barack Obama News - MSNBC.com
do you know how many people really look at his man a god. you can type obama + god in google and see how many hits you get. look at the pictures of him that are depicting him as jesus. lol up until yesterday you could type "God: A Biography." into a barnes and noble search and it would bring back a result of "Audacity of Hope". this was an "error" claimed by barnes and noble.
compare that picture to this one
i believe both of them were associated press pictures
Analysis: Age an issue in the 2008 campaign? - CNN.com
you wont find a picture in the mainstream media that depicts obama looking angry. they do exist. i've seen some, but they wont get show in the media. the majority of the ones i see of mccain depict him as benig old (well that one is hard to not do lol) and angry.
ok, well i see no point in continuing the round and round debate to nowhere, so this will be my last post and then we'll agree to disagree ok puff?
so even tho all the information in the article is valid, because you don't like the source that produced it you choose to dismiss it. ok, doesn't make much sense to me but whatever works for you.
i suggest you go back and read the media matters article roaches posted, and this time actually read it. this post shows that you either saw it was from media matters and automatically dismissed it without reading it, or that you just glossed over it without really seeing what was there. there are several comments attributed to Matthews, and others at MSNBC, and none of them were the example you just used.
you keep bringing up the fact that the commentator shows are not news. yes i know that. but are they not a part of news media? they air on news networks and discuss news topics. that is part of the media. you have noticed that i have been using that word media, right? not just news? as for your comment about why they kept talking about it, really? there wasn't anything going on in the US or anywhere else in the world that week that was worth discussing other than this? that's bullshit, they just wanted to keep the information fresh in everyone's minds, which is why they kept it a story for much longer than it should have been. oh and since you don't seem to remember, Obama never said he didn't know about his pastor's views, he just didn't share them. yet you have made this claim before. evidence please?
and once again, there hasn't been a president in the US who didn't try to pretend he wasn't an elitist, that he was just one of the common folks. name one president who openly admitted to being an elitist. the only president in recent history who was actually good at passing as one of the common folk was Bill Clinton, which is why he was so popular. he was still an elitist, he was just much better at fooling people than most presidents have been.
i never said no one is going after McCain, but not in the same way and with the same viciousness as they have been attacking Obama. ok, McCain said he didn't agree with the preacher, but he still took Reverend Hagy's endorsement, and even said he thought he was a good man (i know that's not how it's spelled but i could give a fuck how this prejudiced old asshole spells his last name). and Obama said the same thing, that he didn't agree with Wright's beliefs either. but it was still an issue with Obama that kept on going. i didn't see the same thing happening with McCain at all. they talked about it for a few minutes and then forgot about it. again, how come they weren't airing this hateful preacher's comments around the clock? can you say racism?
2 words: Bill Clinton. i suppose no one ever focused on any negative scandals about him while he was president? cuz i seem to remember quite differently. i think your bias is showing again Puff.
and i see lots of negative comments being made about him on these commentary shows. i'm not denying that there is plenty of positive coverage on him, but that just shows you how they work: they make it look like they're giving him all the support in the world, and then as soon as he turns his back they flip him off by having their commentary shows pick him apart little by little. smile in your face, stab you in the back. i used the blinders comment because it really seems like you're the only one here who doesn't see what they're doing. you say age shouldn't be an issue with John McCain, which i would strongly disagree with on so many levels. but that is another thread for another day. you say age shouldn't be an issue, i say the fact that Obama can't bowl shouldn't be an issue either. and yet, for some reason that is incomprehensible to me, it is to the media.
so even tho all the information in the article is valid, because you don't like the source that produced it you choose to dismiss it. ok, doesn't make much sense to me but whatever works for you.
i suggest you go back and read the media matters article roaches posted, and this time actually read it. this post shows that you either saw it was from media matters and automatically dismissed it without reading it, or that you just glossed over it without really seeing what was there. there are several comments attributed to Matthews, and others at MSNBC, and none of them were the example you just used.
you keep bringing up the fact that the commentator shows are not news. yes i know that. but are they not a part of news media? they air on news networks and discuss news topics. that is part of the media. you have noticed that i have been using that word media, right? not just news? as for your comment about why they kept talking about it, really? there wasn't anything going on in the US or anywhere else in the world that week that was worth discussing other than this? that's bullshit, they just wanted to keep the information fresh in everyone's minds, which is why they kept it a story for much longer than it should have been. oh and since you don't seem to remember, Obama never said he didn't know about his pastor's views, he just didn't share them. yet you have made this claim before. evidence please?
and once again, there hasn't been a president in the US who didn't try to pretend he wasn't an elitist, that he was just one of the common folks. name one president who openly admitted to being an elitist. the only president in recent history who was actually good at passing as one of the common folk was Bill Clinton, which is why he was so popular. he was still an elitist, he was just much better at fooling people than most presidents have been.
i never said no one is going after McCain, but not in the same way and with the same viciousness as they have been attacking Obama. ok, McCain said he didn't agree with the preacher, but he still took Reverend Hagy's endorsement, and even said he thought he was a good man (i know that's not how it's spelled but i could give a fuck how this prejudiced old asshole spells his last name). and Obama said the same thing, that he didn't agree with Wright's beliefs either. but it was still an issue with Obama that kept on going. i didn't see the same thing happening with McCain at all. they talked about it for a few minutes and then forgot about it. again, how come they weren't airing this hateful preacher's comments around the clock? can you say racism?
2 words: Bill Clinton. i suppose no one ever focused on any negative scandals about him while he was president? cuz i seem to remember quite differently. i think your bias is showing again Puff.
and i see lots of negative comments being made about him on these commentary shows. i'm not denying that there is plenty of positive coverage on him, but that just shows you how they work: they make it look like they're giving him all the support in the world, and then as soon as he turns his back they flip him off by having their commentary shows pick him apart little by little. smile in your face, stab you in the back. i used the blinders comment because it really seems like you're the only one here who doesn't see what they're doing. you say age shouldn't be an issue with John McCain, which i would strongly disagree with on so many levels. but that is another thread for another day. you say age shouldn't be an issue, i say the fact that Obama can't bowl shouldn't be an issue either. and yet, for some reason that is incomprehensible to me, it is to the media.
if provided some right wing webiste that bashing liberal media for attacking mccain how many people on here would dismiss it? as i said, i was pointing out what the source was because i know people on here do not know background information on the media matters
when hasn't there been better things to report or talk on? but with commentators they are more entertainment for a political and news watchers. the hot topic in politics was and still is the race. that happened to be the hot topic of race at the moment.
i have never made the claim that obama shared his the views of wright. i have said that obama was aware of his pastors views. so, maybe you should provide evidence of me making this claim. and it still doesn't change the questions. how can you sit there and listen to this person views and rants while the church is walking a tight rope of having its tax exempt status taken away and not leave the church? oprah left it.
that's not racism. it may be selective but calling it racism is asinine.
yes bill clinton is a good example to use with what i am talking about. here is some suggestive reading
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the author, who is not a conservative or republican, pionts out exactly what i was talking about with the media being favorable and distorting the news to make democrats look good. it is filled with facts, studies, and examples from a person who has witnessed it first hand. and this man is well respected in the news media. in fact the book actually talks about how the media would try to victimize women like jennifer flowers (remember it wasn't just monica) and others that spoke out saying that president clinton has an affair with them, harrassed, or raped them. at first the media tried to do the same thing to monica. they didn't take it serious until matt drudge made everyone take it serious.
age shouldn't be any issue just as race shouldn't be.
if a person, no matter their age, race, or sex wants to run for president and they are able to do so within the laws then they should. you and i or anyone shouldn't judge them for it based on something as silly as age, sex, or race.
obama's bowling was never an issue.
when hasn't there been better things to report or talk on? but with commentators they are more entertainment for a political and news watchers. the hot topic in politics was and still is the race. that happened to be the hot topic of race at the moment.
i have never made the claim that obama shared his the views of wright. i have said that obama was aware of his pastors views. so, maybe you should provide evidence of me making this claim. and it still doesn't change the questions. how can you sit there and listen to this person views and rants while the church is walking a tight rope of having its tax exempt status taken away and not leave the church? oprah left it.
that's not racism. it may be selective but calling it racism is asinine.
yes bill clinton is a good example to use with what i am talking about. here is some suggestive reading
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the author, who is not a conservative or republican, pionts out exactly what i was talking about with the media being favorable and distorting the news to make democrats look good. it is filled with facts, studies, and examples from a person who has witnessed it first hand. and this man is well respected in the news media. in fact the book actually talks about how the media would try to victimize women like jennifer flowers (remember it wasn't just monica) and others that spoke out saying that president clinton has an affair with them, harrassed, or raped them. at first the media tried to do the same thing to monica. they didn't take it serious until matt drudge made everyone take it serious.
age shouldn't be any issue just as race shouldn't be.
if a person, no matter their age, race, or sex wants to run for president and they are able to do so within the laws then they should. you and i or anyone shouldn't judge them for it based on something as silly as age, sex, or race.
obama's bowling was never an issue.
i know i said my last post was the last in this thread, but i have to do this: you say you said Obama knew of his pastor's views but just a couple posts ago you said this:
and this is my point, he never claimed to not know his pastor's views, yet you also said this in the thread i made about his speech on race, that he said he didn't know his pastor's views. so which one is it puff?
and just as a side note, if you posted an article from a right wing website bashing the liberal media for attacking McCain, and everything in the article was factual and correct, i wouldn't discredit it. i don't discredit the truth just because it comes from a source i don't like.
and this is my point, he never claimed to not know his pastor's views, yet you also said this in the thread i made about his speech on race, that he said he didn't know his pastor's views. so which one is it puff?
and just as a side note, if you posted an article from a right wing website bashing the liberal media for attacking McCain, and everything in the article was factual and correct, i wouldn't discredit it. i don't discredit the truth just because it comes from a source i don't like.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.