PDA

View Full Version : What media bias???



Uncle Bill
01-19-2009, 12:19 PM
Can it be more obviously pathetic than this?

UB





Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"


Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Goose
01-19-2009, 06:30 PM
He can save us!

Gun_Dog2002
01-19-2009, 06:30 PM
Thank goodness for change.

/Paul

subroc
01-19-2009, 06:37 PM
Uncle Bill

That bias reporting was fully expected. Look at the campaign.

Patrick Johndrow
01-19-2009, 07:09 PM
He can save us!



I hope he does.

Losthwy
01-19-2009, 10:44 PM
Can it be more obviously pathetic than this?

UB





Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"


Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
Are these quotes from the same sources today as four years ago? If they aren't it really is an inaccurate presentation.

cotts135
01-20-2009, 08:07 AM
This is the kind of reporting that shows why you have to be skeptical of anything you read and to look a little deeper I am not sure what it is with reporters whether their just to lazy to look up all the facts or just want to intentionally mislead us.

Just two things I would like to point out about these articles. First only the request for 75 million dollars from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia for security and transportation costs was the only hard fact for which you could figure out what the cost of this will be. Using the phrase "could approach..........." is misleading and ambiguous. It could approach anything. Let the indignation begin when the true cost of the Inauguration is known
Secondly and more important the cost of the two Inaugurations is incomplete. It is a comparison of apples and oranges. What the headlines have left out and which is inexcusable (Unless of course you have a political agenda) is that they left out the Security cost for Presidents Bush's Inauguration. A report in the NY Times stated that the District of Columbia spent 115.5 million on Security, clean up and Holiday pay for that Inauguration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

Liberal media bias? I don't think so even the super Liberal MSNBC was reporting this same figure. Bad reporting? You decide

YardleyLabs
01-20-2009, 08:33 AM
I was looking for the sources behind the quotes used to indicate media bias. The only one I found specifically was based on stories by AP writer Will Lester. He noted the cost of Bush's inauguration at $40 million which only included direct costs for festivities. The equivalent figure noted for Obama was $45 million. Neither figure included security.

Note: The biggest difference in costs seems to stem from the difference in crowd size. Bush's first inauguration attracted less than 1/2 million people and his second attracted about 300,000. Today's event are expected to draw over 2 million.

duckheads
01-20-2009, 10:09 AM
the bias is the fact that the media and liberals in general were bashing bush and calling him all kinds of nasty names because of his inauguration. where is the outrage now? there is no outrage because all of the people that that were the loudest are at this inauguration. if there is no bias they are at the very least hypocrites!

Steve Hester
01-20-2009, 10:45 AM
The cononation of King Obama is underway.

backpasture
01-20-2009, 10:54 AM
And those headlines are from what sources?

The answer: None. They are made up.

This is, like most of the garbage UB posts, from an email that has been circulating, which has no basis in fact.

Losthwy
01-20-2009, 05:12 PM
The cononation of King Obama is underway.
Well given that, the court jester must be in Texas.

Uncle Bill
01-20-2009, 07:03 PM
And those headlines are from what sources?

The answer: None. They are made up.

This is, like most of the garbage UB posts, from an email that has been circulating, which has no basis in fact.


And what's so hilarious is how you guppy up. Fact is, they are so truthful it even made you pull out one of the swords you had fallen on, and acknowledge that truth.

It's always reassuring to witness the views of an Obama voter....childish and ignorant. But hey!!...you and your ilk are in charge. It just makes me curious why you aren't happier about it?:rolleyes:

UB

Losthwy
01-20-2009, 07:06 PM
And what's so hilarious is how you guppy up. Fact is, they are so truthful it even made you pull out one of the swords you had fallen on, and acknowledge that truth.

It's always reassuring to witness the views of an Obama voter....childish and ignorant. But hey!!...you and your ilk are in charge. It just makes me curious why you aren't happier about it?:rolleyes:

UB
Just rhetoric and name calling. You still haven't provided any info to the validity of what you posted.

Uncle Bill
01-20-2009, 07:22 PM
Just rhetoric and name calling. You still haven't provided any info to the validity of what you posted.

So you are in the tank as well? You doubt what was stated? You fall on the sword for the Main Street Press also? If you can't recall what was being headlined when W was inaugurated 4 years ago, I can understand now why you are lost on the hiway.

I'll provide the validity when you and your Obama lovers show me a valid birth certificate. At this point he is an illigitimate POTUS. Find the proof that he isn't.

UB

YardleyLabs
01-20-2009, 07:32 PM
And what's so hilarious is how you guppy up. Fact is, they are so truthful it even made you pull out one of the swords you had fallen on, and acknowledge that truth.

It's always reassuring to witness the views of an Obama voter....childish and ignorant. But hey!!...you and your ilk are in charge. It just makes me curious why you aren't happier about it?:rolleyes:

UB

Unlike some, I generally try to research the facts behind opinion pieces I read because of the high likelihood that those selling a position (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) are willing to shade the facts to fit their stories. After a fair amount of searching, I couldn't find any factual basis for your post on this thread.

For now, I suspect that it's a lie fabricated maliciously to support a questionable thesis. That makes it consistent with most of the email drivel that gets pasted into threads under hysterical headlines. Your response appears to indicate that it doesn't matter if it's true or not because it makes your point. It seems that there is a fine line between throwing mud and being mud that may have been crossed.

My own impression is that most media are biased. In addition, some are dishonest, which is a completely different thing. The later in the evening a show comes on, the less likely it is to care about the facts behind its reports. With concentration of ownership and cutbacks in news staffing, truth is the biggest victim because few outlets have the resources to investigate truth. Instead, under pressure from the least honest and most opinionated, they substitute an illusion of "balance" for factual analysis. The theory is that as long as there is dispute there can't be any definitive facts and all opinions should therefore be reported with equal merit. This is absurd but fits well for those who view facts as being largely irrelevant in the wars of ideology. Absent references that support its allegations, the email you posted seems to fit nicely in this mold.

And, by the way, a valid birth certificate has been produced repeatedly -- most recently to the Supreme Court. Those who continue to shout this kind of claim have no credibility at all.

JDogger
01-20-2009, 07:55 PM
From another thread;

Actually, I'm more concerned for the right.

"Whatever he spend on this party, it commemorates the darkes tday in america since Pearl Pearl Harobur and 811 combinded." Bob G.


I'll provide the validity when you and your Obama lovers show me a valid birth certificate. At this point he is an illigitimate POTUS. Find the proof that he isn't.UB

My concern grows,

JD

Uncle Bill
01-20-2009, 08:09 PM
Another flowery post by no less than the ultimate photog. I'd forgotten you were part of the pavarattzi that has ordained the POTUS. I'm sure he will live up to every expectation you have.

BUT WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ALL SO GLUM???? We've just begun with your takeover and season to celebrate. But you are all so defensive. Just think of the 8 years of bashing you gave the POTUS that is leaving office. You read my small post on a "DOGGY BB", and you are into name calling, garbage slinging, and all sorts of getting yer panties in a bunch. Then if I reciprocate, you jump on me and call foul.

Holy moly...if y'all are gonna be so thin skinned, you'll all be so apoplectic I won't even be able to begin any bashing to remotely offset what you have been doing so well during the past 8 years.

And BTW, If it has been placed in the Supreme Court, show me where it can be seen. Those that have offer no proof have no credibility at all.

But I will say, it's good to see a vibrant contingent of liberals and socialists on this BB. Wouldn't want it any other way. Shoot, I couldn't hold a candle to HEW in an arguement OR even a discussion. And Bob and Cory, and Mr. Amiable are just too...well amiable.

And Marvin and Dan are so erudite, as are so many of the 'conservative' views posted on this BB, I need some of you lefties around, or my posts would never get to be any fun. After all, we can only sling so many arrows at MG. Besides, the last I looked, he was a far cry from being liberal anyway....He and Art are just in it for the GDG.

FWIW, that's what this forum is mainly comprised of, so where's the beef? If you think I gotta provide undisputable proof for every piece of GobbleDyGook that I post, get a life. But do stay skeptical, because the fun has just begun. Enjoy the journey.

UB

Uncle Bill
01-20-2009, 08:15 PM
From another thread;

Actually, I'm more concerned for the right.

"Whatever he spend on this party, it commemorates the darkes tday in america since Pearl Pearl Harobur and 811 combinded." Bob G.



My concern grows,

JD


Gosh Hugh, I was concerned after your Governor withdrew from that cabinet appointment. It was hardly worth voting democrat now. Too bad. Will he need a pardon soon?;-)

UB

YardleyLabs
01-20-2009, 08:43 PM
Another flowery post by no less than the ultimate photog. I'd forgotten you were part of the pavarattzi that has ordained the POTUS. I'm sure he will live up to every expectation you have.

BUT WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ALL SO GLUM???? We've just begun with your takeover and season to celebrate. But you are all so defensive. Just think of the 8 years of bashing you gave the POTUS that is leaving office. You read my small post on a "DOGGY BB", and you are into name calling, garbage slinging, and all sorts of getting yer panties in a bunch. Then if I reciprocate, you jump on me and call foul.

Holy moly...if y'all are gonna be so thin skinned, you'll all be so apoplectic I won't even be able to begin any bashing to remotely offset what you have been doing so well during the past 8 years.

And BTW, If it has been placed in the Supreme Court, show me where it can be seen. Those that have offer no proof have no credibility at all.

But I will say, it's good to see a vibrant contingent of liberals and socialists on this BB. Wouldn't want it any other way. Shoot, I couldn't hold a candle to HEW in an arguement OR even a discussion. And Bob and Cory, and Mr. Amiable are just too...well amiable.

And Marvin and Dan are so erudite, as are so many of the 'conservative' views posted on this BB, I need some of you lefties around, or my posts would never get to be any fun. After all, we can only sling so many arrows at MG. Besides, the last I looked, he was a far cry from being liberal anyway....He and Art are just in it for the GDG.

FWIW, that's what this forum is mainly comprised of, so where's the beef? If you think I gotta provide undisputable proof for every piece of GobbleDyGook that I post, get a life. But do stay skeptical, because the fun has just begun. Enjoy the journey.

UB

For what it's worth, I voted against Bush in 2000 and questioned the legitimacy of his "election". However, at the time of his inauguration I hoped sincerely that he would be successful for the sake of our country and our world. I am sad about the fact, as I see it, that his presidency was disastrous for all just as I was sad abut Carter's failure even though I voted for him. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 but was not enamored of either. I also voted for Obama and hope, for the sake of us all, that he is successful. However, I am far from worshiping him in any way. I believe he should be watched with vigilance the same as any other president. Can I assume from your words that you personally worship Bush or McCain?

One of Obama's comments tonight, as during the campaign, is that "as Americans, what holds us together is more important than what drives us apart." I think that this sentiment, more than any other, explains why he was elected by the majority of the American electorate. By contrast, many conservatives seem to have adopted the notion that it is better to be "right" (pun intended) than it is to survive as a people and nation. These are the people who believe that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough. In the forthcoming struggle for control of the Republican party, I hope these true believers are evicted since they will destroy the party and give too much power to the Democrats. I don't think that type of imbalance will help our nation in the future any more than Bush's abuse of power helped in the past.

wayne anderson
01-20-2009, 10:12 PM
Amen on that! Most of our problems reside (maybe always have) with the performance of too many of our representatives and senators--and with WE who vote them into office, term after term. I am a moderate conservative who hopes Pres. Obama and his team do a great job, for the sake of our great country. Now if only our congressional folks would work responsibly to do theirs, starting with NO pork barrel project add-ons to spending bills and with NO financial allegiances to lobbyists.

dback
01-20-2009, 10:58 PM
This is the kind of reporting that shows why you have to be skeptical of anything you read and to look a little deeper I am not sure what it is with reporters whether their just to lazy to look up all the facts or just want to intentionally mislead us.

Just two things I would like to point out about these articles. First only the request for 75 million dollars from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia for security and transportation costs was the only hard fact for which you could figure out what the cost of this will be. Using the phrase "could approach..........." is misleading and ambiguous. It could approach anything. Let the indignation begin when the true cost of the Inauguration is known
Secondly and more important the cost of the two Inaugurations is incomplete. It is a comparison of apples and oranges. What the headlines have left out and which is inexcusable (Unless of course you have a political agenda) is that they left out the Security cost for Presidents Bush's Inauguration. A report in the NY Times stated that the District of Columbia spent 115.5 million on Security, clean up and Holiday pay for that Inauguration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

Liberal media bias? I don't think so even the super Liberal MSNBC was reporting this same figure. Bad reporting? You decide

Makes me feel nasty all over to agree with anything cotts has to say, however, he is correct that the 42 million did not include security. The BO inauguration costs will not be known in total for months, though likely to exceed the Bush Bash probably not by all that much. Poor reporting.

The reporting bias however can still be argued: Who can forget the Will Lester (AP) commentary on how many armored Humvees could be purchased, the vaccinations and health care for 22 million children or the down payment on the national debt that the 42 million would have covered. Anthony Weiner (NY-D Representitive) stated that the Bush inauguration costs were excessive and recommended a Roosevelt style ball. There are others (research...I'm not going to take anymore of my time...I need a thorough shower :-) ). The tone of the reporting on expenditures 2005 and today would appear worlds apart.

JDogger
01-20-2009, 11:06 PM
Gosh Hugh, I was concerned after your Governor withdrew from that cabinet appointment. It was hardly worth voting democrat now. Too bad. Will he need a pardon soon?;-)

UB

Well Bill, just calm down now. I'm sure Tom D.'s appointment to H&HS won't be a blot on SD. Least I hope not.

JD

Pete
01-21-2009, 12:09 AM
We need to get real here
No one here has ever brought forth proof of anything
Until I see an entire bill with one item and one a signature on it I won't believe it. I bill with 200 items on it means nothing ,,,weather one votes for or against it you will never no where they stand. Its all tota Horse manure. Links to news papers and other forms of media do not impress me. They are all a bunch of 2 faced pieces of garbage. who the hell would stake their life on any of it.
Almost everything here is spin. We are all cheif peroetters.

OMG I am so emotional on the histerical day. Finally a president that represents me,,,,finally change ,,,the world will finally see how much we love them,,,and ,they will love us back,,,,,, hang on my finger is stuck in the back of my throat.

Pete


Pete

subroc
01-21-2009, 05:42 AM
...One of Obama's comments tonight, as during the campaign, is that "as Americans, what holds us together is more important than what drives us apart."....
Who could argue. What holds us together is more important. But, what drives us apart are valid differences and does exist. There are differences and hopefully the bond that holds us together continues to be more important. I questioned it during the last 8 years with the relentless attacks on our nation by our citizens often these attacks would occur on foreign soil. Those on the left used those differences effectively to thoroughly vilify the outgoing president. Why should these differences be ignored? Why would you stand on the side of the bond between us now when you stood on the side of the differences during the last 8 years.

In life, there really is a difference of whether you are buying of selling.



...By contrast, many conservatives seem to have adopted the notion that it is better to be "right" (pun intended) than it is to survive as a people and nation...



I believe the left took this nation to the brink with their constant attacks on their nation for the last 8 years. So much so that they had the nations enemies regurgitating their talking points. An effective look in the mirror is always a good habit to get into.






.

Losthwy
01-21-2009, 10:44 AM
I believe the left took this nation to the brink with their constant attacks on their nation for the last 8 years.

Don't agree there. Along with 78% of the population I feel it was 8 years of bad policies. His approval rating is the lowest except for Nixon's.

subroc
01-21-2009, 06:06 PM
Fox News is the only metwork to cover former President George W. Bushs' homecoming speech.

I don't know what this means but I expect it belongs in this media bias thread!

What do you think?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/01/alone-among-net.html

WindyCreek
01-21-2009, 08:33 PM
Wasn't his still higher than the Congress? What does that say about Congress?


Don't agree there. Along with 78% of the population I feel it was 8 years of bad policies. His approval rating is the lowest except for Nixon's.

YardleyLabs
01-21-2009, 08:50 PM
Fox News is the only metwork to cover former President George W. Bushs' homecoming speech.

I don't know what this means but I expect it belongs in this media bias thread!

What do you think?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/01/alone-among-net.html

I actually watched it on CNN.

M Remington
01-21-2009, 09:03 PM
I believe the left took this nation to the brink with their constant attacks on their nation for the last 8 years. So much so that they had the nations enemies regurgitating their talking points.
.

This is ridiculous. If our country is so fragile that dissention poses a threat to our way of life, we've got huge issues. Are you advocating doing away with the first amendment so that people have no freedom of speech? Isn't stifling dissention more of a threat than the dissention itself?

YardleyLabs
01-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Wasn't his still higher than the Congress? What does that say about Congress?

Following the election, less than 20% of respondents approved of the job done by Congress. The approval rating for Congress has declined every year that GWB was in office, beginning with majority approval in 2001 and dropping steadily since then. The contrast to this is that even with an overall approval rating of under 20%, 57% of respondents approve of the job being done by their own Congressman (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/109267/Voters-Strongly-Backing-Incumbents-Congress.aspx) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109267/Voters-Strongly-Backing-Incumbents-Congress.aspx%29). Not surprisingly, this suggests that people are making judgments based on what is accomplished by government as a whole meaning that either Congress or the President can spoil the pudding for the other. The fact the Congress' rating declined each year GWB was in office without regard for which party cotrolled Congress suggests that the problem may reflect more on the top of the ticket than anyone else.

Losthwy
01-21-2009, 09:34 PM
I actually watched it on CNN.
And MSNBC among others as well aired it. And I believe it was covered by all the major networks.

Raymond Little
01-21-2009, 10:18 PM
This is ridiculous. If our country is so fragile that dissention poses a threat to our way of life, we've got huge issues. Are you advocating doing away with the first amendment so that people have no freedom of speech? Isn't stifling dissention more of a threat than the dissention itself?

No Mark, ONLY THE LEFT TRIES TO STIFLE DISSENTION.


Top of The Evening

Steve Amrein
01-22-2009, 09:55 AM
Whats really sad is with the recent single digit rating of congress even less of the electorate even know who their congressional representatives even are.

I would also guess that if you took a poll 50% of recent voters may not even know who the VP is......Joe who.....

In fact I bet more registered voters know who was voted off American idol last week.

JDogger
01-22-2009, 12:41 PM
.I'll provide the validity when you and your Obama lovers show me a valid birth certificate. At this point he is an illigitimate POTUS. Find the proof that he isn't.UB




Here's living proof, that Barack Obama, the 44th President, is indeed, a citizen. Oh, by the way, for anyone who noticed, he did take the oath of office a 2nd time, as well.



Well, for all the things that can go wrong...we
no longer have to worry about this article of the
Constitution being violated. When in Hawaii,
unknown to anyone, Obama requested his original birth certificate, paid the $10.00 fee, and showed it to all who were interested.
Here is the official document, all the lawsuits have been withdrawn and we can be rest assured that this matter can be put to rest........
Snopes.com and fact.check both have verified that finally this is the true document.
In a gesture of patriotism I urge all of you to take a look-see so forever this issue will be laid to rest. The document has been put on Publisher and the second copy is on MS Word 2003 for those of you who don't have Publisher.

http://groups.google.com/groups/img/ui/apache/unknown.gif (http://groups.google.com/group/brians-morning-newsletter/attach/924d07522796b6f1/Obama%27s?hl=en&part=4) Obama's
471K View (http://groups.google.com/group/brians-morning-newsletter/attach/924d07522796b6f1/Obama%27s?hl=en&part=4&view=1) Download (http://groups.google.com/group/brians-morning-newsletter/attach/924d07522796b6f1/Obama%27s?hl=en&part=4)
http://groups.google.com/groups/img/ui/apache/icon_doc.gif (http://groups.google.com/group/brians-morning-newsletter/attach/924d07522796b6f1/Official?hl=en&part=5) Official
458K View (http://groups.google.com/group/brians-morning-newsletter/attach/924d07522796b6f1/Official?hl=en&part=5&view=1) Download (http://groups.google.com/group/brians-morning-newsletter/attach/924d07522796b6f1/Official?hl=en&part=5)

Is this what you've been waiting for?:rolleyes: JD

dixidawg
01-22-2009, 12:52 PM
This is ridiculous. If our country is so fragile that dissention poses a threat to our way of life, we've got huge issues. Are you advocating doing away with the first amendment so that people have no freedom of speech? Isn't stifling dissention more of a threat than the dissention itself?


So you like the 1st amendment, but have no problem with ignoring the 2nd amendment?

Julie R.
01-22-2009, 02:09 PM
Makes me feel nasty all over to agree with anything cotts has to say, however, he is correct that the 42 million did not include security. The BO inauguration costs will not be known in total for months, though likely to exceed the Bush Bash probably not by all that much. Poor reporting.

The reporting bias however can still be argued: Who can forget the Will Lester (AP) commentary on how many armored Humvees could be purchased, the vaccinations and health care for 22 million children or the down payment on the national debt that the 42 million would have covered. Anthony Weiner (NY-D Representitive) stated that the Bush inauguration costs were excessive and recommended a Roosevelt style ball. There are others (research...I'm not going to take anymore of my time...I need a thorough shower :-) ). The tone of the reporting on expenditures 2005 and today would appear worlds apart.

I agree that the tone of the comparisons is worlds apart as is the economic climate of January 05 compared to now. Yet nowhere did you see the fawning media suggest that perhaps a scaled down celebration would be more appropriate during the economic crisis we're now in.

However in none of the estimates has there been any mention of the cost of giving all those federal workers a holiday for the coronation, either. That alone had to add considerably to the cost of the BHO festivities. Not to mention the filth that had to be cleaned up; haven't seen that estimate anywhere.
http://cofcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/capt7d249c265a934f498f2a848402460546inauguration_a _nation_gathers_dcck123.jpg

Julie R.
01-22-2009, 02:23 PM
Following the election, less than 20% of respondents approved of the job done by Congress. The approval rating for Congress has declined every year that GWB was in office, beginning with majority approval in 2001 and dropping steadily since then. The contrast to this is that even with an overall approval rating of under 20%, 57% of respondents approve of the job being done by their own Congressman (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/109267/Voters-Strongly-Backing-Incumbents-Congress.aspx) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109267/Voters-Strongly-Backing-Incumbents-Congress.aspx%29). Not surprisingly, this suggests that people are making judgments based on what is accomplished by government as a whole meaning that either Congress or the President can spoil the pudding for the other. The fact the Congress' rating declined each year GWB was in office without regard for which party cotrolled Congress suggests that the problem may reflect more on the top of the ticket than anyone else.

Oh PULeease, Jeff. Most of the time I think you present well-reasoned arguments, even though I disagree with you most of the time. This little epistle is really carrying Bush bashing to an extreme, even for a liberal. Your 'facts' prove nothing except the dumbing down of America. I doubt 57 percent of those polled even know who their representatives are, much less whether or not they're doing a good job. Remember most people think their children and dogs are the best, too. So we shouldn't be surprised they think 'their' representative is above average.

shootncast
01-22-2009, 03:57 PM
I remember watching msnbc when Obama had just won the Primary, first african american to be nominated, every channel I flipped thru had the numbers on untill I went to Fox, and minutes after this historic event what did Fox news have on?decision..The weather forecast for Omaha..There is bias everywhere, MSNBC says Obama can do no wrong, FOX news could film george killing a shop full of puppies and report what a great job he is doing controlling the animal population. You gotta look thru all that stuff and make your own decision. The country spoke, (I am not preaching my beliefs by no means, its just the way it is). They voted the Republicans out and Dems in. Let the Dems screw everything up like the republicans did and they will get thier turn at being booted out.just the way the cycle goes.

Gun_Dog2002
01-22-2009, 04:33 PM
I remember watching msnbc when Obama had just won the Primary, first african american to be nominated, every channel I flipped thru had the numbers on untill I went to Fox, and minutes after this historic event what did Fox news have on?decision..The weather forecast for Omaha..There is bias everywhere, MSNBC says Obama can do no wrong, FOX news could film george killing a shop full of puppies and report what a great job he is doing controlling the animal population. You gotta look thru all that stuff and make your own decision. The country spoke, (I am not preaching my beliefs by no means, its just the way it is). They voted the Republicans out and Dems in. Let the Dems screw everything up like the republicans did and they will get thier turn at being booted out.just the way the cycle goes.

Please, we all know PETA kills puppies......

/Paul

Pete
01-22-2009, 06:45 PM
Julie excelent picture.
Thats an example of their life
Its an example of lazy ass free loaders hoping their man comes through with next months mortgage.

I'd be their handing out tickets for littering.
Yes I know some smart ass will show post a picture od the 2004 inauguration,,,,well the protesters did it.

Pete

subroc
01-22-2009, 07:05 PM
From me:

I believe the left took this nation to the brink with their constant attacks on their nation for the last 8 years. So much so that they had the nations enemies regurgitating their talking points.


This is ridiculous. If our country is so fragile that dissention poses a threat to our way of life, we've got huge issues. Are you advocating doing away with the first amendment so that people have no freedom of speech? Isn't stifling dissention more of a threat than the dissention itself?

I love the constitution. I particularly love all the amendments. I donít believe it is a living document like those on the left. I think it is pretty good as is. I think the amendment process is about as living as it needs to be. That said, I am pretty happy with this interpretation of the first amendment by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

ďThe most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.Ē

YardleyLabs
01-22-2009, 07:36 PM
From me:




I love the constitution. I particularly love all the amendments. I don’t believe it is a living document like those on the left. I think it is pretty good as is. I think the amendment process is about as living as it needs to be. That said, I am pretty happy with this interpretation of the first amendment by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

And the interpretation of this by the Supreme Court has been pretty absolute. There must be a clear and present danger that is brought on by speech for it to be prohibited. Criticizing (i.e. petitioning) the government and even calling for its future overthrow (as long as there is no accompanying action) are protected forms of speech.

Calling the president an idiot is fair game, whether the president is named Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Calling his policies stupid is also fair game. Saying that a war was launched for political reasons and should be supported is fair game whether that war is in Kosuvo or Iraq. For all the wounded comments of those believing that George Bush was abused, he was never treated as poorly and viciously as Clinton despite the fact that Bush did more damage to the fabric of our laws than Clinton ever did.

Each of us is understandably more charitable in our views of those with whom we agree than with those with whom we disagree. As we address our differences as a nation we have a fundamental choice: civil discourse and compromise, or civil war. We tried civil war once and we are still fighting its ghosts almost 150 years later. Personally I hope that the majority of the public rejects that road again and rejects the stupidity of the Rush Limbaugh's along with it. But it's all free speech, whether you or I like it or not.

By the way, I have never attacked our nation. I have heavily criticized policies that I believe violate the most fundamental freedoms fought for by our ancestors even when the President and his men have been the proponents of those violations.

M Remington
01-22-2009, 09:07 PM
So you like the 1st amendment, but have no problem with ignoring the 2nd amendment?

Both are important, but if I had to pick, the 1st amendment wins.

M Remington
01-22-2009, 09:13 PM
From me:




I love the constitution. I particularly love all the amendments. I donít believe it is a living document like those on the left. I think it is pretty good as is. I think the amendment process is about as living as it needs to be. That said, I am pretty happy with this interpretation of the first amendment by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:Ē[/COLOR]

It's impractical for the constitution to be "pretty good as it is." If we had followed that point of view (and oh it was a conservative point of view), we would not have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

I guess Thomas Jefferson was a liberal . . . "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

backpasture
01-22-2009, 11:06 PM
I agree that the tone of the comparisons is worlds apart as is the economic climate of January 05 compared to now. Yet nowhere did you see the fawning media suggest that perhaps a scaled down celebration would be more appropriate during the economic crisis we're now in.

However in none of the estimates has there been any mention of the cost of giving all those federal workers a holiday for the coronation, either. That alone had to add considerably to the cost of the BHO festivities. Not to mention the filth that had to be cleaned up; haven't seen that estimate anywhere.



http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/AwJeezNotThisSheetAgain1.jpg

Losthwy
01-23-2009, 12:45 AM
From me:
I love the constitution. I particularly love all the amendments. I donít believe it is a living document like those on the left. I think it is pretty good as is. I think the amendment process is about as living as it needs to be.
I don't love all the amendments, the 18th amendment stunk. And I'll bet a six-pack you don't loved both the 18 and 21 amendments. The others amendments get an A+. The Constitution has it's flaws, such as the compromise on slavery which the country fought a civil war over less than hundred years later and the electoral college we could do without. Good but flawed.

subroc
01-23-2009, 05:11 AM
It's impractical for the constitution to be "pretty good as it is." If we had followed that point of view (and oh it was a conservative point of view), we would not have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments...

What part of

I think the amendment process is about as living as it needs to be.didnt you understand?

Julie R.
01-23-2009, 10:04 AM
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/AwJeezNotThisSheetAgain1.jpg

LMAO....this picture is perfect, given all the human excrement and African flying toilets remaining to be cleaned up after the coronation festivities. (The things you learn the MSM won't tell you when you live in or near the nation's capitol!) I imagine the sentiments in the photo above will be depicted a lot every time the new admin. holds a celebration of any size. Thank you for posting this backpasture!

dixidawg
01-23-2009, 02:07 PM
Both are important, but if I had to pick, the 1st amendment wins.


You don't get to pick. You either believe in the constitution or not. If not, there is an amendment process to change it.

subroc
01-23-2009, 04:38 PM
The New York Times or Pravda, it seems Stalin like to me. Does anyone really believe, after this, that The New York Times will be an advocate for honest reporting or will be an advocate for Obama policy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/subroc1/20090122_timesparty_190x190.jpg

YardleyLabs
01-23-2009, 05:16 PM
The New York Times or Pravda, it seems Stalin like to me. Does anyone really believe, after this, that The New York Times will be an advocate for honest reporting or will be an advocate for Obama policy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/subroc1/20090122_timesparty_190x190.jpg

How is that evidence of bias? The inauguration of a new administration (the first, not the reelection) is a big deal and receives lots of coverage. Obama's adds the historic element of the first Afro-American President. Bush's first inauguration was clearly marred by honest questions about the election itself -- both the fact that the majority of voters voted for Gore and the fact that the SCOTUS declared him President by halting the vote count in Florida. That clearly and appropriately affected his coverage. Despite that, his inauguration was also celebrated, as were those of Clinton, George Sr., Reagan, and so forth.

The NYTimes is about as liberal as the WSJ is conservative. Neither begins to approach the bias of MSNBC and Fox or such bastions as the Manchester Guardian, The NY Post, etc. The reality is that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and almost every other major newspaper in the country, along with all the television networks, rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to manage the news almost without constraint until after the joint disasters of Katrina and Iraq following the "cessation of major hostilties."

Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated. This is described in some detail in Scott McClellan's book (he was Bush's Press Secretary) and represented one of the more audacious propaganda efforts in hiistory, far surpassing anything from his predecessors.

Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret. The Bush administration went to unheard of lengths to preserve secrecy concerning all of its activities. In its first few days, the Obama administration has reversed some of those practices but could push the limits of managed news even further if allowed. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of news outlets and the shrinking of the press corps, the odds are stacked heavily against independent reporting.

backpasture
01-23-2009, 10:19 PM
FYI

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html


Cue the 'liberal bias!' posts. (Reality does have a liberal bias after all.)

M Remington
01-23-2009, 11:42 PM
You don't get to pick. You either believe in the constitution or not. If not, there is an amendment process to change it.


I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

Gun_Dog2002
01-24-2009, 01:39 AM
I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

Uh actually that ain't true. The electoral vote is not the same as the actual vote. You need to go back and rethink you statement.


/Paul

IowaBayDog
01-24-2009, 07:00 AM
I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.


Free speech protects the individuals right to speak in public without being censored, not to speak in secret to plot against the U.S.. The constitution does not grant right to enemy combatants either, since they have no uniforms or country they are fighting for the Geneva convention doesn't protect them either.

Please tell who in the last election even had a Conservative viewpoint? I must have missed them on the ballot.

YardleyLabs
01-24-2009, 09:07 AM
Uh actually that ain't true. The electoral vote is not the same as the actual vote. You need to go back and rethink you statement.


/Paul

Uh, actually it is true. Obama won with 52.9% of the popular vote vs. McCain's 45.7%. Bush also won a majority of the popular vote in 2004 with 50.2%. In 2000, Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote to Gore''s 48.4% making this one of only two elections in our history where the candidate winning the plurality of votes actually lost the election in the Electoral College.

YardleyLabs
01-24-2009, 09:23 AM
Free speech protects the individuals right to speak in public without being censored, not to speak in secret to plot against the U.S.. The constitution does not grant right to enemy combatants either, since they have no uniforms or country they are fighting for the Geneva convention doesn't protect them either.

Please tell who in the last election even had a Conservative viewpoint? I must have missed them on the ballot.

The Constitution protects free speech to speak in public and to plot in private. Conspiracy laws passed under Nixon do not outlaw any form of speech. Rather, they outlaw actions that further an attempt to overthrow the government or to commit any other crime.

The Constitution protects all persons in the jurisdiction of our country, whether citizens or not. By tradition, spies (or so called enemy combatants) are not treated as prisoners of war but are handled in accordance with the laws of the country that arrests them. The administration did not want to do this since that would provide the detainees with rights of due process.

The Geneva Convention explicitly addresses both prisoners that are captured while in "uniform" or otherwise clearly identifiable as combatants, and those captured who are not identifiable as combatants. The latter group is covered by some, but not all, provisions of the treaty. That was the basis for the court orders directing the administration to comply with the applicable portions of the treaty. The Bush administration's efforts to define a distinct class of so called "illegal combatants" that would be under U.S. government control but not subject to any legal process whatsoever has been rejected completely by every court.

Presumably the new administration is ending this sad and shameful story by ordering an end to such detentions and a return to forms of interrogation generally accepted under international law.

Julie R.
01-24-2009, 12:39 PM
The NYTimes is about as liberal as the WSJ is conservative. Neither begins to approach the bias of MSNBC and Fox or such bastions as the Manchester Guardian, The NY Post, etc. The reality is that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and almost every other major newspaper in the country, along with all the television networks, rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to manage the news almost without constraint until after the joint disasters of Katrina and Iraq following the "cessation of major hostilties."

Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated. This is described in some detail in Scott McClellan's book (he was Bush's Press Secretary) and represented one of the more audacious propaganda efforts in hiistory, far surpassing anything from his predecessors.

Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret. The Bush administration went to unheard of lengths to preserve secrecy concerning all of its activities. In its first few days, the Obama administration has reversed some of those practices but could push the limits of managed news even further if allowed. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of news outlets and the shrinking of the press corps, the odds are stacked heavily against independent reporting.

Jeff my friend, you are so wrong here that it makes me wonder if this shrill and inaccurate reply didn't come straight from the MoveOn.org website instead of your usual measured responses.
The press most certainly did not 'roll over' for Bush, although the same cannot be said for the fawning, 'lite' coverage they gave your boy Oboma.
Fact: a reporter that prints a press release verbatim as news is not going to last long at any major daily. Fact: ALL administrations send out press releases that present their policies in favorable lights. I know, I worked in the Reagan White House press office and also the U.S. Dept. of State press office. I've also worked on the other side of the desk, at newspapers and at a weekly news magazine both as a reporter and as an editor.
If any reporter was banned from the credentialed White House press corps, it was probably for a good reason. No doubt your boy Obomo will do the same thing when he doesn't like the negative coverage he's bound to receive eventually.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed your Bush bashing seems to be growing exponentially as this thread wears on. I'm disgusted to hear you blaming Bush for the Katrina disaster when your own party is squarely at fault for that. Next you'll be saying Bush engineered that hurricane to put the black man down. ENOUGH ALREADY!! Your guy won, so stop bashing Bush for things he didn't do, it makes you look petty and ignorant.

Kind of how Obomo looked when he admonished Republicans to 'quit listening to Rush Limbaugh'. And my favorite narcissistic comment, in response to a (GOP) Virginia representative's objection to more welfare for the non-taxpaying segments of society: "I won. I will trump you on that." What a loser! He could at least try to explain how giving more money to welfare leaches will stimulate the economy?

Steve Amrein
01-30-2009, 09:08 AM
While I am not sad the PETA ad will not run during the super bowl the mainstrem media is making sure you know about it still and see it.

The other commercial that is also banned is a anti abortion ad. I am really surprised it was not allowed because it mentions the chosen one. I have yet to hear see any mention on any of the news outlets. Hmmmmmm.

Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

To be fair the peta ad links have been posted on this site elsewhere

John Kelder
01-30-2009, 01:49 PM
I was looking for the sources behind the quotes used to indicate media bias. The only one I found specifically was based on stories by AP writer Will Lester. He noted the cost of Bush's inauguration at $40 million which only included direct costs for festivities. The equivalent figure noted for Obama was $45 million. Neither figure included security.

Note: The biggest difference in costs seems to stem from the difference in crowd size. Bush's first inauguration attracted less than 1/2 million people and his second attracted about 300,000. Today's event are expected to draw over 2 million.

Out of 2 million ,only a dozen folks actually missed work . Looking for the silver lining and sadly LMAO ,regards

Franco
01-30-2009, 02:14 PM
Now if only our congressional folks would work responsibly to do theirs, starting with NO pork barrel project add-ons to spending bills and with NO financial allegiances to lobbyists.


That ain't going to happen and even though in all 3 debates Obomo promised no more pork, his new bill has over 500 billion worth of pork/earmarks!

Media bias? Why isn't the media except for Fox News calling him out on his lies?

subroc
02-10-2009, 07:23 AM
Here is one for you all, a left wing talk show host front and center at a presidential news conference.

I expect we will get a real one sided view from this administration.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Schultz_gets_front_row_seat_.html?showall

backpasture
02-10-2009, 08:54 AM
Here is one for you all, a left wing talk show host front and center at a presidential news conference.

I expect we will get a real one sided view from this administration.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Schultz_gets_front_row_seat_.html?showall


And he showed his bias by calling on him to ask a softball question, right?

Oh, he didn't? Ah, snap!

Are you upset that they didn't bring in your favorite fake reporter/gay porn star, Jeff Gannon, to ask the hard hitting questions?
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/310805jeff_gannon_cspan.jpg
"How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Steve Amrein
02-10-2009, 09:04 AM
I assume this was the question asked about "how can all the spending be gauged if it is actually working? "

Reply something to lines on the creation or saving 4 million jobs.

Well I guess as long as 4 million folks still have jobs its a success. As long as you say it real fast you don't even hear the "saving" part and it sounds good.

I wish I remember the question asked and his reply was wait for the treasury secretaries press conference and then the most important quest asked was about A-rod.
That's some "hardball" questions pun intended

YardleyLabs
02-10-2009, 11:42 AM
I agree that the tone of the comparisons is worlds apart as is the economic climate of January 05 compared to now. Yet nowhere did you see the fawning media suggest that perhaps a scaled down celebration would be more appropriate during the economic crisis we're now in.

However in none of the estimates has there been any mention of the cost of giving all those federal workers a holiday for the coronation, either. That alone had to add considerably to the cost of the BHO festivities. Not to mention the filth that had to be cleaned up; haven't seen that estimate anywhere.
http://cofcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/capt7d249c265a934f498f2a848402460546inauguration_a _nation_gathers_dcck123.jpg

Actually estimates of the cost of both Bush and Obama inaugurations include costs for Federal government employee holidays (it was done for both) and post inaugural cleanup. I suspect that the 300,000 people attending Bush's inaugural in 2005 made less of a mess than the 1.8 million attending Obama's in 2009.

subroc
02-20-2009, 06:57 AM
Is the reason this newspaper is on the verge of failure because of left wing bias, essentially only serving half the population, or is it a matter of the full array of information choices (internet, podcast, radio, newspapers, television, etc.) that the consumer has available?

What do you think?

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-stock-now-costs-less-than-sunday-paper-2009-2 (http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-stock-now-costs-less-than-sunday-paper-2009-2)

subroc
03-10-2009, 05:34 AM
:D chuckling :D This one was too rich:

We routinely hear CNN referred to as the communist news network. It appears in some cases it is actually true.


http://newsbusters.org/node/28644/print

Marvin S
03-14-2009, 05:40 PM
Media bias? Why isn't the media except for Fox News calling him out on his lies?

In an interview in the Limbaugh Letter with Bernard Goldberg, 28 years at CBS prior to writing Bias. Mr Goldberg states "the media has gone beyond being biased, they are idealogically on the same page with socialism". Which is laughable as you watch the print newsies fold. One of our local rags, arguably the most liberal in the state, is printing it's last edition this week. Not much of a content loss, except for the coffee slurping text messagers who don't have a clue where tax money originates. My fondest hope is that all the lefties retirement plans are loaded with the stock of these failed business models.

BTW, if you don't take the LL you should.

subroc
06-04-2009, 06:07 AM
A TV anchor (Brian Williams) bowing to obama...

I guess the media has gone from bias to I don't know what. Is it adulation? Is it a king-subject relationship?

It is pretty amazing when one thinks about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc

honker88
06-04-2009, 10:01 AM
A TV anchor (Brian Williams) bowing to obama...

I guess the media has gone from bias to I don't know what. Is it adulation? Is it a king-subject relationship?

It is pretty amazing when one thinks about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc

That is ridiculous! The only time any American should bow is when they are bowing to God!

road kill
06-04-2009, 10:14 AM
That is ridiculous! The only time any American should bow is when they are bowing to God!

Yeah, well, the "State Run Media" thinks the Obama is God!!

I defy anyone but the most far left radicals to tell me eye to eye this is what they want for America!!

I feel bad for a couple off lefty's here because they seem relatively intelligent.
Yet the are in the position of defending this KLOWN and his circus!!

just sayin'

Julie R.
06-04-2009, 10:25 AM
Never in my lifetime can I recall seeing such disgusting fawning and pandering to a President as the mainstream media gives this one, along with such a blind willingness to overlook his faults and not delve deeper into the things in his past he's covered up and kept hidden. Such as the transcripts of his grades, who paid for his college, etc. I didn't see the Brian Williams special last night but bits and pieces of it were on this morning's news :barf:

Such a piece belongs on Oprah or the Oxygen channel or some other dumbed down show made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. To air this on prime time says a lot about what a nation of MORONs we've become. In the one snippet I saw on the news this a.m., Obongo was STILL reading off a teleprompter! I can't believe I ever thought the man was a good speaker.

Franco
06-04-2009, 10:26 AM
Is the reason this newspaper is on the verge of failure because of left wing bias, essentially only serving half the population, or is it a matter of the full array of information choices (internet, podcast, radio, newspapers, television, etc.) that the consumer has available?

What do you think?

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-stock-now-costs-less-than-sunday-paper-2009-2 (http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-stock-now-costs-less-than-sunday-paper-2009-2)




Starch, the company that surveys newsprint consumption divides readership into three categories; heavy, moderate and light readers. Heavy users are now below 15% and of that 15%, 93% are over 60 years of age! I don't know of any big advertising spenders that target the over 60.

Adding to thier problems are the increasing cost of everything from cost of paper to labor and so it isn't any wonder why they are going belly up all across the globe.

Newspaper's attempt to stay afloat is by promoting their on-line paper. Problem is that they already have a lot of competition from various websites for local content and news. The printed daily paper will be a thing of the past over the next 5-10 years.

honker88
06-04-2009, 11:02 AM
Yeah, well, the "State Run Media" thinks the Obama is God!!

I defy anyone but the most far left radicals to tell me eye to eye this is what they want for America!!

I feel bad for a couple off lefty's here because they seem relatively intelligent.
Yet the are in the position of defending this KLOWN and his circus!!

just sayin'

He is the "Messiah", right?

honker88
06-04-2009, 11:06 AM
In the one snippet I saw on the news this a.m., Obongo was STILL reading off a teleprompter! I can't believe I ever thought the man was a good speaker.

You know, I never understood why anybody thought he was a good speaker. I just think about all the crap Bush got about being a poor speaker. Obama is write up there, probably worse because he can't speak without the telepromter.

Julie R.
06-04-2009, 11:41 AM
I guess when he was referred to as such a mesmerizing speaker early in his campaigning I was willing to believe there was some reason he was able to garner support. As I remember thinking since I disliked his politics and platform and rarely watched him except unavoidable snippets on the news he must've given a few stirring speeches that I missed'

On an unrelated note, reading the older posts on this thread reminded me backpasture has been in hiding for awhile. I'm surprised he didn't come out of lurkdom to help Jeff champion King Shabazz.
http://s490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/th_abigrofl.gif

Gerry Clinchy
06-04-2009, 01:04 PM
On an unrelated note, reading the older posts on this thread reminded me backpasture has been in hiding for awhile. I'm surprised he didn't come out of lurkdom to help Jeff champion King Shabazz.


I believe that it was Backpasture that was banned several months ago.

subroc
06-09-2009, 06:11 AM
Here is an article that sort of speaks to bias. It actuall illustrates that the media doesn't call him on this.

This article example is about the administrations use of the term jobs "saved or created."

A worthwhile read:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

subroc
06-15-2009, 06:11 AM
Here is a pretty good article that illustrates the blanket and reflexive bias of the MSM and democrats as well

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/15/left_cries_racist_in_crowded_country_96999.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/15/left_cries_racist_in_crowded_country_96999.html)