NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

There's plenty of media bias on it. Those who don't beleive that there's a media bias on it have been listening to Obama's broken record of "Change...Change...Change...Change...Change..." far too long.

Oh sweety there is always media bias.

I myself am more worried about his religious background and bad patriotism. And every time you complain they say your being "racist".http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/jolt/smilies/soap.gif:soap:

If there weren't media bias, there wouldn't only be two candidates. Let's talk to Bob Barr and Ralph Nader about media bias, shall we?

Oh sweety there is always media bias.

No question... But it always amazes me when it gets brought up and some people react with their fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALALALALALA there's no bias LALALALALALALALALALA!"

If there weren't media bias, there wouldn't only be two candidates. Let's talk to Bob Barr and Ralph Nader about media bias, shall we?

Damn fine point

Gee I wonder why?

Young, sexy, black, inspirational man VS McWhitey who half dead already.

No question... But it always amazes me when it gets brought up and some people react with their fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALALALALALA there's no bias LALALALALALALALALALA!"

I was listening to talk radio while cleaning yesterday, and the "newsbreak" talked like 3 minutes about Obama's "trip" and how he was "truly trying to make a plan for the nation" and then after they were done they said "in other news McCain went to a baseball game today"

:rolleyes:

There's plenty of media bias but I don't think it really lies so much in the fact that Obama is a Democrat and more so in the fact that he is new to the scene and is making history with his candidacy. I'd say the media is biased towards a big story and not necessarily towards Obama or his policies. I'd also like to say that McCain brought this on himself, he should have known that the Obama in Iraq counter was a double-edged sword, Obama merely countered his thrust. And one last note; plenty of columnists have been suggesting that the McCain camp may be insinuating that he will announce his VP choice this week BECAUSE of Obama's trip. Many columnists have said that that is the way they can take the spotlight off Obama as it would be headline news on the cable news networks for at least three days. I'd say John McCain knows much about the bias of the media in these affairs, he just made an attack that gave his opponent the perfect opening.

Get over yourself. The conservatives have had a HUGE Bias called Fox news that for some foolish reason the Democrats are too stupid, gutless, whatever, I don't know, to call them on it.

Deal with it.

But McCain is very uninteresting with very dull politics and with a crappy PR, its not surprising that the media do not give him as much attention.

are you suggesting that the press should PRETEND that mccain is an exciting candidate? that they should cover his every fart?

he gave a couple of speeches yesterday. the press covered them. whats wrong with that?

Gee I wonder why?

Young, sexy, black, inspirational man.

Sound almost like a oxymoron to me.

It looks like he doesn't trust them.

For a while now, he hasn't really spoken to reporters or taken any questions, especially on his trip around the Middle East.

*put fingers in ears* "LALALALALALALALA there's no bias LALALALALALALALALALA!"
No question... But it always amazes me when it gets brought up and some people react with their fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALALALALALA there's no bias LALALALALALALALALALA!"
There. I hoped I amazed you. I am truly amazing.

Kidding aside, I have always thought that the media wields considerable power and influence in American elections, and are not always using it responsibly. IMHO, American media is horribly biased to the left, with some outlets biased the opposite way. Feel free to lambast me, I won't mind; I thoroughly agree with the observation that many people say more easily that a particular news outlet/program/etc. is biased if it does not agree with their views. There can never really be a such a thing as truly objective reporting; in watching news, we see events in the eyes of the reporters and news staff, and they may color the observations, voluntarily or involuntarily, with their own biases.

But McCain is very uninteresting with very dull politics and with a crappy PR, its not surprising that the media do not give him as much attention.

This is true. He's been quite boring lately.

Hey, all this bias has kept the "nation of whiners" and the "learning how to get online" shit to a minimum. I had to watch the Daily Show just to find out that McCain had referred to an Iraqi-Pakistani Border...also known as Iran. I mean if Obama hadn't done this trip these past two weeks may have been the death knell for him among younger voters.

ALso, Hotwife, your sig is AMAZING.

are you suggesting that the press should PRETEND that mccain is an exciting candidate? that they should cover his every fart?

he gave a couple of speeches yesterday. the press covered them. whats wrong with that?

Well, if they're going to cover Obama's flatulence, they should cover McCain's too.

i suppose now wouldn't be the time to point out that prior to obama's rise to prominence due to sheer dogged determination and a fabulous understanding of organizing, mccain had spent decades as the media darling who could do no wrong, and he still has that going for him to a totally undeserved extent, such that he can screw up basic facts routinely and outright lie about things and only barely be called on it because the media finds his cookouts awesome and delicious.

the fact of the matter is that if the media hadn't had a crush on him, mccain would be a nobody. he's old, boring, mean, and kind of an idiot. he can't run a campaign to save his life, and he's just upset because he has long openly considered the media his base.

We interrupt the nonstop coverage of Barack Obama's overseas trip to bring you some breaking whispers about John McCain.

He has been making a series of verbal slips -- invariably described as "gaffes" -- that are starting to ricochet from liberal blogs to the mainstream media. And fairly or not, some critics are suggesting the 71-year-old Republican candidate is showing his age.

McCain referred to the "Iraq/Pakistan border" in a "Good Morning America" interview; since there is no such border he must have meant Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has twice referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that ceased to exist in 1993; mixed up Sunnis and Shiites; and identified Vladimir Putin as president of Germany.

Aides to the Arizona senator dismiss the missteps as meaningless, noting that their man is far more accessible to journalists than Obama. "When you engage with reporters from 8:30 a.m. till 8 at night, you're bound to make a gaffe," says McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker. "People are yearning for the kind of president who takes tough questions, and that's who John McCain is."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072300704.html

So, let's see: The media is paying too much attention to Obama (bias!) so we could call it a love affair. But at the same time, the media it paying too much attention to McCain, so any mistakes/gaffes he might make can be explained away by the extensive media exposure.

No inconsistencies here?


Also:
"McCain has been a media darling forever, and now he's making the claim that he's not getting enough media coverage? It's comical," says Mitchell Bard, a writer and filmmaker who blogs at the Huffington Post.

"If Obama had said the things McCain has said, the media would be all over that as an example of his inexperience: 'He doesn't even know that Iraq and Pakistan don't share a border. He doesn't even know that Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country for 15 years.' When John McCain says it, it's 'Oh, that's just John McCain.' The media have decided that McCain is a knowledgeable foreign policy expert and anything that doesn't fit into that paradigm is just ignored."

I'd say the media is biased towards a big story

Bolded for truth


This is the funny thing to me. We keep hearing people screaming about the 'liberal media'. Then when liberals say something along the lines of the above bolded statement, they cover their ears and go "LALALALALA I can only hear you saying there is no media bias and not what you are actually saying".


It's all about making money.

Is there liberal/conservative news? yeah, duh. But don't pretend that if the popular candidate does something stupid or is caught in a scandal that we won't hear about it endlessly until the next thing our short attention span can eat comes by.

Think Ana Nicole Smith Death. Nothing was going on, some gold digging, dumbass stripper OD's and all of a sudden she is Americas darling and it takes like three weeks to move on to other stories... Whatever they can exploit for more advertising dollars, they will.

What's funny is that the media is following him around, but he gave NO media interviews in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel.

I guess his campaign doesn't want him to accidentally say something he'll be called on later.

I'll wait until McCain gets accused of offering a terrorist handshake tbh.

What's funny is that the media is following him around, but he gave NO media interviews in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel.

I guess his campaign doesn't want him to accidentally say something he'll be called on later.

I heard somewhere that the Israeli media might have jumped on the question of Obama's birth certificate/eligibility for presidential office...maybe he didn't feel like answering those types of questions.

I'm talking about the contention that Barack Obama might not be a natural-born U.S. citizen. Apparently some Obama-affiliated blog provided an electronic birth certificate that some other bloggers have pointed out seems to be a forgery and that Obama seems reluctant to produce the actual original for inspection. This was first pointed out in the Israeli Insider, so no media interviews in Israel might have something to do with this birth certificate question. But then again he gave press conferences (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7520759.stm), so...?

Get over yourself. The conservatives have had a HUGE Bias called Fox news that for some foolish reason the Democrats are too stupid, gutless, whatever, I don't know, to call them on it.

Deal with it.

Translation:

"LALALALALALALALA there's no bias LALALALALALALALALALA!"

Well, if they're going to cover Obama's flatulence, they should cover McCain's too.

im sure that when mccain does something exciting the press will be all over him.

maybe that should be IF mccain does something exciting...

I heard somewhere that the Israeli media might have jumped on the question of Obama's birth certificate/eligibility for presidential office...maybe he didn't feel like answering those types of questions.

Wha?!? :confused:

IMHO, American media is horribly biased to the left, with some outlets biased the opposite way.

Logically, if they were, then the media in the 2000 election would have treated Bush worse than Gore. They didn't. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710)

I'll wait until McCain gets accused of offering a terrorist handshake tbh.

I assume you are referring to all that "terrorist fist-bump" bullshit? Just goes to show you, if there isn't a big story, make one up.

We really need a suicide smiley...

What's funny is that the media is following him around, but he gave NO media interviews in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel.

I guess his campaign doesn't want him to accidentally say something he'll be called on later.

huh?

when i put "obama interview" into google news, it came up with a few articles from the past few hours talking about interviews with media on this trip.

maybe you should shovel this shit somewhere without internet access.

I assume you are referring to all that "terrorist fist-bump" bullshit? Just goes to show you, if there isn't a big story, make one up.

We really need a suicide smiley...

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/emotes/emot-smithicide.gif?

There's plenty of media bias on it. Those who don't beleive that there's a media bias on it have been listening to Obama's broken record of "Change...Change...Change...Change...Change..." far too long.

Whenever I hear him say "Change" I think of that South Park episode with the homeless people who are shipped in and all they do is say "Change, got any change?"

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/god_of_the_bloody_tongue/emotes/emot-smithicide.gif?

Exactly!

huh?

when i put "obama interview" into google news, it came up with a few articles from the past few hours talking about interviews with media on this trip.

maybe you should shovel this shit somewhere without internet access.

Not in Iraq or Afghanistan by the mainstream media. Andrea Mitchell, someone who is definitely in place to know, and defnintely a friend of Obama, is wondering why he's doing staged interviews without the mainstream media present.

Maybe you need the Internet access.

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

Before Mitchell made her displeasure known, Roger Simon of Politico, Chris Matthews's other guest during the segment, depicted the images coming out of the war zone as all Obama could have dreamed of.

ROGER SIMON: The optics are all very good on this trip. I mean, the beginning of this trip is so good, Senator Obama might just want to call off the end and just keep running the videotape.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

He goes into a gym, everybody, all the service people there cheer. He shoots a basket, you know, it goes through the hoop. He's obviously standing there with troops, they seem to be liking him, smiling. They don't seem to feel that Barack Obama wants to desert them, to leave them in Iraq. This is exactly what the Obama campaign hoped for, and this was supposed to be the tough part of the trip. The meatiest part of the trip in Jordan and Israel may be tough in terms of foreign policy, but the back end of the trip to cheering European crowds will certainly be as good if not better than this. So I think he's feeling very good right now.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea, I want to get ethnic a little bit here --

ANDREA MITCHELL: This is message --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, go ahead, please.

MITCHELL: Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

When Matthews inquired about the atmospherics of the trip, Mitchell made clear her frustration as a reporter.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story?

MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

huh?

when i put "obama interview" into google news, it came up with a few articles from the past few hours talking about interviews with media on this trip.

maybe you should shovel this shit somewhere without internet access.

dk is living proof that in order to be embarrassingly wrong, someone must be able to be embarrassed by their wrongness in the first place.

dk is living proof that in order to be embarrassingly wrong, someone must be able to be embarrassed by their wrongness in the first place.

Read the post just before yours, to see how embarassingly wrong you are.

Not in Iraq or Afghanistan by the mainstream media.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml

Sorry, you're still wrong.

of course media is biased http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml

The CBS reporter was not on the ground in Iraq when this interview was done.

It was done afterwards.

See the tight control the campaign is having on the media?

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

Ah, but those links show a clear conservative bias!

Media will always be biased. It's run by people. People have opinions. Some of them will be leftists and some of them will be rightists, no matter how impartial they try to be; and their primary concern in this field isn't fairness: it's money. They'll cover whatever sells, no matter where on the political spectrum it falls; sure, if they really disagree they'll report it in a sufficiently disapproving way, with sufficient use of weasel words, muckraking, and mudslinging, but they'll still report it if people are willing to pay to see it. Ascribing any bias but a financial one to journalism is erroneous -- and nobody says you have to watch Fox News or buy the New York Times if you don't want to.

Sorry, you're still wrong.

so an interview with cbs's lara logan in kabul isn't an interview in afghanistan?

i long ago gave up on pretending you actually believe the retarded shit you say for just this sort of reason.

I'll repeat Andrea Mitchell's comment (she's for Obama, by the way, and always for Democrats).

Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

I'll repeat Andrea Mitchell's comment (she's for Obama, by the way, and always for Democrats).

so your claim then is that obama flew to afghanistan, then flew back to usia, had that interview with cbs, then flew back to afghanistan, and then cbs flew lara logan to kabul so they could lie on tv about where the interview was done?

you are a fucking joke.

so your claim then is that obama flew to afghanistan, then flew back to usia, had that interview with cbs, then flew back to afghanistan, and then cbs flew lara logan to kabul so they could lie on tv about where the interview was done?

you are a fucking joke.

No, the interview was on the phone.

According to Andrea Mitchell, no one from the press was allowed to interview him on camera on the ground. Ever.

You're a fucking joke.

Not in Iraq or Afghanistan by the mainstream media. Andrea Mitchell, someone who is definitely in place to know, and defnintely a friend of Obama, is wondering why he's doing staged interviews without the mainstream media present.

Maybe you need the Internet access.

You know, it's funny, I googled the first paragraph of what you quoted, and the first website to come up was a website called "AgainstObama.com" something I must admit is probably not the most reliable source, and a little bit more digging reveals the article was originally written and posted on Newbusters, A.K.A, Media research Center, a well know bunch of right wing wankers.

Here's a suggestion, if you're trying to rebut that Obama is in fact giving interviews, try not to use sources that are clearly right wing nonsense; you may as well as cited conservapedia for all the credibility MRC has.

Hey, DK, maybe you could do this thing called "citing your sources". Right now, we only have your say-so that those things were said, and your say-so currently has the credibility of, say, Rense.

dk is living proof that in order to be embarrassingly wrong, someone must be able to be embarrassed by their wrongness in the first place.

Wow... you and I found something to agree on...

No, the interview was on the phone.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml
see that video in the corner there? you might find it worth your time to play just a minute of it.

Hey, DK, maybe you could do this thing called "citing your sources". Right now, we only have your say-so that those things were said, and your say-so currently has the credibility of, say, Rense.

Damn you for making me Wiki something... ;)

You know, it's funny, I googled the first paragraph of what you quoted, and the first website to come up was a website called "AgainstObama.com" something I must admit is probably not the most reliable source, and a little bit more digging reveals the article was originally written and posted on Newbusters, A.K.A, Media research Center, a well know bunch of right wing wankers.

Here's a suggestion, if you're trying to rebut that Obama is in fact giving interviews, try not to use sources that are clearly right wing nonsense; you may as well as cited conservapedia for all the credibility MRC has.

Maybe you should watch MSNBC, you know, the network that loves the Democrats.

The video is available here, so don't try and say I made it up:

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZMzohxWvJ-M&amp

You look really stupid trying to say this was all made up by right wingers.

It's a complaint by a Democrat-sympathetic, Obama-loving journalist

shorter dk:

who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

shorter dk:

who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Andrea Mitchell - she knows, and you don't.

The CBS interview was not done on the ground there.

Maybe you should watch Andrea Mitchell talk on the video.

Logically, if they were, then the media in the 2000 election would have treated Bush worse than Gore. They didn't. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710)

No shit. They lobbed more softballs at Shrub than Rawlings makes in a year. When Shrub fucked up in interviews or on camera, it was like all the media said "aw, leave the guy alone." It was pathetic. And then to poke at Gore for rolling his eyes during a debate when rolling eyes was the only possible response to Shrub's twaddle, well, that was a bit of fait accompli there. But hey, never mind the past, media bias NOW!

And Hotwife, the CBS interview happened in Kabul. Any response, or are you going to keep ignoring that?

I see and hear McCain every day, pal. If he doesn't have anything interesting to say, his coverage will be shorter. What else are they going to do, just put up video of him serving hot dogs again until the air times even out? Come on.

Honestly, I've found nothing suggesting that Mitchell is particularly reliable or credible. And some suggesting that she's not. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/andrea-mitchells-prime-t_b_10973.html)

Honestly, I've found nothing suggesting that Mitchell is particularly reliable or credible. [i]And some suggesting that she's not.[/url]

She's a Democrat Party diehard and an Obamaphile.

That makes her credible on the Obama front.

Maybe you should watch Andrea Mitchell talk on the video.

i know what andrea mitchell said. i've seen the video. her complaint is either flat-out wrong, or applies to a very limited context. i'm leaning towards 'wrong' on the basis of the evidence.

see, there is this neat thing we can do these days. when somebody makes a claim about an empirical subject, we can look into their claim to check its truth value. and when there is evidence that tends to go against what was claimed, we can say that the claim is false.
truly astounding, this new learning!

i know what andrea mitchell said. i've seen the video. her complaint is either flat-out wrong, or applies to a very limited context. i'm leaning towards 'wrong' on the basis of the evidence.

see, there is this neat thing we can do these days. when somebody makes a claim about an empirical subject, we can look into their claim to check its truth value. and when there is evidence that tends to go against what was claimed, we can say that the claim is false.
truly astounding, this new learning!

You have no video of reporters from the mainstream media interviewing him on the ground.

Everyone knows that.

So you can't claim it's false.

Neither could the other reporters on the show Andrea was on.

It's a complaint by a Democrat-sympathetic, Obama-loving journalist

Your Paragon reporter seems to be more or less a whiny bitch tbh.

"Oh these interviews aren't conducted by reporters, so they're not 'for realz"

So suddenly, you have to have a press pass, and work for a major american news outlet, for your reports to be valid?

It seems to me that this woman is more or less upset that she's not getting to attach her name this story.

And perhaps more importantly, why in hell would they have a large group of press following him around anyways? aren't Iraq and Afghanistan war zones?

You have no video of reporters from the mainstream media interviewing him on the ground.

Everyone knows that.

So you can't claim it's false.

Neither could the other reporters on the show Andrea was on.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml

There he is with Katie Couric in Amman, Jordan. Know how I found it? Googled "Obama interview middle east on the ground". I know you're denying the Logan interview (for reasons as yet unclear), but here's another. Have at it.

She's a Democrat Party diehard and an Obamaphile.

That makes her credible on the Obama front.

No, it doesn't. That's not how credibility works.

No, it doesn't. That's not how credibility works.

She's quite credible. If you were to say, she was Rush Limbaugh's closest friend, you would say she's not credible, even if you saw directly what she said.

She's about as far from the Republicans as you can get without being Obama's wife.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml

There he is with Katie Couric in Amman, Jordan. Know how I found it? Googled "Obama interview middle east on the ground". I know you're denying the Logan interview (for reasons as yet unclear), but here's another. Have at it.

No answer. Got it.

Next?

She's quite credible. If you were to say, she was Rush Limbaugh's closest friend, you would say she's not credible, even if you saw directly what she said.

She's about as far from the Republicans as you can get without being Obama's wife.

You don't know how credibility works, do you...

You have no video of reporters from the mainstream media interviewing him on the ground.

except that one i posted. but hey, other than that...

oh wait, katie couric and charles gibson also had interviews with him over there too (jordan and israel, iirc). damnit, there must be some way you can make this stupidity work for you

You don't know how credibility works, do you...

dk can't be held back by your puny ideals of sourcing and credibility and logic. he is invincible!!!!!1!

She's quite credible. If you were to say, she was Rush Limbaugh's closest friend, you would say she's not credible, even if you saw directly what she said.

She's about as far from the Republicans as you can get without being Obama's wife.

I linked to a source that specifically demonstrates how she is not credible and lacks journalistic integrity. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over again without ever providing any evidence.

She's about as far from the Republicans as you can get without being Obama's wife.

FYI, your Bias is showing.

except that one i posted. but hey, other than that...

oh wait, katie couric and charles gibson also had interviews with him over there too (jordan and israel, iirc). damnit, there must be some way you can make this stupidity work for you

Pfft! As if ABC News is "mainstream" :rolleyes:

:p

WATCH MORE OF CHARLIE'S INTERVIEW WITH BARACK OBAMA IN ISRAEL ON "WORLD NEWS" WEDNESDAY AT 6:30 PM ET ON ABC
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=5432297&page=1

dk can't be held back by your puny ideals of sourcing and credibility and logic. he is invincible!!!!!1!

So I've noticed http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/1129.gif

So we are using the huff and puff post as a credible source on NS forums.

HAHAHAHAHA

It's the Obamalypse. the world will soon be rent asunder.

The Huff and Puff post? Really.

What a joke.

So we are using the huff and puff post as a credible source on NS forums.

HAHAHAHAHA

It's the Obamalypse. the world will soon be rent asunder.

The Huff and Puff post? Really.

What a joke.

So... How have they destroyed their credibility? What kind of Fox News like things have they done?

So we are using the huff and puff post as a credible source on NS forums.

HAHAHAHAHA

It's the Obamalypse. the world will soon be rent asunder.

The Huff and Puff post? Really.

What a joke.

:confused:

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?
There's always media bias. Eight years ago, John McCain was supposedly the beneficiary of the media's favoritism. It's just one of those things that a campaign has to deal with.

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

Of course there's media bias (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM).

Oh, you mean Pro-Obama media bias. . .

There's plenty of media bias on it. Those who don't beleive that there's a media bias on it have been listening to Obama's broken record of "Change...Change...Change...Change...Change..." far too long.

Damn strait there's a media bias, its just that you've got the whole thing switched around. Just because the media covers Obama more doesn't make them his fans. Every little thing he dose gets endlessly covered, while McCain's blunders may get covered for all of ten minutes on the evening news for a couple of days, then quietly forgotten. For how long has this shamelessly opportunistic flip-flopper been able to coast on his "mavrik" image, unchallenged by the bulk of the media? How much controversy was there over the pastor who's endorsement he sought out, you know, the one who thinks Hitler was part of God's plan, and that we should support Israel so that one day Revelations will come true and God will Genocide all the heathens. Yes it was covered, but compared to the obscene amount of coverage on Reverend Wright it was nothing. But then I guess McCain's pastors aren't the dreaded "angry black man".

Why do people still fall for this garbage? This is the same old trick the right's been playing for years. Accuse the other side of a Liberal bias. Spineless Democrats and Journalists move to the right to appear more "moderate", and "centrist". Conservatives keep complaining, and will do so until everyone agrees with them, because they treat anything else as "liberal bias". Gradually the "center" shifts further and further to the right.

If there was a time when the media was biased to Obama, it was back when he was a new, charismatic fresh face, before his scandals had come out, when he first started winning. Then Clinton accused the media of going to easy on Obama, and they immediately started scrutinizing everything about him, in an obvious, spineless effort to kill the rumors of bias.

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

Because Fox is nice and impartial.

You don't know how credibility works, do you...

Asking Kimchi how credibility works is like asking Dubya how insolvency works.

And perhaps more importantly, why in hell would they have a large group of press following him around anyways? aren't Iraq and Afghanistan war zones?

And therein lies the crux of the issue. From what I've read, they didn't have a large group of press or even a published itinerary for the visits in Iraq and Afghanistan for exactly that reason. We're talking about Obama and some other US Senators here. Publishing exactly where they are and are going to be in a war zone isn't exactly great for security.

That isn't to say, of course, that there is no media coverage. But it has been kept limited for the safety of the Senators.

Because Fox is nice and impartial.

That's a fine red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) you've got there.

That's a fine red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) you've got there.

Good call. More of a tu quoque, according to the article, isn't it?

Good call. More of a to quoque, according to the article, isn't it?

Quite right indeed.

Using the logic of the OP, couldn't I say "CRIMINALS, ACCIDENTS AND NATURAL DISASTERS: Supported by the media."?

Using the logic of the OP, couldn't I say "CRIMINALS, ACCIDENTS AND NATURAL DISASTERS: Supported by the media."?

You could.

And I wouldn't argue against you ;)

Especially if you were talking about Fox

Nobody loves natural disasters, scandal, sex offenders, factory recalls, epidemics and celebrity nonsense like Fox does.

You could.

And I wouldn't argue against you ;)

Especially if you were talking about Fox

Nobody loves natural disasters, scandal, sex offenders, factory recalls, epidemics and celebrity nonsense like Fox does.

Unless they're Republican sex offenders, in which case FOXNews tries to pass them off as Democrats.

http://thinkorthwim.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/foxoreilly_markfoleydem_100306.jpg

She's a Democrat Party diehard and an Obamaphile.

That makes her credible on the Obama front.

That's like saying:

Some guy on the street is a Republican diehard and avid McCain supporter. That makes him credible on the McCain front.


I'll also go to say that after studying Andrea Mitchells reporting she isn't that great a journalist...

Though I also agree there is bias in the media for and against both candidates. Editors don't think how important a story is, more how much money will it make me?

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

I'm not going to try to deny there is media bias. There's always been media bias.

However, you can't just assume that everything is a matter of bias. McCain looks a lot like more of the same that we've had for 8 years already. That's not news. Obama looks like a different profile - and that IS news, just by existing.

Maybe Obama is playing a smarter game. It seems to me that, even the 'Republican' media is favouring reporting on Obama - which suggests it's less about 'bias', and more about McCain just ain't really (doing anything) worth reporting on, right now.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. From what I've read, they didn't have a large group of press or even a published itinerary for the visits in Iraq and Afghanistan for exactly that reason. We're talking about Obama and some other US Senators here. Publishing exactly where they are and are going to be in a war zone isn't exactly great for security.

That isn't to say, of course, that there is no media coverage. But it has been kept limited for the safety of the Senators.

That's what I thought.

Did you see Keith Olbermann last night? McCain was on a trip to New Hampshire, and only one reporter, from the Manchester Union-Leader, was there to greet him. Keith showed the clip with Three Dog Night's "One... is the loneliest number... that you ever knew..." playing in the background.

Unless they're Republican sex offenders, in which case FOXNews tries to pass them off as Democrats.

http://thinkorthwim.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/foxoreilly_markfoleydem_100306.jpg

I love that. Once is a mistake; twice is incompetence. Three times is policy.

Unless they're Republican sex offenders, in which case FOXNews tries to pass them off as Democrats.

http://thinkorthwim.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/foxoreilly_markfoleydem_100306.jpg

In fairness, FOX News doesn't really have the same journalistic reputation as the Chicago Tribune, and The O'Reily Factor has even less of one. It's a cable channel for the right-wing in the same way Animal Planet is a cable channel for people who like animals. The Tribune is a news source people actually trust, and a bias there really isn't a good thing. But, like everyone else has said, it's inevitable. Newspapers are made up of fallible people who want to sell newspapers.

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

Yeah, the press hates McCain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BFpNXPWFY) and loves Obama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zy08STIQwM) :rolleyes:

In fairness, FOX News doesn't really have the same journalistic reputation as the Chicago Tribune, and The O'Reily Factor has even less of one. It's a cable channel for the right-wing in the same way Animal Planet is a cable channel for people who like animals. The Tribune is a news source people actually trust, and a bias there really isn't a good thing. But, like everyone else has said, it's inevitable. Newspapers are made up of fallible people who want to sell newspapers.

More people think that FOX news is actual news than have even heard of the Chicago Tribune.

are you suggesting that the press should PRETEND that mccain is an exciting candidate? that they should cover his every fart?

he gave a couple of speeches yesterday. the press covered them. whats wrong with that?

Because they fail to cover the speeches of the third party candidates. Most of the time.

More people think that FOX news is actual news than have even heard of the Chicago Tribune.

Really? I think people are much more likely to trust a newspaper, even one they haven't heard of.

Ahem: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080722/cm_huffpost/114086;_ylt=Av5tpuT72Vse2KnmbO7wxS0d6sgF

Really? I think people are much more likely to trust a newspaper, even one they haven't heard of.

Hell, If I want accurate information, I'm more likely to trust some guy smashing his head repeatedly into a keyboard than I am to trust Faux News.

Hell, If I want accurate information, I'm more likely to trust some guy smashing his head repeatedly into a keyboard than I am to trust Faux News.

FAUXNews caters to the lowest common denominator. The kinds of people who make "Reality Television" and Jerry Springer a constant hit. And of course, they're winning by sheer numbers thus their consensus view of reality tends to be strong in most of the continental U.S.

dk is living proof that in order to be embarrassingly wrong, someone must be able to be embarrassed by their wrongness in the first place.

did we actually chase dk out of the thread by laughing at him? what of my beautiful proof?

What's funny is that the media is following him around, but he gave NO media interviews in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel.

I guess his campaign doesn't want him to accidentally say something he'll be called on later.

He met with major leaders, the troops, the people. Don't you think the media who were there would have found a gaffe or mistake? Just because he didn't have a press conference doesn't make it a milk run. He can fuck up as much there as he could talking to the writers pool.

Translation:

"LALALALALALALALA there's no bias LALALALALALALALALALA!"

Daily Show just now: They showed you how many times the news media called Barack, Osama Bin Laden. Everyone wants to look for a gaffe, like not knowing the differences between Shia and Sunni on your own trip to the middle east. There's bias all around folks. It depends on the organization and the individual people.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml
See That Video In The Corner There? You Might Find It Worth Your Time To Play Just A Minute Of It.

Epic Fail Dk

It looks like he doesn't trust them.

For a while now, he hasn't really spoken to reporters or taken any questions, especially on his trip around the Middle East.

What's funny is that the media is following him around, but he gave NO media interviews in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel.

I guess his campaign doesn't want him to accidentally say something he'll be called on later.

Not in Iraq or Afghanistan by the mainstream media. Andrea Mitchell, someone who is definitely in place to know, and defnintely a friend of Obama, is wondering why he's doing staged interviews without the mainstream media present.

Maybe you need the Internet access.

No, the interview was on the phone.

According to Andrea Mitchell, no one from the press was allowed to interview him on camera on the ground. Ever.



since i was gone all day i thought it would be fun to review hotwife's "story drift" where he starts out claiming one thing, its shown to be wrong, then he moves the goal posts pretending that this is what he has been claiming all along.

even if no one was allowed to interview him on camera on the ground in afghanistan (which im doubting) so what? he has given plenty of interviews on this mid east trip.

but maybe he has given NO interviews to left handed armenian-american reporters between the hours of midnight and 3 am while he was in afghanistan....THE BASTARD.

but maybe he has given NO interviews to left handed armenian-american reporters between the hours of midnight and 3 am while he was in afghanistan....THE BASTARD.

As if being a closet Muslim sleeper operative for Osama Bin Ladin who happens to have a Whitey-Hatin' Christian Pastor wasn't bad enough, this comes out about Barack Hussein Osama.

Clearly we must vote for George W. Bush again or the terrorists win.

The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq.

The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/

Was the New York Times supporting Obama? Or was the essay just not good enough?

Or was the essay just not good enough?

this - it's sort of just a whiny response to obama. letter to the editor material, maybe. especially if it was sent to a local paper.

All Obama has to do now is minimize his public statements, minimize or carefully sculpt his interviews (only with friendly reporters with friendly editors), and avoid any gaffes, and he'll be President just like the sun comes up in the morning. His campaign staff already appears to be following this by keeping him from open news conferences and open questioning, as well as restricting who actually gets to interview him.

If I were Obama, I wouldn't even debate McCain, because that would be giving McCain publicity.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/

Was the New York Times supporting Obama? Or was the essay just not good enough?

At this point, I'll take them at their word that they want something more substantive from McCain. If he submits something that does clearly outline his plans, and they reject it, then it'll look like bias.

Yes, the media probably are supporting Obama, and may have a bias towards liberal candidates as a whole. After all, people in the media are often well-educated and broad-minded, and thus are notably prone to choose whoever is the better candidate :p

At this point, I'll take them at their word that they want something more substantive from McCain. If he submits something that does clearly outline his plans, and they reject it, then it'll look like bias.

His paper was already posted on the Internet. It seemed substantive enough.

His paper was already posted on the Internet. It seemed substantive enough.

It's as substantive as a stump speech. In other words, not very. There are no specific details. It's just "Obama's plan sucks and we should do [vague idea] instead. "I'm so sad that Obama disagrees with me." And so on....

It's as substantive as a stump speech. In other words, not very. There are no specific details. It's just "Obama's plan sucks and we should do [vague idea] instead. "I'm so sad that Obama disagrees with me." And so on....

Nothing wrong with that. Instead of telling McCain what to do, the paper should just have published it.

That way, instead of the paper making its mind up for everyone, everyone could make up their own mind.

But I guess that doesn't wash with people who want a government to tell us how to think.

Nothing wrong with that. Instead of telling McCain what to do, the paper should just have published it.

Why? Newspapers should report facts and McCain didn't present any. He basically attacked Obama's position without detailing anything about his own, which makes the piece unsuitable for printing.

Why? Newspapers should report facts and McCain didn't present any. He basically attacked Obama's position without detailing anything about his own, which makes the piece unsuitable for printing.

Obama didn't present any "facts" either - no proof, for instance, that any of his ideas would actually work.

Seriously, a newspaper should just print what they say and let the people make up their own minds.

Attacking the other candidate's position is a long standing tradition in politics. Obama does it to McCain as well, and that gets reported in the news. Should we censor that out then? Or do your rules only apply to McCain?

He basically attacked Obama's position without detailing anything about his own, which makes the piece unsuitable for printing.
How so?

Should newspapers not print opinion pages now?

Nothing wrong with that. Instead of telling McCain what to do, the paper should just have published it.

Why? Isn't it up to the paper what sorts of things they publish?

Meanwhile, it's a bit silly to move from "It is substantial!" to "Ok, there's no substance but they should publish it anyways!" Do make up your mind.

That way, instead of the paper making its mind up for everyone, everyone could make up their own mind.

Actually, that's why the paper wants a different type of essay from McCain. They want opposing essays that actually present the same basic information from both candidates - namely, their actual plans. That way, people can examine both plans and make an informed decision.

But I guess that doesn't wash with people who want a government to tell us how to think.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Seriously, a newspaper should just print what they say and let the people make up their own minds.


Absolutely not. This is, in fact, exactly what they should not do.

Why? Isn't it up to the paper what sorts of things they publish?

Meanwhile, it's a bit silly to move from "It is substantial!" to "Ok, there's no substance but they should publish it anyways!" Do make up your mind.



Actually, that's why the paper wants a different type of essay from McCain. They want opposing essays that actually present the same basic information from both candidates - namely, their actual plans. That way, people can examine both plans and make an informed decision.



What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Everyone is going to have a different idea of what "substantial" means.

Tell you what, since you don't want anyone attacking Obama's ideas in the news, we'll cancel the debates, as that format involves mandatory attacking of the opponent.

A newspaper reports the news - whatever the candidates say (or fail to say) is news.

It's clear that the NYT wants Obama to win, for McCain to get no coverage, and to tell us what to think and who to vote for. So it has everything to do with it.

I'm sure if they were pro-McCain in this way, you would be vitriolic.

Attacking the other candidate's position is a long standing tradition in politics. Obama does it to McCain as well, and that gets reported in the news. Should we censor that out then? Or do your rules only apply to McCain?

Reported in the news != printed essay.

Has the newspaper printed an essay of Obama's dedicated solely to attacking McCain's position, rather than setting forth his own? If not, there is no issue here.

Sorry to be a hassle guys, but did I miss the memo that said that privately owned newspapers and TV shows had to be totally neutral? Should the people in charge be saying "I know that I think this candidate is by far the best choice for America, I know that we can influence public opinion through our reporting, but, hey lets act directly against what I perceive to be the interests of America by not supporting my favourite candidate"?

Reported in the news != printed essay.

Has the newspaper printed an essay of Obama's dedicated solely to attacking McCain's position, rather than setting forth his own? If not, there is no issue here.

Heck, if Obama says it, we'll publish it as the truth, even if it's an outright lie.

[quote=Obama]Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.[/quote[

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Or any of its subcommittees. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee’s action as one of “my deeds.”

http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Information.Membership

They'll print the op-ed of known killers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/opinion/20yousef.html?ex=1339992000&en=a03536767f5edaf1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

But not McCain....

Tell you what, since you don't want anyone attacking Obama's ideas in the news, we'll cancel the debates, as that format involves mandatory attacking of the opponent.

Having fun with that strawman?

A newspaper reports the news - whatever the candidates say (or fail to say) is news.

If that were true, we'd need transcripts of everything they say on every subject all day long.

It's clear that the NYT wants Obama to win, for McCain to get no coverage, and to tell us what to think and who to vote for. So it has everything to do with it.

That's clear, is it?

Seems to me that it's more similar to students who can't/won't back up their viewpoints and then whine when they get bad grades in classes and blame it on a teacher who is supposedly persecuting them for their beliefs.

The New York Time has printed op-eds from McCain before, so it isn't that they just hate him and won't print anything he says. It's that this particular essay is not what they're looking to print at this time.

I'm sure if they were pro-McCain in this way, you would be vitriolic.

If they had published an essay in which McCain set out his plans for Iraq and then requested the same type of essay from Obama, I would expect Obama to write an essay that met those requirements or STUFU.

Attacking the other candidate's position is a long standing tradition in politics. Obama does it to McCain as well, and that gets reported in the news. Should we censor that out then? Or do your rules only apply to McCain?

The fact that a privately owned newspaper lets candidates use their pages for their purposes provided submission criteria are met.

There were rules to be followed. Obama followed them. McCain did not. Obama got published. McCain did not. McCain was afforded the same opportunity Obama had, he failed to follow the rules.

That's not censorship, that's not favoritism, that's applying a set of rules equally. Rules that McCain apparently either didn't understand, or didn't think applied to him.

I myself am more worried about his religious background and bad patriotism.

And I'm worried about McCain's Pedophilia and his ties to Beelzebub.

See, I can make up things to be "worried about" too, One-Post-Wonder.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/beck.obama.media/index.html


Of course, anecdotal evidence that Obama probably polls somewhere around 95 percent with members of the media has been around for years, but now there are some actual statistics to back it up.

According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

And then you have the almost embarrassing way the media have gushed over Obama's trip to the Middle East. There were 200 requests for the 40 press seats available on Obama's plane, and all three top network anchors (Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams) made the trip and are broadcasting live from each country Obama visits.

You can't buy that kind of publicity. And neither could McCain.

McCain made a trip to the Middle East in March and didn't have to worry about finding seats for any network anchors, because none of them wanted to go. And while Obama was flying from country to country this week in a plane packed with celebrity reporters, McCain flew to an event in New Hampshire. After his Boeing 737 landed in Manchester, he stepped out onto the tarmac and glanced at the one reporter who'd bothered to show up. Yes, one.

And then you have the print media's fascination with Obama. He's been on the cover of U.S. News and World Report, GQ, Rolling Stone, US Weekly (twice), Time and Newsweek (a combined 12 times) and will soon be on the cover of Men's Vogue for the second time. To be fair, Men's Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn't make their cover.

Sorry to be a hassle guys, but did I miss the memo that said that privately owned newspapers and TV shows had to be totally neutral? Should the people in charge be saying "I know that I think this candidate is by far the best choice for America, I know that we can influence public opinion through our reporting, but, hey lets act directly against what I perceive to be the interests of America by not supporting my favourite candidate"?

If they were open and honest with it, that would be fine.

Take Limbaugh and Hannity, for instance. Both of these guys are Conservative commentators who don't have a shred of objectivity on their shows. The difference is that they don't pretend otherwise.

Heck, if Obama says it, we'll publish it as the truth, even if it's an outright lie.

[quote=Obama]Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.[/quote[

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Or any of its subcommittees. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee’s action as one of “my deeds.”

http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Information.Membership


Imagine what would have happened if McCain couldn't remember what committee Obama was assigned to? The press would have a field day with it.

But we don't have to imagine, do we? The press is already having a field day with some trivial detail about when the surge started...

Let's get on to something substantial, aside from Iraq. What about the 2011 tax increases? What about immigration? What about the imminent bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicaid?

Boy, I'd almost pay money to see a town meeting with both these guys present.

If they were open and honest with it, that would be fine.

Take Limbaugh and Hannity, for instance. Both of these guys are Conservative commentators who don't have a shred of objectivity on their shows. The difference is that they don't pretend otherwise.

You must be listening to a different Limbaugh. I've heard him claim more than once that he's just giving the facts, not his opinion. Of course, this was generally when the "facts" he was giving were blatantly false.

You must be listening to a different Limbaugh. I've heard him claim more than once that he's just giving the facts, not his opinion. Of course, this was generally when the "facts" he was giving were blatantly false.

Whether you agree or disagree with the facts is one thing, but I've heard him admit plenty of times he's not there to be objective.

Gawd if only we could get CBS, NBC or ABC to admit it...

(Hey, did you get a TG from me?)

(Hey, did you get a TG from me?)

Maybe. *goes to check*

Edit: Yup, responded.

Imagine what would have happened if McCain couldn't remember what committee Obama was assigned to? The press would have a field day with it.

But we don't have to imagine, do we? The press is already having a field day with some trivial detail about when the surge started...

Let's get on to something substantial, aside from Iraq. What about the 2011 tax increases? What about immigration? What about the imminent bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicaid?

Boy, I'd almost pay money to see a town meeting with both these guys present.

Trivial detail?
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention. It's not trivial because he's attempting to attribute causality where it is impossible. He's trying to claim that the surge is responsible for things that happened before it did. That's hardly trivial.

Anyway, as far as gaffes go, I would argue the opposite. Imagine if Barack Obama didn't know that there was no such country as Czechoslovakia, or if he thought that Iraq and Pakistan shared a border, or if he didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia. It would utterly ruin his candidacy, the press would report it so much. Sure, they report it some now, but if Obama had said those things, it'd be the number 1 story on all the news networks.

I mean hell, look how much they covered Reverend Wright. An utterly ridiculous story, one that's not substantive or important at all. But it was the number 1 story for weeks, it seemed. Imagine if a pastor associated with McCain had said something like that. They probably would have hardly cared.

Oh wait, a pastor whose endorsement McCain sought said that Hitler was sent by God as a part of his divine plan. Just a bit worse than saying that 9/11 was largely a result of American foreign policy, no?
Yet what got reported more? Rev. Wright did.

I mean hell, look how much they covered Reverend Wright. An utterly ridiculous story, one that's not substantive or important at all. But it was the number 1 story for weeks, it seemed. Imagine if a pastor associated with McCain had said something like that. They probably would have hardly cared.

Oh wait, a pastor whose endorsement McCain sought said that Hitler was sent by God as a part of his divine plan. Just a bit worse than saying that 9/11 was largely a result of American foreign policy, no?
Yet what got reported more? Rev. Wright did.

But Reverend Wright is an angry black man! Clearly, that is more important than a crazy old white guy.

Also, America is awesome and anyone who criticizes it hates the soldiers and democracy. But blaming natural disasters on the gays and libruls is perfectly acceptable.

But Reverend Wright is an angry black man! Clearly, that is more important than a crazy old white guy.

Also, America is awesome and anyone who criticizes it hates the soldiers and democracy. But blaming natural disasters on the gays and libruls is perfectly acceptable.

Of course! I feel so stupid now: I forgot that angry people become so much worse if they have darker skin.

Trivial detail?
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention. It's not trivial because he's attempting to attribute causality where it is impossible. He's trying to claim that the surge is responsible for things that happened before it did. That's hardly trivial.

Anyway, as far as gaffes go, I would argue the opposite. Imagine if Barack Obama didn't know that there was no such country as Czechoslovakia, or if he thought that Iraq and Pakistan shared a border, or if he didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia. It would utterly ruin his candidacy, the press would report it so much. Sure, they report it some now, but if Obama had said those things, it'd be the number 1 story on all the news networks.

I mean hell, look how much they covered Reverend Wright. An utterly ridiculous story, one that's not substantive or important at all. But it was the number 1 story for weeks, it seemed. Imagine if a pastor associated with McCain had said something like that. They probably would have hardly cared.

Oh wait, a pastor whose endorsement McCain sought said that Hitler was sent by God as a part of his divine plan. Just a bit worse than saying that 9/11 was largely a result of American foreign policy, no?
Yet what got reported more? Rev. Wright did.
But it's okay for Obama not to know what Senate committees he serves on. You make my point.

Heck, if Obama says it, we'll publish it as the truth, even if it's an outright lie.

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.

Link??

But Reverend Wright is an angry black man! Clearly, that is more important than a crazy old white guy.

Also, America is awesome and anyone who criticizes it hates the soldiers and democracy. But blaming natural disasters on the gays and libruls is perfectly acceptable.

I think a good share of why Wright was so reported was because he didn't shut up. McCain's odd supporters tend to be quieter than Wright, who really was enjoying the media attention.

But it's okay for Obama not to know what Senate committees he serves on. You make my point.

Because he said that?

Oh, wait, he didn't. He just pointed out a discrepancy in reporting about Obama and McCain.

Actually, we still have no evidence that Obama was ever mistaken about what committee he was on, except for Hotwife's say-so, which actually counts negative.

Actually, we still have no evidence that Obama was ever mistaken about what committee he was on, except for Hotwife's say-so, which actually counts negative.

I googled it and found the following:

Note that (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/barack_obama_gaffe.html)
I do (http://www.topix.com/forum/news/2008-presidential-election/TIF8040TFNLET9CQ1/p316)
not support (http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/3259064/)
These links. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27663&page=1)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/obama-incorrectly-claims-membership-of-senate-committee/

(CNN) – Responding to an Israeli reporter’s question Wednesday on his commitment to protect the Jewish state, Barack Obama pointed to a bill “we passed” in the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that tightens sanctions and authorizes divestment from Iran. “My committee,” he called it.

Except that he isn’t a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

“Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon,” Obama said at a press conference in Sderot, Israel.

In a press release from Obama’s Senate office the day the committee passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, Obama applauded its passage and pointed to provisions included that he had offered in the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007.

The Republican National Committee quickly responded Wednesday morning with an e-mail highlighting the gaffe. Obama’s campaign has not yet responded to CNN’s request for clarification of his remark.

UPDATE: An Obama spokesman tells CNN “it was his bill, not his committee,” referring to the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act that the Illinois senator sponsored and introduced in May 2007. The measure was then referred to the Banking Committee, and passed a vote of 19-2 on July 17.

In a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Obama told the former Israeli Prime Minister, “I could fall asleep now standing up,” after Netanyahu asked him how his whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe is going.

Looks to me like he was tired and made a slip. The big deal being what? Let the press have their hay day with it. I doubt anyone important will care about something so minor.

Oh wait, a pastor whose endorsement McCain sought said that Hitler was sent by God as a part of his divine plan. Just a bit worse than saying that 9/11 was largely a result of American foreign policy, no?
Yet what got reported more? Rev. Wright did.

Yeah, but the big difference is that John Hagee wasn't McCain's pastor, let alone a close friend who married him and his wife, for 20 years.

Yeah, but the big difference is that John Hagee wasn't McCain's pastor, let alone a close friend who married him and his wife, for 20 years.

*Prepares to circulate moar E-mails about Obamas Bisexual polygamous pastor*

Had to:D

Looks to me like he was tired and made a slip. The big deal being what? Let the press have their hay day with it. I doubt anyone important will care about something so minor.
/disagree

I believe he was pandering to the Israelis like a typical politician.

Three responses will happen.

Obama Worshippers (See, KOL, Dempublicents1, a few others I don't remember) "Oh, it's just a slip! He was tired! He isn't a normal politician! Change!Change!Change!"

Obama haters(See: Hotwife, Oningrad) "See? See? Obama is obviously a lying stinking dirty tick, who's worse then *Insert other politician here*, and should be banned from running!!!"

Sensible people who support Obama/ are neutral (See: Sumamba Buwhan) "Meh. A slip of the tongue."

Sensible people leaning against Obama "Meh. Just another politician."

Yeah, but the big difference is that John Hagee wasn't McCain's pastor, let alone a close friend who married him and his wife, for 20 years.
exactly

john hagee is a slimeball that mccain sought out for an endorsement. with no other connection between them why look for an endorsement from a man like that?

exactly

john hagee is a slimeball that mccain sought out for an endorsement. with no other connection between them why look for an endorsement from a man like that?

He's a politician. They try to get every semi-important person they can find to support them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/obama-incorrectly-claims-membership-of-senate-committee/



Looks to me like he was tired and made a slip. The big deal being what? Let the press have their hay day with it. I doubt anyone important will care about something so minor.


hmmm, perhaps this will be good for Obama actually - it puts the spotlight on a bill that he introduced and had passed. A bill that should be important to anyone worried about Iran.

hmmm, perhaps this will be good for Obama actually - it puts the spotlight on a bill that he introduced and had passed. A bill that should be important to anyone worried about Iran.

Did you just reply to your own post?

McCain could always try being more interesting.

Did you just reply to your own post?

Yeah - I wanted to expand on what I had said. If I just edited my post, it could have been missed and what I had to say was extremely important. :p

Did you just reply to your own post?

McCain could always try being more interesting.


Colbert is helping on that front with his green screen challenge
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=171579

There's plenty of media bias on it. Those who don't beleive that there's a media bias on it have been listening to Obama's broken record of "Change...Change...Change...Change...Change..." far too long.

All Obama ever says is change. He never actually says anything of merit.

He's catering to dumb fuck yuppie America who are so concentrated on hating Bush that they'll take whatever bullshit gets thrown up in their faces as long as it's "different than Bush."

In his most recent adverts, he begins catering to a more "white" America. There isn't a single black person (other than him, if you'd call him black) in his entire advertisement. He shows still pictures, supposedly showing how he was raised, and pictures showing his call to power, and it's all him being surrounded by white people.

First, he campaigned to raise black votes. Now it's like he's going around with a picket sign *insert random yuppie fuck slogan here* saying HEY I CAN BE WHITE TOO! LOOK AT ALL MY WHITE FAMILEH!

And honestly, as sad as it sounds, I think he's going to be elected president.

:soap: </end>

All Obama ever says is change. He never actually says anything of merit.

He's catering to dumb fuck yuppie America who are so concentrated on hating Bush that they'll take whatever bullshit gets thrown up in their faces as long as it's "different than Bush."

In his most recent adverts, he begins catering to a more "white" America. There isn't a single black person (other than him, if you'd call him black) in his entire advertisement. He shows still pictures, supposedly showing how he was raised, and pictures showing his call to power, and it's all him being surrounded by white people.

First, he campaigned to raise black votes. Now it's like he's going around with a picket sign *insert random yuppie fuck slogan here* saying HEY I CAN BE WHITE TOO! LOOK AT ALL MY WHITE FAMILEH!

And honestly, as sad as it sounds, I think he's going to be elected president.

:soap: </end>

You're so cute!

I like the way you start by saying he's appealing to dumbfucks, and end by assuming he'll carry the popular vote. That's an adorable way of saying that most Americans are dumbfucks!

:fluffle:

In his most recent adverts, he begins catering to a more "white" America. There isn't a single black person (other than him, if you'd call him black) in his entire advertisement

That's it? That's your reasoning? No black people in an advertisement = "catering to white America?"

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it takes a certain lack of displayed idiocy for statements about "dumbfuck America" to have any credibility, and you just lost that credibility.

Colbert is helping on that front with his green screen challenge
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=171579

I'd totally participate, but I lack the mad video skills.

You're so cute!

I like the way you start by saying he's appealing to dumbfucks, and end by assuming he'll carry the popular vote. That's an adorable way of saying that most Americans are dumbfucks!

:fluffle:

Thank you very much :)

Someone had to say it. As an American, I do have to say the large majority (90%) of people I meet in regular America, yes, they are dumbfucks.

When a society is more worried about acquiring shiny things and wet holes to have sexual contact with than anything else, you know you have problems.

That's it? That's your reasoning? No black people in an advertisement = "catering to white America?"

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it takes a certain lack of displayed idiocy for statements about "dumbfuck America" to have any credibility, and you just lost that credibility.

Well if you were paying attention at all to his beginning campaign, you'll notice a change in the ideals he's portraying, the way he is portraying them, and yes, the way his advertisements are set up.

So rather than just flamebait with personal attacks and references to my "idiocy" why don't you prove me wrong?

And if you look at my entire post, I stated in very certain terms, that he is showing his "white" upbringing, and his call to being in politics and government, all the while completely avoiding any reference to anything black or "black America."

And if that's not catering to "white America," then how about you give me your two cents on what is?

Hotwife's say-so, which actually counts negative.

what i like is how he's come back a couple pages later now, hoping we'd all have moved on and forgotten about his recent epic failure. i'm not sure if this is evidence that he is just a troll or is actually that intellectually dishonest.

Well if you were paying attention at all to his beginning campaign, you'll notice a change in the ideals he's portraying, the way he is portraying them, and yes, the way his advertisements are set up.

not really, no

not really, no

Not really. As in, kind of. But not too much for your tastes.


As in, YES.

He has.

:mp5:

Not really. As in, kind of. But not too much for your tastes

no, as in 'he is now saying and doing more or less exactly what he has been saying and doing the whole time'.

exactly

john hagee is a slimeball that mccain sought out for an endorsement. with no other connection between them why look for an endorsement from a man like that?

Well, for better or for worse there are a lot of people out there that could be swayed by Hagee's endorsement; McCain is certainly no fan of the religious right, and they are lukewarm at best towards him, but he knows that he needs them if he wants to win this election. It's been a long time since the Democrats have had as much momentum as they currently do, and he needs all of the support he can get if he wants to win.

Obviously, Hagee's comments were very inappropriate, since the Holocaust cannot be seen as a good thing in any context (especially considering Israel would've certainly been founded at some point even without WWII or the Holocaust).

"Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."

No coverage of that idiotic obamanation quote.

Nope, no lefty media bias round here. Just keep walking. Nothing to see.

No bias round here.

No coverage of John Edwards affair and love child while his wife fights cancer.

Nothing to see here. Did you here that McCain is old and mispeaks???

:soap:

:rolleyes:

Ah, new smileys.

I am a hack who'se only way to debate is to change other peoples posts.
Keep it up. You are making a strong case.
"Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's,"
No news here. Keep moving.

Well, for better or for worse there are a lot of people out there that could be swayed by Hagee's endorsement; McCain is certainly no fan of the religious right, and they are lukewarm at best towards him, but he knows that he needs them if he wants to win this election. It's been a long time since the Democrats have had as much momentum as they currently do, and he needs all of the support he can get if he wants to win.

Obviously, Hagee's comments were very inappropriate, since the Holocaust cannot be seen as a good thing in any context (especially considering Israel would've certainly been founded at some point even without WWII or the Holocaust).

which somehow excuses mr straight talk maverick for snuggling up to this hate monger when it damns obama for a not-so-similar problem?

if its bad for one, isnt it bad for the other?

No bias round here.

No coverage of John Edwards affair and love child while his wife fights cancer.

Nothing to see here. Did you here that McCain is old and mispeaks???

oh im sorry, is edwards the democratic nominee?

why should we care about edwards supposed infidelity?

"Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."

No coverage of that idiotic obamanation quote.


Well, isn't it?

Keep it up. You are making a strong case.

That was my replacement for saying "Snip bullshit post". If that is beyond your grasp, that's your problem alone, boy.

perhaps the media should all pretend to support McCain instead then? Theres nothing to say that any medium cant support whoever they want. If Obama is supported by the media then what of it?

Would you complain that too many old people support McCain or that there is a voter bias towards Obama?

oh im sorry, is edwards the democratic nominee?

why should we care about edwards supposed infidelity?

Don't you see? A democrat might have had sex that wasn't approved by the Bible. :eek:

Does anyone out there still believe there's no media bias on this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/feelin_the_love.html

Really?

I know without following your links that there's media bias in favor of Barack Obama. All I ever hear on the news is Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that, Barack Obama the other, Obama Obama Obama etc., ad nauseam.

I swear I think the media are having an orgy over this man. It's like his name now suddenly is all there is to the media's vocabulary:

"Good morning, sir/ma'am."
"Barack Obama."
"How are you today?"
"Barack Obama."
"Nice weather we're having, don't you agree?"
"Barack Obama."
"Do you know how to say anything else besides just 'Barack Obama'?"
"Barack Obama."

Gee I wonder why?

Young, sexy, black, inspirational man VS McWhitey who half dead already.

Young? hardly. Sexy? My GOD whoever you are take off the rose-tinted glasses and stop refusing to admit he's the same as McCain, a grungedy oldy. Inspirational? That is the one answer that I'd say sucks balls most. He is once again the same as McCain, just a cookie-cutter politician who lies all the time and takes America's bad name even further into the dirt and vomit it sits in.

:soap::mad::gundge::mp5::gas::confused::rolleyes::sniper::upyours::headbang:

:soap::mad::gundge::mp5::gas::confused::rolleyes::sniper::upyours::headbang:

Yeah, yeah, we get it, YOU FOUND THE SMILIES! Good for you, here's a cookie!

Young? hardly.

Erm. Well. Obama is 46. McCain is 71.

Sexy? My GOD whoever you are take off the rose-tinted glasses and stop refusing to admit he's the same as McCain, a grungedy oldy.

Oh, I get it. Anyone old enough to be elected President is "grungedy oldy." Since like, 35 is sooooo old from where you're sittin' in school. Right?

Young? hardly. Sexy? My GOD whoever you are take off the rose-tinted glasses...

Nah. I'd tap that.

I myself am more worried about his religious background and bad patriotism. And every time you complain they say your being "racist".http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/jolt/smilies/soap.gif:soap:

Good point. I don't actually "hate" Obama, but I don't plan on voting for him either. Or McCain, for that matter.

If there weren't media bias, there wouldn't only be two candidates. Let's talk to Bob Barr and Ralph Nader about media bias, shall we?

If there weren't media bias, candidates who are really worth voting for would have half a chance of winning.

And by "candidates who are really worth voting for", I mean "someone other than Republicans or Democrats".

I used to like the Republicans, but now it's getting to the point where they're little (if any) better than the Democrats. There used to be noticeable differences, but now they're becoming six and half a dozen.

EDIT: Of course this is not to say that ALL third party candidates are good choices, but merely that Republicans and Democrats are overrated.

Erm. Well. Obama is 46. McCain is 71.


Oh, I get it. Anyone old enough to be elected President is "grungedy oldy." Since like, 35 is sooooo old from where you're sittin' in school. Right?

Obama's 46 years old? He LOOKS about 26 or so.

If there weren't media bias, candidates who are really worth voting for would have half a chance of winning.

That's probably not anyone's fault in particular.

Looks to me like he was tired and made a slip. The big deal being what? Let the press have their hay day with it. I doubt anyone important will care about something so minor.

It is a pretty big slip. I think it's possible that what he was thinking was that it was his provisions in the bill, and got caught up on talking about the committee, but it is something that I think he should specifically clarify.

Anyone got anything on the official campaign response to coverage on this?

It is a pretty big slip. I think it's possible that what he was thinking was that it was his provisions in the bill, and got caught up on talking about the committee, but it is something that I think he should specifically clarify.

Anyone got anything on the official campaign response to coverage on this?

It's at the bottom of the post of mine that you quoted

UPDATE: An Obama spokesman tells CNN “it was his bill, not his committee,” referring to the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act that the Illinois senator sponsored and introduced in May 2007. The measure was then referred to the Banking Committee, and passed a vote of 19-2 on July 17.

In a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Obama told the former Israeli Prime Minister, “I could fall asleep now standing up,” after Netanyahu asked him how his whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe is going.

He just misplaced 'committee' with 'bill'. It's not uncommon to make that kind of verbal typo, especially if you're dead tired.

Well if you were paying attention at all to his beginning campaign, you'll notice a change in the ideals he's portraying, the way he is portraying them, and yes, the way his advertisements are set up.

Because he didn't have white people or the family who raised him in any earlier adverts?

And if you look at my entire post, I stated in very certain terms, that he is showing his "white" upbringing, and his call to being in politics and government, all the while completely avoiding any reference to anything black or "black America."

And if that's not catering to "white America," then how about you give me your two cents on what is?

Maybe it's simply not catering specifically to any demographic group. It sounds to me like more of the "too black" vs. "not black enough" nonsense that has followed him throughout his political career. If he avoided his family and had an ad full of black faces, you'd be complaining that he's playing the race card. If he doesn't, he's "trying to be white."


Well, for better or for worse there are a lot of people out there that could be swayed by Hagee's endorsement; McCain is certainly no fan of the religious right, and they are lukewarm at best towards him, but he knows that he needs them if he wants to win this election. It's been a long time since the Democrats have had as much momentum as they currently do, and he needs all of the support he can get if he wants to win.

Hopefully, though, he knows that he has actually lost support in some demographics by seeking out the support of "agents of intolerance."

Hopefully, though, he knows that he has actually lost support in some demographics by seeking out the support of "agents of intolerance."

You know, I somewhat hope that he doesn't realize this until after the election. :D

Young? hardly. Sexy? My GOD whoever you are take off the rose-tinted glasses and stop refusing to admit he's the same as McCain, a grungedy oldy. Inspirational? That is the one answer that I'd say sucks balls most. He is once again the same as McCain, just a cookie-cutter politician who lies all the time and takes America's bad name even further into the dirt and vomit it sits in.
You do realize most of that statement was suppose to be in jest, right? I don't really want to have sex with him, for example, but he does look pretty young, more young then Edwards or Hillery, or McCain or Bush, or any of those other politicians you usually see.

As for taking America's bad name for a ride, A lot of people outside of the US wouldn't mind if Obama where to get elected.

It's at the bottom of the post of mine that you quoted

In other words, Dem should read the article, instead of assuming it's the same info she already found.

Thanks, SB!

He just misplaced 'committee' with 'bill'. It's not uncommon to make that kind of verbal typo, especially if you're dead tired.

That's pretty much what I thought.


You know, I somewhat hope that he doesn't realize this until after the election.

Well, there is that....

Obama's 46 years old? He LOOKS about 26 or so.

Yeah, I was surprised too. Of course I knew he was at least over 35... ;)

Because he didn't have white people or the family who raised him in any earlier adverts?

Maybe it's simply not catering specifically to any demographic group. It sounds to me like more of the "too black" vs. "not black enough" nonsense that has followed him throughout his political career. If he avoided his family and had an ad full of black faces, you'd be complaining that he's playing the race card. If he doesn't, he's "trying to be white."


In my personal views, I don't give a rats ass whether someone is black, white, asian, a cucumber, or anything else. I'll vote or not vote for them based off of their political agenda, and whether I believe they would run this country the way it needs to be run.

So no, I wouldn't be complaining at all. Because looking past his skin color and who is in his adverts, I think he's one of the shittiest people the dems could have picked to represent them. At least they didn't try Kerry again.

The thing about his campaign that has to do with change, is changing what he is saying to cater to some other demographic of America. If he gets into office, which I think he will, it'll be all the same shit that's been happening in America just in a different place. Look at FISA, he based a majority of his beginning campaign saying he'll NEVER support it, and vote against it no matter what. Now what is he saying? He'll vote FOR it, regardless of what's in it.

He is an inexperienced, yuppie candidate, saying what everyone wants to hear, trying to please everybody, rather than actually trying to start something beneficial for this country. And hippie America that thinks they will change the world by spending their lives making bead jewelry to sell at arts and crafts fairs is going to elect him, and send this country into even more shit than we are already in.

Do you Americans honestly believe that electing a black man will suddenly save America from the evils and incompetence of whitey? That's pretty much what I've been getting out of this for the past year.

Do you Americans honestly believe that electing a black man will suddenly save America from the evils and incompetence of whitey? That's pretty much what I've been getting out of this for the past year.
No.

If that's what you've been getting, then you haven't been paying attention.

Do you Americans honestly believe that electing a black man will suddenly save America from the evils and incompetence of whitey? That's pretty much what I've been getting out of this for the past year.

That's your fault for not paying attention.

No, I've been listening, and all I've heard is "He's black! Yaaaaay!" or "He's different! Yaaaaay!".

Do you Americans honestly believe that electing a black man will suddenly save America from the evils and incompetence of whitey? That's pretty much what I've been getting out of this for the past year.


We we haven't accused you of paying attention have we?

You must have dreamt that someone claimed that because I haven't seen anyone say such a thing.

No, I've been listening, and all I've heard is "He's black! Yaaaaay!" or "He's different! Yaaaaay!".

The voices in your head do not count.

No, I've been listening, and all I've heard is "He's black! Yaaaaay!" or "He's different! Yaaaaay!".

Please point us to this multitude of statements where we've all cheered about his blackness and how it will save us from whitey. linky stinky

*cue the crickets*

We we haven't accused you of paying attention have we?

You must have dreamt that someone claimed that because I haven't seen anyone say such a thing.

Nobody actually SAYS it, genius. But it's what they mean. "Change". Hahaha, bullshit. We had that shit too, "New Leadership" it was over here. You know what our New Leader's greatest achievement is? He set up a system telling us how expensive petrol is, and then does nothing about it.

Nobody actually SAYS it, genius. But it's what they mean. "Change". Hahaha, bullshit. We had that shit too, "New Leadership" it was over here. You know what our New Leader's greatest achievement is? He set up a system telling us how expensive petrol is, and then does nothing about it.

Oh so no one ACTUALLY said what you claimed that EVERYBODY has been saying? Gotcha.

Oh so no one ACTUALLY said what you claimed that EVERYBODY has been saying? Gotcha.

Whatever people say, they're secretly talking about bananas...why is everyone so obsessed with bananas?

Oh so no one ACTUALLY said what you claimed that EVERYBODY has been saying? Gotcha.

The only reason everybody loves Obama is because he's superficially the opposite of your current President. That doesn't mean he isn't going to completely fuck up your country. But then again, if you can find a way to fuck up the US that hasn't already been implemented, I'd like to hear about it.

Whatever people say, they're secretly talking about bananas...why is everyone so obsessed with bananas?

All I hear is "Bananas, bananas, bananas". What's wrong with apricots once in a while?

Nobody actually SAYS it, genius. But it's what they mean. "Change". Hahaha, bullshit. We had that shit too, "New Leadership" it was over here. You know what our New Leader's greatest achievement is? He set up a system telling us how expensive petrol is, and then does nothing about it.

Where do you live? Australia?

Where do you live? Australia?

Yep. 21 million people, and they all voted for some guy who has no policies and looks like a pedophile, simply because he's not the previous guy. It's like a goddamn grotesque parody of that Simpsons episode, except it's a reality and I'm living it.

Lisa: She still embodies all the awful stereotypes she did before!
Simthers: But she's got a new hat.

lol Australia

Yep. 21 million people, and they all voted for some guy who has no policies and looks like a pedophile, simply because he's not the previous guy.
Uhu.

John Howard is a joke and as to the other guy "looking like a pedophile", that's maybe the most retarded argument against a politician I've ever heard.

The only reason everybody loves Obama is because he's superficially the opposite of your current President. That doesn't mean he isn't going to completely fuck up your country. But then again, if you can find a way to fuck up the US that hasn't already been implemented, I'd like to hear about it.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/21/Carnac.jpg

(Carnac holds the sealed envelope up to his turban)

CARNAC: Skin Color.

ED McMAHON: Skin Color.

(Carnac rips the envelope open and removes the card)

CARNAC (reading): What determines how a liberal will vote?

Uhu.

John Howard is a joke and as to the other guy "looking like a pedophile", that's maybe the most retarded argument against a politician I've ever heard.

Are you fucking insane? Ever since Rudd came to power, the economy has gone to total shit and, again, his big plan for relieving the crunch of gas prices was to create a system where they tell you how expensive the petrol is, and then do nothing about it.

Oh, and don't forget that forum he created where he invited lots of intelligensia (and some of them weren't even that) to come and create policies for him, because he doesn't fucking HAVE ANY.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/21/Carnac.jpg

(Carnac holds the sealed envelope up to his turban)

CARNAC: Skin Color.

ED McMAHON: Skin Color.

(Carnac rips the envelope open and removes the card)

CARNAC (reading): What determines how a liberal will vote?

Pretty much, actually. At least, an American "liberal". That entire political system is a joke.

Media bias? Why on Earth would anyone think that?? :eek:

However, we are all free to make our own INFORMED assessments.

Are you fucking insane? Ever since Rudd came to power, the economy has gone to total shit and, again, his big plan for relieving the crunch of gas prices was to create a system where they tell you how expensive the petrol is, and then do nothing about it.
Uhu...

The world economy has completely gone to shit in the last 6 months or so. Can't particularly blame the credit crunch and tensions in the Middle East on Rudd, when the US is the main source of blame...

As to the rising price of petrol - what the fuck else do you want him to do? Put up taxes massively and have the government subsidise petrol? Not going to happen.
Oh, and don't forget that forum he created where he invited lots of intelligensia (and some of them weren't even that) to come and create policies for him, because he doesn't fucking HAVE ANY.
As opposed to John Howard who also doesn't have any policies and who largely relies on the support of Rupert Murdoch to get into power?

Are you fucking insane? Ever since Rudd came to power, the economy has gone to total shit and, again, his big plan for relieving the crunch of gas prices was to create a system where they tell you how expensive the petrol is, and then do nothing about it.

Oh, and don't forget that forum he created where he invited lots of intelligensia (and some of them weren't even that) to come and create policies for him, because he doesn't fucking HAVE ANY.
See, these are reasonable objections... so why bother with the whole "looks like a pedophile" bit? Just for giggles? Because all pedophiles look alike? Some kind of subtle play on the whole media bias thing?

:confused:

Uhu...

The world economy has completely gone to shit in the last 6 months or so. Can't particularly blame the credit crunch and tensions in the Middle East on Rudd, when the US is the main source of blame...

As to the rising price of petrol - what the fuck else do you want him to do? Put up taxes massively and have the government subsidise petrol? Not going to happen.

As opposed to all the other shit he's spending taxpayer's money on? Sure. Labor are well known for bankrupting the country every time they're in power.

As opposed to John Howard who also doesn't have any policies and who largely relies on the support of Rupert Murdoch to get into power?

In a time where the world economy's fucked, John Howard's pretty much the guy you want in power.

See, these are reasonable objections... so why bother with the whole "looks like a pedophile" bit? Just for giggles? Because all pedophiles look alike? Some kind of subtle play on the whole media bias thing?

:confused:

Well Jim, the main reason would have to be because he actually does look like a pedophile.

Well Jim, the main reason would have to be because he actually does look like a pedophile.

Which is in some way relevant to whether or not people should vote for him?

Which is in some way relevant to whether or not people should vote for him?

Hell yes.

As opposed to all the other shit he's spending taxpayer's money on? Sure.
You're absolutely sure that spending less on education and healthcare and more on petrol is a good idea?
Labor are well known for bankrupting the country every time they're in power.
That's what happens when you give people four years to try to develop some kind of sensible economic policies despite the grassroots supporters being champagne socialists...
In a time where the world economy's fucked, John Howard's pretty much the guy you want in power.
Err why?

So he can blow it on the military instead?
Well Jim, the main reason would have to be because he actually does look like a pedophile.
... seriously, I'd give up this line of attack if I was you...

You're absolutely sure that spending less on education and healthcare and more on petrol is a good idea?

Well, since petrol makes for transport, and cost of transport adds to cost of food, and I'm sure none of us like starving, FUCK YES.

... seriously, I'd give up this line of attack if I was you...

Never!

Hell yes.

It looks to me like you are projecting then, when you say liberals in the US are voting for Obama because of how he looks. You are the only one here claiming that the way a person looks qualifies or disqualifies someone from being electable.

It looks to me like you are projecting then, when you say liberals in the US are voting for Obama because of how he looks. You are the only one here claiming that the way a person looks qualifies or disqualifies someone from being electable.

Well, I figure, we're all fucked anyway, so I might as well elect them based on looks, I mean, why bother actually thinking?

Well, since petrol makes for transport, and cost of transport adds to cost of food, and I'm sure none of us like starving, FUCK YES.
... yes, I'm sure Australians are dying in the streets from famine due to their food costing slightly more, just as the situation is in Britain... ho hum.

... yes, I'm sure Australians are dying in the streets from famine due to their food costing slightly more, just as the situation is in Britain... ho hum.

Well, it's hardly ideal. And, have you ever LOOKED at a map of Australia? This place is fucking HUGE. What's Britain, half the size of Victoria?

Well, it's hardly ideal.
Same in the UK...
And, have you ever LOOKED at a map of Australia?
Aye. I lol'd.
This place is fucking HUGE.
Aye, get some trains, n00bs.
What's Britain, half the size of Victoria?
About 80% of the size of Victoria.

Aye, get some trains, n00bs.

Melbourne's public transport system is woeful, and Sydney's is worse.

Melbourne's public transport system is woeful, and Sydney's is worse.
Yeah, I mean "lay some tracks so you can cart yer food about somewhat faster and with less petrol" to be honest :p

Yeah, I mean "lay some tracks so you can cart yer food about somewhat faster and with less petrol" to be honest :p

Australia's a pain in the ass. You basically need a car in this country.

Australia's a pain in the ass. You basically need a car in this country.

Dude, he's not talking about a transit train...

Dude, he's not talking about a transit train...

Yeah, and that would be a fine idea, until you remember that apart from small patches on the coasts, Australia has no infrastructure. It'd be insanely expensive.

Yeah, and that would be a fine idea, until you remember that apart from small patches on the coasts, Australia has no infrastructure. It'd be insanely expensive.

Well, shipping it by truck isn't going to get any cheaper...

Yeah, and that would be a fine idea, until you remember that apart from small patches on the coasts, Australia has no infrastructure. It'd be insanely expensive.
The benefits of it would be fairly massive, especially if you powered the system on nuclear power.

Are you fucking insane? Ever since Rudd came to power, the economy has gone to total shit and, again, his big plan for relieving the crunch of gas prices was to create a system where they tell you how expensive the petrol is, and then do nothing about it.

Oh, and don't forget that forum he created where he invited lots of intelligensia (and some of them weren't even that) to come and create policies for him, because he doesn't fucking HAVE ANY.

what in the world could the PM of australia possibly do to keep down the price of gas? does australia have untapped oil reserves? does rudd give a particularly good blowjob that he has refused to provide to the king of saud?

Yeah, and that would be a fine idea, until you remember that apart from small patches on the coasts, Australia has no infrastructure. It'd be insanely expensive.

Well, shipping it by truck isn't going to get any cheaper...

What about courier bunnies? If you could train rabbits to haul cargo....

What about courier bunnies? If you could train rabbits to haul cargo....
Not sure they have that many rabbits.

But they do have kangaroos. Those would make excellent couriers.

Not sure they have that many rabbits.

But they do have kangaroos. Those would make excellent couriers.

They're basically really big rabbits.

Pretty much, actually. At least, an American "liberal".

which explains why we have suffered for years under the tyranny of the alan keyes presidency

They're basically really big rabbits.
Also they can save disaster victims (see Skippy), and if you don't tip them, they can box yer ears. Happy days.

Well, shipping it by truck isn't going to get any cheaper...

it might. all we need to do is just make sure we are always shipping stuff downhill...

Get over yourself. The conservatives have had a HUGE Bias called Fox news that for some foolish reason the Democrats are too stupid, gutless, whatever, I don't know, to call them on it.

Deal with it.

Just another idiot screaming about Fox News with its HUGE conservative bias. The entire media spectrum is full of liberal bias and the one news outlet that attempts to show the conservative POV is the evil propaganda machine. Check this out if you really want to see which way the media leans:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

Check out the Fox News numbers.

Now shut up.

Let's see..there is a reason the media is covering Obama more than McCain..for one, he is leading in all the polls. Second, he is charismatic, something we havent had for eight years and definitely won't have if McCain wins. Third, people want to watch Obama....which would you prefer? A man who covers his face and pauses when asked a question or a man who can actually answer the question without stutters and nonsensical sentences?

Let's see..there is a reason the media is covering Obama more than McCain..for one, he is leading in all the polls. Second, he is charismatic, something we havent had for eight years and definitely won't have if McCain wins. Third, people want to watch Obama....which would you prefer? A man who covers his face and pauses when asked a question or a man who can actually answer the question without stutters and nonsensical sentences?

Clearly you've never heard Obama answer questions off the cuff.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/media.coverage/index.html

More on this...

Clearly you've never heard Obama answer questions off the cuff.

Uh... um... uhhhh... what? Clearly we... um... uh... Sorry, I am visited all 57 states and I am very tired.

Oh yeah. Telepromptin' awesomeness!

Uh... um... uhhhh... what? Clearly we... um... uh... Sorry, I am visited all 57 states and I am very tired.

And I just got back from the Iraq/Pakistan border.

In my personal views, I don't give a rats ass whether someone is black, white, asian, a cucumber, or anything else.

You clearly do, or you wouldn't be whining about the skin color of people in advertisements.

Look at FISA, he based a majority of his beginning campaign saying he'll NEVER support it, and vote against it no matter what. Now what is he saying? He'll vote FOR it, regardless of what's in it.

He's saying what, again? I'm sure you can show me where he has said he would vote for FISA no matter what was in it, right?

Uh... um... uhhhh... what? Clearly we... um... uh... Sorry, I am visited all 57 states and I am very tired.

Oh yeah. Telepromptin' awesomeness!

You know, when you have to resort to this kind of thing to attack a candidate, you're REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don't do yourself any favors when you try this kind of stunt.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/media.coverage/index.html

More on this...
Didn't we go through this whole thing with Clinton, too? The media was accused of playing favorites with her, too? Only to start roughing her up, once the secret was out?

Look for some backlash as the media makes a vain attempt to be seen as objective.

Didn't we go through this whole thing with Clinton, too? The media was accused of playing favorites with her, too? Only to start roughing her up, once the secret was out?

Look for some backlash as the media makes a vain attempt to be seen as objective.

Three sentences here, on the whole "ZOMG MEDIA FAVORS OBAM0RZ!!!1!1!!11":

A fist bump?

A pound?

A terrorist fist jab?

Three sentences here, on the whole "ZOMG MEDIA FAVORS OBAM0RZ!!!1!1!!11":

A fist bump?

A pound?

A terrorist fist jab?
Like this is the first time the media has ever played favorites? Maybe in the most brash and conspicuous manner ever, but hardly the first.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/media.coverage/index.html

More on this...

The problem with articles like this is the lack of distinction between negative and positive press.

"Obama was talked about more" doesn't necessarily equate to "They like Obama more."

Ann Coulter seems to talk about Obama more than McCain. This doesn't, of course, mean that she likes Obama.

Just another idiot screaming about Fox News with its HUGE conservative bias. The entire media spectrum is full of liberal bias and the one news outlet that attempts to show the conservative POV is the evil propaganda machine.

That's funny.

You set out the premise of 'idiots' screaming about the Fox conservative bias, and then admit that Fox has a conservative agenda...

At least you weren't trying to pretend it was objective.