show me proof that they are not biased. You keep saying they are not yet you provide no proof.
[/quote]
I quoted four or five articles on the last page and put out two or three websites.
You’re not even paying attention.
I’ve got more substance in my left nut then you’ve shown on this forum at all.
I hate to tell you fucknut, but politics is mostly about demanding proof, calling name, and calling the other guy a liar while providing no substance to back it up. Ask John McCain.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The woman is under investigation currently for her actions, isn’t she? That’s a pretty big story when your VP candidate is already under fire for corrutpion.
[/quote]
She approached the commission. She started the investigation. Sounds guilty.
Who did, Fox and conservative talk radio? Who broke it?
I’ll hold my breath.
Any sources for anything but puff pieces. Maybe from AP or NYT?
I am not angry at all. I think the press has a duty to dig up as much dirt as they can on candidates. I am glad they are doing this for Palin, although I wish they would stay to pertenant topics and report on both sides of the story.
Purposely leaving out details on “Trooper-Gate”, reporting on book banning that never happened, and pinning Senatorial earmarks on her in not reporting.
I would also like to see them show the same vitriol for Barry. They have almost completely left him alone and only begrudgingly report dirt when Conservative radio or Fox News finds something.
When has the AP or NYT ever broke a negative story on Barry? Why don’t you go find me one and prove that Conservative Radio or Fox didn’t report on it first, Mr Factchecker.
Let’s try anoter little exercise mr paper man. Go get you notepad. Make two columns, one for Palin (the VP candidate) and one for Obama (the POTUS candidate). Now go ahead and list out the “ghosts” you speak of. Who has the longer list, and which ones show a complete lack of judgment and ethics.
Yep, selling a ton of papers these day. Most of America has figured out who is full of shit.
OK, go read either of Bernie Goldberg’s books. He cites plety of examples. If you can stomach Ann Coulter, she gives some good ones as well. I would start with her earlier stuff where she hadn’t completely lost her mind yet. You can either read or keep asking to be spoon fed.
How about this one mr journalist. That took about about 30 seconds. So McCain $22k in 20 years, Barry $126k in 140 days.
Fucking Bush Administration.
How many write for mainstream media? NYT, AP. Wash Post, NBC, CNN? We are talking about the news sources that most Americans read or watch. You may not care but that just puts you in the blind idiot catagory.
yep only the dangers of george bush.
this puts the nail in your idiocy coffin. The dangers of big government are well documented and have been proven over and over again. Just becuase you’re too lazy or stupid to take an interest, does mean it is opinion.
If your going to talk about economics, and want to see explaination for economic disaster in this or any other country, go read some of the Austrian economist. Or just keep talking out of your ass.
I am not irritated at all. I am not sure why you continue to think that I am irritated or angry. I didn’t ask for anyone to make something up, although they seem happy to do so on Palin. How many Barry scandals did the AP, NYT, WP, NBC, or CNN BREAK. Not made up, BREAK. B…R…E…A…K, Break.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
<<< Just a few exsamples for you to chew on. There are swarms of people in Alaska digging up and reporting on everthing they cn find on Palin. Rightfully so, I beleive. I have see little to no real investigative journalism on Barack.
Where is mainstream media on his relationships with Ayers or Rezko? where are the stories on how we got in to the home mortgage mess? Where are the stories on the money Barak and other Dems got from Freddie and Fannie?
Where are the stories on Barack voting against protection for babies that are born alive during abortions? Where are the stories on Barack voting “Present” while in the state senate. Where are the stories on what exactly he has accomplished in the Sentate.
You have got to be kidding me. The most popular papers in the country have turned almost completely into the editorial page. I may not know how the internal workings of an atom bomb work, but i know it will kill me. What does knowing how the media works have to do with recognizing a shit product? >>>[/quote]
Yes.
Here’s another. How bout the Spanish language ad aimed at hispanics in the south proclaiming Mccain as a horrible racist anti immigrant guy when Mccain, along with Bush and much to the dismay of conservatives including me supported amnesty for illegals.
They went so far as to butcher statements by Limbaugh, flat out BUTCHER, I mean MANGLE, and then tie those unforgivably misrepresented quotes to Mccain when Limbaugh opposes Mccain on immigration altogether. The ad ends with “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message”.
Where’s the national reporting on that, when they all skewer the Mccain camp on his ad about sex ed for pre-schoolers for example. That Obama ad was not just dishonest spin, it is blatant fraud.
Where’s the quotes from Mccain in 2005 on the floor of the senate predicting this very disaster with Freddie and Fannie while Obama simply manufactures stories about his.
Democrats efforts to prevent it even though 8 of the top 10 recipients of campaign contributions from them were to Democrats including Dodd, Kerry, Obama and Hillary 1234 respectively. Freddie and Fannie were favorite pets of the Dems since the 90’s.
Where’s the reporting on Obama’s desire to radically weaken our spending on defense and related technologies right when the Russians are on the move, North Korea is in turmoil at the top and Israel may wind up with a Prime Minister who waits until Iran is an outright imminent threat before moving against their nuclear program if at all.
If there ever is a potentially damaging story, like “Rev” Wright, FOX has to break it first and then the others begrudgingly follow because they would be seen as completely lacking if they didn’t.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The media always exaggerates. This is not news. The economy IS in bad shape. It’s not in as bad shape as the media portrays. So? What has no basis in fact are these ludicrous assertions Tiribulus has made that it’s all some liberal media conspiracy.
There is no doubt some unconscious tilt and it’s unavoidable that political ideology of reporters will color how the issues are reported somewhat. There is no active conspiracy. And there is a mostly successful attempt to be fair.
Your philosophy on the government’s proper fiscal role also has no relevance to a discussion about what the media reports. The media’s not orchestrating all the bailouts. It’s just reporting on them.
The media has also been prety harsh on Democrats and Democratic leaders whenever there is something of import to report too.
This is all pretty much horse shit.
The CEO of GE - you know, the company that owns GE has made a conscious effort to embrace its liberalness. Why? Money. Fox has been kicking the shit out of CNBC/MSNBC for 10 years.
Ted Turner is unabashed in his desire to give the liberal slant deference at CNN.
So whne you have the media heads pandering one particular slant over another - you are going to get bias.
I don’t give a flying fuck what Irish says. When the journalists are polled and it comes out that they vote liberal on the order of 5-1, how in the hell can you not know how the reporting is slanted.
But this is old news. The only people who still think that the news we get is unbiased are the same idiots who need to stay away from the polls on election day. [/quote]
You are wrong, most polling data I’ve seen has a 8.5 out of 10 to a 9+ out of 10 difference. This is is presidential elections, so may you arer right overall. The biggest slaughter I remember is about 58-42 or so in a presidential election.
How can be claim to be unbiased when there is such a difference in conservative to liberal voting?