[quote]Sloth wrote:
Rasmussen daily tracking poll has it 50-46, Romney[/quote]
It is only 2 days 10/20-10/22, but the good news is continued surge and coming in line with Gallop. Well good news for everyone but obama and fanboys.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Rasmussen daily tracking poll has it 50-46, Romney[/quote]
Nice numbers I think that is the widest lead that Romney has had over Obama in any Rasmussen poll.
As I said I think Gallup and Rasmussen the two most accurate polling companies. And now Rasmussen is starting to look more like Gallup.
Ture?
I’m now convinced the members of the Republican party do not want Romney elected.
How hard is it to shut the hell up? Rape is a touchy subject, ergo don’t make any comment on it if you are in danger of sounding like a colossal ass.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m now convinced the members of the Republican party do not want Romney elected.
How hard is it to shut the hell up? Rape is a touchy subject, ergo don’t make any comment on it if you are in danger of sounding like a colossal ass.[/quote]
He isn’t romney. Murdocch isn’t romney. The fact the press is trying to somehow magically make it like romney said this, on the same night the new Libya information broke is pathetic.
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
I mean, if we are going to start with that line, then is obama guilty of DWS’s lack of cognitive ability and denial?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m now convinced the members of the Republican party do not want Romney elected.
How hard is it to shut the hell up? Rape is a touchy subject, ergo don’t make any comment on it if you are in danger of sounding like a colossal ass.[/quote]
He isn’t romney. Murdocch isn’t romney. The fact the press is trying to somehow magically make it like romney said this, on the same night the new Libya information broke is pathetic.
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
I mean, if we are going to start with that line, then is obama guilty of DWS’s lack of cognitive ability and denial?
[/quote]
But people don’t just watch Fox, they watch other networks. It is unbelievable stupid to pretend they don’t, because when you pretend all people watch is Faux news, you become convinced that the media won’t really care what you say as long as you’re a Republican.
Seriously, if you are in politics and you can’t keep your trap shut around sensitive issues, you shouldn’t be in politics. Don’t cry foul about the “liberal” media, play the fucking game.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m now convinced the members of the Republican party do not want Romney elected.
How hard is it to shut the hell up? Rape is a touchy subject, ergo don’t make any comment on it if you are in danger of sounding like a colossal ass.[/quote]
He isn’t romney. Murdocch isn’t romney. The fact the press is trying to somehow magically make it like romney said this, on the same night the new Libya information broke is pathetic.
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
I mean, if we are going to start with that line, then is obama guilty of DWS’s lack of cognitive ability and denial?
[/quote]
But people don’t just watch Fox, they watch other networks. It is unbelievable stupid to pretend they don’t, because when you pretend all people watch is Faux news, you become convinced that the media won’t really care what you say as long as you’re a Republican.
Seriously, if you are in politics and you can’t keep your trap shut around sensitive issues, you shouldn’t be in politics. Don’t cry foul about the “liberal” media, play the fucking game.[/quote]
I’m not pretending anything. People can deny bias in the media all they want, it is there, it is real, and it certainly leans left outside of fox.
The “faux” news quip is cute though.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The “faux” news quip is cute though. [/quote]
Yeah, it was cute about five years ago when it was new now it sounds like sour grapes.
Also, anyone who does not think that there is bias in the main stream media is either a lefty, or an idiot. In fact, some in the main stream liberal media doen’t even deny it anymore. Just as FOX leans right, CNN tips just center left, CBS, ABC, NBS, MSNBC, NY Times, Time Magazine and many others are far left. and of course talk radio is far right.
What is amusing is that everyone knows it. And certainly most viewers admit it. As I said only the far left, or an out right idiot will deny bias (on both sides) at this point.
This is all in the worng tread but whatever:
here is his statement:
[quote]?The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.?
? Richard Mourdock, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana
[/quote]
Here is his opponent co-sponsoring Akin:
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana
Yes it is a hard line stance Mourdock is taking, and no, Romney and Ryan do not share that stance.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is all in the worng tread but whatever:
here is his statement:
[quote]?The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.?
? Richard Mourdock, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana
[/quote]
Here is his opponent co-sponsoring Akin:
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana
Yes it is a hard line stance Mourdock is taking, and no, Romney and Ryan do not share that stance.[/quote]
So he calls rape horrible, and all life a gift from God? /Yawn
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
[/quote]
The first thing that the TV news producers do in the morning–and this absolutely includes the people at Fox–is read the NYT. It has been driving the news for decades and it still does. Obviously, different spins are going to be put on at different organizations, but you can almost invariably trace most hard news back to the Grey Lady and its bureaus. Its people are as pompous and condescending as they come, but there’s a reason for that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is all in the worng tread but whatever:
here is his statement:
[quote]?The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.?
? Richard Mourdock, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana
[/quote]
Here is his opponent co-sponsoring Akin:
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana
Yes it is a hard line stance Mourdock is taking, and no, Romney and Ryan do not share that stance.[/quote]
Ryan yielded to Romney on this, but he used to believe that the “method of conception” didn’t have bearing on the fetus’ status as a living human being.
In my view–and I’m not a liberal on this issue by any means–it’s unbelievably stupid and pretty morally disgusting to describe rape as a “method of conception,” in the same category as sex between lovers.
But of course, none of this has anything to do with Romney.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In my view–and I’m not a liberal on this issue by any means–it’s unbelievably stupid and pretty morally disgusting to describe rape as a “method of conception”…
[/quote]
Well, if you’re talking about conception transpiring from the act…I mean, if people don’t want to hear about conception within a rape, stop asking questions about what happens when conception occurs due to a rape…
If you’re going to frame the question around conception, don’t dare them to call it conception. Conception has a very narrow meaning.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
[/quote]
The first thing that the TV news producers do in the morning–and this absolutely includes the people at Fox–is read the NYT. It has been driving the news for decades and it still does. Obviously, different spins are going to be put on at different organizations, but you can almost invariably trace most hard news back to the Grey Lady and its bureaus. Its people are as pompous and condescending as they come, but there’s a reason for that.[/quote]
Okay, “no one cares” is a bit much, fine… But the idea that a newspaper who’s stock price has been on stead decline since the early 2000’s and is trading at 1995 levels today is somehow this amazing powerhouse that everyone looks to as the sole source of what is or isn’t news isn’t rational either.
I know stock price isn’t the end-all-be-all but “the paper of record” is bias factory these days.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In my view–and I’m not a liberal on this issue by any means–it’s unbelievably stupid and pretty morally disgusting to describe rape as a “method of conception”…
[/quote]
Well, if you’re talking about conception transpiring from the act…I mean, if people don’t want to hear about conception within a rape, stop asking questions about what happens when conception occurs due to a rape…
If you’re going to frame the question around conception, don’t dare them to call it conception. Conception has a very narrow meaning. [/quote]
My issue is with the implication that the differences between rape and marital sex are somehow outweighed by the fact that they are both “methods of conception.”
In other words, it’s a euphemistic way of avoiding having to look in the eyes of a woman who’s been brutalized and subjected to one of the most humiliating and devastating acts in the extensive catalogue of human cruelty and tell her that she has no choice but to spend the better part of the next year slowly giving life to the son or daughter of her assailant.
If you believe that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape, fine. But don’t sterilize it with blithe talk about “methods of conception.” Rape is a method of conception in the same way that suicide is a method of coping with life troubles.
Well, I don’t know how the election is going to turn out. I am cautiously optimistic, but this coming out even in liberal media is not going to help obama…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
[/quote]
The first thing that the TV news producers do in the morning–and this absolutely includes the people at Fox–is read the NYT. It has been driving the news for decades and it still does. Obviously, different spins are going to be put on at different organizations, but you can almost invariably trace most hard news back to the Grey Lady and its bureaus. Its people are as pompous and condescending as they come, but there’s a reason for that.[/quote]
Okay, “no one cares” is a bit much, fine… But the idea that a newspaper who’s stock price has been on stead decline since the early 2000’s and is trading at 1995 levels today is somehow this amazing powerhouse that everyone looks to as the sole source of what is or isn’t news isn’t rational either.
I know stock price isn’t the end-all-be-all but “the paper of record” is bias factory these days. [/quote]
Oh yes, the business of the paper (and pretty much every other) is in shambles, and people have been grumbling for a long time about it’s downfall.
But setting that aside, it is BY FAR the most important news outlet there is, in that other organizations lean on it to a remarkable degree. It’s a newspaper but it is very often playing the part of wire agency.
It’s important to keep in mind, though, that I’m talking about the news pages, not the editorial pages, which are decidedly liberal.
Today’s Real Clear Politics has Romney up 48-47.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, I don’t know how the election is going to turn out. I am cautiously optimistic, but this coming out even in liberal media is not going to help obama…
E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack | CNN [/quote]
Thanks Pat this is something that might drive Obama’s poll numbers down. One reason that Romney may not have mentioned it during the recent debate. Not only didn’t Romney want to get into a heated argument regarding Benghazi, thus being accused of politicizing a tragedy (liberal media’s interpretation). He also knew that if the story had legs it was going to run on its own anyway thus driving obama’s numbers down.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In my view–and I’m not a liberal on this issue by any means–it’s unbelievably stupid and pretty morally disgusting to describe rape as a “method of conception”…
[/quote]
Well, if you’re talking about conception transpiring from the act…I mean, if people don’t want to hear about conception within a rape, stop asking questions about what happens when conception occurs due to a rape…
If you’re going to frame the question around conception, don’t dare them to call it conception. Conception has a very narrow meaning. [/quote]
My issue is with the implication that the differences between rape and marital sex are somehow outweighed by the fact that they are both “methods of conception.”
In other words, it’s a euphemistic way of avoiding having to look in the eyes of a woman who’s been brutalized and subjected to one of the most humiliating and devastating acts in the extensive catalogue of human cruelty and tell her that she has no choice but to spend the better part of the next year slowly giving life to the son or daughter of her assailant.
If you believe that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape, fine. But don’t sterilize it with blithe talk about “methods of conception.” Rape is a method of conception in the same way that suicide is a method of coping with life troubles.[/quote]
Then don’t ask about methods of conception.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.
[/quote]
The first thing that the TV news producers do in the morning–and this absolutely includes the people at Fox–is read the NYT. It has been driving the news for decades and it still does. Obviously, different spins are going to be put on at different organizations, but you can almost invariably trace most hard news back to the Grey Lady and its bureaus. Its people are as pompous and condescending as they come, but there’s a reason for that.[/quote]
Okay, “no one cares” is a bit much, fine… But the idea that a newspaper who’s stock price has been on stead decline since the early 2000’s and is trading at 1995 levels today is somehow this amazing powerhouse that everyone looks to as the sole source of what is or isn’t news isn’t rational either.
I know stock price isn’t the end-all-be-all but “the paper of record” is bias factory these days. [/quote]
Oh yes, the business of the paper (and pretty much every other) is in shambles, and people have been grumbling for a long time about it’s downfall.
But setting that aside, it is BY FAR the most important news outlet there is, in that other organizations lean on it to a remarkable degree. It’s a newspaper but it is very often playing the part of wire agency.
It’s important to keep in mind, though, that I’m talking about the news pages, not the editorial pages, which are decidedly liberal.[/quote]
The editors choose what does and what doesn’t get printed, and where the stories are or aren’t buried.
The fact they control the narrative is the point, and more and more people are fed up with it. As can be evidenced by Fox’s ratings, even though most people know Fox plays it fast and loose and leans right, they are starved for the POV from the “other side”. Fox reports things other people don’t, and to ignore them makes one a self selected ignoramus.