Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, the war hero had a terrible media image prior to the 08’ election didn’t he?

Whahaaha…that’s why he was seen as the lead candidate by both democrats and republicans to take the White House PRIOR to the media frenzy over Obama.

Pit, my 12 year old could have put up a better argument than that one. No wait, he would have been too smart to try to make such an outlandish claim that the mainstream liberal media is actually fair.

You kill me :)[/quote]

You are getting off track again , it is hard to have a conversation about the media when you want to talk about your kids

62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you?

63

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Free ride?
What about him being a muslim, a non -american, being misspelled “Osama”, having ties with terrorists and radicals etc etc.
You cannot accept that he’s simply playing this game better and she’s an amateur.

But: Sometime in the future, republicans will have a better lier, someone like Reagan, who will shine on TV and fool everyone better then his opponents.

It’s just a matter of time. But it just wasn’t Palin’s time (for which we can be thankful, because even Bush was a genius compared to her idiocy. She is completely without reason, integrity, morals, education and honesty as can be easily observed by her behaviour)

[/quote]

Yes Obama did get a free ride. He was not thoroughly vetted by the media. FOX news was the only TV news outlet that dug into his background and because it was FOX who did the investigation that was used to dismiss their findings.

When the other TV news outlets did cover some of those stories you mention they did it in a way as to make it look like it was only a lunatic fringe that was making things up. Here is a quick rundown on those stories.

Obama family on his alleged father side is muslim. In the Indonesian schools part of the day is devoted to religious study so they have reason to ask what religion a student is so they know which group to put them in for the religious study. When Obama enrolled in school in Indonesia he was enrolled as a muslim student. So the notion that Obama is or was muslim is not something that developed with no evidence to suggest it.

The real issue with it however is not that he is or was a muslim but how he has dealt with the issue. Because despite evidence to the contrary he vehemently denies he ever was. Why? Because it is a political liability. Lying to people about something that could be a political liability to him is something that we have every right to take issue with because it is part of a pattern with him and we have reason to suspect he is lying to us on very important issues.

ie When he was in Illinois Obama was one of the most pro gun control politicians in one of the most pro gun control states. Yet all of a sudden when he ran for President he became a supporter of the second amendment because being against the second amendment is a liability in national politics. Now that he is in a position to select supreme court judges Obama is in a position to do severe damage to this most important of constitutional rights.

Where Obama was born is an issue that he could easily have ended. All he has to do is allow access to his vault copy birth certificate. Instead he has fought an extended legal battle that has cost over a million dollars to keep that information secret. Obama himself is doing everything he can to keep this controversy from being ended.

As President Obama has brought some very radical people into the white house ie Van Jones. Obama radical Marxist background was never properly scrutinized when he was running for President. Even FOX was a bit slow bringing that to light.

All those issues I just listed above were relevant newsworthy issues that did not get as much media attention as Bristol Palin pregnancy.

64

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

I understand you are incapable of a conversation , you state your opinion as fact attack everyone with an opinion different than yours . You have yet to state a fact for me to comment on

65

[quote]What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

pardon me if i’m wrong (i live in a socialist country) but i thought the media were free in America.

are you asking for more regulation ?

66

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

I understand you are incapable of a conversation , you state your opinion as fact attack everyone with an opinion different than yours . You have yet to state a fact for me to comment on [/quote]

LOL, You don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. If I say that I think the Steelers will go to the Superbowl this year, that’s an opinion. But, if I say that the Saints won the Super Bowl, that’s a fact.

Got it now?

Fact: Obama received more favorable coverage than did McCain. I have offered evidence to back up that fact.

You began this debate by calling what I was claiming to be fact, rhetoric. When I backed up my claims you then switched to saying that Obama was just a better candidate so he received more favorable coverage.

Take my advice and stick to the training sections on this site.

67

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

pardon me if i’m wrong (i live in a socialist country) but i thought the media were free in America.

are you asking for more regulation ?[/quote]

Where did I say I wanted the media regulated? Do you use straw man arguments where you come from? If so just post on web sites in your country and stay off US sites where you’ll be called out for such nonsense.

68

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

I understand you are incapable of a conversation , you state your opinion as fact attack everyone with an opinion different than yours . You have yet to state a fact for me to comment on [/quote]

LOL, You don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. If I say that I think the Steelers will go to the Superbowl this year, that’s an opinion. But, if I say that the Saints won the Super Bowl, that’s a fact.

Got it now?

Fact: Obama received more favorable coverage than did McCain. I have offered evidence to back up that fact.

You began this debate by calling what I was claiming to be fact, rhetoric. When I backed up my claims you then switched to saying that Obama was just a better candidate so he received more favorable coverage.

Take my advice and stick to the training sections on this site.

[/quote]

You lose track of your self , don’t you . I agree Obama got more favorable coverage than McCain , That is fact. Where opinion comes in I say IMO Obama was a superior candidate , you say he is not . That is my opinion VS: Your opinion Got it ?

69

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

pardon me if i’m wrong (i live in a socialist country) but i thought the media were free in America.

are you asking for more regulation ?[/quote]

Where did I say I wanted the media regulated? Do you use straw man arguments where you come from? If so just post on web sites in your country and stay off US sites where you’ll be called out for such nonsense.
[/quote]

What some have another opinion that little Zebby does not like :slight_smile:

70

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

EYE ROLL, More Republican Rhetoric

[/quote]

So, basically you have no answer to the facts that I’ve posted. Good for you, you are nothing if not consistent.[/quote]

I have had enough of exchanges with you to realize that it is beyond your grasp to communicate
unless the person you are communicating with agrees with you

That is IMO where you and I part ways , I appreciate a different point of view. That is why I come here.[/quote]

You should appreciate a differing view as it’s the correct one. Also, it should be noted that you have one more post and still no response to the facts that I’ve posted.
[/quote]

What facts , your opinion ?
[/quote]

It’s obvious that you are able to go online, right? So, now all you have to do is check to see how many negative stories were run about Obama, vs Hillary. We don’t even have to bring Palin into this, as it’s obvious what the press did to her. Just compare Obama and Hillary. For heaven sakes even SNL did a few skits making fun of how biased the press was toward Obama. It’s not a secret. The mainstream liberal media wanted Obama to be President and now he is.

Those are facts. And I will point out that you have yet one more post and still no response to refute what I’ve pointed out. Come on take off your Reagan hating hat and put on your critical thinking hat and try to come up with a defense as to why the liberal media favored Obama.
[/quote]

These are not facts this is Republican Rhetoric. This is some one that has an inability to distinguish between fact and opinion.[/quote]

Here are some facts for you. Out of all the news outlets the one that was the most favorable to Obama was MSNBC and NBC. MSNBC is owned by General Electric. The same GE whose windmill division stood to make a fortune out of Obama’ green jobs policies.

[/quote]

While there is a conection , there are no FACTS other than there is a conection.

It is ironic but do you see the connection between Cheney and Haliburton ? IMO this is a closer connection
[/quote]

Are you kidding? Obama has been continuously pushing a green agenda that is going to destroy the economy while enriching GE, despite the fact that on his watch the scientists driving the global warming agenda have been shown to be deliberately lying and manipulating their data in order to influence government policy. MSNBC was so biased towards Obama that the reporters at NBC were getting worried it was undermining their credibility as a news organization.

Ah Cheney and Halliburton thanks for bringing up the “Boogeyman”. There is a lot of information regarding the “Boogeyman” that never gets mentioned by the left. Probably because it undermines their “Boogeyman” narrative.

Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush the first. During that time Cheney was put in charge of cutting costs at the Pentagon. One of the cost cutting idea’s they had was to outsource some of the operations that the military performed to private industry. ie Catering services to feed the troops on base, laundry, transportation and other lifecycle management services. After the 1991 gulf war is when Halliburton was paid to do a study on providing those services and Halliburton crews also helped put out the Kuwaiti oil field fires.

It was in 1995 during the Clinton administration that Cheney became CEO of Halliburton. What is conveniently forgotten in the “Boogeyman” narrative is it was during the Clinton administration that Halliburton was first employed to provide the same lifecycle services to American troops and peace keepers in the Balkans that they later also provided to troops in Iraq.

I’ll recap for you. Using Halliburton to save money is studied under Bush the 1st with limited use to put out oil field fires. Under Bill Clinton using Halliburton (with Cheney as CEO) becomes policy. Under Bush, continuing this Clinton administration policy becomes the “boogeyman” to Democrats and the left in general.

71

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

I understand you are incapable of a conversation , you state your opinion as fact attack everyone with an opinion different than yours . You have yet to state a fact for me to comment on [/quote]

LOL, You don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. If I say that I think the Steelers will go to the Superbowl this year, that’s an opinion. But, if I say that the Saints won the Super Bowl, that’s a fact.

Got it now?

Fact: Obama received more favorable coverage than did McCain. I have offered evidence to back up that fact.

You began this debate by calling what I was claiming to be fact, rhetoric. When I backed up my claims you then switched to saying that Obama was just a better candidate so he received more favorable coverage.

Take my advice and stick to the training sections on this site.

[/quote]

You lose track of your self , don’t you . I agree Obama got more favorable coverage than McCain , That is fact.[/quote]

You can add short-term memory loss to your many political faults. You said earlier that my posts were merely “republican rhetoric.”

Yea, I got it, you’ve changed your argument. Not that it matters, as I said whether he was superior or not, he should not have gotten favorable treatment for it. By the way, Mondale was favored over Reagan, would you say that Carter was a better candidate than the “Great Communicator?”

No problem Pit, I know you have a blind spot. What ever is republican is bad, what ever is democrat is good. At least the truth won out this time.

Got it.

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Pits defense: “nuh uh”

Sort of reminds me of the way you acted when I pointed out your flawed argument regarding Ronald Reagan.

You should just come to this great site for training information.[/quote]

Hang on a moment Zeb, think about what you are saying. Just about every other left leaning commentator here has been shredded so badly they skulked off and didn’t come back.

We need a few of them to put their talking points out there and try to defend them otherwise we will just be all like minded people preaching to the choir. PWI will be a lot less interesting without opposing views to destroy.

73

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

pardon me if i’m wrong (i live in a socialist country) but i thought the media were free in America.

are you asking for more regulation ?[/quote]

Where did I say I wanted the media regulated? Do you use straw man arguments where you come from? If so just post on web sites in your country and stay off US sites where you’ll be called out for such nonsense.
[/quote]

What some have another opinion that little Zebby does not like :)[/quote]

Darn I wish you were not retarded. Then you could understand that I was not advocating censorship of the media as our foreign friend claimed in his straw man argument.

See the difference? No? I’m not surprised given your apparent IQ.

74

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Pits defense: “nuh uh”

Sort of reminds me of the way you acted when I pointed out your flawed argument regarding Ronald Reagan.

You should just come to this great site for training information.[/quote]

Hang on a moment Zeb, think about what you are saying. Just about every other left leaning commentator here has been shredded so badly they skulked off and didn’t come back.

We need a few of them to put their talking points out there and try to defend them otherwise we will just be all like minded people preaching to the choir. PWI will be a lot less interesting without opposing views to destroy.[/quote]

Good point, but they’re just so very easy.

75

i was not claiming anything.
i wasn’t speaking about censorphip
i was asking a question

the post i quoted [quote]What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.[/quote]

sounded like there was some laws/rules stating the media should be non-biased, give equal treatment to both candidates, and that they shouldn’t express any positive or negative opinions outside editorial pieces.

and i was quite surprised because it’s not even the case where i live.
we just have a “conseil superieur de l’audiovisuel” to make sure each candidate get the same tv time.

how would you achieve what you mentionned in your post without some kind of regulation or control of the media ?

btw, thank you for your kind hospitality

76

To those of you who like Palin, what did you think of the article?
Do you think the unflattering anecdotes are fabricated, or do you think they’re true but not important?

77

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

pardon me if i’m wrong (i live in a socialist country) but i thought the media were free in America.

are you asking for more regulation ?[/quote]

No! Government involvement and regulation is the worst possible solution. Government regulation would just become a partisan mess. The media would represent whatever the leaning of the government of the day was. But news organizations themselves could do better at self regulating.

We should be able to expect integrity from journalists. Journalists should either be up front and tell people what their political leanings are or keep their bias in check and report in a non biased manner.

ie. If you watch FOX news you know up front that they are a conservative news organization. They say that they try to be fair and balanced but they do not put up a pretense that most of their reporters and commentators have a conservative point of view.

At the other end of the spectrum we have MSNBC, which is a very liberal biased news organization that tries to play itself off as non-partisan. ie Tom Brokaw said that after Obama’s election he could not control himself and he would break down in tears of joy over it wherever he went.

CNN is another left leaning organization that has fired good people for airing views that were critical of leftists views or policies. ie Lou Dobbs was fired for saying that the government was not doing enough to control the flood of illegal immigrants into our country.

We have a right to voice an opinion on this bias.

78

[quote]kamui wrote:

how would you achieve what you mentionned in your post without some kind of regulation or control of the media ?

btw, thank you for your kind hospitality [/quote]

It used to be achieved voluntarily by an unbiased media. However, that’s all changed in the US. Real journalism is now dead. The mainstream media is now in Obama’s hip pocket and pretty much do his bidding. That’s how he became President, and that’s how he’ll get reelected unless the republicans nominate an exceptional candidate to run against him and the media.

79

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
To those of you who like Palin, what did you think of the article?
Do you think the unflattering anecdotes are fabricated, or do you think they’re true but not important?[/quote]

I like her, but she does not meet my standards as a Pres or VP IMO, but not for the superficial reasons the left use. Compared to Sebilius, Nepalatono, Kagen, etc, it’s good to see a smart well rounded, attractive lady speaking for conservative values. I think as long as she spreads the word of liberty, capitalism and freedom she is doing her duty and the more the lefty will hate her for it. I also think way too many leftists are concentrating on bashing her, while missing the true mark…their own party is drowning in a marxist theiving swamp and they want to bash Palin instead.

Palin is a political pawn, and she’s doing a great job. As long as the left only has Palin hate while their own party forcefully rapes American citizens and taxpayers, the democrats are doomed for a good 15-20 years.

80

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

I understand you are incapable of a conversation , you state your opinion as fact attack everyone with an opinion different than yours . You have yet to state a fact for me to comment on [/quote]

LOL, You don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. If I say that I think the Steelers will go to the Superbowl this year, that’s an opinion. But, if I say that the Saints won the Super Bowl, that’s a fact.

Got it now?

Fact: Obama received more favorable coverage than did McCain. I have offered evidence to back up that fact.

You began this debate by calling what I was claiming to be fact, rhetoric. When I backed up my claims you then switched to saying that Obama was just a better candidate so he received more favorable coverage.

Take my advice and stick to the training sections on this site.

[/quote]

You lose track of your self , don’t you . I agree Obama got more favorable coverage than McCain , That is fact.[/quote]

You can add short-term memory loss to your many political faults. You said earlier that my posts were merely “republican rhetoric.”

Yea, I got it, you’ve changed your argument. Not that it matters, as I said whether he was superior or not, he should not have gotten favorable treatment for it. By the way, Mondale was favored over Reagan, would you say that Carter was a better candidate than the “Great Communicator?”

No problem Pit, I know you have a blind spot. What ever is republican is bad, what ever is democrat is good. At least the truth won out this time.

Got it.
[/quote]

I would have this conversation with you but as soon as you are put against the wall you will start your personal attacks (THEY DON"T HURT BUT THEY WASTE TIME) and we will accomplish nothing . If you ever learn how to communicate like a big boy let me know and I will tell you my opinion and why I have my opinion. Then you can tell me your opinion and why you have it
Gee Wiz just like adults