The liberal Huffington post even had to admit that Obama was favored.
[/quote]
Why do you bother indeed? Virtually the same statistics bore true in Bush/Gore’s case, except that the favoritism was geared away from Gore. Plus, when you’re slipping in the polls the natural inclination is for there to be a negative tone when being reported on.
Don’t even bother responding though. I won’t be reading anything about this particular topic in this thread anymore. It’s been beaten into submission. Clearly there is nothing I can bring to the table to sway your opinion, regardless of its veracity, so I fear that your argument is nothing short of a dogmatic belief system. There’s no point in arguing with dogma.
What I am interested in, what the main point of my initial post on this thread, is about Sarah Palin. I still want to hear the questions that I put forth in my initial post on page 4 or 5 answered by Palin’s supporters. I want to know what sort of actual substance there is, if any, that drives the fascination with her that people have. I suspect it’s a result of the conservative media bias, but let’s not rehash that argument again.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ask the SNL producers what the heck they were thinking when they repeatedly aired comedy spots showing Obama being favored over Hillary Clinton.
I’d post the video on Youtube, but you know it’s there go look at it if you want. Everyone, was well aware of the Obama media bias. They even threw their old favorite (Hillary) under the bus for the new guy.
The more liberal the better for the mainstream liberal media.[/quote]
Oh I get it. Because SNL says it is so, then it must be. Yes, SNL: the final arbiter in all matters political. Give me a break.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”
Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]
Facts mean nothing to that guy, his Professors told him that republicans are evil and don’t deserve a fair shake.
[/quote]
Well, my professorts must have done a poor job of brainwashing me because I voted Republican across the board in the local elections here in June, excpet where a Libertarian was a candidate.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What I am interested in, what the main point of my initial post on this thread, is about Sarah Palin.[/quote]
At this point, she isn’t Obama. The Democrats have their own ‘Dubya’ now.
As opposed to the completely inept president the mainstream media helped sweep to victory? See positive and negative coverage I posted. See the perception voters (even Dems and independents) have towards the media, I posted.
Sarah Palin, the last great hope before America plunges into a moral and economic collapse, brought on by Progressive ideology and trusting lawyers with our government.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”
Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]
First of all Sloth, I must say that I appreciate and enjoy your contributions. The two links you have provided certainly do make a compelling case for your argument. But I still have a bit of a problem with the interpretation of the studies provided. More to the point, I disagree with the conclusion that I assume you are trying to draw from the studies.
I’m not going to debate the veracity or legitimacy of the study. The Pew Research Center is certainly a credible source. But (at the risk of turning this into a philosophical discussion) perception does not equal reality. Voters may overwhelmingly feel that the media is largely slanted leftward, but that does not necessarily make it so. I’m not saying that they are completely off their rocker to think this way, but the opinions of voters is not proof positive that the media is generally liberal.
Also, if you examine the time frame in which voters’ confidence in Obama grew and shrank concerning McCain, you’ll notice that this period coincides directly with when the three Presidential debates occurred. It is entirely possible that Obama’s success in these debates is largely responsible for the rise in his popularity amongst voters. However, I will concede that it is possible that the media helped slant people’s perception of who won those debates, thereby slanting their opinions of the candidates.
But I at least partially reject this possibility as well. According to the data, voters’ awareness of the candidates’ stances grew significantly at the same time that their confidence in Obama grew and waned in McCain. So as both sides of the political fence gained more knowledge about each candidate, along with watching the Presidential debates, their opinions began to favor Obama. Again, media presentation of the two may have had something to do with all of this, but it is just as likely (if not more so) that the candidates themselves had the most influence on this trend, rather than the media’s coverage.
The data also shows that most of the voters polled felt that Obama won the debates. Only 47% of Republicans felt that McCain won, versus 31% of Republicans who felt Obama won. I don’t doubt that Palin’s poor performance in her debates helped to drive people away from McCain. Given that people have been constantly bombarded with the concept of the liberal media bias, it is not surprising that most think the media wants Obama to win. It is also not surprising that the opinions in these polls and their results seem to favor Democrats. Naturally there is going to be an increased confidence in Obama amongst the 1,000 random people polled. 43% of registered voters in the 27 states in which party affiliation is part of the registration process are Democrats and only 33% are registered Republicans. So it’s likely that of those polled there were 10% more Democrats polled than Republicans. Given that Republican and Democrat perception of political issues and media coverage are going to reflect one’s party affiliation, there should be some sort of discrepancy here that favors the Democratic candidate.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Sifu, your grasp of international relations, especially regarding the “nuke” problem in Iran is alarming. I understand the whole “carry a big stick” thing, but it’s an overly simplistic solution to a complex issue. Just because you cannot wrap your head around it, does not mean that the issue is being overcomplicated. [/quote]
Are you serious. They are about to start a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. That should be alarming. Some of the countries that would participate in that arms race are good candidates for a revolution that over throws the government. You are just taking it for granted that an arsenal would be secured and handed over from one group to another in an orderly fashion. Stopping this is not complicated. What is complicated is just how many ways that Iran having nukes could go bad.
I don’t think you do understand the concept of carrying a big stick or my commentary on it. I can tell that because of the flippant way you dismiss what I have written. What you are failing to understand is that the intimidation factor of a big stick depends upon who is wielding it.
After spending years whining like a little bitch about George Bush using the big stick, Obama could brandish it up high in both hands beg “please talk to me, because I really need to talk to you, please, please, don’t make me use this” and get nowhere because he has done everything he possibly could to impress Democrats and useless Europeans that he absolutely would not use it. He got a Nobel peace prize the moment he stepped into the White House he was so adamant about his pacifism.
Being a celebrity went to his head and he played his hand trying to impress the wrong audience. He cannot now take all that back and try to play hard with a thug like Ahmadinejad.
[quote]
Believe me, Ahmadijenad would like nothing more than to force us into a militaristic stance and then force us to reveal our bluff. He’s a fucking wackjob who doesn’t deal with rational thought very well. But he understands one thing very well: the Iranian people will rally around him before they rally around a leader handpicked by the very country that undermined the closest thing to a legit democracy they have ever seen. [/quote]
That is the problem now. Obama has no ability to bluff because he has let everyone see his hand. Mossadegh was not elected democratically that is a lie. His supporters assassinated his predecessor so Mossadegh could take over as PM. Mossadegh was a stooge the Ayatollah Koshani used to seize power. That is not democracy.
[quote]
The fact that his cronies were killing protestors in the streets is a clear signal that Iran is close to enacting the changes that we want to see there all by themselves. If we were to try to accelerate this process through militaristic methods, we would only set back the process already in motion by decades. The ramifications that we would deal with in the long run would far outweigh any benefit we would get from intervening in Iran in the same way we have done in Vietnam or Iraq. [/quote]
How are they going to enact changes? The people who are shooting protesters are also the ones who are in control of the nuclear program. If they don’t care about shooting them what makes you think they will care about them enough that they would not be willing to provoke the Israelis into dropping a nuke on them? You are in denial.
[quote]
Also, Iran may be approaching nuclear capabilities, but they are not anywhere close to developing a delivery system. I’m not trying to downplay the threat that a nuclear-capable Iran represents, but military intervention will only remove one immediate threat and create a much longer-lasting one. Similar in many ways to the one we have faced in some shape or form from Iran since 1979. The only way the threat of military intervention should be used is if it is aimed at provoking a full-scale revolution within Iran and by Iranians as a preventive measure. [/quote]
You don’t know what you are talking about. Several years ago the Iranians purchased nuclear capable cruise missiles from the Ukrainians that have over a thousand miles range. They have turned over documents to the IAEA detailing the installation of nuclear weapons on missiles. They have also experimented with launching missiles from ships which means that they could launch a missile at New York from a ship that out in the Atlantic. You are ignorant of their capabilities and making statements based upon your ignorance.
[quote]
Iranians as a whole have little interest in nuking Israel off the face of the Earth because they fully understand that they will be the next ones wiped off the globe if this happens. Sure there are the hardliners over there that don’t care about that kind of shit as long as Israel is destroyed, but they are no more representative of the collective Iranian viewpoint than racist rednecks who want to publicly lynch Obama are of our distaste for his administration. [/quote]
All the Iranians I have personally known seemed to be level headed, very nice people. It does not matter that Ahmadinejad and his followers don’t represent the Iranian people, because the Iranian people cannot control them. Even the Ayatollahs are losing control of Ahmadinejad. That is why even if it is only a temporary set back we should take out their nuclear program so the Iranian people can have a chance to do something about him.
[quote]
You watch: as Ahmadijenad comes closer and closer to nuclear armament, the Iranians will take care of him for us. This is how it should be. THIS is how democracy works. It can’t be forced upon a nation through violent means. In case you haven’t noticed, we aren’t really that great at successful regime changes over the last thirty or forty years, and especially not in the last 8-10 years. [/quote]
What democracy? Last year they were shooting people protesting that the election results were rigged. You don’t have the first clue of what has happened. What rock were you hiding under last year?
[quote]
Think about it: how would we react here if the Chinese kept demanding that we remove Obama from power because we have nukes, and then rolled in here with their Air Force and ground troops to do the deed for us. We’d fucking flip out! As unpopular as Obama is here, we would hit the roof that the democratic process had been bypassed by a foreign power. We would hardly canonize Obama as a result, but we certainly wouldn’t turn around and thank the Chinese.
If they rolled in here, I’d be the first fucking insurgent on my block to go out and kill some Chinese soldiers, even if I hated Obama with a blinding passion. And I wouldn’t trust any leader that the Chinese tried to prop up. They crave democracy in Iran and they are more than capable of putting it into place themselves if given the chance. [/quote]
Now you are being stupid. Your are trying to make an analogy comparing countries that are not even close to being similar to each other.
[quote]
It’s a tight rope to walk: hope that it happens before Iran becomes a legitimate nuclear threat. But we have to walk it because military intervention would fail. Shit, we’d have to pull a ton of troops and resources out of Afghanistan to do so effectively, and that would leave a void there that many proponents of invasion of Iran don’t even acknowledge. [/quote]
We don’t need troops to drop bombs on a couple of nuclear facilities. Plus the Iranians have been supplying the taliban with weapons and paying them reward money if they kill Americans. How many of our people do they get to kill for free before we do something about it?
[quote]
As far as your argument about Mossadegh, that too is laughable. Mossadegh was overwhelmingly elected as Prime Minister by the majlis, the Iranian version of a Parliament. The people never got to vote for him directly, mostly because Iranian democracy was so new and underdeveloped at the time. The majlis appointed him, despite pressure from the Shah, because he was enjoying 90% approval ratings amongst the people. [/quote]
Back then Iran was an undeveloped third world country. So with out an widespread infrastructure of telephones or paved roads I am curious to know just how they were able to conduct this opinion poll you are referring to. I’m calling bullshit on that, post a link.
[quote]
Had Iran been able to develop their version of democracy as much as we have, he would have been democratically elected by an overwhelming majority by the people. As it is, he was elected through the democratic process that was in place in Iran at the time and enjoyed the sort of popularity no Iranian leader has approached since. [/quote]
The process was The Ayatollah Koshani had one of his followers assassinate Razmara so that Koshani could then elect Mossadegh. Murdering people so that you can then hold an election to fill the now vacant post with one of your cronies is not democracy. And with no legitimate poll of the Iranian people you cannot claim that Mossadegh would have been overwhelmingly elected. So you are just full of shit at this point.
You are really playing fast and loose with this history. Conveniently missing in all this has been any mention of the Soviet Union and what was going on in the rest of the world at that time. The Russians were just grabbing up countries and not giving a fuck about democracy. Yet you act like Americas involvement in Iran occurred in a vacuum.
The Iranians were telling the US that they were about to fall under the influence of the soviets if we didn’t provide aid. The Shah weak and indecisive, Razmara was favored as the person who could provide stability in the country. But the Shah was reluctant to appoint Razmara because he was afraid Razmara would become too powerful.
What changed his mind was the communist invasion of Korea. One day after the Korean war started Razmara was appointed Prime Minister. The reason why is Razmara was the chief of the Iranian army and war had broken out. The Shah expected the Soviets to intervene in Iran while America’s attention was focused elsewhere. Then when China got involved in Korea people thought world war three was about to begin.
There were a lot of things going on in the world that influenced the decision making on Iran. They got caught up in the jockeying for position that characterized the cold war. I doubt the Iranians would have fared better under Stalin.
The liberal Huffington post even had to admit that Obama was favored.
[/quote]
Why do you bother indeed? Virtually the same statistics bore true in Bush/Gore’s case, except that the favoritism was geared away from Gore. Plus, when you’re slipping in the polls the natural inclination is for there to be a negative tone when being reported on.
Don’t even bother responding though. I won’t be reading anything about this particular topic in this thread anymore. It’s been beaten into submission. Clearly there is nothing I can bring to the table to sway your opinion, regardless of its veracity, so I fear that your argument is nothing short of a dogmatic belief system. There’s no point in arguing with dogma.
What I am interested in, what the main point of my initial post on this thread, is about Sarah Palin. I still want to hear the questions that I put forth in my initial post on page 4 or 5 answered by Palin’s supporters. I want to know what sort of actual substance there is, if any, that drives the fascination with her that people have. I suspect it’s a result of the conservative media bias, but let’s not rehash that argument again.[/quote]
I see, so you’re saying that the media favored GW Bush over Al Gore. (I’m having a good laugh on you for that one my friend)
I think you are smart steering the debate back to Palin. Because you are so very far off base claiming that the mainstream liberal media didn’t favor Obama that I don’t know how you can type with a straight face.
The liberal Huffington post even had to admit that Obama was favored.
[/quote]
Why do you bother indeed? Virtually the same statistics bore true in Bush/Gore’s case, except that the favoritism was geared away from Gore. Plus, when you’re slipping in the polls the natural inclination is for there to be a negative tone when being reported on.
Don’t even bother responding though. I won’t be reading anything about this particular topic in this thread anymore. It’s been beaten into submission. Clearly there is nothing I can bring to the table to sway your opinion, regardless of its veracity, so I fear that your argument is nothing short of a dogmatic belief system. There’s no point in arguing with dogma.
What I am interested in, what the main point of my initial post on this thread, is about Sarah Palin. I still want to hear the questions that I put forth in my initial post on page 4 or 5 answered by Palin’s supporters. I want to know what sort of actual substance there is, if any, that drives the fascination with her that people have. I suspect it’s a result of the conservative media bias, but let’s not rehash that argument again.[/quote]
I see, so you’re saying that the media favored GW Bush over Al Gore. (I’m having a good laugh on you for that one my friend)
I think you are smart steering the debate back to Palin. Because you are so very far off base claiming that the mainstream liberal media didn’t favor Obama that I don’t know how you can type with a straight face.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it, the Pew Research Center said it. I’m not claiming that the liberal parts of the media didn’t favor Obama. They did. What I am claiming is that the media, especially the aspects of it with the highest visibility/listenership/viewership, is more conservative than liberal. As such, the mainstream media has more conservative bias in it than liberal bias. I haven’t seen one shred of evidence from you that refutes this. Only opinion polls and people’s “perceptions” of the issue at hand. THAT is why I steer back toward Palin; you clearly have nothing of substance to bring to the table to sway me toward your side, and nothing I say, supported by the raw numbers I provided yesterday, is resonating with you. So there is no point in me continuing the debate.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why are we comparing audiences when determining the size of either a liberal or conservative media?[/quote]
Because if the biggest liberal media pundit has no audience, they’re not the biggest liberal media pundit.
Unless they are, which would be hilarious. But that’s not the situation we find ourselves in.[/quote]
Let’s make up our minds. Are we discussing the bias of the potential audience? Or, which bias is most widespread in mainstream media sources? They’re not the same thing.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ask the SNL producers what the heck they were thinking when they repeatedly aired comedy spots showing Obama being favored over Hillary Clinton.
I’d post the video on Youtube, but you know it’s there go look at it if you want. Everyone, was well aware of the Obama media bias. They even threw their old favorite (Hillary) under the bus for the new guy.
The more liberal the better for the mainstream liberal media.[/quote]
Oh I get it. Because SNL says it is so, then it must be. Yes, SNL: the final arbiter in all matters political. Give me a break.[/quote]
SNL is only one show that could see the obvious slight - there were many, many others.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”
Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]
Facts mean nothing to that guy, his Professors told him that republicans are evil and don’t deserve a fair shake.
[/quote]
Well, my professorts must have done a poor job of brainwashing me because I voted Republican across the board in the local elections here in June, excpet where a Libertarian was a candidate.[/quote]
I like how you said that “locally.” You also got all excited about “Hope & Change” didn’t you? Come on spill it, we all know you did.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”
Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]
Facts mean nothing to that guy, his Professors told him that republicans are evil and don’t deserve a fair shake.
[/quote]
Well, my professorts must have done a poor job of brainwashing me because I voted Republican across the board in the local elections here in June, excpet where a Libertarian was a candidate.[/quote]
I like how you said that “locally.” You also got all excited about “Hope & Change” didn’t you? Come on spill it, we all know you did.
[/quote]
Come on man. I wrote about 25,000 words worth of articles ripping the entire Hope and Change concept with Obama for the magazine I write for going back more than six months before the election. I didn’t vote for Obama either. I voted for Bob Barr. I don’t know why you’re trying to imply that my opinions are flawed on the basis that my beliefs are liberal and that my argument is thereby flawed due to my liberal bias. I am not and do not define myself as a liberal, so if that is the basis for the flaw that you see in my argument, then fine. So be it. It seems to me that you assume if I don’t blindly follow your lead then I am a liberal. If that is how your thinking works, then fine. But when you start to discredit me or imply that I lack objectivity and credibility due to liberal bias, then you are sorely wrong on all counts.
Come on man. I wrote about 25,000 words worth of articles ripping the entire Hope and Change concept with Obama for the magazine I write for going back more than six months before the election. I didn’t vote for Obama either. I voted for Bob Barr. I don’t know why you’re trying to imply that my opinions are flawed on the basis that my beliefs are liberal and that my argument is thereby flawed due to my liberal bias.[/quote]
I think your opinions are flawed, not based on your politics, but based upon what you’ve written regarding the media. If you really believe what you’ve written you’ve removed yourself from the few credible posters on this board.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zeb, I’d really like to see an answer to my last post.
Media exposure isn’t everything.
Thanks-
S.[/quote]
Zeb doesn’t answer questions. He will say he does though[/quote]
Tell me Pit are you as worthless in your personal life as you are on this board? That would be indeed hard to top, but I have the faith that you could be.