[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
NPR, not biased? Of course, like the KKK.[/quote]
They are biased I agree but at least they are not beholding to sponsors
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
NPR, not biased? Of course, like the KKK.[/quote]
They are biased I agree but at least they are not beholding to sponsors
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
NPR, not biased? Of course, like the KKK.[/quote]
They are biased I agree but at least they are not beholding to sponsors
[/quote]
Oh, but they are.[/quote]
what sponsors would you think donate enough to NPR to have any controlling interest ? Are you referring to the tax payer aspect ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
NPR, not biased? Of course, like the KKK.[/quote]
They are biased I agree but at least they are not beholding to sponsors
[/quote]
LOL…LOL
Wut?
[/quote]
This is why I keep him on ignore. Good grief. I assume he is thinking of PBS?? Same result, either way.
Obama should probably dump Biden, but I don’t know know for who.
[/quote]
As I’ve been predicting it will be Hillary. That will be the next big thing for Obama.
Why wouldn’t want to be set up for a Presidential run in 2016? Not that she isn’t now with her current credentials but as VP it will put her as the logical contender should Obama be victorious this year.
And they save face by moving Biden to the Secretary of State position which is supposed to be his strong suit anyway.
If you were Obama isn’t that what you’d do?[/quote]
I still don’t think its going to be Hillary. If she leaves politics now, it’s on a high note and she will be too old to be POS in four more years. (yeah, I’m ageist).
They need to pick someone younger with POS potential.
I say this as a Hillary supporter. But they need to dump Biden.
Obama should probably dump Biden, but I don’t know know for who.
[/quote]
As I’ve been predicting it will be Hillary. That will be the next big thing for Obama.
Why wouldn’t want to be set up for a Presidential run in 2016? Not that she isn’t now with her current credentials but as VP it will put her as the logical contender should Obama be victorious this year.
And they save face by moving Biden to the Secretary of State position which is supposed to be his strong suit anyway.
If you were Obama isn’t that what you’d do?[/quote]
I still don’t think its going to be Hillary. If she leaves politics now, it’s on a high note and she will be too old to be POS in four more years. (yeah, I’m ageist).
They need to pick someone younger with POS potential.
I say this as a Hillary supporter. But they need to dump Biden.[/quote]
You might be right on that, but if I were Obama I would be picking Hillary. Either way Biden is a liability so I hope he stays on the ticket.
I agree the MSLM has great power. But what the general public is not going to buy into is the media telling them that their life is better off under Obama. And what Romney needs to do is remind everyone of the hope and change mantra that brought Obama into office.
“He promised you hope and change and delivered high unemployment and runaway debt!”
And…
“Are you truly better off today than you were four years ago?”
Romney has a real shot of winning this thing even with a left leaning biased media. But he has to play near perfect ball to do it.
One thing that Occupy failed to do, which the Tea Party did do, is get the vote. We saw this in 2010.
Republicans have a chance here, Obama is vulnerable, so this is really up to Mitty at this point. Don’t underestimate him, a Conservative who got elected governor of a Liberal state. He also got Romneycare passed, so I think he has a chance. If the Tea Party shows up and votes, but tones down the madness, along with a solid VOP candidate, I think Romney can pull it off.
The whole idea of “The fact that we have no one single voice is our strength” thing, while great for a sound-bite or T-shirt did not garner a lot of political clout.
Occupy also didn’t “scare” politicians; the TeaPublicans did. And they did (and continue to do it) where it counts; at the ballott box.
I’ve also said for sometime now that this election is for the Republicans (and Romney) to lose, not for Obama to win.
The whole idea of “The fact that we have no one single voice is our strength” thing, while great for a sound-bite or T-shirt did not garner a lot of political clout.
Occupy also didn’t “scare” politicians; the TeaPublicans did. And they did (and continue to do it) where it counts; at the ballott box.
I’ve also said for sometime now that this election is for the Republicans (and Romney) to lose, not for Obama to win.
Mufasa [/quote]
Indeed.
Obama will not see the turnout he did in 2008, will what does turn out be enough to keep him as Prezzy ? We will see.
I’ve also said for sometime now that this election is for the Republicans (and Romney) to lose, not for Obama to win.
Mufasa [/quote]
Sorry, I cannot agree with you. When is the last time that an incumbent President lost? George H. W. Bush in 1992. And the only way that Bush lost was because Ross Perot entered the race and split the conservative vote. And it only happened one other time since 1980 when Reagan beat Jimmy Carter. And that was not a total blowout. Carter didn’t campaign part of that season because of the Iran hostage crisis. This was a tactic to show how serious the job was.
If you think it’s easy to unseat a sitting President think again!
Romney has his hands full - And 1980 and 1992 was before the press flipped completely and went full bore for the democrats. They used to at least pretend prior to Obama.
Obama is the favorite to be reelected. But Romney is in the game and as I said if he plays perfect ball he can win.
