- WTF
- 02-09-2013, 10:13 AM
and u think there is no right biss. I think yhey are all biased...I just don't cry about it. especially just one side being so!
- Whirlaway
- 02-09-2013, 10:19 AM
WTF is clueless; he jabbers about that which we already know as if it is revelatory.
Ignorant post.
Fox has no competetion....once they get it, their profits will shrink.
And if you think Fox is Fair and Balanced, then you shoud go suck JD's 2 inch clit. I don't think Fox is Fair and Balanced, but they are more F&B than the other networks.....
All news is biased. Repeat that...all news is biased. I agree. The issue is that the bias on the left controls most of the political agenda and issues.
All humans are biased. repeat that ALL HUMANS ARE BIASED. No kidding Sherlock
Therefore all news will be biased. Smart folks watch multiple sources but you still wind up with your own biased view of the world. The problem is that we have several giant media outlets that control the debate......and the political outcomes.
My point is you are sounding like a whiny lil bitch on this one. Give it a rest. You don't want to discuss the topic, then stop your whining about it ! Originally Posted by WTF
- Whirlaway
- 02-09-2013, 10:21 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 02-09-2013, 10:28 AM
- Jackie S
- 02-09-2013, 10:44 AM
Of course the Main Stream Media is biased toward the Democrat Party. They have been for decades, even that old sack of shit Walter Ckronkite finally let his true colors be known toward the end of his broadcast usefullness.
But what's new. Politics in the USA has always been a down and dirty sport. If you look back in our History, things are actually more tame now than they were in the past.
The term "Broadside" was coined in the political relm when, just a short time before an election, one's opponent would just make up some outlandish shit, have it printed up on cheap pamplets, and distributed to as many people as possible. There was no time to contridict any of it, so many gullable voters fell for it. Like a ship getting hit with a "broadside".
Of course, you had to have a willing member of the 4th estate at your bidding, not that many people had printing presses.
President Obama is the President of The United States. We have survived worse. I suspect we will survive his ineptitude toward the office. Just think "Jimmy Carter"
One thing that is worrysome is we have reached a point in this Country where those that actually produce are being outnumbered by those that contribute very little if anything to the economy. The Democrats have tapped into this voting block, and hope to continue to expand their base by offerring other groups something for nothing as well.
A good example is The Mexican American Community. Everybody seems to think they will be a shoe in as a voting block for the Democrats because they would rather suck at the Tit of The Federal Government than work. Americans of Mexican Heritage that I know, and I know a lot of them, can't stand the President. They look at what the Democrats and their programs have done to The Black Community and want no part of it. They see a group of voters who have overwhelmingly supported The Democrats since the mid '60's and as a group overall are no better for it.
Pick any Congressional Dstrict that has been represented by a Black for the past decades. I would bet that the majority are populated by who we refer to as the low or no income voters. They keep voting for the same corrupt "leaders" who promise them the world, but in the end won't even get them a handfull of dirt.
My Conngressional District is a prime example. Shiela Jackson Lee is just the latest in a long line of Blacks who have held the seat, and the district overall is still one big shithole.
But what's new. Politics in the USA has always been a down and dirty sport. If you look back in our History, things are actually more tame now than they were in the past.
The term "Broadside" was coined in the political relm when, just a short time before an election, one's opponent would just make up some outlandish shit, have it printed up on cheap pamplets, and distributed to as many people as possible. There was no time to contridict any of it, so many gullable voters fell for it. Like a ship getting hit with a "broadside".
Of course, you had to have a willing member of the 4th estate at your bidding, not that many people had printing presses.
President Obama is the President of The United States. We have survived worse. I suspect we will survive his ineptitude toward the office. Just think "Jimmy Carter"
One thing that is worrysome is we have reached a point in this Country where those that actually produce are being outnumbered by those that contribute very little if anything to the economy. The Democrats have tapped into this voting block, and hope to continue to expand their base by offerring other groups something for nothing as well.
A good example is The Mexican American Community. Everybody seems to think they will be a shoe in as a voting block for the Democrats because they would rather suck at the Tit of The Federal Government than work. Americans of Mexican Heritage that I know, and I know a lot of them, can't stand the President. They look at what the Democrats and their programs have done to The Black Community and want no part of it. They see a group of voters who have overwhelmingly supported The Democrats since the mid '60's and as a group overall are no better for it.
Pick any Congressional Dstrict that has been represented by a Black for the past decades. I would bet that the majority are populated by who we refer to as the low or no income voters. They keep voting for the same corrupt "leaders" who promise them the world, but in the end won't even get them a handfull of dirt.
My Conngressional District is a prime example. Shiela Jackson Lee is just the latest in a long line of Blacks who have held the seat, and the district overall is still one big shithole.
- WTF
- 02-09-2013, 10:53 AM
Whirly only bitchs about liberal media bias.
- joe bloe
- 02-09-2013, 10:58 AM
Of course the Main Stream Media is biased toward the Democrat Party. They have been for decades, even that old sack of shit Walter Ckronkite finally let his true colors be known toward the end of his broadcast usefullness.Mexican Americans vote in block for the Democratic Party. They don't vote at the ninety plus percent level like blacks: it's more like seventy plus percent. If the Democrats can permanently lock in the Mexican American vote, they will be the permanent majority party. I'd say the likelihood of them doing that is very high.
But what's new. Politics in the USA has always been a down and dirty sport. If you look back in our History, things are actually more tame now than they were in the past.
The term "Broadside" was coined in the political relm when, just a short time before an election, one's opponent would just make up some outlandish shit, have it printed up on cheap pamplets, and distributed to as many people as possible. There was no time to contridict any of it, so many gullable voters fell for it. Like a ship getting hit with a "broadside".
Of course, you had to have a willing member of the 4th estate at your bidding, not that many people had printing presses.
President Obama is the President of The United States. We have survived worse. I suspect we will survive his ineptitude toward the office.
One thing that is worrysome is we have reached a point in this Country where those that actually produce are being outnumbered by those that contribute very little if anything to the economy. The Democrats have tapped into this voting block, and hope to continue to expand their base by offerring other groups something for nothing as well.
A good example is The Mexican American Community. Everybody seems to think they will be a shoe in for the Democrats because they would rather suck at the Tit of The Federal Government than work. Americans of Mexican Heritage that I know, and I know a lot of them, can't stand the President. They look at what the Democrats and their programs have done to The Black Community and want no part of it.
They even have a special name for President Obama, which due to our rules on this web site, I cannot repeat. Originally Posted by Jackie S
Hispanics voted for Obama over Romney 71% to 27%.
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-09-2013, 11:00 AM
My question has been; does the military teach people to be conservative or do conservatives join the military. The largest part of the military is from the old south as well. Make of that what you will.
The liberals operate off emotion and they do get passionate but that is where the media is supposed to come in (if they were honest). The media is supposed to expose nonsense when it is spoken like their repeated claims that Bush lied about WMDs. They would have pointed out the hypocrisy of the left of voting for a war and then using the war to attack the GOP. You laugh about Palin but with Obama out of the picture (and he would be with absolutely no qualifications) Hillary would have had White Water, the Rose Law Firm, the firing of the travel staff, the missing FBI records, Hillary Care, and the "vast right wing conspiracy" to deal with. She would have been exposed for a idealogue with fringe values and the moderate McCain would have been in. Unless you have another democratic candidate in mind to challenge both Hillary and Barack on an even playing field.
The liberals operate off emotion and they do get passionate but that is where the media is supposed to come in (if they were honest). The media is supposed to expose nonsense when it is spoken like their repeated claims that Bush lied about WMDs. They would have pointed out the hypocrisy of the left of voting for a war and then using the war to attack the GOP. You laugh about Palin but with Obama out of the picture (and he would be with absolutely no qualifications) Hillary would have had White Water, the Rose Law Firm, the firing of the travel staff, the missing FBI records, Hillary Care, and the "vast right wing conspiracy" to deal with. She would have been exposed for a idealogue with fringe values and the moderate McCain would have been in. Unless you have another democratic candidate in mind to challenge both Hillary and Barack on an even playing field.
- Whirlaway
- 02-09-2013, 11:37 AM
ABC’s Brian Ross links Aurora theater shooter to Tea Party; Update: ABC admits no connection between shooter and Tea Party
ABC’s Brian Ross strangely silent about Christopher Dorner’s political views
- rockerrick
- 02-09-2013, 11:58 AM
Can't blame the media for the fact the Republicans have not put forth a decent candidate since Reagan ! Registered Republican and I think the GOP is hopeless !
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-09-2013, 12:49 PM
We all pretty much agree that the media is biased towards liberals and democrats so I guess we will never hear the phrase "fair and square" anymore on this topic. We all know it is neither one or the other.
For those of you who just don't quite understand it or don't care because you get the advantage; imagine a football game, a professional football game and the referees and the media coverage was as biased as US media. I say US because the English and Europeans have a completely different prospective on our politics. Back to the game; the refs can't be completely bought off, in fact they take pride that they can't be bought but they all came up through the same organization as football players themselves. Some of the reporters covering the game are married to or dating members of the team. So they are not bought, they are true believers. They miss a holding call here and there, offsides? what offsides?, that touchdown didn't count because in our opinion his foot was out of bounds just before the goal line, that penalty play didn't work so we will run it again (remember the Olympic basketball game where the Soviets played out the last few seconds three times until the Soviet won?). The media is in the tank for this game. There is a low blow and unnecessary roughness but the network has cut away for a commercial or a comment by the talking heads who probably played for one of the teams on the field. Some people get mad about the bad calls (voter fraud) but most people didn't see anything like that in the network broadcast and deny that it happened. In spite of all these advantages the other team seems to win about half the time. Would you support that game even if it was your team with the advantage? Would you call it fair? Would you say that the other side is just complaining for no good reason because you didn't personally see the foul or it didn't affect your personally.
Conservatives care about the rules and liberals just care about winning.
For those of you who just don't quite understand it or don't care because you get the advantage; imagine a football game, a professional football game and the referees and the media coverage was as biased as US media. I say US because the English and Europeans have a completely different prospective on our politics. Back to the game; the refs can't be completely bought off, in fact they take pride that they can't be bought but they all came up through the same organization as football players themselves. Some of the reporters covering the game are married to or dating members of the team. So they are not bought, they are true believers. They miss a holding call here and there, offsides? what offsides?, that touchdown didn't count because in our opinion his foot was out of bounds just before the goal line, that penalty play didn't work so we will run it again (remember the Olympic basketball game where the Soviets played out the last few seconds three times until the Soviet won?). The media is in the tank for this game. There is a low blow and unnecessary roughness but the network has cut away for a commercial or a comment by the talking heads who probably played for one of the teams on the field. Some people get mad about the bad calls (voter fraud) but most people didn't see anything like that in the network broadcast and deny that it happened. In spite of all these advantages the other team seems to win about half the time. Would you support that game even if it was your team with the advantage? Would you call it fair? Would you say that the other side is just complaining for no good reason because you didn't personally see the foul or it didn't affect your personally.
Conservatives care about the rules and liberals just care about winning.
- Yssup Rider
- 02-09-2013, 02:25 PM
SNICK
- I B Hankering
- 02-09-2013, 02:50 PM
What about if we had an honest Congress where the Republicans did not practice blatant gerrymandering. The answer; President Blackenstein, and other Democrats running would have been victorious by even bigger margins, which would have been a good thing. Originally Posted by 9676forfun
You’re a serious imbiber of Kool Aid if you believe the Dims do not engage in Gerrymandering. Here’s an FYI – it was the Dims that initiated the process in 1812:
"First printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the state senate electoral districts drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favour the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-09-2013, 04:59 PM
Take a look at the Florida 5th Congressional district. It is that purple worm up around Jacksonville in the north. It was designed specifically for a black candidate as it encompasses most of the black neighborhoods in the area. At some places the district is only 50 feet wide (the width of a highway or street). So funny that when Corinne Brown was elected to this district it was discovered that she didn't even live in the district. They had to "grandfather" her which was giving her till election to move into the district. This was democratic gerrymandering.
- Chica Chaser
- 02-09-2013, 05:49 PM