Endorsments announced

[Pabster]

Illegal Immigration is going to be the #1 issue this campaign.

And Dems are on the wrong side, as usual.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Illegal Immigration is going to be the #1 issue this campaign.

And Dems are on the wrong side, as usual.

And you are on the wrong side of knowing what the #1 issue is going to be, as usual.
Stop listening to AM radio and go out into the real world.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Illegal Immigration is going to be the #1 issue this campaign.

And Dems are on the wrong side, as usual.

I think it should be the main issue, but all the candidates are going to run like hell form it.

It's the third rail for them. If they espouse a realistic viewpoint, they're hammered and if they take a hardline they're hammered.

Current politicos try hard to keep that kind of issue at arm's length.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Pabster
Illegal Immigration is going to be the #1 issue this campaign.

And Dems are on the wrong side, as usual.

I think it should be the main issue, but all the candidates are going to run like hell form it.

It's the third rail for them. If they espouse a realistic viewpoint, they're hammered and if they take a hardline they're hammered.

Current politicos try hard to keep that kind of issue at arm's length.

They could always do what Bush did, say how it's very important to them and they'll do a lot during the campaign, to win, and then do little to nothing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Illegal Immigration is going to be the #1 issue this campaign.

And Dems are on the wrong side, as usual.

And you are on the wrong side of knowing what the #1 issue is going to be, as usual.
Stop listening to AM radio and go out into the real world.

:laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Man do you guys whine a lot. I lived in Iowa for 4 years while going to college, and while I don't think the DMR is a super great paper, I don't think their coverage is at all biased. And I didn't think so even when I first moved to Iowa, when I considered myself quite the conservative (man was I stupid back then).

Of course you don't see their bias. You're of the exact same mindset!

That's the problem with these "bias" studies and reports. Apparently people are blind when the "news" comes from a source they agree with.

And let's face it, you are the LAST person who can accurately judge if someone is a lefty...you're so far to the right I think Hitler would look like a communist to you.

:roll:

Well gee, don't you image that "blindness" works both ways? While I might have overstated how much of a right-winger you are, the fact is that you and CADsortaGUY are pretty far to the right by any objective standard. If my liberalism makes me unsuitable to identify liberal bias, wouldn't that make your conservativeness equally unsuitable? After all, if the argument is that people understate bias in groups they agree with, it would seem to follow that people OVERSTATE bias when they disagree with the group in question.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
Uhh no. Nat security(by default the war) and illegal immigration are the 2 biggest issues on the Republican side. It's been shown over and over again. The Register did people a disservice by specifically taking those two issues out of the debate. Is it coincidence they are against both those issues? I think not. They have repeatedly shown their bias. Even today's edition shows it. They gave Steve King a "thissle" for introducing a Christmas resolution in the house, not a peep from the register about the resolutions for the other religions.

There is no doubt in any rational mind the Register leans left and it shows your ignorance when you call it "whining". Pointing out their bias is not whining. I could care less who they pick but one looking at the endorsements MUST take into account the history and leaning of the people doing the endorsing.

I don't disagree that the Register could have done a better job with the debate, but I think you are WAY too eager to see "liberal bias" lurking around every corner to be objective about this. Your silly phrasing aside, there is no such thing as being "against" national security or "against" the illegal immigration debate, there are simply opposing viewpoints...and I frankly don't see what the Register would have to gain by not allowing the airing of opinions they disagree with in the debate, as you seem to be suggesting.

And as far as that Steve King thing...it was in the OPINION section. You know, the part of the paper that is SUPPOSED to reflect the political views of the author. The fact that you think this proves bias in their news coverage is just stupid, and shows how little you actually care about reality.

 

[ranmaniac]

McCain lost his chance in 2000, and shouldn't even be in politics at all given his mental instability.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
Uhh no. Nat security(by default the war) and illegal immigration are the 2 biggest issues on the Republican side. It's been shown over and over again. The Register did people a disservice by specifically taking those two issues out of the debate. Is it coincidence they are against both those issues? I think not. They have repeatedly shown their bias. Even today's edition shows it. They gave Steve King a "thissle" for introducing a Christmas resolution in the house, not a peep from the register about the resolutions for the other religions.

There is no doubt in any rational mind the Register leans left and it shows your ignorance when you call it "whining". Pointing out their bias is not whining. I could care less who they pick but one looking at the endorsements MUST take into account the history and leaning of the people doing the endorsing.

I don't disagree that the Register could have done a better job with the debate, but I think you are WAY too eager to see "liberal bias" lurking around every corner to be objective about this. Your silly phrasing aside, there is no such thing as being "against" national security or "against" the illegal immigration debate, there are simply opposing viewpoints...and I frankly don't see what the Register would have to gain by not allowing the airing of opinions they disagree with in the debate, as you seem to be suggesting.

And as far as that Steve King thing...it was in the OPINION section. You know, the part of the paper that is SUPPOSED to reflect the political views of the author. The fact that you think this proves bias in their news coverage is just stupid, and shows how little you actually care about reality.

Uhhh, that's what I've been commenting on - the editorial staff. The debate was "moderated" by the VP and editor - an obvious lefty. As to why they specifically excluded the 2 biggest issues? - It may be because they don't want to give credence to the issue even though it's the 2 biggest for the GOP voters.
As to my eagerness - you are again mistaken. I'm pointing out the context in which these endorsement come from. Duh - the endorsements come from the editorial side - which I've pointed out has a leftist bias.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
Uhh no. Nat security(by default the war) and illegal immigration are the 2 biggest issues on the Republican side. It's been shown over and over again. The Register did people a disservice by specifically taking those two issues out of the debate. Is it coincidence they are against both those issues? I think not. They have repeatedly shown their bias. Even today's edition shows it. They gave Steve King a "thissle" for introducing a Christmas resolution in the house, not a peep from the register about the resolutions for the other religions.

There is no doubt in any rational mind the Register leans left and it shows your ignorance when you call it "whining". Pointing out their bias is not whining. I could care less who they pick but one looking at the endorsements MUST take into account the history and leaning of the people doing the endorsing.

I don't disagree that the Register could have done a better job with the debate, but I think you are WAY too eager to see "liberal bias" lurking around every corner to be objective about this. Your silly phrasing aside, there is no such thing as being "against" national security or "against" the illegal immigration debate, there are simply opposing viewpoints...and I frankly don't see what the Register would have to gain by not allowing the airing of opinions they disagree with in the debate, as you seem to be suggesting.

And as far as that Steve King thing...it was in the OPINION section. You know, the part of the paper that is SUPPOSED to reflect the political views of the author. The fact that you think this proves bias in their news coverage is just stupid, and shows how little you actually care about reality.

Uhhh, that's what I've been commenting on - the editorial staff. The debate was "moderated" by the VP and editor - an obvious lefty. As to why they specifically excluded the 2 biggest issues? - It may be because they don't want to give credence to the issue even though it's the 2 biggest for the GOP voters.
As to my eagerness - you are again mistaken. I'm pointing out the context in which these endorsement come from. Duh - the endorsements come from the editorial side - which I've pointed out has a leftist bias.

No, you've been complaining about the "bias" of the entire paper. In fact, you specifically said you don't agree that editorials can be separated from news. I think you're wrong, and I think it's silly to complain about individuals having political views. Everyone has politics views, almost everyone is an "obvious lefty" or an obvious righty...so what the fuck are you complaining about? That the section of a newspaper specifically given over to opinion expressed an opinion you don't agree with? That the debate moderated holds political views different from your own?

You are NOT pointing out context or facts or anything else, you obviously don't approve of something here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is. Sure, maybe those two issues should have been in the debate...and if so, that seems like an obvious source of complaint about the job the media does covering the important issues. Instead, you turn it into yet another rightyrant about the vast left wing media conspiracy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well gee, don't you image that "blindness" works both ways? While I might have overstated how much of a right-winger you are, the fact is that you and CADsortaGUY are pretty far to the right by any objective standard. If my liberalism makes me unsuitable to identify liberal bias, wouldn't that make your conservativeness equally unsuitable? After all, if the argument is that people understate bias in groups they agree with, it would seem to follow that people OVERSTATE bias when they disagree with the group in question.

You didn't overstate, I'm firmly in the right wing of the political hemisphere. And proud of it. :laugh:

However, you do underestimate my ability to discern media bias. I'll be the first to admit that Fox News, for example, is a (heavily) right-leaning network. And that the Washington Times leans heavily to the right as well, for example.

Might there be times where my bias blinds me to the bias presented by a given source? Perhaps, but I'm pretty quick on picking up on it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
Uhh no. Nat security(by default the war) and illegal immigration are the 2 biggest issues on the Republican side. It's been shown over and over again. The Register did people a disservice by specifically taking those two issues out of the debate. Is it coincidence they are against both those issues? I think not. They have repeatedly shown their bias. Even today's edition shows it. They gave Steve King a "thissle" for introducing a Christmas resolution in the house, not a peep from the register about the resolutions for the other religions.

There is no doubt in any rational mind the Register leans left and it shows your ignorance when you call it "whining". Pointing out their bias is not whining. I could care less who they pick but one looking at the endorsements MUST take into account the history and leaning of the people doing the endorsing.

I don't disagree that the Register could have done a better job with the debate, but I think you are WAY too eager to see "liberal bias" lurking around every corner to be objective about this. Your silly phrasing aside, there is no such thing as being "against" national security or "against" the illegal immigration debate, there are simply opposing viewpoints...and I frankly don't see what the Register would have to gain by not allowing the airing of opinions they disagree with in the debate, as you seem to be suggesting.

And as far as that Steve King thing...it was in the OPINION section. You know, the part of the paper that is SUPPOSED to reflect the political views of the author. The fact that you think this proves bias in their news coverage is just stupid, and shows how little you actually care about reality.

Uhhh, that's what I've been commenting on - the editorial staff. The debate was "moderated" by the VP and editor - an obvious lefty. As to why they specifically excluded the 2 biggest issues? - It may be because they don't want to give credence to the issue even though it's the 2 biggest for the GOP voters.
As to my eagerness - you are again mistaken. I'm pointing out the context in which these endorsement come from. Duh - the endorsements come from the editorial side - which I've pointed out has a leftist bias.

No, you've been complaining about the "bias" of the entire paper. In fact, you specifically said you don't agree that editorials can be separated from news. I think you're wrong, and I think it's silly to complain about individuals having political views. Everyone has politics views, almost everyone is an "obvious lefty" or an obvious righty...so what the fuck are you complaining about? That the section of a newspaper specifically given over to opinion expressed an opinion you don't agree with? That the debate moderated holds political views different from your own?

You are NOT pointing out context or facts or anything else, you obviously don't approve of something here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is. Sure, maybe those two issues should have been in the debate...and if so, that seems like an obvious source of complaint about the job the media does covering the important issues. Instead, you turn it into yet another rightyrant about the vast left wing media conspiracy.

Try again junior. While I don't think the DMR keeps their bias seperated well(noted by the raid story and many other incidences) this thread IS about the Editorial staff that does the endorsements. Sheesh, are you really that dense?

So let me get this straight. You don't care what context is behind an endorsement? You don't care about what agenda may lie behind it? What bias may be behind it? You are just going to take it at face value?
Willingly ignorant much?

 

[Nitemare]

WW50CentsD

He'd vote for Hillary

http://blog.washingtonpost.com..._in_clintons_club.html

 

[jonks]

Don't forget the all important White Supremacist endorsement:

http://www.davidduke.com/gener...ul_2877.html#more-2877