Flashback: AP Slammed Bush's Extravagant Inaugural

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

Members of the media voting does not equal reporting by the media being biased. Basic attribution error there.

I have linked numerous studies on numerous different occasions studying alleged media bias. If you are interested, use the search function and read up about it yourself.

As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

The only mark of a truly biased (and insane) media would have been to treat both of them equally.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily assume that the press excluded McCain from coverage so as to limit his exposure to the public.

You're opinion is just as far-fetched as mine is.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

Members of the media voting does not equal reporting by the media being biased. Basic attribution error there.

I have linked numerous studies on numerous different occasions studying alleged media bias. If you are interested, use the search function and read up about it yourself.

As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

The only mark of a truly biased (and insane) media would have been to treat both of them equally.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily assume that the press excluded McCain from coverage so as to limit his exposure to the public.

You're opinion is just as far-fetched as mine is.

On election night there were news feeds of people around the country collapsing in tears at the historic moment the election was called for obama. Can you honestly say you think there would have been similar reaction to a McCain victory? What would have been notable or historic about his win? Which people would have been so overcome with emotion as to be reduced to tears? There's a pretty identifiable objective difference between the historical significance of Obama's win vs a McCain win. Feel free to dispute that, but come on.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

Members of the media voting does not equal reporting by the media being biased. Basic attribution error there.

I have linked numerous studies on numerous different occasions studying alleged media bias. If you are interested, use the search function and read up about it yourself.

As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

The only mark of a truly biased (and insane) media would have been to treat both of them equally.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily assume that the press excluded McCain from coverage so as to limit his exposure to the public.

You're opinion is just as far-fetched as mine is.

On election night there were news feeds of people around the country collapsing in tears at the historic moment the election was called for obama. Can you honestly say you think there would have been similar reaction to a McCain victory? What would have been notable or historic about his win? Which people would have been so overcome with emotion as to be reduced to tears? There's a pretty identifiable objective difference between the historical significance of Obama's win vs a McCain win. Feel free to dispute that, but come on.

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

Members of the media voting does not equal reporting by the media being biased. Basic attribution error there.

I have linked numerous studies on numerous different occasions studying alleged media bias. If you are interested, use the search function and read up about it yourself.

As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

The only mark of a truly biased (and insane) media would have been to treat both of them equally.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily assume that the press excluded McCain from coverage so as to limit his exposure to the public.

You're opinion is just as far-fetched as mine is.

Of course its an assumption, there have been no rigorous studies done on the 2008 election yet. Are you really telling me... honestly... that you can't fathom why Obama's candidacy got more positive press coverage than McCain's on the merits of each campaign? I don't even care if you want to throw some perceived media bias in there afterwards, as it doesn't matter in respect to this point. Seriously though?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

Members of the media voting does not equal reporting by the media being biased. Basic attribution error there.

I have linked numerous studies on numerous different occasions studying alleged media bias. If you are interested, use the search function and read up about it yourself.

As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

The only mark of a truly biased (and insane) media would have been to treat both of them equally.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily assume that the press excluded McCain from coverage so as to limit his exposure to the public.

You're opinion is just as far-fetched as mine is.

On election night there were news feeds of people around the country collapsing in tears at the historic moment the election was called for obama. Can you honestly say you think there would have been similar reaction to a McCain victory? What would have been notable or historic about his win? Which people would have been so overcome with emotion as to be reduced to tears? There's a pretty identifiable objective difference between the historical significance of Obama's win vs a McCain win. Feel free to dispute that, but come on.

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

Yeah, black people should be crying that a Democrat won-he will just screw them.
After all, Republicans have done so much for them. What with Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and all of the civil rights legislation that Republicans have passed?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily assume that the press excluded McCain from coverage so as to limit his exposure to the public.

You're opinion is just as far-fetched as mine is.

On election night there were news feeds of people around the country collapsing in tears at the historic moment the election was called for obama. Can you honestly say you think there would have been similar reaction to a McCain victory? What would have been notable or historic about his win? Which people would have been so overcome with emotion as to be reduced to tears? There's a pretty identifiable objective difference between the historical significance of Obama's win vs a McCain win. Feel free to dispute that, but come on.

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

We're discussing why the media would perhaps tend to cover one campaign or candidate more than another. Try to stick with the conversation if you are able.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

I'm sure they'd be lining up behind the Republican party, you know, the party that fought against Civil Rights and put such wonders at the forefront of their party like Storm Thurmond.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

I'm sure they'd be lining up behind the Republican party, you know, the party that fought against Civil Rights

The votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Hmm 80%<63% and 82%<69%, yeah those damn republicans that stood in the way of the democrats on civil rights by voting a higher percentage FOR the Civil Rights Act than the democrats.

and put such wonders at the forefront of their party like Storm Thurmond.

I'll take your Storm Thurmond and raise you a Robert Bryd

Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours.

Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did." Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.

In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.?Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

When running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist. However, in 1946 or 1947 he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

don't let the facts get in your way CitizenKain just think what you want to think, facts be damned :roll:

FYI Yes I know there was a major shift in the south's political party affiliation in the 70s but that wasn't your argument CitizenKain.

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Which is funny to say considering how much more open Obama has already been to the press than Bush ever was.

As for the idea of taking a single article from a single source about Bush's second inauguration, trying to compare it to one that is historic by any person's standards, and declare the 'librul media' myth yet again... is once again stupid.

It's amazing considering how much time so many people spend trying to find examples of the 'librul media' that things like this are the best they can come up with. Must be the librul internet erasing all the evidence.

Obama open??? WTF are you thinking??

The press has complained about him for months.

There have been quite a bit of stories about how Obama treats the press and the press isn't happy about it. Seems the problem spring from the fact that Obama is not used to the 24/7 media glare and is having a hard time adjusting to it.

Apparently they complain for months... yet somehow still have a bias for him. You guys need to get your stories straight.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."?Robert C. Byrd

:Q

Not to mention, third in line to the presidency

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

I'm sure they'd be lining up behind the Republican party, you know, the party that fought against Civil Rights

The votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Hmm 80%<63% and 82%<69%, yeah those damn republicans that stood in the way of the democrats on civil rights by voting a higher percentage FOR the Civil Rights Act than the democrats.

and put such wonders at the forefront of their party like Storm Thurmond.

I'll take your Storm Thurmond and raise you a Robert Bryd

Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours.

Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did." Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.

In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.?Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

When running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist. However, in 1946 or 1947 he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

don't let the facts get in your way CitizenKain just think what you want to think, facts be damned :roll:

FYI Yes I know there was a major shift in the south's political party affiliation in the 70s but that wasn't your argument CitizenKain.

You should read up on 'Southern Democrats", "Northern Democrats", and the "Conservative Coalition". Southern Democrats were for all meaningful purposes a third political party, one that aligned with the Republicans to oppose civil rights legislation. The thinking of the South didn't change in the 70's, just the Southern Democrats dissolved into the Republican party, the party that most closely shared their values.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If you think this is hilarious, wait until he actually TAKES OFFICE. I can't even speculate what kind of weekly "scandal" will be dredged up, because I'm not nearly as creative as the right-wing slime machine. I'm sure we'll hear about his outrageous dry cleaning bill or whatever at some point.

The right wing slime machine doesn't have far to reach...the Democrats are giving them plenty of ammunition as of late.

Obama needs to get control of his own party.

 

[Pepsei]

to be fair, bush is helping by declaring it an emergency so more money can be spent.

link

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: joshsquall
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/r...-it-s-spend-baby-spend

Not that there was ever any doubt about the liberal bias in the media, but this is pretty ridiculous. Slam Bush in 05 but not Obama in 09, when the economy is also completely trashed?

As for the idea of taking a single article from a single source about Bush's second inauguration, trying to compare it to one that is historic by any person's standards, and declare the 'librul media' myth yet again... is once again stupid.

It's amazing considering how much time so many people spend trying to find examples of the 'librul media' that things like this are the best they can come up with. Must be the librul internet erasing all the evidence.

So you can't even acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy?

Fern

I most certainly can, and you can definitely acknowledge how absurd a conclusion is being drawn from the two, right?

How is it absurd? They are spending more on Obama and that doesn't include the costs of having 45,000 security people working at that time.

You might want to take the joint out of your mouth for 2 seconds and realize that your Fuher is going to cost us a lot and is going to drag this nation so far down that it will make Dubya look like a savior (which he isn't).

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."?Robert C. Byrd

:Q

Not to mention, third in line to the presidency

If we get to Byrd, he'll be gone in a matter of days to get to #4. :shocked:

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
You might want to take the joint out of your mouth for 2 seconds and realize that your Fuher is going to cost us a lot and is going to drag this nation so far down that it will make Dubya look like a savior (which he isn't).

What is a Fuher?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
You might want to take the joint out of your mouth for 2 seconds and realize that your Fuher is going to cost us a lot and is going to drag this nation so far down that it will make Dubya look like a savior (which he isn't).

What is a Fuher?

Isn't that someone who screws people in animal costumes?

Anyway, the far righties on here and in freep are indicative of a bitter minority that always exists. Anyone not ideologically landlocked is pretty optimistic about Obama at this point.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113...Rating-Transition.aspx

 

[Xellos2099]

We are off the issue here. The issue is why Bush spend 40 million and the news media bash him to hell and when Obama Spend 160 million while we are in a weak economy the news media say it is money well spend. 4 times, Obama spend 4 freaking time the amount of the money Bush spend and media give him a free pass. WHY IS THAT? Why is Obama allowed to exist? I will tell you why, the new media are 90% freaking democrat. And want to know why? All the journalism professor in university are democrat minded and if their student write paper that are right leaning and show sign of conservatism and they would get a failing grade. And the student are slowly made into liberal and now they are in the news media business.


Btw, Fuher= King or something like that.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
We are off the issue here. The issue is why Bush spend 40 million and the news media bash him to hell and when Obama Spend 160 million while we are in a weak economy the news media say it is money well spend. 4 times, Obama spend 4 freaking time the amount of the money Bush spend and media give him a free pass. WHY IS THAT? Why is Obama allowed to exist? I will tell you why, the new media are 90% freaking democrat. And want to know why? All the journalism professor in university are democrat minded and if their student write paper that are right leaning and show sign of conservatism and they would get a failing grade. And the student are slowly made into liberal and now they are in the news media business.


Btw, Fuher= King or something like that.

If the media was as powerful as some of the numnuts out there think it is then GWB would have never been reelected.

Get over it.

As for Obama spending alot of money....I don't like it. But on the grand scheme of things I simply can't get worked up over it. How much of the money being spent is due to the fact that there is going to be a sh!tload of people coming into the DC area to celebrate? How much of the money is freely donated?

Maybe there should be a cap on the amount of federal dollars spent...but I don't see that being realistic either.

I think the wingnuts should stick to bashing Obama's administrative selections..there seems to be enough ammo there to fire at the Big O.

 

[Xellos2099]

So why bash Bush when he spend 4 time less the Obama spend? Can you give me a rational reason behind it other than MEDIA BIAS?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So why bash Bush when he spend 4 time less the Obama spend? Can you give me a rational reason behind it other than MEDIA BIAS?

Bush was only popular immediately following 9/11. He didn't have political capital beforehand, remember the election he "stole?" He wasted any political capital the moment he decided to go to war in Iraq.

Generally speaking, there isn't anything that the media did which resulted in negative reporting on Bush. So how the media gets blamed for negative reporting I will never figure out. maybe someone can explain?

There is an element of causation that people are neglecting in an all out effort to jump to the wrong conclusion.

If the public doesn't like Bush the media will report it. It isn't the other way around.

IE if there is $$ in Bashing GWB then the media will bash GWB. Just like if there is money in Obama worship then THAT is what the media will do. Do you think 'Newsweek' ran Obama on the cover over a dozen times simply because they LIKE HIM?? HELL NO. It made them GOOD MONEY.

And who dictates where the good $$ is at? WE DO.

I swear I don't know how many times this topic has been covered on these boards but people never learn.

Here is another angle:

Do you think Rush Limbaugh bashes libruls because it makes HIM feel good? It makes him feel superior?

NO.

Its because he makes a damn good chunk of $$$ off the retards that buy his books and listen to his radio show.

You can bet if he found an audience that would rather listen to him offer Broadway show reviews and it made the same amount of $$ or more he'd be doing Broadway show reviews. end of story.

 

[Xellos2099]

The public does not equal to the media. The general public hate the government bailout of business and sure as hell the news media say it is good and it is REQUIRED.

Actually, the news LOVE Obama, not for the money, they love his extreme liberalism view.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
The public does not equal to the media. The general public hate the government bailout of business and sure as hell the news media say it is good and it is REQUIRED.

Actually, the news LOVE Obama, not for the money, they love his extreme liberalism view.

The media would be no where without the public. I don't know how you can NOT see this.

The public generally didn't like the 'bailout' packages but it wasn't the media that was saying it was good. It was our politicans. It was the GWB administration. Media experts were all over the map when it came to the bailout. Editorials were full of condemnation or praise depending on the political slant.

I think you give the media wayy too much power. Either that or you are not paying attention. Dana Perino gets her paychecks from the White House, not CSPAN nor CNN.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

I'm sure they'd be lining up behind the Republican party, you know, the party that fought against Civil Rights

The votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Hmm 80%<63% and 82%<69%, yeah those damn republicans that stood in the way of the democrats on civil rights by voting a higher percentage FOR the Civil Rights Act than the democrats.

and put such wonders at the forefront of their party like Storm Thurmond.

I'll take your Storm Thurmond and raise you a Robert Bryd

Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours.

Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did." Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.

In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.?Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

When running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist. However, in 1946 or 1947 he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

don't let the facts get in your way CitizenKain just think what you want to think, facts be damned :roll:

FYI Yes I know there was a major shift in the south's political party affiliation in the 70s but that wasn't your argument CitizenKain.

You should read up on 'Southern Democrats", "Northern Democrats", and the "Conservative Coalition". Southern Democrats were for all meaningful purposes a third political party, one that aligned with the Republicans to oppose civil rights legislation. The thinking of the South didn't change in the 70's, just the Southern Democrats dissolved into the Republican party, the party that most closely shared their values.

Bolded so you can see it better. Which your reply repeats, but not surpisingly you got your facts wrong...

These parties were aligned on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The House's Version
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

The Senate's Version
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)

Yeah one group that is 84-85% for the act is aligned with the other group that was only 5-7% for the act :roll:.

Either you need to read up on your history or brush up on your math skills.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So because people have unrealistic expectations of someone who really doesn't have any experience or history to back it up we should care? Maybe black people should cry if Obama actually does something to help them unlike the last 50-60 years of democrats who have screwed them.

I'm sure they'd be lining up behind the Republican party, you know, the party that fought against Civil Rights

The votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Hmm 80%<63% and 82%<69%, yeah those damn republicans that stood in the way of the democrats on civil rights by voting a higher percentage FOR the Civil Rights Act than the democrats.
snip-

You should read up on 'Southern Democrats", "Northern Democrats", and the "Conservative Coalition". Southern Democrats were for all meaningful purposes a third political party, one that aligned with the Republicans to oppose civil rights legislation. The thinking of the South didn't change in the 70's, just the Southern Democrats dissolved into the Republican party, the party that most closely shared their values.

Eski,

Either I misunderstand what you're referring to when you say "most closely shared their values" (sounds like you're saying values about 'race', or your assertion is nonsensical and contradicted by the voting numbers given above.

So, back before the Souther Dems left for the Repub party, the Repub party voted in larger numbers for civil rights legislation than the Dem party (whose vote would contain those very same Southern Dems).

Maybe the Southern Dems votes dragged down the Dem votes, but still since the Repubs voted overwhelmingy for the civil rights legilation that should do nothing other than deter the Southern Dems from switching parties. If you're opposed to civil rights legislation, why would you switch to a party than approves it by 80%? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If the Southern Dems migrated to the Repub party because of some shared values, it certainly wouldn't be about race or civil rights.

Otherwise, talk of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas and civil rights legislation for Blacks the last 8 years is stupid. What civil rights legislation targeted at the Black community could there possibly be? Other than 'reparations' I haven't heard anything of the sort even mentioned in the last 7-8 years that I can recall.

Fern