mr_genius

I purchased an Obama button a while back.

I would suggest that they look over the candidates issue stances. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) None of anything I said is necessarily directed at you. Although, obviously, I don't agree with you on the extent of bias in the media and the reasons for it, and I question some of the things you consider bias. I mean, some of the things I hear used as examples of bias are pretty absurd. To each their own. Honestly, I don't see why you guys get so worked up when someone cites bias. It's interesting that you claim posters here use absurd examples right after you defend an example claiming we are on a McCarthy like witch hunt. Pot Kettle Black I suppose.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) I think Tex's McCarthyism comparison was good, actually. The more I thought about it the more it made sense. Both of them took a truth (in this case, the Communist threat and liberal bias) and hysterically exaggerate them to the point where people think it's much bigger than it really is, and incorrect claims and accusations go unchallenged, and are used as a rallying cry. Again, this is totally different. No one is suggesting the any news source is silenced. I understand that many Democrats get very angry and come out with wild accusations any time a conservative critiques the media, but it really is an overreaction. We are fully entitled to have any opinion we choose of the media. I don't want a government run media. I don't want pro-Democrat news banned. I do not want hysterical accusations such as this bogus 'McCarthyism' cries or 'You want the Soviet Union style news!' directed towards anyone whom dissents. It is completely false and totally out of line. It's the typical attack of comparing anyone who disagrees with you with some sort of great wrong perpetrated in the past. The funny thing is there is no fricking way I would want any speech silenced.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 07:02 AM) Not trying to get them banned, but when what they write is ignored because they dropped an R or had the D in paragraph 3 instead of 2, it's as good as banned. The end result of the GOP strategy is you will not believe anything in the media, only what the GOP or their surrogates tell you. Then functionally you have the old TASS system. It's nothing like that. People are free to put forward whatever stories they like. If a certain news source goes with biased reporting they may lose some credibility. A government news network, which is the only source of information allowed, is not even comparable to our system. The analogy isn't a good one. We don't have a government run monopoly on media. There are many sources you can go to for news. It's up to the news consumer to decide which sources they use, not an authoritarian government.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) As much has been made of big oils money going to the GOP, the silent story for years has been big banking money and influence has gone to the Dems. And right now we have an epic problem with the banking industry. Greenspan is calling it a once in a century debacle. I think the federal reserve is going to have to stop these bailouts. Borrowing money from other countries to cover these corrupt corporations is a farce. Or just firing up the printing presses I suppose. We need more money for bailouts!

Grats AHB!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 07:36 AM) Not like the organizers could have ever gone to their website or anything, http://www.obamawaffles.com. This only got pulled because the media found out about it and it looked bad. "Damn you John McCain!" *shakes fist in the air*

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) Think about this for a moment, how would McCarthyism have turned out if Edward Murrow was labeled as just some liberaly biased media type, or worst a communist? I do not think it is hyperbole to compare McCarthy's hunt for communist with the current hunt for liberal bias. again, no one is 'hunting' for pro-Dem journalists to be banned. As far as I'm concerned they are COMPLETELY within their rights to do what they are doing. and we are COMPLETELY within our rights to critique. why are you trying to 'McCarthy' us out of our freedom of speech? why do you have this conservative witch hunt to silence our dissention?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 10:19 PM) And if I look I will find a poor reporting job that makes a Dem look bad. There are errors. But they all even out, and that is all we can ask from a free press. You want transcripts and no editing. But then the complaint will be why some transcript wasn't added. Last year someone died from drinking too much water in a radio promotion. Hundreds of people drowned last year. See, that proves that water is dangerous and we need to get rid of it. I don't think anyone has stated they want to get rid of the pro-Dem MSM. No one wants to ban crappy journalism. We are merely stating observations and using examples to show dishonest journalism.

Saudi cleric wants death for TV "sorcerers" http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LE668892.htm

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 08:52 PM) I certainly will go with the all wet analogy And THE WSJ and Fox easily balance MSM in the bias department. I never have watched MSM, so I honestly cannot comment on their coverage. But keep paying attention to the messager and not the message. The GOP likes that. false message and faulty messenger

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 05:40 PM) I love to read about the perception of media bias. I have a great deal of respect for the GOP for coming up with this strategy. It will go down in history as perhaps the greatest political coup of all time. They have wiped out their biggest watchdogs. Brilliant. Those poor disenfranchised millionaire conservative candidates that can't get a break from the mean, rotten, BIASED!!, media. Thank GOD they have multiple channels of 24/7 media talk radio to tell you how misleading all that negative news is. Don't read the article just look at how they didn't mention D or R!! Don't read the article, look at the placement of the headline. Attack the messenger!! TASS didn't have it this good. It's not too hard to convince someone it's raining during a downpour. The only thing that will go down in history is how the media completely imploded and totally abandoned objectivity. As far as the millionaire candidates....uh the Democrats run millionaires all the time (just about every election). I am glad that the majority of citizens in our fine country understand that the MSM is sloppy and pro-Democrat. Even conservative Democrats are beginning to tune out the MSM. Honestly, there are so many new media sources, the MSM is rapidly becoming less and less valuable to the Democrats. As far as I'm concerned to more the media shows a blatant bias the more other sources of information will thrive.

Texsox, this thread was created with the sole purpose of discussing media bias and giving critiques. If you don't like to read about media bias, as you seem to only respond with sarcasm and usually don't lend much to the argument, why do you even read our posts? This thread can easily be avoided. Just like I try to stay out of the Democrat thread, as me posting sarcastic, smart alecky posts really doesn't ad to the debate.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 04:42 PM) That's what reporters do. They take big, long events, and pare them down. When you see the TV news, you are not getting the entire event. So you can look at every newspaper story and find stuff like this. And yes, thousands of newspapers and tens of thousands of television and radio stations are all against conservatives. So do NOT believe anything they tell you. They have secret meetings and everything. I don't even think they are Americans, why else would they forget little R and D? /popping corn, watching the show There's a difference in putting a news story out and cutting and pasting parts of an interview to show the person being interviewed to appear to be answering a certain question, when in fact they were responding to a question the viewer was not allowed to see. That type of editing is irresponsible, this is just common sense here.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) He's all or nothing. Ah I see. Sorts of like the Rob Deer of the filibuster.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) We should stop newspapers and just read transcripts. f***ing lazy people. And no more TV news or talk radio programs, just watch news conferences and get the whole story. ? your post doesn't make any sense. what are you getting at?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 11:27 AM) FYI, here are some of the pieces that were cut out ny ABC in the palin interview. Selective editing? I think it is blatently dishonest when they edit the interview in such a way as they cut off parts of her answers to make it seem that she gave an incomplete or wrong answer. Here is just one example, the bolded part is what was edited out from the broadcast. GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel? PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right? PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable. GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran? PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure. GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program. PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that. Nothing like reporting only what you want reported. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...palin-interview what a bunch of hacks. no integrity.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2008 -> 07:39 PM) Here's the interesting thing...George W. Bush may well have helped stop that. The 2 things that have really supported offshoring of jobs is cheap transportation for manufactured goods and the strength of the dollar which made paying U.S. workers more costly. Now, thanks to our inaction on energy, the price of moving goods has gone up significantly and probably will keep going up for the next administration, and we've managed to print enough money that the strong dollar is now nothing but a slogan. The weak dollar does make our goods and services more affordable in countries that aren't 10 trillion in debt and have strong currency.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) I personally think that would be a huge mistake. What you want, ultimately, is US businesses to do well and hire more people at as good wages. Taxing them for outsourcing will cause businesses to shrink and do the opposite. You want a solution to outsourcing? Move forward instead of backwards. Work on education, and do everything you can policy-wise to create jobs on the FRONT edge of modern business, instead of the back end. If we keep trying desperately to cling to businesses whose cycle dicates they are in a constricting phase, pretty soon, we'll tariff and low-paying job ourselves out of financial superpower status. Another issue is that the US merely does not have the enough skilled workers in field such as engineering. Basically, if we don't have people from other countries doing this complicated, important work we won't have enough people to get the job done. New technologies often require a lot of engineering innovation. American companies often need to go overseas to find qualified people to do this work (be that outsourcing or bringing workers over on a visa program). In the end, I believe it helps our economy more than it hurts. But I really do understand where Knightni is coming form and I think we have signed some bad deals in the past that give other countries an unfair trade advantage. I'm all for protecting the American worker, but I'm not sure what the solution would be. So, I too, would like to see this issue covered in the election.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 12, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) What was Obama's response when O'Reilly asked him about Ayers? I meant to watch but I had something else to do. I didn't see that question. I think FOX showed portions of the interview each day this week as to capitalize on the big ratings for an Obama / O'Reilly interview. I must have missed the day they showed to portion of the interview where Obama gets asked about Ayers.

I saw the Obama interview with Bill O'reilly ( Obama did a great job in that interview) and he said he will give out a very detailed plan as to how to become energy independent. So I would be very interested to see the real numbers. I don't want an abstract 'some solar panels' type of answer. I would like to see the research funding he plans to spend.

It's a touch call. I still think the political climate favors the Democrats. Now is it possible they find a way to lose this? Of course.

Media backfire? http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/palinmedia20080904 ----------- Point of view from an Ex-Clinton aide: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/...in4442492.shtml ----------- I know everybody likes to read polling trends, so here is another one. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...n_campaign_cash

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 08:20 PM) well when you accuse Obama of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex, an out and out lie, you forfeit any possibility of a clean campaign. I used to think I liked McCain more than the other candidates, but now I'm not so sure. He's backtracked on anything he's accomplished the past 8 years, he's probably more of a warhawk than Bush, and quite possibly stupider. An unbelievable combination. oh my