StrangeSox, please keep your racist comments to yourself. They are very offensive.

That's reverse-racist, the worst kind of racist.

That's reverse-racist, the worst kind of racist.

 

Angry monkey killer.

The rest of the non-existent liberal media should be more like Soledad O'Brien. Call them on their bulls*** to their face and make them defend it and force them to stick to facts while they squirm and shout what you're saying is somehow pro-Obama. Go take a Sean Hannity interview if you want softballs where you can pedal your candidate's talking points unquestioned or they attack your opponent for you.

Soledad O'Brien works for the Democrat party.

Soledad O'Brien works for the Democrat party.

Great example of why no one respects the "Liberal media!" complaints.

Great example of why no one respects the "Liberal media!" complaints.

 

The debate has been over for more than a decade. The pro-Democrat media is a fact. Sure, true Democrat zealots will deny it, but the vast majority of legitimate studies have shown very favorable coverage for Democrats and news presented in a way to coincide with the Democrat party narrative of the time.

The debate has been over for more than a decade. The pro-Democrat media is a fact. Sure, true Democrat zealots will deny it, but the vast majority of legitimate studies have shown very favorable coverage for Democrats and news presented in a way to coincide with the Democrat party narrative of the time.

Great. Would love to see some of these.

 

Particularly if it covered the Bush era.

Edit: Great summary line from the Wikipedia entry:

Research into studies of media bias in the United States shows that liberal experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, while conservatives experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a liberal bias, and those who do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative get results indicating little bias, or mixed bias.[22][23][24]

The debate has been over for more than a decade. The pro-Democrat media is a fact. Sure, true Democrat zealots will deny it, but the vast majority of legitimate studies have shown very favorable coverage for Democrats and news presented in a way to coincide with the Democrat party narrative of the time.

citation needed

Great. Would love to see some of these.

 

Particularly if it covered the Bush era.

Edit: Great summary line from the Wikipedia entry:

 

Balta, we have already argued this in the past.

 

Basically, this is like a situation I have with someone I know that does not believe in evolution but will debate about it all the time. She has terrible references and 'facts', but a lot of them, therefore she thinks she is right. I have decided to let her live her delusional life, and just leave it alone.

 

I will do the same here with your 'conservative' mainstream media bias theory.

Edited August 18, 201213 yr by mr_genius

Balta, we have already argued this in the past.

 

Basically, this is like a situation I have with someone I know that does not believe in evolution but will debate about it all the time. She has terrible references and 'facts', but a lot of them, therefore she thinks she is right. I have decided to let her live her delusional life, and just leave it alone.

 

I will do the same here with your 'conservative' mainstream media bias theory.

No, my theory is that the media is biased towards whatever makes them the most money. If you look at it over a period of a few years, you see them big time after things like wars because that draws them ratings, tax cuts and slashing social security/medicare because the on air personalities are pretty rich, but then also positive towards issues like gay marriage because they know people who are gay, and hugely after people who can get magazine covers like Palin/Obama in 2008.

No, my theory is that the media is biased towards whatever makes them the most money.

 

There is corporate bias in the media, that is true. Most of the news media has a strong corporatist Democrat slant.

There is corporate bias in the media, that is true. Most of the news media has a strong corporatist Democrat slant.

And when you add in the word "Corporatist", you can substitute "Republican", IMO.

And when you add in the word "Corporatist", you can substitute "Republican", IMO.

 

I have some very bad news for you. The Democrat party is as corporatist as the GOP. But that is a discussion for another day.

 

 

I have some very bad news for you. The Democrat party is as corporatist as the GOP. But that is a discussion for another day.

Although everything I think you said prior to this post is bulls*** that amounts to argument by assertion because you want it to be true, this much is true.

 

There's many reasons for it and contrary to popular belief, Obama is not the Alpha and Omega of Democratic corporatism and replacing him with another generic Democrat would not solve anything. It's all about campaign financing. Democrats have to play by these Citizens United rules so they whore themselves out to keep pace (Republicans prefer it this way, there is no downside to their agenda at all)

Democrats have to play by these Citizens United rules so they whore themselves out

 

They whored themselves out before Citizens United

They whored themselves out before Citizens United

The rules were weak beforehand. They then went from weak to something worse than non-existent.

Without googling. How many killed in Afghanistan since BO took office?

Without googling. How many killed in Afghanistan since BO took office?

 

Without googling. How many killed in Afghanistan since BO took office?

 

Win win chickan dinnar.

I'm impressed to see so many of you endorsing withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Without googling. How many killed in Afghanistan since BO took office?

 

I dont know how many were killed under Bush so what is the relevance of the question?

 

The only way this question matters is if somehow I couldnt find the facts for Obama but I could for Bush. But since I doubt thats the case it really doesnt matter.

 

Its like asking other random questions:

 

Without looking what country lost the most soldiers in World War II?

 

Without looking how many people lived in Vietnam at the start of the Vietnam War?

 

Without looking what is Barry Bonds highest OPS?

 

Do you think if people cant answer those questions its because of some sort of Liberal media conspiracy? Or do you think its because people dont remember random facts. Remembering facts is a useless waste of brain power, if you need a fact, look it up. Even if you know it, the best policy is to still confirm.

 

So really what is the point of this post?

 

 

 

Russia lost the most in WW2.

Russia lost the most in WW2.

By far

Obama never said anything about withdrawing from Afghanistan when he was campaigning and he said he was going to do more there because that's where the actual threat is. I don't personally agree and he is accomplishing nothing, but that's what he campaigned on, and that's what he's doing. I don't really get why people bring that up now out of any context besides "he needs to withdraw now." Especially conservatives because the vast majority of them didn't want to withdraw from Iraq (well, some of them were relieved that the clusterf*** was over) and were full of phony indignation when Obama said a withdrawal date out loud for Afghanistan (exit strategy is something Bush never did or even attempted to do and they never challenged him on that so I guess you can say they're being consistent).