Printable View
Gents,
All of your arguments against Sara Palin (who is not a Presidential candidate) and your list of litanies against George Bush may all be valid, but Obama is not the answer.
All this anti-Bush / McCain / Palin ranting, but no positive reasons to vote [u]FOR[/u] Obama.
Is Obama really the best that the Dems have to offer?
Face it, the emotionally driven Dems nominated the wrong guy, and now were all going to be stuck with this neophyte.
Thanks,
Jackson
OBAMA SAYS TAKE 'DAY OFF' WORK FOR ELECTION.
This fuckin idiot Obama sounds more and more like Peron.
Whenever Peron was in trouble he urged his supporters to hit the streets I. E. Demonstrate.
Take a day off for the election.
This fuckin idiot Obama is really starting to piss me off
Mississippi's voter rolls stuffed with dead and absent registrants.
That fuckin idiot Obama is REALLY starting to piss me off
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Mississippi's voter rolls stuffed with dead and absent registrants.
That fuckin idiot Obama is REALLY starting to piss me off[/QUOTE]I've been thinking this for awhile, but might as well say it today. Is El Alamo working up a comedy routine? I could see where he would be a big hit at a nursing home full of demented racists who would laugh til they puked, when they weren't shitting themselves. Funny stuff!
DOGGYBOY.
I am glad you see the humor in this.
That fuckin idiot Obama really is pissing me off, but I know it really doesn't make any difference.
We are going to be stuck with whoever we are going to be stuck with as President. Right now, it looks like Obama.
I love it.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh9BmNuqeiQ[/url]
It's time to Balkanize and here are my reasons.
Dear Red States:
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. It may even include Florida and Ohio, they are seriously considering it. We've given them until Nov. 4th to decide. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country. Since we're dropping the middle states we're calling it United America, or simply the U. A.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty.
You get Dollywood. You can take Ted Nugent. We're keeping Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel. You get WorldCom. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get Ole' Miss. We get Harvard and 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms, and the highest concentration of pregnant unwed teenagers. Please be aware that the U. A. Will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, really we do, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. We'd rather spend it on taking care of sick people, and educating our children.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America 's quality wines, 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U. S. Low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs) 92 percent of all U. S. Mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy Redies believe you are people with higher morals then we Bluies.
Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace out,
Blue States.
I think we have a workable solution no?
[QUOTE=El Alamo]OBAMA SAYS TAKE 'DAY OFF' WORK FOR ELECTION.
This fuckin idiot Obama sounds more and more like Peron.
Whenever Peron was in trouble he urged his supporters to hit the streets I. E. Demonstrate.
Take a day off for the election.
This fuckin idiot Obama is really starting to piss me off[/QUOTE]Due to expected heavy volume in voting, there has been a change in voting days and times.
Republican voters will be voting on Tuesday, November 5, 2008.
Democrat voters will be voting Wednesday, November 5, 2008.
This will alleviate any issues with waiting times. Please pass this on.
Though you might want to mention it to Sid.
[QUOTE=Jackson]All this anti-Democrat / Obama / Biden ranting, but no positive reasons to vote [u]FOR[/u] McCain.[/QUOTE]* Looks Below *
Regards,
BM
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Mississippi's voter rolls stuffed with dead and absent registrants.
That fuckin idiot Obama is REALLY starting to piss me off[/QUOTE]You think one of those dead people is going to show up to vote? If you're registered to vote somewhere and you die, chances are you are still on the voter rolls until someone does a validation of some sort.
And if you're registered to vote somewhere, and move somewhere else and register there, guess what? You're registered in two places.
If someone registers as Mickey Mouse, you think someone named Mickey Mouse is actually going to vote?
Get a grip.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]OBAMA SAYS TAKE 'DAY OFF' WORK FOR ELECTION.
This fuckin idiot Obama sounds more and more like Peron.
Whenever Peron was in trouble he urged his supporters to hit the streets I. E. Demonstrate.
Take a day off for the election.
This fuckin idiot Obama is really starting to piss me off[/QUOTE]Wasn't it you who posted last week that you hadn't decided who you were going to vote for? Now less than 1 week later he is an asshole, fucking idiot and any other invective you can think of? We all knew you were full of shit when you posted that you hadn't made up your mind.
At least be honest. Take a position / candidate and stay with him. I don't see the purpose of BS'ing everyone that you are open-minded and neutral when it was soooo obvious before you even posted that ridiculous post that you were FOS.
Suerte.
Stowe
Now that it appears that McAngryOldGuy and the 'Princess' are going to lose, and possibly by a wide margin (based on the Electoral College) it is interesting to see the Repubs here displaying sour grapes.
The Repubs only have themselves to blame if / when they get the asses kicked. They were more corrupt than any Dem reign, did more damage to the economy / country than any Dem reign.
Being a Dem I will say something that NO Repub here have the guts to say about THEIR party (they never criticize their leaders-it is like they believe everyone in the Repub party is perfect-God's gift to us all) All politicians are corrupt-it is the degree that differentiates the Dems from the Repubs (I give you Nixon, Bush 2-the 2 most dangerous we have ever had)
Having said that, if the Dems get a supermajority in the Senate they will become arrogant and will lose their majority within 4 years. That is why I hope they do not get the supermajority-that will minimize the risk of them losing the majority. It will also prevent them of submitting stupid extreme legislation.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=StrayLight]You think one of those dead people is going to show up to vote? If you're registered to vote somewhere and you die, chances are you are still on the voter rolls until someone does a validation of some sort.
And if you're registered to vote somewhere, and move somewhere else and register there, guess what? You're registered in two places.
If someone registers as Mickey Mouse, you think someone named Mickey Mouse is actually going to vote?
Get a grip.[/QUOTE]Straylight,
Very good observation but you shouldn't respond to his rants as El Alamo just needs to fabricate reasons to justify his borderline hatred. This intensity is interesting since he posted just last week that he had not yet decided who he was going to vote for-as if ANYONE really believed him.
He doesn't realize that, given your explanation, when a Repub dies or moves it works the same way for them, as well. But it is ok when it benefits the Repubs but corruption when it may benefit the Dems.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=El Alamo]OBAMA SAYS TAKE 'DAY OFF' WORK FOR ELECTION.
This fuckin idiot Obama sounds more and more like Peron.
Whenever Peron was in trouble he urged his supporters to hit the streets I. E. Demonstrate.
Take a day off for the election.
This fuckin idiot Obama is really starting to piss me off[/QUOTE]I work for a major insurance company whose board of directors is a who's who of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, my company is echoing what Obama is saying. The compay encourages its employees to take time off from work with pay to vote. (I and almost everyone else that I know have already voted absentee, but I might slip out to go to the gym.) If we want to take the entire day off to campaign or to drive voters to the polling locations, we can take personal vacation days or our personal time to do so. There's nothing Peronist, socialist, or communist about this. Employees can use their personal vacation days or personal time any way that they want.
Fox-TV news (Faux-TV news) is waving this "take a day off for the election" as a subversion of democracy and capitalism. This only goes to show how desperate the Palin / McCain supporters are getting. Personally, I think it should be a national holiday regardless of who is running for President.
VOTE OBAMA!
[size=-2][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was deleted in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any [u]personal attacks or derogatory comments[/u] directed towards another forum member.
Thanks,
Jackson[/blue][/size]
I'm independent and pro-USA. Meaning I don't have any party affiliations or ideology which ties me to the republicans or to the democrates. I favor policies, actions, and candidates which will make our country strong and benefit it's people. I have been following the campaigns very closely listening and reading a lot trying to seperate facts from fiction. Nowhere in my research have I come across anything which leads me to draw the conclusion SIDNEY has below. What am I missing?
[QUOTE=Sidney]As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake."
2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all."
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth." Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic."
6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free foodstamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our Democratic congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?
If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Stowe]The Repubs only have themselves to blame if / when they get the asses kicked. They were more corrupt than any Dem reign, did more damage to the economy / country than any Dem reign. [/QUOTE]While it's true the Pubs have only themselves to blame on any number of levels -- incompetence (Iraq, Katrina) corruption (Abramoff, Stevens) hypocrisy (Craig, Foley) lack of new ideas, etc. -- there is also a little-heralded success story behind the current Dem situation. Namely, Howard Dean.
A couple of years ago there was a little civil war inside the Democratic Party on how to proceed: one faction wanted to focus on the big states and the strong candidates, the other faction (led by Howard Dean) wanted a 50 state strategy. Howard Dean got elected as head of the DNC, and proceeded with the 50 state strategy, and some of the fruits are being seen. John McCain and the RNC are being forced to spend resources in places that Dems had previously stayed away from and left to the Pubs as low-hanging fruit.
The 2006 story:
[url]http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_vindication_of_Howard_Deans_crazy_1109.html[/url]
The 2008 story:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/dean-was-right-50-state-s_n_138229.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Stowe]Now that it appears that McAngryOldGuy and the 'Princess' are going to lose, and possibly by a wide margin (based on the Electoral College) it is interesting to see the Repubs here displaying sour grapes.[/QUOTE]A lot can happen between now and November 4th. Although there are some significant differences in the 2008 polls and the 2000 and 2004 polls, the fact is that in the two previous elections there were some last-minute surprises. I remember going to bed on election eve 2004 thinking that Kerry had made it.
I'm thinking we're going to wake up on November 5th with a young black guy with a funny name slated to be our next President, and huge Democratic sweeps in the House and Senate. But I can't really let myself believe it until I actually see it.
[QUOTE=StrayLight]While it's true the Pubs have only themselves to blame on any number of levels -- incompetence (Iraq, Katrina) corruption (Abramoff, Stevens) hypocrisy (Craig, Foley) lack of new ideas, etc. -- there is also a little-heralded success story behind the current Dem situation. Namely, Howard Dean.
A couple of years ago there was a little civil war inside the Democratic Party on how to proceed: one faction wanted to focus on the big states and the strong candidates, the other faction (led by Howard Dean) wanted a 50 state strategy. Howard Dean got elected as head of the DNC, and proceeded with the 50 state strategy, and some of the fruits are being seen. John McCain and the RNC are being forced to spend resources in places that Dems had previously stayed away from and left to the Pubs as low-hanging fruit.
The 2006 story:
[url]http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_vindication_of_Howard_Deans_crazy_1109.html[/url]
The 2008 story:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/dean-was-right-50-state-s_n_138229.html[/url][/QUOTE]Good point Stray. Dean has come a long way and seems to have found the perfect position for his skills. In contrast to his over the top performance of a few years back, he is a major force in the background now.
[QUOTE=StrayLight]A lot can happen between now and November 4th. Although there are some significant differences in the 2008 polls and the 2000 and 2004 polls, the fact is that in the two previous elections there were some last-minute surprises. I remember going to bed on election eve 2004 thinking that Kerry had made it.
I'm thinking we're going to wake up on November 5th with a young black guy with a funny name slated to be our next President, and huge Democratic sweeps in the House and Senate. But I can't really let myself believe it until I actually see it.[/QUOTE]I think McCain is about to get his grandfather clock cleaned. I saw a recent item indicating that some of the Repub party insiders are trying to get him to campaign more in states where the senate races are close, rather than continue his focus on a presidential race that is doomed. The phrase "miracle needed" is on the lips of Republicans that don't want to be quoted for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=Doggboy]I think McCain is about to get his grandfather clock cleaned. I saw a recent item indicating that some of the Repub party insiders are trying to get him to campaign more in states where the senate races are close, rather than continue his focus on a presidential race that is doomed. The phrase "miracle needed" is on the lips of republicans that don't want to be quoted for obvious reasons.[/QUOTE]Dogg,
That was David Frum's opinion piece in the Washington Post earlier this week re: shifting resources to the Senate.
[url]http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28835/pub_detail.asp[/url]
Apparently he is now PNG in the Party for having written it. LOL!
And while I do think, like you, that McCain is going to get his grandfather clock cleaned, I have learned this hard lesson from the past: don't start telling McCain what time it is until that clock of his has stopped running. When I see it on November 5th, I'll believe it.
[QUOTE=Stowe]Having said that, if the Dems get a supermajority in the Senate they will become arrogant and will lose their majority within 4 years. That is why I hope they do not get the supermajority-that will minimize the risk of them losing the majority. It will also prevent them of submitting stupid extreme legislation.[/QUOTE]Actually, I think that they are likely to get a super majority, but that they will lose it at mid-term elections (unless the right seats aren't up for re-election somehow in 2010; I admit to not having looked that far ahead to see how it could shake out)
I think the thing that worries me most is that even two years is plenty of time to submit and approve some stupid extreme legislation and the Democrats are very likely to do so (not that the Republicans wouldn't as well) Including national subsidized health care which I am very much against (another conversation)
I'm not tied to either party. I'm more libertarian (but not quite all the way there) than either of the two major parties. It would scare the crap out of me if ANY party had a super majority (even the Libertarians, which of course will never happen in our lifetimes)
I also think that because of the fear of super majorities in MOST (or maybe just ENOUGH) voter's minds, even if the Democrats don't do something extreme they will not keep that super majority for 4 years.
[QUOTE=El Queso]Actually, I think that they are likely to get a super majority, but that they will lose it at mid-term elections (unless the right seats aren't up for re-election somehow in 2010; I admit to not having looked that far ahead to see how it could shake out)
I think the thing that worries me most is that even two years is plenty of time to submit and approve some stupid extreme legislation and the Democrats are very likely to do so (not that the Republicans wouldn't as well) Including national subsidized health care which I am very much against (another conversation)
I also think that because of the fear of super majorities in MOST (or maybe just ENOUGH) voter's minds, even if the Democrats don't do something extreme they will not keep that super majority for 4 years.[/QUOTE]And I agree 100%, our country is best governed when there is a better balance of power, and without wackadoodle neo-cons but conservatives and liberals FORCED to work together to get anything done.
I think we will be hearing a lot from the Court if the Dems get a super majority. I'm wondering how the conservatives will spin "activists judges" then.
[QUOTE=Gipse]I'm independent and pro-USA. Meaning I don't have any party affiliations or ideology which ties me to the republicans or to the democrates. I favor policies, actions, and candidates which will make our country strong and benefit it's people. I have been following the campaigns very closely listening and reading a lot trying to seperate facts from fiction. Nowhere in my research have I come across anything which leads me to draw the conclusion SIDNEY has below. What am I missing?[/QUOTE]Repubs fabric lies to justify their hatred- like referring to Obama as a socialist (which McAngryOldGuy just admitted today to be untrue) as a communist, as a terrorist.
Their entire platform is based on fear, hatred and fabrication of falsehoods. I believe that their basic 'meanness' is a main reason they may lose and lose big this year because those in the middle are tired of that hatred, those attempts to create divisions rather than attempting to unify.
Suerte.
Stowe
Some people think there is something fishy about the polls. Every polling organization wants to be close to the final result. Right now, that looks like Obama is going to win by about 5%. I think you can bank on those numbers.
I don't think there is anything fishy about those numbers. Obama should win. Our economy is a mess and Bush does not have high approvable ratings. Let's give somebody else a chance. It won't be the end of the world - at least I hope not.
If Obama doesn't win I will be astonished (this does not mean I will vote for Obama. I may not vote, I may vote for McCain, or if Rock Harders comes up with some really good reasons, I may vote for Obama
P.S. I have a huge economic stake in an Obama victory. Maybe I should go with my wallet and vote for Obama.
extra P.S. if the polls on Sunday or Monday start saying it is a dead heat then it probably is a dead heat. Every poll wants to be close to the final result
THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE.
Everytime you try to warm up to this guy, he does some third world, banana republic, Chavez/Castro bullshit like this.
This lesson is: be prepared to buy Obama's bullshit hook, line, sinker and rowboat or he will be throwing you off the plane.
Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets'
By Jason Horowitz | October 30, 2008 | Tags: PoliticsBarack ObamaDick CheneyErica JongGeorge W. BushJane FondaKen FollettMichael ChabonNormal MailerPhillip RothTom Wolfe.
[quote]Erica Jong, 1976. It seems that the final days of the presidential campaign have made Erica Jong and her friends more than a little anxious.
A few days ago, Jong, the author and self-described feminist, gave an interview to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, the choicest bits of which were brought to my attention by the reliably sharp-eyed Christian Rocca, the U. S. Correspondent of Il Foglio, who published excerpts on his Camillo blog. Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an "obsession. A paralyzing terror. An anxious fever that keeps you awake at night." She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War.
Here's a translation of Jong's more spirited quotes to the Milan-based Corriere, as selected by Rocca.
"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."
"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."
"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."
"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia."
"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."
"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."
She also laments that not all of America's men of letters share her devotion to Obama.
"Tom Wolfe and John Updike are men of the right and Philip Roth is at this point a hermit who leads a monastic life in Connecticut, far from everything and everybody."
Luckily, she said there is her and Michael Chabon, who, she says, have "taken the place of Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer respectively."
They have the same political sensibilities, she said, but a better "sense of humor.[/quote]I guess I will be forced to vote for Obama in order to prevent these fucking fruitloops and thier equally nutty friend Barbara Streisand from having nervous breakdowns.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Luckily, she said there is her and Michael Chabon, who, she says, have "taken the place of Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer respectively." [/QUOTE]In her dreams. Self propagandizing horseshit. She and Dickie Morris ought to do a book tour together.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE.
Everytime you try to warm up to this guy, he does some third world, banana republic, Chavez / Castro bullshit like this.
This lesson is: be prepared to buy Obama's bullshit hook, line, sinker and rowboat or he will be coming after you[/QUOTE]Perhaps the reporters were "CockSuckers" El Alamo.
Of course then there would be justification for throwing them off his airplane.
Exon
[QUOTE=El Alamo]THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE.
Everytime you try to warm up to this guy, he does some third world, banana republic, Chavez / Castro bullshit like this.
This lesson is: be prepared to buy Obama's bullshit hook, line, sinker and rowboat or he will be coming after you[/QUOTE]Is this what is known as IRONY?
With complete respect and sympathy to those who lost family during the totalitarian regime in Argentina 1972 to 1981, I have to point out how the above statement reflects comparisons. Maybe those who put their own interests above others while speaking about populist messages and hand outs need further evaluation.
On Wednesday maybe we can go back to talking about Chicas. Hope and Crosby to all of you.
[QUOTE=Sidney]''What does he stand for? Why is everything secret? Why does the press cover it up?" I'm with Tito![/QUOTE]Syd, old sport, just a suggestion but if you removed your head from where it's been lodged for quite some time you'd very likely find the answers to these questions which perplex you so were obvious and well know to anyone not similiarly disposed. Poor Tito.
[QUOTE=Exon123]Perhaps the reporters were "CockSuckers" El Alamo.
Of course then there would be justification for throwing them off his airplane.
Exon[/QUOTE]They were removed due to space restrictions to allow other reporters on. I guess McPain wouldn't choose reporters who reported favorably over reporters that did otherwise.
The garbage you guys come up with to try and discredit him only reinforces the fact that he's the best choice.
Muslin, terrorist, socialist, and now he censors the press? Keep trying.
For all of you who have derided and otherwise discounted FOX News as having some perversely conservative bias, I submit the results of the PEW's Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism statistical analysis of the 2008 campaign coverage:
How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.
[url]http://journalism.org/node/13436[/url]
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
[url]http://journalism.org/node/13307[/url]
Of course, I'm sure that someone here will find a website that "proves" that the PEW Research Center is secretly controlled by the neo-cons, but I don't care.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]For all of you who have derided and otherwise discounted FOX News as having some perversely conservative bias, I submit the results of the PEW's Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism statistical analysis of the 2008 campaign coverage:
How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.
[url]http://journalism.org/node/13436[/url]
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
[url]http://journalism.org/node/13307[/url]
Of course, I'm sure that someone here will find a website that "proves" that the PEW Research Center is secretly controlled by the neo-cons, but I don't care.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Wiki says they are on the up and up. I have to admit to being surprised. I watch Fox from time to time and just can't say that my experience matches their results. I wonder if they (Fox) get one of those speed talkers to say a whole bunch of nice things about Obama between 0300 and 0302 or something.
(for those of you humorly challenged, that was a joke)
Here is my question.
Quoting from the same article.
"On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere."
Can we once and for all, forever and ever, stop seeing the phrase "liberal bias in the media" now? Because now declared in an article sited by "El Jeffe" himself we see there isn't. Jax perhaps you can set up a script or something that replaces "liberal bias in the media" with oh I don't know, maybe "idiotic piece of bullshit."
Because of the terrible defeat coming on Wednesday, Sarah has been practicing for her new job at Cattos. I think she's hot!