DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:Palzon, Mathews is just one of many, one of the majority of media talking heads who all got on board the Obama ticket. You are dissembling as dissent suggested.
The bias has become so bad that foreign media are starting to report on it. And now that the election is over you'll see the domestic media try to find their way home and rationalize their behavior just like Mathews did in that interview.
The details are there to see for yourself, the ratio of coverage broken down by favorable or unfavorable and just about any other category you can imagine are off the charts compared to previous elections.

Is my pointing this out a rant? Sure, but just because someone is ranting about it doesn't mean it has no foundation. Mathews is a commentator, sure, he commentates on politics and held up by his network as an expert on the subject. He is an expert in fact, he worked for Tip O'Neil when he was Speaker of the House. He's been reporting on politics for years with different job titles.
Just because he's not a NBC anchor doesn't mean his slant isn't taken by the left as news! You have to be really in denial to go there!

Palzon wrote:Stuff

Palzon wrote:


Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.

Palzon wrote:Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere ...

Palzon wrote: Some of you here have truly gone off the deep end. You've ceased to think about politics except with your emotions. You are no longer engaging in dialogue in this forum. You're just ranting.

Palzon wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Palzon, Mathews is just one of many, one of the majority of media talking heads who all got on board the Obama ticket. You are dissembling as dissent suggested.
The bias has become so bad that foreign media are starting to report on it. And now that the election is over you'll see the domestic media try to find their way home and rationalize their behavior just like Mathews did in that interview.
The details are there to see for yourself, the ratio of coverage broken down by favorable or unfavorable and just about any other category you can imagine are off the charts compared to previous elections.

Is my pointing this out a rant? Sure, but just because someone is ranting about it doesn't mean it has no foundation. Mathews is a commentator, sure, he commentates on politics and held up by his network as an expert on the subject. He is an expert in fact, he worked for Tip O'Neil when he was Speaker of the House. He's been reporting on politics for years with different job titles.
Just because he's not a NBC anchor doesn't mean his slant isn't taken by the left as news! You have to be really in denial to go there!

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.

Listen, Will and Dissent. Let me say that I have a lot of love for the people of the Descent world. I truly like everyone here (except for TB who should be kicked in the nuts every time he posts). But I don't have to love the politics of the Descenter. You two can call me any name in the book because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because reality speaks for itself.

You can brush off Jeff's comment about the liberal bias of reality. The fact remains that McCain was a so-so candidate. He chose a pathetic excuse for a running mate. What a total betrayal to the backbone of his party. He ran a poor campaign. Some one might have pointed out to the McFailin ticket that 80% of Americans live in what we city folk call...cities. Apparently you should think twice before you go campaigning to split America in two.
And the guy never could get the stink of Bush off him. For that I actually feel sorry for him (but not that sorry).

I see a Republican party in shambles. They're not the party of small government any more. They're not the party of fiscal responsibility any more. I'm not even sure what they stand for any more except clearly they hate fags. They've put so many eggs in the rural, ignorant, Evangelical basket that they've marginalized themselves from mainstream society. They've just finished holding the White House for 8 years, 6 of which they enjoyed a majority in the Senate. And this Presidency has at worst damaged the county in about every conceivable way, and at best has been incompetent to prevent the damage or set a new course.

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President ever, since they started tracking the numbers. And for good reason. And please don't fk'ing say the polls are biased because Obama won by more than the polls predicted (proof they're biased against him?!?! ...Silly, yet this sort of spurious logic passes for proof in the intellectual wasteland that is this forum. Ooh, the stocks went down today! Obama must be bad for America! Ooh, stocks went up today! Proof Bush's policies are starting to work!).

Oh, but I'm the dishonest one who is out of touch with reality so let's get back to that...

So if the mainstream media was "in the tank" for the (more) mainstream party/candidate...is that terribly surprising? I love how the right wing wants a TV fairness doctrine, but a radio fairness doctrine is un-American. And what the f'k does it prove even if it were true? That douchebaggery should get equal treatment by the media? All candidates are not created equal. While I say that vast left-wing conspiracy is pure *******&t, it is not reasonable to expect that this loser ticket should have been given some kind of kid glove treatment. It's hardly unique. Afterall, a Connecticut paper had Adams accusing Jefferson of being a "howling atheist" (to which Jefferson fired back that Adams was a "howling hermaphrodite." ....I've seen some bad losing campaigns in my time. Most of them were Democrats. It's no suprise they lost. And it's no surprise that McCain/Palin did as well.

I truly want to thank the conservative, Evangelical, "real" Americans of this forum. You people; right wingers on this bulletin board, and certainly those like Ingram, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, are killing the Republican party (at least it's incarnation of the last 20 years or so). So my exhortation to you is to keep doing what you're doing. Keep spreading lies, hate, fear and BS. The more you spread, the more you bring about a reaction in the opposite direction. The Republican party might be able to save itself if it returns to its roots of fiscal conservatism and stops pandering to the fundamentalists. I would applaud this. I...like...IKE!!!!! So keep doing what you're doing and help mainstream America see it for what it is - naked distortion of the truth or wilfull self delusion.

Yes, keep ignoring every negative thing about your own party, your own President, the daily RNC propaganda tool that is AM radio, and yourselves. Your denial will ensure the failure of the sorry elements you've backed. Believe it or not but I'd like to see the Republican party viable. But as long as you people shill for the lowest of the low in the Republican party we're all stuck with the same thing. Basically, what I'm saying is that it's because of you that we can't have nice things.

But at least your radicalism will make it less likely the next Bush will make it into office. I say, carry on! Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere Talk about delusion? Go ahead and blame dirty liberal journalists when your Republican wet dream peters out more like a humid puff of air. Maintain the margin of 20 negative Obama threads to each positive one. That's realistic! After all you've got to keep up the good fight so that after Obama's third term we don't end up with an illegal-alien transsexual potsmoker moviestar devil worshiper who is married to his pet wombat and wants to teach your kids we came from a gay monkey. The threat is real, people! Well, the good thing about an Obama Presidency is that you can stop blaming all of Bush's failures on Clinton and start pinning them on Obama. Also, if Obama does anything right you can be sure to give Bush the credit.

This pathetic excuse for a forum should absolutely have its name changed from E&C to RWCJ: Right Wing Circle Jerk forum. How bout at least for one day, ya know, for kicks (and accuracy)? .

/not fooled.

Bet51987 wrote:What surprised me was that the Republican party stuck with that ideology even when the people gave them a warning two years earlier only to have the hiring of Sarah Palin exemplify it.

Bee

woodchip wrote:Behemoth:
"Back on topic, I think it's only fair to say that Matthews is someone who represents a part of what the media is expected to say after a post-bush america, I don't blame him or anyone else when SAYING it's our job to help Obama succeed."

Tell me, did Matthews et al try to help Bush succeed after a post Clinton America? Or was their job quite the opposite?

Lothar wrote:The Republican "brand" is horribly damaged due to a lack of fiscal responsibility...

(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.

After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.

According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as \"Fruitwood-smoked Quail,\" \"Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb,\" and \"Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus.\"

Lothar wrote:Palzon,

There's a lot of truth to your rant. McCain ran a weak campaign (though I think he chose a good running mate, he very badly misused her, and they both did a poor job of showing what she's all about.) The Republican "brand" is horribly damaged due to a lack of fiscal responsibility, corruption, too much focus on issues like gay marriage, and so on; the party needs to move in a more libertarian direction (which, by the way, is the read I get on Palin's governing style; she did a poor job responding to the misquoted half-sentences that made her sound like a religious fundie.) Because of all of that, it comes as no surprise that the media would be harsh toward any Republican candidate. They should have been!

But all of that doesn't excuse the fact that much of the media (specifically, the parts most likely to reach swing voters) was extra soft toward Obama. Obama was a weak and flawed candidate in a lot of ways, and I think if the media had been interested in really trying to understand Obama and give a complete picture of him, a lot of swing voters would've swung the other way. He probably still would've won (but by a much smaller margin); McCain campaigned too weakly, Palin sucked in the spotlight, and the Republican brand is simply too damaged. But that doesn't invalidate the complaint that the media was seriously in the tank for Obama, to the point of willfully overlooking things they shouldn't have.

In order to have an effective representative government, we need the people to understand who they're electing. We need a media establishment that doesn't overlook flaws just because they like candidate X personally, or because party Y has done a poor job over the past few years. We need both sides of the media establishment to push both parties toward putting forward good candidates and good ideas, instead of giving flawed candidates from their favored party a free pass. Not just for this election, but in general -- we're not going to get a good government if our major sources of information don't help uncover the problems with the candidates.

Palzon wrote: rant
……………………..
/rant

Listen, Will and Dissent. …. You two can call me any name in the book because it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news.

The fact remains that McCain was a so-so candidate. … He ran a poor campaign.

He chose a pathetic excuse for a running mate.

They're not the party of small government any more. They're not the party of fiscal responsibility any more.

I'm not even sure what they stand for any more except clearly they hate fags.

Right, because heavens knows the redneck, inbred, hillbilly, religious folk (REAL Americans!) who consume a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, and O'Reilly can certainly tell the difference between commentary and news. Yeah...forgive me for not seeing the distinction as you clearly can.
… They've put so many eggs in the rural, ignorant, Evangelical basket that they've marginalized themselves from mainstream society.

Oh, but I'm the dishonest one who is out of touch with reality so let's get back to that...

So if the mainstream media was "in the tank" for the (more) mainstream party/candidate...is that terribly surprising?

And what the f'k does it prove even if it were true? That douchebaggery should get equal treatment by the media? All candidates are not created equal. While I say that vast left-wing conspiracy is pure *******&t, it is not reasonable to expect that this loser ticket should have been given some kind of kid glove treatment.

It's hardly unique. Afterall, a Connecticut paper had Adams accusing Jefferson of being a "howling atheist" (to which Jefferson fired back that Adams was a "howling hermaphrodite."

Keep spreading lies, hate, fear and BS.

Yes, keep ignoring every negative thing about your own party, your own President, the daily RNC propaganda tool that is AM radio, and yourselves.

I say, carry on! Continue to drown out or ignore the reasonable voices in this forum and elsewhere

… so that after Obama's third term …