DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Ummm...you forgot one itsy bitsy thing comrade Slick, Obama had the entirety of the mainstream news outlets on his side. Without it he would of lost.

utter nonsense. I fact, they helped make it close by hammering him for a week on the initial debate performance. Quit drinking the kool-aid and think.
What I wrote was why he won. Very, very simple.

Wrong, you hear a lot about the inept handling of Benghazi on ABC, NBC, CBS? You getting a lot of the Sandy incompetence stories by govt. agencies like you did in Katrina? Anything reported on the Petraeus affair before the election? If the mainstream newsy's would of went after Obama like they would of Bush, I think the out come might of been far different. But then you live in a fantasy world and won't agree. The real losers are not the conservative, nor the winners liberals. When the majority of the news organizations turn into pro party 5th columns, then it is the American people who lose.

Yeah I'm sorry woodchip but it doesn't feel like my side lost. As for Benghazi, I just don't think there is much of a scandal there. One of our foreign installations was attacked, this has happened many times, and sadly four Americans were killed. Do you really, honestly believe that this information was relayed to the President and he simply said not to help? I know you don't like the guy, but doesn't that seem just a bit idiotic on your part? It's just not the scandal that your side so desperately wants it to be. The people that say this could have been avoided and exactly the same as the people that said Bush could have stopped his 9/11 attacks. Sometimes American national security gets caught looking the other way and bad ★■◆● happens. The idea that the Administrations must immediately know what happened and that if they don't know right away there is some vast cover-up is more than a little immature.

Even if the attacks weren't provoked by that stupid video, it's a reasonable assumption given the fact that the same video caused widespread demonstrations all throughout the Muslim world. The Administrations shouldn't be so hasty in getting out information but that is what we all demand. They're all human beings and they don't have access to some magical book that tells them the perfect info each and every time. It's a non-story, a non-scandal, that is why the rest of us don't see it the way you do. There's just nothing there.

Any why exactly would the Petraeus affair have done anything with the election? The guy was porking his biographer--end of story. Who cares? You ★■◆● about the people that continue to harp on Bush for his failures, yet you do the exact same thing.

CobGobbler wrote:Yeah I'm sorry woodchip but it doesn't feel like my side lost. As for Benghazi, I just don't think there is much of a scandal there. One of our foreign installations was attacked, this has happened many times, and sadly four Americans were killed. Do you really, honestly believe that this information was relayed to the President and he simply said not to help? I know you don't like the guy, but doesn't that seem just a bit idiotic on your part? It's just not the scandal that your side so desperately wants it to be. The people that say this could have been avoided and exactly the same as the people that said Bush could have stopped his 9/11 attacks. Sometimes American national security gets caught looking the other way and bad **** happens. The idea that the Administrations must immediately know what happened and that if they don't know right away there is some vast cover-up is more than a little immature.

I agree. it happened. could it have been stopped?? probably not. could the damage have been limited probably so. my problem with this whole thing is the narrative (lies) that they spread about it being the result of a Video. it wasn't, they knew that in REAL time. and yet went on for WEEKS saying it was about a video. it took less time to know the cause of challenger then what happened in Benghazi according to this administration. they never said it was terrorism until weeks later (another lie by them). the President went before the UN and said it was about a Video, 2 seeks later (another lie) Susan Rice went out immediately after the fact and AFTER the new narrative where they said they did say it was terrorism and said it was a video... they continue to lie about it.

The right thing to do would have been to stand before the public and say. one got through (sorry) but we got Bin Ladin and we'll get you too. you cannot hide.

mistakes happen. you learn from them and move on. lying about it is where the line is crossed from a mistake to something much more.

I see Benghazi a little differently. It looked real bad for Obama, Romney was a shoe-in had he capitalized on it, he didn't, and just days later the CIA director loses his job over a sex scandal. Now, we hear hardly nothing about Benghazi and all about this "scandal." I think it's encouraging that the guy lost his job, I bet my bottom dollar the CIA was involved and Obama is cleaning his house out without actually having to admit there are rogue elements in the government. No one wants that admitted, because the conspiracy theorists would go wild and normal people would get suspicious. It's bait and switch but the fact the director is gone says something positive. Of course, I could be wrong but I've seen this several times before. A diversion from the truth and keeping everything in house.

I didn't want to go into Patreaus, it's EASY to see conspiracy there if you want.. I prefer to stick to the current available evidence

I can go along with that but there is no evidence and this is politics . What are your thoughts on Romney also suppressing this?

I wouldn't call it suppressing. I think it was a bad tactical choice on his part. IMO Romney let him off. he had him caught in a lie. and didn't press his advantage. he made Obama look foolish in the first debate, and he could have finished him off with that debate. he should have pressed his advantage

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I guess the definition of "mainstream media" is what goes out over the airwaves. Cable don't count (although I think it should now).

I can't find a good source, but I keep reading that up to 90% of the US subscribes to Cable or Satellite. However, it is declining as more people turn off the TVs and get their entertainment and news from the Internet.

That's very true. Cable and the internet have the vast market share now. I think that "mainstream media" is a dated term that should be put out to pasture. It's irrelevant. It doesn't begin to cover where most people get their news from now.

CUDA wrote:I wouldn't call it suppressing. I think it was a bad tactical choice on his part. IMO Romney let him off. he had him caught in a lie. and didn't press his advantage. he made Obama look foolish in the first debate, and he could have finished him off with that debate. he should have pressed his advantage

Romney couldn't go on the attack because he's got a few whoppers of his own that Obama could have used against him. In fact, Romeny outright lied himself in the last days of his desperate campaign when he declared in Ohio that Chrysler was moving their entire Jeep production line to China. Not true. Romney never kept a solid position on anything in his entire political career.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:I wouldn't call it suppressing. I think it was a bad tactical choice on his part. IMO Romney let him off. he had him caught in a lie. and didn't press his advantage. he made Obama look foolish in the first debate, and he could have finished him off with that debate. he should have pressed his advantage

Romney couldn't go on the attack because he's got a few whoppers of his own that Obama could have used against him. In fact, Romeny outright lied himself in the last days of his desperate campaign when he declared in Ohio that Chrysler was moving their entire Jeep production line to China. Not true. Romney never kept a solid position on anything in his entire political career.

sure he could have, he chose not to. the statement about sending jobs to China, is just like any other Political statement. one of the HUNDREDS that were told by both sides. it's one thing to be able to say (plausible deniability) it's entirely something different to be caught red handed in a bald faced continuing lie that cost the lives of 4 Americans.

what was your favorite line during the Bush years " when Clinton Lie no one died" well when Obama Lied 4 Americans died. we are not talking about little white lies for a political advantage. we are talking about a cover-up

Hmmm...seems a rumour is surfacing that the CIA may have been holding a couple of militia prisoners. Straight from Petraeus's mistress:

"Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted."

Now if true and the Obama Administration is using foreign CIA posts as places to keep prisoners (and lets face it...to extract information), is this not one of the things that the left was up in arms about when Bush did it? Lets see if there is a ruch of mainstream reporters trying to squeeze the mistress for more info. I 'm waiting for the feeding frenzy to begin in 1, 2 ,3....845, 846.

I think what would be even more distressing is if Obama didn't even know about it. It's not an outlandish idea you know, John F. Kennedy actually went on record about those very things.

vision wrote:This is interesting:


[source]

If you add the CNN and MSNBC together, that could be interesting too. From that graph, and a quick mental calculation, it tells me that it'd be around the equivalent to FOX's viewership line. So it may show shifts from one to the other.