DescentBB

Curious, since Obama took office, we have not had the weekly litany of the total numbers of troops killed. while this is good, I reference this as just another aspect of how Beloved Leader is treated as compared to Bush. Why is Cindy Scheehan not picketing the White House. Why is Code Pink not shouting admonishments from the halls of Congress. In short were these war protesters really protesting the war or were they simply tools of the Democratic Pax Machina?

We’re still in Iraq?

Partially still there. Moved out of the cities and now camping out of town.

Woodchip, You forget that the Media will always change topics when they start getting tired of reporting the same thing over and over. The tallies are still there, you're just not reading the right news sources. Having said that let, don't bother asking what sources you should be watching. IMO you post too much incorrect, stretched, paranoia \"news\" ... so I think you need to go looking for that info on your own.

Woodchip, I wish I could be as kind as Techpro but I can't. To use the death of soldiers to advance your Obama hatred is indefensible. I edited the rest of my post to keep Lothar happy but post this at .com and I'll let you know.

Bee

Ah, but now, unfortunately, I'm hearing the count is going UP in Afghanistan. The news locally doesn't seem to be hiding that one at all.

Yea…Ummm, thanks for the update there teckie.

Bet51987 wrote: To use the death of soldiers to advance your Obama hatred is indefensible.

Bee

but isn't that EXACTLY what the left did with Bush????

Bee you seem to have a double standard.

I've got to agree with Cuda on this one. Sorry Bee

If I close one eye, will the double standard go away?

Spidey wrote:If I close one eye, will the double standard go away?

no but your cataracs <sp?> might

I haven't seriously watched the news in over a year, sounds like I haven't missed much.

TechPro wrote:

Woodchip, You forget that the Media will always change topics when they start getting tired of reporting the same thing over and over.

Really? Then explain the Michal Jackson coverage

Bet51987 wrote:Woodchip, I wish I could be as kind as Techpro but I can't. To use the death of soldiers to advance your Obama hatred is indefensible. I edited the rest of my post to keep Lothar happy but post this at .com and I'll let you know.

Bee

Your wish is my command

It might be there, but not nearly what it was prior to the election. the Media did their best to make Bush look as bad as they could.

Conversely, the same press is trying to make Obama look as good as they can.

Even when he KNOWING lied about the projected effects of the \"stimulus package\".

This dude needs to be impeached.

I hereby name Duper as the most conservative member on this BB. Sorry TB.

With regards to OP, I don't really buy the premise. I still think anyone on the left view new death tolls as a product of Bush bringing us into the war in the first place.

Maybe I can give you that they don't show the numbers because they aren't as interested in hurting Bush now that he is gone...that might be fair. But no one on the left views new death toll #'s as hurting Obama.

Duper wrote:Even when he KNOWING lied about the projected effects of the "stimulus package".

This dude needs to be impeached.

if that's true, the republicans won't do it.

fliptw wrote:if that's true, the republicans can't do it.

Fixed

Gooberman wrote:Maybe I can give you that they don't show the numbers because they aren't as interested in hurting Bush now that he is gone...that might be fair. But no one on the left views new death toll #'s as hurting Obama.

Maybe not for the ever forgiving left, but for the rest of us, who remember a certain campaign promise…

Speaking of Republicans; they did a much better job helping us get through the recession of the 80's (which was far worse than this one) It just didn't have the government power grab.

And Goob, you have No idea. and for the record, I don't believe in contrails or lizard people.

Spidey wrote:

Gooberman wrote:Maybe I can give you that they don't show the numbers because they aren't as interested in hurting Bush now that he is gone...that might be fair. But no one on the left views new death toll #'s as hurting Obama.

Maybe not for the ever forgiving left, but for the rest of us, who remember a certain campaign promise…

Spidey you forgot to cover that one Eye again.

woodchip wrote:

TechPro wrote:

Woodchip, You forget that the Media will always change topics when they start getting tired of reporting the same thing over and over.

Really? Then explain the Michal Jackson coverage

That's actually quite easy. Nearly all of the media organizations exist to make money by publishing information. To get the public to pay attention to the information they are publishing, the information has to be interesting to the public. People (you and I and your grubby neighbor) are by nature easily distracted by things that are unusual, unexpected, or ripe with scandalous intrigue (gossip). Sad but true. Thus the easiest and fastest way for the media to make money is to present the information they've gathered in either those styles or to find and publish information that meets those characteristics.

Thanks to years and generations of this, it has become that the "News" given us by the media is not actually 'news' but is instead simply "unexpected information" that is unusual, unexpected, or (you guessed it) ripe with scandalous intrigue. Whenever the information is no longer unusual or unexpected, the media moves on to other items because the rest has become expected or no longer unexpected.

Why all the attention to Michael Jackson instead of the many servicemen and innocent civilians that died this past week due to violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran? Easy. The deaths of those people is not unusual or unexpected anymore ... and Michael Jackson dying got the interest of millions of people.

If you were the media "bean counter" who was considering how many people might show interest in some people dying in the countries (this has been happening over and over and over and over and ...) and comparing how many people might be interested in the "ripe with intrigue" and unexpected death of a mega-star known to millions ... well, I think you can guess that the dollar signs were big in the media's mind when MJ expired.

I'm not saying all that is OK ... just that this is how our "modern media" pays it's bills.

TechPro, Jackson didn't die last January...but the body count did.

Will Robinson wrote:TechPro, Jackson didn't die last January...but the body count did.

That's kind of the point. There was a body count back then and there is still a body count. As far as the media is concerned and to the masses hungry for more "unexpected info" ... the body count is "new news, same as the old news" while MJ's death is new "unexpected info" which makes MJ the "hot topic" when people should be mourning the continued body count instead. IMO

the REAL point is that media was Obama's T00l

TechPro wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TechPro, Jackson didn't die last January...but the body count did.

That's kind of the point. There was a body count back then and there is still a body count. As far as the media is concerned and to the masses hungry for more "unexpected info" ... the body count is "new news, same as the old news" while MJ's death is new "unexpected info" which makes MJ the "hot topic" when people should be mourning the continued body count instead. IMO

So the media stopped reporting the body count right after Obama took over...but that timing is just a coincidence. The real reason for it was anticipation of the death of Jackson which was to come some five months later?!?

TechPro wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TechPro, Jackson didn't die last January...but the body count did.

That's kind of the point. There was a body count back then and there is still a body count. As far as the media is concerned and to the masses hungry for more "unexpected info" ... the body count is "new news, same as the old news" while MJ's death is new "unexpected info" which makes MJ the "hot topic" when people should be mourning the continued body count instead. IMO

Actually, you completely missed the point. MJ didn't die in January, the body count stopped then. I understand that once he dies, that's the new buzz. But it's not as if the media stopped reporting completely and stood outside MJ's house waiting for a tragic accident. They reported as normal, except that there's no body count and they continue to worship Obama.

Oh Darn, Will beat me

Gooberman wrote:I still think anyone on the left view new death tolls as a product of Bush bringing us into the war in the first place.

Maybe I can give you that they don't show the numbers because they aren't as interested in hurting Bush now that he is gone...that might be fair.

Exactly. The death toll was never about the soldiers, it was always about Bush.

And it shows exactly what ghouls they are to use a human beings death to bludgeon a political figure.