No, Joe found Barak. Joe approached the candidate. Joe mis-represented himself in the process of asking a question. Obama took his time and actually answered Joe's question. It was McCain who attempted to exploit "Joe the (not really licensed) Plumber" character for political reasons.
In regards to Carville, he's one of those Liberals who I wish weren't on our side. I'm sure he's a very smart man who loves his country and is passionate about his politics. But he always gives me a pain in the ass.
Does that mean we should release the video of George Bush palling around with PLO members as well? Or being the first sitting president to call for a Palestinian state?
The fact is that Bush has done all this stuff and so have many Republicans. But, by all means, continue to draw correlations between Obama and terrorists. It's working out so well for you :)
Correlations with the plo wasn't even the point of the article, that was just an example. did you read the article? did you see the quote from mr malone at your nyt that you always defend? how about that pew research study on page 2 of the article? no comment on that I see, everyone else sees the bias but not you. keep picking and choosing.
It's one of my favorite quotes. I don't know who originally created it, but it's one of many we have on our refrigerator for contemplation.
Steve, you see media bias because you want to see media bias. Because other people planted the idea in your head there is a liberal media bias. You will always see this, because you want to. You seek it out. You label any media coverage that agrees with your personal world-view as "fair" "objective" and "good journalism." Anything that runs counter to your personal world-view you see as "biased."
Here's the skinny: outside of Fox's blatant right-wing propaganda machine, there is no co-ordinated effort between media outlets to fulfill any agenda except making money. They are all competing with each other, not in league. It's about getting the advertisers, not pushing a political or social agenda. Some few brave souls still cling to the old-fashioned journalistic belief that their main purpose is to speak truth to power.
But there ain't many of those journalists left.
Okay, MSNBCs prime-time programming is closer to the left than the right. But Fox is so obvious in their prostitution to the GOP and the right wing extremists than all of the other media outlets combined.
At this point I will exclude NPR and PBS. They may have their problems, but they are not beholdin' to advertisers, and I find them to be fair and informative on real issues, not the phony-balony ones foisted upon us by the extremists on either "side."
The piece you are so in love with, Steve, was written by an opinion writer. A self-confessed opinion writer. Doing his job. Writing opinion. Don't try to pass it off as anything else.
As for the Pew Center poll. So fucking what? You don't like the media coverage, don't watch it. Don't presume that people can't see media coverage, any media coverage, and not make up their own minds. Maybe it's because I trust my own intellect that I presume that others are the same way. Perhaps those who think that everyone is easily swayed by the media are people who are indeed easily swayed by the media.
But you seem so goddam obsessed in unveiling an imaginary conspiracy, one that has been a screaming point of the right-wing nutjobs for so long that no one is listening anymore.
Give it a fucking rest. The media gave old Dub-Ya a free ride for so long that maybe it's time they moved the balance point back a little closer to center. Within a year of Obama's inauguration, there will be enough media hounding of his administration 24/7 you can get your fill then. Obama will have a short honeymoon with the press, but it won't last. It never does.
That is, assuming that he wins the office. The fat lady ain't sung, yet.
It's not about me not liking media coverage, it's about a poll that says 70 percent of people see media bias. what I think about it doesn't matter when you read the results of that poll.
next I suppose you'll tell us there is still no connection between obama and acorn.
A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.
Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.
Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical.
dan sez there is no co-ordinated effort between media outlets to fulfill any agenda except making money.
My what well chosen words you used there Dan! Co-ordinated? No I agree, it isn't co-ordinated, certainly not as in a conspiracy. But there are a lot of people singing out of the same hymnal and that isn't just a coincidence, now is it?
Why will the LA Times not release a video of Obama. Part of the Tribune media conglomerate that went to court to unseal the divorce records of Obama's senate opponent (Ryan). What happened to the public's right to know?
Who cares if Joe "misrepresented" himself? What the hell does his status have to do with the question he asked? His question represents the concerns of a lot of people who make enough money to be in Obama's crosshairs, and the answer told us exactly what we needed to know about him.
But here's what I don't get. Why are you people angry at Joe at all? Didn't you like Obama's answer? Is it because Joe's question caught Dear Leader off-guard and tricked him into being more candid about his socialist intentions than you wanted him to be?
do you have a problem with wealth being re-distributed to the top one percent of the country?
Wealth isn't redistributed to the top one percent M. So I don't see how anyone would have a problem with what isn't a problem.
Taxes are paid so that the govt can function. What those specific functions of govt are is a matter of debate. But making sure everyone 'gets a slice' isn't one; just as there's no reason for someone else getting less income so that I may have more. I may earn more (or less) than the next guy - why is that a problem?
M, try something other than Krugman on me. If Krugman isn't discussing trade theory (what he got the Nobel for), I'm not buying. Too bad you don't know enough to discuss it other than by reference to authority. [You do get that I just kicked your ass past next Tues on that, don't you.] I will go away now - I shouldn't be posting after two glasses of wine.
Hey M, just for grins I went to the Krugman piece. Best part? Myth #3 (inequality doesn't matter) - which he never says that it actually does (let alone explain why); he doesn't lay out a case for egalitarianism (which he earlier noted has never been an American issue). The guy is pathetic when he isn't talking about what he really knows - which is trade theory.
None of which remains on my point about what the fundamental purpose of taxation is - to raise revenue to actually run govt. Considering that nearly HALF the populace does NOT pay income tax, I don't even begin to understand why they should expect a tax CUT. The tax that they cannot escape is FICA, which goes to pay the benefits of retirees (including the wealthy ones). Not very progressive for the touch-stone of 'progressives'!
14 comments:
Funny detail - the only person who found Joe the plumber was obama, who was the one who walked up to HIS lawn, not the other way around.
No, Joe found Barak. Joe approached the candidate. Joe mis-represented himself in the process of asking a question. Obama took his time and actually answered Joe's question. It was McCain who attempted to exploit "Joe the (not really licensed) Plumber" character for political reasons.
In regards to Carville, he's one of those Liberals who I wish weren't on our side. I'm sure he's a very smart man who loves his country and is passionate about his politics. But he always gives me a pain in the ass.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view/2008_10_28_Election_2008:_Objective_journalism_the_loser/
no media bias at all, just move along, nothing to see here. check out that pew research study.
Steve,
Does that mean we should release the video of George Bush palling around with PLO members as well? Or being the first sitting president to call for a Palestinian state?
The fact is that Bush has done all this stuff and so have many Republicans. But, by all means, continue to draw correlations between Obama and terrorists. It's working out so well for you :)
Correlations with the plo wasn't even the point of the article, that was just an example. did you read the article? did you see the quote from mr malone at your nyt that you always defend? how about that pew research study on page 2 of the article? no comment on that I see, everyone else sees the bias but not you. keep picking and choosing.
"Everything looks yellow to a jaundiced eye."
It's one of my favorite quotes. I don't know who originally created it, but it's one of many we have on our refrigerator for contemplation.
Steve, you see media bias because you want to see media bias. Because other people planted the idea in your head there is a liberal media bias. You will always see this, because you want to. You seek it out. You label any media coverage that agrees with your personal world-view as "fair" "objective" and "good journalism." Anything that runs counter to your personal world-view you see as "biased."
Here's the skinny: outside of Fox's blatant right-wing propaganda machine, there is no co-ordinated effort between media outlets to fulfill any agenda except making money. They are all competing with each other, not in league. It's about getting the advertisers, not pushing a political or social agenda. Some few brave souls still cling to the old-fashioned journalistic belief that their main purpose is to speak truth to power.
But there ain't many of those journalists left.
Okay, MSNBCs prime-time programming is closer to the left than the right. But Fox is so obvious in their prostitution to the GOP and the right wing extremists than all of the other media outlets combined.
At this point I will exclude NPR and PBS. They may have their problems, but they are not beholdin' to advertisers, and I find them to be fair and informative on real issues, not the phony-balony ones foisted upon us by the extremists on either "side."
The piece you are so in love with, Steve, was written by an opinion writer. A self-confessed opinion writer. Doing his job. Writing opinion. Don't try to pass it off as anything else.
As for the Pew Center poll. So fucking what? You don't like the media coverage, don't watch it. Don't presume that people can't see media coverage, any media coverage, and not make up their own minds. Maybe it's because I trust my own intellect that I presume that others are the same way. Perhaps those who think that everyone is easily swayed by the media are people who are indeed easily swayed by the media.
But you seem so goddam obsessed in unveiling an imaginary conspiracy, one that has been a screaming point of the right-wing nutjobs for so long that no one is listening anymore.
Give it a fucking rest. The media gave old Dub-Ya a free ride for so long that maybe it's time they moved the balance point back a little closer to center. Within a year of Obama's inauguration, there will be enough media hounding of his administration 24/7 you can get your fill then. Obama will have a short honeymoon with the press, but it won't last. It never does.
That is, assuming that he wins the office. The fat lady ain't sung, yet.
It's not about me not liking media coverage, it's about a poll that says 70 percent of people see media bias. what I think about it doesn't matter when you read the results of that poll.
next I suppose you'll tell us there is still no connection between obama and acorn.
A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.
Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.
Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical.
liars.
dan sez there is no co-ordinated effort between media outlets to fulfill any agenda except making money.
My what well chosen words you used there Dan! Co-ordinated? No I agree, it isn't co-ordinated, certainly not as in a conspiracy. But there are a lot of people singing out of the same hymnal and that isn't just a coincidence, now is it?
Why will the LA Times not release a video of Obama. Part of the Tribune media conglomerate that went to court to unseal the divorce records of Obama's senate opponent (Ryan). What happened to the public's right to know?
Who cares if Joe "misrepresented" himself? What the hell does his status have to do with the question he asked? His question represents the concerns of a lot of people who make enough money to be in Obama's crosshairs, and the answer told us exactly what we needed to know about him.
But here's what I don't get. Why are you people angry at Joe at all? Didn't you like Obama's answer? Is it because Joe's question caught Dear Leader off-guard and tricked him into being more candid about his socialist intentions than you wanted him to be?
Stickwick,
Barack Obama is not a socialist. Say it with me again so you can be reprogrammed. Barack Obama is not a socialist.
As far as the whole wealth re-distribution thing goes, do you have a problem with wealth being re-distributed to the top one percent of the country?
do you have a problem with wealth being re-distributed to the top one percent of the country?
Wealth isn't redistributed to the top one percent M. So I don't see how anyone would have a problem with what isn't a problem.
Taxes are paid so that the govt can function. What those specific functions of govt are is a matter of debate. But making sure everyone 'gets a slice' isn't one; just as there's no reason for someone else getting less income so that I may have more. I may earn more (or less) than the next guy - why is that a problem?
Juris,
Please review the following article
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer
M, try something other than Krugman on me. If Krugman isn't discussing trade theory (what he got the Nobel for), I'm not buying. Too bad you don't know enough to discuss it other than by reference to authority. [You do get that I just kicked your ass past next Tues on that, don't you.] I will go away now - I shouldn't be posting after two glasses of wine.
Hey M, just for grins I went to the Krugman piece. Best part? Myth #3 (inequality doesn't matter) - which he never says that it actually does (let alone explain why); he doesn't lay out a case for egalitarianism (which he earlier noted has never been an American issue). The guy is pathetic when he isn't talking about what he really knows - which is trade theory.
None of which remains on my point about what the fundamental purpose of taxation is - to raise revenue to actually run govt. Considering that nearly HALF the populace does NOT pay income tax, I don't even begin to understand why they should expect a tax CUT. The tax that they cannot escape is FICA, which goes to pay the benefits of retirees (including the wealthy ones). Not very progressive for the touch-stone of 'progressives'!
Post a Comment