"Romney Likely Next President"

[SFC Ollie]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

 

[PoliticalChic]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[PoliticalChic]

"USA Today/Gallup poll: Republicans more excited to vote"

Read more: Republicans more excited to vote - POLITICO.com

 

[Jroc]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

That’s unbelievable to me. The pro Obamanism in the media is getting more and more blatant. They don’t even try to hide it anymore, but hey..At least they’re pro women

 

[PoliticalChic]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

That’s unbelievable to me. The pro Obamanism in the media is getting more and more blatant. They don’t even try to hide it anymore, but hey..At least they’re pro women

I've often heard that Americans are fair, that they support the underdog...

...and if that is true, people seeing the bias of the media will react to same.

This will, in fact play out exactly opposite to the blatant attempts to support the Left.

 

[Mac1958]

I've often heard that Americans are fair, that they support the underdog...

...and if that is true, people seeing the bias of the media will react to same.

This will, in fact play out exactly opposite to the blatant attempts to support the Left.

I think it will depend on how Romney acts during the debates. If the "moderators" do a lousy job of hiding their agendas and Romney reacts, he'll be in danger of appearing to be whining. It might be more effective if he lightly mocks the proceedings, I dunno.

And I don't agree with those who say that most of America sees the media's bias. I won't burn bandwidth on examples, and there are many, of people I speak with buying everything the media says out of hand. Still. When I point out bias (drawing from my 20 years in that industry in a former life), you can see the light go on. But not until then.

And I can tell you this: It may be true that the GOP has an "excitement advantage" with its base, but the media is very motivated. Maybe even more motivated than in 2008, and I ain't kidding.

.

 

[BarbaraHavers]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

Blocked? I watched her speech on ABC last night.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

Blocked? I watched her speech on ABC last night.

Originally scheduled for Monday, and the networks planned not to cover it....postponed by the hurricane.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Will the victims ever stop blaming the media?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've often heard that Americans are fair, that they support the underdog...

...and if that is true, people seeing the bias of the media will react to same.

This will, in fact play out exactly opposite to the blatant attempts to support the Left.

I think it will depend on how Romney acts during the debates. If the "moderators" do a lousy job of hiding their agendas and Romney reacts, he'll be in danger of appearing to be whining. It might be more effective if he lightly mocks the proceedings, I dunno.

And I don't agree with those who say that most of America sees the media's bias. I won't burn bandwidth on examples, and there are many, of people I speak with buying everything the media says out of hand. Still. When I point out bias (drawing from my 20 years in that industry in a former life), you can see the light go on. But not until then.

And I can tell you this: It may be true that the GOP has an "excitement advantage" with its base, but the media is very motivated. Maybe even more motivated than in 2008, and I ain't kidding.

.

What do you mean?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Will the victims ever stop blaming the media?

"Arthur Brisbane, the departing public editor at the New York Times, has accused the paper of having a progressive bias, even as he champions its disciplined approach to fair and balanced reporting.

"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so," Brisbane writes in his final column. "Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

"As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects," he continues.

Brisbane's parting shot -- a rare instance in which the paper of record has been accused of bias, and championing causes, from the inside -- comes at the end of his two-year tenure as public editor, during which he was tasked with critiquing the paper's reporting. (Margaret Sullivan, the former editor of the Buffalo News, takes over next week.) Brisbane also writes that the paper is "hardly transparent," despite efforts to increase transparency."
New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane: Progressive worldview 'bleeds through... The Times' - POLITICO.com


You should get out more....

.....learning isn't painful at all.

 

[LoneLaugher]

People in the media have more information than most. They know the facts and they know when they are being lied to.

This is why, I believe, they seem to you to be biased toward the left.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The debates are already rigged in Obamas favor. Look at them, 3 liberals running the shows. I can see them talking about the economy.....Sure i can.........

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

Blocked? I watched her speech on ABC last night.

Matter of fact, not only did ABC carry it, but all the major networks covered the RNC convention from 9-10 (primetime) and the RNC people scheduled Mrs. Romney and Christie's speeches for that time.

Matter of fact, it was even covered live on PBS for that time as well.

I think Political Chic is severly misguided as well as woefully uninformed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

People in the media have more information than most. They know the facts and they know when they are being lied to.

This is why, I believe, they seem to you to be biased toward the left.

Could you actually be this ignorant?

I suppose...if you attended government schools, read only the dinosaur media, and live in the Liberal echo chamber.

An excellent book to begin actual education would be Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."


1. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.



From Bork's book:

2. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

3. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you notice the coordinated attempt by all three networks to keep America from getting to know Romney, by blocking coverage of Ann Romney's speech?
They'll just happen to be showing re-runs of cop shops.

Want to know if they covered Michelle Obama's speech back in '08?

Yup.

Blocked? I watched her speech on ABC last night.

Matter of fact, not only did ABC carry it, but all the major networks covered the RNC convention from 9-10 (primetime) and the RNC people scheduled Mrs. Romney and Christie's speeches for that time.

Matter of fact, it was even covered live on PBS for that time as well.

I think Political Chic is severly misguided as well as woefully uninformed.

Now, c'mon....you know me better than that.

"TAMPA, Fla. — Isaac did the Republican National Convention one big favor: It gave organizers a good reason to move Ann Romney’s speech from Monday night, when the broadcast networks weren’t planning to cover it, to Tuesday night. The candidate’s wife will address the convention on national TV, just before New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie delivers the official keynote address."
Putting Ann Romney in the spotlight a good move for GOP - The Angle - Boston.com

I never say anything I can't back up, 'biker.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've often heard that Americans are fair, that they support the underdog...

...and if that is true, people seeing the bias of the media will react to same.

This will, in fact play out exactly opposite to the blatant attempts to support the Left.

I think it will depend on how Romney acts during the debates. If the "moderators" do a lousy job of hiding their agendas and Romney reacts, he'll be in danger of appearing to be whining. It might be more effective if he lightly mocks the proceedings, I dunno.

And I don't agree with those who say that most of America sees the media's bias. I won't burn bandwidth on examples, and there are many, of people I speak with buying everything the media says out of hand. Still. When I point out bias (drawing from my 20 years in that industry in a former life), you can see the light go on. But not until then.

And I can tell you this: It may be true that the GOP has an "excitement advantage" with its base, but the media is very motivated. Maybe even more motivated than in 2008, and I ain't kidding.

.

What do you mean?

"MSNBC wants you to think the Republican Party hates minorities. So much so that the liberal news network cut minority speeches from it’s convention coverage.

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC."
MSNBC cuts every speech made by a minority from RNC speech coverage

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who gives a fuck about MSNBC? They are not a news outlet.

 

[LoneLaugher]

People in the media have more information than most. They know the facts and they know when they are being lied to.

This is why, I believe, they seem to you to be biased toward the left.

Could you actually be this ignorant?

I suppose...if you attended government schools, read only the dinosaur media, and live in the Liberal echo chamber.

An excellent book to begin actual education would be Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."


1. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.



From Bork's book:

2. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

3. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53

I will spend some time mocking you. You think way too much of yourself.

You wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in one of my college study groups. Pulling bits and pieces from the mind of that hack Bork as though anyone gives a shit. The shit you reference doesn't address my claim at all.

Try harder.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who gives a fuck about MSNBC? They are not a news outlet.

You can run but you can't hide.


I've documented the NYTimes' bias, and MSNBC's bias.....but you've been
trained to ignore the significance of same....


...how about these guys:


Then there was the proof of media bias for Obama when the JournoList scandal showed hundreds of journalists conspiring to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties.

“…Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists…. took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage…. urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright | The Daily Caller


Perhaps you'll begin to understand how you've been manipulated.


No?


Just proves my point.