Poll News: Not Good For Team-O

[Mr. Shaman]

anybody check out the load of crap on obama's campaign site? What a tool.

Would you settle for.....

....Boss Barbour??????

​

 

[Vast LWC]

Now, as for studies done since that point, no, I don't have any, though the facts are available online.

OK. As I saw, case closed. You have no evidence and are simply talking out of your ass. Thanks for admitting so.

Than I guess it's funny that you should have no study at all since then.

Are you saying that there was no negative media coverage through the Health Care debate?

None through the Gulf oil spill?

None through the 10% unemployment period?

No negative coverage through the current Libyan incident?

In fact, most of the media has been engaged in mostly negative coverage of Mr Obama since that article was written.

But here, don't take my word for it, let's get a random sampling of Google News hits on "Obama" and "Obama media coverage", shall we?

Obama's Speech Bombs

The Cost of Hope and Change: Can Obama Buy Another Term?

Fox News Poll: Qaddafi Seen as More Committed than Obama

GOP lawyer drafts Obama impeachment

And that's just blatantly negative HEADLINES in the top 10 most-linked articles on the internet. That doesn't even take negative content into account.

 

[Vast LWC]

AND, after wading through dozens and dozens of links to negative articles about Obama, when I did a simple Google search on "Obama, negative media coverage" (proving my point even more), I finally found an article that showed his positive media coverage falling rapidly just a couple of months after the article you cited:

Media Coverage of Obama Grows More Negative - US News and World Report

So much for "Case Closed".

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Now, as for studies done since that point, no, I don't have any, though the facts are available online.

OK. As I saw, case closed. You have no evidence and are simply talking out of your ass. Thanks for admitting so.

Than I guess it's funny that you should have no study at all since then.

Are you saying that there was no negative media coverage through the Health Care debate?

None through the Gulf oil spill?

None through the 10% unemployment period?

No negative coverage through the current Libyan incident?

In fact, most of the media has been engaged in mostly negative coverage of Mr Obama since that article was written.

But here, don't take my word for it, let's get a random sampling of Google News hits on "Obama" and "Obama media coverage", shall we?

Hey.....don't forget about all the things he REALLY did!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnoPpWdlG3A]YouTube - Rachel Maddow (1) 111th Congress put policy before politics[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHK7zsz7xU]YouTube - Rachel Maddow (2) 111th Congress put policy before politics[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWpBWP8krs]YouTube - Obama Takes a Victory Lap After Big Wins[/ame]​

 

[The T]

OK. As I saw, case closed. You have no evidence and are simply talking out of your ass. Thanks for admitting so.

Than I guess it's funny that you should have no study at all since then.

Are you saying that there was no negative media coverage through the Health Care debate?

None through the Gulf oil spill?

None through the 10% unemployment period?

No negative coverage through the current Libyan incident?

In fact, most of the media has been engaged in mostly negative coverage of Mr Obama since that article was written.

But here, don't take my word for it, let's get a random sampling of Google News hits on "Obama" and "Obama media coverage", shall we?

Hey.....don't forget about all the things he REALLY did!!​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnoPpWdlG3A"]YouTube - Rachel Maddow (1) 111th Congress put policy before politics[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHK7zsz7xU"]YouTube - Rachel Maddow (2) 111th Congress put policy before politics[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWpBWP8krs"]YouTube - Obama Takes a Victory Lap After Big Wins[/ame]​

 

[Big Fitz]

Madcow is a reputable news source like a fart is a bowel movement. All noise and stink with no substance or actual production.

 

[The Rabbi]

AND, after wading through dozens and dozens of links to negative articles about Obama, when I did a simple Google search on "Obama, negative media coverage" (proving my point even more), I finally found an article that showed his positive media coverage falling rapidly just a couple of months after the article you cited:

Media Coverage of Obama Grows More Negative - US News and World Report

So much for "Case Closed".

LOL. RLY???
You bring a piece from 2009 that mentions positive stories declined from 59% to 43%. Wow! Not. That was 2 years ago. He has not gotten nearly the negative coverage that Bush got. The man started a bombing campaign with no plan and no consultation. The press would be all over Bush demanding his resignation now. They would be howling at Holder's flip flop on military tribunals. Did you see any coverage like that? No.

As I said, if I wanted to hear an asshole talk I'd fart.

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL. RLY???
You bring a piece from 2009 that mentions positive stories declined from 59% to 43%. Wow! Not. That was 2 years ago. He has not gotten nearly the negative coverage that Bush got. The man started a bombing campaign with no plan and no consultation. The press would be all over Bush demanding his resignation now. They would be howling at Holder's flip flop on military tribunals. Did you see any coverage like that? No.

As I said, if I wanted to hear an asshole talk I'd fart.

OK, jackass:

1. Your study was from 3 MONTHS BEFORE MINE. Duh. I was showing that soon after your own article was written, Obama's positive media had already dramatically dropped.

And

2. No-one was comparing Booooosh to anyone. We were making a comparison to Reagan and Obama.

And Bush dug his own hole by declaring war on the press, with his approval rating at 90%, his administration started laying into the "lamestream" media, ala FoxNews continuously. SO WTH did you expect, the press to love him???

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL. RLY???
You bring a piece from 2009 that mentions positive stories declined from 59% to 43%. Wow! Not. That was 2 years ago. He has not gotten nearly the negative coverage that Bush got. The man started a bombing campaign with no plan and no consultation. The press would be all over Bush demanding his resignation now. They would be howling at Holder's flip flop on military tribunals. Did you see any coverage like that? No.

As I said, if I wanted to hear an asshole talk I'd fart.

OK, jackass:

1. Your study was from 3 MONTHS BEFORE MINE. Duh. I was showing that soon after your own article was written, Obama's positive media had already dramatically dropped.

And

2. No-one was comparing Booooosh to anyone. We were making a comparison to Reagan and Obama.

And Bush dug his own hole by declaring war on the press, with his approval rating at 90%, his administration started laying into the "lamestream" media, ala FoxNews continuously. SO WTH did you expect, the press to love him???

And I asked what changed. The answer is nothing. The media are still Obama's lap dogs. You haven't shown any different. The tiny difference is because, duh, Obama has done a wretched job, so bad that someone has to comment on it sometime.
As to Reagan, the press hated him like they hated Bush. Used the same put downs in fact. ANd yet Reagan accomplished far more, working with Dems in Congress than Obama has accomplished with a solid Dem majority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would the coverage of Obama in early 2009 rightfully been negative? Or even 50-50? He was in the 60's or better in approval and nothing bad of any consequence was happening.

Of COURSE the coverage is going to be net favorable.

 

[8537]

Why would the coverage of Obama in early 2009 rightfully been negative? Or even 50-50? He was in the 60's or better in approval and nothing bad of any consequence was happening.

Of COURSE the coverage is going to be net favorable.

Well, He's black - and Rabbi assures us that blacks can't lead. So all of his coverage should reflect this fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would the coverage of Obama in early 2009 rightfully been negative? Or even 50-50? He was in the 60's or better in approval and nothing bad of any consequence was happening.

Of COURSE the coverage is going to be net favorable.

Well, He's black - and Rabbi assures us that blacks can't lead. So all of his coverage should reflect this fact.

Actually he's only half black. So once again you post something that isn't true. THis seems to be your MO.

 

[8537]

Why would the coverage of Obama in early 2009 rightfully been negative? Or even 50-50? He was in the 60's or better in approval and nothing bad of any consequence was happening.

Of COURSE the coverage is going to be net favorable.

Well, He's black - and Rabbi assures us that blacks can't lead. So all of his coverage should reflect this fact.

Actually he's only half black.

You carry an awfully big shovel.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, He's black - and Rabbi assures us that blacks can't lead. So all of his coverage should reflect this fact.

Actually he's only half black.

You carry an awfully big shovel.

Yes. A big shovel full of facts and arguments. I bury you with it every time.

 

[8537]

Actually he's only half black.

You carry an awfully big shovel.

Yes. A big shovel full of facts and arguments. I bury you with it every time.

Oh noes! I been bad-repped by da Rabbi!

So, you were speaking factually when you said that Blacks can't lead?

 

[The Rabbi]

You carry an awfully big shovel.

Yes. A big shovel full of facts and arguments. I bury you with it every time.

Oh noes! I been bad-repped by da Rabbi!

So, you were speaking factually when you said that Blacks can't lead?

Please post anywhere where I said blacks can't lead.
Once again you post lies and untruths. I think you need psychiatric help since you cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes. A big shovel full of facts and arguments. I bury you with it every time.

Oh noes! I been bad-repped by da Rabbi!

So, you were speaking factually when you said that Blacks can't lead?

Please post anywhere where I said blacks can't lead.
Once again you post lies and untruths. I think you need psychiatric help since you cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

This is where we repost his racist comments and he replies. "I never said they couldn't lead! I said they were bad leaders. See...you are a liar, I win".

That's what happens when blacks run things.

Rabbis racist comments

 

[8537]

Oh noes! I been bad-repped by da Rabbi!

So, you were speaking factually when you said that Blacks can't lead?

Please post anywhere where I said blacks can't lead.
Once again you post lies and untruths. I think you need psychiatric help since you cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

This is where we repost his racist comments and he replies. "I never said they couldn't lead! I said they were bad leaders. See...you are a liar, I win".

That's what happens when blacks run things.

Rabbis racist comments

Rabbi also likes to use some...eh...selective facts:

"Asians: China, Taiwan, S.Korea,Thailand--all countries that have achieved remarkable success.
Eskimos, I have no idea.
Blacks: Haiti, a disaster since their slave revolt. Zimbabwe, a fomerly prosperous country now a 3rd world hell hole. Virtually any country in Africa. Detroit. New York has had one black mayor, Dinkins, and is the only city in America to have had a pogrom in the 20th century. Marion Berry in Washington DC.

Go ahead, prove me wrong here."

Nevermind that there are a host of nations lead by blacks that are wealthier than China, and nevermind that his examples of black nations are nods to the worst of the bunch - he could just as likely prove that Asians can't lead because North Korea's a hellhole.

for some reason blacks cannot seem to produce prosperity in any political capacity

for "some reason" mind you.

I could go on...

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh noes! I been bad-repped by da Rabbi!

So, you were speaking factually when you said that Blacks can't lead?

Please post anywhere where I said blacks can't lead.
Once again you post lies and untruths. I think you need psychiatric help since you cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

This is where we repost his racist comments and he replies. "I never said they couldn't lead! I said they were bad leaders. See...you are a liar, I win".

That's what happens when blacks run things.

Rabbis racist comments

OK, so you admit on the front end you lied when you said I wrote that blacks can't lead. At least that saves me the trouble.
Yet another fail of a post. Your record is unbroken.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post anywhere where I said blacks can't lead.
Once again you post lies and untruths. I think you need psychiatric help since you cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

This is where we repost his racist comments and he replies. "I never said they couldn't lead! I said they were bad leaders. See...you are a liar, I win".






Rabbis racist comments

Rabbi also likes to use some...eh...selective facts:

"Asians: China, Taiwan, S.Korea,Thailand--all countries that have achieved remarkable success.
Eskimos, I have no idea.
Blacks: Haiti, a disaster since their slave revolt. Zimbabwe, a fomerly prosperous country now a 3rd world hell hole. Virtually any country in Africa. Detroit. New York has had one black mayor, Dinkins, and is the only city in America to have had a pogrom in the 20th century. Marion Berry in Washington DC.

Go ahead, prove me wrong here."

Nevermind that there are a host of nations lead by blacks that are wealthier than China, and nevermind that his examples of black nations are nods to the worst of the bunch - he could just as likely prove that Asians can't lead because North Korea's a hellhole.

for some reason blacks cannot seem to produce prosperity in any political capacity

for "some reason" mind you.

I could go on...

And you were never able to substantiate your facts. And every one of them was wrong, in fact. Having more income per capita compared to China is a twisting of facts so breath-taking only you could do it.