The leftist Democrat Party bias and tilt of American Main Stream Media

[LadyGunSlinger]

That's quite an active imagination you've got there fatass. Too bad you're not putting it to good use.

Zzzz. It doesn't require "imagination" to see what IS in front of you, turd breath.

It requires imagination to deny it. So, kudos to you for your skills in dissembling.

And stop obsessing about your fevered imaginings. My ass size, fat or skinny, is not within your knowledge. And despite your drooling and wishful thinking, no. You are not permitted to gaze upon any other portion of my anatomy, either.

Don't you have a date with Dainty or sumpin'?

Ok, I don't care who you are, this ^^^^^ is funny as hell!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Uh .. no. Not only are journalists much more likely to be self-identified "liberals," the main stream media has been acknowledged by rational (by which I mean logical and honest) journalists to be biased toward the liberal end of the political spectrum -- by which, naturally, I mean towards the irrational.



No. What I "asserted" was that the image of Boehner apparently engaged in he act of crying (again) (not "scratching his nose") was put there deliberately. It was no accident. It is done by design and with purpose and intent. And example after example of this propagandistic meme can be found all over the lame stream liberal media.

The fact that there is ALSO (not featured in a photo or appearing at all on the MSN.com front page to which I linked) another link, which you get to only after you first see the Boehner "crying again" imagery, is proof of nothing. For, again, I have never claimed that the liberally biased and deliberately distorting main stream media is incapable of providing some information and news and analysis on the OTHER side of the political spectrum. They are blatant enough without having their bias conclusively proved by a complete lack of "demonstrable" objectivity. They are thus OBLIGED to include at least SOME material from the right.




There's no "if" about it. My contention IS true. And no; that it IS true does NOT require that they use any one particular image of Boehner "crying (again)." It suffices more than sufficiently for their agenda that they keep plugging away.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that we will be treated in the days and weeks ahead to a flood of "Boehner crying" images. They will be included gratuitously. They need have NO actual connection to the stories getting "reported." That will never be the point. The point is found within the realm of the repetition.

All Democrats aren't "liberals," and there are now more self-proclaimed "independents" than ever before. There are also plenty of Republicans as well as a few conservatives who aren't fanatics, such as David Frum, David Brookes, and Joe Scarborough. Your biggest problem is thinking that anyone that doesn't continuously espouse the right-wing positions must be a "liberal."

Cute little pompous diatribe. But the irrelevant, baseless, inaccurate and simplistic little pointless you were attempting to make has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (other than permitting you to invoke the word "liberal").

And you are wrong, anyway. But that's a topic (maybe) for some other day and some other thread where you spin might actually be on topic.

Has nothing to do with the topic? Did you forget what you named it?

 

[MaggieMae]

At the risk of being serious with you, Ravi:

Are you honestly trying to make the claim that merely because some outlets in the main stream media occasionally provide some relatively fair, objective or balanced reporting or analysis, this somehow constitutes evidence that they aren't politically biased towards the left and the Democrats?

Whatever the news outlet is, whether it's a dotcom or mainstream, they all get the top news stories of the day via AP, and if you put those stories side by side, they read the same. If you're talking opinion pages, that's a different story.

Wrong, of course.

The NYT does get SOME of its information from AP. But they also do some of their own reporting and AP sometimes uses THEM as the source of AP reporting. Kind of incestuous.

But you still miss the point. Let's pretend that what you said was accurate. In that case, it would be AP disseminating the spin. And? So what? How does THAT disprove or cast any doubt on the proposition I offered to the effect that the liberal-dominated main stream media "reports" with a serious agenda? They are agents of the liberal political thinking of this country in general and of the Democrat Parody more particularly.

In your opinion, of course. Since I read hard copies of a variety of magazines, both liberal and conservative (The Nation, National Review, and a couple of others), the press's editorializing of news reports is pretty much equaled out. If mainstream by now hasn't yet figured out what the unembellished STORY is, then that's their problem. They're not looking hard enough, and prefer to ONLY read publications which support their political points of view.

 

[MaggieMae]

In big and important ways, and in little almost imperceptible ways, the American "main stream" media demonstrates a consistent bias in favor of the politically left and in favor of the Democrat Party (pardon me if "politically left" and "Democrat Party" are redundant expressions).

So, maybe it's time to have a handy reference spot to document it when we see it.

Getting started. Has anybody noticed that the main stream media seems determined to take "subtle" and consistent note of Speaker Boehner's odd behavioral quirk of crying a bit too easily and often? I mean, hell. Many of us (on both the left and the right) have noted it. It is probably fair game to poke at it once in a while. But is THAT the job of a supposedly "objective" news organization?

From TODAY'S MSN.com:

Journalists like putting pictures with their stories. IT seems to motivate people to read the stories. Today, the MSN.com home page was fronting the NYT's piece on Republican "unity" getting "frayed." -- MSN.com

Could it POSSIBLY be that MSN was planting a little subconscious reinforcement for the propaganda message that the GOP is in such turmoil that the speaker is crying over it?

Boehner hasn't shed any tears lately, so no one talks about it (except you, so I guess it bothered you more). And maybe if it seems like MSM leans to the left it's because the left is right more than the right is right.

LOL. You are such a partisan hack, Magz, that you can't even see how your post undercuts the very point you were hoping to make.

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

And every time you say that, I LMAO because there's no bigger political hack on this board than you, and an inyourface hypocrite to top it off!! Are you serious?

 

[Liability]

All Democrats aren't "liberals," and there are now more self-proclaimed "independents" than ever before. There are also plenty of Republicans as well as a few conservatives who aren't fanatics, such as David Frum, David Brookes, and Joe Scarborough. Your biggest problem is thinking that anyone that doesn't continuously espouse the right-wing positions must be a "liberal."

Cute little pompous diatribe. But the irrelevant, baseless, inaccurate and simplistic little pointless you were attempting to make has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (other than permitting you to invoke the word "liberal").

And you are wrong, anyway. But that's a topic (maybe) for some other day and some other thread where you spin might actually be on topic.

Has nothing to do with the topic? Did you forget what you named it?

Not at all. That is, in fact, why I know that her post has nothing to do with the thread topic other than permitting her to use the word "liberal."

That you are unable to follow along is not my problem!

True story!

 

[MaggieMae]

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

All, poor baby. You're all pissed off because the photos of Boehner crying aren't fair...waaaah... Who among your camp whined when photo after photo of Obama are staring up at us as if he had committed the sin of the century? Are you KIDDING? The one splashed on front pages for weeks of him not crossing his heart during the National Anthem; the ones taken of Obama swimming with <gasp> no shirt on; the one <gasp> of him sitting in the Oval Office in shirtsleaves with his feet up on the desk; and of course the thousands of photoshopped pictures of not just the President, but his wife and children?

Just shut up, Liability before you make a bigger fool of yourself. But then that never seems to bother you. I suppose your response to this will be that it was all payback for the way Bush was treated. Well duh... the fact that you think posting pictures of John Boehner in tears should now be off limits is absurd.

And here's something that should stand your hair on end: If John Boehner continues with his willingness to cooperate with the President instead of just standing on the floor of the House and saying HELL NO WE WON'T... then I rather like what I see. Howzat...

 

[Liability]

Whatever the news outlet is, whether it's a dotcom or mainstream, they all get the top news stories of the day via AP, and if you put those stories side by side, they read the same. If you're talking opinion pages, that's a different story.

Wrong, of course.

The NYT does get SOME of its information from AP. But they also do some of their own reporting and AP sometimes uses THEM as the source of AP reporting. Kind of incestuous.

But you still miss the point. Let's pretend that what you said was accurate. In that case, it would be AP disseminating the spin. And? So what? How does THAT disprove or cast any doubt on the proposition I offered to the effect that the liberal-dominated main stream media "reports" with a serious agenda? They are agents of the liberal political thinking of this country in general and of the Democrat Parody more particularly.

In your opinion, of course. Since I read hard copies of a variety of magazines, both liberal and conservative (The Nation, National Review, and a couple of others), the press's editorializing of news reports is pretty much equaled out. If mainstream by now hasn't yet figured out what the unembellished STORY is, then that's their problem. They're not looking hard enough, and prefer to ONLY read publications which support their political points of view.

No. It sure isn't pretty much "equaled out."

It comes as a shock that a conservative magazine might have conservative editorials. Thanks for that uninformative "tip," Mags. [/sarcasm]



But I'm not talking about a magazine's editorial bent. I am talking about the more underhanded and unprofessional insertion of editorial opinion INTO what purports to be "objective" news reporting.

With the exception of Fox News, by the way, you can't name a genuinely conservatively-inclined major broadcast or cable outlet.

But we could name LOTS of liberal-inclined major broadcast or cable outlets.

And either way, when you front the "story" of another news outlet by posting an image that truly has nothing to do with that "story," what you are doing is attempting to influence the audience.

You may continue to deny it, but you only look progressively more silly each time you try.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's quite an active imagination you've got there fatass. Too bad you're not putting it to good use.

Zzzz. It doesn't require "imagination" to see what IS in front of you, turd breath.

It requires imagination to deny it. So, kudos to you for your skills in dissembling.

And stop obsessing about your fevered imaginings. My ass size, fat or skinny, is not within your knowledge. And despite your drooling and wishful thinking, no. You are not permitted to gaze upon any other portion of my anatomy, either.

Don't you have a date with Dainty or sumpin'?

And it's not within your knowledge to assume he has "turd breath." Geezus, do you ever actually READ what you type before you hit submit?

 

[Liability]

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

All, poor baby. You're all pissed off because the photos of Boehner crying aren't fair...waaaah... Who among your camp whined when photo after photo of Obama are staring up at us as if he had committed the sin of the century? Are you KIDDING? The one splashed on front pages for weeks of him not crossing his heart during the National Anthem; the ones taken of Obama swimming with <gasp> no shirt on; the one <gasp> of him sitting in the Oval Office in shirtsleaves with his feet up on the desk; and of course the thousands of photoshopped pictures of not just the President, but his wife and children?

Just shut up, Liability before you make a bigger fool of yourself. But then that never seems to bother you. I suppose your response to this will be that it was all payback for the way Bush was treated. Well duh... the fact that you think posting pictures of John Boehner in tears should now be off limits is absurd.

And here's something that should stand your hair on end: If John Boehner continues with his willingness to cooperate with the President instead of just standing on the floor of the House and saying HELL NO WE WON'T... then I rather like what I see. Howzat...

No no, Magoo. I'm not all pissed off over it. I am merely noting it and underscoring it.

You go right ahead and defend that cheese-dick practice. Doing so only serves to highlight who and what you really are.

So, that's cool.

 

[MaggieMae]

[Unmanlyfold's lame-o "image" snipped]

And unmanlyfold persists in fantasizing about my ass. Kinda icky.

In reality, he has no personal knowledge about me or any part of me (for which I am indeed thankful). Unmanlyfold just likes to lie (kinda like Ravi).

Therefore, presented to unmanlyfold:

His face:

Oh, and still no meltdown from me, unmanlyfold.

Keep trying.

You're in a constant state of meltdown.

 

[Liability]

That's quite an active imagination you've got there fatass. Too bad you're not putting it to good use.

Zzzz. It doesn't require "imagination" to see what IS in front of you, turd breath.

It requires imagination to deny it. So, kudos to you for your skills in dissembling.

And stop obsessing about your fevered imaginings. My ass size, fat or skinny, is not within your knowledge. And despite your drooling and wishful thinking, no. You are not permitted to gaze upon any other portion of my anatomy, either.

Don't you have a date with Dainty or sumpin'?

And it's not within your knowledge to assume he has "turd breath." Geezus, do you ever actually READ what you type before you hit submit?

What a fucking stupid "come-back" even by your putrid standards.

If a guy talks shit, as unmanlyfold does pretty much all of the time, then it is fair to assume he has shit on his breath, you schmuck.

Geez. Are you always this plodding and dull witted?

Oh wait. It's you. Magoo. Of course you are.

 

[Liability]

[Unmanlyfold's lame-o "image" snipped]

And unmanlyfold persists in fantasizing about my ass. Kinda icky.

In reality, he has no personal knowledge about me or any part of me (for which I am indeed thankful). Unmanlyfold just likes to lie (kinda like Ravi).

Therefore, presented to unmanlyfold:

His face:

Oh, and still no meltdown from me, unmanlyfold.

Keep trying.

You're in a constant state of meltdown.

Wrong again, Magoo.

Or are you just being deliberately dishonest?

 

[manifold]

You are such a partisan hack, Magz

And every time you say that, I LMAO because there's no bigger political hack on this board than you, and an inyourface hypocrite to top it off!!

True story

 

[Liability]

Boehner hasn't shed any tears lately, so no one talks about it (except you, so I guess it bothered you more). And maybe if it seems like MSM leans to the left it's because the left is right more than the right is right.

LOL. You are such a partisan hack, Magz, that you can't even see how your post undercuts the very point you were hoping to make.

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

And every time you say that, I LMAO because there's no bigger political hack on this board than you, and an inyourface hypocrite to top it off!! Are you serious?

There you go, lying again.

Tsk tsk.

(A) Just because you disagree with my political views, Magoo, doesn't make me the "hack."

(B) There ARE plenty of folks who ARE nothing but hacks, however; so I couldn't possibly be the biggest hack.

(C) You "overlooked" yourself, for example.

(D) Saying something (as you just did) and it being truthful (as you failed to do) are two different things. I haven't been in the slightest bit hypocritical. Again, Magoo: tsk tsk.

For an old bag, you do have some serious growing up to do.

Run along now.

 

[MaggieMae]

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

All, poor baby. You're all pissed off because the photos of Boehner crying aren't fair...waaaah... Who among your camp whined when photo after photo of Obama are staring up at us as if he had committed the sin of the century? Are you KIDDING? The one splashed on front pages for weeks of him not crossing his heart during the National Anthem; the ones taken of Obama swimming with <gasp> no shirt on; the one <gasp> of him sitting in the Oval Office in shirtsleaves with his feet up on the desk; and of course the thousands of photoshopped pictures of not just the President, but his wife and children?

Just shut up, Liability before you make a bigger fool of yourself. But then that never seems to bother you. I suppose your response to this will be that it was all payback for the way Bush was treated. Well duh... the fact that you think posting pictures of John Boehner in tears should now be off limits is absurd.

And here's something that should stand your hair on end: If John Boehner continues with his willingness to cooperate with the President instead of just standing on the floor of the House and saying HELL NO WE WON'T... then I rather like what I see. Howzat...

No no, Magoo. I'm not all pissed off over it. I am merely noting it and underscoring it.

You go right ahead and defend that cheese-dick practice. Doing so only serves to highlight who and what you really are.

So, that's cool.

You truly are funny. Of course your retorts and gutter labels you attach to everyone who disagrees with you is no indication that you're pissed off. Uh huh...

You're incapable of civil debate on any subject. True story.

What a fucking stupid "come-back" even by your putrid standards.

If a guy talks shit, as unmanlyfold does pretty much all of the time, then it is fair to assume he has shit on his breath, you schmuck.

Geez. Are you always this plodding and dull witted?

Oh wait. It's you. Magoo. Of course you are.

I rest my case. Have a nice day! [giggle]

 

[Liability]

All, poor baby. You're all pissed off because the photos of Boehner crying aren't fair...waaaah... Who among your camp whined when photo after photo of Obama are staring up at us as if he had committed the sin of the century? Are you KIDDING? The one splashed on front pages for weeks of him not crossing his heart during the National Anthem; the ones taken of Obama swimming with <gasp> no shirt on; the one <gasp> of him sitting in the Oval Office in shirtsleaves with his feet up on the desk; and of course the thousands of photoshopped pictures of not just the President, but his wife and children?

Just shut up, Liability before you make a bigger fool of yourself. But then that never seems to bother you. I suppose your response to this will be that it was all payback for the way Bush was treated. Well duh... the fact that you think posting pictures of John Boehner in tears should now be off limits is absurd.

And here's something that should stand your hair on end: If John Boehner continues with his willingness to cooperate with the President instead of just standing on the floor of the House and saying HELL NO WE WON'T... then I rather like what I see. Howzat...

No no, Magoo. I'm not all pissed off over it. I am merely noting it and underscoring it.

You go right ahead and defend that cheese-dick practice. Doing so only serves to highlight who and what you really are.

So, that's cool.

You truly are funny. Of course your retorts and gutter labels you attach to everyone who disagrees with you is no indication that you're pissed off. Uh huh...

You're incapable of civil debate on any subject. True story.

What a fucking stupid "come-back" even by your putrid standards.

If a guy talks shit, as unmanlyfold does pretty much all of the time, then it is fair to assume he has shit on his breath, you schmuck.

Geez. Are you always this plodding and dull witted?

Oh wait. It's you. Magoo. Of course you are.

I rest my case. Have a nice day! [giggle]

Oh GOOD. When the most pathetic libbies can't take the heat, they go back to their hypocritical and fundamentally dishonest "civility" meme.

It's precious.

Really.



Oh, and since you "rest your case" the verdict can now come in.

Yup.

As expected, you've lost yet again.

The clerk will schedule the date for sentencing.

Have a great day, Magoo.

 

[bodecea]

If it wasn't for the left wing "mainstream media" Obama would have been run outa town last year. The only thing that is keeping Obama afloat is support from ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, CNN the NY Times and the Wash Post and a few others. It's ironic that Dan Rather is still blathering around after trying to influence a presidential election with forged documents and the left is hysterical about Glen Beck.

Run out of town by whom? And for what reason?

 

[manifold]

Epic meltdown bro.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Right wants more programming on the airwaves that is biased in their favor,

all they have to do is put it on. No one is stopping them.

 

[manifold]

If the Right wants more programming on the airwaves that is biased in their favor,

all they have to do is put it on. No one is stopping them.

They only support the 'free' market when it means rich people get to shit on poor people.