Actually it is a smart move on mccain's part. he is doing his job as a senator. he is putting the nation first which is what a president is suppose to do.
obama is more concerned about his poll numbers and winning the election than making sure that the bailout bill (which right now is horrible) is a benefit to the taxpayers.
obama is making a huge mistake. he is putting his ambition ahead of the country and doing what is right. that is not good leadership.
again obama shows that he doesn't have what it takes to be president.
only obamaites will agree with him. which is sad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
SurveyUSA has just completed a snap poll on response to John McCain's request to cancel or postpone the presidential debate. Several questions. But two key ones.
What to do about debates?
Hold as Scheduled 50%
Hold with Econ Focus 36%
Postpone 10%
Suspend Campaigns?
Suspend 14%
Continue 31%
Refocus on Fin. Crisis 48%
Would canceling the debates be good for America? 14% say yes.
1 in 7 says its appropriate to suspend his campaign, 1 in 7 says it's appropriate to cancel the debates - with him already down in the polls, that's going to sting.
Additional sidenotes:
Drudge saying the McCain dodged out of Letterman while next door with Katie Couric?
And CNN reporting that McCain is pushing for the Pres debates to be on Oct 2nd, delaying the VP Debates.
I have to admit the Letterman quote hit home with me, this really is, as it fleshes out more an action of cowardice from someone who's primary foundation is that he's a tried and tested hero.
Quote from mystery45 »
Actually it is a smart move on mccain's part. he is doing his job as a senator. he is putting the nation first which is what a president is suppose to do.
obama is more concerned about his poll numbers and winning the election than making sure that the bailout bill (which right now is horrible) is a benefit to the taxpayers.
Yep, it's really smart to do two actions that at least 1/2 of the people planning to vote for you disagree with when you're already down in the polls by 10 pts (according to FoxNEWS at that). Assuming he loses 0.5% for each that'll put him down by 12 pts, which is a hell of a lot of ground to gain in 41 days with your campaign sitting idle. [And frankly with the whole "hero acting cowardly" spiel - if it starts to resound, it'll be much greater than a net of 1% lost]
And Obama is working on the bill, wife got in her email a little while ago a link from the Obama website with a link to his variant of the proposal he is (*gasp*) sending to his fellow Senators via the interweb or whatever this fancy technogadget thing is called. I just know it's got tubes and when I hit these things words come out the other end.
Believe it or not, technology has advanced enough to do things at a distance these days.
1 in 7 says its appropriate to suspend his campaign, 1 in 7 says it's appropriate to cancel the debates - with him already down in the polls, that's going to sting.
6 in 7 must be Obamaites, eh mystery45? lol
Obvious political stunt. McCain knows nothing about the economy and would not contribute anything to the negotiations except an imposition of his campaign upon them under the guise of suspension.
Actually it is a smart move on mccain's part. he is doing his job as a senator. he is putting the nation first which is what a president is suppose to do.
obama is more concerned about his poll numbers and winning the election than making sure that the bailout bill (which right now is horrible) is a benefit to the taxpayers.
obama is making a huge mistake. he is putting his ambition ahead of the country and doing what is right. that is not good leadership.
again obama shows that he doesn't have what it takes to be president.
only obamaites will agree with him. which is sad.
I should think that, even were I (much more) conservative, I could appreciate Obama's rationale that a president needs to be able to juggle more than one issue/crisis at a time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Neither one of them is involved in the committee that would be drafting this, so the most he can do is sit on his hands and wait until the vote comes up while giving some reassuring words to the committee.
Yep, all he's doing is trying to buy time, it's official.
(Also keep in mind, Mississippi is a 3 hr flight from DC - and he's got a private jet - why exactly would it be hard for him to do both, even if he insists on doing both in person?)
Not to mention if he wanted to stick to his guns he could debate via teleconference even if there was a reason he couldn't fly there in time - I'm sure one of the MANY news studios in DC and Rockville would oblige.
Or at the very least the Pentagon about 30-40 min south.
"At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."
A special "lol" goes out to Mystery for responding in typical fashion. As if the almighty McCain made a mighty and patriotic move over that evil commie Obama.
EDIT: Also something to keep in mind people:
McCain last week: "The fundamentals of the economy are strong."
McCain this week: "The economic crisis we face is historic."
What was it conservatives always derided Kerry for again? Something about flipping and flopping?
What was it conservatives always derided Kerry for again? Something about flipping and flopping?
Oh Flip-Flopping isn't nearly as big of a deal anymore.
(Completely OT joke I'll probably get a warning for [but I'll deal with it] to follow)
I blame these things I saw pop up in my grocery store about a year ago for the change of opinion on Flip-Flops:
Mighty tasty looking... really who doesn't like waffles, and CINNAMON at that! (And yes, I spend too much of my time in the grocery store - even after leaving my career there - I'm a skinny foodie though!)
More on topic though - Palin's interview with Couric was painful to watch you can see her racing through her thoughts trying to repeat quotes (badly):
Interesting article from salon.com about ghost-writing for editorials, then getting random supporters to sign letters they "support" having their name on regardless of accuracy.
Thing is, Hussein never was a threat to the world. A brutal dictator, yes, but as far as the rest of the world was concerned he was by far more famous than dangerous.
And, y'know, being dismissive of Republicans after their conduct during the past eight (and more) years is quite warranted. They have been demonstrably wrong on several very important issues and they are more prone to being close-minded. Their primary desire is after all to uphold the status quo (because they profit immensely from it). That kind of excludes being receptive to new ideas and compromise.
Dismissing a party and its ideology is not a bad thing when that party has time and time again proven itself to be the sub-par option. And the Democrats are just a bunch of normal, roughly centrist politicians, it's not like the Republicans are up against saints or anything.
Hussein very much would have been a threat to the world. If he didn't have WMDs then, he was trying to get them. There is plenty of proof for this.
I don't see any issue that Republicans aren't correct on except for maybe not standing up for traditional values enough, in which case they are at least better than Democrats who seem to be concerned with advocating for atheists and trying to raise taxes.
I don't see how you can dismiss an ideology of common sense (embracing values that we founded this country on) and embrace one of amoralism.
Hussein very much would have been a threat to the world. If he didn't have WMDs then, he was trying to get them. There is plenty of proof for this.
The CIA's first report said that - it's second contradicted it (well after we were already there), as well as however many one's the UN did. At no point have I heard validation of a report once rechecked, besides trace amounts of a few materials found in caches that hadn't been touched for years - as if they had say been disposed of and buried. Even Colin Powell has come back and said our evidence for going was inaccurate and with what he knows now it shouldn't have happened as it did.
The first batch of evidence was based on things like DPU housings that once it was actually investigated were coming from someplace that didn't exist. Just falsified paperwork for some company supposedly in a place in Africa which didn't even have the capability to make the housings.
There have been many reports and etc. about how Hussein moved his weapons out of the country prior to the invasion or sold them.
And check out how many of those have been substantiated.... tick, tock, tick, tock - BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Zero.
Not even the CIA signed off on those, that was US Army Intelligence, and when the CIA followed up they couldn't find anything to support that theory besides the discarded caches/buried trucks with canisters of long empty psuedo-WMD's.
The WMD term really needs to be abolished though, it's so ridiculous that people can consider Nerve Gas, which is under the BEST circumstances not terribly lethal (look at the Tokyo Subway incident, and that was best case scenario), in the same breath as Nukes.
Nukes scare me, Nerve Gas doesn't - because I'm not an idiot. And there's even MORE mild "WMD's" than Nerve Gas - I've even seen Mustard Gas mentioned as a WMD before.
Now for me personally, I need to get into bed soon - werewolves and vampires come out once the sun is down. So farewell, we all have to have our fairy tale monsters, right?
"I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."
That was classic.
Seriously though, at this point in time what else do we have but humor? The Empire is falling. The decadent oligarchs have the economy as hostage, and unless we give them billions in taxpayer dollars they'll shoot it ("Give us 700 billion dollars, or we'll shoot this dog!"). The election circus is in town, the clowns are making their pirouettes, the people will applaud and pull a lever and go back home, and nothing will have changed. Hey, we lucked out and got Alara spoiled already and it's only Wednesday. With some luck a guy at Diebold will post and spoil the election results early so we can get something interesting on TV again.
"The center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
"I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."
That was classic.
Seriously though, at this point in time what else do we have but humor? The Empire is falling. The decadent oligarchs have the economy as hostage, and unless we give them billions in taxpayer dollars they'll shoot it ("Give us 700 billion dollars, or we'll shoot this dog!"). The election circus is in town, the clowns are making their pirouettes, the people will applaud and pull a lever and go back home, and nothing will have changed. Hey, we lucked out and got Alara spoiled already and it's only Wednesday. With some luck a guy at Diebold will post and spoil the election results early so we can get something interesting on TV again.
"The center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.
-><- Hail Eris! All hail Discordia! -><-
As if the liberals aren't the ones who control all the media establishments.
As if the liberals aren't the ones who control all the media establishments.
Apparently Drudge, FoxNEWS, The Economist, most talk radio outside of NPR, and far too many papers for me to list don't exist.
Where'd you park the Delorean? Because I'm pretty sure you're living in 1986 if you believe that.
What's sad is I can only list one MEDIA source (not counting DailyKOS and such that isn't really news) that is blatantly left like all the above are right bent - MSNBC, and even they've curbed themselves some recently with benching Olbermann and the other guy.
I don't see any issue that Republicans aren't correct on except for maybe not standing up for traditional values enough, in which case they are at least better than Democrats who seem to be concerned with advocating for atheists and trying to raise taxes.
Yes, because atheists deserve no voice in our culture, those godless, amoral scum.:p
And hasn't it already been established that Obama plans on lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes? That chart's been posted, like, three or four times now.
Can someone explain to this Canadian where this myth of the 'liberal media' comes from?
I watch way too much American news for my own good. I know more about this election than mine (conservative majority, blah blah, Stephane Dion is still the least likable person in the world, much less in politics, blah, NDP still unable to seize any sort of opportunity when put to them on a silver platter... what else is new?).
I take CNN, apparently the bastion of liberal journalism, and I get assaulted by a Father Coughlin type figure named Lou Dobbs spouting far right rhetoric about Mexican invasions. I remember the days when Robert Novak was on there, sitting across some milquetoast centrist calling himself a liberal. And two words: Wolf Blitzer. No need to add anything here.
ABC has John "porn 'stache" Stossel, with yet another exposé on how the magic of the free market made it so all corporate executives in America now defecate rainbows 24/7.
People like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are actually considered valuable analysts and news commentators. In any other country in the world, they'd be on a soapbox downtown, shouting about the aliens who talk to them through the microphones the government put in their fillings.
Jonah "My mom gave me this job" Goldberg shows up on the show, talks about how Obama and liberals are elitists, and nobody laughs his fat nepotic behind out the building.
*Did anyone but me find their "What Bush Got Right" article ridiculous? Seriously, the whole article can be boiled down into these two sentences: "Well, Bush did -insert minor thing here- correctly. However, that doesn't excuse him from all of the terrible things he has done.
I don't see any issue that Republicans aren't correct on except for maybe not standing up for traditional values enough, in which case they are at least better than Democrats who seem to be concerned with advocating for atheists and trying to raise taxes.
I don't see how you can dismiss an ideology of common sense (embracing values that we founded this country on) and embrace one of amoralism.
There is so much wrong with this post that I wonder if it is not a troll?
Thinking that the Democratic party is a party that embraces "amoralism" as opposed to the republicans as a party of common sense, is either a case of MASSIVE delusion, or outright trolling.
Can someone explain to this Canadian where this myth of the 'liberal media' comes from?
I watch way too much American news for my own good. I know more about this election than mine (conservative majority, blah blah, Stephane Dion is still the least likable person in the world, much less in politics, blah, NDP still unable to seize any sort of opportunity when put to them on a silver platter... what else is new?).
I take CNN, apparently the bastion of liberal journalism, and I get assaulted by a Father Coughlin type figure named Lou Dobbs spouting far right rhetoric about Mexican invasions. I remember the days when Robert Novak was on there, sitting across some milquetoast centrist calling himself a liberal. And two words: Wolf Blitzer. No need to add anything here.
ABC has John "porn 'stache" Stossel, with yet another exposé on how the magic of the free market made it so all corporate executives in America now defecate rainbows 24/7.
People like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are actually considered valuable analysts and news commentators. In any other country in the world, they'd be on a soapbox downtown, shouting about the aliens who talk to them through the microphones the government put in their fillings.
Jonah "My mom gave me this job" Goldberg shows up on the show, talks about how Obama and liberals are elitists, and nobody laughs his fat nepotic behind out the building.
Seriously, help me here. What am I missing?
You're looking at pundits and commentators, people who are paid to have and express opinions. Why this is, I can't always say, but their "bias" can hardly be thought of as scandalous. No one's running around in a panic shouting, "OMG Rush Limbaugh is a conservative!", or "OMG Al Franken is a liberal!" Accusations of a liberal bias in the media (and a conservative bias, for that matter) are usually leveled at the journalists who are supposed to be impartial, claiming that one side or the other gets subtly better treatment by network anchors, front-page articles, and the like. And of course this happens: anyone who can't tell that the New York Times writers tend to prefer Democrats, and the Wall Street Journal writers Republicans, not just on their editorial pages but in their general reporting as well, needs to retake high school reading comprehension.
This issue, of course, is that it's always possible to cherry-pick the news outlets you're looking at, and since you're more likely to perceive and therefore pick the bias you don't agree with than the bias you do, you notice a trend in the media at large that may or may not exist. I mean, look at the cherry-picking you yourself have done.
And also try to keep in mind that when Americans talk about "liberal bias", they don't use your own "Lenin was kind of leftish" definition of liberalism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
obama is more concerned about his poll numbers and winning the election than making sure that the bailout bill (which right now is horrible) is a benefit to the taxpayers.
obama is making a huge mistake. he is putting his ambition ahead of the country and doing what is right. that is not good leadership.
again obama shows that he doesn't have what it takes to be president.
only obamaites will agree with him. which is sad.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
First, from http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/219427.php:
1 in 7 says its appropriate to suspend his campaign, 1 in 7 says it's appropriate to cancel the debates - with him already down in the polls, that's going to sting.
Additional sidenotes:
Drudge saying the McCain dodged out of Letterman while next door with Katie Couric?
And CNN reporting that McCain is pushing for the Pres debates to be on Oct 2nd, delaying the VP Debates.
I have to admit the Letterman quote hit home with me, this really is, as it fleshes out more an action of cowardice from someone who's primary foundation is that he's a tried and tested hero.
Yep, it's really smart to do two actions that at least 1/2 of the people planning to vote for you disagree with when you're already down in the polls by 10 pts (according to FoxNEWS at that). Assuming he loses 0.5% for each that'll put him down by 12 pts, which is a hell of a lot of ground to gain in 41 days with your campaign sitting idle. [And frankly with the whole "hero acting cowardly" spiel - if it starts to resound, it'll be much greater than a net of 1% lost]
And Obama is working on the bill, wife got in her email a little while ago a link from the Obama website with a link to his variant of the proposal he is (*gasp*) sending to his fellow Senators via the interweb or whatever this fancy technogadget thing is called. I just know it's got tubes and when I hit these things words come out the other end.
Believe it or not, technology has advanced enough to do things at a distance these days.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
6 in 7 must be Obamaites, eh mystery45? lol
Obvious political stunt. McCain knows nothing about the economy and would not contribute anything to the negotiations except an imposition of his campaign upon them under the guise of suspension.
I should think that, even were I (much more) conservative, I could appreciate Obama's rationale that a president needs to be able to juggle more than one issue/crisis at a time.
Neither one of them is involved in the committee that would be drafting this, so the most he can do is sit on his hands and wait until the vote comes up while giving some reassuring words to the committee.
Yep, all he's doing is trying to buy time, it's official.
(Also keep in mind, Mississippi is a 3 hr flight from DC - and he's got a private jet - why exactly would it be hard for him to do both, even if he insists on doing both in person?)
Not to mention if he wanted to stick to his guns he could debate via teleconference even if there was a reason he couldn't fly there in time - I'm sure one of the MANY news studios in DC and Rockville would oblige.
Or at the very least the Pentagon about 30-40 min south.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
From TIME
A special "lol" goes out to Mystery for responding in typical fashion. As if the almighty McCain made a mighty and patriotic move over that evil commie Obama.
EDIT: Also something to keep in mind people:
McCain last week: "The fundamentals of the economy are strong."
McCain this week: "The economic crisis we face is historic."
What was it conservatives always derided Kerry for again? Something about flipping and flopping?
- Enslaught
Oh Flip-Flopping isn't nearly as big of a deal anymore.
(Completely OT joke I'll probably get a warning for [but I'll deal with it] to follow)
I blame these things I saw pop up in my grocery store about a year ago for the change of opinion on Flip-Flops:
Mighty tasty looking... really who doesn't like waffles, and CINNAMON at that! (And yes, I spend too much of my time in the grocery store - even after leaving my career there - I'm a skinny foodie though!)
More on topic though - Palin's interview with Couric was painful to watch you can see her racing through her thoughts trying to repeat quotes (badly):
Couric w/ Palin
Interesting article from salon.com about ghost-writing for editorials, then getting random supporters to sign letters they "support" having their name on regardless of accuracy.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Hussein very much would have been a threat to the world. If he didn't have WMDs then, he was trying to get them. There is plenty of proof for this.
I don't see any issue that Republicans aren't correct on except for maybe not standing up for traditional values enough, in which case they are at least better than Democrats who seem to be concerned with advocating for atheists and trying to raise taxes.
I don't see how you can dismiss an ideology of common sense (embracing values that we founded this country on) and embrace one of amoralism.
The CIA's first report said that - it's second contradicted it (well after we were already there), as well as however many one's the UN did. At no point have I heard validation of a report once rechecked, besides trace amounts of a few materials found in caches that hadn't been touched for years - as if they had say been disposed of and buried. Even Colin Powell has come back and said our evidence for going was inaccurate and with what he knows now it shouldn't have happened as it did.
The first batch of evidence was based on things like DPU housings that once it was actually investigated were coming from someplace that didn't exist. Just falsified paperwork for some company supposedly in a place in Africa which didn't even have the capability to make the housings.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
And check out how many of those have been substantiated.... tick, tock, tick, tock - BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Zero.
Not even the CIA signed off on those, that was US Army Intelligence, and when the CIA followed up they couldn't find anything to support that theory besides the discarded caches/buried trucks with canisters of long empty psuedo-WMD's.
The WMD term really needs to be abolished though, it's so ridiculous that people can consider Nerve Gas, which is under the BEST circumstances not terribly lethal (look at the Tokyo Subway incident, and that was best case scenario), in the same breath as Nukes.
Nukes scare me, Nerve Gas doesn't - because I'm not an idiot. And there's even MORE mild "WMD's" than Nerve Gas - I've even seen Mustard Gas mentioned as a WMD before.
Now for me personally, I need to get into bed soon - werewolves and vampires come out once the sun is down. So farewell, we all have to have our fairy tale monsters, right?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Shorter Obama campaign: "I care more about poll numbers than helping America and American values."
Shortest Obama campaign: "I want to win this election so McCain doesn't destroy America."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Tell it to Obama.
"I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."
That was classic.
Seriously though, at this point in time what else do we have but humor? The Empire is falling. The decadent oligarchs have the economy as hostage, and unless we give them billions in taxpayer dollars they'll shoot it ("Give us 700 billion dollars, or we'll shoot this dog!"). The election circus is in town, the clowns are making their pirouettes, the people will applaud and pull a lever and go back home, and nothing will have changed. Hey, we lucked out and got Alara spoiled already and it's only Wednesday. With some luck a guy at Diebold will post and spoil the election results early so we can get something interesting on TV again.
"The center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.
-><- Hail Eris! All hail Discordia! -><-
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
As if the liberals aren't the ones who control all the media establishments.
Apparently Drudge, FoxNEWS, The Economist, most talk radio outside of NPR, and far too many papers for me to list don't exist.
Where'd you park the Delorean? Because I'm pretty sure you're living in 1986 if you believe that.
What's sad is I can only list one MEDIA source (not counting DailyKOS and such that isn't really news) that is blatantly left like all the above are right bent - MSNBC, and even they've curbed themselves some recently with benching Olbermann and the other guy.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Yes, because atheists deserve no voice in our culture, those godless, amoral scum.:p
And hasn't it already been established that Obama plans on lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes? That chart's been posted, like, three or four times now.
I watch way too much American news for my own good. I know more about this election than mine (conservative majority, blah blah, Stephane Dion is still the least likable person in the world, much less in politics, blah, NDP still unable to seize any sort of opportunity when put to them on a silver platter... what else is new?).
I take CNN, apparently the bastion of liberal journalism, and I get assaulted by a Father Coughlin type figure named Lou Dobbs spouting far right rhetoric about Mexican invasions. I remember the days when Robert Novak was on there, sitting across some milquetoast centrist calling himself a liberal. And two words: Wolf Blitzer. No need to add anything here.
ABC has John "porn 'stache" Stossel, with yet another exposé on how the magic of the free market made it so all corporate executives in America now defecate rainbows 24/7.
People like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are actually considered valuable analysts and news commentators. In any other country in the world, they'd be on a soapbox downtown, shouting about the aliens who talk to them through the microphones the government put in their fillings.
Jonah "My mom gave me this job" Goldberg shows up on the show, talks about how Obama and liberals are elitists, and nobody laughs his fat nepotic behind out the building.
Seriously, help me here. What am I missing?
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
NPR. Colbert report and friends. Newsweek*.
That's about it.
*Did anyone but me find their "What Bush Got Right" article ridiculous? Seriously, the whole article can be boiled down into these two sentences: "Well, Bush did -insert minor thing here- correctly. However, that doesn't excuse him from all of the terrible things he has done.
There is so much wrong with this post that I wonder if it is not a troll?
Thinking that the Democratic party is a party that embraces "amoralism" as opposed to the republicans as a party of common sense, is either a case of MASSIVE delusion, or outright trolling.
- Enslaught
You're looking at pundits and commentators, people who are paid to have and express opinions. Why this is, I can't always say, but their "bias" can hardly be thought of as scandalous. No one's running around in a panic shouting, "OMG Rush Limbaugh is a conservative!", or "OMG Al Franken is a liberal!" Accusations of a liberal bias in the media (and a conservative bias, for that matter) are usually leveled at the journalists who are supposed to be impartial, claiming that one side or the other gets subtly better treatment by network anchors, front-page articles, and the like. And of course this happens: anyone who can't tell that the New York Times writers tend to prefer Democrats, and the Wall Street Journal writers Republicans, not just on their editorial pages but in their general reporting as well, needs to retake high school reading comprehension.
This issue, of course, is that it's always possible to cherry-pick the news outlets you're looking at, and since you're more likely to perceive and therefore pick the bias you don't agree with than the bias you do, you notice a trend in the media at large that may or may not exist. I mean, look at the cherry-picking you yourself have done.
And also try to keep in mind that when Americans talk about "liberal bias", they don't use your own "Lenin was kind of leftish" definition of liberalism.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
:eyebrow::eyebrow::confused::confused2::raise:
ok can someone please explain to me why the hell is a satirical news report be consider as serious media???
The extendo siggy thingy currently dead
While I wouldn't label them as "serious media" an Indiana University study found that the Daily Show has as much substance as the network newscasts.
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html
How sad is that?