SDS Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 "... the voters finally engaged again." fuggin' tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I was listening to Imus this morning- he had David Gregory on. It is not an understatement to say that Gregory was extremely giddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I was listening to Imus this morning- he had David Gregory on. It is not an understatement to say that Gregory was extremely giddy. 829431[/snapback] Of course they're happy. Their agenda of pushing blood and violence in Iraq for three years has finally paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Besides getting the finger-pointing out of the way quickly, Republicans better not walk away from basic conservative principles. This loss was about: 1. Page-boning, and the subsequent failure to do anything about same 2. Tom DeLay and his cronies and the lobbyists and the um, stealing 3. Spending big $ on stupid stuff for the folks back home, for the sole purpose of maintaining power 4. The arrogance and corruption that comes with entrenched power 5. Bush and the war didn't help...but the Republicans could have held on if it weren't for items 1-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Of course they're happy. Their agenda of pushing blood and violence in Iraq for three years has finally paid off. 829462[/snapback] Sure, the looting, de-Baathification, contractors not doing their jobs, inadequate troop levels, and lack of infrastructure is all the media's fault. If it weren't for that nasty media everything'd be going rosy and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Sure, the looting, de-Baathification, contractors not doing their jobs, inadequate troop levels, and lack of infrastructure is all the media's fault. If it weren't for that nasty media everything'd be going rosy and you know it. 829468[/snapback] What the media FAILED to report is the success in Kurdistan or the far lower levels of violence in the Shia regions of Iraq...both places that WANTED to see Saddam gone. Why'd they fail to report on those things? Simple. It didn't fit their anti-war agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 What the media FAILED to report is the success in Kurdistan or the far lower levels of violence in the Shia regions of Iraq...both places that WANTED to see Saddam gone. Why'd they fail to report on those things? Simple. It didn't fit their anti-war agenda. 829475[/snapback] Because it doesn't meet the criteria of news and in-depth reporting as well as conflict and violence, particularly when our troops are involved and at-risk due to the violence. Do they make more of it than it is, potentially? Sure. But that's the other edge of the double-edged sword of technology that you think has the potential to solve all our problems. It accelerates everything, it makes everything more disposable, it brings stories to us quicker and we let go of them quicker. Hence stories with the character of immediacy take hold better. Violence has that. It's unfortunately human nature to pay attention to it. The media knows this and sells it. It has nothing to do with an anti-war or anti-Republican agenda and you wouldn't see any difference in the way this was all handled if it were a Democratic administration pursuing exactly the same course in Iraq. Whatever happened on the early show is bollocks. I still don't think that this means that the news reporting is indicative of any agenda other than selling audience time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 What the media FAILED to report is the success in Kurdistan or the far lower levels of violence in the Shia regions of Iraq...both places that WANTED to see Saddam gone. Why'd they fail to report on those things? Simple. It didn't fit their anti-war agenda. 829475[/snapback] So what, Mission Accomplished because some parts of Iraq are happy? Sorry Charlie. Iraq is a !@#$ up by any measure. And the buck stops at Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 " Whatever happened on the early show is bollocks. I still don't think that this means that the news reporting is indicative of any agenda other than selling audience time." So when Chris Mathews says "It's time for the voters to talk to the President", there is no biased agenda there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 So what, Mission Accomplished because some parts of Iraq are happy? Sorry Charlie. Iraq is a !@#$ up by any measure. And the buck stops at Bush. 829487[/snapback] That it is, and it's a !@#$ up because of the Iraqis themselves. Want to leave? If we do, I hope we do it all at once. Because nothing will satisfy the bloodlust of the anti-war crowd otherwise, and the last thing *I* as a rational American want is the likes of moveon.org and their cronies affecting the next election. I want to see a REAL conservative of the Goldwater school nominated by the Republicans. I know it's too much to ask, instead they'll nominate a milquetoast like Mitt Romney or Giuliani. And yet again, I'll vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 " Whatever happened on the early show is bollocks. I still don't think that this means that the news reporting is indicative of any agenda other than selling audience time." So when Chris Mathews says "It's time for the voters to talk to the President", there is no biased agenda there? 829494[/snapback] You're talking about the words of specific commentators, who may have opinions pro- or anti- Bush. I'm separating that from the way things are reported, which I'll argue till the day I die has infinitely more to do with capital. These little asides are small picture and people can instantly see through them. If you think that people are swayed by Chris Matthews saying something like that, we are far more f--ked than we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 " Whatever happened on the early show is bollocks. I still don't think that this means that the news reporting is indicative of any agenda other than selling audience time." So when Chris Mathews says "It's time for the voters to talk to the President", there is no biased agenda there? 829494[/snapback] did any of the news anchors announce that the voters "had a temper tantrum" ala Peter Jennings in 1994? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 You're talking about the words of specific commentators, who may have opinions pro- or anti- Bush. I'm separating that from the way things are reported, which I'll argue till the day I die has infinitely more to do with capital. These little asides are small picture and people can instantly see through them. If you think that people are swayed by Chris Matthews saying something like that, we are far more f--ked than we think. 829499[/snapback] Although the reported bias is plain for anyone to see, I think the most egregious bias is in what is NOT reported more than what is reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Although the reported bias is plain for anyone to see, I think the most egregious bias is in what is NOT reported more than what is reported. 829509[/snapback] Fair enough. I still believe firmly that has much more to do with money than with politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 You're talking about the words of specific commentators, who may have opinions pro- or anti- Bush. I'm separating that from the way things are reported, which I'll argue till the day I die has infinitely more to do with capital. These little asides are small picture and people can instantly see through them. If you think that people are swayed by Chris Matthews saying something like that, we are far more f--ked than we think. 829499[/snapback] Unfortunately, most of the people in this country are not as educated as the people on this board. So when the Today Show "hosts" start their show with comments like, "It looks like the Republicans may be hurt in the upcoming elections by the President's war in Iraq", that does influence people who cannot think very deeply. The people think what they are told to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The people think what they are told to think. 829521[/snapback] And thus is the beauty of Fox News. That was almost their slogan until someone came up with "Fair and Balanced". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Besides getting the finger-pointing out of the way quickly, Republicans better not walk away from basic conservative principles. This loss was about: 1. Page-boning, and the subsequent failure to do anything about same 2. Tom DeLay and his cronies and the lobbyists and the um, stealing 3. Spending big $ on stupid stuff for the folks back home, for the sole purpose of maintaining power 4. The arrogance and corruption that comes with entrenched power 5. Bush and the war didn't help...but the Republicans could have held on if it weren't for items 1-4. 829463[/snapback] #4 is the really all you needed to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 And thus is the beauty of Fox News. That was almost their slogan until someone came up with "Fair and Balanced". 829528[/snapback] I'm always amazed that Fox News is stereotyped as "right wing" and "biased", but CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBOlbermann are never considered to be biased toward the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 I'm always amazed that Fox News is stereotyped as "right wing" and "biased", but CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBOlbermann are never considered to be biased toward the left. 829560[/snapback] BTW, Barry - I was in your neck of the woods last Thursday. I went to visit a company in Garden City (90 minutes south of the airport).... The barbecue beef was excellent at Jack Stacks but the chicken was as dry as the bone the Republicans received last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 BTW, Barry - I was in your neck of the woods last Thursday. I went to visit a company in Garden City (90 minutes south of the airport).... The barbecue beef was excellent at Jack Stacks but the chicken was as dry as the bone the Republicans received last night. 829566[/snapback] Next time, try the ribs at Gates- not the meatiest, but great flavor. Next time you're in town, I'll take you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts