# Blatant Media Bias Towards Obama



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

Just Another Dog posted this a little earlier from a different site. McCain and Palin are now both calling for the LA Times to release the tape as well. I don't understand why the American people are standing for this blatant media bias. If Obama is elected it is only going to get worse. They will institute the Fairness Doctrine and completely censor anything negative from being presented to the American Public. It is scary stuff my friends!!!!! Like McCain said, if the LA Times had a tape of him attending a Neo Nazi rally, it would be EVERYWHERE.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29 ... lidi-tape/


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Wow! I love the smell of desperation and fear in the morning! How desperate is the McCain camp working to find any story.. any thing at all to try and scream for attention in order to distract voter's attention from John McCains lock-step support for George Bush's economic policies?

Once again they are recycling and manufacturing "controversy" :eyeroll:

I really can't wait for next week... if for no other reason than to stop having to listen to Palin whine more on the stump.

Guys just consider how desperate this makes them sound. On the final week of the race, instead of going out and promoting their message, anything positive at all about what THEY will DO, what instead are we hearing about?

McCain has had numerous chances to change the tone and tenor of his campaign. Instead all we hear is attacks. The polls bear out the fact that SO many people are tired of hearing these old dried up repeated stories, and this tactic of tearing down your opponent.

This isn't blatant media bias by the LA Times. They looked at the story and decided it was old news. Anyone trying to dredge it up is simply looking to continue the politics of distraction from the issues. They maybe are tired of the R's attack ads and distractions too...

Moving on...


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

Ryan, why are you dancing aroud the issue? You go on and on about how horrible the McCain camp is run, but you don't touch the issue. Aren't you interested in what the tape would show? You don't care about the fact that the probable next President of our country associates himself with some very shady characters? And you don't care that the media refuses to show us proof of it? Don't give me the desperation BS, this is a very real issue and for some reason some people are all to happy to sweep it under the rug once again.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

That's because Ryan is a closet liberal. Why don't you want to see it Ryan? You were so adamant about Palin not doing enough interviews, but now since it's something about your man you could care less. I think many of Obama's supports are blind to him and don't really want to know the truth about him. They are bias to care about the truth, they just want the Dem. ticket to win no matter the price.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jgat said:


> Ryan, why are you dancing aroud the issue? You go on and on about how horrible the McCain camp is run, but you don't touch the issue. Aren't you interested in what the tape would show? You don't care about the fact that the probable next President of our country associates himself with some very shady characters? And you don't care that the media refuses to show us proof of it? Don't give me the desperation BS, this is a very real issue and for some reason some people are all to happy to sweep it under the rug once again.


Honestly jgat?

No.

I'm so far beyond caring about any of that crap. When you live outside of FauxNews and Drudge, you begin to see what the McCain camps goal is. Let's face it. There is a week left until election day. Shouldn't they be focused on getting out the vote and promoting what they will do when in office?

I'm not interested in the tape in the least. I've quite frankly been desensitized to anything "terrorist palling around" related. McCain really lost his touch when he keeps trying to tie Obama to terrorists. People in the middle have moved on.

It is desperation. Consider that all the marbles are on the line, and what is his strategy as we come down the home stretch?

Would you like me to post 5-10 articles talking about what is really going on in both camps at this moment? Seems to me that folks in here are cherry picking articles to post.

I've refrained from posting reality here anymore. Folks don't want to read stuff that isn't slanted right.

Consider jgat that this isn't an issue for anyone except those desperate to prove he is a danger. It goes directly to the same dried up story of those trying desperately to constantly discredit him. Reality is so far from this story it doesn't deserve any more press.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

It's old news because they decided it's old news?

LA Times brought out the Arnold sex tapes without any hesitation.

LA Times paid for and printed information against Obama's opponents in his run for the senate in IL.

I guess the LA Times has no bias and if it was old news, bring it out because nobody will care, right?

Add this to my "what are they hiding" post.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I believe it is an important issue. But it also looks very desperate.

This should have been addressed at the beginning and then the issue should have been pressed and pressed.

But the majority of the media has been pushing Obama. The media has not been equal in anyway. IMO


----------



## stonejs1 (Oct 14, 2008)

_*Ryan *_ you are full of "BS" and you show it, and what you are basically saying is I don't like President Bush so much that I will vote for anyone in the world even if they might not even be an American citizen, a pronounced and renounced criminal, a communists, a marxists, or what have you. And blaming President Bush for the economic problems of this country is complete ignorance. The president can use his "veto". That's not as much power as you think. This country's economy was better off than ever just a couple of years ago until... congress became completely controlled by the democratic party. So if you want someone to blame then blame the democratic party! President Bush can only veto their "ideas" and bills so many times before the democratic congress decides they want to impeach him! And he knows that so he just does the best that he can without upsetting them too much. I think that anything that might cause someone to change their vote should be mandated to be brought out in view of the voters to find out the truth and to let the voters decide. Not the democratic "TV" stations! You wait and see. I can garauntee you that if Sen Obama becomes president he will be the worst president in the history of the great nation...and maybe even the downfall of our great country. You wait and see. And you have no idea about half the stuff the president has to deal with. I can also tell that by how you feel about President Bush.


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

R y a n said:


> I've quite frankly been desensitized to anything "terrorist palling around" related.


You're right where they want you my friend!

BTW, in no way do I want this to turn into another R Y A N bashing thread, so if you intend to do that, do us a favor and don't reply!


----------



## stonejs1 (Oct 14, 2008)

And one more thing ... you say once you get outside of Fox News you see McCains real goal? That's because CNN and NBC are THE most byest stations in the country![/u][/i][/b]


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ryan, that's all you do, pick and choose the articles and make claims that best suits your man; Obama. Kind of like your claim that Palin's daughter was really her daughter's child right. So sad to say the least. Like I said in the above post, you didn't like that Palin wasn't doing enough interviews and the people had a write to it. You stated that you felt that it should go for everyone. Except for now you don't care since it's about Obama. Good double standard liberal stance. McCain may be in desperation, he should be. He has passed up too many opportunities during his campaign.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Longshot said:


> Ryan, that's all you do, pick and choose the articles and make claims that best suits your man; Obama. Kind of like your claim that Palin's daughter was really her daughter's child right. So sad to say the least. Like I said in the above post, you didn't like that Palin wasn't doing enough interviews and the people had a write to it. You stated that you felt that it should go for everyone. Except for now you don't care since it's about Obama. Good double standard liberal stance.
> 
> McCain may be in desperation, he should be.
> 
> He has passed up too many opportunities during his campaign.


Longshot

I do not pick and choose articles. In fact just this morning I submitted a story about McCain and his need to push the gun issue more.

I'm not sure how much you read all the articles in here, but in regards to Palin's daughter, I have now on 3 occasions admitted that was too far. In fact on the original thread where I discussed it, I withdrew the statement as soon as the source indicated they were going to also. I only reprinted an assertation that the source made.

Trying to compare Palin doing ANY interviews isn't even remotely close to the McCain camp trying to re-hash and dredge up this tired story. You'd like to make the comparison but it isn't similar. I would hope you have the wherewithall to see the differences. Obama addressed the "issue" when it first came out. However note that Palin's "handlers" never did allow her to speak in public. In fact they were terrified of what it might have done if they did. I can post a couple of articles outlining their remarks if you'd like. If Palin would have taken press conferences, she guaranteed would have fudged something up, and this race would be 20 points apart right now. As it is people have seen thru the cracks and they have come to realize the reality of Palin as a complete blathering idiot. She isn't even fit to hold Alaska office, let alone a federal office.

It isn't a double standard. It is basically what the rest of the world who isn't conservative biased thinks... that includes, everyone in the middle, everyone on the left, and everyone in other countries who has no vested interest in the race.

If my topics I post are more left of the right than most, it is only because everyone here needs a dose of something other than FauxNews....

Peace.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> this race would be 20 points apart right now.


Musta worked, they're almost a dead heat right now.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

JustAnotherDog said:


> > this race would be 20 points apart right now.
> 
> 
> Musta worked, they're almost a dead heat right now.


Ohh sweet.

You believe that? Quick snap poll.. who will win JustAnotherDog? And by how much? 51-49? Please give me your feel right now.

I'm curious.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This should have been addressed at the beginning and then the issue should have been pressed and pressed.


Didn't they just become aware that the tape exists?



> It is basically what the rest of the world who isn't conservative biased thinks


I think your far to concerned about what the rest of the world thinks. Unless like Obama you consider yourself a citizen of the world.



> other countries who has no vested interest in the race.


Everyone in the world has a vested interest. They all want to be number one. If they can influence us to elect a weak president that puts them one step up the ladder. The more weak we are the closer to the top they get.



> If my topics I post are more left of the right than most, it is only because everyone here needs a dose of something other than FauxNews....


That works both ways Ryan. FOX News is about the only station that isn't slanted. I think the liberals hate it because it isn't a left biased station. One station that isn't left biased and the left hates it.



> People in the middle have moved on.


Actually the polls are getting tighter by the day now. Some are estimating those people in the middle are going two to one for McCain. His message is getting through. Gallop 49/47. The states that are very important are now a virtual tie. People are starting to recover from their knee jerk reaction and really thinking. When people take of the hate blindfolds that Obama has hung over their eyes he looses.

Don't be negative is the mantra of those who have something to hide. Every pervert in America pushes tolerance. Really, isn't that true if you think about it?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan, that's all you do, pick and choose the articles and make claims that best suits your man; Obama. Kind of like your claim that Palin's daughter was really her daughter's child right. So sad to say the least. Like I said in the above post, you didn't like that Palin wasn't doing enough interviews and the people had a write to it. You stated that you felt that it should go for everyone. Except for now you don't care since it's about Obama. Good double standard liberal stance.
> ...


Ryan,

I read most the posts on here, but there have been a couple weeks I've been gone to do some hunting. Glad to see that you agree that it had gone too far with the Palin daughter claims.

We may have to agree to disagree about Palin. I believe it was a mistake by the "handlers" to do so. I think it would have been best to let her be who she is. I can't see how anyone can believe she isn't even fit to be in an Alaskan office. Her approval rating is the highest and her record completely proves it to be false. No matter which way the election ends, I just pray we move for the better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I think it would have been best to let her be who she is.


Longshot don't believe the story about her handlers will not let her talk. I don't know why she didn't give more interviews, but if I just came out of North Dakota and was not familiar with world affairs I would want a couple weeks of briefing. I would guess that is what was going on. If your way liberal bias you make up something damaging. Like Fox News I will say "I report you decide". So what do you think, handlers or briefing? I say briefing and the handlers is just more bs.

Handlers is a term liberals love. It gives the impression that someone is incompetent as compared to their choice. We are to believe those who need handlers are stupid while those who do not are intellectual (another favored liberal word). Obama is good with words, but this should be a race decided by deeds. As Obama once said himself "words, words, just words".


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> You believe that? Quick snap poll.. who will win JustAnotherDog? And by how much? 51-49? Please give me your feel right now.


I honestly believe Obama will lose unless his acorn compadres actually succeed. After all, if he's that good, why does he need them? (don't say they aren't there because if CNN cannot ignore them . . . . .)

Sorry, not a kool-aide fan.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > I think it would have been best to let her be who she is.
> 
> 
> Longshot don't believe the story about her handlers will not let her talk. I don't know why she didn't give more interviews, but if I just came out of North Dakota and was not familiar with world affairs I would want a couple weeks of briefing. I would guess that is what was going on. If your way liberal bias you make up something damaging. Like Fox News I will say "I report you decide". So what do you think, handlers or briefing? I say briefing and the handlers is just more bs.
> ...




yes, i believe he was speaking about the Constitution and how it often just gets in the way of governing.... :eyeroll:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by
> the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to eat her under the eyes of her screaming parents.
> 
> The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
> ...


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Just a quick question......how can something be "old news" if virtually NO ONE has heard it? Isn't that the very epitome of NEWS?

I don't think I've been under a rock (but I have been up a tree a lot lately :wink but I guess I could have missed something.

Has ANYONE here seen the LA Times tape in question?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

ANYONE?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Of course it's news, and the only ones that don't want to see it are the ones that want Obama at any cost. Why would anyone relegate it unimportant if they were not actually discouraging you from wanting to see it. Why would anyone not want to be fully informed before voting. The only answer is they look up to Obama like a God. Their vote is a form of worship. 
Some will vote for Obama for money
Some will vote for Obama to punish those who have money
Some will vote for Obama because some guys are hoping to marry their boyfriend
Some will vote for Obama because set backs to abortion would make them feel guilty for tearing their unborn child from their uterus.
Some will vote for Obama because they want 8.9 months to decide if they want to abort their child
Some will vote for Obama out of desperation
Some will vote for Obama because of racism
Some will vote for Obama out of guilt of racism
Some will vote for Obama because they hate America
Some will vote for Obama because they love all things liberal
Some will vote for Obama because they led a cushy life and don't understand a true enemy (war type, another country, etc)
Some will vote for Obama because they too are Marxists
Some will vote for Obama because they think he will fund the work they do (federal government like I was). 
A few will vote for Obama because they truly think it's the right thing to do. 
Some will vote for Obama for reasons I can't even imagine, so you will have to fill it in for yourself.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

JustAnotherDog said:


> I honestly believe Obama will lose unless his acorn compadres actually succeed. After all, if he's that good, why does he need them? (don't say they aren't there because if CNN cannot ignore them . . . . .)
> 
> Sorry, not a kool-aide fan.


So, for Obama to win, it must be ACORN's doing? A few paid staffers got busted for registration fraud. They can register as many "Mickey Mouse"s or "Bruce Wayne"s as they want. They're not going to come out to vote! Check out this article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html

The thing is that there has been Republican-funded registration fraud as well... It's always somebody slacking off, when they should be out registering people to vote.

Everybody needs to RELAX about ACORN.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Everybody needs to RELAX about ACORN.


Kind of like giving anesthesia to America, relax, relax, let the poison work.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Poison? Because fictional characters are going to vote for Obama in droves? Buggs Bunny always did look like a freedom-hating commie to me...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

omegax said:


> Poison? Because fictional characters are going to vote for Obama in droves? Buggs Bunny always did look like a freedom-hating commie to me...


It's about much more than registering voters. Of course I don't expect fictional characters like Buggs Bunny to vote, but thousands of dead people in Chicago voted for Kennedy way back in the 60's. I think we are more corrupt today than then. 
My dislike for ACORN goes far beyond this election. They were part of the problem forcing loan companies to give loans to people who had no chance of paying them back. They now say it was predatory lending. I have a term we can use also, "parasitic borrowing". That is the case where a low income, but greedy person gets a loan with no intention of paying it back.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

According to Factcheck.org???

uke:



> Impartial? Independent? NO!
> FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation
> 
> FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called* "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress *to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.
> ...


Source: http://tinyurl.com/Factcheck-lies

Even more here: http://tinyurl.com/ban-gun-Obama


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Nobody has ever answered the question on how someone can hang around a hunting & outdoors forum and then vote for a person that has a history of trying to eliminate those things?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

FactCheck's good enough for Cheney to cite in the '04 VP debate. I'm sticking with 'em. They're not right 100% of the time, but this one is pretty easy to verify.

I bet you blame the refs when your favorite team loses too...

Plainsman: that Factcheck article talks about ACORN's ties to the mortgage crisis too:


> The mortgages that ACORN worked out with the banks did have lower underwriting standards than were customary. They allowed a higher percentage of a family's income to go to debt repayment, and counted rent and utility payments, not just credit card payments, as evidence of ability to pay back a loan. The loans were also more forgiving of past credit problems, as long as the recipient was making a proven effort to address them. But ACORN provided loan deals only to people who went through counseling on budget and credit issues. In 1992, First Nationwide Bank Vice President Neal Halleran told the Chicago Tribune: *"Transaction by transaction, [loans from the ACORN program] would appear to be performing no worse than our portfolio overall."* According to the Tribune, First Nationwide had contacted ACORN to initiate the lending program.


Even if it _were_ true that ACORN was responsible for a lot of loans that wound up in foreclosure, there's no possible way they could have been responsible for significant numbers of bad loans when compared to the total number of bad loans.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

So what you are saying is we'll be able to pay for our house but turn in our guns?


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Stolen from:
> 
> Jim Hoft runs the blog Gateway Pundit, following freedom movements from inside Zimbabwe to the streets of Tehran.
> 
> ...


----------

