no media bias

[RIJIMMY]

I see this daily, but this made me laught out loud, with today's digital imaging you had about 200 millions shots of Romney from the debate and this is the pic CNN chose for their article on the web.
Come on? really?
Nope, no bias here......

CNN Poll: Most watchers say Romney debate winner – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

[Piscator]

Looks like Monica Wolinski!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Nah, no bias there, move along there's nothing to see.

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Looks like Monica Wolinski!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lewinsky?

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

Lewinsky?

Ha, ha, you are correct! I just know her as "Monica"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Saltheart]

That pic and the panic at MSNBC after the debate should be proof positive that those media outlets are backing obama , not reporting the news in an unbiased fashion.

The thing that kills me is how these media people profess to be "News" people but when backed into a corner about their obvious bias they resort to saying they are hosts of "entertainment" programs so their spin is OK if viewed in the light of trying to entertain their audience. Huge cop out used by all the media "news" ...."professionals" ????

[spence]

Funny.

The Wall Street Journal is the #1 newspaper.

Fox News is the #1 cable channel.

The top 5 political radio personalities are Rush, Hannity, Savage etc...

But that liberal bias is polluting everything.

Go to foxnews.com right now and tell me what you see.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Go to foxnews.com right now and tell me what you see.

-spence

Al Gore in a fat suit

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Al Gore in a fat suit

When I posted it was a photo of Obama's ass.

But in all honesty, it was fair and balanced.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

When I posted it was a photo of Obama's ass.


-spence

yeah...that was supposed to be of Obama's head but the cameraman had just flown in a couple of hours before the debate and hadn't adjusted to the altitude yet

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny.

The Wall Street Journal is the #1 newspaper.

Fox News is the #1 cable channel.

The top 5 political radio personalities are Rush, Hannity, Savage etc...

But that liberal bias is polluting everything.

Go to foxnews.com right now and tell me what you see.

-spence

Spence, in your opinion where should the American public go for their unbiased news?

That,of course, should not include the late night comedians as we know
they are the real intellectuals and know the unbiased truth.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny.

The Wall Street Journal is the #1 newspaper.

Fox News is the #1 cable channel.

The top 5 political radio personalities are Rush, Hannity, Savage etc...

But that liberal bias is polluting everything.

Go to foxnews.com right now and tell me what you see.

-spence

but conservatives are uneducated hicks.......

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

but conservatives are uneducated hicks.......

Yes, I'm one of them, but willing to learn.
That's why I asked Spence where I should go for my unbiased news.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, I'm one of them, but willing to learn.
That's why I asked Spence where I should go for my unbiased news.

he is going to tell you to listen to him

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny.

The Wall Street Journal is the #1 newspaper.

Fox News is the #1 cable channel.

The top 5 political radio personalities are Rush, Hannity, Savage etc...

But that liberal bias is polluting everything.

Go to foxnews.com right now and tell me what you see.

-spence

Spence, has it ever occurred to you why Foxnews is the #1 cable channel? Because if you are liberal, every other news station, besides Foxnews, will stroke your fur. For those who don't want to get just the liberal slant on things, there is one TV station to choose from. One. Foxnews.

Foxnews is the #1 cable channel, but it's audience is a small minority of the population. Many other folks get news that is biased.

Does Foxnews have a conservative slant? Absolutely. Is it the mirror-image of MSNBC? Not even close. CNN leans further to the left than Foxnews leans to the right.

Foxnews isn't a far-right station (though it has hosts like Hannity who are). Foxnews just appears so far-right, because when everyone else is 100 miles to the left, center-right appears far to the right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, has it ever occurred to you why Foxnews is the #1 cable channel? Because if you are liberal, every other news station, besides Foxnews, will stroke your fur. For those who don't want to get just the liberal slant on things, there is one TV station to choose from. One. Foxnews.

Foxnews is the #1 cable channel, but it's audience is a small minority of the population. Many other folks get news that is biased.

Does Foxnews have a conservative slant? Absolutely. Is it the mirror-image of MSNBC? Not even close. CNN leans further to the left than Foxnews leans to the right.

Foxnews isn't a far-right station (though it has hosts like Hannity who are). Foxnews just appears so far-right, because when everyone else is 100 miles to the left, center-right appears far to the right.

How do they say, if you eat your own #^&#^&#^&#^& long enough you'll think it's ice cream?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How do they say, if you eat your own #^&#^&#^&#^& long enough you'll think it's ice cream?

-spence

You stated that Foxnews was #1. I told you why.

On the liberal networks, I heard Al Gore suggest that Obama got creamed in the debate because of the altitude. On another network, I heard Michael Eric Dyson (or whatever his name is) say that Obama got creamed because he was forced to debate meekly, or he runs the risk of being called an "angry black man". That's a guy who teaches at Georgetown who said that. It must be great being a white kid in that class.

There is a segment of the American population (sadly it is less than 100%, and you certainly are not in that segment) that doesn't want opinions delivered solely by people who are madly in love with Obama.

Bill O'Reilly gives Obama high marks for killing terrorists, and horrible marks for overseeing the economy. That's fair, not indicative of blind support of any one ideology. And most important, that synopsis is also supported by facts and common sense.

Sean Hannity is thoughtless, a blind ideologue, someone who doesn't need to tell you what he thinks, because I already know what he thinks on every issue, before he says it. Hannity is that predictable. He's exactly like you. Except he has blindly stumbled upon more right answers than you will ever see in a million years.

[justplugit]

So back to my original question to Spence.

Where do I find this unbiased news you speak of.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You stated that Foxnews was #1. I told you why.

You made a circular argument.

FOX News is #1 because they were first to market with a differentiated product. Sensationalized programming delivered by high caliber talent.

Not because their viewers are seeking a fair and balanced perspective. Interestingly enough their ratings have climbed during the past 4 years in which their reporting on Obama has been negative 6:1.

The Master Character Narratives in Campaign 2012 | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

I used to watch O'Riley every night years ago. FOX has shifted so far to the Right now it's as unwatchable as the MSNBC evening lineup has become.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

I'm not in the habit of taking Spence's side, and I have been staying out of here, because frankly, I have better things to do than argue with you clowns...

The quote in question starts with an acknowledgement that Bain had some successes (staples) and then continued....

"But the point is still sound, the objective of private equity is rarely to take long-term risk, it's to structure a short-term deal that they can derive profit from.

Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch.

-spence"

I read that as an opinion on Romney. Where did he say that Obama in 2008 was more or less qualified? Romney made a lot of money, a #^&#^&#^&#^& load actually. So did Trump, so did Perot. were they any more or less qualified? Romney was a governor, I think the success of his term depends on who you talk to in Massachusetts

To be honest, are you even sure Spence voted for Obama in 2008, or will vote for Obama?

I for one have been very clear in the past. I voted for Obama in 2008, but not in the primaries. I thought there were several candidates stronger them him, Hillary included. I, and most of the people I know, were not caught up in some mystical idea hope and change, but between Obama and McCain, Obama was closer to my personal beliefs, as he is again in this election.

Is he perfect? Far from it. Have I disagreed with some of what he has done? Absolutely, but most of the 'Messiah' idea comes from the right leaning media (and some left leaning pundits for sure) and a portion of the electorate on the left that is uninformed and frankly ignorant (and probably represents the same % as those on the right who are uninformed and ignorant).

The 2008 election was in the past. 2012 is about the last 4 years and the next 4 years.
Jobs have been added most months in a good, albeit slow, long-term trend (even though Romney would argue 'he would do better'). Obama came in during a serious slide in the economy. Romney can argue he would have done it better and faster, but both sides can argue the president actually has little control on the macro-scale economics

I am satisfied with our foreign policy. While not perfect, I don't want to see another round of neo-con nation building. I want us out of Afganastan yesterday. I do not want to get involved in a ground war with Iran or Syria. I don't think a Romney presidency will do anything different on Iran, as our current sanctions (as I just read/heard from Richard Haas has been fairly effective). Romney in one breath says he wants peace between Israel/Palestine, but in another behind closed doors admits he doesn't think he can do it, so basically status quo?

Social security is getting kicked down the road, but is the reasonably easy fix. Anyone close to retirement stays as is, those my age get the age extended 4 or 5 years added to it with some age steps in between. No one wants to do it, but it will be done eventually, I hope it happens in a second term when Obama is not running for reelection and has the 'brass' to do it.

Cutting PBS is not the answer to our deficit (for what it's worth, PBS costs $1.35 for every American/year, much of that goes to running local stations in rural areas. My son loves Elmo. I'll happily agree to that, and hell, I'll even chip in $10 of my taxes to cover Romney). Building a #^&#^&#^&#^&load of new warships is not the answer either. I am convinced Romney's foreign policy (and defense spending) ais rooted in 1985. He would have a serious 'come to Jesus' moment on his first day in office regarding Al Qaeda, just like Obama had. My guess is his mentality would change quickly.

Neither side has presented a realistic view on Medicare (including the Ryan Plan). I don't know what the right plan is, but I don't believe a voucher plan based on unrealistic growth based revenue is the answer.

Go dig up all the 'facts' (in quotes because there usually exist 'facts' to counteract your numbers Jim) and tell me how wrong, uniformed and how many more babies I want to kill Jim. You can argue and debate with Spence and Paul. Enough. I am going back into hiding. I have too much work to do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm not in the habit of taking Spence's side, and I have been staying out of here, because frankly, I have better things to do than argue with you clowns...

The quote in question starts with an acknowledgement that Bain had some successes (staples) and then continued....

"But the point is still sound, the objective of private equity is rarely to take long-term risk, it's to structure a short-term deal that they can derive profit from.

Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch.

-spence"

I read that as an opinion on Romney. Where did he say that Obama in 2008 was more or less qualified? Romney made a lot of money, a #^&#^&#^&#^& load actually. So did Trump, so did Perot. were they any more or less qualified? Romney was a governor, I think the success of his term depends on who you talk to in Massachusetts

To be honest, are you even sure Spence voted for Obama in 2008, or will vote for Obama?

I for one have been very clear in the past. I voted for Obama in 2008, but not in the primaries. I thought there were several candidates stronger them him, Hillary included. I, and most of the people I know, were not caught up in some mystical idea hope and change, but between Obama and McCain, Obama was closer to my personal beliefs, as he is again in this election.

Is he perfect? Far from it. Have I disagreed with some of what he has done? Absolutely, but most of the 'Messiah' idea comes from the right leaning media (and some left leaning pundits for sure) and a portion of the electorate on the left that is uninformed and frankly ignorant (and probably represents the same % as those on the right who are uninformed and ignorant).

The 2008 election was in the past. 2012 is about the last 4 years and the next 4 years.
Jobs have been added most months in a good, albeit slow, long-term trend (even though Romney would argue 'he would do better'). Obama came in during a serious slide in the economy. Romney can argue he would have done it better and faster, but both sides can argue the president actually has little control on the macro-scale economics

I am satisfied with our foreign policy. While not perfect, I don't want to see another round of neo-con nation building. I want us out of Afganastan yesterday. I do not want to get involved in a ground war with Iran or Syria. I don't think a Romney presidency will do anything different on Iran, as our current sanctions (as I just read/heard from Richard Haas has been fairly effective). Romney in one breath says he wants peace between Israel/Palestine, but in another behind closed doors admits he doesn't think he can do it, so basically status quo?

Social security is getting kicked down the road, but is the reasonably easy fix. Anyone close to retirement stays as is, those my age get the age extended 4 or 5 years added to it with some age steps in between. No one wants to do it, but it will be done eventually, I hope it happens in a second term when Obama is not running for reelection and has the 'brass' to do it.

Cutting PBS is not the answer to our deficit (for what it's worth, PBS costs $1.35 for every American/year, much of that goes to running local stations in rural areas. My son loves Elmo. I'll happily agree to that, and hell, I'll even chip in $10 of my taxes to cover Romney). Building a #^&#^&#^&#^&load of new warships is not the answer either. I am convinced Romney's foreign policy (and defense spending) ais rooted in 1985. He would have a serious 'come to Jesus' moment on his first day in office regarding Al Qaeda, just like Obama had. My guess is his mentality would change quickly.

Neither side has presented a realistic view on Medicare (including the Ryan Plan). I don't know what the right plan is, but I don't believe a voucher plan based on unrealistic growth based revenue is the answer.

Go dig up all the 'facts' (in quotes because there usually exist 'facts' to counteract your numbers Jim) and tell me how wrong, uniformed and how many more babies I want to kill Jim. You can argue and debate with Spence and Paul. Enough. I am going back into hiding. I have too much work to do.

Rockhound, this is not your best work here...

"To be honest, are you even sure Spence voted for Obama in 2008"

Yes. Unless he entered "Josef Stalin' as a write-in candidate.

"Jobs have been added most months in a good, albeit slow, long-term trend"

That's idiotic. Using that logic, I can say that during Bush's term, there were more months when the DJIA went up than when the DJIA went down. Does that mean the stock market improved during his term? Hell, no.

There is no upward or "good" trend in jobs during Obama's term, unless you throw out all the months when things were bad, and only judge him based on the months you select, when things improved.

Facts:
unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office
unemployment is teh same 7.8% today
Oabma has been President for almost 4 years
in that time, he added $5 trillion to the debt

He had 4 years, during which time he spent $5 trillion more than he took in. How much has unemployment gone done in that time? Zero. More importantly, median household income is down about 10% since he has been in office (down from $55k to $50k).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...e-study-shows/

If you call that a 'good' trend, that's your right. I call it enslaving future generations, and for no discernible benefit.

'but both sides can argue the president actually has little control on the macro-scale economics"

I can't believe you would type that with a straight face. All Obama and the media say is that the Bush administration caused what happened in 2008. The president signs tax laws and spending laws. You think those have very little effect on the macroeconomic landscape?

"Romney in one breath says he wants peace between Israel/Palestine, but in another behind closed doors admits he doesn't think he can do it"

How is that different from Obama's position? Are you saying that Obama either (1) doesn't want peace there, or (2) believes he can pull it off? Because if he can pull it off, why hasn't he?

"Social security is getting kicked down the road, but is the reasonably easy fix. "

I agree. But why do liberals attack conservatives who admit what must be done? Every time a conservative proposes a fix to SS, liberals make a commercial saying he hates old people.

"I don't believe a voucher plan...'

Like all liberals, you are falsely suggesting Ryan wants to force people into a voucher plan. Not true. Under Ryan's plan, seniors could freely choose either a voucher plan, or to stay in a Medicare type plan.

It's fair to say you don't agree with the plan. But again, the immediate liberal response to Ryan's plan was a commercial showing him pushing an old lady off a cliff. Is that honest?

"how many more babies I want to kill "

4,000 a day, to be precise. But why squabble over such trivial things...

"there usually exist 'facts' to counteract your numbers Jim"

OK, let's see you refute anything I posted here. I'll be waiting patiently...

Not your best work...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Jobs have been added most months in a good, albeit slow, long-term trend" That's idiotic. Using that logic, I can say that during Bush's term, there were more months when the DJIA went up than when the DJIA went down. Does that mean the stock market improved during his term? Hell, no. There is no upward or "good" trend in jobs during Obama's term, unless you throw out all the months when things were bad, and only judge him based on the months you select, when things improved.

So, you won't acknowledge that the slide that started before he took office seriously impacted the first year + of this administration? I am not selectively looking at the the months when it was bad, but I choose to look at the term as a whole, including factors (not blaming Bush!) that impact these years

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Facts: unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office
unemployment is teh same 7.8% today
Oabma has been President for almost 4 years
in that time, he added $5 trillion to the debt

Fact: Job losses peaked in early 2009 and have (with some dips) has been mostly in the positive since 2010. The trend for unemployment has been about the same, peaking in July of 2009. You view it as he has done nothing, I view it as things are improving over the last 2 years, much of the trend began in 2008

Obama's economy: A snapshot - Job growth (1) - CNNMoney

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He had 4 years, during which time he spent $5 trillion more than he took in. How much has unemployment gone done in that time? Zero. More importantly, median household income is down about 10% since he has been in office (down from $55k to $50k).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files...-Income-03.png

See comments above regarding timing and trends.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I can't believe you would type that with a straight face. All Obama and the media say is that the Bush administration caused what happened in 2008. The president signs tax laws and spending laws. You think those have very little effect on the macroeconomic landscape?

Frankly, yes. If that was the case, why under Clinton's higher rates did the economy flourish? I believe in large part, the economy is decadal scale cycles with whoever the president is policies superimposed on them.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How is that different from Obama's position? Are you saying that Obama either (1) doesn't want peace there, or (2) believes he can pull it off? Because if he can pull it off, why hasn't he?

It's not different, but get Romney to admit that.... Obama probably can't pull it off, but he also is not out to abandon Israel as it is often portrayed.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Like all liberals, you are falsely suggesting Ryan wants to force people into a voucher plan. Not true. Under Ryan's plan, seniors could freely choose either a voucher plan, or to stay in a Medicare type plan.

I see... I only go by what I read... (admitting that some of source is probably biased, the truth is realistically somewhere in the center)

PolitiFact | Do Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher program?

Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan Would Cost 29-Year-Olds $331,200: Report

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's fair to say you don't agree with the plan. But again, the immediate liberal response to Ryan's plan was a commercial showing him pushing an old lady off a cliff. Is that honest?

Nope. it wasn't honest. But neither was a good percentage of your party (not you) running around calling the president a foreign born Muslim.... I don't have to agree or like with everything 'Liberals' do to tend to vote for one. At the local level I have voted independent and even republican at times when I thought the candidate was stronger.


As far as the deficit number, I agree that it sucks we have spent more than we took in. I have yet to hear from Romney how he would do this differently. First it was tax cuts with deductions removed to offset costs. Now it is no tax cuts if it adds to the deficit, but he talks about huge increases in defense spending. Frankly, I don't think either candidate, or party really has a serious plan for dealing with this.

good luck in the election Jim. part of me wants Romney to win, simply so your head doesn't explode.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, you won't acknowledge that the slide that started before he took office seriously impacted the first year + of this administration? I am not selectively looking at the the months when it was bad, but I choose to look at the term as a whole, including factors (not blaming Bush!) that impact these years




Fact: Job losses peaked in early 2009 and have (with some dips) has been mostly in the positive since 2010. The trend for unemployment has been about the same, peaking in July of 2009. You view it as he has done nothing, I view it as things are improving over the last 2 years, much of the trend began in 2008

Obama's economy: A snapshot - Job growth (1) - CNNMoney



http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files...-Income-03.png

See comments above regarding timing and trends.




Frankly, yes. If that was the case, why under Clinton's higher rates did the economy flourish? I believe in large part, the economy is decadal scale cycles with whoever the president is policies superimposed on them.





It's not different, but get Romney to admit that.... Obama probably can't pull it off, but he also is not out to abandon Israel as it is often portrayed.




I see... I only go by what I read... (admitting that some of source is probably biased, the truth is realistically somewhere in the center)

PolitiFact | Do Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher program?

Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan Would Cost 29-Year-Olds $331,200: Report



Nope. it wasn't honest. But neither was a good percentage of your party (not you) running around calling the president a foreign born Muslim.... I don't have to agree or like with everything 'Liberals' do to tend to vote for one. At the local level I have voted independent and even republican at times when I thought the candidate was stronger.


As far as the deficit number, I agree that it sucks we have spent more than we took in. I have yet to hear from Romney how he would do this differently. First it was tax cuts with deductions removed to offset costs. Now it is no tax cuts if it adds to the deficit, but he talks about huge increases in defense spending. Frankly, I don't think either candidate, or party really has a serious plan for dealing with this.

good luck in the election Jim. part of me wants Romney to win, simply so your head doesn't explode.

"So, you won't acknowledge that the slide that started before he took office seriously impacted the first year + of this administration?"

Of course I acknowledge that. Do liberals acknowledge that it was Bill Clinton who de-regulated banks, which allowed them to participate in swapping fishy derivitives, which made the subprime mortgage crisis as bad as it was? I've never heard a liberal mention that. They all blame Bush.

Anyway, I don't blame Obama for every job that was lost. Nor do I give him creidt for every job that was created. I measure him on the fact that in 4 years, he added $5 trillion to the debt. What do we have to show for it? Unemployment that has not gone down at all, and a huge drop in median household income. In those 4 years, he did exactly nothing to address SS and Medicare. Based on that, I don't see how you give him anything higher than an 'F' on the economy.

" I choose to look at the term as a whole"

The hell you did. You said jobs were created in "most months". That necessarily means you are ignoring the effect of the bad months, and giving weight to the good months.

"You view it as he has done nothing"

Wrong again. I wish he had done 'nothing', because what he has done is make it far worse. $5 trillion added to the debt in 4 years (do you care about that at all?), with no measurable improvement to unemployment, and a big drop in household income. Sorry if those facts don't suport your agenda, but they are facts nonetheless.

Clearly, unemployment has come down from its peak. That doesn't mean you only judge him on what has happened since unemployment peaked. As you said, you judge him on his whole term. During his term, unemployment is flat, income is down, and GDP growth is anemic at best. Facts.

"why under Clinton's higher rates did the economy flourish?"

Because Clinton also did some other things, like cut spending (opposite of Obama), balance the budgetn (opposite of Obama), and kicked millions off welfare (opposite of Obama). You also left out the fact that after Bush cut tax rates, the economy continued to flourish, until the subprime mortgage crisis hit. Everyone blames the GOP for that, but they base that on teh fact that Bush was president. The Dems contriolled congress from 2006 unril 2010. What did Bush do to cause the subprime mortgage crisis? No one can give an answer to that. As I said, it was Clinton who de-regulated the banks (he repealed the Glass-Staegal act in 1999), but you never hear that mentioned for some reason.

You're citing the Huffington Post. Great. Listen to what Romney is actually saying. He has always said that the voucher component is an option for those who want it, but if seniors want to stay in a Medicare-type plan, they can choose that too. The fiend!!!

"As far as the deficit number, I agree that it sucks we have spent more than we took in. I have yet to hear from Romney how he would do this differently"

Then you simply are not listening to what he's saying. He says he'll cut spending.

"part of me wants Romney to win, simply so your head doesn't explode"

I'm not worried about me. I'll be fine, my kids will be fine. I'm worried about others not as fortunate as me.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm not in the habit of taking Spence's side,.

that was soooo funny....