Debate Politics Forums - View Single Post - This liberal claims mainstream media is conserverative

Jlinkos · 07-19-08, 07:23 PM

sent to me on July 11, 2008

You cannot really feel good about the way this exchange has gone. You have taken this conversation all over the map in your attempt to convey something intelligent. You have failed miserably so far but keep it up this is a great laugh for me.

I'll start with the Obama Crap

"1) Why did no "mainstream" news outlet cover the Obama-Wright story until after Obama's Philly speech"?

Trying to put a timeline on the fact that the mainstream media spent weeks skewering Obama about a non issue like Wright to prove the media is liberal is just dumb. Who cares about a speech in Philly not me. What difference does it make if Obama is muddied in the eyes of the people now or later? The media tore down both Dems in the race. In fact one could posit that the Dems were FED Obama (a black man with a muslim name) and Hilary (a woman clearly hated by half the country) by the mainstreet media in a desperate attempt to keep their Republican puppets in power. Personally I don't know anyone who wanted either of these losers in the beginning anyway.

"2) Why did it take 4 months for Obama to be questioned about his association with Reverend Wright by one of the "mainstream" news organizations (ABC)? By the way, you probably don't know this but the moderator (Stephanopoulos) who asked those questions gets slammed by all the major news networks (except Fox). Why would that be?"

Most of this question is the same question as above just re-worded. Man are you dumb.
As for Stephanopoulos being slammed by mainstream media?
Upon googling
"Stephanopoulos"+"obama"+"wright"
I found no mainstream media doing any such thing and therefore must assume you lie like a rug.

"3) When Obama's San Francisco "bitter" and the "57 states" remarks were aired on Fox, it took 3 days for any other news outlet other than CNN to make a story on it? Can you elaborate on this? And the funny thing is they didn't air any additional stories again after the first time. Why would that be"?

Maybe the story had to build momentum, I bet many editors and producers are suprised when many stories don't take off. This is a logical explanation. Political campaigns move at tremendous speed and most quotes slip out of the news cycle fast. Also am I just to take your word CNN only aired it once? Your track record is not so good in the intellectual honesty department. poof
Also it is essentially a repeat of your first question. But I will give you props that it at least it involves something OBAMA SAID HIMSELF. People are only responsible for their own actions. (can you figure out where I may go with your next dumb Q?) I have quite a few friends and acquaintance that say and do dumb things. I like them, they make me laugh. Like you. hahahahahahahahahaha

4) Why hasn't a prime time story of Obama's associations with William Ayers (who was a national terrorist) been discussed yet on any of the major news networks?

See above + Whether you like it or not Ayers is a respected University College Prof. Obama evidently met him on a commitee. Have you ever been on a commitee? I have been on several. I have never had any input whatsoever on who the other members are.
In case you have not figured it out yet I don't watch TV, look what I found on the CBS news website though.
The Bad Company Of Barack Obama, National Review Online: The Senator's "Change" Would Radically Alter This Country - CBS News
See above about your intellectuall honesty problem. Crash and burn dumbass.

"You are still resorting to the same idea that "corporations are conservative". The funny part is you still cannot prove this and you have yet given me give me any fact that does prove this".

Proving or providing facts on if someone/thing is liberal is not really possible. If you had any logic you would know that and refute my three points that lead in that direction in the last message. Instead you resort to saying the exact same thing as you said last time and the time before that again. This is not how you win a debate. Poof.

"The fact that corporations own media outlets is irrelevent because it's the people running the corporations that take it where they want to go. Like I said in an earlier post, if CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, New York Times, etc can make a profit promoting liberal viewpoints, then they are going to continue to do it".

You keep posting this. I have asked you at least 8 times if you OWN ANYTHING THAT OPERATES OUTSIDE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.
This is a valid question.
Also the hard news is what matters. Less than 20% watch/read/listen to any political op/ed stuff or are even a little politically aware. Most of the aware people are politically set in stone so OP/ ED does not have that much effect. Of course opinion pages reflect the niche market they serve, Captian Obvious. Over 70% watch the local news and read the front page. Look it up. There is not much liberal on the local news or the front page of any local paper. Most hard news is conservative.I will let you slide on the Primacy Recency Effect because that is probably a pretty hard concept for a pea brain like you.

"The government research centers as I've said before are funded by the taxpayer. Anything funded by the government is funded by the taxpayer. Honestly, you still don't understand the logic in this. And you wonder why I call you Swiss Cheese".

You said this before. Does saying it again make it true? I believe I stated when the gov't cashes my checks they control the capitol. Its theirs. This is a valid real world argument. Repeating yourself and calling someone Swiss Cheese without even attempting to poke holes in their argument is silly. It is to bad this is not in the public forum because you look soooooooooo dumb. This is also banker mantra that the gov't spends OUR money. The corp media don't want to pay their fair share so they spouts this in an attempt to keep the people from accepting the FACT that taxes are your PAYMENT to live in civilized society. When you pay your light bill does the electric company have "your" money or did it become theirs? You asking anyone about logic is hilarious. ahahahahahahahahahaha

I can explain this over and over, but you could never still comprehend that it isn't who owns the media outlets, it's the message they are giving you that makes it liberal/conservative/whatever. When the New York Times comes out and endorses Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination and John McCain for the Republican nomination, that's liberal bias seeing as they are both the most liberal of their own parties? That's just another example to add to the 4 that I gave you.

First until you at least attempt to answer these Q's:
DO YOU OWN ANYTHING THAT OPERATES OUTSIDE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM?
OP/ED IS ALMOST IRRELEVENT ONLY HARD NEWS REALLY MATTERS.
You should STFU on this.
BTW, The NEW YORK TIMES endorsed the Senator from "NEW YORK" Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. Do you ever think? Ever?
hahahahahahahahahahaahah

"I mean the fact you even made the statement of corporate owned media in your earlier YouTube post in a discussion involving oil prices and alternative sources of energy, shows where your thought process takes you - which is way off topic".

As I said before you have taken this conversation all over the map in an attempt to get something right and failed miserably. See below about Edison becoming GE as an example.

"The government didn't create the anything else on your list, not even with the funding they did provide".

No where do I say they did. The "create" word is yours once again you are creating a straw argument you can win. I never ever let these slip by so stop trying stupid.
That said. (again) The model for research and development has been that corproations wait for government funded facillities to show some progress and then they jump in and take over. This history applies to the whole list with the exception of the light bulb. But the US federal gov't along with the state of NY did pay for over half the funding of the Menlo Park labratory where it was perfected. The National Science a fully federally funded institution is offering many many millions of $$$ in computor research funding as we speak.

"You probably don't realize this but Edison's company would eventually merge with others and become GE".

What could this possibly have to do with this conversation? Poof.
ahahahahahahahahah Your BS about Fox's ratings fall into the same catagory. Besides I don't trust polls or ratings. Everything is to intertwined. It is in their interest to keep stupid people like you thinking your views are popular.

And I could go on and on about the success of America's private market, but you would just ignore the history of it.

Show me one place where I have claimed the US private market's have not been a success. The Federal Reserve bankers are having huge success in stealing our wealth. Just because they are thieves does not mean the private market is bad. It just need a different monetary system that does not benefit the top 1% at the expense of the bottom 50%. Will you ever stop throwing straw? Making up my side so you can win the argument is just stupid.

The best part of this whole things is I have no personal position at all in this whole liberal conservative divide and conquer claptrap bull****. I couldn't give a good god damn **** about it all of it. You just keep typing dumb things. So I just keep kicking your ass because its fun.
For the Record I am a doomer I think our society is about to fall down and huge changes are coming. The true definition of liberal is in a nutshell, change. I do not believe the top 1% or even the top 10% will be allowed to keep more than a small % of their wealth. There is about to be a much smaller pie and people need to live. Populism will come because the only real alternative as I see it Fascism and the US military has no interests at all in their stateside families living in a fascist state. Try to remember just because I believe these things will happen does not mean I want them to. You really need to learn to seperate what you percieve someone to believe from what they conveyed.

If you would like to declare victory and move on go for it. My collegues who are all semi conservative sure wish you would. hahahahahahhaahahah It is slow around here though and I don't have anything better to do. You are cracking me up and giving me endless ammunition to fire at them.You can not seem to wrap your mind around any kind of concept whatsoever. Do not feel so bad. The avg IQ in the USA is around 100 many many people though have an IQ of 120. Following the laws of avg that means many many people have an IQ of 80 you are obivously one of these people. Lower IQ people are more gullible this is proven out by the over 40 studies which have proven the higher the IQ the less likely a person is to believe in the god of 2000 year back desert nomads. Gullible low IQ people (like you) are more likely to believe things with no basis in logic or fact as long as it is repeated enough times. Can you say Fox News. This can be the only explanation as to why you ignore my points and repeat yourself over and over. Just because repitition works on you does not mean it works on everyone.

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
YOU ARE WONDERFUL FOR MY AT WORK MORALE.

07-19-08, 07:23 PM	#5 (permalink)
Jlinkos User Join Date: Jul 2008 Last Online: 07-20-08 03:05 PM Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Lean: Moderate Gender:	Re: This liberal claims mainstream media is conserverative sent to me on July 11, 2008 You cannot really feel good about the way this exchange has gone. You have taken this conversation all over the map in your attempt to convey something intelligent. You have failed miserably so far but keep it up this is a great laugh for me. I'll start with the Obama Crap "1) Why did no "mainstream" news outlet cover the Obama-Wright story until after Obama's Philly speech"? Trying to put a timeline on the fact that the mainstream media spent weeks skewering Obama about a non issue like Wright to prove the media is liberal is just dumb. Who cares about a speech in Philly not me. What difference does it make if Obama is muddied in the eyes of the people now or later? The media tore down both Dems in the race. In fact one could posit that the Dems were FED Obama (a black man with a muslim name) and Hilary (a woman clearly hated by half the country) by the mainstreet media in a desperate attempt to keep their Republican puppets in power. Personally I don't know anyone who wanted either of these losers in the beginning anyway. "2) Why did it take 4 months for Obama to be questioned about his association with Reverend Wright by one of the "mainstream" news organizations (ABC)? By the way, you probably don't know this but the moderator (Stephanopoulos) who asked those questions gets slammed by all the major news networks (except Fox). Why would that be?" Most of this question is the same question as above just re-worded. Man are you dumb. As for Stephanopoulos being slammed by mainstream media? Upon googling "Stephanopoulos"+"obama"+"wright" I found no mainstream media doing any such thing and therefore must assume you lie like a rug. "3) When Obama's San Francisco "bitter" and the "57 states" remarks were aired on Fox, it took 3 days for any other news outlet other than CNN to make a story on it? Can you elaborate on this? And the funny thing is they didn't air any additional stories again after the first time. Why would that be"? Maybe the story had to build momentum, I bet many editors and producers are suprised when many stories don't take off. This is a logical explanation. Political campaigns move at tremendous speed and most quotes slip out of the news cycle fast. Also am I just to take your word CNN only aired it once? Your track record is not so good in the intellectual honesty department. poof Also it is essentially a repeat of your first question. But I will give you props that it at least it involves something OBAMA SAID HIMSELF. People are only responsible for their own actions. (can you figure out where I may go with your next dumb Q?) I have quite a few friends and acquaintance that say and do dumb things. I like them, they make me laugh. Like you. hahahahahahahahahaha 4) Why hasn't a prime time story of Obama's associations with William Ayers (who was a national terrorist) been discussed yet on any of the major news networks? See above + Whether you like it or not Ayers is a respected University College Prof. Obama evidently met him on a commitee. Have you ever been on a commitee? I have been on several. I have never had any input whatsoever on who the other members are. In case you have not figured it out yet I don't watch TV, look what I found on the CBS news website though. The Bad Company Of Barack Obama, National Review Online: The Senator's "Change" Would Radically Alter This Country - CBS News See above about your intellectuall honesty problem. Crash and burn dumbass. "You are still resorting to the same idea that "corporations are conservative". The funny part is you still cannot prove this and you have yet given me give me any fact that does prove this". Proving or providing facts on if someone/thing is liberal is not really possible. If you had any logic you would know that and refute my three points that lead in that direction in the last message. Instead you resort to saying the exact same thing as you said last time and the time before that again. This is not how you win a debate. Poof. "The fact that corporations own media outlets is irrelevent because it's the people running the corporations that take it where they want to go. Like I said in an earlier post, if CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, New York Times, etc can make a profit promoting liberal viewpoints, then they are going to continue to do it". You keep posting this. I have asked you at least 8 times if you OWN ANYTHING THAT OPERATES OUTSIDE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. This is a valid question. Also the hard news is what matters. Less than 20% watch/read/listen to any political op/ed stuff or are even a little politically aware. Most of the aware people are politically set in stone so OP/ ED does not have that much effect. Of course opinion pages reflect the niche market they serve, Captian Obvious. Over 70% watch the local news and read the front page. Look it up. There is not much liberal on the local news or the front page of any local paper. Most hard news is conservative.I will let you slide on the Primacy Recency Effect because that is probably a pretty hard concept for a pea brain like you. "The government research centers as I've said before are funded by the taxpayer. Anything funded by the government is funded by the taxpayer. Honestly, you still don't understand the logic in this. And you wonder why I call you Swiss Cheese". You said this before. Does saying it again make it true? I believe I stated when the gov't cashes my checks they control the capitol. Its theirs. This is a valid real world argument. Repeating yourself and calling someone Swiss Cheese without even attempting to poke holes in their argument is silly. It is to bad this is not in the public forum because you look soooooooooo dumb. This is also banker mantra that the gov't spends OUR money. The corp media don't want to pay their fair share so they spouts this in an attempt to keep the people from accepting the FACT that taxes are your PAYMENT to live in civilized society. When you pay your light bill does the electric company have "your" money or did it become theirs? You asking anyone about logic is hilarious. ahahahahahahahahahaha I can explain this over and over, but you could never still comprehend that it isn't who owns the media outlets, it's the message they are giving you that makes it liberal/conservative/whatever. When the New York Times comes out and endorses Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination and John McCain for the Republican nomination, that's liberal bias seeing as they are both the most liberal of their own parties? That's just another example to add to the 4 that I gave you. First until you at least attempt to answer these Q's: DO YOU OWN ANYTHING THAT OPERATES OUTSIDE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM? OP/ED IS ALMOST IRRELEVENT ONLY HARD NEWS REALLY MATTERS. You should STFU on this. BTW, The NEW YORK TIMES endorsed the Senator from "NEW YORK" Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. Do you ever think? Ever? hahahahahahahahahahaahah "I mean the fact you even made the statement of corporate owned media in your earlier YouTube post in a discussion involving oil prices and alternative sources of energy, shows where your thought process takes you - which is way off topic". As I said before you have taken this conversation all over the map in an attempt to get something right and failed miserably. See below about Edison becoming GE as an example. "The government didn't create the anything else on your list, not even with the funding they did provide". No where do I say they did. The "create" word is yours once again you are creating a straw argument you can win. I never ever let these slip by so stop trying stupid. That said. (again) The model for research and development has been that corproations wait for government funded facillities to show some progress and then they jump in and take over. This history applies to the whole list with the exception of the light bulb. But the US federal gov't along with the state of NY did pay for over half the funding of the Menlo Park labratory where it was perfected. The National Science a fully federally funded institution is offering many many millions of $$$ in computor research funding as we speak. "You probably don't realize this but Edison's company would eventually merge with others and become GE". What could this possibly have to do with this conversation? Poof. ahahahahahahahahah Your BS about Fox's ratings fall into the same catagory. Besides I don't trust polls or ratings. Everything is to intertwined. It is in their interest to keep stupid people like you thinking your views are popular. And I could go on and on about the success of America's private market, but you would just ignore the history of it. Show me one place where I have claimed the US private market's have not been a success. The Federal Reserve bankers are having huge success in stealing our wealth. Just because they are thieves does not mean the private market is bad. It just need a different monetary system that does not benefit the top 1% at the expense of the bottom 50%. Will you ever stop throwing straw? Making up my side so you can win the argument is just stupid. The best part of this whole things is I have no personal position at all in this whole liberal conservative divide and conquer claptrap bull**. I couldn't give a good god damn ** about it all of it. You just keep typing dumb things. So I just keep kicking your ass because its fun. For the Record I am a doomer I think our society is about to fall down and huge changes are coming. The true definition of liberal is in a nutshell, change. I do not believe the top 1% or even the top 10% will be allowed to keep more than a small % of their wealth. There is about to be a much smaller pie and people need to live. Populism will come because the only real alternative as I see it Fascism and the US military has no interests at all in their stateside families living in a fascist state. Try to remember just because I believe these things will happen does not mean I want them to. You really need to learn to seperate what you percieve someone to believe from what they conveyed. If you would like to declare victory and move on go for it. My collegues who are all semi conservative sure wish you would. hahahahahahhaahahah It is slow around here though and I don't have anything better to do. You are cracking me up and giving me endless ammunition to fire at them.You can not seem to wrap your mind around any kind of concept whatsoever. Do not feel so bad. The avg IQ in the USA is around 100 many many people though have an IQ of 120. Following the laws of avg that means many many people have an IQ of 80 you are obivously one of these people. Lower IQ people are more gullible this is proven out by the over 40 studies which have proven the higher the IQ the less likely a person is to believe in the god of 2000 year back desert nomads. Gullible low IQ people (like you) are more likely to believe things with no basis in logic or fact as long as it is repeated enough times. Can you say Fox News. This can be the only explanation as to why you ignore my points and repeat yourself over and over. Just because repitition works on you does not mean it works on everyone. AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA YOU ARE WONDERFUL FOR MY AT WORK MORALE.