• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Walsh: Media protects Obama because he's black

pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Rep. Walsh is a member of the Tea Party contingent in the House. Does anyone think that the media will protect President Obama because he black? What would you say about a person that would say this???

[video=youtube;a1u8aEXbtjE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a1u8aEXbtjE[/video]
 
What a crock. The media has been attacking Obama on all sorts of things. Even if the media wouldn't attack a black person, Obama would not be exempt - he is mulatto.
 
I'm so tired of liberals pulling out the race ca....oh wait.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
What a crock. The media has been attacking Obama on all sorts of things. Even if the media wouldn't attack a black person, Obama would not be exempt - he is mulatto.
Click to expand...

Aside from not being, "Liberal enough", what have they attacked him on?
 
Caving in to the GOP during the debt crisis negotiations
Not lifting don't ask / don't tell sooner
Caving into the GOP on the public option being part of the healthcare package
Both being too cozy and not cozy enough with Israel
Not immediately removing troops from Iraq after election
Not closing Gitmo

I can name more, but why list them all?
 
apdst said:
Aside from not being, "Liberal enough", what have they attacked him on?
Click to expand...

Fox News is part of the media therefore the answer is literally everything.
 
The mainstream media will not/does not protect him because he is black, that is ridiculous, and offensive. They protect him becuse he is a Democrat.
 
GSE said:
The mainstream media will not/does not protect him because he is black, that is ridiculous, and offensive. They protect him becuse he is a Democrat.
Click to expand...

They don't protect him. You just have that perception because in your world "not rabidly attacking Obama" is the same thing as "protecting Obama." See, more reasonable people think there's not much to "protect" him from because more reasonable people are not irrationally angry about every single thing the man does. (OMG Obama ate a hot dog with mustard on it! How can he and his wife talk about childhood obesity!!!!!)
 
Deuce said:
They don't protect him. You just have that perception because in your world "not rabidly attacking Obama" is the same thing as "protecting Obama." See, more reasonable people think there's not much to "protect" him from because more reasonable people are not irrationally angry about every single thing the man does. (OMG Obama ate a hot dog with mustard on it! How can he and his wife talk about childhood obesity!!!!!)
Click to expand...

Really? My world? I may be new here, but I did take the time to review the posting for civility/IQ. Your reply, which is the first I have received, sounds pretty personal and assuming. I will try and maintain the civility I was instructed to exhibit, but I do prefer tackle football to touch.

As for the content of your post......are you kidding? you really don't think the mainstream media is not biased? or is that you would prefer we not acknowledge it? There is no doubt that we can both agree that Fox is biased, but do you really think the other media sources are not? And as they are biased, and there is far more that are biased to the Liberal side, then how can you possibly come to the conclusion you apparently have? Just watch 12 -14 seconds of Meet the Press. I do not think it is possible to not be exposed to bias in the media, the key is to recognize it so that you can put it in perspective. There is no reason that a Liberal and a Conservative cannot have a civil debate, I pursue conversations with people who do not agree with me so that I can learn where they stand, and what brought them to the conclusions they have. Changing their mind is not the objective. Conversations with people I agree with are boring.

BTW, A mirror is the kryptonite to hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
GSE said:
Really? My world? I may be new here, but I did take the time to review the posting for civility/IQ. Your reply, which is the first I have received, sounds pretty personal and assuming. I will try and maintain the civility I was instructed to exhibit, but I do prefer tackle football to touch.

As for the content of your post......are you kidding? you really don't think the mainstream media is not biased? or is that you would prefer we not acknowledge it? There is no doubt that we can both agree that Fox is biased, but do you really think the other media sources are not? And as they are biased, and there is far more that are biased to the Liberal side, then how can you possibly come to the conclusion you apparently have? Just watch 12 -14 seconds of Meet the Press. I do not think it is possible to not be exposed to bias in the media, the key is to recognize it so that you can put it in perspective. There is no reason that a Liberal and a Conservative cannot have a civil debate, I pursue conversations with people who do not agree with me so that I can learn where they stand, and what brought them to the conclusions they have. Changing their mind is not the objective. Conversations with people I agree with are boring.

BTW, A mirror is the kryptonite to hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

All media organizations are biased. Financially biased. They sell you a product. With most of them, that product is "whatever gets you to watch." This means making anything more exciting or scary than it really is. With Fox, that product happens to be "everything liberals do is bad. If a liberal adopts a puppy, it's still bad somehow." (which is the same thing, making something more exciting or scary than it really is)

The real world is not in black and white. It is possible to be:
1) Not biased against Obama
2) Not biased for Obama
3) Biased
All at the same time.

People who use the term "mainstream media" and exclude Fox News from that label aren't looking for rational discussion.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Rep. Walsh is a member of the Tea Party contingent in the House. Does anyone think that the media will protect President Obama because he black? What would you say about a person that would say this???

Click to expand...

Of course not, how absurd. they protect him because he is a democrat.
 
What did he say that was different than what Maxine Waters said just a few weeks ago? SHE...a black woman...a black congresswoman...a member of the CBC WANTS to attack him but she CANT...she wants to attack his FAILINGS but she cant. Why? For NO other reason than the fact he is black and the black constituents would turn on the members of the CBC if they dared to call him out for what she perceives as his failings.

So...did all of you good folks that are currently losing you mind over THIS comment say the same thing when Maxine Waters made her comments?
 
GSE said:
The mainstream media will not/does not protect him because he is black, that is ridiculous, and offensive. They protect him becuse he is a Democrat.
Click to expand...

I think that you are right about this, except that I agree with Deuce that Fox is part of the mainstream media.
 
Deuce said:
All media organizations are biased. Financially biased. They sell you a product. With most of them, that product is "whatever gets you to watch." This means making anything more exciting or scary than it really is. With Fox, that product happens to be "everything liberals do is bad. If a liberal adopts a puppy, it's still bad somehow." (which is the same thing, making something more exciting or scary than it really is)

The real world is not in black and white. It is possible to be:
1) Not biased against Obama
2) Not biased for Obama
3) Biased
All at the same time.

People who use the term "mainstream media" and exclude Fox News from that label aren't looking for rational discussion.
Click to expand...
so wait, you are saying Fox News is mainstream?
 
VanceMack said:
What did he say that was different than what Maxine Waters said just a few weeks ago? SHE...a black woman...a black congresswoman...a member of the CBC WANTS to attack him but she CANT...she wants to attack his FAILINGS but she cant. Why? For NO other reason than the fact he is black and the black constituents would turn on the members of the CBC if they dared to call him out for what she perceives as his failings.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Cleaver!

Rep. Cleaver: If Obama Wasn

So...did all of you good folks that are currently losing you mind over THIS comment say the same thing when Maxine Waters made her comments?
Click to expand...

Now, you know they didn't and you know why they didn't. Dare to me to say it?!?
 
VanceMack said:
What did he say that was different than what Maxine Waters said just a few weeks ago? SHE...a black woman...a black congresswoman...a member of the CBC WANTS to attack him but she CANT...she wants to attack his FAILINGS but she cant. Why? For NO other reason than the fact he is black and the black constituents would turn on the members of the CBC if they dared to call him out for what she perceives as his failings.
Click to expand...
First, much, if not most or all, of the black community criticizes Obama on a regular basis and are pissed at him - so your idea that "black constituents would turn on the CBC if they criticized him" is rooted in a disconnect from reality. Second, she criticizes him a lot actually so another disconnect from reality.

But thanks for pointing out all the black people involved in this scenario.
 
Deuce said:
All media organizations are biased. Financially biased. They sell you a product. With most of them, that product is "whatever gets you to watch." This means making anything more exciting or scary than it really is. With Fox, that product happens to be "everything liberals do is bad. If a liberal adopts a puppy, it's still bad somehow." (which is the same thing, making something more exciting or scary than it really is)

The real world is not in black and white. It is possible to be:
1) Not biased against Obama
2) Not biased for Obama
3) Biased
All at the same time.

People who use the term "mainstream media" and exclude Fox News from that label aren't looking for rational discussion.
Click to expand...


Wow. you obviously did not read the post you responded to. Go back and read the 4th sentence in the second paragraph of the post you quoted....here I will make it easier for you" There is no doubt that we can both agree that Fox is biased Now, how does that mesh with your comment about those who use the term "mainstream media"?

11,730 posts, and this is the quality? Really? what is the point of posting if you do not read what you are responding to? Although I guess when you are posting 26.06 posts per day, seven days per week for 15 months, it's kinda tough to actually read them all, huh? Must be an awful lot of assumptions being made when you have to speed read the blogs to keep up that kind of posting, .......do you know what is at the foundation of assumptions? Bias. Can you believe the irony?
 
rocket88 said:
I think that you are right about this, except that I agree with Deuce that Fox is part of the mainstream media.
Click to expand...

if you read my post, I said "There is no doubt that we can both agree that Fox is biased " (4th sentence, 2nd paragraph)........the fact is they are all biased, the point is to be able to identify it so that you can put what you hear/see in perpsective.
 
GSE said:
Wow. you obviously did not read the post you responded to. Go back and read the 4th sentence in the second paragraph of the post you quoted....here I will make it easier for you" There is no doubt that we can both agree that Fox is biased Now, how does that mesh with your comment about those who use the term "mainstream media"?

11,730 posts, and this is the quality? Really? what is the point of posting if you do not read what you are responding to? Although I guess when you are posting 26.06 posts per day, seven days per week for 15 months, it's kinda tough to actually read them all, huh? Must be an awful lot of assumptions being made when you have to speed read the blogs to keep up that kind of posting, .......do you know what is at the foundation of assumptions? Bias. Can you believe the irony?
Click to expand...

You talked about the mainstream media as if Fox News were separate from it.
Unless you meant that Fox News is also defending Obama because he's a Democrat.
 
Deuce said:
You talked about the mainstream media as if Fox News were separate from it.
Unless you meant that Fox News is also defending Obama because he's a Democrat.
Click to expand...

??? I said There was no doubt we could agree Fox was biased, and went on to say they are all biased, and that it is impossible to find a lack of bias in the media. The point is to indentify it so that you can put what you read/hear/see in perpsective. I did assume that you would understand that there is bias in more than one direction, and that the bias Fox has is not favorable to Obama. See, one more example of not actually reading the post, but hey, that's another post down, and only 25.06 to go for the day.

Let me ask you a question, do you think it odd that ABC and NBC did not even mention the Solyndra execs taking the Fifth in their Friday night evening coverage, and CBS gave it a cursory 25 seconds.....or how about Good Morning America's fat cracks about Gov Christie? Saying the other GOP candidates are "too small"? So yes, Fox is biased, and yes, Fx is part of the mainstream media, but Fos is the only mainstream news media that is biased away from Obama, and they are outnumbered by quite a bit, not to mention the bias in SNL, Bill Maher, The Today Show, Meet the Press, Good Morning America, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

To deny Bias in the media is imbecilic, and to deny that the overwhelming component of that bias is liberal is imbecilicsquared (puns on)
 
Last edited:
GSE said:
??? I said There was no doubt we could agree Fox was biased, and went on to say they are all biased, and that it is impossible to find a lack of bias in the media. The point is to indentify it so that you can put what you read/hear/see in perpsective. I did assume that you would understand that there is bias in more than one direction, and that the bias Fox has is not favorable to Obama. See, one more example of not actually reading the post, but hey, that's another post down, and only 25.06 to go for the day.

Let me ask you a question, do you think it odd that ABC and NBC did not even mention the Solyndra execs taking the Fifth in their Friday night evening coverage, and CBS gave it a cursory 25 seconds.....or how about Good Morning America's fat cracks about Gov Christie? Saying the other GOP candidates are "too small"? So yes, Fox is biased, and yes, Fx is part of the mainstream media, but Fos is the only mainstream news media that is biased away from Obama, and they are outnumbered by quite a bit, not to mention the bias in SNL, Bill Maher, The Today Show, Meet the Press, Good Morning America, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

To deny Bias in the media is imbecilic, and to deny that the overwhelming component of that bias is liberal is imbecilicsquared (puns on)
Click to expand...
Why don't you give Newsbusters credit for those stats?

Sure the media is biased, it's a corporate bias. You have no idea why they didn't cover the execs taking the Fifth. The fact they took the Fifth has little to do with Obama and maybe because the powerful conservative Walton family was involved with restructuring the loan.
 
pbrauer said:
Why don't you give Newsbusters credit for those stats?

Sure the media is biased, it's a corporate bias. You have no idea why they didn't cover the execs taking the Fifth. The fact they took the Fifth has little to do with Obama and maybe because the powerful conservative Walton family was involved with restructuring the loan.
Click to expand...

The question is why was it not covered, unbiased news media would not exlcude it becuase it's news. $500 million dollars of tax payer money is lost, they agreed to testify, and then they took the Fifth. What possible justification is there for not reporting this? You are right that I do not know for sure why they did not cover it, but I do have every right to question it...so why would they not cover it? Hmmmmmmmm, let me think....what could it be?..........unreported news story........not positive for the President during a particulalry vuulnerable time period.......what could it be????? ....I know there is something here....could it be? Bias? Nah...gotta be something else...right? I mean you are not suggesting that it would not be covered were it a Republican President are you?

Does it occur to you that not reporting news opens the same door taking the Fifth does. While taking the Fifth is a Constitutional right, our Founding fathers never said you were guaranteed protection from the questions raised by taking the Fifth....which means a media source is not protected from the questions raised by taking the Fifth on covering a news story.

And does not assigning credit for stats somehow deny their validity? I see an awful lot of stats posted here where the poster did not credit the source........I would hate to think those stats are considered fiction because of that, unless of course the rule only applies to stats that oppose your views, because that would be ......do you see it coming? .....wait for it...here it comes......Bias.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
Of course not, how absurd. they protect him because he is a democrat.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The race card pulled by anyone is stupid --- The media would be defending and turning a blind eye for any Democrat. And while the media has in the last year put it's toe in the water with some concerns in the press and on media outlets, they have in no way possible given any stretch of the imagination, given Obama the criticism that he would/could have if he had a (R) next to his name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom