• 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

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.

Shhhhhhh, they'll know you are not drinking the Kool Aid
Kool Aid.jpg
 
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.
I don't know why the Solyndra execs pleaded the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] and neither do you. You can claim media bias all you want, but the fact is the Bush Administration has a history with Solyndra which goes back to 2007. So, be careful what you wish for.

Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story | ThinkProgress
 
I don't know why the Solyndra execs pleaded the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] and neither do you. You can claim media bias all you want, but the fact is the Bush Administration has a history with Solyndra which goes back to 2007. So, be careful what you wish for.

Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story | ThinkProgress

Interesting, Do you recall the mainstream media outcry when Condi declined to testify? And yes the Solyndra loan dates back to Bush, but it was not approved under Bush, it was approved by the Obama White House, are you suggesting the Obama White House approval of the Solyndra loan is somehow Bush's fault? Is anything Obama's fault?

We do know why the Solyndra Executives pleaded the Fifth, becuase it is their constitutional right. My point is that there are questions raised when you plead the Fifth, and they are legitimate, and fair questions. The constitution protects you from self incrimination, but not from questions raised by seeking that protection. It is fair and reasonable to assume innocent people do not need to protect themselves from self incrimination. In addition, there are also reasonable questions raised when a media source (or several) fail to cover this story. Obama did campaign on an open and transparent government, and the American people deserve to know what happened to their $500 million dollars. My comments would be the same if a Republican were in office and it was Fox that did not cover this, do you think the the democrats would be as indifferent? This is as much about hypocrisy as it is bias.
 
Back
Top Bottom