Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2009 15:58:46 GMT -5
So, you don't think the jokes about Teresa Heinz qualify? I don't recall about his children, but I believe his daughters took some heat. I forget what it was about.
By the way, it's not the children. It's Bristol. And I still think you are exaggerating. Was the media way too preoccupied with her? Yes. Have there been snarky remarks on this forum? Yes. Does that come close to Swift Boat levels? Uh, no. I guarantee you there was no PAC out there televising ads about Bristol's morals and Palin's consequent qualifications for higher office.
And in defense of the main stream media -- who are, after all, fascinated by bright, shiney objects -- had there ever been a VP candidate whose unwed daughter was 7-8 months pregnant when this VP candidate was selected? It's going to attract attention. You know that.
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jul 7, 2009 16:47:42 GMT -5
So, you don't think the jokes about Teresa Heinz qualify? I don't recall about his children, but I believe his daughters took some heat. I forget what it was about. By the way, it's not the children. It's Bristol. And I still think you are exaggerating. Was the media way too preoccupied with her? Yes. Have there been snarky remarks on this forum? Yes. Does that come close to Swift Boat levels? Uh, no. I guarantee you there was no PAC out there televising ads about Bristol's morals and Palin's consequent qualifications for higher office. And in defense of the main stream media -- who are, after all, fascinated by bright, shiney objects -- had there ever been a VP candidate whose unwed daughter was 7-8 months pregnant when this VP candidate was selected? It's going to attract attention. You know that. Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·iza·tion Variant: also British ra·tio·nal·isa·tion /"rash-n&-l&-'zA-sh&n,-&n-&l-&-/ Function: noun : the act, process, or result of rationalizing; especially : the provision of plausible reasons to explainto oneself or others behavior for which one's real motives are different and unknown or unconscious
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Jul 7, 2009 16:59:44 GMT -5
No, I'm not kidding. Read through the lies. He extensively documents her lies. He may trash her like crazy, but list of lies is nothing more than a comprehensive list of verifiable, documented proof to what a lying phony that she is.
Just because you may not like the messenger or the messenger is mean, doesn't mean the messenger isn't factually accurate.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jul 7, 2009 19:38:01 GMT -5
I would like to ask if you would please clarify what are your definitions for "the media" and "the press", because I don't seem to see the same discrepancy in negative treatment that you do. You don't see the difference in which Obama has been treated vs. Palin? Seriously? I have not read a single negative word about Obama's children . That fact alone is a huge difference not to mention the rest. The press is news agency's and I would classify the media to include blogs given the reach of the internet. The issue of the children is one that I frankly intend to stay out of, and I did not include it in my quote of your post that I responded to. Perhaps I should have pointed out more explicitly that I was only responding to the portion of your post which I quoted - particularly the statement, "Palins negative media coverage by the press has been 10 times more critical and inflammatory than Obama's". Seriously, I do not see the difference in the level of inflammatory negative critique of Palin and Obama by the press. This is 2009. The entire USA no longer tunes into Peter Jennings or Sam Donaldson or Jim Lehrer to hear their news. There is no longer any such thing as the evil "MSM" who control all public thoughts. Whole political revolutions are now held via chat rooms and text messages. Furthermore, all those right-leaning folks who made the biggest use out of neglected/discarded communication formats like AM radio, zines, and web 2.0 tools, have, through pioneering, become part of "the press" themselves. The top-rated radio programs (with tens of millions of regular listeners) are: Limbaugh, Hannity, Howard Stern, Beck, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Mike Savage. Only one of these things is not like the others.... but they are all firmly mainstream sources for commentary and opinion in this country. I would bet more people listen to Limbaugh in one day than listen to every Air America host put together in a month. I actually follow far-right news sources more often than moderate or far-left news sources. In many, many broadcasts, publications, and outlets (such as nationally syndicated and local AM radio talk shows, television programming on TBN/CBN/Fox/Daystar, blogs like Malkin, LGF, RealClearPolitics, etc.) over the last two years I have heard/read people outright accuse then Senator Obama of being am Islamic Terror Sleeper Cell of One, a Manchurian Candidate, an instrument of Satan, the AntiChrist himself, a power hungry psychopath, an incompetent token negro, a lover of Iran, a hater of Israel, a namby pamby %*$# who will give the country away, not to mention the numerous petty idiotic nicknames. "President Teleprompter" for Obama or "Shrub" for Bush are stupid yet relatively harmless. But then you have the bloggers, radio show hosts, and tv commentators, who refer to the current President as "Hussein" or "Nobama" or "Obama bin Laden" -- and that last one is so thoroughly offensive that anyone using it really needs to take a hard look at their personal moral and ethical code as well as their emotional health. Has Palin been harshly ridiculed and criticized by many people in the media industries? Yes. Has Obama been harshly ridiculed and criticized by many people in the media industries? I don't think this is one of those things where you can make a useful comparison that establishes one person as a poor set-upon martyr, and another as a pampered Fortunate Son. Telling people what they want to hear or telling them something outrageous and emotional is the way to get listeners/viewers/readers. Only a small minority actually seek out calm, thorough analysis that challenges their own views. Nobody has a monopoly on media harrassment.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 7, 2009 19:49:53 GMT -5
Holiday...you can't compare Obama's children with Palin's...His are much younger..did not have a child out of wedlock at a young age...or make any public speeches. However, he has been hounded about going out on dates with his wife...as well as being questioned and trashed for having "1 beer".
If you flip through a lot of the different networks a groups you'll easily find a lot of trashing of Obama...heck..you can balance all the trashing of Palin on this site with just posts from Bill.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jul 7, 2009 23:49:04 GMT -5
You don't see the difference in which Obama has been treated vs. Palin? Seriously? I have not read a single negative word about Obama's children . That fact alone is a huge difference not to mention the rest. The press is news agency's and I would classify the media to include blogs given the reach of the internet. The issue of the children is one that I frankly intend to stay out of, and I did not include it in my quote of your post that I responded to. Perhaps I should have pointed out more explicitly that I was only responding to the portion of your post which I quoted - particularly the statement, "Palins negative media coverage by the press has been 10 times more critical and inflammatory than Obama's". Seriously, I do not see the difference in the level of inflammatory negative critique of Palin and Obama by the press. This is 2009. The entire USA no longer tunes into Peter Jennings or Sam Donaldson or Jim Lehrer to hear their news. There is no longer any such thing as the evil "MSM" who control all public thoughts. Whole political revolutions are now held via chat rooms and text messages. Furthermore, all those right-leaning folks who made the biggest use out of neglected/discarded communication formats like AM radio, zines, and web 2.0 tools, have, through pioneering, become part of "the press" themselves. The top-rated radio programs (with tens of millions of regular listeners) are: Limbaugh, Hannity, Howard Stern, Beck, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Mike Savage. Only one of these things is not like the others.... but they are all firmly mainstream sources for commentary and opinion in this country. I would bet more people listen to Limbaugh in one day than listen to every Air America host put together in a month. I actually follow far-right news sources more often than moderate or far-left news sources. In many, many broadcasts, publications, and outlets (such as nationally syndicated and local AM radio talk shows, television programming on TBN/CBN/Fox/Daystar, blogs like Malkin, LGF, RealClearPolitics, etc.) over the last two years I have heard/read people outright accuse then Senator Obama of being am Islamic Terror Sleeper Cell of One, a Manchurian Candidate, an instrument of Satan, the AntiChrist himself, a power hungry psychopath, an incompetent token negro, a lover of Iran, a hater of Israel, a namby pamby %*$# who will give the country away, not to mention the numerous petty idiotic nicknames. "President Teleprompter" for Obama or "Shrub" for Bush are stupid yet relatively harmless. But then you have the bloggers, radio show hosts, and tv commentators, who refer to the current President as "Hussein" or "Nobama" or "Obama bin Laden" -- and that last one is so thoroughly offensive that anyone using it really needs to take a hard look at their personal moral and ethical code as well as their emotional health. Has Palin been harshly ridiculed and criticized by many people in the media industries? Yes. Has Obama been harshly ridiculed and criticized by many people in the media industries? I don't think this is one of those things where you can make a useful comparison that establishes one person as a poor set-upon martyr, and another as a pampered Fortunate Son. Telling people what they want to hear or telling them something outrageous and emotional is the way to get listeners/viewers/readers. Only a small minority actually seek out calm, thorough analysis that challenges their own views. Nobody has a monopoly on media harrassment. Over...very in depth and impressive. It would be interesting to see some numbers on who watches what. I view cable which consists of the major networks, CNN, Fox, etc. The percentage of these are reverent of Obama for the most part because I think they understand that both black and very popular makes him a dangerous choice to criticize. I like the low key respect they show him and frankly think its how it should be. Palin is fair game for absolutely anyone and everyone including network anchors smirking about ," seeing Russia," to comedians talking about her boobs. Do you here anyone talking about Obama's crotch? What I watch and my only choice to watch with my cable co. is definately not even remotely even in their treatment.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jul 7, 2009 23:54:18 GMT -5
Holiday...you can't compare Obama's children with Palin's...His are much younger..did not have a child out of wedlock at a young age...or make any public speeches. However, he has been hounded about going out on dates with his wife...as well as being questioned and trashed for having "1 beer". If you flip through a lot of the different networks a groups you'll easily find a lot of trashing of Obama...heck..you can balance all the trashing of Palin on this site with just posts from Bill. So...when the Obama children turn 16 are they fair game? I don't think age has a limit on respect toward minors of any kind. If the situations were reversed with the Obama's and Palins I would still find it offensive and pitiful and I hope...so would you. Minors and children should be off limits....period. The date thing and a beer. Come on....not even the same thing. The networks crowed how sweet it was about the date situation. How is that critical?
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jul 8, 2009 0:00:31 GMT -5
No, I'm not kidding. Read through the lies. He extensively documents her lies. He may trash her like crazy, but list of lies is nothing more than a comprehensive list of verifiable, documented proof to what a lying phony that she is. Just because you may not like the messenger or the messenger is mean, doesn't mean the messenger isn't factually accurate. Quote me some facts from a person that hasn't had an axe to grind since day one and I will take it seriously. He is as reliable as Rush. Come on.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 8, 2009 6:21:29 GMT -5
Palin,
"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.
There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jul 8, 2009 7:31:51 GMT -5
Palin, "I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said. There is no "Department of Law" at the White House. Is that a quote from Mr. Sullivans article. Most likely. Beside the point............ every candidate no matter how verses they are,........ do not know everything. I don't know how to be a CEO of a company but I am pretty sure with my business and practical common sense background, I would have done a better job than the people who have been in charge for the last 20 years at GM.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 8, 2009 7:38:43 GMT -5
But seriously, Department of Law? Come on!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2009 8:06:45 GMT -5
So...when the Obama children turn 16 are they fair game? I don't think age has a limit on respect toward minors of any kind. If the situations were reversed with the Obama's and Palins I would still find it offensive and pitiful and I hope...so would you. Minors and children should be off limits....period.Again, it was Bristol ONLY that received negative media attention (and there was a special reason for that, even if we don't agree with it). Don't start pretending it was all of the Palin children. If you want to compare, compare Willow with the Obama children. As for comedians, you know perfectly well Obama is the object of their jokes. That's what comedians do. You don't seriously expect comedians to be civil, do you?
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Jul 8, 2009 8:27:27 GMT -5
Did you even look through the link? He does not sit there (bill O style) and "grind his AX". Every one of those lies are DOCUMENTED from reliable media sources.
Sullivan does "grind his AX" a lot about Palin, but his "Lies of Sarah Palin" series is nothing more than presenting facts.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 8, 2009 8:33:02 GMT -5
I did and most are trivial and easily rebutted by my link...DID YOU READ?
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 8, 2009 9:03:24 GMT -5
No, ABC news.
Believe it or not the words were not put in her mouth by the media.
|
|