Author	Message
publius	Posted: Sat, Nov 15 2008, 8:00 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered HMMMMMMMMM.......... Seems to me that thy gop doth protest too much. republicans redistribute wealth as well. They just take it from the lower classes and push it upward! Then the corporations get a p.o. box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and somewhere else nice and sunny, and pay NO taxes. The shortfall must be made up somewhere. Therefore the middle-class shall eat cake and pay the difference! The gop has been sucking at the public teat for a while now. We, The People, just want to spend money on OURSELVES. Not fork it over to those who already have theirs. You see. We have roads, bridges, schools, the military to pay for. Oh Yes, the gop LOVES the military. In words, but not in deeds. They talk a good game, and the pliant, docile sheep who vote for them all bleat out in agreement with them. But, then, the politicians vote AGAINST most anything that DOES INDEED SUPPORT THE TROOPS. Look at their records...........NOT at what they say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's too damn easy to plaster your gas-guzzling suv with "Support the Troops" stickers. But, Oh so much more difficult to understand that troops are dying so that you can fill up your suv with "cheap" gas!!!!!!!! Wake up and smell the fumes, sheeple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest	Posted: Tue, Nov 11 2008, 6:52 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered I agree it's a scam, and that it's being done by the elites OF BOTH PARTIES!! But then, who's to blame, since we sent THE SAME PEOPLE back to the Congress. Shame on us.
publius	Posted: Tue, Nov 11 2008, 6:01 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Ah.........yes, a republican's view of wealth redistribution is to give MORE money to those who already have it, THEN, in order to make up for the shortfall, raise taxes at THE BACK END (so, nobody will notice, of course) on the lower-to-middling classes, (cuz, they don't really need money anyway) THEN lose it all on this Monopoly game called Wall Street, then beg the lower-to-middling classes for a handout, (cuz, they can't be allowed to go out of business, the poor dears) then accuse the incoming president of being a Socialist! See how it all works now, kiddies? It's all a scam by the elites to screw us all out of our own money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 6:21 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Guest wrote: Are you serious in saying CNN, CBS, NBC (part of MSNBC family), LA Times, NY Times don't have a liberal bias? I'm a Democrat and even I can see the bias. Heck, even our own Cranbury Press is biased. Now, that being said I enjoy it as such as it makes my mornings easier to read and breakfast easier digest. Yes, that is what I am saying. Where's your science to prove otherwise? I don't even agree about the Cranbury Press. I am not a fan of the Press and their official editorial positions and columns by Hank are clearly very far to the left, no doubt. But I don't see bias in their general news coverage. I'd be curious for you to cite examples where their news articles, not their editorials, bias toward the left? The TV news shows often blur the line between their hard news segments and their "commentary" shows so I can see the confusion. Similarly, the lesser NY dailies have a strong bias by design -- one strongly right (also owned by Rupert) and the other strongly left. But papers like the Times (LA and NY) and channels like CNN (when they are doing the straight news and not commentary shows) are pretty even and certainly try to be. BTW, CNN's commentary shows have some pretty die hard righties, like Glen Beck. The mistake is when one blurs the line between the commentary shows (which are plentiful on these TV news channels) and the straight news, like MSNBC did when they put Oberman on election coverage for example. But CNN, NBC, CBS and ABS have not done that. I noticed you left the WSJ out of your list of biased sources. That's interesting. I suppose you consider that non-biased? Interesting because many liberals consider it biased to the right, and it has historically editorialized in favor of the right (and Rupert owns it too now). But I would say it is non-biased as much as the NYT is. Both cover the news fairly and credibly, with editorial leanings kept distinctly separate. This has been studied in dozens of ways, both qualitatively and quantitatively. There are PhD’s from institutions like the Annenberg School that have made entire careers on the subject of media bias. The net result is these major media outlets are for the most part not distinctly bias with the news. 15 years ago you could say that almost without exception. Since the success of Fox News, the other channels have copied it (sometimes in intentional contrast) with more commentary shows. But that hasn’t changed their straight news. I presume your opinion is mostly anecdotal. But the problem is studies show everyone perceives bias when it is not consistent with their own opinions. People often also misinterpret news as implicitly endorsing the views they cover. If a channel gives airtime to a liberal saying something they find outrageous, even if the reporters and anchors do and say nothing to endorse it, they often perceive that they are biased. Interestingly the studies counter this. People will say “they give more time to liberal speakers or interviews” then others will sya the opposite. Then they will catalogue and annotate all the time and find its actually pretty even. Most of these news organizations actually have people on staff whose job is to actively make sure they try to give equal time in fact. The other interesting phenomenon is people will selectively only recall the news coverage that is counter to their views in forming their opinion, much as my young son will perceive that “you always take her side” [referring to his sister] and really believe it, despite it being far from true. If the media is devoting much coverage to the Sarah Palin designer clothes issue, people will call the media outlets bias, ignoring that they spent even more time covering the Rev. Wright issue. Etc. Speaking of Wright, why is it that the media spent months on this – literally thousands of TV hours and pages and pages of articles – but very little on Palin’s equally controversial, reactionary spiritual leader, who claims anyone who doesn’t support Bush is going to Hell and that God commanded us to go to war in Iraq, etc.? Is this bias against liberals by CNN, NYT, etc? Nope. But it wasn’t worked up as a story. Unlike with Wright, the Obama campaign didn’t play it up and push it into big media coverage. The fact is, the major news outlets are usually reactionary, not the other way around. They don’t create the news or set the agenda, they react to what rises to the top based on a combo of public interest and what opinion makers like politicians push on them. Every now and then you get the News leading an issue, the way the Times recently did in uncovering the corruption in disability benefits at the LIRR. But this is the exception. Anyway, I doubt I’ve changed anyone’s mind. Its an aspect of psychology that most people will be fixed in their beliefs and interpret everything around them with a bias based on those beliefs. So it is human nature to presume and see a media bias whether it is there or not.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 5:16 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Are you serious in saying CNN, CBS, NBC (part of MSNBC family), LA Times, NY Times don't have a liberal bias? I'm a Democrat and even I can see the bias. Heck, even our own Cranbury Press is biased. Now, that being said I enjoy it as such as it makes my mornings easier to read and breakfast easier digest.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 4:52 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Guest wrote: Quote: Interesting sample since statstically more than half of them should be liberal or moderate if it were coming across as fair and balanced. The reason Fox seems so conservative is because the rest of the media is so liberal. It's all relative. Yeah, except it isn't. That's a consverative myth, first created in the early 70's by Nixon's VP, the same one who had to resign in disgrace due to a corruption scandal (thus paving the way for Ford to later be the only President never nationally elected as part of any ticket). Guess who he blamed? A liberally biased media, not himself. The Republicans have latched on to that ever since because they figured out that anyone consevrative-leaning was apt to believe it. The facts don't bare it out. Millions have been spent in many credible studies trying to demonstrate this scienfitcally and the facts just don't support it. There are liberally biased media, of cours,e but the major networks, CNN (I did not mention MSNBC on purpose) and the major national daily newspapers and wires are not among them.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 4:46 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Ph.D. wrote: Well, I have made up my mind to vote for Obama-Biden and Win Cody in Nov. Me too. Win Cody locally. Obama nationally. The two seem completely unrelated to me, though I equally dread the idea of McCain/Palin in office as I do the idea of Cranbury Township and our taxes being handed over to the personal use, without any checks-or-balances, of Mayor Stout and his close circles of allies. If Ritter wins, Stout will have the guaranteed 4 votes he needs on every spending issue he wants to pursue, with no public input needed at all. He's already proven that's his intent (and was only blocked due to the two votes acting as a check against him) and Ritter has already made it clear he'll support him. I fear the latter is inevitable though as most people don't realize this is what the vote is really about and I think Ritter and other Democrats will be swept to victory on the backs of the general support for Obama nationally as people vote down the party line. When people are complaining about tax increases in Cranbury in the years to come, I hope these posts are still around as a record that we tried to warn them. Even if people realize this after all the spending that Stout will obviously initiate in 2009 with Ritter in office, it will be too late as we'll be saddled with the additional millions in bond debt whether he remains in office or not. It will be his permanent gift to Cranbury Township. About the only thing we'll be able to do is prevent the new Library or Ball Park or future project being commemorated in Stout's name, no doubt his ambition.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 4:32 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Quote: Interesting sample since statstically more than half of them should be liberal or moderate if it were coming across as fair and balanced. The reason Fox seems so conservative is because the rest of the media is so liberal. It's all relative.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 4:29 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Obama's Definition of Rich Keeps Going Down http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444585,00.html You're actually trying to cite this as a credible source? Foxnews? The channel that was explicitly created by Rupurt and Roger as a service to their Republican Party? The channel that considered Matt Drudge a real journalist. The channel that pretty much drove the whole Monica L. scandal. That's the funniest thing I have read today... Fair and Balanced unlike the rest of the media which favors Obama and does not report the facts. I can't dedice what is funnier, the statement or the notion you might actually believe it. I have met people over the years who do actually believe with all their heart that Fox News is "fair and balanced" and that "the rest of the media is biased." It's funny how every single one of them happens to be conservative. Interesting sample since statstically more than half of them should be liberal or moderate if it were coming across as fair and balanced. Anyway, thanks for the laugh. I haven't heard that one in a while.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 4:24 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Obama's Definition of Rich Keeps Going Down http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444585,00.html You're actually trying to cite this as a credible source? Foxnews? The channel that was explicitly created by Rupurt and Roger as a service to their Republican Party? The channel that considered Matt Drudge a real journalist. The channel that pretty much drove the whole Monica L. scandal. That's the funniest thing I have read today... Let me guess you watch MSNBC and it's not as if they have an agenda. Nope. I don't. And while they are not as blatantly one-sided by design as Fox, I agree they have carved out a nitch by being left-leaning as a response to Fox. I actually worked at Fox when they started Fox News. It was started expressly with the intent of promoting a consevrative agenda in the guise of an impartial general media. Rupert is a huge contributor to Republican causes and Roger was a Republican strategist and consultant (and Reagan's former speechwriter) for decades before starting Fox News for Rup. Both are brilliant men by the way, but there's no question they have an agenda... They and Drudge really came to prominance at the same time, both on the backs of the Monica scandal which they milked for every drop to their mutual success...
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 3:08 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered And CNN and MSNBC by Obama's.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 2:10 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered FOX news is most cited media company by the McCain supporters. Can McCain supporters do better than that?
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 1:49 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Well, fair and balanced to me depends what side of the aisle you sit on. If you're on the right it's Fox, if you're on the left it's MSNBC and CNN. I hate Hannity and can't stand Olbermann. The Trenton Times I stopped reading the editorial section because it had only a couple of conservative columns and the rest were Krugman, Cohen, Goodman, Dowd and Robinson. Not enough balance. However, if you are left of center you enjoy the columns because they represent your views just as those who watch Fox or MSNBC. The funnything is when people from the other side make a comment they say that's not a real source.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 1:27 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered "Fair and Balanced unlike the rest of the media which favors Obama and does not report the facts." So favoring Obama means does not report the facts? I guess there is a major conspiracy going on now to prevent McCain from being elected.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 1:06 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Obama Redistribution of Wealth tape uncovered Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Obama's Definition of Rich Keeps Going Down http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444585,00.html You're actually trying to cite this as a credible source? Foxnews? The channel that was explicitly created by Rupurt and Roger as a service to their Republican Party? The channel that considered Matt Drudge a real journalist. The channel that pretty much drove the whole Monica L. scandal. That's the funniest thing I have read today... Fair and Balanced unlike the rest of the media which favors Obama and does not report the facts.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Oct 29 2008, 1:04 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Excerpts of Seven Year-Old Obama Interview Cause Stir Chicago Public Radio wrote: In 2001, Chicago Public Radio interviewed then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama's statements. The item is now catching national attention. Click here for Obama's full interviews. The clips are taken from an interview that aired in January of 2001. Then State Senator Obama is one of three legal scholars interviewed for a show about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone pulled excerpts of the show and posted them to You Tube—and today, the posting caught fire on political blogs, the Drudge Report, and Fox News. The 4 minute spliced collection of clips portrays Obama as advocate a redistribution of wealth through the power of the Supreme Court. That folds in with some allegations by the McCain Palin campaign. The twist here is that, when heard in the context of the whole show, Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented by the You Tube posting. Taken in context, Obama is evaluating the historical successes and failures of the Civil Rights movement—and, ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources. The McCain campaign told ABC News it plans to use the material to bolster its criticism of Obama. I’m Ben Calhoun, Chicago Public Radio. http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=29792 It sounds as if Ben Calhoun is complicit with the rest of the media in their attempts to say and do anything to get Senator Obama elected.