Jump to content

The election and the media


Mark F. Barnes

Recommended Posts

Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

Do you remember the Clinton did he inhale or not ordeal? They raked Clinton over the coals about it, as well they did Bush and his drinking issues in college. Now Obama has openly admitted he was an avid weed and cocaine abuser at one time, but nothing is really made of it. It's just given a total pass. Now they have raked Cindy McCain over her prescription drug addiction, but she's not running for President. They did the same with Kerry's wife, and some of her past. Why has Obama gotten a complete pass on this deal? I've heard arguments that it's in his past and has no bearing on who he is today, and I say fine. It was in the past of every other person I mentioned also, what's the difference?

Now Obama is a very educated man, and overcame whatever his issues were drugs, and that's a good thing. He talked about it in his book quite a lot. Ans I believe that part of his life is behind him. And he has had to deal with all the other distractions in this election, (Ayers, Wright, accusations of being a Muslim, etc.), and he and his handlers have done a good job with it. But those are all very weak shots really. Now this ACORN thing is a stiff jab, and it still may not be fully delivered yet. This entire election is going to be a circus. The writing is on the wall for that. These close number projections just insure it.

I'll just glad to get past it and move on to getting the wheels back on the economy, bring on 2009.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

Do you remember the Clinton did he inhale or not ordeal? They raked Clinton over the coals about it, as well they did Bush and his drinking issues in college. Now Obama has openly admitted he was an avid weed and cocaine abuser at one time, but nothing is really made of it. It's just given a total pass. Now they have raked Cindy McCain over her prescription drug addiction, but she's not running for President. They did the same with Kerry's wife, and some of her past. Why has Obama gotten a complete pass on this deal? I've heard arguments that it's in his past and has no bearing on who he is today, and I say fine. It was in the past of every other person I mentioned also, what's the difference?

I think it's an honesty issue. Obama was honest about it, whereas Clinton probably lied. I don't think anyone really believes that Clinton did not inhale, so his goofy answer set himself up for attacks on his character. It reminds me of his comment "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think drug use in a politician's youth can't be a serious scandal in the forseeable future. Too many Americans have used recreational drugs for us to expect all political candidates to abstain. As long as they are honest about it, I don't see it swaying the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think drug use in a politician's youth can't be a serious scandal in the forseeable future. Too many Americans have used recreational drugs for us to expect all political candidates to abstain. As long as they are honest about it, I don't see it swaying the majority.

No one is asking you to deflect it or ignore it, the point Mark brought up is that is already being done as opposed to what has happened in the past based on the examples given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is asking you to deflect it or ignore it, the point Mark brought up is that is already being done as opposed to what has happened in the past based on the examples given.

It probably represents a generational shift as well. Voters today probably don't care about someone's past drug use as compared to voters in the early 90's. It's just not that taboo a subject any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

It seems the biggest bias in the MSM is not by party or candidate, but toward whatever will drive ratings. Joe the Plumber is the story because more people are interested in his 15 minutes of fame than a federal investigation into an alphabet-soup agency largely unknown until now. Sad but true. Personally, I'd rather see the ACORN story. And I'd take a sharp stick in the eye rather than have to endure even 10 minutes of Good Morning America, or whatver show it was that got the 'scoop' on Joe the Plumber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

obamamedia.gif

You can also replace the picture of Obama w/ McCain and have Fox News trailing after him.

andy_b.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

Maybe Fox News and right-wing radio should focus on more important topics, like the economy, jobs, health care, ending the Iraq war, social security (the non-stock market, non-casino style type), and so many more important topics.

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them. Hey Sean, Michael... pick up your show and move to the heart land. You'd be a little more credible if you lived and worked in say... Kansas City, Kansas or nowhere Nebraska! ...but you haven't done it... because you're too comfortable living and working in a LIBERAL environment, you hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Fox News and right-wing radio should focus on more important topics, like the economy, jobs, health care, ending the Iraq war, social security (the non-stock market, non-casino style type), and so many more important topics.

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them. Hey Sean, Michael... pick up your show and move to the heart land. You'd be a little more credible if you lived and worked in say... Kansas City, Kansas or nowhere Nebraska! ...but you haven't done it... because you're too comfortable living and working in a LIBERAL environment, you hypocrites.

Right! You nailed it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Fox News and right-wing radio should focus on more important topics, like the economy, jobs, health care, ending the Iraq war, social security (the non-stock market, non-casino style type), and so many more important topics.

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them. Hey Sean, Michael... pick up your show and move to the heart land. You'd be a little more credible if you lived and worked in say... Kansas City, Kansas or nowhere Nebraska! ...but you haven't done it... because you're too comfortable living and working in a LIBERAL environment, you hypocrites.

The question could also be asked why Fox News and talk radio are not considered 'mainstream media', at least by those who complain about mainstream media bias. Again, these are political tactics. I look past them to see if the actual allegation has merit. If not, I discard it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN does a good job of getting both sides on their shows to discuss issues. IDK why I tune in to Fox news sometimes but at like 7ish a.m. I was watching them just bash Obama. It was like a school girl who could not keep their boyfriend and talked about the other girl cause she is angry, jelous, and in a fit of rage. My mom who voted for Bush the past two elections in which I advised her not to in 2000(have to admit I was a Bush supporter in 2004) walked in and said why are you watching this nonsense? The reason why Fox News is not mainstrem is the same reason why being from the big city means your not apart of the 'real' America. It's nonsense.

I found This on

, I thought it was really funny.

:lol::D:lol:

EDIT:Youtube insert not working just click link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them.
aren't you pretty much doing the same thing as a resident of texas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

let's not get this thread closed too. there are definitely mindless zombies on both sides.

I think Wayne made it pretty clear in the opening post, he's going to start restricting access instead closing threads.

This is the new presidential election thread. I closed the old one because people got out of hand.

Certain people no longer have access to the Off Topic or Way Off Topic sections, including Politics, because they can't communicate on an adult level. I will not let this thread degenerate as far as the last one did. Anyone who gets out of hand this time will find their access to this section revoked.

  • Treat your fellow HAIFers with respect.
  • Do not make personal attacks.
  • Think before you post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wayne made it pretty clear in the opening post, he's going to start restricting access instead closing threads.

I'm more than willing to use all of the tools at my disposal to keep things orderly around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

Do you remember the Clinton did he inhale or not ordeal? They raked Clinton over the coals about it, as well they did Bush and his drinking issues in college. Now Obama has openly admitted he was an avid weed and cocaine abuser at one time, but nothing is really made of it. It's just given a total pass. Now they have raked Cindy McCain over her prescription drug addiction, but she's not running for President. They did the same with Kerry's wife, and some of her past. Why has Obama gotten a complete pass on this deal? I've heard arguments that it's in his past and has no bearing on who he is today, and I say fine. It was in the past of every other person I mentioned also, what's the difference?

He doesn't need to have a pass, he just has to refer people to his book. When you've gone on record as having said you've done something, it loses its ability to be controversial.

If you want to look into preferential treatment, there has been almost no mention in the press of the fact that Sarah Palin has also admitted to using marijuana. What else has she done? And how much? There's no way to really know. I do know that UIdaho is one heckuva party school!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard something pretty funny today. Howard Stern had a commentator interviewing Obama voters in Harlem. He was asking if they supported Obama's views but attributed all of McCain's views in for Obama's, and the people all agreed with Obama even though the views stated were all of McCain's. For instance, he asked, do you support Obama's pro-life views and his support for keeping troops in Iraq? (which is not what Obama is for). They all basically said yes.

Here is the kicker.:

Commentator: If he (Obama) wins would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice-President?

The person responded with: No I wouldn't, not at all.

Commentator: You think he made the right choice on that?

The person responded with: I definitely do.

Goes to show that some people shouldn't be able to vote in our country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard something pretty funny today. Howard Stern had a commentator interviewing Obama voters in Harlem. He was asking if they supported Obama's views but attributed all of McCain's views in for Obama's, and the people all agreed with Obama even though the views stated were all of McCain's. For instance, he asked, do you support Obama's pro-life views and his support for keeping troops in Iraq? (which is not what Obama is for). They all basically said yes.

Here is the kicker.:

Commentator: If he (Obama) wins would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice-President?

The person responded with: No I wouldn't, not at all.

Commentator: You think he made the right choice on that?

The person responded with: I definitely do.

Goes to show that some people shouldn't be able to vote in our country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...