Originally Posted by midwinter
Well, many people say and studies have been conducted that reveal otherwise. See my devastating evidence?
When I found such studies, I posted them all in the Media in the Tank for Obama thread. Sorry if I don't care to double or triple the efforts. I've been here for years as have you and such actual links have mostly been met with indifference, straight up dismissals, funny cartoons and personal attacks.
As for as I know, you haven't posted them at all, but whatever, I haven't read a source that claimed Biden got worse treatment than Palin. If you can find one, I'll be glad to read it.
You claim that no one is covering this story. I pointed out a bunch of coverage of it from a wide range or mainstream and non-mainstream outlets. Just because you don't like the way they covered it doesn't mean it wasn't covered.
Then I apologize for not being clear enough because in most of my actions I clearly have referred to sending reporters to the scene to get the facts instead of merely writing up talking points. I have noted repeatedly about how they can talk to a consignment store owner up in Wasilla but can't even "waste" their questions on Obama. Yes they do take his talking point positions and publish them as fact. I don't see how the lack of investigation on their part proves lack of bias. To me it proves quite the opposite. During the election we went through this in the media bias thread and I would show the questioning lists side by side. The McCain/Palin questions were all Obama allegations or loaded questions, the Obama questions were puff about his historical significance or just let him state his utopian plans with no contesting of the vision.
We've covered this ground before.
Just because someone can print it on the Internet doesn't mean it is a real issue worthy of investigation. Most of those matters have not been brought up by myself or others here because we don't care about the conspiracies.
[/QUOTE]Whether or not Palin has returned to her favorite consignment shop is not newsworthy. But I'd imagine that whether or not people are buy and selling increased amounts of used clothing (rather than buying new) is an economic indicator of some sort.[/QUOTE]
So let the business section cover it and they can leave her out of it.
What digging? Where? This was tossed off as a "quickly noted" in most newspapers. Even Olbermann just did a short bit on it. And that's it.
People with an agenda are clearly trying to build that caricature bit by bit in any time, place and manner in which they can do so. The turkey pardon was just another example. This has been covered with magazine covers, camera angles, etc. The people who do this for work daily know what looks good and know what makes you look bad. It is clear they are intentionally doing what makes someone look bad. A good example is McCain with the photography who turned off the flash illuminating him from under the chin so the shadows made him look ominous.
I have no idea. Why do you care if Obama smoked a joint in the 70s? Or is the hat that you don't like?
I don't like the bland acceptance and unquestioning nature of the media with regard to him.
Maybe he was sleepy. I don't know why you care. Obama smoked pot. These seem to be pictures of him smoking something that looks like it could possibly be a joint. Or a hand-rolled cigarette. This is hardly breaking news. Or news at all, since, again, Obama admitted he smoked pot.
If he admits it, then why lie about it? It is like admitting your are a swinger but the picture of you with the swinging group is just "a gathering of friends." If you are going to be honest, be honest, if not then don't but there is no halfway honest.
Where? Where are they fantasizing about this?
When I come across it again, I'll post it.
The amount of coverage was not the same. Most studies found Palin getting negative coverage for similar actions by magnitudes of three to four times more coverage.
Oh, and I Googled "fantasizing Palin was inside church burning to death" and got no results to this outrageous claim, either cite your sources or set your Google preferences to a less higher setting of Freeper Mode.
Again reverse it and make it Obama's and I have no doubt you wouldn't question the motives of those taking the action.
Well, it didn't happen
. Which might give solace to you that none of the crazy Aryan nut-jobs that followed Palin or idiots motivated by hate propaganda didn't go that far. Or did they?
Have you ever thought that this arson may have been done from within? Maybe a disgusted church follower or disgruntled Palin supporter? Even as I said, a group of misguided tweakers?
Maybe all those black church burnings were just disgruntled black attendees who didn't appreciate the message of the week. Maybe local drug dealers and druggies took videotape of Wright and gave it to the media.
Stay within the boundaries of reality. Since nothing has turned up in the investigation, you can speculate whatever you want. But it may backfire on you.
I'll trust that no matter the investigation, the default position of burning a church is malice and those doing it intended malice. You are right that it may turn out they just wanted to plant flowers, and I can't prove that wasn't their intention yet. However I'll trust my opinions for now.
The media gave a free pass for Bush et al to start their reign of terror. The media ignored this far too long. But they follow the money like everyone else does (Google ad revenue) and will continue to do so.
Apparently they also ignored the Congress that didn't read reports, voted for it and gave him that power and now most are sitting in the Obama cabinet as the wisest and most intelligent choices ever made by a president elect.
That right there should show you something about bias. The people stupid enough to be "fooled" by Bush are now brilliant when selected by Obama. Folks like Daschle, Clinton, Biden, etc. all are the most intelligent cabinet ever selected by a President-elect only they were all fooled by the monkey-boy Bush.
Sure they are supposed to actual read the evidence, bills and vote wisely, but it is just the media's fault they voted as they did, never their own fault.
Most studies now show that the general population in America realizes they've been hoodwinked by an incompetent
for 8 years. So, give the media the same time again for Obama, because we all can see the end of it all already, right? We all can realize how much of a failure he is even before he has done anything, right?
Actually the saying is fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Skepticism should be the starting position to avoid a second "fool me." If the media and all those wonderful Democrats are "fooled" into voting for something again, there should be no excuses. There shouldn't have been the first time, but for folks like yourself the second time should be a "shame on you" and not just more excuses.
My whole family is conservative. I have discussed these issues thoughtfully and passionately over the past 8 years. It has gotten heated sometimes. And I never won anyone over. I let the events in process handle that. I couldn't convince my brother that Obama was "the new messiah", he voted for McCain. But as time has gone by and as he has watched and read what Obama has done and whom he has chosen during this transition, he has become more confident.
I can't convert anyone. It will take the time and efforts of the next administration whether the conservative base will support anything they do. I want to doubt it. But I won't.Burn, baby, burn
If anything, you may want to educate the current conservative base about tolerance too.
Well I have persuaded people over the years. When I have spoken publicly, I'm often asked to join groups or functions to try to make a difference. I enjoy talking politics and often have my opinion sought out in group functions. My mother voted for McCain this year and she is a staunch Democrat. I couldn't convince my wife to vote no on 8, but I'm not the first man who couldn't change the mind of his wife.
Originally Posted by midwinter
I just took a look at all of those photos on TIME, and that's clearly
a cigarette he's smoking in that picture, and in all other pictures. The smoke in his face in that particular picture also suggests why he's squinting. Sometimes, when you take a drag on a cigarette, the smoke will whisp up into your eyes. Burns like hell.
I've also heard it makes you stare at your hand, have unfocused vision, keep tilting your head at odd angles, and smile in that very relaxed way I am sure none of us recognize.
Give it up man, we've all seen it and most of us have done it. It isn't hard to spot when someone is high. He's high and that doesn't bug me. The lie does, just the lie.