All I hear from the left media is how the Republicans can't decide on who be the best candidate, as if having a wide field and back and forth debates is a bad thing. Should there just be a few "chosen ones" and should we just pick one and get it over with?
Then on the other side we see this interesting poll:
That's right, about a 1/3 of Democrats would rather see their chosen president replaced already. What does this say and why is it not being touted on MSNBC or the other carriers of Obama's water? Cue the crickets.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
This says what we already knew: the media sucks, they can't cover stories in a comprehensive, objective, unbiased way. You'll hear crickets b/c it's common knowledge and there's no reason to defend corporate media.
duh
(How ya doin' CB? Still pullin' for ya!)
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote:
(How ya doin' CB? Still pullin' for ya!)
A little rough but getting through...thanks for the concern, I really do want to meet up for lunch sometime when this is over. Currently surviving on protien shakes and mac n cheese...yuck.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Glad to hear it! Lunch would be lovely - I'm available whenever you're feeling up to it and we'll have some yummy food to celebrate your recovery - my treat!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
CriticalBill wrote: All I hear from the left media is how the Republicans can't decide on who be the best candidate, as if having a wide field and back and forth debates is a bad thing.
Are you generalizing, fantasizing, or is this really "all" you hear from the left because I haven't heard that at all -- from any media. It's the primary. It's supposed to work like this. This is where we're supposed to be at this point in the political process. I don't know why anyone would think it is unusual.
CriticalBill wrote: All I hear from the left media is how the Republicans can't decide on who be the best candidate, as if having a wide field and back and forth debates is a bad thing.
Are you generalizing, fantasizing, or is this really "all" you hear from the left because I haven't heard that at all -- from any media. It's the primary. It's supposed to work like this. This is where we're supposed to be at this point in the political process. I don't know why anyone would think it is unusual.
I have heard it, but I think it is partly just the GOP enjoying Obama being in trouble, partly Lefties who are whining that Obama isn't socialist enough, but mostly, the press using it to fill time and wishful thinking on their end.
The media made a lot of money and had high ratings when both Republicans and Democrats had contested primaries in 2008. A lot of ad time was bought.
I heard on the Hugh Hewitt show last night that pretty much all the TV and radio ad time in Iowa has been bought up by Republican Presidential contendors and now they are starting to buy time in Illinois and Minnesota border TV and radio stations. Imagine if Obama had a credible opponent? Even more media time would be bought up.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
CriticalBill wrote: All I hear from the left media is how the Republicans can't decide on who be the best candidate, as if having a wide field and back and forth debates is a bad thing.
Are you generalizing, fantasizing, or is this really "all" you hear from the left because I haven't heard that at all -- from any media. It's the primary. It's supposed to work like this. This is where we're supposed to be at this point in the political process. I don't know why anyone would think it is unusual.
I watch news from the left and the right. There has been a ton of talk about how weak the Republican field and how dissatisfied we are (supposedly) because the front runners keep shifting. Maybe it is some generalizing but I haven't seen much at all about the left's dissatisfation for Obama. This has been discussed here before about the Republican picks but I haven't heard much if anything from liberals here about Obama. If I was seeing liberal threads about all the great things he's done in office, it wouldn't be worth bringing up this poll.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Soulshiner wrote: Cue the crickets? Is that supposed to stimulate intelligent debate?
Well I've made several threads about important issues and get no response. Should I put "communist" or "birth certificate" in the headline, I'm sure I would then get lots of action. Just trying to prove a point that it's hard to get a real debate started unless there is some sort of rhetoric that sets the other side off.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
