Mitt Romney is AMAZED by touch screen sandwich ordering

archer wrote: what really is amazing is that any of you are surprised by it. Even the average not-too-bright voter understands that all of the above are going to put out there what is favorable to them and what is unfavorable to the opposition, cutting and pasting as they go. DUH!

What makes you think we are surprised by it? We see examples here of such behavior everyday from posters such as yourself trying to pass along the latest deception picked up from the inside of their partisan echo chambers. Andrea Mitchell, Rex Nutting, Rush Limbaugh - they are all political commentators looking to enhance their following by appealing to a particular set of partisans who are more interested in having their current views validated than they are anything else. Andrea Mitchell knows that she is damaging her credibility when she airs such heavily edited and deceptive clips, but she doesn't care. What she gets in return for it are more Obots watching her show, which allows her to charge more for the advertising in her time slot, which personally benefits her. She doesn't care about her reputation, nor does anyone who watches her show or attempts, as she does, to pass off the clip as being a truthful representation of what Romney said. Rex Nutting and Rush Limbaugh are much the same. Doesn't matter how much the truth is perverted so long as it advances their exposure.

What is truly amazing to me is how many people continue to use what folks like Nutting, Limbaugh or Mitchell have opined after their willingness to deceive has been so thoroughly exposed for what it is. Such things are entertaining to those who already share their political opinions, but no one actually believes that a fact oriented discussion can be based on anything that they say, do they?

PS, I totally agree with you on this point. But I think you have only Fox to blame. They have shown partisan coverage of an event sells. They are a success because of the partisan reporting. Andrea Mitchell is following the Fox News template, only in the other direction.

Remember when Glen Beck was on CNN and his program tried to present both sides? He didn't become a success until he went to Fox and started the conspiracy crap. That's what drew an audience.

Raees wrote: PS, I totally agree with you on this point. But I think you have only Fox to blame. They have shown partisan coverage of an event sells. They are a success because of the partisan reporting. Andrea Mitchell is following the Fox News template, only in the other direction.

Remember when Glen Beck was on CNN and his program tried to present both sides? He didn't become a success until he went to Fox and started the conspiracy crap. That's what drew an audience.

There is no doubt that Fox and MSNBC are both terribly partisan in their reporting. That still does not forgive them for hard edits on videos that not only take the topic out of context but totally changes the subject matter... as MSNBC did in this case. But there are some people on this thread that think because one side does it, then it's proper payback for the other side to do it. That's a crock. It's not right... period... no matter what side does it.

That MSNBC video was intentionally deceptive... nothing less. And the on air news reader and guest ran with the topic as if it were absolute fact. There is a whole slew of people to blame for this... from the production team to the on air personalities.

Raees wrote: PS, I totally agree with you on this point. But I think you have only Fox to blame. They have shown partisan coverage of an event sells. They are a success because of the partisan reporting. Andrea Mitchell is following the Fox News template, only in the other direction.

Remember when Glen Beck was on CNN and his program tried to present both sides? He didn't become a success until he went to Fox and started the conspiracy crap. That's what drew an audience.

He should call up Bush-41...They could compare notes about how amazing the UPC-scanners at supermarkets are....

(Must be part of the daily allotment of "human-interest mingling-with-the-unwashed-masses" time allotted by the campaign.) He's obviously SO good with relating to "common people".

(...And how IS that car elevator coming along in California?)

Oh please Raees. The partisan coverage dates back to the days before the War for Independence. There is a reason that cities, even small ones, had more than one newspaper when newspapers were the primary means of consuming the news. Fox emerged because what existed wasn't serving a segment of the marketplace. It wasn't that their shows were any different, they simply sought out consumers that desired their product instead of the one that was already being offered. Dan Rather was slanting his coverage along his political ideology long before cable television and cable networks even existed. When he reported on the Kennedy assassination, he said that schoolchildren had applauded when being informed of the president's death when what they were actually applauding was that they were to be let out of school early. Walter Cronkite and his coverage is what convinced LBJ not to run for reelection in 1968. Fox didn't invent anything, it simply capitalized on providing existing fare to an underserved segment of the market.

.And again I agree with you PrintSmith. And it was our forefathers who sought to protect the press in what they were doing at the time. As you know, it's very much still that way now with the UK press. You pick the newspaper you agree with. Newspapers are thriving there because they have loyal audiences.

Breitbardt did this type of selective editing well before 2012 and managed to influence voters.

Do you think we'd all be talking about this if Andrea Mitchell had played Romney's speech in its entirety? Do you think we'd all be talking about this if we still had the FCC Fairness Doctrine which required that contrasting viewpoints be presented? Would you watch Fox as much if they really presented both sides?

Remember the edited and overdubbed Obama speech that made the rounds where he said he was born in Kenya? People still point to that video as "proof" he was not born in the USA. Even though his back was to the camera when he supposedly said it and there was no visible reaction or gasps from the crowd and the video was posted by a spoof site? People still believed it. It showed even a lousy edit job can still sway people.

And then there are people that find "editing" or photoshopping where there is none -- such as the "layered" Obama certificate of birth. Anyone who is familiar with Adobe Acrobat knows it takes a scan and puts the single document image into layers.

I don't see any hope for this changing and, in fact, I think it will get worse. We've only been around 236 years and look how much the United States has changed. Look at how few people actually vote in elections in the U.S. Look at how much influence lobbyists and special interests have in shaping U.S. policy.

The Roman Empire was the greatest civilization of its time and only lasted a little more that twice that long, went through all kinds of changes and eventually fell to barbarians.

In both civilizations it's always been about money and power, which ultimately corrupt.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Raees wrote: PS, I totally agree with you on this point. But I think you have only Fox to blame. They have shown partisan coverage of an event sells. They are a success because of the partisan reporting. Andrea Mitchell is following the Fox News template, only in the other direction.

Remember when Glen Beck was on CNN and his program tried to present both sides? He didn't become a success until he went to Fox and started the conspiracy crap. That's what drew an audience.

He should call up Bush-41...They could compare notes about how amazing the UPC-scanners at supermarkets are....

And 44 can use it as his latest excuse as to why unemployment has stayed above 8% during his tenure in office. Absent those UPC scanners and touch screen ordering systems, he might have actually had a chance at keeping unemployment below 8%; but the realities of employment and what drives it are much more complicated than he thought when he was campaigning the last time . . . . .

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Raees wrote: PS, I totally agree with you on this point. But I think you have only Fox to blame. They have shown partisan coverage of an event sells. They are a success because of the partisan reporting. Andrea Mitchell is following the Fox News template, only in the other direction.

Remember when Glen Beck was on CNN and his program tried to present both sides? He didn't become a success until he went to Fox and started the conspiracy crap. That's what drew an audience.

He should call up Bush-41...They could compare notes about how amazing the UPC-scanners at supermarkets are....

(Must be part of the daily allotment of "human-interest mingling-with-the-unwashed-masses" time allotted by the campaign.) He's obviously SO good with relating to "common people".

(...And how IS that car elevator coming along in California?)

Hey stupid. Read the link. Romney was not being amazed by the touch screen ordering system. You're outright lying. You're a partisan hack with no moral compunctions. If Hitler were alive, you would have pushed Goebbels right out of the picture.

Republicanism Works wrote: Hey stupid. Read the link. Romney was not being amazed by the touch screen ordering system. You're outright lying. You're a partisan hack with no moral compunctions. If Hitler were alive, you would have pushed Goebbels right out of the picture.

Exhibit #1 for my previous post.

Raees wrote:

Republicanism Works wrote: Hey stupid. Read the link. Romney was not being amazed by the touch screen ordering system. You're outright lying. You're a partisan hack with no moral compunctions. If Hitler were alive, you would have pushed Goebbels right out of the picture.

Exhibit #1 for my previous post.

I really don't give two sh*t's Raees. Lady Jazzer is outright lying and I'm calling her out on it. If you don't have the balls to do it... so what, but keep out of my way.