For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Musicmystery -> For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/14/2015 5:23:09 PM)

...not about a lot of things, but about this one anyway.

For years, I've defended the NY Times as relatively balanced, striving for accuracy, while you complained incessantly that its stories are sometimes biased crap.

You were right.

After seeing Sanders mop up the place last night, and after poll after poll on media outlets across the country and political spectrum noting Sanders the clear winner -- I wondered what the Times had to say.

They have two front page articles on their website -- both about Clinton, noting Clinton's excellent performance, and mentioning Sanders not at all, less than the other three invisibles, as if he weren't there . . . and spent the rest of the piece treating Biden, who wasn't there, as if he were the 2nd place runner. WTF?

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Inventing the news.

You were right. It's biased crap. Blatantly so.

I apologize. I'll strive to be more careful in the future.




cloudboy -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/14/2015 7:45:17 PM)

Readers of the NYT have written into the editor to complain that the paper is obsessed with writing negative copy about Hillary Clinton.

Next, I'll add that in any debate forum, Bernie Sanders will shine because he's such a good speaker and he's also not beholden to special interests. Like Trump, he can stand on his own two feet, but that's about the only thing those two have in common.

In the space of two days, I've already had two friends tell me that Sanders is "unelectable" -- and I think that's because they rely on secondary sources and have never paid direct attention to him.



Musicmystery -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/14/2015 8:16:51 PM)

Bernie Won All the Focus Groups & Online Polls, So Why Is the Media Saying Hillary Won the Debate?

"Bernie Sanders by all objective measures "won" the debate. Hands down. I don’t say this as a personal analysis of the debate; the very idea of "winning" a debate is silly to me. I say this because based on the only relatively objective metric we have, online polls and focus groups, he did win. And it’s not even close.

"Sanders won the CNN focus group, the Fusion focus group, and the Fox News focus group; in the latter, he even converted several Hillary supporters. He won the Slate online poll, CNN/Time online poll, 9News Colorado, The Street online poll, Fox5 poll, the conservative Drudge online poll and the liberal Daily Kos online poll. There wasn’t, to this writer's knowledge, a poll he didn’t win by at least an 18-point margin. But you wouldn’t know this from reading the establishment press. The New York Times, the New Yorker, CNN, Politico, Slate, New York Magazine, and Vox all unanimously say Hillary Clinton cleaned house. What gives?

"Firstly, it’s important to point out that online polls, and to a lesser extent focus groups, are obviously not scientific. But it’s also important to point out that the echo chamber musings of establishment liberal pundits is far, far less scientific.

"Why, most of all, would anyone listen to the very same pundit class that was wrong in '08 and continues to be wrong in 2015?"

http://www.alternet.org/media/bernie-won-all-focus-groups-online-polls-so-why-media-saying-hillary-won-debate#.Vh79eqBpvco.facebook



Greta75 -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/14/2015 9:29:17 PM)

I thought Hillary did poorly in this debate. I may not agree with Sanders, but it's very clear, what his position is, and very distinct. His unapologetically socialist.
Until now, I still do not know where Hillary stands in anything. She's like fluid.

A Trump Versus Sanders would be kinda great!

Capitalism Versus Socialism

Exciting stuffs!




MrRodgers -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 1:46:54 AM)

Well let's not forget that Fox news even during one of their own call-in polls, denigrated and said everything they could to marginalize Ron Paul while he was actually beating everybody. Ron Paul was obviously...not going to play ball.

In fact, it got so bad that when Obama started to beat Hillary, they went after McCain. I think it is because they knew that Obama would more reliably play ball and forget most of his 'Yes We Can' rhetoric, once he was in. Then of course...he did.

Then he became a very handy whipping boy for the right that managed to take the house and between that and 'Mcdugal' thwarted just about everything they could. But Obama took care of the bankers, wall street and sure did a bang-up job with equities, (paper) while failing in going after any of the fraud.

Oh and Sanders play ball ? He's not even in the same game. He wants to go after everybody. So no, he will not win the white house...no matter what. So the Wash Post...is doing their job. Hillary has already as much as told us...she will play ball just like Bill did, even praising the CFR for opening a branch right down from 1600 PA Ave., so [they] could tell her more easily, what she's to do.

Translation...the NYTimes and the Wash. Post will do all they can to make sure that no matter who is elected (repubs are easy meat) no matter the Dem, it will one who is...going to play ball.



Greta75 -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 1:55:15 AM)

Sanders is like Obama 2.0+++++++

I never believed Obama would win the election by the "Yes we Can!" Slogan.

But he did win and put Obama (failing) Care through. I would take Sanders as a serious candidate.

But for GOP end, seriously..., Jeb seems to be looking sillier and sillier as he carries on. Carson's a little too hardcore on certain areas. Rubio is too young and I don't feel like his ready yet. Trump is the best for GOP.

And poor Democratic party, both Clinton and Sanders have to feel threatened by Biden IF he indeed chooses to come in. The reluctant Candidate but well-liked enough by many!




MrRodgers -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 2:20:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Sanders is like Obama 2.0+++++++

I never believed Obama would win the election by the "Yes we Can!" Slogan.

But he did win and put Obama (failing) Care through. I would take Sanders as a serious candidate.

But for GOP end, seriously..., Jeb seems to be looking sillier and sillier as he carries on. Carson's a little too hardcore on certain areas. Rubio is too young and I don't feel like his ready yet. Trump is the best for GOP.

And poor Democratic party, both Clinton and Sanders have to feel threatened by Biden IF he indeed chooses to come in. The reluctant Candidate but well-liked enough by many!



Ok, let's draw this one out for those who need diagrams. Trump WILL play ball. Hell, he's the center fielder...catching all of those long balls. He'll be everything [they] want and be just as useful an idiot as W without the political pedigree. I wouldn't be surprised to see another huge domestic 'terrorist' attack under Trump. A fascist put on the court when Ginsberg finally goes. Double down on militarism. Double down on defense spending...cutting whatever else is necessary. The list could be a long one.

Don't know how he could actually improve things for the bankers. They are already the richest socialists in the history of what is really important duties of our splendid govt....socialism for the rich. How about selling some new 'Cracker Jack' securities ? I know, they couldn't actually call them that. But hell, it just might worth a try. I am sure I could list quite a few more specialties of a Trump presidency.

As for Biden, very useful. he would be the dems Romney except with vast political pedigree and would surely play ball and but might want to bat all of the time. Too old to change or fight for anything, so wall street and the bankers would be safe. I wonder if Biden would have any message ?



MrRodgers -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 5:17:36 AM)

Too late to edit my previous comments but I am not so sure I'd call it liberal bias. I think it is more bias toward the real power base...ownership, of which Hillary is a willing partner.

If it was liberal bias, wouldn't they have sung Sander's praises ? He's to the left of everybody. Am I missing something here ? Ok, I understand the word liberal doesn't appear in your OP but isn't that what the right implies when they speak of a biased media...a liberal bias ?




tj444 -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 1:23:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

...not about a lot of things, but about this one anyway.

For years, I've defended the NY Times as relatively balanced, striving for accuracy, while you complained incessantly that its stories are sometimes biased crap.

You were right.

After seeing Sanders mop up the place last night, and after poll after poll on media outlets across the country and political spectrum noting Sanders the clear winner -- I wondered what the Times had to say.

They have two front page articles on their website -- both about Clinton, noting Clinton's excellent performance, and mentioning Sanders not at all, less than the other three invisibles, as if he weren't there . . . and spent the rest of the piece treating Biden, who wasn't there, as if he were the 2nd place runner. WTF?

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Inventing the news.

You were right. It's biased crap. Blatantly so.

I apologize. I'll strive to be more careful in the future.




somehow i got into a conversation about newspapers recently with a senior that gets the Houston Chronicle and the weekend NY Times.. I think there is a lot of "junk" in the NY Times, not much actual substance, imo, a lot of stuff that is the emperor-with-no-clothes/bull shit stuff.. she seemed to think that the Times was for "intellectuals".. I guess she fancies herself as one.. [sm=rofl.gif]




MercTech -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 4:59:30 PM)

I'm reminded of a line about Clinton 1 and Clinton 2. Just like Thing 1 and Thing 2; they want to have a party in your house and leave it a wreck.



dcnovice -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 5:02:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

I'm reminded of a line about Clinton 1 and Clinton 2. Just like Thing 1 and Thing 2; they want to have a party in your house and leave it a wreck.

Cute, but . . .

When Clinton left office, we were running a surplus and at peace.

When Bush 2 left office, not so much.



Musicmystery -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 7:46:33 PM)

Indeed.



subrob1967 -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/15/2015 8:48:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

I'm reminded of a line about Clinton 1 and Clinton 2. Just like Thing 1 and Thing 2; they want to have a party in your house and leave it a wreck.

Cute, but . . .

When Clinton left office, we were running a surplus and at peace.

Bullshit, sure we were, it only takes 7 months to learn how to fly 747's into skyscrapers [8|]





mnottertail -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/16/2015 9:46:59 AM)

Ah, but it takes much longer to learn to fly 747s NOT into skyscrapers.



MrRodgers -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/16/2015 11:48:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

I'm reminded of a line about Clinton 1 and Clinton 2. Just like Thing 1 and Thing 2; they want to have a party in your house and leave it a wreck.

Cute, but . . .

When Clinton left office, we were running a surplus and at peace.

Bullshit, sure we were, it only takes 7 months to learn how to fly 747's into skyscrapers [8|]




So you mean about the time W was inaugurated or even 2/2001. When pros were tested, they flew a jet airliner into similar towers...once (1) in ten times and only the LAST time. they missed it 9 times.

As of 1/2001, we were ta peace and not only had created a surplus, the country was on track to enjoy $5.7 trillion in surplus over the next 10 years.



cloudboy -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/16/2015 2:33:40 PM)


When I read the print edition on THU, the main thrust of the NYT Clinton Analysis was:

Hillary Clinton's debate + her recent ratings climb meant that Joe Biden would not enter the race as an insurance policy.



Musicmystery -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/16/2015 2:45:36 PM)

Let's hope it's because Sanders is going to win the primary anyway.



cloudboy -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/16/2015 3:30:40 PM)


All my God, you've got the BERN!!!



Lucylastic -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/16/2015 6:22:15 PM)

Lotsa people got the bern:) and Im loving it.
Regarding the NY times...
That they have been after hillary for a long time, their political reporting on the race...plus the email story that they REALLY screwed up on, turned me away a while ago.

Regarding the debate results, hilary did well, bernie did well, but yes bernie did win...for me at least

I



Kirata -> RE: For my conservative critics . . . you were right. (10/17/2015 3:37:55 AM)


~FR~

[image]http://iotwreportcom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/tjJhXbm.jpg[/image]

[:D]

K.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.027344E-02