USA - Obama's Newest Burden

[Woodman]

In another example of American media bias...
( http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...3/215106.shtml )
liberal media pundits are working hard to hash out details of what THEY suspect may-have-been an ongoing affair between Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCaine and lobbyist, Vicky Iseman, despite any evidence to support the story, and amid vehement denials from both McCaine and Iseman that any such relationship ever took place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RfWuV_aKvo

Meanwhile, front-running Democratic Candidate, Barack Obama, has been publicly challenged to defend himself against allegations of illegal drug use while engaging in gay sex. Moreover, both Obama and the Democratic Party have been named in a lawsuit that claims harrassment and intimidation tactics were used against the man who witnessed this because he threatened to make the information public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFV...%2F179725.html

While it remains a "hushed" issue in the news for now, this story about Obama will eventually sprout legs and start running, and the liberal American news media (proving to be as predictable as they are gullible), will continue to hound any front-running republican candidate.

It is interesting that these two stories should come out at around the same time.
Could it be deliberate?
If so, who could possibly benefit from this???

Reputation Comments on this post:

this is a fine summary , very wise.

[beentheredonethatagain]

I am not worried about Hillary Rob'em Clinton or Oh,bomba bin laden.

This is a win for John McCain

[RaverHippie]

The only discussion I've heard on the topic is "Hey McCain does have some life left in him, he isn't just a walking corpse!" And everyone I associate with pretty much doesn't care at all about these "personal issues" with the person running for candidacy. Everyone cares more about the issues involved.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I am not worried about Hillary Rob'em Clinton or Oh,bomba bin laden.

This is a win for John McCain

How so?

McCaine is a liberal among a party with a conservative base.

He's already busy fielding similar allegations that have been MUCH more widely publicized, and which have no tangible foundation.

If you're trying to say "The Republican dirty-tricks committee is behind this," then I'll ask you to provide tangible evidence.

I'm sick of the mindset that justifies liberal political BULLSHIT on the simple-minded basis that "Republicans are evil/Democrats are good", largely because it comes from people who are too intellectually inept to consider that they might actually be useful idiots (to the DNC) as described by Lenin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Republicans have their own idiots, too; many of them in the military, or police.

It is upsetting to know that this country's government is dominated by two opposing, but equally destructive, political ideologies.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Woodman

In another example of American media bias... liberal media pundits are working hard to hash out details ...

Originally Posted by Woodman

While it remains a "hushed" issue in the news for now, this story about Obama will eventually sprout legs and start running, and the liberal American news media (proving to be as predictable as they are gullible), will continue to hound any front-running republican candidate.

There is little evidence to support the theory that there is a tendency towards liberal bias in the American media. Effective campaigning by interested parties has engendered the popular misconception that news media is somehow inherently liberal. While studies have shown that journalists tend to locate themselves slightly to the left of their audience, content-analysis has been unable to detect significant ideological bias. The informational and institutional biases arising from the increasingly consumerist approach to news media have much more impact than personal views of journalists.

Accusations of media bias are helped by the 'hostile media phenomenon', where people with opposing views will both see a piece of media as being biased in favour of the other side. The more strongly one feels about an issue, the most likely one is to see bias in a media treatment of the issue. Having a cynical perspective of the media is associated with increased perception of bias also.


I doubt there is any conspiracy behind the two articles. Journalists need an audience, and the same old campaign issues don't sell. Something new and sensational better meets the commercial definition of news, irregardless of how useless it actually is for informed democratic participation.

[Purest]

Originally Posted by Woodman

It is upsetting to know that this country's government is dominated by two opposing, but equally destructive, political ideologies.

Agreed, however the UK doesn't have it much better, the main political parties are now so similar in their ideologies that its pretty much the case of vote for whichever politician is the more friendly.

Back on topic, Obama gay and using illegal drugs, thats pretty much ruining his reputation with a huge chunk of america, not saying it to be harsh or anything, but its pretty true that not everyone is accepting to alternative lifestyle choices over there.

I know this is probably in bad taste, but I've got to say it. If it is true, and he still won the election, and then he got fat when he was in office, America would have a fat, black, and gay president that uses drugs, thats pretty much all the stigmas people discriminate against rolled into one.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Woodman

How so?

McCaine is a liberal among a party with a conservative base.

He's already busy fielding similar allegations that have been MUCH more widely publicized, and which have no tangible foundation.

If you're trying to say "The Republican dirty-tricks committee is behind this," then I'll ask you to provide tangible evidence.

I'm sick of the mindset that justifies liberal political BULLSHIT on the simple-minded basis that "Republicans are evil/Democrats are good", largely because it comes from people who are too intellectually inept to consider that they might actually be useful idiots (to the DNC) as described by Lenin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Republicans have their own idiots, too; many of them in the military, or police.

It is upsetting to know that this country's government is dominated by two opposing, but equally destructive, political ideologies.

I am a Ronald Reagan conserative Republican. I am disapointed that there is not a canidate running who has the values like the late president.

[Woodman]

beentheredonethatagain,

Indeed!
The selection is as shitty as I've EVER seen it.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

There is little evidence to support the theory that there is a tendency towards liberal bias in the American media.

Actually, there's a considerable amount of evidence, and it's a FACT, not theory!

Bernard Goldberg best explains the entrenched liberal mindset in his book, "Bias",.

"Goldberg, who spent his last years at CBS in the doghouse for his 1996 Wall Street Journal piece, says that if these correspondents were to take a lie detector test as to whether they slanted the news leftward, they would deny it and pass with flying colors.

Many of them don’t consider that they’re leaning in any political direction. They really think they are simply mainstream. There is no other side of the argument except what you hear from a few right-wing nut cases. In their world, mainstream conservatism doesn’t exist"

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...3/215106.shtml

Ann Coulter makes documented accounts of how the liberals in the media have been PROVEN WRONG on many conservative issues such as middle-class tax cuts to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) started by Ronald Regan in her book, "Treason".

http://www.conservativebookservice.c...prod_cd=c6174p

The fact is that tax cuts DO work to stimulate the economy, and Ronald Regan's SDI program was instrumental in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Before that, the liberal solution to the cold war was that America should just dismantle all of her weapons to show the rest of the world that "we're nice people."

....and yes, they really are THAT stupid!

Reagan's solution was to develop a system that could defend the US from incoming missiles which eventually became known as SDI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...nse_Initiative

I can remember the soviets walked out on the SALT II missile treaty discussions because Regan refused to put SDI on the table as a bartering chip.

The liberal media went NUTS! They became fanatic and labeled SDI as "The 'Star Wars' Program", claiming that the space-based system would provoke the Russians into launching the first strike in a nuclear war. Hence, the name "Star Wars".

Unlike many younger people today, who can only now read about it, I was there and I clearly remember it.

Here is CNN's Bullshit write-up to explain the term; apparently a Mickey-Mouse attempt to cover their ass for the fact that it was THEIR REPORTERS who were instrumental in popularizing the term.

"The system he proposed became known as "Star Wars," after the popular movie, because it was meant to destroy missiles from space." [BULLSHIT!] "The Soviets feared the system would increase the risk of the United States launching a first attack because U.S. officials would not fear retaliation" [more BULLSHIT!]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war...arwars.speech/

This is just ONE example of the liberal media bullshit that took place at that time, and how they attempt to revise history by putting out more liberal media bullshit, now.

I could always invoke the spector of Dan Rather, ...AGAIN, or expound on the history of political correctness, but if you're not convinced by now then you're probably just another dyed-in-the-wool liberal plagued by denial to where no amount of evidence that I or anyone else could provide (no matter how valid or reasonable) will ever be enough to change your opinion.

[enquirewithin]

The liberal media went NUTS! They became fanatic and labeled SDI as "The 'Star Wars' Program", claiming that the space-based system would provoke the Russians into launching the first strike in a nuclear war. Hence, the name "Star Wars".

What liberal media is that? Are you joking? You surely can't mean the New York Times-- or CNN? The NYT and CNN support every war of illegal war of aggression going (as long as its US led), until it goes wrong (i.e., Iraq) and even then keep parroting government lies (like those about the so-called 'surge', which is mainly buying off enemies).

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

What liberal media is that? Are you joking? You surely can't mean the New York Times-- or CNN? The NYT and CNN support every war of illegal war of aggression going (as long as its US led), until it goes wrong (i.e., Iraq) and even then keep parroting government lies (like those about the so-called 'surge', which is mainly buying off enemies).

I think you must be joking. The newspapers and television news are all left wing liberal democrats. they love the clintons , jimmy carter, and ted kennedy. the only right conservetive media outlet is Fox News.

Rememeber Dan Rather? at CBS news making up stories about Pres. George W. Bush's Nat. Guard record, Rather got fired.

that is just one example, the press is made up of a majority of lefty.

I will add some links later.

[Matt The Funk]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I think you must be joking. The newspapers and television news are all left wing liberal democrats. they love the clintons , jimmy carter, and ted kennedy. the only right conservetive media outlet is Fox News.

Rememeber Dan Rather? at CBS news making up stories about Pres. George W. Bush's Nat. Guard record, Rather got fired.

that is just one example, the press is made up of a majority of lefty.

I will add some links later.

SWIM thinks you're crazy. Media outlets are definitely right winged. More or less they all just center around propaganda and push the agenda of whoever is running them. I don't even want to really get into the state of the news, or politics in general. SWIM doesn't even think this should be about right or left....just vote, and educate YOURSELF about your choice. Don't listen to the news as your only source. But really, get out there and vote. Vote for who you think would do well, vote with who's views you agree with. Don't make this a whole LEFT and RIGHT thing. I think it was george washington who said something along the lines of political parties destroying everything America and the constitution stood for.

[umbra1010]

I don't believe in the barrack obama gay issue. Anyone can say they had gay sex and drugs and post a video of themselves on youtube. I believe it is false and is a hilary fan angry becuase of her losses against obama.

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I think you must be joking. The newspapers and television news are all left wing liberal democrats. they love the clintons , jimmy carter, and ted kennedy. the only right conservetive media outlet is Fox News.

Rememeber Dan Rather? at CBS news making up stories about Pres. George W. Bush's Nat. Guard record, Rather got fired.

that is just one example, the press is made up of a majority of lefty.

I will add some links later.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I notice you are a Regan supporter. Regan started the so-called war on drugs, so are you a supporter of the war on drugs too?

"Lefty'' is a silly word. There is no left wing press in the US, unless you count very marginal publications like "The Nation." Fox news is the extreme right, laughable to any one outside the US.

The large papers are owned by rich elites and act as propaganda organs for those elites. If you really think that the Kennedy's and Clinton are 'lefties' I would suggest that you are naive. Clinton's policies favoured business and the rich, not the people.

As for Bush, the entire world knows him for bare-faced liar (not to mention severely lacking intelligence.). Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, for example? What about the connections between Al-Qeada and Saddam? More lies. If a CBS reporter got sacked for for writing about Bush, it shows how much the US media lacks freedom.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Well said, a nice turn in countering insanity with sanity and reason
	Thank you! Great post. Best I've seen all year

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Matt The Funk

...I don't even want to really get into the state of the news, or politics in general. SWIM doesn't even think this should be about right or left....just vote, and educate YOURSELF about your choice.

I don't give a shit for any of the candidates, but I'm certain that Clinton is the worst among them.

Scandal or not, I really don't see much difference between Obama and McCaine.

If Obama wins the party nomination, I'ld just as soon not vote at all.

If Clinton gets it, I'll reluctantly vote for McCaine in the general election, just because the Clintons are so ruthlessly ambitious and thoroughly heartless.

[beentheredonethatagain]

I will be honest , as I always have . The war on drugs has it ups and downs.
I hate drugs abuse. I think drugs have caused a many of good people turn to shit. Including myself, hows that for honesty? Just say no is a bad way to just let the government off the hook , I agree .

Ronald Reagan is a hero without him , our country would have stayed in the crisis that Jimmy Carter got us into. Long lines at the gas station, triple digit inflation, intrest rates out a fuckin controll.

Correct me if I am wrong.

also ask any Russian who lived in the USSR during the cold war and under communism,
who rescued them. Reagan defeated the pinkos with firing a shot.

[silentghost]

Haven't you played that game "telephone" in preschool? Somewhere along the line, someone changed the message from "Milk and cookies in one hour" to "Joey is gay".

Hell, even then the message is "Jason spooned with his dog" by the time it reaches the end.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I will be honest , as I always have . The war on drugs has it ups and downs.
I hate drugs abuse. I think drugs have caused a many of good people turn to shit. Including myself, hows that for honesty? Just say no is a bad way to just let the government off the hook , I agree .

That doesn't really answer enquirewithin's question of whether or not you support the war on drugs. Not having a go, just curious what your real answer is as the above is a politician's answer to a simple "yes" or "no" question.

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

Ronald Reagan is a hero without him , our country would have stayed in the crisis that Jimmy Carter got us into. Long lines at the gas station, triple digit inflation, intrest rates out a fuckin controll.

Hmm can't say as I ever saw him as that, but then I would have to freely admit to only really receiving my information from the European media. The fact that he and Thatcher had a real mutual admiration society going on is enough for me.

This is a really genuine question, but wasn't Reagan merely a puppet who was basically used as a frontman by individuals with grander plans? Maybe he just came across poorly whenever a camera was placed in front of him, but he often came across as someone of very limited intellect in advanced stages of dementia. He almost made Bush look intelligent. Maybe my view is all down to European media bias and you can set me straight?

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

That doesn't really answer enquirewithin's question of whether or not you support the war on drugs. Not having a go, just curious what your real answer is as the above is a politician's answer to a simple "yes" or "no" question.



Hmm can't say as I ever saw him as that, but then I would have to freely admit to only really receiving my information from the European media. The fact that he and Thatcher had a real mutual admiration society going on is enough for me.

This is a really genuine question, but wasn't Reagan merely a puppet who was basically used as a frontman by individuals with grander plans? Maybe he just came across poorly whenever a camera was placed in front of him, but he often came across as someone of very limited intellect in advanced stages of dementia. He almost made Bush look intelligent. Maybe my view is all down to European media bias and you can set me straight?

I dont have the ability to set anyone straight.

war on drugs, I dont like drugs . they have ruined many peoples lives.

recreational use of drugs is okay, until it turns into dependancy.

[RaverHippie]

Then again Carter was the last president with a responsible energy package...what a nut-job...

[Metomni]

I look at this situation as follows:

Choice #1 : John McCain - Wants to stay in Iraq forever, is all for war, and comes off as a smug prick. Honestly, this is not the guy this country needs, with Bush at below a 20% approval rating, how could a man who supports the current regimes worst interests even be a candidate? It blows my mind, I think I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for McCain, but I would stab myself in both eyes before punching the ballot for either. Which brings me to...

Choice #2 : Hillary Clinton - Claims she wants to bring about "change", but as her campaign staggers forward (or back) it is becoming clear that she simply took Obama's speeches and carbon copied them with her own snobby tilt on things. She doesn't want to bring change, she wants to be remembered as the first woman president. She wants to mandate health care without giving a second thought to what that means to people who simply cannot afford it. She is simply not someone whom people want to cheer for, yeah she has some support, but the fact that Obama has won 10 straight primaries/caucuses says it all I think. She is dead in the water, and that is right where I hope she stays. On top of everything, she would be horrible for our international relations. Ugh, shivers run down my spine at the thought of her leading us.

Choice #3 : Barack Obama - Of all the things that I like about Obama, the thing that stands out is his work in Chicago. In the past he's done much work to improve the standard of living for people in poor parts of Chicago (I believe most of his work was on the south side of the city). Like Kucinich, Obama seems to get shit accomplished; he's productive. That's what we need! We don't need someone who will change the attitude of the country, we need someone who will change the country. I don't know if Obama is the guy, but he certainly seems to be leaps and bounds better than anyone else running.

I'm not trying to bash anyone's opinions on the candidates, these are simply my thoughts on them from what I've seen on debates and television and from what I know about their legislation and political views, sorry if any of my facts are wrong, I'm into politics, but I'm no guru.

I just feel that this country really needs something positive after the Bush regime. For Hillary, both the timing, and the candidate is wrong. We will have a woman president most likely eventually, but not right now, and not THIS woman. As for McCain, his stance on war is enough for me to dislike him.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	great post about presidential canidates
	this is thanx for your work on the treatment centers

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

war on drugs, I dont like drugs . they have ruined many peoples lives.

recreational use of drugs is okay, until it turns into dependancy.

1. Not all recreational drug use turns into dependency by a long way.
2. Not all recreational substances are habit forming.
3. Do you not believe that individuals should have the right to place whatever they want to into their system?
4. Why have laws for some substances and not for others?
5. Do you advocate legislating for the many based upon the actions of a few?

Apolgies for going off topic....getting a little carried away there. SWIBTDTA can pm me to continue further if he wishes (or not).

[truth]

i really cannot see any of these puppets running our country. I agree with metomni.I also believe this country is ran off fear and deception. Its sad to see people flock to the media for everything. But thats how most americans like it... to have everyone do the thinking for them. The media is only here to help us accept our fucked up country. I believe the government is setting up anyways towards the north american union, the federal id act, and new world order. These puppets are only here to push the divine plan that was made hundreds of years ago for us. wake up. in my opinion

[FuBai]

Certainly, from a European point of view, American News is very much right of centre, with some exceptions. From an American point of view it may appear left-wing, but I would argue that this can tell you allot about how far right the average stand point is in America. In any case we have a false delineation - liberal does not mean left, I'm a right-wing liberal - true blue Conservatism should be about small government, lower taxes, a greater emphasis on charities rather than welfare and about getting the tendrils of government control right out of our private lives. In short, real Conservatives should be Libertarians. I'm not sure what you really mean by liberal, but it seems a long way away from what I mean by it. I would argue that, whether Left or Right, American and, indeed, the European press show a strong bias towards Authoritarianism, to the extent where, every time an even minor event occurs, legislation is demanded to resolve it.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by FuBai

Certainly, from a European point of view, American News is very much right of centre, with some exceptions. From an American point of view it may appear left-wing, but I would argue that this can tell you allot about how far right the average stand point is in America. In any case we have a false delineation - liberal does not mean left, I'm a right-wing liberal - true blue Conservatism should be about small government, lower taxes, a greater emphasis on charities rather than welfare and about getting the tendrils of government control right out of our private lives. In short, real Conservatives should be Libertarians. I'm not sure what you really mean by liberal, but it seems a long way away from what I mean by it. I would argue that, whether Left or Right, American and, indeed, the European press show a strong bias towards Authoritarianism, to the extent where, every time an even minor event occurs, legislation is demanded to resolve it.

that makes little sense , in the u.s. the left wing is liberal and the right wing is conservative ( smaller government) any way I am done here.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

that makes little sense , in the u.s. the left wing is liberal and the right wing is conservative ( smaller government) any way I am done here.

All that means is you/America either do not understand what the word "liberal" means or what the phrase "left-wing" means.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Ding! We have a winner!