Obama's approval rate drops......

[Mariahxxx]

Welcome. Thanks for posting, mind if I ask a couple of questions? By your own admission you evaluate the Bush administration as a disaster, why did you vote for him twice? There were alternatives or you could even have abstained.

Ok so what if everyone who didn't like W abstained? Then we would have had Al Gore and/or John Kerry as presidents. to me I'd rather vote for the idiot who didn't take **** from people than have an idiot who wanted to give every have not things they have not earned courtesy of those of us who have worked for those things. I don't believe one bit in Al Gore and to me he is a clown. My *** told me to never trust a man who wears cowboy boots with a suit unless they are from Texas, and Al Gore ain't from Texas!



At the last election the republican ticket was extremely short on fresh ideas and largely functioned as an extention of the (by your opinion) disasterous incumbent. In contrast, the was Obama - who you identify as a great speaker and who "said the right things" which I will loosely interpret as saying that he ran a great campaign. (I'm not convinced about the colour thing. Historically in American politics, to a fantastic degree, white is the colour of victory.) I digress, my point is this: wouldn't it be true to say that the favourable press recieved by Obama was as much a reflection of the reality as it was a product of the perceived bias? If Obama was the better candidate with the better campaign and the fresher ideas and - I'm sorry to say this about the aging senator from Arizona but he was just too old - more energy and vitality, shouldn't the coverage reflect this?

If you just want to answer with a blanket statement like the media are "all Libs" or "in the tank for Obama" then fair enough. It fails though to explain why the places where I get my politics (the English media) universally went for Obama. Let me underline, in England even the Murdoch owned outlets went for Obama. They would have loved nothing more than to have cheered on a conservative. They did not. Usually, at this point, my republican friends like to mumble about how being European and to a lesser extent British means that your very being is tainted by some rouge DNA that renders you socialist without knowing it. I disagree. I am of the opinion that Obama as an individual continues to garner good press because his political acumen is strong and his demeanour is well suited to the position, this alloyed to a sharp intelligence. These traits mean that even when he is making mistakes left and right, as all presidents will, he is able to personally ride them out to a greater degree.

I strongly disagree regarding Obama's color not being relevant. America has been looking for the right minority to raise up and show the world we have risen above our ugly racist history and he was the perfect candidate. He ran one of the best campaigns in history without question, however it isn't hard to do when you commit to not taking public funding for your campaign and then turn around and take it to the tune of over 700 million dollars! During a recession no less! Who couldn't run a good campaign with that much money? John McCain had roughly 80 million and I agree he may have been too old, but if anyone had the experience and the credibility to be president it's him. Bill Clinton said of Obama that if he were to be interviewing for a job as a janitor at the white house he would not have gotten a security clearance due to his ties to radical people with criminal backgrounds! Now he's our President??? He was a sparkling opportunity after 8 years of elitist very white bread wealthy people running the country and running it into the ground no less so it presented the perfect opportunity to take that giant leap forward to put our past where it belongs. I am just sorry that he has the political views that he does. Is the mdeia biased? Abso fucking lutely! CNN did an hour on each of the candidates and McCain was first. They went through his wife's addiction to pain killers and his cheating on his first wife and every bit of his bad press over the years. When Obama's hour came they never mentioned his admitted use of *******, his friendships with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezco and the Palestinian guy who raised money for suicice bombers who's name I can't remember were not mentioned at all! How could that be if they were being balanced? It went that way the entire campaign and anyone who says otherwise is full of ****. Factcheck.org was constantly correcting CNN and MSNBC and NBC nightly and Joe Biden's speeches broke records for them yet it was swept under the rug because they were too busy trying to discredit Sarah Pailin and camping out in Wassilla Alaska to take photos of her pregnant ******** and ***** with Down Syndrome.

Again, Just My 2 cents

 

[Hot Mega]

I strongly disagree regarding Obama's color not being relevant. America has been looking for the right minority to raise up and show the world we have risen above our ugly racist history and he was the perfect candidate. He ran one of the best campaigns in history without question, however it isn't hard to do when you commit to not taking public funding for your campaign and then turn around and take it to the tune of over 700 million dollars! During a recession no less! Who couldn't run a good campaign with that much money? John McCain had roughly 80 million and I agree he may have been too old, but if anyone had the experience and the credibility to be president it's him. Bill Clinton said of Obama that if he were to be interviewing for a job as a janitor at the white house he would not have gotten a security clearance due to his ties to radical people with criminal backgrounds! Now he's our President??? He was a sparkling opportunity after 8 years of elitist very white bread wealthy people running the country and running it into the ground no less so it presented the perfect opportunity to take that giant leap forward to put our past where it belongs. I am just sorry that he has the political views that he does. Is the mdeia biased? Abso fucking lutely! CNN did an hour on each of the candidates and McCain was first. They went through his wife's addiction to pain killers and his cheating on his first wife and every bit of his bad press over the years. When Obama's hour came they never mentioned his admitted use of *******, his friendships with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezco and the Palestinian guy who raised money for suicice bombers who's name I can't remember were not mentioned at all! How could that be if they were being balanced? It went that way the entire campaign and anyone who says otherwise is full of ****. Factcheck.org was constantly correcting CNN and MSNBC and NBC nightly and Joe Biden's speeches broke records for them yet it was swept under the rug because they were too busy trying to discredit Sarah Pailin and camping out in Wassilla Alaska to take photos of her pregnant ******** and ***** with Down Syndrome.

Again, Just My 2 cents

There is an element of reality in what you say about Obama's race being a factor. What I think you're missing however in your eagerness tor reflect on that reality was America (yet still the world) was ready for ANY color guy to talk like Obama and looked like him (not race but ******, coherent, cool and deeply analytical), who could contemporaneously articulate on the spot his views sans the ubiquitous right or left talking point guide.

The other thing is...you must have a realistic sense of where the country was in relationship to the things you believe would have been otherwise relevant questions of Obama.

The country had been through this stuff with Clinton (even further back actually), been through it with Bush and frankly the electorate signaled they were tired of the bullshit a-ha questions about remote, fairly irrelevant topics from 20 or 30 years ago which have nothing to do with the dire circumstances the country is face with today. The press covered the situations or we wouldn't have know about it....When the press covers something and electorate feedback is that is meh....then it's not a story anymore to the press unless other revelations are made known.

The media didn't delve into similar issues about McCain nor Palin. Now did issues subsequently come up about Palin? Of course they did! But why was that??? Not because she was a woman nor even sadly because she was a GOPer...it was because she was very new on the scene and no one knew zippo about her outside of Wasilla...That's just common sense.

Obama was out being interviewed time and time and time again....he'd spoken time and time and time again....he'd debated time and time and time again....for years....his positions were fairly known and he issues in his past were brought to light...Irrespective of what some other candidate's husband who does't conduct background checks thinks of background checks.

Rezko(sp?) et al, didn't go unnoticed by the media...they gave it the coverage it was due....otherwise how would you or I know about it now??

If there are controversial issues in a candidacy the press will ask....and usually, once a candidate answers it and no (real) inconsistency is discovered it is what it is from that point forward.

But no one did Obama any press favors as has been rampantly claimed. All of the candidates were extended the same reflection of circumstantial reality extended to those like Bush and Guilliani (sp?) in the **** of 9/11...

It's not an Obama phenomena....

Bottom line..all president's elections are based on some relevancy to their predecessor...Bush stimulated many to vote for his evangelical style platform because of what Clinton represent to some.....Obama was elected on the same merits any other POTUS has been...any other view is probably myopic IMO.

 

[Mariahxxx]

You my friend didn't watch the same news that I did. Yes the press did cover the Rezco and Bill Ayers issues only because Fox blows their doors off in ratings night after night and that had to cover it to an extent but if you try to say that it was fair then yu must be a far lefter yourself which is fine but let's at least state facts and not opinions here ok?

here are some Facts:
MSNBC removed Chris Mathews from the Obama campaign by Tom Brokaw because it had become so clear he was in his corner he was just short of salivating when he reported on him. in an interview he even admitted he liked him so much that he found it hard to be objective!!!

here's an interesting little known Fact:
There wasn't one news organization other than Fox and The National Enquirer that would even touch the John Edwards affair issue for the first 8 days...the LA times editor issued a statement to the reporters that under no circumstance was anyone to write about John Edwards affair until otherwise notified. The NY times did the same. Obama had pledged at a town hall rally in North Carolina to have Elizabeth Edwards be his #1 on health care should he be elected, yet when this scandal happened he never one time said her name in public again. Did the press report that??? Nope, only Fox news did and a few newspapers with little circulation. Once everyone finally dove into the Edwards scandal it was nearly 2 weeks old and new things were taking it's place. To this day has anyone mentioned to the President about his pledge to Mrs Edwards? Nope.

Here's another Interesting Fact:
The Obama campain refused Fox news access to the campaign airplane for 9 days and then ignored their questions by Major Garrett until the nomination was officially Obama's.

You may think that I sound like a right wing wacko but I'm not. I simply want things to be fair. I find it irritating that everyone jumps on Fox news as being one sided and liars yet I've never seen a show other than Hannity where both sides weren't represented equally. It's the first time that the right has ever had a voice in the mainstream media and it's not only surviving it's beating CNN and MSNBC combined in several time slots and this obviously makes the left angry.

I think that health care is a huge issue but it shouldn't be thrown together just to get something ****** and not be effective. We should spend the trillions of our people rather than the people of Iraq or Afghanistan in my opinion. But it has to make sense and shouldnt be like France where income taxes are near 60% and unemployment is over 40%.

I'm a fucking pornstar for Christ's sake! lol so don't take me too seriously! :fight:

 

[Hot Mega]

You my friend didn't watch the same news that I did. Yes the press did cover the Rezco and Bill Ayers issues only because Fox blows their doors off in ratings night after night and that had to cover it to an extent but if you try to say that it was fair then yu must be a far lefter yourself which is fine but let's at least state facts and not opinions here ok?

here are some Facts:
MSNBC removed Chris Mathews from the Obama campaign by Tom Brokaw because it had become so clear he was in his corner he was just short of salivating when he reported on him. in an interview he even admitted he liked him so much that he found it hard to be objective!!!

here's an interesting little known Fact:
There wasn't one news organization other than Fox and The National Enquirer that would even touch the John Edwards affair issue for the first 8 days...the LA times editor issued a statement to the reporters that under no circumstance was anyone to write about John Edwards affair until otherwise notified. The NY times did the same. Obama had pledged at a town hall rally in North Carolina to have Elizabeth Edwards be his #1 on health care should he be elected, yet when this scandal happened he never one time said her name in public again. Did the press report that??? Nope, only Fox news did and a few newspapers with little circulation. Once everyone finally dove into the Edwards scandal it was nearly 2 weeks old and new things were taking it's place. To this day has anyone mentioned to the President about his pledge to Mrs Edwards? Nope.

Here's another Interesting Fact:
The Obama campain refused Fox news access to the campaign airplane for 9 days and then ignored their questions by Major Garrett until the nomination was officially Obama's.

You may think that I sound like a right wing wacko but I'm not. I simply want things to be fair. I find it irritating that everyone jumps on Fox news as being one sided and liars yet I've never seen a show other than Hannity where both sides weren't represented equally. It's the first time that the right has ever had a voice in the mainstream media and it's not only surviving it's beating CNN and MSNBC combined in several time slots and this obviously makes the left angry.

I think that health care is a huge issue but it shouldn't be thrown together just to get something ****** and not be effective. We should spend the trillions of our people rather than the people of Iraq or Afghanistan in my opinion. But it has to make sense and shouldnt be like France where income taxes are near 60% and unemployment is over 40%.

I'm a fucking pornstar for Christ's sake! lol so don't take me too seriously! :fight:

My dear Mariah....here's the thing....I don't think you're a wacko at all...And frankly, I'm probably more conservative than many here who claim to be but couldn't spell it if you spotted them all but one letter.

What I think is you buy into what Fox calls coverage of issues...

Here's an example, Fox devoted a 3 part series to Bill Ayers. At the end of it...all that was frankly gleaned was that Bill Ayers did some pretty terrible things in association with a radical group some 40 year ago. That was the main thrust of the "story" and then they conflated his relationship to that and Obama which was void of any journalistic integrity IMO. Obama was appointed to a board totaling some 50 or 60 other people with Bill Ayers...they knew each other obviously as I assume Ayers and Obama know many people....

At the end of it what is the point of the story....if you're not wacko?? That Obama is a terrorist as fickle'd with by the many Fox topics?? Or that as POTUS he would turn over the WH to AQ???

Oh, I get it...his "judgement". Well I guarantee you as a man who's crossed many paths...(now yours) in my life, I have had many associations that were meaningful in one context or another but have no bearing on my judgement because of the context.

Point is, Fox devote that much airtime to really a 15 minute story at best...Were their viewers....(the ones if any) who tune in for news served by that in the framework of this election???

Can you find presumably sympathetic commentators for one side or the other during elections?? Of course you can, Fox is littered with them..I needn't bring up the Hannity Palin interview where the first 10 mins went on about her SNL appearance and was it fun....not a peep about AIPAC though....Why?

 

[Mariahxxx]

I am not a person with tunnel vision and I often change the channel when i see soemthing on all channels including Fox that I think is biased or I don't agree with.
However, Bill Ayers spoke out after the World trade Center 9/11 attacks saying he loved it and he wished he himself had done more back when he had a chance. they lived in the same neighborhood and they had dinner more than once and they have been to each others homes. To me that's enough to say it was plenty to paint them on the same team politically. I don't think Obama agrees with his views of ******** or extremism at all. But he didn't turn away from it.
Again, Bill Clinton said he could never get security clearance to work at the White House so it isn't just me or Fox news who were concerned with his ties, it should have been reported and no one else was doing a thorough job of it.

 

[Friday on my mind]

You my friend didn't watch the same news that I did. Yes the press did cover the Rezco and Bill Ayers issues only because Fox blows their doors off in ratings night after night and that had to cover it to an extent but if you try to say that it was fair then yu must be a far lefter yourself which is fine but let's at least state facts and not opinions here ok?

here are some Facts:
MSNBC removed Chris Mathews from the Obama campaign by Tom Brokaw because it had become so clear he was in his corner he was just short of salivating when he reported on him. in an interview he even admitted he liked him so much that he found it hard to be objective!!!

here's an interesting little known Fact:
There wasn't one news organization other than Fox and The National Enquirer that would even touch the John Edwards affair issue for the first 8 days...the LA times editor issued a statement to the reporters that under no circumstance was anyone to write about John Edwards affair until otherwise notified. The NY times did the same. Obama had pledged at a town hall rally in North Carolina to have Elizabeth Edwards be his #1 on health care should he be elected, yet when this scandal happened he never one time said her name in public again. Did the press report that??? Nope, only Fox news did and a few newspapers with little circulation. Once everyone finally dove into the Edwards scandal it was nearly 2 weeks old and new things were taking it's place. To this day has anyone mentioned to the President about his pledge to Mrs Edwards? Nope.

Here's another Interesting Fact:
The Obama campain refused Fox news access to the campaign airplane for 9 days and then ignored their questions by Major Garrett until the nomination was officially Obama's.

You may think that I sound like a right wing wacko but I'm not. I simply want things to be fair. I find it irritating that everyone jumps on Fox news as being one sided and liars yet I've never seen a show other than Hannity where both sides weren't represented equally. It's the first time that the right has ever had a voice in the mainstream media and it's not only surviving it's beating CNN and MSNBC combined in several time slots and this obviously makes the left angry.

I think that health care is a huge issue but it shouldn't be thrown together just to get something ****** and not be effective. We should spend the trillions of our people rather than the people of Iraq or Afghanistan in my opinion. But it has to make sense and shouldnt be like France where income taxes are near 60% and unemployment is over 40%.

I'm a fucking pornstar for Christ's sake! lol so don't take me too seriously! :fight:

Mariah,have you ever heard of the documentary called "outfoxed".It is a documentary about Fox news and their calculated right wing bias.The story is mainly told by former Fox employees as they relay how they were told if they wanted to keep their jobs to spin the news.I will put up just one clip from it at the end of my post that shows just how biased they are.They follow none of the journalistic norms about things like conflict of interests other media does.For exmple you site Chris Matthews and his being removed by MSNBC for showing Obama preference.That was a case of MSNBC doing the right thing as opposed to Fox who does not take such steps when some bias is shown.Just like the Dan Rather case and CBS those on the right like to cite,again CBS took steps to preserve their rep for true journalistic fairness and again those kind of steps just never happen at Fox.

I have no problem with the right having a voice as you say,but they need to drop the "fair and balanced" charade as they are anything but.All this talk about the media and left wing bias IMO is absurd.At best the other networks all owned by billion dollar corporations are moderates (take it from me I'm a leftist lol) while Fox is extreme right wing.

I personally think people like Obama and others are fully justified in boycotting Fox unless they take steps to curb their bias and become true journalists.And just so you know conservatives have for a long time not been willing to be very open with large segments of the main stream media as they see them as being unfriendly.Thats why Bush ,Cheney,Palin and others go on Fox so much ,they know they will be fed softball questions and treated with *** gloves.Poor Palin looked like the buffoon she is when she was subjected to any tough questions.

In this clip Carl Cameron (lead political reporter for Fox) is about to interview GWB and is teliing him how his wife is out campaigning for GWB.That is such a conflict of interest and sign of bias they should have not let him be the one intervewing Bush.It's made much worse when he never mentions it on air so that the public is aware of it.

 

[Hot Mega]

I am not a person with tunnel vision and I often change the channel when i see soemthing on all channels including Fox that I think is biased or I don't agree with.
However, Bill Ayers spoke out after the World trade Center 9/11 attacks saying he loved it and he wished he himself had done more back when he had a chance. they lived in the same neighborhood and they had dinner more than once and they have been to each others homes. To me that's enough to say it was plenty to paint them on the same team politically. I don't think Obama agrees with his views of ******** or extremism at all. But he didn't turn away from it.
Again, Bill Clinton said he could never get security clearance to work at the White House so it isn't just me or Fox news who were concerned with his ties, it should have been reported and no one else was doing a thorough job of it.

Show me the last BI Clinton personally conducted and I'll show you the first one. BI investigations (having been involved in too many to count) have to do with your trustworthiness and honesty about questionable issues in your life....

While there are acts that will disqualify a person...agents who conduct investigations attempt to establish what your activities have been, with whom an under what circumstances. If there are questionable people you know...they will investigate only your association with that person..

Knowing a person, working on a board with a person, even living in the same neighborhood and inviting a person over for weekly bbqs who did something 40 years ago will not disqualify anyone for a clearance based on my vast experience with them.

Sorry.

Obama has done nothing (assuming he would tell the truth in an investigation) to be d/q from a clearance that I know of.....despite what our eloquent but ignorant former POTUS claimed for political purposes....If Obama couldn't get a clearance because of some nefariously hidden agenda....why is Clinton's wife working for him?

Ayers, Rezko et al have gotten the requisite, reasonable coverage it due it...

Again, if you're not a wacko who believes Obama represents some hidden, subversive agenda....what else could you be making of these stories...When Obama has NO direct ties to any of their erstwhile activities???

Oh yea, a bit of deductive reasoning.....If as Fox claims they are the most watched, most trusted "news" source, and they covered these stories with due diligence and to your liking...why is Obama still POTUS in spite of it? Now I would say, most reasonable people know about their coverage, saw what they would of it and realized there was no there ...there. But why do you think in light of that reasoning?

 

[Mariahxxx]

i have seen outfoxed and thought it was very interesting, but do you know who was the money behind that? George Sorous or however you spell his name. He isn't exactly a moderate guy now is he?

Also have you noticed that anyone with a moderate to right lean has been dismissed from CNN? First it was Glen Beck and now Lou Dobbs. have you hear the things they have to say baout how they were treated at CNN? Did you happen to see Bill O'Reilly's interview with Ted Turner last year where ted flat out admitted that CNN is a left leaning organization and "rightly so" he said laughing. He also admitted that he knew eventually that a news channel representing the right would come along and blow them all out of the water the way talk radio has?

I enjoy good debate and think it is the greatest part of living in this country. I also know for a fact that the mainstream media has been left leaning and admittedly so. The NY Times has a 5 to 1 left to right editorial staff and the LA times is 7 to 1.

 

[Hot Mega]

i have seen outfoxed and thought it was very interesting, but do you know who was the money behind that? George Sorous or however you spell his name. He isn't exactly a moderate guy now is he?

Also have you noticed that anyone with a moderate to right lean has been dismissed from CNN? First it was Glen Beck and now Lou Dobbs. have you hear the things they have to say baout how they were treated at CNN? Did you happen to see Bill O'Reilly's interview with Ted Turner last year where ted flat out admitted that CNN is a left leaning organization and "rightly so" he said laughing. He also admitted that he knew eventually that a news channel representing the right would come along and blow them all out of the water the way talk radio has?

I enjoy good debate and think it is the greatest part of living in this country. I also know for a fact that the mainstream media has been left leaning and admittedly so. The NY Times has a 5 to 1 left to right editorial staff and the LA times is 7 to 1.

Well irrespective of who backed some production, the question is whether the details represent the facts or not. If it's true, it's truth...simple as that.

The last thing about this Fox and "associations" thing that they covered and everyone just seem to miss....

Here is the simple reality most other networks were right and Fox got it wrong...

You know how I know? Because the guy is president today. Consider this, a bunch of people looked at the same facts, came to different conclusions and responded differently.

The fact that the voting public knew about these issues whether CNN or MSNBC covered them to the republican liking or not yet drew a different conclusion than you did on it suggests that your view and Fox's view on them is not the reality (or a representative enough reality).

The majority of electorate looked at these stories and obviously came to different conclusions than did you, Fox and likely most people who watch Fox did. We know that because Obama is president....and that by definition seems to be a de facto rejection of the implications.:2 cents:

The majority of other new agency and electorate looked at these stories and gave them the requisite attention, Fox and people who follow their "coverage" didn't...result Obama is prez.

 

[Mariahxxx]

so you think because the public voted one way that means it's the reality? Are you SERIOUS?????? So does that mean that when the NY Times backed Gore and Kerry that they weren't reporting reality to the public? Well, actually I would say yes to that!

He is president today for several reasons but not because the public saw the reality of it all roflmao More so because they wanted anything not connected to the previous administration and that the spin on him was better than we've ever seen in history. I just finished Dick Morris' book Fleeced which was written during the election and it cites 183 times that the message was completely false yet never rebutted or corrected by the media in favor of Obama and another 831 times wrong on McCain in a negative slant. Now you tell me how you stand behind the absurd claim that the media is left? Just point me to the figures, please. I honestly would love to read it.

 

[Dexter Brown]

when you commit to not taking public funding for your campaign and then turn around and take it to the tune of over 700 million dollars! During a recession no less!

I'm pretty sure that he never took public funding for financing his campaign, and even if he had he wouldn't have been allowed 700 million dollars considering the limit for each candidate was 84.1 million (which is why McCain used that much, not because he was being more frugal or something)

Bill Clinton said of Obama that if he were to be interviewing for a job as a janitor at the white house he would not have gotten a security clearance due to his ties to radical people with criminal backgrounds!

I would really REALLY like some sort of link to an article, video, audio, or anything else of Bill Clinton saying this. The only thing I can find even somewhat close is someone saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't get security clearance due to the criminal investigations she was involved with.

You must have been watching different news that I was, every damn day there was something new and bad about Obama, yet most of what I learned about McCain I learned from my own research or small time news, or blogs.

All I ever heard was about socialist obama, muslim obama, non naturalized citizen obama, obama did ***** in high school, obama voted present more then anything, obama wants to take your guns, obama supports infanticide, rev. wright, rezko, bill ayers, acorn, etc. etc..

The only thing I ever heard about McCain was "Maverick, War Hero" I never heard about McCain was on the board of the US Council for World Freedom, the Keating 5, Joseph Bonanno, G. Gordon Liddy, Reverend John Hagee, lying about what religion he was, lying about never using earmarks or "pork", racism against asians, calling ACORN "What makes America special" etc etc.

 

[Rey C.]

I'm a fucking pornstar for Christ's sake! lol so don't take me too seriously! :fight:

Well, porn star or not, it seems that you spend a lot of your free time absorbing and studying the issues. Whether I agree with someone or not, if they can explain how they arrived at their point (logically), at the very least I can respect their views. So kudos to you.

I understand your concerns about some of Obama's past associations. But let me ask you this, how did you feel upon learning that Sarah Palin's husband had been a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party up until 2002? And according to some within the AIP, Sarah was also a member.

I was about to vote for Bob Barr in the previous election. McCain's selection of Palin was the major contributor for me choosing to vote for Obama. On the question of past (or present) associations, I had greater concerns over Palin (and McCain's poor choice in picking her) than I did of Obama. Just how I weighed it out.

We know that Bill Ayers wasn't/isn't a fan of the U.S. government. On Obama, I admit, one can question how he has felt in the past. But upon hearing of the Palin ******'s support for the AIP, I had to question their very loyalty and actual allegiance to the U.S. government.

 

[Hot Mega]

so you think because the public voted one way that means it's the reality? Are you SERIOUS?????? So does that mean that when the NY Times backed Gore and Kerry that they weren't reporting reality to the public? Well, actually I would say yes to that!

He is president today for several reasons but not because the public saw the reality of it all roflmao More so because they wanted anything not connected to the previous administration and that the spin on him was better than we've ever seen in history. I just finished Dick Morris' book Fleeced which was written during the election and it cites 183 times that the message was completely false yet never rebutted or corrected by the media in favor of Obama and another 831 times wrong on McCain in a negative slant. Now you tell me how you stand behind the absurd claim that the media is left? Just point me to the figures, please. I honestly would love to read it.

Mariah:lovecoupl

We just disagree....you watch stories on Fox about Obama and a guy with who did something 40 years ago...may have made some contemporaneously stupid comments and you see there...there....most other reasonable people don't. You read books by Dick Morris of all people....nothing wrong with that per se..it's a few country. But don't expect you'll have objective views.

As far as the news slant business...I would say go inside th numbers and see some of their examples....hardly alarmingly, raging political spin.....

As far as falsehoods....you could be simply mistaken and harmless but completely accurate but intentionally misleading....the latter is worse IMO.

 

[Rey C.]

:wtf: Hey! Why was Mariahxxx ******???!!!

 

[Hot Mega]

:wtf: Hey! Why was Mariahxxx ******???!!!

Yeah...I don't get that....

Seem to acquit herself quite well...and better than some of the other hacks...who add to these threads from time to time....

Maybe other chicks were jealous of her holding her own...

 

[BlueBalls]

Double agent, maybe?

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Another bites the dust

 

[georges]

That is fucking unbelievable :wtf::dunno: an ocsm got ******
I really don't understand.

 

[Hot Mega]

That is fucking unbelievable :wtf::dunno: an ocsm got ******
I really don't understand.

I see why...pretty messed up that she did...but I don't the whole story but more catfight **** it seems with others....girls here.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Here are a few people allowed to vote, legal or not:

Premium Link Upgrade

Premium Link Upgrade (I wonder how that's working out for her)

Premium Link Upgrade (Howard Stern's man on the street interviews)

There really should be a simple government question test of random 5 chosen out of 25 questions or so before one is allowed to vote. Because go in to vote because someone is a party member, but don't know what they stand for; go in to vote because they look cute or whatever; go into to vote because all they said throughout was change this and change that but no idea what they did beforehand, well, blind voting doesn't help anyone.

I bet people voting in American Idol knows more about the person they vote for than they know about the politicians nationally and locally they vote for.

If people want real change in politics start with congress and senate.

As for Obama, who knows, hopefully he will be out in 2012 and someone with better understanding of leadership, better understanding of how to run things and actual experience to handle the job will get in.