How can Ed and others be so blind?

rocketman

my2hands wrote:

1. Ralph Nader is not a politician. he has never, and will never hold an elected public office

2. Matt Gonzalez? he was like a city councilman for 5 minutes and lost the mayors race? not sure i would consider him a politician yet... Dennis is the man

surely there are more then that you like?

Just off the top if my head here are some senators I like and support, with a house member or 2 thrown in:
Barbara Boxer (she is AWESOME)
Pat Leahy
Bernie Sanders (indendent socialist from vermont)
Ted Kennedy
Carl Levin
Jon Tester
Claire McCaskill
Jim Webb
Robert Byrd
Barack Obama
Carl Levin
Joe Biden
Dennis Kucinich (House)
Charles Rangel (House)
Hillary Clinton


I get the feeling that alot of folks around here dont really follow things closely, or comprehend them... i always see folks posting about the democrat controlled senate (bullshit) and that there are no good politicians and such... like they are are evil and not to be trusted... there are some tremendous politicians out there that i agree with on alot of issues and like the issues they fight for and vote for... Like Obama's bill to end the war by March 08 that passed the house and senate and was VETO'd by the president

All very qualified.

RainDog

rocketman wrote:

All very qualified.

You did see that Obama's on that list, right?

Anon

rocketman wrote:

Im sure you were. I think its hysterical when you back a few months time on this board and look at all the Obama lovin and Hillary bashin that was goin on. Now that it is apparent that Obama is just another politician doing what all politicans do, lie to get elected, that lot is now in hiding or lurking in shame.

Who's hiding or lurking in shame?

Smellyman2

RainDog wrote:

Here is an LA Times piece about it. The independent study was done by The Center for Media and Public Affairs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story?page=1

The center for Media and Public Affairs is far from independent and unbiased...


but I suspect you already knew that.

RainDog

Smellyman wrote:

The center for Media and Public Affairs is far from independent and unbiased...


but I suspect you already knew that.

Actually I didn't. Looking into it, though, if it leans in any direction, it's to the right. That makes the study even more interesting, imo.

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

decides2dream

RainDog wrote:

Here is an LA Times piece about it. The independent study was done by The Center for Media and Public Affairs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story?page=1

that IS very interesting since many seem to see him as the media's 'golden boy.' especially interesting if, as you pointed out, that the center if it indeed has a bias, is more right-leaning. hmmmmm.



it's funny really, b/c i DON'T watch tv, so i don't get bombarded with media at all. IF i do turn on the tv, it's b/c there is something i specifically want to see, and that is rare. so i get the bulk of my information thru online and print media. of course bias exists in all forms, but i think not being bombarded with visual/auditory messages, it is different. for me, i prefer it this way.


few highlights from the linked article above:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.


***

I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing.

That earned a spasm of e-mails that described me as irrational, unpatriotic and . . . somehow . . . French.

But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.

sweetpotato

_outlaw wrote:

why do you say stuff like this as if you KNOW it's a fact? "trust me..." that's just stupid. you sound childish making such a naive claim.

i can make that claim because you ARE being an a$$hole, and therefore it affects EVEN THIS.

not real complicated, hunnybunny.

sweetpotato

_outlaw wrote:

if Barack Obama wins the presidency, is he going to come into your house and feed your child?

No.

he's going to affect the country and its policies towards you, but not you DIRECTLY. it is a fact. this isn't even debatable.

you're not staying on track with what i said. i said that, in my experience, people vote in their own best interests. why are you having such a hard time following this bouncing ball? how people VOTE and how those votes ultimately AFFECT THEM are two separate things. one is the action, the other is the result. clearer now??

fuck

sweetpotato wrote:

you're not staying on track with what i said. i said that, in my experience, people vote in their own best interests. why are you having such a hard time following this bouncing ball? how people VOTE and how those votes ultimately AFFECT THEM are two separate things. one is the action, the other is the result. clearer now??

no.

people vote in terms of how the candidate will affect this country, which affects them. the candidate does not directly affect the person who votes for him (unless you're a lobbyist).

GET IT?!?@!??!?!?

fuck

sweetpotato wrote:

i can make that claim because you ARE being an a$$hole, and therefore it affects EVEN THIS.

not real complicated, hunnybunny.

calling me an asshole and hunnybunny at the same time?

what are you, bipolar?

rocketman

RainDog wrote:

You did see that Obama's on that list, right?

Yes. I said it was a well informed list. I never said Obama wasn't necessarily electable. What I said is that he is liar. Which makes him a politician.

ccRyderzz

The days have past into the sunset and now is the time to take the past to the future and back again.. we move at lighting speed and no one sees. we take our time and drink our wine.. In the words of Jimmy Hendricks?? Purple Haze? HEY JOE WHERE YOU GOING WITH THAT GUN IN YOUR HAND???Shadows and ghosts nothing new to me....1968...1970's
My life here on earth is only a blink in time with the witches of the west and the witches of the east.. North and South come together and we can play The pranksters? Its always been important too play/ my friends/ look for me when I go and see the glistening white snow on the mountains taking heed to our deeds of good and love.. No one can take what is given freely. don't drink my wine and not return to me its no fun on the unpaved road..
May Godspeed your love too me.. HOPE calling all angels.... Thanks in Advance!!!
for all your help.. its been fun in the past/ so stay cool /my friends catch you on the rebound.. I will be downtown many days this week.. EUGENE ROCKS!! ZZ TOP TOO.. they have a concert sometime this week?? I am late for a very important date....sound familiar? can someone find Johnathan Smith from the U.K. for me.. productions (sound I believe}.. tune inn for the future is now.
KESEY PLAZA HIGH NOON>>> O.K. corral?? smile your on candid camera...


My name is Angel~ I'm here~ I'm listening~ whatcha want to do? What are you suggesting? Do you want to come out on the streets with me? I need company~ I'm like Dylan switching out signs on the corner alone~ hmmmm

suninsomebodyelsesky

RainDog wrote:

How would someone with only 15 posts know what this site was like for the last year? Only posts once a month?

I smell a McCain plant.

Oh, and the Obama campaign is pretty much playing out as I, a supporter, expected. The paradigm of starry-eyed, rapturous, lovey-dovey idealists being the primary support for Senator Obama is a media creation, as opposed to the idea that Obama is a media creation himself. According to an independent study, the vast majority of Obama's coverage - over 70% - has been negative. McCain's coverage has been slightly negative, but closer to 50/50.

Just b/c someone posts less than others, that DOESN'T make their viewpoints invalid.