# GOP whimpering about media already



## rightwinger

GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week

Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."

He then signs off with a threat:


Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.


----------



## Yurt

they've been in hillary's tank since the 90's

stating facts is not whimpering, well, maybe to you because you and facts are like oil and water


----------



## Seawytch

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week



Lining up their excuses early...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Seawytch said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
Click to expand...


*I just gave them a very good piece of advice.  Christie is their only hope.  *


----------



## Seawytch

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I just gave them a very good piece of advice.  Christie is their only hope.  *
Click to expand...


They have no hope. Christie would either have to drift too far right to win the primary or he wouldn't survive it.


----------



## LoneLaugher

This is terrible. If NBC and CNN go ahead with the documentaries, we will only have 50 places to turn to for live coverage of the nutjob debates. It is a travesty! 

And then, NBC and CNN will have the highlights at 11.

Reince Priebus! Genius and gentleman. But that name......and the lisp have ruined him.


----------



## Wolfsister77

What a whiner Priebus is being. Seriously, Hillary hasn't even announced if she's running and now he's trying to tell the media what they can't and can't show and threatening them.

And yeah, I'm sure he's real concerned about the Dems who might want to run. Yeah right. He's just really afraid of Hillary and it shows.


----------



## American_Jihad

That's a good idea...






*GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates*​
18 min ago |By MSN News with wire reports 

Republican Party calls on NBC, CNN to cancel planned Hillary Clinton programs and threatens to pull out of primary debates if the networks don't comply.

WASHINGTON &#8212; The Republican National Committee wants NBC and CNN to cancel upcoming programs on Hillary Rodham Clinton and is threatening to blackball the television networks from future Republican presidential debates if they fail to comply.

Committee Chairman Reince Priebus calls the programs political ads "masquerading" as unbiased productions. He vows not to partner with the networks on Republican debates if they don't pull the programs.

"It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."

...

GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates






Do you want this tired old biddy to be president...​


----------



## Wolfsister77

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I just gave them a very good piece of advice.  Christie is their only hope.  *
Click to expand...


This is true but he has no shot in a GOP primary. Too bad because that would be a fun race to watch with him in it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.



So, the corrupt party press is actively campaigning for Hillary - but you see nothing wrong with that?

ROFL

Even you can't be this much of a fucktard.

Thank god for Fox, so we have some semblance of independent press.


----------



## rightwinger

Wolfsister77 said:


> What a whiner Priebus is being. Seriously, Hillary hasn't even announced if she's running and now he's trying to tell the media what they can't and can't show and threatening them.
> 
> And yeah, I'm sure he's real concerned about the Dems who might want to run. Yeah right. He's just really afraid of Hillary and it shows.



Republicans can always get Fox to rerun their Clinton impeachment tapes

That sounds fair and balanced


----------



## CrusaderFrank

What difference does it make?


----------



## Wolfsister77

You'd think they'd want Hillary to run. They seem to think she's beatable. What are they afraid of?


----------



## Seawytch

LoneLaugher said:


> This is terrible. If NBC and CNN go ahead with the documentaries, we will only have 50 places to turn to for live coverage of the nutjob debates. It is a travesty!
> 
> And then, NBC and CNN will have the highlights at 11.
> 
> Reince Priebus! Genius and gentleman. But that name......and the lisp have ruined him.



They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Debates have become so scripted anyway.


----------



## Avorysuds

Dems better hope they don't lose another 7 million voters or else they become irreverent. 4 million less than 2008 and 3 million less than the average growth per election.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Republicans can always get Fox to rerun their Clinton impeachment tapes
> 
> That sounds fair and balanced



Or maybe NBC will run a documentary on how Obama created the heavens and the Earth?

The following has been a presentation of the National Broadcasting Corporation - a wholly controlled entity of the democratic party.


----------



## Avorysuds

Seawytch said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is terrible. If NBC and CNN go ahead with the documentaries, we will only have 50 places to turn to for live coverage of the nutjob debates. It is a travesty!
> 
> And then, NBC and CNN will have the highlights at 11.
> 
> Reince Priebus! Genius and gentleman. But that name......and the lisp have ruined him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.
Click to expand...


Thanks for pointing out how your nothing more than the other side of the same coin... Must feel good knowing that the worst of the worst Reps can't be better than you seeing as you can't be better than them.


----------



## Seawytch

Avorysuds said:


> Dems better hope they don't lose another 7 million voters or else they become irreverent. 4 million less than 2008 and 3 million less than the average growth per election.



One million more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2012. 

Gerrymandering has made for some very safe GOP Districts, but they are going to keep losing national elections.


----------



## rightwinger

Avorysuds said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is terrible. If NBC and CNN go ahead with the documentaries, we will only have 50 places to turn to for live coverage of the nutjob debates. It is a travesty!
> 
> And then, NBC and CNN will have the highlights at 11.
> 
> Reince Priebus! Genius and gentleman. But that name......and the lisp have ruined him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out how your nothing more than the other side of the same coin... Must feel good knowing that the worst of the worst Reps can't be better than you seeing as you can't be better than them.
Click to expand...


But wait....it gets better

It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die


----------



## Avorysuds

Seawytch said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems better hope they don't lose another 7 million voters or else they become irreverent. 4 million less than 2008 and 3 million less than the average growth per election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One million more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2012.
> 
> Gerrymandering has made for some very safe GOP Districts, but they are going to keep losing national elections.
Click to expand...


YES! But from 2008-2012 Dems lost 4 million voters, and didn't grow like they have in every other election in history. Thus, the Democratic party is in fact by far the fastest shrinking party in the country. 

Reps grew by 1 million, about 2 million less than average. Reps also gained 2% from 2008 to 2012. 

I'm not defending the horrible party that is Republicans, I'm simply pointing out that if this trend continues for Dems for even one more election, you guys can't win.


----------



## Warrior102

That old skank can't  even preside/secure a tiny embassy in the shithole Middle East

She needs to be behind bars - not campaigning


----------



## Avorysuds

rightwinger said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out how your nothing more than the other side of the same coin... Must feel good knowing that the worst of the worst Reps can't be better than you seeing as you can't be better than them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But wait....it gets better
> 
> It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die
Click to expand...


Republicans suck... so do dems... Thanks for pointing that out RW. Sadly you're a mindless Obama-bot who will support and and all Democrats no matter how bad they are, you're right on course living up to being a different side to the same coin, yikes you fell face first into that one.

And I guess you can't blame Ron Paul for a hand picked planted hater for saying "let them die" anymore can you... I mean, if you did that you would be contradicting yourself, but you do that a lot so I'll expect it from you in the future.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.



would that be the same as mediamatters and you lefties whimpering about fox news?
of course you people for Shrillary don't care if it gives her a unfair advantage...winning at any cost is your motto...screw the rest of the people in the country
the lamestream media has become a ENEMY to anyone not Democrat...you need to wake up and see this


----------



## Avorysuds

Why do all these threads go the same way? There seems to be little to no accountability from either side, Reps and Dems have proven through policy to be near identical yet both sides claim to hate each other.

You are divided by nothing, for the most part you're all the same. You actually don't even disagree on the direction to grow Government. You can't vote for Mitt Romney then claim Obama and his policies are destroying the nation and be taken seriously.

In the last 20 years what meaningful repeals have the republicans done in regards to actually shrinking the size and scope of Government? Now how about repeals that Dems have done? Dems ran on repealing the massive and evil/destructive Bush era polices... We're still waiting, and by "we're" I mean a tiny minority who actually vote for what they claim to believe in.

When did the Republican party become the party of the DoEducation, intrusion in HC,  welfare, bailouts stimulus, subsidies and so on... and when did the Democrat party become the party of all I listed about Republicans + the biggest war party in this countries history? It's actually boring to debate... Maybe that's the goal...


----------



## Wolfsister77

The goal is they keep us busy fighting each other, and we don't pay attention to the fact that they are not doing the job we pay them to do.

Then again, I can't stand rightwingers. LOL


----------



## Mac1958

.

There's really not much the GOP can do about the media.  Their only shot is to (a) present a strong, united front and (b) hammer on a clear and simple message (well, an *effective,* clear and simple message), over and over and over.

I don't see them doing either right now.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Seawytch said:


> One million more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2012.



Out of a nation of 330 million.

Yet somehow, you think this gives you a mandate....  



> Gerrymandering has made for some very safe GOP Districts, but they are going to keep losing national elections.



But no safe democrat districts?

Rational, you are not....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Stephanie said:


> would that be the same as mediamatters and you lefties whimpering about fox news?
> of course you people for Shrillary don't care if it gives her a unfair advantage...winning at any cost is your motto...screw the rest of the people in the country
> the lamestream media has become a ENEMY to anyone not Democrat...you need to wake up and see this



But Reich Winger *is* a democrat, and supports a state controlled media that is nothing more that open propaganda for the party. NBC is simply the propaganda wing of the democratic party. Ditto CNN, CBS, and ABC.


----------



## OriginalShroom

It's good to see someone from the RNC with some balls for a change.

Next they should demand that at least half of the debate moderators come from Fox News Show Hosts.  I'm tired of seeing only Liberals moderating the Debates.


----------



## candycorn

Avorysuds said:


> Why do all these threads go the same way? There seems to be little to no accountability from either side, Reps and Dems have proven through policy to be near identical yet both sides claim to hate each other.
> 
> You are divided by nothing, for the most part you're all the same. You actually don't even disagree on the direction to grow Government. You can't vote for Mitt Romney then claim Obama and his policies are destroying the nation and be taken seriously.
> 
> In the last 20 years what meaningful repeals have the republicans done in regards to actually shrinking the size and scope of Government? Now how about repeals that Dems have done? Dems ran on repealing the massive and evil/destructive Bush era polices... We're still waiting, and by "we're" I mean a tiny minority who actually vote for what they claim to believe in.
> 
> When did the Republican party become the party of the DoEducation, intrusion in HC,  welfare, bailouts stimulus, subsidies and so on... and when did the Democrat party become the party of all I listed about Republicans + the biggest war party in this countries history? It's actually boring to debate... Maybe that's the goal...



Good post.

The first goal of either major party is to maintain the duopoly; this means they can be assured of 35-45% of the vote in a general election.


----------



## Avorysuds

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> There's really not much the GOP can do about the media.  Their only shot is to (a) present a strong, united front and (b) hammer on a clear and simple message (well, an *effective,* clear and simple message), over and over and over.
> 
> I don't see them doing either right now.
> 
> .



The main issue I see for Republicans is they don't have a record of small Government for shit. That's why they play the Reagan and God card every debate. They don't need the Media on their side, they need people to believe wtf their saying and fact is, they don't People vote Republican because they hate Democrats more, Dems vote Dem because they hate Republicans more... Yet both sides (voters) hate the other side for the policies that their own party (elected) votes for and expands. 

Again, there are no repeals. Fuck Obama didn't even end the Iraq war.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a whiner Priebus is being. Seriously, Hillary hasn't even announced if she's running and now he's trying to tell the media what they can't and can't show and threatening them.
> 
> And yeah, I'm sure he's real concerned about the Dems who might want to run. Yeah right. He's just really afraid of Hillary and it shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans can always get Fox to rerun their Clinton impeachment tapes
> 
> That sounds fair and balanced
Click to expand...


typical progressive, regress to the past...
plus that was just damn STUPID


----------



## Avorysuds

candycorn said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do all these threads go the same way? There seems to be little to no accountability from either side, Reps and Dems have proven through policy to be near identical yet both sides claim to hate each other.
> 
> You are divided by nothing, for the most part you're all the same. You actually don't even disagree on the direction to grow Government. You can't vote for Mitt Romney then claim Obama and his policies are destroying the nation and be taken seriously.
> 
> In the last 20 years what meaningful repeals have the republicans done in regards to actually shrinking the size and scope of Government? Now how about repeals that Dems have done? Dems ran on repealing the massive and evil/destructive Bush era polices... We're still waiting, and by "we're" I mean a tiny minority who actually vote for what they claim to believe in.
> 
> When did the Republican party become the party of the DoEducation, intrusion in HC,  welfare, bailouts stimulus, subsidies and so on... and when did the Democrat party become the party of all I listed about Republicans + the biggest war party in this countries history? It's actually boring to debate... Maybe that's the goal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
> 
> The first goal of either major party is to maintain the duopoly; this means they can be assured of 35-45% of the vote in a general election.
Click to expand...


Correct. If Republicans repealed Obamacare it would literally be a fucking first in our life times. In fact Mitt, who once supported Obamacare on a Federal level, then switched to repealing it during the primaries, then switched again once in the General election to changing Obamacare.

It's one party. it sounds all conspiracy theory but the fucking zero repeals of policy despite super majorities of Reps to Dems back to back kinda backs me up here. Every election they run off repeal and balancing the budget, yet we get expansions, additions in policy and higher deficits... lolz!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Could Priebus have any alternative motives besides stamping out "political favoritism"? TIME's Zeke Miller thinks it may be a calculated move to cut down on the number of Republican primary debates.
> 
> "Republican Party officials believe the 20 GOP primary debates during the 2012 cycle hurt their party and Mitt Romney," writes Miller, adding:
> 
> _Reforming the primary debate process has been a central component of the RNC's 2012 autopsy, with party officials trying to restrict the number of debates and screen out unfriendly debate moderators. But the effort to cut back on the number of debates has run into headwinds from Republican state parties in early states, who in many instances see revenue from co-hosting the debates and associated events.
> 
> The autopsy recommends changing the RNC rules to include penalties for Republican state parties or candidates if they participate in debates unsanctioned by the RNC... Priebus has previously proposed a more modest 10 to 12 debates, in part to protect better-funded candidates from insurgents who capitalize on their time before the cameras._ [TIME]



So republicans have come to the conclusion that they need to hide their presidential candidates as much as possible from the voters to avoid defeat. 

Thats quite telling.


----------



## PredFan

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.



So you've given up completely even trying to argue that the MSM is left wing biased. Now instead you are trying to ridicule us into not complaining.


----------



## Trajan

thats dumb,,,, like it or not they are free entities and can do as they wish. If the gop  wants to withhold coverage/exposure  of their candidates and platforms? well, good luck with that. 

If I recall there was an outcry over fox hosting debates and the dems said they'd boycott(?)...this is no better.


----------



## Rozman

I am starting to hear Libs pushing for Elizabeth Warren for the WH...
She is after all the new shiny object in the room for the democrat party.


----------



## Katzndogz

Wolfsister77 said:


> You'd think they'd want Hillary to run. They seem to think she's beatable. What are they afraid of?



There's the real Hillary, and there is the Hillary they will invent for the movies.


----------



## rightwinger

Avorysuds said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out how your nothing more than the other side of the same coin... Must feel good knowing that the worst of the worst Reps can't be better than you seeing as you can't be better than them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wait....it gets better
> 
> It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans suck... so do dems... Thanks for pointing that out RW. Sadly you're a mindless Obama-bot who will support and and all Democrats no matter how bad they are, you're right on course living up to being a different side to the same coin, yikes you fell face first into that one.
> 
> And I guess you can't blame Ron Paul for a hand picked planted hater for saying "let them die" anymore can you... I mean, if you did that you would be contradicting yourself, but you do that a lot so I'll expect it from you in the future.
Click to expand...


Let me guess?   Libertarian?

Ha......Ha.......Ha........Ha.........Ha

Remember what happened when Libertarian Paul was asked the "Let em die" question?  Scared people away from Libertarian thinking forever


----------



## rightwinger

PredFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've given up completely even trying to argue that the MSM is left wing biased. Now instead you are trying to ridicule us into not complaining.
Click to expand...


Tissue?

Not FAIR.........somebody made a movie about Hllary and I dont want anybody to see it

whimper, whimper......whine, whine


----------



## blackhawk

This is funny coming from the group who whines almost non stop about FOX News. I wonder what the reaction from the left would be if FOX News or FOX broadcasting decided to do a miniseries about Marco Rubio? Actually I don't wonder I know hell we all do.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Rozman said:


> I am starting to hear Libs pushing for Elizabeth Warren for the WH...
> She is after all the new shiny object in the room for the democrat party.



Someday, maybe. She's the smartest person in the room. Just about any room. 

Smart is good in a President. Don't you agree?


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> [
> Tissue?
> 
> Not FAIR.........somebody made a movie about Hllary and I dont want anybody to see it
> 
> whimper, whimper......whine, whine



Last time someone made a movie about Hillary - you fuckwads went ballistic and took it to the supreme court.

Oh, but that was DIFFERENT because this is party members praising her....

Fucking hypocrite thugs....


----------



## Uncensored2008

LoneLaugher said:


> Someday, maybe. She's the smartest person in the room. Just about any room.
> 
> Smart is good in a President. Don't you agree?



Honest would be a hell of a lot better - but you'll never find that in any democrat. It's forbidden by the party.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Tissue?
> 
> Not FAIR.........somebody made a movie about Hllary and I dont want anybody to see it
> 
> whimper, whimper......whine, whine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time someone made a movie about Hillary - you fuckwads went ballistic and took it to the supreme court.
> 
> Oh, but that was DIFFERENT because this is party members praising her....
> 
> Fucking hypocrite thugs....
Click to expand...


You mean the Right wing Supreme Court?

THAT Supreme Court?   How did Clarence Thomas vote?

America wants to know


----------



## whitehall

Anybody with any sense knows that the "docu-drama" about Hillary is nothing but a cheap political rant. I wonder why Hillary is such a left wing heroine when she spent her entire pathetic adult life covering up her husband's infidelity.


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> Anybody with any sense knows that the "docu-drama" about Hillary is nothing but a cheap political rant. I wonder why Hillary is such a left wing heroine when she spent her entire pathetic adult life covering up her husband's infidelity.



Wait a dad burn minute..........

You mean it's just a MOVIE?????

No wonder the Republicans are outraged


----------



## Trajan

Seawytch said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
Click to expand...


no excuse here, if she gets the nomination I fully expect her to win....

in addition the war on woman meme? we aint seen nuthin' yet...by the time she, her pacs, oh excuse me,  indy Pacs  and the media are done,  any man  not for her will be turned into wife beating, misogynist, pre-sufferage Dodo's...


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Seawytch said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is terrible. If NBC and CNN go ahead with the documentaries, we will only have 50 places to turn to for live coverage of the nutjob debates. It is a travesty!
> 
> And then, NBC and CNN will have the highlights at 11.
> 
> Reince Priebus! Genius and gentleman. But that name......and the lisp have ruined him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.
Click to expand...


Well hell, it's been working for democrats in an abc,nbc,cbs,cnn bubble all these years. I don't blame the republicans for wanting the same treatment.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Trajan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no excuse here, if she gets the nomination I fully expect her to win....
> 
> in addition the war on woman meme? we aint seen nuthin' yet...by the time she, her pacs, oh excuse me,  indy Pacs  and the media are done,  any man  not for her will be turned into wife beating, misogynist, pre-sufferage Dodo's...
Click to expand...


 You mean they'll turn into Mr. Clinton? If I were Hillary, I would stay away from the whole misogynist meme.


----------



## Trajan

I wonder who the moderators will be next time round

 

malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?


----------



## Trajan

JohnL.Burke said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no excuse here, if she gets the nomination I fully expect her to win....
> 
> in addition the war on woman meme? we aint seen nuthin' yet...by the time she, her pacs, oh excuse me,  indy Pacs  and the media are done,  any man  not for her will be turned into wife beating, misogynist, pre-sufferage Dodo's...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean they'll turn into Mr. Clinton? If I were Hillary, I would stay away from the whole misogynist meme.
Click to expand...


uh-uh, doesn't count bro.. they get the Ted Kennedy  'pass'......


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> I wonder who the moderators will be next time round
> 
> 
> 
> malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?



You are a moderator...

Why don't you do it?


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who the moderators will be next time round
> 
> 
> 
> malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moderator...
> 
> Why don't you do it?
Click to expand...


ha!  not the right sect...


----------



## AquaAthena

American_Jihad said:


> That's a good idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates*​
> 18 min ago |By MSN News with wire reports
> 
> Republican Party calls on NBC, CNN to cancel planned Hillary Clinton programs and threatens to pull out of primary debates if the networks don't comply.
> 
> WASHINGTON  The Republican National Committee wants NBC and CNN to cancel upcoming programs on Hillary Rodham Clinton and is threatening to blackball the television networks from future Republican presidential debates if they fail to comply.
> 
> Committee Chairman Reince Priebus calls the programs political ads "masquerading" as unbiased productions. He vows not to partner with the networks on Republican debates if they don't pull the programs.
> 
> "It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
> 
> ...
> 
> GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want this tired old biddy to be president...​



*I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...*.

Comment from the video:

"Hillary Rodham's thesis from 1969 Wellesley College, on Rules for Radicals. She met with Saul Alinsky, interviewed him and was even offered a job by Alinsky." 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21JcW5bD1A0]Hillary Rodham Clinton's thesis was on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - 1969 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who the moderators will be next time round
> 
> 
> 
> malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moderator...
> 
> Why don't you do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ha!  not the right sect...
Click to expand...


Coward....

Afraid your man-crush on Hillary would show through?


----------



## Dot Com

the rw'ers bring a case to the SCOTUS so they can show a movie about hillary, before a previous election YET, its wrong to let non-rwer's do the same now


----------



## rightwinger

AquaAthena said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates*​
> 18 min ago |By MSN News with wire reports
> 
> Republican Party calls on NBC, CNN to cancel planned Hillary Clinton programs and threatens to pull out of primary debates if the networks don't comply.
> 
> WASHINGTON  The Republican National Committee wants NBC and CNN to cancel upcoming programs on Hillary Rodham Clinton and is threatening to blackball the television networks from future Republican presidential debates if they fail to comply.
> 
> Committee Chairman Reince Priebus calls the programs political ads "masquerading" as unbiased productions. He vows not to partner with the networks on Republican debates if they don't pull the programs.
> 
> "It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
> 
> ...
> 
> GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want this tired old biddy to be president...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...*.
> 
> Comment from the video:
> 
> "Hillary Rodham's thesis from 1969 Wellesley College, on Rules for Radicals. She met with Saul Alinsky, interviewed him and was even offered a job by Alinsky."
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21JcW5bD1A0]Hillary Rodham Clinton's thesis was on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - 1969 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Wait.......let me guess

You think that anyone outside of Glenn Beck cares?


----------



## Rozman

My Achilles heel is Nancy Pelosi...
Around her I am the weakest link...
All she has to say at just that right moment is....

"We need to pass it to know what's in it" 

and I am her love slave.


----------



## Rozman

I admit it's pretty twisted....
But it is what it is.


----------



## whitehall

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody with any sense knows that the "docu-drama" about Hillary is nothing but a cheap political rant. I wonder why Hillary is such a left wing heroine when she spent her entire pathetic adult life covering up her husband's infidelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a dad burn minute..........
> 
> You mean it's just a MOVIE?????
> 
> No wonder the Republicans are outraged
Click to expand...


It's a docu-drama. A puff piece designed to entertain. The funny thing is that republicans aren't as outraged as the radical left thinks they should be. Personally I hope Hill will be the democrat party nominee. It will be kind of sick fun to point out that she has more skeletons in her closet than Ed Gein.


----------



## Dot Com

I heard that on cspan yesterday lol "Republican autopsy". They are, demographically, on the ropes 


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/the-republican-autopsy-report/?_r=0


> On Monday a Republican task force released a remarkably hard-headed diagnosis of the party&#8217;s many liabilities: its ideological rigidity, its preference for the rich over workers, its alienation of minorities, its reactionary social policies and its institutionalized repression of dissent and innovation.


----------



## AquaAthena

rightwinger said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates*​
> 18 min ago |By MSN News with wire reports
> 
> Republican Party calls on NBC, CNN to cancel planned Hillary Clinton programs and threatens to pull out of primary debates if the networks don't comply.
> 
> WASHINGTON  The Republican National Committee wants NBC and CNN to cancel upcoming programs on Hillary Rodham Clinton and is threatening to blackball the television networks from future Republican presidential debates if they fail to comply.
> 
> Committee Chairman Reince Priebus calls the programs political ads "masquerading" as unbiased productions. He vows not to partner with the networks on Republican debates if they don't pull the programs.
> 
> "It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
> 
> ...
> 
> GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want this tired old biddy to be president...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...*.
> 
> Comment from the video:
> 
> "Hillary Rodham's thesis from 1969 Wellesley College, on Rules for Radicals. She met with Saul Alinsky, interviewed him and was even offered a job by Alinsky."
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21JcW5bD1A0]Hillary Rodham Clinton's thesis was on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - 1969 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait.......let me guess
> 
> You think that anyone outside of Glenn Beck cares?
Click to expand...


I know no Liberals care. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain, if the Hil runs. And that photo on the previous page doesn't look much like her anymore with that "work" she had done, on her face. She doesn't even look like the same old Marxist she is.

But hey! don't be watching that video...K, RW, sweetie.....


----------



## edthecynic

First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.

And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.


----------



## rightwinger

AquaAthena said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...*.
> 
> Comment from the video:
> 
> "Hillary Rodham's thesis from 1969 Wellesley College, on Rules for Radicals. She met with Saul Alinsky, interviewed him and was even offered a job by Alinsky."
> 
> Hillary Rodham Clinton's thesis was on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - 1969 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.......let me guess
> 
> You think that anyone outside of Glenn Beck cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know no Liberals care. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain, if the Hil runs. And that photo on the previous page doesn't look much like her anymore with that "work" she had done, on her face. She doesn't even look like the same old Marxist she is.
> 
> But hey! don't be watching that video...K, RW, sweetie.....
Click to expand...


Oh noooooooooo.......

Not THAT Saul Alinsky.   This could bring the Clinton campaign to it knees


----------



## rightwinger

edthecynic said:


> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.



Exactly........I'm sure that Hillary is not that enthusiastic about having her married life made into a movie


----------



## Rozman

I don't think many people will watch these tributes to Hilary... but who knows.

I say have at it...

Libs get that popcorn ready...


----------



## rightwinger

Rozman said:


> I don't think many people will watch these tributes to Hilary... but who knows.
> 
> I say have at it...
> 
> Libs get that popcorn ready...



Republicans make a big enough stink......people will tune in to see what he fuss is about

Kind of like the Palin movie


----------



## edthecynic

AquaAthena said:


> I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...


You do know she was a Goldwater Republican when she first met Alinsky as a teenager. She was president of the College Republicans at Wellesley and interned for Gerold Ford her junior year. It has always been the Right who worship Alinsky and it wasn't until the GOP "left" Hillary that she started to disagree with him. She judged that Alinsky's &#8220;power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts&#8221; &#8212; overriding national issues such as racial tension and segregation. Alinsky had no success in forming an effective national movement, she said, referring dismissively to &#8220;the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.&#8221;


----------



## LeftofLeft

Seawytch said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
Click to expand...


If your side did not have the majority of a so-called objective media in your camp, you might shed a tear yourself.


----------



## whitehall

I wonder how the media will spin the "bimbo eruption squad". They giggled about it when the Bubba was running. My guess is that they will ignore it today.


----------



## Vandalshandle

It is just more of the same 'ol, same 'ol republican whining. Back in 2003, they forced CBS to drop their documentary on Regean, because they claimed it wasn't accurate. 

Cbs Dumps Reagan Docudrama Amid Furor About Its Accuracy - Orlando Sentinel

I'm pretty sure that they will end up demanding that the Hillary movie be replaced with "Lincoln".


----------



## LeftofLeft

rightwinger said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.......let me guess
> 
> You think that anyone outside of Glenn Beck cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know no Liberals care. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain, if the Hil runs. And that photo on the previous page doesn't look much like her anymore with that "work" she had done, on her face. She doesn't even look like the same old Marxist she is.
> 
> But hey! don't be watching that video...K, RW, sweetie.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh noooooooooo.......
> 
> Not THAT Saul Alinsky.   This could bring the Clinton campaign to it knees
Click to expand...


Most of America's immigrants ran to America from what Alinsky and his disciples are pushing America.


----------



## Dot Com

edthecynic said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...
> 
> 
> 
> You do know she was a Goldwater Republican when she first met Alinsky as a teenager. She was president of the College Republicans at Wellesley and interned for Jerold Ford her junior year. It has always been the Right who worship Alinsky and it wasn't until the GOP "left" Hillary that she started to disagree with him. She judged that Alinsky's power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts  overriding national issues such as racial tension and segregation. Alinsky had no success in forming an effective national movement, she said, referring dismissively to the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.
Click to expand...


Oops  How embarrassing for AquaAthena


----------



## blackhawk

I bet they will really highlight when Hillary was under sniper fire.


----------



## Stephanie

edthecynic said:


> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.



hummm, where is all the wailing for the fairness doctrine now?

 it's a Democrat so it's just hunky dory, all the crying about FAIR and equal FOR ALL flies right out your butts..


----------



## rightwinger

LeftofLeft said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know no Liberals care. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain, if the Hil runs. And that photo on the previous page doesn't look much like her anymore with that "work" she had done, on her face. She doesn't even look like the same old Marxist she is.
> 
> But hey! don't be watching that video...K, RW, sweetie.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh noooooooooo.......
> 
> Not THAT Saul Alinsky.   This could bring the Clinton campaign to it knees
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of America's immigrants ran to America from what Alinsky and his disciples are pushing America.
Click to expand...


Hyperbole?

How did Alinsky make out? Conservatives have made Alinsky more famous in death than he was in life


----------



## rightwinger

Stephanie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hummm, where is all the wailing for the fairness doctrine now?
> 
> it's a Democrat so it's just hunky dory, all the crying about FAIR and equal flies right out your butts..
Click to expand...


How does the fairness doctrine apply for someone who is not running for President?


----------



## candycorn

Trajan said:


> I wonder who the moderators will be next time round
> 
> 
> 
> malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?



Both candidates agreed to the moderators since they started this commission on Presidential debates.  When the LOWV was doing it; they picked them.  

I would like to see Fox moderators myself; it would be comedic to say the least.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

candycorn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who the moderators will be next time round
> 
> 
> 
> malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both candidates agreed to the moderators since they started this commission on Presidential debates.  When the LOWV was doing it; they picked them.
> 
> I would like to see Fox moderators myself; it would be comedic to say the least.
Click to expand...


 Ah yes, saying the least seems to be a talent of yours.


----------



## Locke11_21

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.



I saw that, and Priebus truly disgusted me.  His threatening to ban CNN and NBC from the GOP primary is just as fascistic as when the Democrats banned FOX from the Hillary-Obama debates.

Priebus came off like a big crybaby.  Maybe instead of crying, he should get his party to get behind candidates like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and such instead of Democrats pretending to be Republicans like Chris Christie or Jeb Bush.  Priebus can cry about CNN and NBC all he wants, if the GOP rig the primaries for Christie or Bush to win, it will not matter who the Democrat is that runs, Hillary or not....that Democrat will win in a landslide.  Priebus and and the GOP need to quit crying and give voters a stark contrast to the Democrat candidate, not run another Democrat like Christie or Bush.

To me, Priebus come off as someone who already knows they are running a Democrat for their candidate and they plan on using the same pathetic campaigning tactics.  How about running a Rand Paul and actually articulating the differences between the two parties.  The only chance a Democrat has against Rand Paul is for amnesty to go through.  

Priebus....shut up and get behind a Libertarian Republican, not another RINO!  Pathetic, already making excuses.  Wow.







> You mean the Right wing Supreme Court?
> 
> THAT Supreme Court? How did Clarence Thomas vote?
> 
> America wants to know



Right-wing Supreme Court?? The USSC that ruled in favor of the left-wing socialist Obamacare.....how right-wing of them....


----------



## Political Junky

AquaAthena said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates*​
> 18 min ago |By MSN News with wire reports
> 
> Republican Party calls on NBC, CNN to cancel planned Hillary Clinton programs and threatens to pull out of primary debates if the networks don't comply.
> 
> WASHINGTON  The Republican National Committee wants NBC and CNN to cancel upcoming programs on Hillary Rodham Clinton and is threatening to blackball the television networks from future Republican presidential debates if they fail to comply.
> 
> Committee Chairman Reince Priebus calls the programs political ads "masquerading" as unbiased productions. He vows not to partner with the networks on Republican debates if they don't pull the programs.
> 
> "It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
> 
> ...
> 
> GOP to networks: Cancel Clinton shows or we'll nix debates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want this tired old biddy to be president...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder how the media will spin Hillary's college thesis on Saul Alinsky? Probably in a very positive way...*.
> 
> Comment from the video:
> 
> "Hillary Rodham's thesis from 1969 Wellesley College, on Rules for Radicals. She met with Saul Alinsky, interviewed him and was even offered a job by Alinsky."
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21JcW5bD1A0]Hillary Rodham Clinton's thesis was on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - 1969 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Hillary was raised a republican and went door to door for Goldwater. Thank God she wised up.


----------



## Claudette

whitehall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody with any sense knows that the "docu-drama" about Hillary is nothing but a cheap political rant. I wonder why Hillary is such a left wing heroine when she spent her entire pathetic adult life covering up her husband's infidelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a dad burn minute..........
> 
> You mean it's just a MOVIE?????
> 
> No wonder the Republicans are outraged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a docu-drama. A puff piece designed to entertain. The funny thing is that republicans aren't as outraged as the radical left thinks they should be. Personally I hope Hill will be the democrat party nominee. It will be kind of sick fun to point out that she has more skeletons in her closet than Ed Gein.
Click to expand...


I agree.

Besides. Who the hell thinks Hilary Clinton is interesting enough to have a docu drama about?


----------



## mudwhistle

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the corrupt party press is actively campaigning for Hillary - but you see nothing wrong with that?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Even you can't be this much of a fucktard.
> 
> Thank god for Fox, so we have some semblance of independent press.
Click to expand...


For years they argued it wasn't happening, and now that they have to admit that it is happening they want to say so what. 

Moving the goal-posts. 

As long as they feel it benefits them they don't mind. But if a corrupted press ever becomes a threat to them personally they won't be singing the same tune.


----------



## mudwhistle

Stephanie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hummm, where is all the wailing for the fairness doctrine now?
> 
> it's a Democrat so it's just hunky dory, all the crying about FAIR and equal FOR ALL flies right out your butts..
Click to expand...


The media can't be trusted. After Candy Crowely lied for Obama during the second debate, ABC edited the Zimmerman jurer's comments, and NBC doctored the Zimmerman 911 tape it's clear they cannot be trusted. 

The debates should be taken out of their control and an independent organization handle it. No moderator. Once the nomination process is done have the two candidates ask each other questions. That way they can't hide behind biased questions provided for them by biased moderators.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out how your nothing more than the other side of the same coin... Must feel good knowing that the worst of the worst Reps can't be better than you seeing as you can't be better than them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But wait....it gets better
> 
> It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die
Click to expand...


Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Tissue?
> 
> Not FAIR.........somebody made a movie about Hllary and I dont want anybody to see it
> 
> whimper, whimper......whine, whine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time someone made a movie about Hillary - you fuckwads went ballistic and took it to the supreme court.
> 
> Oh, but that was DIFFERENT because this is party members praising her....
> 
> Fucking hypocrite thugs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Right wing Supreme Court?
> 
> THAT Supreme Court?   How did Clarence Thomas vote?
> 
> America wants to know
Click to expand...


Racist


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out how your nothing more than the other side of the same coin... Must feel good knowing that the worst of the worst Reps can't be better than you seeing as you can't be better than them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wait....it gets better
> 
> It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.
Click to expand...


Wait....wait......wait

Here it comes....

Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way

Must be liberal plants


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But wait....it gets better
> 
> It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
Click to expand...


Attendees said they never heard anything like that from the crowd. It was an obvious forgery. 

I think every rational person can admit that the media has used clever editing techniques to invent scandals. The Zimmerman trial is a prime example. Making fun of reality only makes you sound like a hack.


----------



## Mac1958

blackhawk said:


> I bet they will really highlight when Hillary was under sniper fire.




Don't laugh, we'll see.

.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Attendees said they never heard anything like that from the crowd. It was an obvious forgery.
> 
> I think every rational person can admit that the media has used clever editing techniques to invent scandals. The Zimmerman trial is a prime example. Making fun of reality only makes you sound like a hack.
Click to expand...


Oh yes....the old stick your fingers in your ears and deny it
A master stroke of Republican spin control

What about those on stage who reacted to it and commented after the debates???


----------



## peach174

There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.

Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.

It's only fair and the right thing to do.

Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.
> 
> It's only fair and the right thing to do.
> 
> Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.



WHY?

Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?


----------



## Edgetho

The Washington Post was just bought by the owner of Amazon at a Bargain Basement rate.  $250M, I think.

The New Yawk Slimes just sold the Boston Globe for a One BILLION DOLLAR LOSS.

The Seattle Times is out of business while dozens of other major Viewspapers are in deep shit.

Newsbleat was bought by the Daily Beast for ONE Dollar.  And the owner of the Daily Beats says it was the worst investment he's ever made.

While in Britain, their Newspapers are WILDLY successful, the WSJ is growing by leaps and bounds and the USA Today isn't doing too bad.

This is what happens when you ignore, insult and anger half of your customer base.

What's worse, it's the Half with the money....  Republicans.

But libtards won't admit to ever being wrong.  Just like every other sociopath, just like every Convict in every Prison in the Country....

Nothing is ever their fault.  They even elected a Stuttering Clusterfukk who can't stop blaming all his failures (and they are legion) on his predecessor.  

It's a disease.  A Mental Illness.

I think it's only right that Republicans shut out people who are so dishonest that one of their Presidential Debate Moderators *colluded* with the Stuttering Clusterfukk to LIE about what he said on Benghazi.

When Romney challenged him on whether he called it a 'Terror' attack, the Stuttering Cluserfukk looks right at Candy Crowley and says (something to the effect), "That's not right, is it Candy."

And she jumped in and *LIED* about what he said.  Even the WaPo Fact Checker said the Stuttering Clusterfukk LIED about calling it a 'Terror' attack.

Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post






And, IMO, it cost us the election.


----------



## candycorn

JohnL.Burke said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who the moderators will be next time round
> 
> 
> 
> malia? sasha? Chelsea? anyone writing a book or making/made a movie about Hillary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both candidates agreed to the moderators since they started this commission on Presidential debates.  When the LOWV was doing it; they picked them.
> 
> I would like to see Fox moderators myself; it would be comedic to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, saying the least seems to be a talent of yours.
Click to expand...


332-206.  Pretty sussinct.


----------



## candycorn

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But wait....it gets better
> 
> It is not only the GOP candidates, but the wonderful handpicked studio audience who boo gay soldiers, cheer executions and shout....Let them die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
Click to expand...


Mudwhistle's ever-loosening grip on reality is fun to watch isn't it?


----------



## candycorn

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.
> 
> It's only fair and the right thing to do.
> 
> Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
Click to expand...


Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...


----------



## rightwinger

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.
> 
> It's only fair and the right thing to do.
> 
> Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
Click to expand...


Given that it will cover a part of her life that Hillary would just as soon forget, Hillary would just as soon not have you watch it


----------



## TakeAStepBack

What difference does it make now?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

candycorn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both candidates agreed to the moderators since they started this commission on Presidential debates.  When the LOWV was doing it; they picked them.
> 
> I would like to see Fox moderators myself; it would be comedic to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, saying the least seems to be a talent of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206.  Pretty sussinct.
Click to expand...


Learn to spell and use words properly.


----------



## Wildman

American_Jihad said:


> That's a good idea... *(sorry sir.., this is a bad idea !!)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want this tired old biddy *(did you really mean to say BITCH ?)* to be president...​


 ........................................................ 

good lord man.., please issue a  warning before posting shit like this, good thing i have not had my breakfast yet


----------



## squeeze berry

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.




aren't you the one constantly whimpering about fox news?


----------



## mudwhistle

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mudwhistle's ever-loosening grip on reality is fun to watch isn't it?
Click to expand...


Reality is a driving force in my ideology. I don't base mine off of fake science and fuzzy math. 

Being able to think for myself and not buy into the MSMs bullshit.  I'm not one of the sheeple. 

Candycorn. Your BS only works in isolated circles. If you try to sell that nonsense at work people will look at you like you're crazy.


----------



## Darkwind

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.


How is it whining?  Your own post makes excuses for their bias and provides for the legal reasons for it.

Are you sure you want to go down that road?


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that it will cover a part of her life that Hillary would just as soon forget, Hillary would just as soon not have you watch it
Click to expand...



You mean the part about her being a rug-muncher? How about how she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia? Maybe the missing Whitewater docs showing up after a 2 year search. Maybe a bit about her partying with Columbian hookers. 

Doubtful. 

I think the part about her becoming a martyr by standing by her man. That's the angle they will cover.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that it will cover a part of her life that Hillary would just as soon forget, Hillary would just as soon not have you watch it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the part about her being a rug-muncher? How about how she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia? Maybe the missing Whitewater docs showing up after a 2 year search. Maybe a bit about her partying with Columbian hookers.
> 
> Doubtful.
> 
> I think the part about her becoming a martyr by standing by her man. That's the angle they will cover.
Click to expand...


Good stuff

Why don't you make a movie about it?


----------



## candycorn

rightwinger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that it will cover a part of her life that Hillary would just as soon forget, Hillary would just as soon not have you watch it
Click to expand...


Additionally, there is no guarantee that the movie will be all that favorable; I recall when John Glenn was running for President vaguely, a movie called "The Right Stuff" came out and he wasn't especially helped politically by his portrayal.


----------



## rightwinger

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that it will cover a part of her life that Hillary would just as soon forget, Hillary would just as soon not have you watch it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Additionally, there is no guarantee that the movie will be all that favorable; I recall when John Glenn was running for President vaguely, a movie called "The Right Stuff" came out and he wasn't especially helped politically by his portrayal.
Click to expand...


Dudley Doright


----------



## candycorn

mudwhistle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudwhistle's ever-loosening grip on reality is fun to watch isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality is a driving force in my ideology. I don't base mine off of fake science and fuzzy math.
> 
> Being able to think for myself and not buy into the MSMs bullshit.  I'm not one of the sheeple.
> 
> Candycorn. Your BS only works in isolated circles. If you try to sell that nonsense at work people will look at you like you're crazy.
Click to expand...


Pfft...

You doubted Osama was dead for a while there
You insinuated that Obama got booze and alcohol for Chris Christie

All this while insisting the polls were wrong and Mitt Romney would win.

Yes, you did all of that.  

It's entertaining watching you lose your mind.


----------



## candycorn

rightwinger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that it will cover a part of her life that Hillary would just as soon forget, Hillary would just as soon not have you watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, there is no guarantee that the movie will be all that favorable; I recall when John Glenn was running for President vaguely, a movie called "The Right Stuff" came out and he wasn't especially helped politically by his portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dudley Doright
Click to expand...


Yup, thats it.  

You remember the movie?


----------



## candycorn

TakeAStepBack said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, saying the least seems to be a talent of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206.  Pretty sussinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to spell and use words properly.
Click to expand...


332-206.  You lose.


----------



## American_Jihad

blackhawk said:


> I bet they will really highlight when Hillary was under sniper fire.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc]Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered... - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vandalshandle

Several years ago, a movie was made about Ty Cobb. It was a complete flop. It was probably boycotted by Babe Ruth fans. Fair is fair, after all. Of course, the movie protrayed Ty as being a mentally ill asshole, which he was, to say the least. 

There is no way to make a movie about Hillary without going in to her failure to reform health insurance coverage when Bill was first elected, or her having to deal with Bill's serial infidelities. I wonder why the republican party is opposed to that?

As somebody else said previously, all they are doing is making it controversial enough that everyone will want to see it. Maybe they can change the law making it illegal to see without two pieces of citizenship Id, one of which must be photo.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
Click to expand...


Yep.....

Anyone remember them crying about "The Right Stuff" when John Glenn was running for President?   How did that work for him?


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans can always get Fox to rerun their Clinton impeachment tapes
> 
> That sounds fair and balanced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe NBC will run a documentary on how Obama created the heavens and the Earth?
> 
> The following has been a presentation of the National Broadcasting Corporation - a wholly controlled entity of the democratic party.
Click to expand...


Ah...Hyperbole presented as reality.   That works.


----------



## bodecea

Avorysuds said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems better hope they don't lose another 7 million voters or else they become irreverent. 4 million less than 2008 and 3 million less than the average growth per election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One million more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2012.
> 
> Gerrymandering has made for some very safe GOP Districts, but they are going to keep losing national elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES! But from 2008-2012 Dems lost 4 million voters, and didn't grow like they have in every other election in history. Thus, the Democratic party is in fact by far the fastest shrinking party in the country.
> 
> Reps grew by 1 million, about 2 million less than average. Reps also gained 2% from 2008 to 2012.
> 
> I'm not defending the horrible party that is Republicans, I'm simply pointing out that if this trend continues for Dems for even one more election, you guys can't win.
Click to expand...


  

Yes, the republican party is growing and the democrats are shrinking......riiiiiiiight.


----------



## drivebymedia

*Reince Priebus blasted NBC and CNN on Monday night for spending millions promoting Hillary Clinton in their upcoming miniseries and film.*

Read more: Reince Priebus: CNN, NBC promote Democrats - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com

_
"FOX promotes Democrats, why shouldn't the Liberal media promote Republicans?"_


----------



## American_Jihad

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.
> 
> It's only fair and the right thing to do.
> 
> Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
Click to expand...


CandyAss, look how the left-wing media took the first debate which is an example of what the left-wingers did in the country that night...




What side will have mass suicides in a major loss, progressive/liberal/left-wing...
Now be a good progressive sheep lean forward and...





...


----------



## drivebymedia

> Yes, the republican party is growing and the democrats are shrinking......riiiiiiiight.



So is the GOP Congressional job approval ... one poll has them at *6%!*


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

drivebymedia said:


> Yes, the republican party is growing and the democrats are shrinking......riiiiiiiight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the GOP Congressional job approval ... one poll has them at *6%!*
Click to expand...


Link please....


----------



## drivebymedia

*GOP's Preibus proposes blackmail to stop the Liberal media from promoting Liberal Candidates:*

&#8220;The fact that these folks, including many people that are at NBC, one of which is a major bundler for Barack Obama, would be surprised that we would actually exercise our own right to filter who actually deposes our candidates and who doesn&#8217;t. 

I think I&#8217;m being very reasonable here,&#8221; Priebus said.



Read more: Reince Priebus: CNN, NBC promote Democrats - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com



Go for it Reince, you have nothing to lose at this point!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Who in their right mind would allow someone who is clearly biased _against _you, moderate a debate between you and _their _guy?

That's just stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> You mean the Right wing Supreme Court?



No, I mean the United States Supreme Court - the same one that you praised when it  gave you your gay marriage shit



> THAT Supreme Court?   How did Clarence Thomas vote?
> 
> America wants to know



With the Constitution - as he always does.

Thomas is the best legal mind on the court - by a long shot.


----------



## eagle7_31

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.





When dems/lwingers quit whining about Fox you might have a point.


----------



## Uncensored2008

whitehall said:


> Anybody with any sense knows that the "docu-drama" about Hillary is nothing but a cheap political rant. I wonder why Hillary is such a left wing heroine when she spent her entire pathetic adult life covering up her husband's infidelity.



As is the campaign movie by NBC. The left does what it can to censor political speech by the opposition, then engages in blatant propaganda and calls it news.

CNN and NBC are divisions of the democratic party, and all activities by them are legitimately campaign spending. This movie MUST be looked at as a campaign contribution to Hilliary's presidential run.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Right wing Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean the United States Supreme Court - the same one that you praised when it  gave you your gay marriage shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT Supreme Court?   How did Clarence Thomas vote?
> 
> America wants to know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution - as he always does.
> 
> Thomas is the best legal mind on the court - by a long shot.
Click to expand...


smirk


----------



## Edgetho

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Who in their right mind would allow someone who is clearly biased _against _you, moderate a debate between you and _their _guy?
> 
> That's just stupid.



If you remember during the Republican Primary campaign, the moderators from the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM were focusing on 'wedge issue' questions that got the Republican candidates fighting like rabid dogs.

You could honestly see the smirks on the moderators' faces when Perry, Romney and Gingrich were tearing each other to shreds.

This was not an accident.

Then there was the Candy Crowley moment when the Stuttering Clusterfukk flat-out fucking lied and Romney called him on it and the Stuttering Clusterfukk turned to Crowley for help.....  And got it!!!!

Which, in my opinion, did more harm to Romney than anything before or after.  I think it was the deciding factor in the election.

The GOP should not only refuse to hold any debates on the DISGUSTING FILTH on the LSM but should also withhold ALL advertising money and instead reach people through local providers, cable companies and Fox News.

It is stupid beyond belief to subsidize the very institutions that work against us the hardest.

It would be like FDR sending Fighter Aircraft, Ships, Trucks, Tanks, Artillery and ammunition to the Nazis.

Not a lot of difference actually


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> You are a moderator...
> 
> Why don't you do it?



Trajan is honest - you democrats would never stand for him moderating..


----------



## candycorn

American_Jihad said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CandyAss, look how the left-wing media took the first debate which is an example of what the left-wingers did in the country that night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What side will have mass suicides in a major loss, progressive/liberal/left-wing...
> Now be a good progressive sheep lean forward and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Hey, I'll be the first to admit that the only difference between Fox and MSNBC is political ideology; neither one is to be trusted outright--not that any media outlet is.  But consider this; it's 2013, we're well over 1,000 days until election night in 2016 and you guys are already having a kiniption (sp?) fit over a movie about Hillary.  If it were just the mouth-breathing knuckle draggers here, that'd be one thing but the RNC chairwoman is getting into the mix...so much fun.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dot Com said:


> the rw'ers bring a case to the SCOTUS so they can show a movie about hillary, before a previous election YET, its wrong to let non-rwer's do the same now



Hypocrisy and demagoguery are 100% of the democrat message.

How soon the left lies about Fahrenheit 9-11; the hit piece that demagogue Moore put out right before the 2004 election, but the same leftist scum used the crooked courts to block an expose on Hillary - some are FAR more equal that others in our corrupt society.

But the difference here is that this is supposedly "news" and falls outside of McCain-Feingold - when it is obvious electioneering. This movie is a campaign contribution and must be treated as such.


----------



## Uncensored2008

candycorn said:


> Both candidates agreed to the moderators since they started this commission on Presidential debates.  When the LOWV was doing it; they picked them.
> 
> I would like to see Fox moderators myself; it would be comedic to say the least.



Fox commentators wouldn't openly lie for the democrat, the way Candy Crowley did. How would you cope with that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants



NBC is the propaganda wing of the democratic party. This isn't bias - this is direct campaigning. The party press is a fact.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Oh yes....the old stick your fingers in your ears and deny it
> A master stroke of Republican spin control
> 
> What about those on stage who reacted to it and commented after the debates???



We know for a fact that NBC fabricates audio - as it did in the Zimmerman case. This is just another example to the corrupt fuckers of the DNC press falsifying evidence.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NBC is the propaganda wing of the democratic party. This isn't bias - this is direct campaigning. The party press is a fact.
Click to expand...


Your pathetic attempts at equivalency are not fooling anyone outside the rightwing circle jerk


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Good stuff
> 
> Why don't you make a movie about it?



You leftists will use the corrupt courts to block it, if we do.

Oh wait, we did - and you did....

Think your party press will air this?

Hillary The Movie


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff
> 
> Why don't you make a movie about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You leftists will use the corrupt courts to block it, if we do.
> 
> Oh wait, we did - and you did....
> 
> Think your party press will air this?
> 
> Hillary The Movie
Click to expand...


Get Fox to air it

They can play it along with a Sarah Palin marathon


----------



## Trajan

Seawytch said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is terrible. If NBC and CNN go ahead with the documentaries, we will only have 50 places to turn to for live coverage of the nutjob debates. It is a travesty!
> 
> And then, NBC and CNN will have the highlights at 11.
> 
> Reince Priebus! Genius and gentleman. But that name......and the lisp have ruined him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just want their debates in a FOX bubble with moderators that will toss Hannity-like softball questions.
Click to expand...


 "their" as in primaries? why mention that? 


anyway, CNN, PBS,  nbc cbs abc all have had and will have moderators for the debates, like gwenn ifill or candy....... 

Would you support a Fox moderator for a presidential debate ? doesn't sound like it but I wanted to ask straight out....thx


Yes?

No?


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Right wing Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean the United States Supreme Court - the same one that you praised when it  gave you your gay marriage shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT Supreme Court?   How did Clarence Thomas vote?
> 
> America wants to know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution - as he always does.
> 
> Thomas is the best legal mind on the court - by a long shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> smirk
Click to expand...


Racist


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff
> 
> Why don't you make a movie about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You leftists will use the corrupt courts to block it, if we do.
> 
> Oh wait, we did - and you did....
> 
> Think your party press will air this?
> 
> Hillary The Movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get Fox to air it
> 
> They can play it along with a Sarah Palin marathon
Click to expand...


you've got that mixed up with HBO goober....true story.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Your pathetic attempts at equivalency are not fooling anyone outside the rightwing circle jerk



NBC is part of your corrupt party. They are merely the propaganda wing. NBC cannot be viewed as separate from the party.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftists will use the corrupt courts to block it, if we do.
> 
> Oh wait, we did - and you did....
> 
> Think your party press will air this?
> 
> Hillary The Movie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get Fox to air it
> 
> They can play it along with a Sarah Palin marathon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you've got that mixed up with HBO goober....true story.
Click to expand...


Fox viewers would love it....

The Undefeated - Rotten Tomatoes


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clever editing by the networks. Glad you brought that up. Talking about phony scandals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Attendees said they never heard anything like that from the crowd. It was an obvious forgery.
> 
> I think every rational person can admit that the media has used clever editing techniques to invent scandals. The Zimmerman trial is a prime example. Making fun of reality only makes you sound like a hack.
Click to expand...


Suuuure....line up those excuses.   You're gonna need them.


----------



## American_Jihad

candycorn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if/when Hillary gets elected we may have mass suicides on our hands if this is the reaction to a movie that nobody is forcing them to watch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandyAss, look how the left-wing media took the first debate which is an example of what the left-wingers did in the country that night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What side will have mass suicides in a major loss, progressive/liberal/left-wing...
> Now be a good progressive sheep lean forward and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I'll be the first to admit that the only difference between Fox and MSNBC is political ideology; neither one is to be trusted outright--not that any media outlet is.  But consider this; it's 2013, we're well over 1,000 days until election night in 2016 and you guys are already having a kiniption (sp?) fit over a movie about Hillary.  If it were just the mouth-breathing knuckle draggers here, that'd be one thing but the RNC chairwoman is getting into the mix...so much fun.
Click to expand...


CandyAss, You lefties has been having conniptions since 2000 and still are, it's in yo dna...

I could put on my liberal hat and make fun of your spelling but I won't...


----------



## candycorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both candidates agreed to the moderators since they started this commission on Presidential debates.  When the LOWV was doing it; they picked them.
> 
> I would like to see Fox moderators myself; it would be comedic to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox commentators wouldn't openly lie for the democrat, the way Candy Crowley did. How would you cope with that?
Click to expand...


Candy Crowley did not.  Nothing to cope with.  

332-206; cope with that.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Pushing Back Against CNN & NBCs Hillary Propaganda*

August 6, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert






...

In one letter sent to Robert Greenblatt, chairman of NBC Entertainment, and another sent to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, Priebus expressed his deep disappointment in NBCs intention to produce a mini-series, and CNNs intention to produced a feature film ahead of (Clintons) likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.

He further insisted that both networks credibility will be damaged by their intention to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clintons nascent campaign.

The chairmen of the Republican parties in Iowa and South Carolina, where a number of Republican debates have been held in the past, applauded Priebuss efforts, further contending that they would have support from others within the ranks of the RNC. Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker released a statement saying his organization looks forward to helping the RNC start a new chapter in how Republicans across the country stand up to a biased media.

...

Pushing Back Against CNN & NBC?s Hillary Propaganda | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## candycorn

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NBC is the propaganda wing of the democratic party. This isn't bias - this is direct campaigning. The party press is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your pathetic attempts at equivalency are not fooling anyone outside the rightwing circle jerk
Click to expand...


I thought CNN was the DEMs propaganda wing.


----------



## candycorn

American_Jihad said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> CandyAss, look how the left-wing media took the first debate which is an example of what the left-wingers did in the country that night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What side will have mass suicides in a major loss, progressive/liberal/left-wing...
> Now be a good progressive sheep lean forward and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'll be the first to admit that the only difference between Fox and MSNBC is political ideology; neither one is to be trusted outright--not that any media outlet is.  But consider this; it's 2013, we're well over 1,000 days until election night in 2016 and you guys are already having a kiniption (sp?) fit over a movie about Hillary.  If it were just the mouth-breathing knuckle draggers here, that'd be one thing but the RNC chairwoman is getting into the mix...so much fun.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CandyAss, You lefties has been having conniptions since 2000 and still are, it's in yo dna...
> 
> I could put on my liberal hat and make fun of your spelling but I won't...
Click to expand...


332-206; fits fine.


----------



## American_Jihad

candycorn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'll be the first to admit that the only difference between Fox and MSNBC is political ideology; neither one is to be trusted outright--not that any media outlet is.  But consider this; it's 2013, we're well over 1,000 days until election night in 2016 and you guys are already having a kiniption (sp?) fit over a movie about Hillary.  If it were just the mouth-breathing knuckle draggers here, that'd be one thing but the RNC chairwoman is getting into the mix...so much fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandyAss, You lefties has been having conniptions since 2000 and still are, it's in yo dna...
> 
> I could put on my liberal hat and make fun of your spelling but I won't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206; fits fine.
Click to expand...


CandyAss, when you lose the next major election someone should put that on yo stone...


----------



## bodecea

peach174 said:


> There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.
> 
> It's only fair and the right thing to do.
> 
> Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.



Why not....if there's funding and interest....go for it.   Free market capitalism, after all.


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are doing a movie and documentary of Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Then they should also do a movie and documentary on Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.
> 
> It's only fair and the right thing to do.
> 
> Just promoting a Democrat is wrong. This is what Dictators and Tyrants do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Can't the media choose the subjects it wants to make movies about?
Click to expand...


Not in "smaller government" Rightwingland.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean the United States Supreme Court - the same one that you praised when it  gave you your gay marriage shit
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution - as he always does.
> 
> Thomas is the best legal mind on the court - by a long shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smirk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist
Click to expand...


Interesting.   How is his comment "racist"?


----------



## Dot Com

the irony exhibited by the Rightists is delicious


----------



## candycorn

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait......wait
> 
> Here it comes....
> 
> Its a MEDIA CONSPIRACY. Republicans don't really behave that way
> 
> Must be liberal plants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attendees said they never heard anything like that from the crowd. It was an obvious forgery.
> 
> I think every rational person can admit that the media has used clever editing techniques to invent scandals. The Zimmerman trial is a prime example. Making fun of reality only makes you sound like a hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suuuure....line up those excuses.   You're gonna need them.
Click to expand...


Is he actually saying that the "Yeah" comment from the "Let them die" statement was dubbed in by CNN?

It literally never ends with these conspiracy whackjobs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Suuuure....line up those excuses.   You're gonna need them.



Yeah Shortbus, NBC (a wholly own subsidiary of the shameful democratic party) would never fraudulently put fake audio in a story....


{The edited recordings included multiple deletions, removed intervening dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher, and juxtaposed unrelated content "to make it appear that Zimmerman was a racist, and that he was racially profiling Trayvon Martin," the lawsuit says.

NBC aired various edited versions of the 911 call on March 19, 20, 22 and 27, the suit says.}

George Zimmerman sues NBC Universal over edited 911 call - CNN.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

candycorn said:


> Candy Crowley did not.  Nothing to cope with.



Were you off visiting North Korea with Dennis Rodman?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4z9HkkFDe8]BACKLASH: Candy Crowley "Lied To Save Obama" -- Outrage Over Moderator's Libya Attack Words - Report - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Interesting.   How is his comment "racist"?



Since you're not very bright, the irony is lost on you....


----------



## bodecea

American_Jihad said:


> *Pushing Back Against CNN & NBCs Hillary Propaganda*
> 
> August 6, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In one letter sent to Robert Greenblatt, chairman of NBC Entertainment, and another sent to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, Priebus expressed his deep disappointment in NBCs intention to produce a mini-series, and CNNs intention to produced a feature film ahead of (Clintons) likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
> 
> He further insisted that both networks credibility will be damaged by their intention to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clintons nascent campaign.
> 
> The chairmen of the Republican parties in Iowa and South Carolina, where a number of Republican debates have been held in the past, applauded Priebuss efforts, further contending that they would have support from others within the ranks of the RNC. Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker released a statement saying his organization looks forward to helping the RNC start a new chapter in how Republicans across the country stand up to a biased media.
> 
> ...
> 
> Pushing Back Against CNN & NBC?s Hillary Propaganda | FrontPage Magazine



I think the Republicans should follow thru....gotta maintain that whiney pouter rep they established years ago under Newt.


----------



## Uncensored2008

candycorn said:


> Is he actually saying that the "Yeah" comment from the "Let them die" statement was dubbed in by CNN?
> 
> It literally never ends with these conspiracy whackjobs.



You do realize that it's not a "conspiracy" when it's on the front page, right spanky?

Though it angers you of the lynch mob, Zimmermans acquittal is not a "conspiracy.."  Nor is the fact that most of the media is simply a propaganda mechanism for the DNC.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuure....line up those excuses.   You're gonna need them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Shortbus, NBC (a wholly own subsidiary of the shameful democratic party) would never fraudulently put fake audio in a story....
> 
> 
> {The edited recordings included multiple deletions, removed intervening dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher, and juxtaposed unrelated content "to make it appear that Zimmerman was a racist, and that he was racially profiling Trayvon Martin," the lawsuit says.
> 
> NBC aired various edited versions of the 911 call on March 19, 20, 22 and 27, the suit says.}
> 
> George Zimmerman sues NBC Universal over edited 911 call - CNN.com
Click to expand...


Work it, Gyrl!   Get those whiney excuses going!


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.   How is his comment "racist"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're not very bright, the irony is lost on you....
Click to expand...


^ Fail to see your answer there, buckaroo.   Sooooo, again.  How was his comment "racist"?


----------



## Trajan

bodecea said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pushing Back Against CNN & NBCs Hillary Propaganda*
> 
> August 6, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In one letter sent to Robert Greenblatt, chairman of NBC Entertainment, and another sent to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, Priebus expressed his deep disappointment in NBCs intention to produce a mini-series, and CNNs intention to produced a feature film ahead of (Clintons) likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
> 
> He further insisted that both networks credibility will be damaged by their intention to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clintons nascent campaign.
> 
> The chairmen of the Republican parties in Iowa and South Carolina, where a number of Republican debates have been held in the past, applauded Priebuss efforts, further contending that they would have support from others within the ranks of the RNC. Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker released a statement saying his organization looks forward to helping the RNC start a new chapter in how Republicans across the country stand up to a biased media.
> 
> ...
> 
> Pushing Back Against CNN & NBC?s Hillary Propaganda | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Republicans should follow thru....gotta maintain that whiney pouter rep they established years ago under Newt.
Click to expand...


  edwards obama and hill boycotted a Fox debate in 2007....


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Work it, Gyrl!   Get those whiney excuses going!



You're a faithful hack, shortbus - but I'm not sure you're really an asset to your shameful party. Maybe TM can  pinch hit for you - as a more rational and intelligent alternative?


----------



## American_Jihad

bodecea said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pushing Back Against CNN & NBC&#8217;s Hillary Propaganda*
> 
> August 6, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In one letter sent to Robert Greenblatt, chairman of NBC Entertainment, and another sent to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, Priebus expressed his &#8220;deep disappointment&#8221; in NBC&#8217;s intention to produce a mini-series, and CNN&#8217;s intention to produced a feature film &#8220;ahead of (Clinton&#8217;s) likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.&#8221;
> 
> He further insisted that both networks&#8217; credibility will be damaged by their intention to &#8220;produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton&#8217;s nascent campaign.&#8221;
> 
> The chairmen of the Republican parties in Iowa and South Carolina, where a number of Republican debates have been held in the past, applauded Priebus&#8217;s efforts, further contending that they would have support from others within the ranks of the RNC. Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker released a statement saying his organization &#8220;looks forward to helping the RNC start a new chapter in how Republicans across the country stand up to a biased media.&#8221;
> 
> ...
> 
> Pushing Back Against CNN & NBC?s Hillary Propaganda | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Republicans should follow thru....gotta maintain that whiney pouter rep they established years ago under Newt.
Click to expand...


I'M not progressive/liberal, wtf is whiney pouter...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/04/clinton_joins_b/


...


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> ^ Fail to see your answer there, buckaroo.   Sooooo, again.  How was his comment "racist"?



You're dumb as a clump of clay, shortbus.

The retort of every Obamunist is that criticism of a black man is "racist."


----------



## Uncensored2008

American_Jihad said:


> I'M not progressive/liberal, wtf is whiney pouter...



Obama.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Now that it has been mentioned here, it is true that Fox does not make movies about potental Right wing candidates. Instead, they wait until they have lost, and then hire them as commentators.

Fox hires a LOT of commentators!


----------



## American_Jihad

Uncensored2008 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'M not progressive/liberal, wtf is whiney pouter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama.
Click to expand...


It was the spelling of whiney that threw me off, she might be hooked on boxed wine...


----------



## mudwhistle

Vandalshandle said:


> Now that it has been mentioned here, it is true that Fox does not make movies about potental Right wing candidates. Instead, they wait until they have lost, and then hire them as commentators.
> 
> Fox hires a LOT of commentators!



Sharpton?
Spitzer?

Who's next? Weiner?

At least Fox isn't hiring shakedown artists and sexual deviants.


----------



## American_Jihad

Vandalshandle said:


> Now that it has been mentioned here, it is true that Fox does not make movies about potental Right wing candidates. Instead, they wait until they have lost, and then hire them as commentators.
> 
> Fox hires a LOT of commentators!



And MSDNC/MSM hires the better halves of people who are connected or work for obongo...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2013/03/msnbcs_chris_hayes_lands_prime.html



...


----------



## candycorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he actually saying that the "Yeah" comment from the "Let them die" statement was dubbed in by CNN?
> 
> It literally never ends with these conspiracy whackjobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that it's not a "conspiracy" when it's on the front page, right spanky?
> 
> Though it angers you of the lynch mob, Zimmermans acquittal is not a "conspiracy.."  Nor is the fact that most of the media is simply a propaganda mechanism for the DNC.
Click to expand...


Wow, you should try to do something about that.


----------



## Vandalshandle

CNN reporters were on the grassy knoll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

candycorn said:


> Wow, you should try to do something about that.



Oh? You mean like not consuming their product so they go broke?

{IAC, run by Barry Diller, purchased Newsweek as part of an agreement with the late Sidney Harman in November 2010 and combined it with the Daily Beast news Web site. The billionaire this year said he regretted the move and started looking for buyers.

*Harman had acquired Newsweek from The Washington Post for $1* plus assumption of liabilities.}

IBT buys Newsweek from Daily Beast owner - The Washington Post

{The libertarian brothers Charles and David Koch are believed the only group interested in buying all eight Tribune Co. papers, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel and Hartford Courant, as a package -- how Tribune would like to sell them. The Kochs have neither confirmed nor denied their interest. }


Hundreds Protest Koch Brothers' Possible Ownership Of LA Times (PHOTOS)


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> CNN reporters were on the grassy knoll.



Funny, NBC "reporters" will soon be in the unemployment line....


----------



## Caroljo

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've given up completely even trying to argue that the MSM is left wing biased. Now instead you are trying to ridicule us into not complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Not FAIR.........somebody made a movie about Hllary and I dont want anybody to see it
> 
> whimper, whimper......whine, whine
Click to expand...


I haven't read every one of these posts...but what I heard is that the problem is, this "movie" only goes back to the late 1990's.  It will not include her husbands "affair", it will not include any of their scandals.  Sounds like they're going to make her out to be the perfect woman for the job!  But that's ok....all her and Bills shit will come flowing out of the woodwork once she announces she's running.


----------



## Caroljo

edthecynic said:


> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.



As I mentioned earlier...what I heard is it begins during the "late" 1990's, after the affair and any scandals.  I bet these things are not brought up at all....but we wait and see.


----------



## candycorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you should try to do something about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? You mean like not consuming their product so they go broke?
> 
> {IAC, run by Barry Diller, purchased Newsweek as part of an agreement with the late Sidney Harman in November 2010 and combined it with the Daily Beast news Web site. The billionaire this year said he regretted the move and started looking for buyers.
> 
> *Harman had acquired Newsweek from The Washington Post for $1* plus assumption of liabilities.}
> 
> IBT buys Newsweek from Daily Beast owner - The Washington Post
> {The libertarian brothers Charles and David Koch are believed the only group interested in buying all eight Tribune Co. papers, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel and Hartford Courant, as a package -- how Tribune would like to sell them. The Kochs have neither confirmed nor denied their interest. }
> Hundreds Protest Koch Brothers' Possible Ownership Of LA Times (PHOTOS)
Click to expand...


That would be one way to go...buy something of no value...


----------



## edthecynic

Caroljo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier...what I heard is it *begins during the "late" 1990's, *after the affair and any scandals.  I bet these things are not brought up at all....but we wait and see.
Click to expand...

When do you think the impeachment trial was?


----------



## Uncensored2008

candycorn said:


> That would be one way to go...buy something of no value...



So you agree that the LA Times, Newsweek, the NY Times, and Washington Post have no value?


----------



## Caroljo

edthecynic said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, when haven't the GOP been whining about the media? Nixon and Agnew were perpetual media whiners.
> 
> And what makes the GOP think the movies will be complimentary to Hillary? As I understand it, the NBC mini-series is during the Lewinsky period. How can that possibly reflect well on Hillary? The GOP just see this as an opportunity to play the perpetual victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier...what I heard is it *begins during the "late" 1990's, *after the affair and any scandals.  I bet these things are not brought up at all....but we wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When do you think the impeachment trial was?
Click to expand...


Well....if the "story" starts in 1999, it could be they won't mention it.  That IS late 1990's .  I'm sure they're not going to tell the WHOLE story of her life back then.


----------



## edthecynic

Caroljo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier...what I heard is it *begins during the "late" 1990's, *after the affair and any scandals.  I bet these things are not brought up at all....but we wait and see.
> 
> 
> 
> When do you think the impeachment trial was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well....if the "story" starts in 1999, it could be they won't mention it.  *That IS late 1990's* .  I'm sure they're not going to tell the WHOLE story of her life back then.
Click to expand...

You got me there!


----------



## drivebymedia

*RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights*

_In open letters to the leadership of NBC Universal and CNN International, Priebus expressed his "deep disappointment" over those networks' decisions to produce films "promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016."

Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."_


RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights - POLITICO.com


----------



## Sunshine

Money talks and it doesn't always say what you want to hear.  I  am personally boycotting the products sold on CNN due to the Zimmerman tabloid coverage debacle.


----------



## Wildman

CNN.., what does that mean ? some sort of Commie News Network ??


----------



## drivebymedia

What the nation loves about the tea party is their open minds ....


----------



## drivebymedia

> Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."



My my, the champions of free speech and fair and balanced reporting now resorting to blackmail?

Oh dear me ....


----------



## Stephanie

and that chaps I suppose?

this same thing has been posted 5 TIMES ALREADY

such a troll


----------



## Edgetho

Sunshine said:


> Money talks and it doesn't always say what you want to hear.  I  am personally boycotting the products sold on CNN due to the Zimmerman tabloid coverage debacle.



I have no idea what's sold on CNN.  I don't watch them.  

I know it's early but let's play a friendly game....  Ready?

Here's a story on Filthy Filner (who was endorsed by Bill the rapist Clinton in 2012, BTW.  Rather fitting, eh?)

But here's a story from CNN.

See if you can tell me what's missing from the story



> (CNN) &#8211; The man on the voicemail is flirty and clearly asking for a date. But it&#8217;s the name on the message that&#8217;s raising red flags.
> 
> &#8220;Hi, it&#8217;s your newly favorite congressman, Bob Filner. You know, the one who fell in love with you at your last speech,&#8221; he told Eldonna Fernandez.
> 
> He also asked her out to dinner in the message.
> 
> &#8220;I don&#8217;t want to wait &#8217;til you come back to have dinner with you,&#8221; he said.
> 
> That message was left a year ago, while Filner was serving his 10th term as a U.S. congressman. He had met Fernandez at a National Women&#8217;s Veterans Association of America &#8220;Healing and Hiring Fair.&#8221; [...]
> 
> Fernandez, along with Army veteran Gerri Tindley, joins 11 other women who have publicly accused Filner, 70, of making unwanted advances, from groping to verbal passes.
> 
> *They are also among at least eight female veterans and members of the National Women&#8217;s Veterans Association of America (NWVAA) in San Diego who have made accusations against the mayor. Almost all of the women were victims of sexual assault while they were in the military&#8230;*
> 
> &#8220;He went to dinners, asked women out to dinners, grabbed breasts, buttocks. The full gamut. Everything that is complete violation of what we stand for,&#8221; [NWVAA President Tara] Jones said. &#8220;He&#8217;s a sexual predator. And he used this organization for his own personal agenda.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;re all victims of military sexual assault. It appears to me that he was targeting the organization and hitting on the women of this organization because they were easy prey,&#8221; Fernandez said. &#8220;He&#8217;s part of an organization that&#8217;s against sexual assault and sexual violence against women and sexual harassment. And he&#8217;s doing the very thing that we are fighting to make stop in our service and in our country.&#8221;



- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

Hint:  It's called "Censorship by Omission"


----------



## LeftofLeft

drivebymedia said:


> *RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights*
> 
> _In open letters to the leadership of NBC Universal and CNN International, Priebus expressed his "deep disappointment" over those networks' decisions to produce films "promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016."
> 
> Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."_
> 
> 
> RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights - POLITICO.com



It is not a threat. It is a protest.


----------



## Edgetho

drivebymedia said:


> What the nation loves about the tea party is their open minds ....



The relativistic left's minds are so open, their brains fell out


----------



## Edgetho

LeftofLeft said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights*
> 
> _In open letters to the leadership of NBC Universal and CNN International, Priebus expressed his "deep disappointment" over those networks' decisions to produce films "promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016."
> 
> Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."_
> 
> 
> RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a threat. It is a protest.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's a protest as much as it's using the intelligence God gave you.

You don't support those who are trying to destroy you.

Simple


----------



## FA_Q2

drivebymedia said:


> Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the champions of free speech and fair and balanced reporting now resorting to blackmail?
> 
> Oh dear me ....
Click to expand...


How dumb you must be to completely misunderstand what blackmail is and what the RNC is doing.  

I guess that you think it is against free speech if the GOP also does not promote and campaign for the democrats


----------



## DiamondDave

Trolling troll is still trolling


----------



## drivebymedia

FA_Q2 said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the champions of free speech and fair and balanced reporting now resorting to blackmail?
> 
> Oh dear me ....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How dumb you must be to completely misunderstand what blackmail is and what the RNC is doing.
> 
> I guess that you think it is against free speech if the GOP also does not promote and campaign for the democrats
Click to expand...


A very weak defense of blackmail.

Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"


----------



## Stephanie

So, the idiot troll went from whining about Republicans to dumping on the Tea Party?

this troll can't keep his own threads straight about who they are trolling over..

take what this troll post as just that, trolling to stir SHIT, nothing else

I doubt they are even out of Jr. High school, their threads sound more like GRADE SCHOOL


----------



## LeftofLeft

drivebymedia said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the champions of free speech and fair and balanced reporting now resorting to blackmail?
> 
> Oh dear me ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb you must be to completely misunderstand what blackmail is and what the RNC is doing.
> 
> I guess that you think it is against free speech if the GOP also does not promote and campaign for the democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very weak defense of blackmail.
> 
> Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"
Click to expand...



GOP is not stifling the free speech of CNN and NBC. They are free to show their support of Hillary. The Left needs to realize that The Right to Free Speech does not equate to A Mandate To Be Heard.


----------



## drivebymedia

GOP's  growing fear of the mainstream media giant ....

_"....As an American company you have every right to air programming of your choice. But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded by your actions, which appear to be a major network's thinly-veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 election," Priebus wrote in his letters to NBC chairman Robert Greenblatt and CNN president Jeff Zucker._



RNC hits NBC, CNN for Hillary films; threatens to pull debate rights - POLITICO.com


----------



## drivebymedia

> GOP is not stifling the free speech of CNN and NBC ....



Of course they are not - but they are making a thinly veiled attempt at blackmail in hopes they can


----------



## FA_Q2

drivebymedia said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the champions of free speech and fair and balanced reporting now resorting to blackmail?
> 
> Oh dear me ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb you must be to completely misunderstand what blackmail is and what the RNC is doing.
> 
> I guess that you think it is against free speech if the GOP also does not promote and campaign for the democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very weak defense of blackmail.
> 
> Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"
Click to expand...


Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Does this dumb-dumb even know what blackmail is?


----------



## drivebymedia

FA_Q2 said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb you must be to completely misunderstand what blackmail is and what the RNC is doing.
> 
> I guess that you think it is against free speech if the GOP also does not promote and campaign for the democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very weak defense of blackmail.
> 
> Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is respected.

My opinion is that the RNC is clearly attempting to blackmail these two networks - and I suspect there will be lawsuits and possibly a criminal inquiry to follow.


----------



## Stephanie

Blackmail to the troll is,  anytime someone complains about the Democrats and Obama...

oh and people exercising their freedoms of speech to Object to the dirty politics of the Democrat party with HELP FROM some of the lamestream media is now called, Blackmail..

how do you people love that one?

people need to wake up, the Lamestream media is an ENEMEY to the people who are not Democrats


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Stephanie said:


> Blackmail to the troll is,  anytime someone complains about the Democrats and Obama...
> 
> oh and people exercising their freedoms of speech to Object to the dirty politics of the Democrat party with HELP FROM some of the lamestream media is now called, Blackmail..
> 
> how do you people love that one?
> 
> people need to wake up, the Lamestream media is an ENEMEY to the people who are not Democrats



He's a moron... or he's about 15 yo... he's been wandering aimlessly on this board in search of a single cogent thought for quite some time.


----------



## DiamondDave

drivebymedia said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very weak defense of blackmail.
> 
> Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is respected.
> 
> My opinion is that the RNC is clearly attempting to blackmail these two networks - and I suspect there will be lawsuits and possibly a criminal inquiry to follow.
Click to expand...


Put your reputation where your mouth is.. give it say 3 months.. no criminal inquiry or lawsuit, you just leave here and never come back... if there is a criminal inquiry or lawsuit, I will leave


----------



## LeftofLeft

drivebymedia said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very weak defense of blackmail.
> 
> Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is respected.
> 
> My opinion is that the RNC is clearly attempting to blackmail these two networks - and I suspect there will be lawsuits and possibly a criminal inquiry to follow.
Click to expand...


The RNC is not mandated to work with NBC, CNN, or any network regardless of its actions or inactions. How is this different than a President and his Party not inviting Fox News to press briefings?


----------



## Stephanie

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blackmail to the troll is,  anytime someone complains about the Democrats and Obama...
> 
> oh and people exercising their freedoms of speech to Object to the dirty politics of the Democrat party with HELP FROM some of the lamestream media is now called, Blackmail..
> 
> how do you people love that one?
> 
> people need to wake up, the Lamestream media is an ENEMEY to the people who are not Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a moron... or he's about 15 yo... he's been wandering aimlessly on this board in search of a single cogent thought for quite some time.
Click to expand...


I wish they would blackmail the troll into growing up and post stuff that is important to the people here...not just this grade school stuff like how Republican protesting is now Blackmail

such a waste and absolute GARBAGE...I thought lakhota was bad, this has to be his inbred cousin


----------



## Sunshine

Edgetho said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money talks and it doesn't always say what you want to hear.  I  am personally boycotting the products sold on CNN due to the Zimmerman tabloid coverage debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what's sold on CNN.  I don't watch them.
> 
> I know it's early but let's play a friendly game....  Ready?
> 
> Here's a story on Filthy Filner (who was endorsed by Bill the rapist Clinton in 2012, BTW.  Rather fitting, eh?)
> 
> But here's a story from CNN.
> 
> See if you can tell me what's missing from the story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (CNN)  The man on the voicemail is flirty and clearly asking for a date. But its the name on the message thats raising red flags.
> 
> Hi, its your newly favorite congressman, Bob Filner. You know, the one who fell in love with you at your last speech, he told Eldonna Fernandez.
> 
> He also asked her out to dinner in the message.
> 
> I dont want to wait til you come back to have dinner with you, he said.
> 
> That message was left a year ago, while Filner was serving his 10th term as a U.S. congressman. He had met Fernandez at a National Womens Veterans Association of America Healing and Hiring Fair. [...]
> 
> Fernandez, along with Army veteran Gerri Tindley, joins 11 other women who have publicly accused Filner, 70, of making unwanted advances, from groping to verbal passes.
> 
> *They are also among at least eight female veterans and members of the National Womens Veterans Association of America (NWVAA) in San Diego who have made accusations against the mayor. Almost all of the women were victims of sexual assault while they were in the military*
> 
> He went to dinners, asked women out to dinners, grabbed breasts, buttocks. The full gamut. Everything that is complete violation of what we stand for, [NWVAA President Tara] Jones said. Hes a sexual predator. And he used this organization for his own personal agenda.
> 
> Were all victims of military sexual assault. It appears to me that he was targeting the organization and hitting on the women of this organization because they were easy prey, Fernandez said. Hes part of an organization thats against sexual assault and sexual violence against women and sexual harassment. And hes doing the very thing that we are fighting to make stop in our service and in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> Hint:  It's called "Censorship by Omission"
Click to expand...


I don't know what's missing. It's too early and the day looms large ahead of me because I'm painting my LR, DR, and kit.  He's a democrat.  And recently there has been some speculation that he has dementia.


----------



## drivebymedia

*
Reince Preibus:*

_"Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, *he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."*_


Is blackmail in the eye of the beholder?


----------



## Edgetho

Edgetho said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money talks and it doesn't always say what you want to hear.  I  am personally boycotting the products sold on CNN due to the Zimmerman tabloid coverage debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what's sold on CNN.  I don't watch them.
> 
> I know it's early but let's play a friendly game....  Ready?
> 
> Here's a story on Filthy Filner (who was endorsed by Bill the rapist Clinton in 2012, BTW.  Rather fitting, eh?)
> 
> But here's a story from CNN.
> 
> See if you can tell me what's missing from the story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (CNN)  The man on the voicemail is flirty and clearly asking for a date. But its the name on the message thats raising red flags.
> 
> Hi, its your newly favorite congressman, Bob Filner. You know, the one who fell in love with you at your last speech, he told Eldonna Fernandez.
> 
> He also asked her out to dinner in the message.
> 
> I dont want to wait til you come back to have dinner with you, he said.
> 
> That message was left a year ago, while Filner was serving his 10th term as a U.S. congressman. He had met Fernandez at a National Womens Veterans Association of America Healing and Hiring Fair. [...]
> 
> Fernandez, along with Army veteran Gerri Tindley, joins 11 other women who have publicly accused Filner, 70, of making unwanted advances, from groping to verbal passes.
> 
> *They are also among at least eight female veterans and members of the National Womens Veterans Association of America (NWVAA) in San Diego who have made accusations against the mayor. Almost all of the women were victims of sexual assault while they were in the military*
> 
> He went to dinners, asked women out to dinners, grabbed breasts, buttocks. The full gamut. Everything that is complete violation of what we stand for, [NWVAA President Tara] Jones said. Hes a sexual predator. And he used this organization for his own personal agenda.
> 
> Were all victims of military sexual assault. It appears to me that he was targeting the organization and hitting on the women of this organization because they were easy prey, Fernandez said. Hes part of an organization thats against sexual assault and sexual violence against women and sexual harassment. And hes doing the very thing that we are fighting to make stop in our service and in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> Hint:  It's called "Censorship by Omission"
Click to expand...




DiamondDave said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is respected.
> 
> My opinion is that the RNC is clearly attempting to blackmail these two networks - and I suspect there will be lawsuits and possibly a criminal inquiry to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put your reputation where your mouth is.. give it say 3 months.. no criminal inquiry or lawsuit, you just leave here and never come back... if there is a criminal inquiry or lawsuit, I will leave
Click to expand...


Why would you want to do that?  It makes no sense.

If you win, do you actually think that a dimocrap will keep his word?  

They lie, it's what they do.

Since nobody took up my challenge to tell me what was missing from the CNN Headline about Filthy Filner (I could just spit )

I'll tell you....

There is no mention of what party Filthy Filner belongs to.

Not  a big deal one time.  Not even a big deal twice.

But it's ALL.THE.TIME.

If a Republican is caught doing something wrong, it's in the first paragraph.  Usually in the first sentence and is repeated throughout the article, "Republican John Smith said....."  Or, "John Smith, Republican Congressman from Bum Fukk Ohio was caught.....?

But when it's a dimocrap?

It's called "Censorship by Omission" and "Subliminal Messaging".

It works.  It seriously works.

Subliminal Messaging is supposed to be against the rules in the Television Board of the NAB and, it is.

THE LEGAL STATUS OF SUBLIMINAL COMMUNICATION IN AMERICA



> "The use of the television medium to transmit information of any kind by the use of the process called "subliminal perception," or by the use of any similar technique whereby an attempt is made to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below the threshold of normal awareness is not permitted." (Bliss, supra, p. 12, at 435 (quoting from NEWS FROM NAB, Mar. 26, 1958).



But dimocrap scum still employ it by other means to either demean Republicans or excuse other dimocrap scum.

It's hard to see, hard to figure out unless you know how to look for it.  It's there

An entire article on a politician and no mention of his party affiliation?

Please.

Subliminal?  Not really.  Or is it......??


----------



## LeftofLeft

drivebymedia said:


> *
> Reince Preibus:*
> 
> _"Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, *he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."*_
> 
> 
> Is blackmail in the eye of the beholder?



"Elections Have Consequences" "Bring a Gun to a Knife Fight" "Punish Your Enemies". BY comparison, a vote not to partner with a media outlet(s) is simply a protest.....voting with your feet if you will. 

NBC and CNN need the GOP.  The Market teaches us everything we need to know.


----------



## Edgetho

Sunshine said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money talks and it doesn't always say what you want to hear.  I  am personally boycotting the products sold on CNN due to the Zimmerman tabloid coverage debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what's sold on CNN.  I don't watch them.
> 
> I know it's early but let's play a friendly game....  Ready?
> 
> Here's a story on Filthy Filner (who was endorsed by Bill the rapist Clinton in 2012, BTW.  Rather fitting, eh?)
> 
> But here's a story from CNN.
> 
> See if you can tell me what's missing from the story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (CNN)  The man on the voicemail is flirty and clearly asking for a date. But its the name on the message thats raising red flags.
> 
> Hi, its your newly favorite congressman, Bob Filner. You know, the one who fell in love with you at your last speech, he told Eldonna Fernandez.
> 
> He also asked her out to dinner in the message.
> 
> I dont want to wait til you come back to have dinner with you, he said.
> 
> That message was left a year ago, while Filner was serving his 10th term as a U.S. congressman. He had met Fernandez at a National Womens Veterans Association of America Healing and Hiring Fair. [...]
> 
> Fernandez, along with Army veteran Gerri Tindley, joins 11 other women who have publicly accused Filner, 70, of making unwanted advances, from groping to verbal passes.
> 
> *They are also among at least eight female veterans and members of the National Womens Veterans Association of America (NWVAA) in San Diego who have made accusations against the mayor. Almost all of the women were victims of sexual assault while they were in the military*
> 
> He went to dinners, asked women out to dinners, grabbed breasts, buttocks. The full gamut. Everything that is complete violation of what we stand for, [NWVAA President Tara] Jones said. Hes a sexual predator. And he used this organization for his own personal agenda.
> 
> Were all victims of military sexual assault. It appears to me that he was targeting the organization and hitting on the women of this organization because they were easy prey, Fernandez said. Hes part of an organization thats against sexual assault and sexual violence against women and sexual harassment. And hes doing the very thing that we are fighting to make stop in our service and in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> Hint:  It's called "Censorship by Omission"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what's missing. It's too early and the day looms large ahead of me because I'm painting my LR, DR, and kit.  He's a democrat.  And recently there has been some speculation that he has dementia.
Click to expand...


Of course he has dementia!!  He's a dimocrap.

Painting, huh?

Good luck.  

I don't mind painting as much as I do picking the colors.  Don't ask.


----------



## drivebymedia

> _NBC and CNN need the GOP_.....



Obviously Preibus thinks so, ergo - his attempt at blackmail


----------



## Edgetho

LeftofLeft said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Reince Preibus:*
> 
> _"Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, *he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."*_
> 
> 
> Is blackmail in the eye of the beholder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Elections Have Consequences" "Bring a Gun to a Knife Fight" "Punish Your Enemies". BY comparison, a vote not to partner with a media outlet(s) is simply a protest.....voting with your feet if you will.
> 
> NBC and CNN need the GOP.  The Market teaches us everything we need to know.
Click to expand...


You do realize you're responding to the logic of a 12 year-old, don't you?

Lawsuits?   

Criminal Charges?  

Actually, my niece is 12 and she's smarter than that.


----------



## drivebymedia

drivebymedia said:


> _NBC and CNN need the GOP_.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Preibus thinks so, ergo - his attempt at blackmail
Click to expand...


And Preibus knows FOX has the oldest viewer demographic of all TV news outlets - a median 65.

Well above advertiser and political party targets of the 29-55 age group.

The RNC is desperate to tap into that age group and NBC and CNN are his current targets, and he chooses to use some slovenly underhanded tactics to do it.


----------



## FA_Q2

drivebymedia said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very weak defense of blackmail.
> 
> Yes, we know the Right Wing thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us ... and free speech is what we say it is"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is respected.
> 
> My opinion is that the RNC is clearly attempting to blackmail these two networks - and I suspect there will be lawsuits and possibly a criminal inquiry to follow.
Click to expand...


It is not opinion.  Blackmail is a specifically defined crime and this is not only legal but also has nothing related at all to blackmail in general.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

drivebymedia said:


> *
> Reince Preibus:*
> 
> _"Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, *he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."*_
> 
> 
> Is blackmail in the eye of the beholder?



You really should learn some basic definitions  before you post  this shit... you might not come off so stupid.  Seriously, you seem colossally stupid.

This is in no way blackmail.


----------



## Missourian

Of course Drivebymedia is a dipshit...but there is something to this.

I heard Priebs touting this on Dennis Millers radio show.

(This is from CNN,  but this is also exactly what I heard):One idea he mentioned was instituting a penalty system in which  candidates for the nomination would lose a percentage of delegates if  they participated in a debate not sanctioned by the RNC.

GOP chief plans major overhaul to party - CNN.com​Translation:The GOP establishment wants total control of who is allowed to debate.

If they want Romney, they'll give you Romney,  and you'LL f'ing like it!

They can't have just any candidate out there debating...how can they shove another RINO down your throat if you have......other choices!​Don't be fooled,  this is the game plan,  cloaked in rhetoric.

The GOP establishment hope they can pull the wool over your eyes by ringing the "liberal media" bell and expecting you,  their base,  to immediately salivate.

Don't dance to their tune.


----------



## FA_Q2

LeftofLeft said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: its not blackmail.  You should have understood from my last post but I guess that was not direct enough for you.  It is not even remotely like blackmail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is respected.
> 
> My opinion is that the RNC is clearly attempting to blackmail these two networks - and I suspect there will be lawsuits and possibly a criminal inquiry to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The RNC is not mandated to work with NBC, CNN, or any network regardless of its actions or inactions. How is this different than a President and his Party not inviting Fox News to press briefings?
Click to expand...



It is massively different because one is a private institution essentially boycotting another private institution where the president is a governmental official stonewalling a private institution because it is not doing what he wants.  There is a big difference in private institution dealing with each other and the government interactions with private institutions. 

But then again, I doubt you would disagree.  It dies make the OP that much more dishonest though.


----------



## eagle7_31

GOP vs NBC, CNN and the Dems vs Fox. My my my.


----------



## Edgetho

Anybody remember the mini-series 'Path To 9/11'?

If you never saw it, guess what?

You never will.

After Clinton howled and screamed and dimocrap scum fought like cornered rats and dimocrap senators wrote letters threatening ABC's Broadcast License, dimocrap scum got them to edit certain parts and add a disclaimer at the opening and in the middle of the 2-parter.

And it has NEVER been released on DVD or re-broadcast.

That was the last time the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM tried to be honest about dimocrap scum.

Wanna read a little about it?

Here's an article from the left-leaning Politico.  There's others but you'll have to find them yourselves.


Who was blocking 'The Path to 9/11'? - Jeffrey Ressner - POLITICO.com

I don't really care what the LSM does.  They can all commit ritual suicide AFAIC.  With knitting needles.


----------



## FA_Q2

Missourian said:


> Of course Drivebymedia is a dipshit...but there is something to this.
> 
> I heard Priebs touting this on Dennis Millers radio show.
> 
> (This is from CNN,  but this is also exactly what I heard):One idea he mentioned was instituting a penalty system in which  candidates for the nomination would lose a percentage of delegates if  they participated in a debate not sanctioned by the RNC.
> 
> GOP chief plans major overhaul to party - CNN.com​Translation:The GOP establishment wants total control of who is allowed to debate.
> 
> If they want Romney, they'll give you Romney,  and you'LL f'ing like it!
> 
> They can't have just any candidate out there debating...how can they shove another RINO down your throat if you have......other choices!​Don't be fooled,  this is the game plan,  cloaked in rhetoric.
> 
> The GOP establishment hope they can pull the wool over your eyes by ringing the "liberal media" bell and expecting you,  their base,  to immediately salivate.
> 
> Don't dance to their tune.



That might be an issue but it has nothing to do with the OPs claims which is the RNC essentially challenging CNNs shameless pushing of their chosen candidate.  The RNC feels they are getting a raw deal and are returning the favor.  That is how it goes.


----------



## Edgetho

FA_Q2 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Drivebymedia is a dipshit...but there is something to this.
> 
> I heard Priebs touting this on Dennis Millers radio show.
> 
> (This is from CNN,  but this is also exactly what I heard):One idea he mentioned was instituting a penalty system in which  candidates for the nomination would lose a percentage of delegates if  they participated in a debate not sanctioned by the RNC.
> 
> GOP chief plans major overhaul to party - CNN.com​Translation:The GOP establishment wants total control of who is allowed to debate.
> 
> If they want Romney, they'll give you Romney,  and you'LL f'ing like it!
> 
> They can't have just any candidate out there debating...how can they shove another RINO down your throat if you have......other choices!​Don't be fooled,  this is the game plan,  cloaked in rhetoric.
> 
> The GOP establishment hope they can pull the wool over your eyes by ringing the "liberal media" bell and expecting you,  their base,  to immediately salivate.
> 
> Don't dance to their tune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might be an issue but it has nothing to do with the OPs claims which is the RNC essentially challenging CNNs shameless pushing of their chosen candidate.  The RNC feels they are getting a raw deal and are returning the favor.  That is how it goes.
Click to expand...


The Republicans are ABSOLUTELY getting a raw deal from the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM.

Any Conservative that doesn't understand that needs to shut up and sit down


----------



## bendog

Anyone appreciate the irony of Hill not really wanting the media portrayals?  No politician wants to lose control over their personal narrative.  It may be telling as to Hollywood's total loathing for W that Oliver Stone got away with his movie.  I still haven't bothered with it.  I haven't bothered with JFK either.


----------



## blackhawk

drivebymedia said:


> Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC's Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will "seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the champions of free speech and fair and balanced reporting now resorting to blackmail?
> 
> Oh dear me ....
Click to expand...


You mean like how the left tries to use boycotts and goes after the sponsors of those they don't like and disagree with? It really sucks when you get your own tactics used against you don't it?


----------



## bendog

tell me, we can eat french fries again, can't we?  I was going to lunch tomorrow and the restaurant has a great hamburger.


----------



## NYcarbineer

So the GOP wants to drive Hillary out of the race?  Why?  Out of fear?

Good on them if they do, then they'll get to run against someone like Martin O'Malley of Maryland,

a potentially even more formidable candidate.


----------



## tinydancer

It's not a threat. It's a promise. 

This is long overdue.


----------



## tinydancer

What does anyone think would happen if Fox News decided to make a mini series called:

*Bengazi: The Truth behind the Slaughter of Four Americans in Libya*

How fast would the left be screaming blue freaking murder?

Or a tv special:

*Monica Lewinsky: How she is coping today after her love affair with a President?*



I guarantee all hell would break loose from the left.


----------



## Edgetho

tinydancer said:


> What does anyone think would happen if Fox News decided to make a mini series called:
> 
> *Bengazi: The Truth behind the Slaughter of Four Americans in Libya*
> 
> How fast would the left be screaming blue freaking murder?
> 
> Or a tv special:
> 
> *Monica Lewinsky: How she is coping today after her love affair with a President?*
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee all hell would break loose from the left.



Yeah, they'd try to give them...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sdXjm8pZMws]Humble Pie-30 Days In The Hole - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## tinydancer

I've got a great idea for the RNC.

They should throw down and tell the alphabet networks that they'll agree to candidate debates on the LSM when Democrat candidates agree to have a town hall with Hannity, a debate on Fox  with moderator Rush Limbaugh, and one on one interviews with Mark Levin or Michael Savage (they can pick their poison on that one).


----------



## LeftofLeft

tinydancer said:


> I've got a great idea for the RNC.
> 
> They should throw down and tell the alphabet networks that they'll agree to candidate debates on the LSM when Democrat candidates agree to have a town hall with Hannity, a debate on Fox  with moderator Rush Limbaugh, and one on one interviews with Mark Levin or Michael Savage (they can pick their poison on that one).



This is an excellent idea. There would not be a Fox News or demand for Conservative media outlets if the other networks had not transformed themselves into a Left biased machine. Fox is simply filling a void for the Right with their bias. The market has spoken and the US has decidedly two different, biased medias. The Left is in denial about this one.


----------



## drivebymedia

> This is in no way blackmail.



The tea party legal department has spoken!


----------



## drivebymedia

> There would not be a Fox News or demand for Conservative media outlets if the other networks had not transformed themselves into a Left biased machine



It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of the press ....

Look it up

FOX represents the philosophy of mainly 2 very wealthy men: David Koch and Rupert Murdoch, and they can espouse any philosophy they choose.

But strong-arming their competitors has it's rules!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Obviously, the networks should submit their Fall line up to the Republican party for approval before finalizing it.

Are they still claiming that one of the Teletubbies is gay?


----------



## tinydancer

drivebymedia said:


> There would not be a Fox News or demand for Conservative media outlets if the other networks had not transformed themselves into a Left biased machine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of the press ....
> 
> Look it up
Click to expand...


Actually when media puts their bias on the front page instead of in the editorial section it's called propaganda.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

I don't see any threats.  It's a good idea for the RNC to boycott CNN and NBC altogether.  It's not like they aren't appendages of the Democratic Party.


----------



## Synthaholic

Sunshine said:


> Money talks and it doesn't always say what you want to hear.  I  am personally boycotting the products sold on CNN due to the Zimmerman tabloid coverage debacle.


Liability thinks you are using blackmail instead of the Free Market.

He says you're not a conservative.


----------



## drivebymedia

Edgetho said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does anyone think would happen if Fox News decided to make a mini series called:
> 
> *Bengazi: The Truth behind the Slaughter of Four Americans in Libya*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody but a handful of doddering, angry old folks would tune in.
Click to expand...


----------



## Synthaholic

Prebus is only doing this because it's so far away from the election.  It's just another fundraising opportunity.

He will back down.  He always does.


----------



## midcan5

Vandalshandle said:


> Obviously, the networks should submit their Fall line up to the Republican party for approval before finalizing it....



So true, the 1st amendment only applies when the republicans agree with the speech act. 

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." William O. Douglas


----------



## Edgetho

Crackerjaxon said:


> I don't see any threats.  It's a good idea for the RNC to boycott CNN and NBC altogether.  It's not like they aren't appendages of the Democratic Party.



By law, TV ads run by the Political Parties themselves are cheaper than those run by a PAC or a non-affiliated group.

The RNC should run only the restricted ads on the Networks and all the other ads anywhere they want.

Not that the RNC would technically have a lot of control over that, but why give money to the very people who want to destroy you by any means they can find to do so?


----------



## drivebymedia

tinydancer said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would not be a Fox News or demand for Conservative media outlets if the other networks had not transformed themselves into a Left biased machine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of the press ....
> 
> Look it up
> 
> FOX represents the philosophy of mainly 2 very wealthy men: David Koch and Rupert Murdoch, and they can espouse any philosophy they choose.
> 
> But strong-arming their competitors has it's rules!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual when media puts their bias on the front page instead of in the editorial section it's called propaganda.
Click to expand...


Like Murdoch's _FOX,  NY Post and WSJ?_


----------



## Vandalshandle

Synthaholic said:


> Prebus is only doing this because it's so far away from the election.  It's just another fundraising opportunity.
> 
> He will back down.  He always does.



You are absolutely right. They do similar things here in AZ. Every time they put a tax increase measure on the ballat, they close the interstate rest stops, because of "funds shortage". They are opened about a week after the vote.


----------



## drivebymedia

> Prebus is only doing this because it's so far away from the election. It's just another fundraising opportunity.
> 
> He will back down. He always does.



Moderates are embarrassed by the far right, and  stunts like this send them further left.

And the tea party chorus has no money - but true, they love these 'breitbart-style' stunts


----------



## tinydancer

drivebymedia said:


> Prebus is only doing this because it's so far away from the election. It's just another fundraising opportunity.
> 
> He will back down. He always does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderates are embarrassed by the far right, and  stunts like this sends them further left.
> 
> And the tea party chorus has no money - but true, they love these 'breitbart-style' stunts
Click to expand...


Tea Party has just out raised Rove. The money is coming in.


----------



## Synthaholic

tinydancer said:


> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prebus is only doing this because it's so far away from the election. It's just another fundraising opportunity.
> 
> He will back down. He always does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderates are embarrassed by the far right, and  stunts like this sends them further left.
> 
> And the tea party chorus has no money - but true, they love these 'breitbart-style' stunts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tea Party has just out raised Rove. The money is coming in.
Click to expand...

How will they pay their trailer park fees?


----------



## Edgetho

An example, one of many thousands, of how the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM helps dimocrap scum.....


Ace ~


The AP took it upon themselves to cover for the dear leader.

AP's Russ Bynum Covers Up Obama's 'Gulf Ports' Gaffe | NewsBusters

What Obama said:



> THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. As you know, for the last three years, Ive said, lets work together. Lets find a financing mechanism and lets go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports *all along the Gulf*  places like *Charleston, South Carolina*, or *Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida*  if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And well lose jobs. Businesses wont locate here.



What AP reported:



> "*If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf  (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla.  if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs,*" Obama said.



Does anyone think the AP would have afforded the Republicans the same courtesy?

Its really not a 'minor' deal.  Not when it's done thousands of times


----------



## Vandalshandle

So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.


----------



## Edgetho

Vandalshandle said:


> So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.



I just wonder if the Stuttering Clusterfukk knows which of the 57 States border the Gulf.


----------



## drivebymedia

Synthaholic said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderates are embarrassed by the far right, and  stunts like this sends them further left.
> 
> And the tea party chorus has no money - but true, they love these 'breitbart-style' stunts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party has just out raised Rove. The money is coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will they pay their trailer park fees?
Click to expand...


They'll skip on their rent and go to another park.


----------



## drivebymedia

*Mark Levine:* "_That goddamed Karl Rove is now criticizing our tea party - I quite this goddamed circus" !!_

Temper, temper, Mark


----------



## ClosedCaption

That's terrible no one should ever do an in depth story about a politician






Unless we do it!


----------



## blackhawk

We need to come up with a name for the Hillary series how about Diane Lane starring as Hillary Clinton in what difference does it make now? If they do a Biden one what about my left foot in mouth the true story of Joe Biden?


----------



## Flopper

The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.

It be might be worth waiting for the films to actually be made before declaring that they would benefit Clinton, criticism could influence the filmmakers to err on the side of more negativity.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Despite the left's best effort to try and silence Conservatives in regard to their own choice for candidates as well as the liberal Media hacks throwing all virtue out the window and doing whatever it takes to tip the balance of power in to the Democrat column, some Conservatives don't fear the taunts, insults, and constant stream of propaganda from the intolerant extremist progressives. Deal with it and stop whining.


----------



## Edgetho

Flopper said:


> The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.



Thank you SO much for caring SO very much about Republicans.

We will consider your advice and give it the thought it deserves...


----------



## ClosedCaption

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Despite the left's best effort to try and silence Conservatives in regard to their own choice for candidates as well as the liberal Media hacks throwing all virtue out the window and doing whatever it takes to tip the balance of power in to the Democrat column, some Conservatives don't fear the taunts, insults, and constant stream of propaganda from the intolerant extremist progressives. Deal with it and stop whining.



You can choose who you want.  Those leftist that are trying to silence you are all in your head.  You have nothing to fear, take your advice and stop whining against imaginary "haters" trying to stop you


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

ClosedCaption said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the left's best effort to try and silence Conservatives in regard to their own choice for candidates as well as the liberal Media hacks throwing all virtue out the window and doing whatever it takes to tip the balance of power in to the Democrat column, some Conservatives don't fear the taunts, insults, and constant stream of propaganda from the intolerant extremist progressives. Deal with it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose who you want.  Those leftist that are trying to silence you are all in your head.  You have nothing to fear, take your advice and stop whining against imaginary "haters" trying to stop you
Click to expand...


Everything you just spewed is a lie.. Each election cycle we see more of the same. Liberals running to cast votes in open primaries for the RINOs in the party.. The liberal media's slobbering love affair with John McShame, Chrispy Kreme Cristy, and so on.. Too bad there are real numbers and video evidence to prove your spittle is dry.


----------



## drivebymedia

ClosedCaption said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the left's best effort to try and silence Conservatives in regard to their own choice for candidates as well as the liberal Media hacks throwing all virtue out the window and doing whatever it takes to tip the balance of power in to the Democrat column, some Conservatives don't fear the taunts, insults, and constant stream of propaganda from the intolerant extremist progressives. Deal with it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose who you want.  Those leftist that are trying to silence you are all in your head.  You have nothing to fear, take your advice and stop whining against imaginary "haters" trying to stop you
Click to expand...


We often-times confuse the tea party with the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is today trying to erase that confusion.


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.
> 
> It be might be worth waiting for the films to actually be made before declaring that they would benefit Clinton, criticism could influence the filmmakers to err on the side of more negativity.



how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?

....a rough number will do......


----------



## Flopper

tinydancer said:


> I've got a great idea for the RNC.
> 
> They should throw down and tell the alphabet networks that they'll agree to candidate debates on the LSM when Democrat candidates agree to have a town hall with Hannity, a debate on Fox  with moderator Rush Limbaugh, and one on one interviews with Mark Levin or Michael Savage (they can pick their poison on that one).


Nothing would help the Democrats more than for the GOP to freeze out those alphabet networks and marginalize themselves by moving the debates to Fox.


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drivebymedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderates are embarrassed by the far right, and  stunts like this sends them further left.
> 
> And the tea party chorus has no money - but true, they love these 'breitbart-style' stunts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party has just out raised Rove. The money is coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will they pay their trailer park fees?
Click to expand...


niiiicccee thx Carville.....I love it when a buffoon like you shows his true colors....

I'd like to say like your/you do, on their knees behind the porta potty on the 1st of the month, but, I gotta let it go...


----------



## Flopper

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.
> 
> It be might be worth waiting for the films to actually be made before declaring that they would benefit Clinton, criticism could influence the filmmakers to err on the side of more negativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
Click to expand...

To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.


----------



## FA_Q2

Vandalshandle said:


> So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.



No.  I think they are more wonder why the press covers up a gaff by Obama but will not do so when a republican makes some stupid mistake.  Mind pointing out when they did so for Bush?  I mean, he was king of gaffs s they had AMPLE opportunity but I dont recall the press ever covering up a gaff from him.  I guess that is fine with you also


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> So the GOP wants to drive Hillary out of the race?  Why?  Out of fear?



No, because she is utterly corrupt, is an authoritarian, is an internationalist, and works diligently against the interests of the American people.


----------



## ClosedCaption

LadyGunSlinger said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the left's best effort to try and silence Conservatives in regard to their own choice for candidates as well as the liberal Media hacks throwing all virtue out the window and doing whatever it takes to tip the balance of power in to the Democrat column, some Conservatives don't fear the taunts, insults, and constant stream of propaganda from the intolerant extremist progressives. Deal with it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose who you want.  Those leftist that are trying to silence you are all in your head.  You have nothing to fear, take your advice and stop whining against imaginary "haters" trying to stop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you just spewed is a lie.. Each election cycle we see more of the same. Liberals running to cast votes in open primaries for the RINOs in the party.. The liberal media's slobbering love affair with John McShame, Chrispy Kreme Cristy, and so on.. Too bad there are real numbers and video evidence to prove your spittle is dry.
Click to expand...


And still with all that, no one Is trying to silence you.  They are all in your head.  John and Chris are repubs.  You used to like them and they got coverage.  Now you don't and they still get coverage.  The only thing that changed was how you felt about those two


----------



## rightwinger

Flopper said:


> The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.
> 
> It be might be worth waiting for the films to actually be made before declaring that they would benefit Clinton, criticism could influence the filmmakers to err on the side of more negativity.



What ratings do GOP debates get anyway?


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.
> 
> It be might be worth waiting for the films to actually be made before declaring that they would benefit Clinton, criticism could influence the filmmakers to err on the side of more negativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
Click to expand...


Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators

Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party has just out raised Rove. The money is coming in.
> 
> 
> 
> How will they pay their trailer park fees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> niiiicccee thx Carville.....I love it when a buffoon like you shows his true colors....
> 
> I'd like to say like your/you do, on their knees behind the porta potty on the 1st of the month, but, I gotta let it go...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything I haven't been saying all along!

The Tea Party is an Astro-Turf "grassroots" campaign, paid for by the super-rich (Kochs) and the super-connected (Armey).

The rank-and-file teabaggers are just the idiots from the trailer parks that are easily swayed by preying on their racism and their fake patriotism and their sheer stupidity.

I've been saying it since they appeared - coincidentally, at the same time as our first Black POTUS was sworn in.


----------



## Synthaholic

ClosedCaption said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose who you want.  Those leftist that are trying to silence you are all in your head.  You have nothing to fear, take your advice and stop whining against imaginary "haters" trying to stop you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just spewed is a lie.. Each election cycle we see more of the same. Liberals running to cast votes in open primaries for the RINOs in the party.. The liberal media's slobbering love affair with John McShame, Chrispy Kreme Cristy, and so on.. Too bad there are real numbers and video evidence to prove your spittle is dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still with all that, no one Is trying to silence you.  They are all in your head.  John and Chris are repubs.  You used to like them and they got coverage.  Now you don't and they still get coverage.  The only thing that changed was how you felt about those two
Click to expand...

And if Christie starts leading Hillary in the polls, she will be happy to suck his dick once again.


----------



## edthecynic

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and* what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?*
Click to expand...

Genius!


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is always threatening retaliation if they don't get what they want.  Repeal Obamacare or we'll shutdown the government.  Now they're threatening two television networks that if they produce a film about Hilary, who hasn't even said she is going to run, they won't partner with them on the primary debates.  Carrying out these threats only hurts themselves and helps the opposition.
> 
> It be might be worth waiting for the films to actually be made before declaring that they would benefit Clinton, criticism could influence the filmmakers to err on the side of more negativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
Click to expand...


 I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
Click to expand...



WTF are you talking about?


The debate was moderated by Fox News anchor Bret Baier of _Special Report with Bret Baier_ and several other Fox News contributors, including Juan Williams, Shannon Bream, and Chris Wallace.[3]


and:



The third Republican debate was held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa, Fox News Channel, and _The Washington Examiner_. *It was moderated by Bret Baier with questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and the Washington Examiner's Byron York and Susan Ferrechio*. Baier and Wallace were praised for their moderation of the debate.[9]


and:


The fifth Republican debate was held at Florida State Fair Grounds in Tampa, Florida, sponsored by CNN and Tea Party Express.


and:


The sixth Republican debate was held at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, and was sponsored by Fox News Channel and Google. It was moderated by Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Megyn Kelly.


and:


The thirteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and held in Sioux City, Iowa. It was moderated by Bret Baier.


and:


The sixteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, and was held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It was moderated by Bret Baier. Juan Williams also asked questions of the candidates. 




Now go lick your wounds.


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> The debate was moderated by Fox News anchor Bret Baier of _Special Report with Bret Baier_ and several other Fox News contributors, including Juan Williams, Shannon Bream, and Chris Wallace.[3]
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> 
> The third Republican debate was held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa, Fox News Channel, and _The Washington Examiner_. *It was moderated by Bret Baier with questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and the Washington Examiner's Byron York and Susan Ferrechio*. Baier and Wallace were praised for their moderation of the debate.[9]
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The fifth Republican debate was held at Florida State Fair Grounds in Tampa, Florida, sponsored by CNN and Tea Party Express.
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The sixth Republican debate was held at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, and was sponsored by Fox News Channel and Google. It was moderated by Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Megyn Kelly.
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The thirteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and held in Sioux City, Iowa. It was moderated by Bret Baier.
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The sixteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, and was held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It was moderated by Bret Baier. Juan Williams also asked questions of the candidates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now go lick your wounds.
Click to expand...


your such a maroon...I said "presidential debates"  asshat.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

yurt said:


> they've been in hillary's tank since the 90's
> 
> stating facts is not whimpering, well, maybe to you because you and facts are like oil and water



1


----------



## Wry Catcher

american_jihad said:


> that's a good idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *gop to networks: Cancel clinton shows or we'll nix debates*​
> 18 min ago |by msn news with wire reports
> 
> republican party calls on nbc, cnn to cancel planned hillary clinton programs and threatens to pull out of primary debates if the networks don't comply.
> 
> washington  the republican national committee wants nbc and cnn to cancel upcoming programs on hillary rodham clinton and is threatening to blackball the television networks from future republican presidential debates if they fail to comply.
> 
> Committee chairman reince priebus calls the programs political ads "masquerading" as unbiased productions. He vows not to partner with the networks on republican debates if they don't pull the programs.
> 
> "it's appalling to know executives at major networks like nbc and cnn who have donated to democrats and hillary clinton have taken it upon themselves to be hillary clinton's campaign operatives," priebus said in a statement. "their actions to promote secretary clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
> 
> ...
> 
> gop to networks: Cancel clinton shows or we'll nix debates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you want this tired old biddy to be president...​



2.


----------



## Wry Catcher

uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> gop: The media is already in the tank for hillary clinton - the week
> 
> both programs are planned to run soon, long before clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the fcc's equal-time rule. In the letters, priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> he then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to republicans, but potential democratic candidates like vice president joe biden and new york governor andrew cuomo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, the corrupt party press is actively campaigning for hillary - but you see nothing wrong with that?
> 
> Rofl
> 
> even you can't be this much of a fucktard.
> 
> Thank god for fox, so we have some semblance of independent press.
Click to expand...


3.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Synthaholic said:


> And if Christie starts leading Hillary in the polls, she will be happy to suck his dick once again.



Hillary has never taken a dick in any orifice. The fact that you've taken many in all your orifices, doesn't change that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

I guess I could go on and post every stupid response from the whiner set of the echo chamber but they would never think about what they post - they seem never to do.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if Christie starts leading Hillary in the polls, she will be happy to suck his dick once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary has never taken a dick in any orifice. The fact that you've taken many in all your orifices, doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


4.  Stupid and vulgar.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> 4.  Stupid and vulgar.



Yes you are, but we were talking about Hillary.

Oh wait, she's stupid and vulgar as well....

Carry on.


----------



## Trajan

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.
Click to expand...



Britt Hume, definitely  yes. 


anyway, this has been one of the more  instructive and revealing threads around for a while,   

now in all seriousness,  notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate,  since day 1,  ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100? 

 yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook  unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..

and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?


----------



## edthecynic

Trajan said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Britt Hume, definitely  yes.
> 
> 
> anyway, this has been one of the more  instructive and revealing threads around for a while,
> 
> now in all seriousness,  notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate,  since day 1,  ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100?
> 
> yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook  unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..
> 
> and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?
Click to expand...

Sure, Britt Hume, fair and balanced.


----------



## Missourian

Edgetho said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Drivebymedia is a dipshit...but there is something to this.
> 
> I heard Priebs touting this on Dennis Millers radio show.
> 
> (This is from CNN,  but this is also exactly what I heard):One idea he mentioned was instituting a penalty system in which  candidates for the nomination would lose a percentage of delegates if  they participated in a debate not sanctioned by the RNC.
> 
> GOP chief plans major overhaul to party - CNN.com​Translation:The GOP establishment wants total control of who is allowed to debate.
> 
> If they want Romney, they'll give you Romney,  and you'LL f'ing like it!
> 
> They can't have just any candidate out there debating...how can they shove another RINO down your throat if you have......other choices!​Don't be fooled,  this is the game plan,  cloaked in rhetoric.
> 
> The GOP establishment hope they can pull the wool over your eyes by ringing the "liberal media" bell and expecting you,  their base,  to immediately salivate.
> 
> Don't dance to their tune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might be an issue but it has nothing to do with the OP&#8217;s claims which is the RNC essentially challenging CNN&#8217;s shameless pushing of their chosen candidate.  The RNC feels they are getting a raw deal and are returning the favor.  That is how it goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans are ABSOLUTELY getting a raw deal from the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM.
> 
> Any Conservative that doesn't understand that needs to shut up and sit down
Click to expand...



Whatever you say Mr. Priebus...must stay on message...got it. 

Just what we want,  to give the GOP establishment more control.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Stupid and vulgar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are, but we were talking about Hillary.
> 
> Oh wait, she's stupid and vulgar as well....
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


Wow, an, "I know you are but what am I" response.  A comment a dull-normal third grader would eschew.

Rhetorically, why do self defined conservatives so often default to boorish and indecorous sexual references!  Immaturity for sure, but I suspect something more pathological, though it may be a product of a dull mind and a poor education.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> Wow, an, "I know you are but what am I" response.  A comment a dull-normal third grader would eschew.
> 
> Rhetorically, why do self defined conservatives so often default to boorish and indecorous sexual references!  Immaturity for sure, but I suspect something more pathological, though it may be a product of a dull mind and a poor education.



Probably because you leftists have the haughty yet doltish, humorless yet juvenile, market cornered.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, an, "I know you are but what am I" response.  A comment a dull-normal third grader would eschew.
> 
> Rhetorically, why do self defined conservatives so often default to boorish and indecorous sexual references!  Immaturity for sure, but I suspect something more pathological, though it may be a product of a dull mind and a poor education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because you leftists have the haughty yet doltish, humorless yet juvenile, market cornered.
Click to expand...


Define "leftists" (bet you can't).


----------



## Missourian

Politicians are like magicians.

Misdirection.

Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?

Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.

Romney was their pick,  and we didn't want him.

"Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.

Can't allow that to happen again...


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> Both programs are planned to run soon, long before Clinton would announce any candidacy, which would clear the networks from violating the FCC's equal-time rule. In the letters, Priebus calls on each network to "cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
> 
> He then signs off with a threat:
> 
> 
> Priebus complains that airing the films would not only be unfair to Republicans, but potential Democratic candidates like Vice President Joe Biden and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.



Were the Travons "whimpering" about their thug little brat getting what he deserved?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> Define "leftists" (bet you can't).



Leftist: One who promotes a dominate role of government to centrally plan and manage the economy, to enforce social standards through hate crimes, politically correct speech codes, hiring and educational quotas. Those who turn to government to allocate resources and control the market in the quest to make the distribution of goods more fair. One who supports a very large role of government in daily life, from health care, to education, to retirement planning.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> Were the Travons "whimpering" about their thug little brat getting what he deserved?



I knew a man who put a 2x4 on his thigh and cut it with a skill saw. What I heard was the board rolled. Regardless, he cut all the way to the bone. He died from it. Despite people putting pressure on the wound and doing what they could, he bled out before getting to the hospital.

Now, he did something REALLY stupid. He was the architect of his own death. I heard some people say that he "got what he deserved," but he didn't. His death was tragic and stupid.

Same thing with Trayvon, he did NOT get what he deserved. He caused his own death, but his death was still tragic and stupid.


----------



## Flopper

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
Click to expand...

The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator.  To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.

Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base.  That's what you do in primary debates.


----------



## Trajan

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britt Hume, definitely  yes.
> 
> 
> anyway, this has been one of the more  instructive and revealing threads around for a while,
> 
> now in all seriousness,  notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate,  since day 1,  ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100?
> 
> yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook  unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..
> 
> and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Britt Hume, fair and balanced.
Click to expand...


thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was referring to as in;

_yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook  unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise_



I never said anyone was more fair or less, its a given they all have their own take, my point was there has not been one not of the nets or cnn or pbs, zero from fox, (or for that  matter msnbc I think) it is recognized fox slants their way, the rest slant theirs see now Ed...... and on top of it, dem candidates boycotted fox,  apparently that was cool, now? the gop says hey nbc ccn what the heck and the gop is whining bitches?.....how the *uck does that work?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "leftists" (bet you can't).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist: One who promotes a dominate role of government to centrally plan and manage the economy, to enforce social standards through hate crimes, politically correct speech codes, hiring and educational quotas. Those who turn to government to allocate resources and control the market in the quest to make the distribution of goods more fair. One who supports a very large role of government in daily life, from health care, to education, to retirement planning.
Click to expand...


This was copied, I suspect, from a Libertarian source; it is demagoguery at its finest.

It does not describe the Government of the United States, but a government which is totalitarian.

Your side whines about the IRS not treating the Tea Party Fairly yet objects to efforts to level the playing field in employment and educational opportunity.  Your side defines the left as anyone or idea which conflicts with the dogmatic ideology they hold.


----------



## FA_Q2

Missourian said:


> Politicians are like magicians.
> 
> Misdirection.
> 
> Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?
> 
> Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.
> 
> Romney was their pick,  and we didn't want him.
> 
> "Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.
> 
> Can't allow that to happen again...



Again, relate it to the damn topic or create another thread.  THIS thread is about NBC and CNN airing pro Hillary content to cheer lead for their next candidate and the RNCs response (cutting them out of the content that they provide).


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator.  To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.
> 
> Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base.  That's what you do in primary debates.
Click to expand...


 I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.


and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate? 


you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> This was copied, I suspect, from a Libertarian source; it is demagoguery at its finest.



Well, why don't you find that source. porky? Put it in Google, if you're right, it should return a link,,

And how is this "demagoguery?" Do you even know what the word means? I suspect not.



> It does not describe the Government of the United States, but a government which is totalitarian.



You asked me to define leftism, sporky - not the United Stated government. My answer is an accurate portrayal of the goals of the left for governance, spunky.



> Your side whines about the IRS not treating the Tea Party Fairly yet objects to efforts to level the playing field in employment and educational opportunity.  Your side defines the left as anyone or idea which conflicts with the dogmatic ideology they hold.



Non sequitur.

While gross corruption withing the IRS, an agency not bound by constitutional constraints such as the assumption of innocence, should be a concern to anyone even approaching sentience, it is not germane to the topic at hand.

Now had you asked me to define USMB leftists, I could have answered with a single word;

Lowbrow.


----------



## Flopper

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator.  To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.
> 
> Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base.  That's what you do in primary debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.
> 
> 
> and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?
> 
> 
> you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?
Click to expand...

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator.  To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.
> 
> Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base.  That's what you do in primary debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.
> 
> 
> and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?
> 
> 
> you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
Click to expand...


 What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?


----------



## Missourian

FA_Q2 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians are like magicians.
> 
> Misdirection.
> 
> Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?
> 
> Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.
> 
> Romney was their pick,  and we didn't want him.
> 
> "Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.
> 
> Can't allow that to happen again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, relate it to the damn topic or create another thread.  THIS thread is about NBC and CNN airing pro Hillary content to cheer lead for their next candidate and the RNC&#8217;s response (cutting them out of the content that they provide).
Click to expand...



I've related it.

Have you ever live trapped raccoon?

You can't force a raccoon into a cage...they'll either escape,  or you'll be forced to kill it.

So instead,  you bait a live trap with something the raccoon can't possibly resist...something so tempting that the raccoon will fight to get INTO the trap.

Then you have more control,  so the raccoon can't do so much harm to your structure.

The liberal media is the bait.

Controlling who debates is the trap.

It's win/win for the GOP establishment...they get to beat up the liberal media AND they regain the lost power to limit the choices of nominee.






WTF just happened???​


----------



## Vandalshandle

Edgetho said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder if the Stuttering Clusterfukk knows which of the 57 States border the Gulf.
Click to expand...


Well, as long as the Right continues to pay attention to these important issues, we can sort of let the little things takes care of themselves, like jobs, deficits, etc....


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think that it would be kind of sweet if the networks told the Republican party that if they are barred from participating in the debates, the Republicans will be given no free press exposure through the next election, in retaliation. I know that this would be against the basis of journalism, but there has not really been any journalism on TV since Walter Cronkite retired. As for me, I could not care less, since I don't get any TV channels.


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator.  To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.
> 
> Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base.  That's what you do in primary debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.
> 
> 
> and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?
> 
> 
> you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
Click to expand...


first- I don't know of even anyone here who puts fox on par with msnbc or msnbc with abc or cbs et al. 


second- most Americans know or feel that the nets and cnn and pbs are slanted left, its a wash.

Now, if your contention is, that fox is MORE slanted there by yours less so, and are not qualified to moderate a debate, well, it must be nice to always shoot from the moral high ground, where in you own some special dispensation from  the normal run of humanity, where in you get to sit in judgment and decide who's worthy or not, becasue you know, you're 'better' and get to accord 'reputation' as to who's fair enough or not. 

Ergo- the franchise on fairness is yours....



You guys,  man oh man, talk about arrogance.


----------



## Trajan

Vandalshandle said:


> I think that it would be kind of sweet if the networks told the Republican party that if they are barred from participating in the debates, the Republicans will be given no free press exposure through the next election, in retaliation. I know that this would be against the basis of journalism, but there has not really been any journalism on TV since Walter Cronkite retired. As for me, I could not care less, since I don't get any TV channels.



hey why cut the baby in half? just outlaw them...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flopper said:


> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.



Dude, you have a picture of Josef Goebbels as your avatar. Clearly your bias is such that pronouncement like the preceding are a farce.

Standard Disclaimer: Yes, it's Edward Murrow - the American version of Goebbels...


----------



## Missourian

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you have a picture of Josef Goebbels as your avatar. Clearly your bias is such that pronouncement like the preceding are a farce.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: Yes, it's Edward Murrow - the American version of Goebbels...
Click to expand...



I thought it was Humphrey Bogart.


----------



## Flopper

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.
> 
> 
> and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?
> 
> 
> you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
Click to expand...

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
Click to expand...


Like oh, gwenn ifill?   and no,  bob never made derogatory comments ala  bush et al....my god dude,  check yourself into rehab, seriously. 


 I am still waiting on that information  Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll _and have to select someone_,  for gods sake


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was copied, I suspect, from a Libertarian source; it is demagoguery at its finest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, why don't you find that source. porky? Put it in Google, if you're right, it should return a link,,
> 
> And how is this "demagoguery?" Do you even know what the word means? I suspect not.
> 
> Your question is evidence you have no idea of what demagoguery means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not describe the Government of the United States, but a government which is totalitarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked me to define leftism, sporky - not the United Stated government. My answer is an accurate portrayal of the goals of the left for governance, spunky.
> 
> 
> Red Herring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side whines about the IRS not treating the Tea Party Fairly yet objects to efforts to level the playing field in employment and educational opportunity.  Your side defines the left as anyone or idea which conflicts with the dogmatic ideology they hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> In your opinion, yet spot on!
> 
> While gross corruption withing the IRS, an agency not bound by constitutional constraints such as the assumption of innocence, should be a concern to anyone even approaching sentience, it is not germane to the topic at hand.
> 
> An allegation not sustained.
> 
> Now had you asked me to define USMB leftists, I could have answered with a single word;
> 
> Lowbrow.
Click to expand...


Lowbrow:  "a person who is uninterested, uninvolved, or uneducated in intellectual activities or pursuits".  LOL, apparently you've not read posts by CrusaderFrank, Willow Tree, Staphanie, Daveman, Warrior, Ladygunslinger, Rottwieller, katzndogz, the Rabbi, Lumpy 1, or a dozen others.


----------



## Flopper

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like oh, gwenn ifill?   and no,  bob never made derogatory comments ala  bush et al....my god dude,  check yourself into rehab, seriously.
> 
> 
> I am still waiting on that information  Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll _and have to select someone_,  for gods sake
Click to expand...

Bob Schieffer is a long-time personal friend of George Bush.  Schieffer used to play golf with Bush. He used to go to ball games with Bush. The two men even went to spring training together - And Schieffer&#8217;s brother, Tom Schieffer, is a long-time, close business associate of Bush.  I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 

How can you say the commission is packed?  The two major political parties control the presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates. The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.  All the debate issues including selection of the moderator are approved by both sides.  

You're so far to the Right that the Center is too liberal for you.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
Click to expand...


 I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story). 
 I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire? 
  Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer. 

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire


----------



## Dot Com

RNC still 

 ?


----------



## Flopper

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
Click to expand...

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News. 

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
Click to expand...


 I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.


----------



## Edgetho

Edgetho said:


> An example, one of many thousands, of how the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM helps dimocrap scum.....
> 
> 
> Ace ~
> 
> 
> The AP took it upon themselves to cover for the dear leader.
> 
> AP's Russ Bynum Covers Up Obama's 'Gulf Ports' Gaffe | NewsBusters
> 
> What Obama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. As you know, for the last three years, Ive said, lets work together. Lets find a financing mechanism and lets go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports *all along the Gulf*  places like *Charleston, South Carolina*, or *Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida*  if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And well lose jobs. Businesses wont locate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What AP reported:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf  (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla.  if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs,*" Obama said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone think the AP would have afforded the Republicans the same courtesy?
> 
> Its really not a 'minor' deal.  Not when it's done thousands of times
Click to expand...


Synthoholic saw fit to neg me yesterday for this post.

But a LOT of folks have picked up on it.







Yesterday, we reported on Obamas geography gaffe.

Obama said the following:



> If we dont deepen our ports all along the Gulf  places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla.  if we dont do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and well lose jobs.



The ports are not on the Gulf but on the East Coast.

However, the AP added words, covering up the gaffe:



> If we dont deepen our ports all along the Gulf  (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla.  if we dont do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and well lose jobs.



This afternoon, AP corrected the wording, but made no apology for the cya for Obama.

Michelle Malkin        &#10004; [MENTION=20856]Michelle[/MENTION]malkin

Thanks to @TwitchyTeam RT @SpeakWithAuthor: The @AP and [MENTION=39212]Rus[/MENTION]sbynum have issued a correction -> AP News: Correction: Ports-Obama story 
5:48 PM - 8 Aug 2013

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers


Edge:
It isnt so much that the Stuttering Clusterfukk made a geographical error (57 States) or even a speaking error (corpse-man)....

When you talk as much as that windbag does, errors are bound to happen.

So what?

The big "So What" is that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM took it upon themselves, unsolicited, to correct an error by the POS-TUS in order to not make him look stoopid.

The LSM is the propaganda arm of the dimocrap party.

They are the Joseph Goebbels of the American dimocrap party.


----------



## Dot Com

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> 
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
Click to expand...


Wallace has seemed to have gotten more even-handed. Now he asks tough questions to rw'ers on the Fox show where I don't think he did that a couple/few years ago.


----------



## Annie

The RNC in response to announced programs highlighting the probable Democrat candidate in 2016, announced that if the specials, including a 'mini-series' go forward, the RNC will not participate with those networks. 

Down the memory hole, regarding OP title. Ostensibly, when a media individual made a joke regarding the rising fortunes of Obama, a state Democratic Party pulled the plug. As Reuters points out, this followed massive calls from a political group prior to the 'excuse' given occurring:


Democrats cancel Fox News debate | Reuters



> Democrats cancel Fox News debate
> 
> 
> By Dan Whitcomb
> 
> LOS ANGELES | Fri Mar 9, 2007 11:33pm EST
> 
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Nevada Democratic Party officials said on Friday they were canceling a presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox News, following a joke chairman Roger Ailes made about Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
> 
> In a letter sent to Fox, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before.
> 
> *The letter makes no reference to a crusade by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org to boycott Fox, which it calls a "right-wing mouthpiece." *Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards dropped out of the debate on Thursday, citing in part Fox's participation.
> 
> The letter also does not specify which comments by Ailes lead to the decision, but a Democratic source told Reuters it was a joke Ailes made about Obama and President Bush during a speech on Thursday night.
> 
> "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments," Collins and Reid said in the letter. "We take no pleasure in this, but it the only course of action."
> 
> Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded with a written statement criticizing the Democrats for caving in to MoveOn.org.
> 
> "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Democratic Party," David Rhodes said in the statement.
> 
> "In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic Party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, its clearly the case in Nevada," he said.
> 
> The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner on Thursday night and -- while playing on similarity between Obama's name and Osama Bin Laden -- appears to be directed more at Bush than the senator.
> 
> "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?'"
> 
> During his remarks, Ailes also took indirect swipes at both MoveOn.org and Edwards, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates to "only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage."
> 
> Though he didn't refer to Edwards by name, Ailes said "any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Missourian said:


> I thought it was Humphrey Bogart.



Ooops..


----------



## Vandalshandle

"The big "So What" is that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM took it upon themselves, unsolicited, to correct an error by the POS-TUS in order to not make him look stoopid.

The LSM is the propaganda arm of the dimocrap party.

They are the Joseph Goebbels of the American dimocrap party."

Edge, you really should grow up and get a life. Find a real issue to talk about, or a real cause to support. Chilidish stuff like this does not interest anybody.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> Edge, you really should grow up and get a life. Find a real issue to talk about, or a real cause to support. Chilidish stuff like this does not interest anybody.



What a brilliant retort.

Yet what Edge posted it true, the DNC press is a brazen propaganda outfit that openly engages in demagoguery, demonizes the opposition, fabricates stories to smear enemies of the party, and cannot be trusted even on the most basic facts.

Why do you think the major press is failing? Do you think the average American has any faith at all in the party press? I don't mean partisan sycophants like you and Rdean, I mean the average person?


----------



## Flopper

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> 
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
Click to expand...

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flopper said:


> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.



Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?

No bias there....


----------



## Seawytch

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?
> 
> No bias there....
Click to expand...


She wasn't lying.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
Click to expand...


 I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers.  I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a  bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.


----------



## Zona

We have Hillary, they had Palin.  We win.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Seawytch said:


> She wasn't lying.



Even she admitted she was lying.

{ Crowley knew exactly what she'd done: validate a lie. Time for damage control. Within minutes of leaving the journalistic crime scene, Crowley was back on CNN admitting that Romney was right "in the main" -- whatever that means -- but he chose "the wrong word" by focusing on Obama's cursory use of the term "these acts of terror." If Romney was correct, why not just say it?

Again, Crowley rallied behind Obama -- even repeating her verdict when the president egged her on to "say it a little louder."}

Candy Crowley Self-Destructs - Brent Bozell - Page full


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Zona said:


> We have Hillary, they had Palin.  We win.



 You can have Hillary. Like Bill Cinton, we don't want her.


----------



## Flopper

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers.  I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a  bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.
Click to expand...

Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer,  Lehrer, or Brokaw?


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like oh, gwenn ifill?   and no,  bob never made derogatory comments ala  bush et al....my god dude,  check yourself into rehab, seriously.
> 
> 
> I am still waiting on that information  Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll _and have to select someone_,  for gods sake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Schieffer is a long-time personal friend of George Bush.  Schieffer used to play golf with Bush. He used to go to ball games with Bush. The two men even went to spring training together - And Schieffer&#8217;s brother, Tom Schieffer, is a long-time, close business associate of Bush.  I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and? so what are you saying now?  that Schieffer let his personal affinities cloud his journalistic  integrity and not call bush out on issues etc.? how many ways do you want to slice the bologna? You realize what you just said here,  right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say the commission is packed?  The two major political parties control the presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates. The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.  All the debate issues including selection of the moderator are approved by both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you walk onto a car lot and buy a car, its going to be one of the brands they have on the lot, hello,  if the only folks considered or have a shot for moderator positions are abc cbs cnn pbs nbc guess who you are going to wind up with? I have already answered this, twice and you have not posted the links I have asked you for btw, an assertion you made, you want to take a shot at that?
> 
> do you even think before you post? seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so far to the Right that the Center is too liberal for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yea I was waiting for that. yes that must be it.....
> 
> 
> ......look dude, you live in such a bubble and are so arrogant you really beleive that everyone but fox and media sources you approve ( that is what you think is honest reportage etc.) of have a lock on ethics or journalistic integrity that warrants they and they alone possess the ability to perform in that forum. You have a lock on the franchise, so why the hell should you open your eyes, you obviously have not thought for yourself in years.
> 
> But I could be wrong, lets see; so tell me,  whats he benchmark? what could fox or that is its personalities do that would suit you, what would allow you to believe they deserve to moderate a pres. debate?
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who the hell brought up beck?
> 
> so I see,  'public persona' as crafted by who? you and the rest of the media
> 
> how about britt hume? or shep smith or neil cavuto? and hey you obviously don't watch o'reilly, hes all over the 'being in the middle' meme on everything, I think he keeps a chalk board in his head where in he takes one side then the other equally....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so they simply defer to the nets and the left leaning cable outlets etc. ....
> 
> funny how that works eh?
> 
> &#8203;
> bzxh11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to who? cbs abc nbc cnn pbs et al? how do you know britt hume wouldn't perform just as well? or some of the others I mentioned?
> 
> you're problem is you apparently believe any critique whats so ever made by fox commentators vis a vis the dems, obama etc.  etc. is unfair or what, to concentrated? and the nets and the rest didn't do that? getdafugoutta here....you must be joking.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

Seawytch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?
> 
> No bias there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She wasn't lying.
Click to expand...


IF thats true ( see below) , so what?

and-



    CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we&#8217;d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won&#8217;t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

    And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you&#8217;re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn&#8217;t.

    So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they&#8217;re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]&#8217;s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.

    I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you&#8217;re not expecting. It&#8217;s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, &#8216;Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.&#8217; Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for &#8216;But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape&#8217; so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.


Read more: Video: Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn?t Stop Herself | NewsBusters


how about the cbs kroft 60 minutes interview sept 12 where in cbs withheld via editing,  obama refusing to use the word term terrorism after being pressed several times on that very point? CBS home of the 'even handed'  who deserve their lock on debate moderation.... unreal..


----------



## MarcATL

Yurt said:


> they've been in hillary's tank since the 90's
> 
> stating facts is not whimpering, well, maybe to you because you and facts are like oil and water


Are you some kinda fool or what? What fact did Pribeus state? Prove it.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance.  Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona.   The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.
> 
> In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides.  The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers.  I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a  bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer,  Lehrer, or Brokaw?
Click to expand...


 Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias. Again, I would not want Hannity, Beck (who is not on Fox anymore so I have no idea why you bring up his name) and O'Reilly to be part of a presidential debate. The question for me is not who is biased (certainly, Schieffer, Leher or Brokaw (especially Brokaw) are biased), my question is who will be professional while being a moderator.  I think the left and right people associated with the press can be professional. This idea you seem to have though that only the left can be professional (I'm assuming we're pretending Candy Crowley never existed) is simply wrong. Brit Hume can just be as professional as Schieffer even though they both (I suspect) vote for different candidates. Again, I simply ask, why do you think people from  ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS and folks from liberal leaning news organizations would be more professional that folks on a right leaning network. Your argument is curious at best.


----------



## American_Jihad

*WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films*​
8/7/13

Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:

NEWSMAX  A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.

Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.



WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -


----------



## FA_Q2

American_Jihad said:


> *WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films*​
> 8/7/13
> 
> Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:
> 
> NEWSMAX  A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.
> 
> Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -



Perhaps they also do not want the obvious bias ruining the lefts media reputation.

I find this rather hilarious.


----------



## Flopper

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers.  I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a  bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer,  Lehrer, or Brokaw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias. Again, I would not want Hannity, Beck (who is not on Fox anymore so I have no idea why you bring up his name) and O'Reilly to be part of a presidential debate. The question for me is not who is biased (certainly, Schieffer, Leher or Brokaw (especially Brokaw) are biased), my question is who will be professional while being a moderator.  I think the left and right people associated with the press can be professional. This idea you seem to have though that only the left can be professional (I'm assuming we're pretending Candy Crowley never existed) is simply wrong. Brit Hume can just be as professional as Schieffer even though they both (I suspect) vote for different candidates. Again, I simply ask, why do you think people from  ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS and folks from liberal leaning news organizations would be more professional that folks on a right leaning network. Your argument is curious at best.
Click to expand...

As I said, all newscasters and commentators are biased to some extent.  However, Fox News has built the network around  bias programming favoring the political right and the Republican Party.  Looking to Fox for a moderator would be as absurd as looking to MSNBC or talk radio.   ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS may a times lean to the left but not to extent that Fox does goes to right.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer,  Lehrer, or Brokaw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias. Again, I would not want Hannity, Beck (who is not on Fox anymore so I have no idea why you bring up his name) and O'Reilly to be part of a presidential debate. The question for me is not who is biased (certainly, Schieffer, Leher or Brokaw (especially Brokaw) are biased), my question is who will be professional while being a moderator.  I think the left and right people associated with the press can be professional. This idea you seem to have though that only the left can be professional (I'm assuming we're pretending Candy Crowley never existed) is simply wrong. Brit Hume can just be as professional as Schieffer even though they both (I suspect) vote for different candidates. Again, I simply ask, why do you think people from  ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS and folks from liberal leaning news organizations would be more professional that folks on a right leaning network. Your argument is curious at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, all newscasters and commentators are biased to some extent.  However, Fox News has built the network around  bias programming favoring the political right and the Republican Party.  Looking to Fox for a moderator would be as absurd as looking to MSNBC or talk radio.   ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS may a times lean to the left but not to extent that Fox does goes to right.
Click to expand...


Again, gonna disagree with ya. ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS are just as biased and MSNBC. I actually have more respect for MSNBC for not pretending to be unbiased while presenting biased news. Also, you left out CNN which was really a repugnant race baiting manipulator during the Zimmerman trial. Since Fox News is far more highly respected and watched than CNN  I don't think most people would mind a Fox News moderator.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?
> 
> ....a rough number will do......
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.
Click to expand...


Bill Kristol is a hyper-partisan Neo-Con who runs the Weekly Standard.
Kelly would be the only one from your list who could be acceptable, but Shepard Smith is the most even-handed of that FOX bunch.

Van Susteren doesn't come across as a hyper-partisan, but she and her husband are extremely close to Poor Sarah Palin, and they are also whacko Scientologists - big time!  I mean total devotees.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> The debate was moderated by Fox News anchor Bret Baier of _Special Report with Bret Baier_ and several other Fox News contributors, including Juan Williams, Shannon Bream, and Chris Wallace.[3]
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> 
> The third Republican debate was held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa, Fox News Channel, and _The Washington Examiner_. *It was moderated by Bret Baier with questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and the Washington Examiner's Byron York and Susan Ferrechio*. Baier and Wallace were praised for their moderation of the debate.[9]
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The fifth Republican debate was held at Florida State Fair Grounds in Tampa, Florida, sponsored by CNN and Tea Party Express.
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The sixth Republican debate was held at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, and was sponsored by Fox News Channel and Google. It was moderated by Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Megyn Kelly.
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The thirteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and held in Sioux City, Iowa. It was moderated by Bret Baier.
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> The sixteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, and was held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It was moderated by Bret Baier. Juan Williams also asked questions of the candidates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now go lick your wounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your such a maroon...I said "presidential debates"  asshat.....
Click to expand...

No one from MSNBC has ever moderated, either.  Does that make you sad, too?  They haven't invited Drudge to moderate - are you upset?  Glenn Beck, either!


----------



## Synthaholic

Wry Catcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if Christie starts leading Hillary in the polls, she will be happy to suck his dick once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary has never taken a dick in any orifice. The fact that you've taken many in all your orifices, doesn't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4.  Stupid and vulgar.
Click to expand...

As usual, which is why he's on ignore.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Britt Hume, definitely  yes.
> 
> 
> anyway, this has been one of the more  instructive and revealing threads around for a while,
> 
> now in all seriousness,  notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate,  since day 1,  ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100?
> 
> yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook  unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..
> 
> and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?
Click to expand...

^^^ Actually believes FOXNEWS is a journalistic enterprise.


----------



## Synthaholic

Wry Catcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Stupid and vulgar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are, but we were talking about Hillary.
> 
> Oh wait, she's stupid and vulgar as well....
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, an, "I know you are but what am I" response.  A comment a dull-normal third grader would eschew.
> 
> Rhetorically, why do self defined conservatives so often default to boorish and indecorous sexual references!  Immaturity for sure, but I suspect something more pathological, *though it may be a product of a dull mind and a poor education*.
Click to expand...


My friend has a great bumper sticker on her car:


----------



## Synthaholic

Missourian said:


> Politicians are like magicians.
> 
> Misdirection.
> 
> Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?
> 
> Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.
> 
> Romney was their pick,  and we didn't want him.
> 
> "Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.
> 
> Can't allow that to happen again...



Romney is a RINO.  Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

McCain is a RINO.  Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

Bush The Lesser is a RINO.  Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

Dole is a RINO.  Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

Bush The Greater is a RINO.  Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.


See a pattern?

Now, Reagan packaged himself as a _True Conservative_, but governed as a RINO.

An actual conservative could never get elected, because in reality, Americans reject conservative ideology put into practice.  It sounds good at first, until they see the devils in the details.  Then they realize that, yes, they want government regulating food safety, and worker safety, and financial shenanigans, and clean air, and foreign imports, etc.


----------



## Synthaholic

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge none.  Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating.  It would do them more harm that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators
> 
> Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator.  To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.
> 
> Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base.  That's what you do in primary debates.
Click to expand...

Excellent post!


----------



## Synthaholic

FA_Q2 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians are like magicians.
> 
> Misdirection.
> 
> Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?
> 
> Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.
> 
> Romney was their pick,  and we didn't want him.
> 
> "Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.
> 
> Can't allow that to happen again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, relate it to the damn topic or create another thread.  THIS thread *is about NBC and CNN airing pro Hillary content to cheer lead for their next candidate* and the RNCs response (cutting them out of the content that they provide).
Click to expand...



Have you seen these shows, which haven't been produced yet?  

What's the basis of your assumption that it will help Clinton?  Or that it will be a positive portrayal?

I don't think Hillary wants to remind everyone of the warts.  Yet, any bio-pic will bring them all out in the open again.


----------



## FA_Q2

Synthaholic said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians are like magicians.
> 
> Misdirection.
> 
> Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?
> 
> Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.
> 
> Romney was their pick,  and we didn't want him.
> 
> "Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.
> 
> Can't allow that to happen again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, relate it to the damn topic or create another thread.  THIS thread *is about NBC and CNN airing pro Hillary content to cheer lead for their next candidate* and the RNC&#8217;s response (cutting them out of the content that they provide).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen these shows, which haven't been produced yet?
> 
> What's the basis of your assumption that it will help Clinton?  Or that it will be a positive portrayal?
> 
> I don't think Hillary wants to remind everyone of the warts.  Yet, any bio-pic will bring them all out in the open again.
Click to expand...


That would be a logical attack on the OP&#8217;s supposition.  That was all I am asking for rather than brining up random tangential issues that are not related to the OP&#8217;s topic.  Take it for what it is worth but what I posted is essentially the charge that the OP's source laid.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.
> 
> 
> and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?
> 
> 
> you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
Click to expand...

*Gwen Ifill*, Judy Woodruff, *Jim Lehrer*, *Martha Raddatz*, Peter Jennings, Ann Compton, *Charles Gibson*, *Bernard Shaw*, *Sander Vanocur*, *Hal Bruno*, Marvin Kalb, Norma Quarles, *Howard K. Smith*, *Edwin Newman*, Frank Reynolds, *Pauline Frederick*, Max Frankel, Richard Valeriani, Henry L. Trewitt, Robert Maynard, Jack Nelson, Marilyn Berger, Walter Mears, James Gannon, *Frank McGee*, etc.


Moderators are *bolded*.  The others were panelists, who asked questions.  I wish they would go back to that format.

Past panelists were Brit Hume and Morton Kondrake, so RW-ers haven't been excluded.  Barbara Walters was a moderator in 1976, and one other time, I think.  Back then she wasn't partisan like she is now.  As she has gotten older, she has gotten more Liberal.  Helen Thomas was a panelist in the 1970s, for Reuters, and also wasn't a partisan (she never became one, and is only smeared by the wingnuts for her pro-Palestinian views).  Carole Simpson, of ABC News, was a moderator, and although she wasn't a partisan, you'll claim she was because she's Black.

But this list includes reporters from the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Baltimore Sun, AP, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and more.

So, which are Leftwing partisans?


----------



## Synthaholic

Vandalshandle said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder if the Stuttering Clusterfukk knows which of the 57 States border the Gulf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as long as the Right continues to pay attention to these important issues, we can sort of let the little things takes care of themselves, like jobs, deficits, etc....
Click to expand...

It's amazing that they harp on a few slips of the tongue from Obama after defending the Texas Gaffe Machine for eight years.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.
> 
> 
> and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates?  no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when  obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?
> 
> 
> you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in '_the_' bubble occupiers of each, right?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> first- I don't know of even anyone here who puts fox on par with msnbc or msnbc with abc or cbs et al.
> 
> 
> *second- most Americans know or feel that the nets and cnn and pbs are slanted left, its a wash.*
> 
> Now, if your contention is, that fox is MORE slanted there by yours less so, and are not qualified to moderate a debate, well, it must be nice to always shoot from the moral high ground, where in you own some special dispensation from  the normal run of humanity, where in you get to sit in judgment and decide who's worthy or not, becasue you know, you're 'better' and get to accord 'reputation' as to who's fair enough or not.
> 
> Ergo- the franchise on fairness is yours....
> 
> 
> 
> You guys,  man oh man, talk about arrogance.
Click to expand...



This is the Echo Chamber speaking through Trajan.

Brought to you by Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like oh, gwenn ifill?   and no,  bob never made derogatory comments ala  bush et al....my god dude,  check yourself into rehab, seriously.
> 
> 
> I am still waiting on that information  Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll _and have to select someone_,  for gods sake
Click to expand...


Why do you think Ifill is biased?  Because she's Black.

That's _your_ bias.

What did Schieffer ever say about Bush?  Or are you counting the reporting of events?


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. *Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire? *
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
Click to expand...



It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.

The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.

That's it.


----------



## mamooth

Given what ratings-losers the primary debates are, I'm sure NBC -- the last major network that's still almost neutral instead of solidly conservative -- will be crushed to have an excuse to air popular programming instead and make a lot of money. As for CNN, no one watches them anyways, not since they've started trying so hard to be FOX-lite. You'd think the GOP would be more sympathetic to the Conservative News Network.

Just how crazy does one have to be to think CNN or ABC is liberal? If someone is that irrevocably brainwashed, just smile and nod and back away. You can't reason with people who have deliberately rejected reason.

And conservatives, stop crying already because Crowley wouldn't let Romney lie. Pointing out lies makes someone honest, not biased. Romney lied about what Obama supposedly didn't say, and Crowley correctly called him on it. It seems to be official Republican policy that any Republican is entitled to lie with impunity, and that calling them on it is "bias".


----------



## Synthaholic

Flopper said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  *Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> *
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
Click to expand...


I disagree. 

Her relationship with BFF Poor Sarah Palin demonstrates that.  Her husband and fellow Scientologist nutball, Washington lawyer John Coale, is an adviser to Sarah Palin.


Cheerleading:
*
Greta Van Susteren: Sarah Palin will drive critics crazy*

*Greta Van Susteren &#8216;Delighted&#8217;  Sarah Palin Is Returning to Fox News Channel*



And this:






HuffPo's Rachel Weiner has already reported on Greta Van Susteren's defensive response to a Politico story  today, which cited an anonymous source saying that one of the reasons  that Sarah Palin has been caught up in a "series of public relations  gaffes" is because she is "taking advice from Greta and her husband."


In her Fox News blog, Van Susteren vehemently denied  offering Palin any advice, and called the authors to task for not  checking on this allegation. Let me give Van Susteren her due. This is a  serious charge of direct professional misconduct, and there should have  been more than a throwaway line from an unnamed source to back it up.  The allegation begs further questioning. 


But what Van Susteren does acknowledge in her "brief" on the subject is equally troubling:

*1. She acknowledges that her husband, John Coale, has been  advising Palin, that they are in weekly contact, and that he played a  central role in the formation of her national political action  committee, SarahPAC--all while she has been covering Palin for Fox News.  *
*
2. She acknowledges that her husband met Palin through Van Susteren's  media contacts with the governor. In short, he used his wife's  journalistic access to Palin to gain his own political access. *​
There are some serious journalistic conflicts of interest taking  place here, and Van Susteren is either being duplicitous or disingenuous  to characterize them as "silly."


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> 
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. *I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody.* Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
Click to expand...



Now, see, I disagree again.  Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.

He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob.  (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)

And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. *Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire? *
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.
> 
> The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.
> 
> That's it.
Click to expand...


 I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". Even though many try to play that game. I do believe it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones  chestnuts to the fire).


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments.  However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators.  Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.
> 
> I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are.  However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
> 
> Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight.  This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. *I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody.* Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now, see, I disagree again.  Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.
> 
> He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob.  (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)
> 
> And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.
Click to expand...


 I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right. I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism.  Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like oh, gwenn ifill?   and no,  bob never made derogatory comments ala  bush et al....my god dude,  check yourself into rehab, seriously.
> 
> 
> I am still waiting on that information  Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll _and have to select someone_,  for gods sake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think Ifill is biased?  Because she's Black.
> 
> That's _your_ bias.
> 
> What did Schieffer ever say about Bush?  Or are you counting the reporting of events?
Click to expand...


 Nobody said Ifill was biased because she's black. People say she was biased because she was writing a book about Obama while being a moderator. In other words, Ifill had a chance to make more money if Obama became president than if he didn't become president. More people would want to read a book about somebody who became president than read a book about somebody who didn't become president. I don't know how much clearer this point can be made. Any fair minded person would consider Ifill's position as being questionable at best. The fact that you have to play the silly race card is sad and a tad pathetic.
 Oh yea, you said something about scientology, Sarah Palin and Bush. This echo chamber is just boring so I'll go ahead and skip the usual liberal rambling nonsense. Didn't really make much sense anyway.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Hillary Clinton TV projects earn criticism from liberals*​
CNN and NBCs plans for series have sparked accusations of bias from Republicans, and now New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and the progressive Media Matters group are crying foul, too. 

By Leslie Larson 

Read more: Hillary Clinton TV projects earn criticism from liberals - NY Daily News


----------



## Synthaholic

Edgetho said:


> Synthoholic saw fit to neg me yesterday for this post.


Yes - for this:



Edgetho said:


> An example, one of many  thousands, of how the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM helps dimocrap  scum.....


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?
> 
> No bias there....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She wasn't lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF thats true ( see below) , so what?
> 
> and-
> 
> 
> 
> CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we&#8217;d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won&#8217;t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.
> 
> And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you&#8217;re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn&#8217;t.
> 
> So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they&#8217;re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]&#8217;s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.
> 
> I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you&#8217;re not expecting. It&#8217;s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, &#8216;Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.&#8217; Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for &#8216;But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape&#8217; so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.
> 
> 
> Read more: Video: Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn?t Stop Herself | NewsBusters
> 
> 
> how about the cbs kroft 60 minutes interview sept 12 where in cbs withheld via editing,  obama refusing to use the word term terrorism after being pressed several times on that very point? CBS home of the 'even handed'  who deserve their lock on debate moderation.... unreal..
Click to expand...

So....you are basically complaining that Crowley had more credibility with the American public than Romney.


----------



## Synthaholic

Flopper said:


> Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer,  Lehrer, or Brokaw?






JohnL.Burke said:


> Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias.


----------



## Synthaholic

American_Jihad said:


> *WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films*​
> 8/7/13
> 
> Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:
> 
> NEWSMAX  A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.
> 
> Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -


Of course!  Any biopic of Hillary is going to be more helpful to the far Right than to the Left.

But once again, the wingnuts are too stupid to realize this.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. *Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire? *
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.
> 
> The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". *Even though many try to play that game.* I do believe *it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions* though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones  chestnuts to the fire).
Click to expand...



No!  NONE of them try to play that game.

No!  It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.

It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.
*
Example:  "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"*

Now, that is certainly not a tough question.  But it is a question that America cares about.  This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster.  THAT'S the tough part.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. *I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody.* Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, see, I disagree again.  Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.
> 
> He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob.  (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)
> 
> And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right.* I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism.  Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.
Click to expand...



Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.

I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.

No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, see, I disagree again.  Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.
> 
> He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob.  (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)
> 
> And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right.* I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism.  Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.
> 
> I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.
> 
> No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.
Click to expand...


 Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you think Russer treated people with kid gloves because he didn't ask Bush how he planned 9/11?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.
> 
> The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". *Even though many try to play that game.* I do believe *it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions* though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones  chestnuts to the fire).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No!  NONE of them try to play that game.
> 
> No!  It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.
> 
> It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.
> *
> Example:  "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"*
> 
> Now, that is certainly not a tough question.  But it is a question that America cares about.  This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster.  THAT'S the tough part.
Click to expand...


 I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, " How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".
  I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films*​
> 8/7/13
> 
> Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:
> 
> NEWSMAX  A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.
> 
> Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -
> 
> 
> 
> Of course!  Any biopic of Hillary is going to be more helpful to the far Right than to the Left.
> 
> But once again, the wingnuts are too stupid to realize this.
Click to expand...


 Nice try but a left leaning network doing a biopic of Hillary is going to be a pretty sweet and inaccurate propaganda puff piece.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right.* I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism.  Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.
> 
> I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.
> 
> No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you think Russer treated people with kid gloves because he didn't ask Bush how he planned 9/11?
Click to expand...

Now, see, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion.

My bad.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". *Even though many try to play that game.* I do believe *it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions* though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones  chestnuts to the fire).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No!  NONE of them try to play that game.
> 
> No!  It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.
> 
> It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.
> *
> Example:  "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"*
> 
> Now, that is certainly not a tough question.  But it is a question that America cares about.  This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster.  THAT'S the tough part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, *" How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".*
> I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.
Click to expand...



I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?

The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.

The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

What's the problem?  The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.


Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.
> 
> I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.
> 
> No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you think Russer treated people with kid gloves because he didn't ask Bush how he planned 9/11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, see, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion.
> 
> My bad.
Click to expand...


 Sorry to disappoint you about seeming not interested in a discussion but I'm still somewhat a computer novice so I couldn't show a picture of the three stooges with their hands over their faces as a worthy intellectual response deserved of a man with your intellect and wit.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!  NONE of them try to play that game.
> 
> No!  It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.
> 
> It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.
> *
> Example:  "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"*
> 
> Now, that is certainly not a tough question.  But it is a question that America cares about.  This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster.  THAT'S the tough part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, *" How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".*
> I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?
> 
> The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.
> 
> The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.
> 
> What's the problem?  The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.
> 
> 
> Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?
Click to expand...


 I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.
  Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. 

  Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
  Politician-   " I have never beaten my wife!"
  Moderator-  " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
  Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, *" How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".*
> I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?
> 
> The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.
> 
> The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.
> 
> What's the problem?  The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.
> 
> 
> Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. *Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.*
> Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


You flipped that.  It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.

How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote?  ZERO!

Why not?

It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).





> Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
> Politician-   " I have never beaten my wife!"
> Moderator-  " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
> Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"


Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.

*It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.*


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?
> 
> The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.
> 
> The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.
> 
> What's the problem?  The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.
> 
> 
> Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. *Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.*
> Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You flipped that.  It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.
> 
> How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote?  ZERO!
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
> Politician-   " I have never beaten my wife!"
> Moderator-  " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
> Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.
> 
> *It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.*
Click to expand...


 I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of  the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
 I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid. 

 ... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?


----------



## Crackerjaxon

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lining up their excuses early...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I just gave them a very good piece of advice.  Christie is their only hope.  *
Click to expand...



That's genuinely funny.  The only way Christie might possibly win is as a democrat.


He sure as hell isn't going to pull any republican votes.  Do you think democrats are going to jump the fence to vote for their darling?  Is that it?


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. *Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.*
> Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You flipped that.  It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.
> 
> How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote?  ZERO!
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
> Politician-   " I have never beaten my wife!"
> Moderator-  " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
> Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.
> 
> *It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of  the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
> I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.
> 
> ... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?
Click to expand...



It wasn't a question about rape.  It was a question of early release/furloughs for *violent criminals*.

The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.

That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw.  He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question.  CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks.  He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).

But . . . 














*
It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.


*Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone.  A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.

Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You flipped that.  It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.
> 
> How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote?  ZERO!
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.
> 
> *It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of  the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
> I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.
> 
> ... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?
> [ame=http://youtu.be/DF9gSyku-fc]Dukakis-Bush debate: death penalty - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a question about rape.  It was a question of early release/furloughs for *violent criminals*.
> 
> The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.
> 
> That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw.  He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question.  CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks.  He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).
> 
> But . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.
> 
> 
> *Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone.  A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.
> 
> Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.
Click to expand...


 Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline just like most people are for a valid ID for voting. This of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha moment".


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of  the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
> I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.
> 
> ... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?
> Dukakis-Bush debate: death penalty - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a question about rape.  It was a question of early release/furloughs for *violent criminals*.
> 
> The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.
> 
> That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw.  He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question.  CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks.  He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).
> 
> But . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.
> 
> 
> *Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone.  A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.
> 
> Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline
Click to expand...


False.  And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.

I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term?  That's their argument against infrastructure spending.  But creating a short term pipe building project is fine?  More hypocrisy.


----------



## Synthaholic

> *just like most people are for a valid ID for voting.* This  of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses  and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention  Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you  about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha  moment".


Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State  University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) -  should not be valid for voting.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a question about rape.  It was a question of early release/furloughs for *violent criminals*.
> 
> The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.
> 
> That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw.  He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question.  CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks.  He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).
> 
> But . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.
> 
> 
> *Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone.  A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.
> 
> Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.
> 
> I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term?  That's their argument against infrastructure spending.  But creating a short term pipe building project is fine?  More hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


 Most jobs that democrats propose aren't long term jobs. Since democrats are for short term jobs (especially infrastructure spending) then why are they against building a pipeline? More hypocrisy.
 Again, most people are for the Keystone pipeline. To suggest otherwise is simply false.

NewsDaily: Most in US, Canada support Keystone pipeline: polls
Keystone XL Pipeline: Poll Shows Project More Popular In U.S. Than Canada
60% Favor Building Keystone XL Pipeline - Rasmussen Reports?
Americans show broad support for Keystone: poll - The Globe and Mail
Sun News : A new poll finds most Americans support building Keystone pipeline


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> *just like most people are for a valid ID for voting.* This  of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses  and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention  Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you  about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha  moment".
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State  University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) -  should not be valid for voting.
Click to expand...


 Because it might not have a valid address on it? I don't think you need to show a birth certificate or proof of who you are to get a college ID. Let me know if I'm wrong.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.
> 
> I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term?  That's their argument against infrastructure spending.  But creating a short term pipe building project is fine?  More hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most jobs that democrats propose aren't long term jobs. *Since democrats are for short term jobs (especially infrastructure spending) then why are they against building a pipeline? More hypocrisy.*
Click to expand...


This is retarded.

Democrats are against it for environmental reasons, not job reasons.

Republicans favor short-term pipeline projects but are against short-term school or bridge construction.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *just like most people are for a valid ID for voting.* This  of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses  and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention  Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you  about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha  moment".
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State  University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) -  should not be valid for voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it might not have a valid address on it? I don't think you need to show a birth certificate or proof of who you are to get a college ID. Let me know if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Then why don't they just change _that_?

Make college IDs more comprehensive.  All this would be verified at admissions.

Your move.


----------



## Synthaholic

I love it when I make them just quietly slink away.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Synthaholic said:


> I love it when I make them just quietly slink away.



Yep. you're just like a turd in a punchbowl...


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.  And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.
> 
> I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term?  That's their argument against infrastructure spending.  But creating a short term pipe building project is fine?  More hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most jobs that democrats propose aren't long term jobs. *Since democrats are for short term jobs (especially infrastructure spending) then why are they against building a pipeline? More hypocrisy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is retarded.
> 
> Democrats are against it for environmental reasons, not job reasons.
> 
> Republicans favor short-term pipeline projects but are against short-term school or bridge construction.
Click to expand...


 What is retarded is that there is no environmental reason to be against the Keystone pipeline project, at least according to Obama's own state department analysis. For those against the burning of fossil fuels to begin with, the oil from the pipeline will either go to other countries where it will be processed and used or it will come here where our processing plants are far cleaner and environmentally friendly than say China's, where much of the canadian oil would go.
  Also, the canadian pipeline would create more "short term" jobs than Obama's 830 billion stimulus for shovel ready projects.
  On top of the obvious points that disproves your posts unsubstantiated assertions (and slight hysteria), I would just add that annual tax revenue from property taxes from the pipeline will be going to local communities which would help pay for schools, hospitals, etc. 

 [ame=http://youtu.be/mJrdoGxCTzM]Flashback: 'Shovel-Ready' From Lauded To Laughter - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State  University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) -  should not be valid for voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it might not have a valid address on it? I don't think you need to show a birth certificate or proof of who you are to get a college ID. Let me know if I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why don't they just change _that_?
> 
> Make college IDs more comprehensive.  All this would be verified at admissions.
> 
> Your move.
Click to expand...


 Why make college IDs more comprehensive? Don't you need a valid ID to get a school ID? I would assume this is why no birth certificate or proof of address is needed. 
 Why do I get the impression that this nonissue comes from the same minds that brought us the Obama mask wearing rodeo clown travesty. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to manufactured hypocritical outrage these days.
 Anyway, I thought the main reason some on the left were against voter ID was because free IDs are too expensive for poor people. That seems to be the argument anyway.
 At least, in the real world, most people are endowed my common sense and are for voter ID. Including a vast majority of democrats.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> I love it when I make them just quietly slink away.



 The only person slinking away is your from your own laughable and easily disproved insistence that most people are against the Keystone Pipeline.


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britt Hume, definitely  yes.
> 
> 
> anyway, this has been one of the more  instructive and revealing threads around for a while,
> 
> now in all seriousness,  notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate,  since day 1,  ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100?
> 
> yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook  unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..
> 
> and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Actually believes FOXNEWS is a journalistic enterprise.
Click to expand...



hey obama back tracked on that ....of course its simply coincidence that cbs abc nbc cnn pbs are journalistic enterprises and that they have the franchise on moderating but slant left...but, for some reason no one has yet to quantify,  they are 'better' journalistic enterprises than fox, because....you think so,  there by reinforcing your own bias, how wonderful for you!!!!


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Gwen Ifill*, Judy Woodruff, *Jim Lehrer*, *Martha Raddatz*, Peter Jennings, Ann Compton, *Charles Gibson*, *Bernard Shaw*, *Sander Vanocur*, *Hal Bruno*, Marvin Kalb, Norma Quarles, *Howard K. Smith*, *Edwin Newman*, Frank Reynolds, *Pauline Frederick*, Max Frankel, Richard Valeriani, Henry L. Trewitt, Robert Maynard, Jack Nelson, Marilyn Berger, Walter Mears, James Gannon, *Frank McGee*, etc.
> 
> 
> Moderators are *bolded*.  The others were panelists, who asked questions.  I wish they would go back to that format.
> 
> Past panelists were Brit Hume and Morton Kondrake, so RW-ers haven't been excluded.  Barbara Walters was a moderator in 1976, and one other time, I think.  Back then she wasn't partisan like she is now.  As she has gotten older, she has gotten more Liberal.  Helen Thomas was a panelist in the 1970s, for Reuters, and also wasn't a partisan (she never became one, and is only smeared by the wingnuts for her pro-Palestinian views).  Carole Simpson, of ABC News, was a moderator, and although she wasn't a partisan, you'll claim she was because she's Black.
> 
> But this list includes reporters from the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Baltimore Sun, AP, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and more.
> 
> So, which are Leftwing partisans?
Click to expand...


gwenn ifill was putting together a book on Obama and black politics for publication when she moderated that debate, but of course that doesn't matter,  becasue shes somehow better at journalistic enterprises....because...well, because, .....because....


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice.   Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions  might be.  Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks.  This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first- I don't know of even anyone here who puts fox on par with msnbc or msnbc with abc or cbs et al.
> 
> 
> *second- most Americans know or feel that the nets and cnn and pbs are slanted left, its a wash.*
> 
> Now, if your contention is, that fox is MORE slanted there by yours less so, and are not qualified to moderate a debate, well, it must be nice to always shoot from the moral high ground, where in you own some special dispensation from  the normal run of humanity, where in you get to sit in judgment and decide who's worthy or not, becasue you know, you're 'better' and get to accord 'reputation' as to who's fair enough or not.
> 
> Ergo- the franchise on fairness is yours....
> 
> 
> 
> You guys,  man oh man, talk about arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Echo Chamber speaking through Trajan.
> 
> Brought to you by Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


 the rush card   I am sorry the truth hurts.....


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public.  I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator.  A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media.  As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
> I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. *Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire? *
> Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
> 
> The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.
> 
> The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.
> 
> That's it.
Click to expand...




so, candy crowley?


----------

