Obama calls fluke over fake controversy

[Sukerkin]

See what I mean?

 

[Big Don]

Google "Santorum" you'll see the results of a particularly disgusting campaign by liberals against a conservative that doesn't get nearly the press Sandra Fluke's promiscuity did, and it is several orders of magnitude worse than calling someone a slut.

Where are the outraged cries for Dan Savage's head?

 

[elder999]

Where are the outraged cries for Don Savage's head?

Who?

 

[Sukerkin]

Do you not see that such a way of conducting political business is destructive rather than constructive, Don? The whole system seems set up to court phony controversy and baiting rather than sound thinking about how the country should be run. The entire thing tastes of a used-car-salesman convention with the premise of seeing who can defame and scam the competition the most.

All this bickering just sets you, the voters, at each others throats and stops you thinking about what would actually be best for your country.

 

[Big Don]

Do you not see that such a way of conducting political business is destructive rather than constructive, Don? The whole system seems set up to court phony controversy and baiting rather than sound thinking about how the country should be run. The entire thing tastes of a used-car-salesman convention with the premise of seeing who can defame and scam the competition the most.

All this bickering just sets you, the voters, at each others throats and stops you thinking about what would actually be best for your country.

Yeah, I do see that Mark. Do you see the blatant, flagrant hypocrisy of people who ignore the words of Maher, and RFK Jr, Ed Shultz, Olberman, and Savage, but, target Limbaugh?

 

[Sukerkin]

My advice would be to ignore the lot of them and make it plain that you want some qualified and insightful commentators rather than rabble rousers.

 

[elder999]

What reallly vexes me is that people will say Rush is an entertainer, and that that makes it okay, when we've had people post on this very thread that- based on her testimony-"Fluke is clearly a slut," and that calling her such was then okay-when, in fact, their stating as much was very clearly based on Rush's broadcast, rather than anything contained in her testimony.

How stupid is that?

 

[billc]

The problem Sukerkin is that the main stream media doesn't cover the actual topic, that is the president violating the constitution by going after the catholic church. They are the ones who promoted fluke by covering her and then focusing, like a laser beam on what Rush said. What he said shouldn't have risen to anything more than being mentioned here on martialtalk or other internet sights. The main stream press favors obama in the next election cycle and they are covering Rush so they don't have to cover high gas prices, high unemployment and Iran getting nuclear weapons. Blame them first and foremost, they are the ones who should focus on the real issue in the controversy, not going after Rush.

Here is an example, David Gregory is one of the big time journalists here in the states. He was a white house correspondent and hosts one of the big weekend political shows on Sunday morning. He is a lefty who supports obama. This is just one of many times his bias comes through into his coverage of the current race...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-gregory-apologizes-for-grand-wizard-comment-about-gop-leadership/

NBC’s David Gregory backtracked on his comments about “grand wizards” in the Republican Party this morning. Earlier on The Today Show, Gregory had responded to a question from Ann Curry who referring to Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal, asked “does the party just wish he would go away?” “Well, there is no grand wizard in the party right now that can really force the issue,” Gregory responded.
Conservative bloggers lambasted Gregory for his Klu Klux Klan reference. Ed Morrissey from Hot Aircalled the Meet The Press anchor’s comments“jaw-dropping”, saying, “What’s the implication here? That the Democratic Party has “grand wizards” that can boot candidates out of presidential races against their will? Can someone please take the race card out of Gregory’s less-than-full deck, please?”

This guy is not a shock jock, or a Bill Maher or Rush limbaugh. He is a main stream, high profile professional journalist. He isn't the only one, and they control what is covered and how intensely it is covered.

Here is another "respected," political jouranlist, Anderson Cooper, referring to the tea party and using the Tea-bagging term...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/anderson-cooper-its-hard_n_187318.html

Anderson Cooper had David Gergen, the director of the Center for Public Leadership, on his show last night to talk about the President's recent economic speech and what kind of response they could expect from Republicans. At the end of some serious policy talk they had this exchange:
Gergen: "They still haven't found their voice, Anderson. This happens to a minority party after it's lost a couple of bad elections, but they're searching for their voice."
Cooper: "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging."
He was, of course, referring both to the conservative anti-tax tea bagging protests and to the sex act. Cooper is the latest in a long line of cable news hosts to mock the tea baggers for their choice of terminology

 

[ballen0351]

What reallly vexes me is that people will say Rush is an entertainer,

What is he then if hes not an entertainer? Hes a talk show host nothing more nothing less. Hes not elected, he holds no political office, hes not a officer of the Republican National Committee. Im a Republican and hes not my leader I dont even listen to him hes on at the same time Andrew Wilkow is on and I like him better so I listen to him. I think Rush trys to hard to shock people and he does not need to.

and that makes it okay,

It makes it as OK as when anyone else says it.

when we've had people post on this very thread that- based on her testimony-"Fluke is clearly a slut," and that calling her such was then okay-when, in fact, their stating as much was very clearly based on Rush's broadcast, rather than anything contained in her testimony.
How stupid is that?

Fluke is the spokeswoman and gave the testomony its her story even if she wasnt speaking about her shes the figurehead. No different then when someone talks about a memeber of an organization and they refer to the leader like Bush did this or that when it wasnt actually Bush it was a member of his adminstration. They become the face of the issue. Fluke is the face of the issue.
We cant make comments on the other woman because quite frankly we dont even know if they exist at all or if they are made up.
I want to hear from the woman in her story. I can make up a bunch of sad sad stories too that dont make them true. Why didnt these woman testify on there own behalf if Fluke is not actually seeking contraception for herself then why was she even invited to testify? I dont care what she has to say if shes not effected, I want to hear from the real woman stories that are effected by this problem where are they? Where are the real law students that need help paying for medications if as you say Fluke is not one of them and why is it the Govt responsibility to provide it for them?

 

[billc]

Sukerkin, the main stream media did not do the due diligence when it came to looking at Obama's past because they wanted him to win.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape-original

Here is another "respected" journalist, Andrea Mitchell and how she is now reporting the new video of law student obama supporting a racist professor at harvard...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/07/Andrea Mitchell Runs Defense For Obama Derrick Bell

can you tell me she isn't altering the way she is covering the release of this video?

Here is Andrea Mitchell, "respected," main stream journalist and her interview with a democratic politician...Barbara Boxer

This is how the main stream political press covers democrats in this country...

Here is a piece by Bill O'reilly on an interview David Gregory did with House of Representative, speaker of the house John Boehner...see what you think of the attitude...

 

[Sukerkin]

Complaining about bias in one wing of the media by proclaiming the virtue of another biased wing is not a point that will lead to agreement. Citing poor sources is no way to make a reasonable argument; when you use them it only undermines your own credability (especially if you do not note the flaws in the sources so that readers can compensate).

I still feel that the point is being missed in an effort to make a partisan victory of some kind - you cannot make your political choices intelligently, which is one of the implicit duties of members of a democratic polity, if you do not have sources of information that are as truthul and unbiased as you can find.

So, is the conclusion to all this that there is no source of political information in all of America that can be relied upon to speak with authority i.e. not being tainted by 'loyalty' to either one party or the other?

 

[Big Don]

SlutWalk Austin, who gleefully call themselves sluts, because, presumably, there is nothing wrong with being a slut, encourage viewers of their facebook page to sign a petition against Limbaugh for calling someone a slut.
Wait, isn't their whole raison d'etre that there is nothing wrong with being a slut?

 

[elder999]

We are not the ones trying to shut people up. The left are the ones so upset over a word. Yet funny thing is its not really the word at all they are upset about its the person that said the word. If it were the word that was wrong then they would be equal about its use and the boycott no matter who says it. President Obama calls Fluke and is outraged by the language yet refuses to give Maher back a million dollars he donated to his Super PAC when Maher has used the same language.

So again the left does not care about Fluke or the word Slut at all. They only care that they can create a "Victim" to shut someone up that they dont like.

Conservative group, Concerend Women for America, asks Obama to repudiate "serially vile misogynist, Bill Maher

 

[Big Don]

Conservative group, Concerend Women for America, asks Obama to repudiate "serially vile misogynist, Bill Maher

Not the same thing...

 

[elder999]

Not the same thing...

Rii-ght....'cause they're gonna boycott Obama with their votes. :lfao:

 

[Big Don]

Rii-ght....'cause they're gonna boycott Obama with their votes. :lfao:

No, because demanding Obama give the same treatment to people is NOT demanding anyone be silenced.

 

[elder999]

No, because demanding Obama give the same treatment to people is NOT demanding anyone be silenced.

Meh.

Here's three petitions to take Maher off the air.

 

[elder999]

Complaining about bias in one wing of the media by proclaiming the virtue of another biased wing is not a point that will lead to agreement.

So, is the conclusion to all this that there is no source of political information in all of America that can be relied upon to speak with authority i.e. not being tainted by 'loyalty' to either one party or the other?

More to the point, just how "liberally biased" is the media in the U.S., really? I've posted about this before, and it continues to get ignored-in part because some people don't want to be confused by facts, in an effort to hang on to their truth, and, in part, because the mainstream media does have a mostly liberal bias. In fact, with the exception of a few prominent newspapers, local affiliates, and Not...., er Foxnews, most news organs have a decidedly liberal slant to their news reporting and editorials.

Which is-and this is the fact that gets conveniently glossed over as the zealots proclaim the truth-just as the conservative corporations that own them want it.

Look at any major news network:NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox or CNN-and, they are wholly owned by corporations with decidedly conservative, pro-capitalism, anti-regulatory leanings. Look at their donations to the major parties, and they'll invariably donate to both parties, but-with the exception of when a Democrat is in office (or about to be elected, as in 2008) they will invariably donate more to the "pro-business" Republican party. All of this is, of course, a matter of public record, but things like "public records" are facts far to confusing to those who "know" the truth.

Donate to both parties, donate slightly more to the Republicans, donate a little more to Democrats in office or when elected, and, with the exception of Fox, keep the news and editorials slanted somewhat "to the left."

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[billc]

the problem is with the on air journalists who conduct the coverage of the news. ABC, CBS, NBC and the other main stream media sources are full of left leaning journalists who do not admit their bias. The corporation can donate money all they want, but they employ journalists who approach the coverage of the two political parties differently. David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric,Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Charlie Gibson, Dan Rather, Charlie Rose, Christian Amanpour...past and present, the list is endless . Which stories are actually covered which stories are focused on, how much time is spent on which story over the course of a week or an election cycle, these decisions are not made by the "owners" of the companies that also own the news network. They are handled by the editors and journalists at the actual networks. That is where the bias rubber meets the road.

In the last week, the story about obama imposing contraception mandates on religous institutions was the real story, what was actually focused on...Fluke testifying about contraception coverage. That was an editorial decision made by all the networks. The real story, Fluke was not allowed to testify at the committee hearing on Religion and the constitutional protections because she wasn't a religous leader or expert and Pelosi didn't give the committee 72 hours to check out fluke, as per the committee rules. The story that most people saw...Fluke wasn't allowed to testify because mean republicans hate women. Those editorial decisions are the problem.

The radical ties to terrorists, racists and anti-americans in Obama's past was not focused on the same way that it would have been if Obama had been a republican. It just doesn't happen. that is the problem.

Here is an article that looks at journalist voting patterns, they vote for democrats...

http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

White House Reporters
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.

KEY FINDINGS:

• In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.

• In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.

• In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.

• In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, four for liberal independent John Anderson, and two voted for Ronald Reagan.

• In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.

Here is an article on journalist bias from MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/ns/politics/t/journalists-dole-out-cash-politicians-quietly/#.T1o1MHlS2uI

Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

This is the bias that I am talking about and this is the bias that affects the way the two political parties and the candidates are covered, it affects the perception of the two parties dramatically...

Now add to this the bias of hollywood, movies and television, and the bias of the majority of cable news networks, except for FOX cable news, and the bias on college campuses, especially in the history and other liberal arts departments, and you have a real problem with how the different sides in the political and cultural debates are dealt with

 

[billc]

Well, I guess this isn't quite working out the way the left planned after all...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/10/Left-Wing-Comedians-Maher-Louis CK

[h=2]Rush Limbaugh says something inappropriate, the Left refuses to accept his apology, and a stupid crusade to take him off the air ensues. [/h]As a result, the Right correctly cries hypocrisy and Bill Maher and Louis C.K. find themselves under fire for the many stupid and nasty things they've said.
This is a war and it's a dumb war, but it's here to stay thanks to the Leftists and their corrupt media allies who started it and conservatives who have finally learned to fight fire with fire.
Personally, I'd prefer to live in an America where the apologies of radio hosts are accepted and comedians are allowed to push whatever boundaries are out there without having to fear anything more than lower ratings. But conservatives can't disarm ourselves and lay down a weapon currently being mercilessly wielded against us by politically correct neo-fascists using phony outrage as a partisan political tool to silence speech they disagree with.
Thankfully, the Left is currently losing this war. Limbaugh now finds himself in a position to tell the cowardly advertisers who fled him and are now crawling back to go pound sand. But as a consequence of a war his side started, Louis C.K. has now had to give up a prestigious gig and Bill Maher's million dollar donation to Obama's Super PAC is blowing back hard on the President and is now a gift that will keep on giving to Republicans until the money is returned.
Obviously, both Louis C.K. and Maher are guilty of saying some dreadful things, which I've been highly and publicly critical of.
But in a perfect world, this back and forth would begin and end in the arena of debate and not bleed over into boycotts, guilt-by-association, and a never-ending war of tit-for-tat that can only end with less speech not more.