The main stream media hates George Bush! Yes i know it's hard for most of you to believe, but i think there might be a little tiny slight bit of a liberal media bias.
Actually, i don't even know why this is news. But if anyone cares, here's the rest of the story.
28 comments:
I think that they are just reacting to the growing mountain of CULPABILITY DEFICIT. Liberals are showing this weird cornered rat mentiality, sometimes just cursing and sputtering and are starting to really piss me off quite frankly because its bad enough we have the neocons whining all day but now the noise of EVERYONE whining is downright deafening.
Rhino get off this analysis of the media, they are damned puppet monkeys and they adapt to approval ratings and trends. Look at the suddenly critical outspoken CNN! Now suddenly they are all over Bush, even Paula Zahn the lap dancer has been getting her phony formulaic digs in. CNN= Contrived Network News. FOX= F'ing Sux.
MSM is ENTERTAINMENT. These people are not "journalists" committed to truth or facts or informing people. They are imbecilic sycophants.
CNN = Clinton News Network
FOX is fair and balanced.
I'm sticking with this subject, it's one of my favorites, there's always a story. Literally i could do a post on liberal bias every single day. It's my fall back when i don't want to do any real work.
When I don't feel like working, I read the Aurora! Just kidding...but what really pisses me off is that Bush won't tell the media whether he saw Brokeback Mountain or not...I tend to agree w/Lily on this one though. I think the media is as much a schill for ratings as any primetime sitcom. It's not objective as much as it is deliberate. CNN isn't trying to capture the republican viewer and Fox is not concerned with cornering the market on liberal channel changers...CNN does more blurb like news because they know that liberals are just going back to Comedy Central when Chappelle show comes back from a break. Fox does similar programming to capture their audience. It's all a sham and that's why print and radio media is a better place to get your news.
Sadly, Chappelle has been all but eradicated. And where's Reno?
Rhino will start to talk about his Coultergeist and how she did not get to eyeroll and lurch around on talk shows over her toilet paper book. Maybe thats not because she's a conservative- maybe its because she's a snorting comedic caricature. She's just bad television. I would rather masturbate to Rick Santorum than watch her talk about the irrelevant constitution ANY day... Where did she come from, Limbaugh's rib?
Since they only care about ratings anyway, why can't they get better republicon poster bitches?
Lets put Coultergeist and Franken-Stein in a cell and let them eat each other.
first of all, if you keep talking masturbation we're gonna have to meet.
Secondly, coulter is terrible on TV. her voice is horrible. I have been saying that for years.
What about Malkin though? She sounds good, and looks even better. I like flip women, they got the asian spanish mix thing going on. very sexy.
You masturbate to Rick Santorum too! I thought I was the only one...Reno 911 usually comes on over the summer...around the time Nip/Tuck used to start. It makes sense since the Cable networks can steal viewers from the networks who are sick of watching re-runs.
PS - I didn't realize you were a creationist (Where did she come from, Limbaugh's rib?) That was a good one, Lily. You must be taking your sarcastic pills today!
Rhino be careful with the Flips...they consider themselves Portugese not Asian or Spanish. You of all people should be sensitive to their ethnicity...oh and don't call Portugese people Spanish either...they get way offended!
I thought that little Drudge blurb was great. Whining like a fat little tart that someone who follows the news would actually be tired of the same old Bush song and dance. All 3 lines of it. like the bumper sticker says. If your not pissed off, then your not paying attention.
Left of Center and I like to decide on the Alpha Fuckwad awards together. All in the quest to be politically correct.
I think Coulter's testosterone affects her voice. Enough transition, do the surgery already.
Like Huffington, Coulter has a voice for Blogging.
Well, she does have a adams apple, but either way, she's a genius. She's also very funny, but not if you're a liberal because usually the joke is on you.
Ummm well i've read all of her books, and i read her syndicated column every week.
She is also very educated, she graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
She also has extensive real world experience, and is generally just a bad ass!
Bottom line.. Chick kicks ass!
Coulter is way too skinny for my taste, plus she has an adams apple.
The rest of the stuff you said is wrong too, and she's much smarter than einstein, and mozart. Mike Rogers is in a league all his own, and i mean that literally, all his own, just him. Nobody else is interested in being anywhere near it.
I'm surprised that you feel that way- she contradicts herself frequently and you seem to have a pet peeve with inconsistency. And is that what it takes to be a genius? Then half my friends are geniuses by that standard. When I finish my doctorate, will you call me genius too? Then will you lick my boot?
Onto your wise talented friend Donsky:
Liked the samples, Donsky, especially the drunk driving. Are you by chance an urban planner? Not that you have to answer that, but I've worked with many MUP's. Wondering if that is behind the streetlamps thing.
ben i did read that column, i read all of her stuff.
the point of that column was that no one saw these movies! Hollywierd is so out of the mainstream that what they think is a good movie doesn't appeal to most movie goers. It is totally a liberal PC crowd that wants to give these awards to these movies for PC reasons. Simple as that.
Also, if she doesn't want gays to marry she's a bigot? what if she's religous? are all religous people bigots? What if she's just against the idea because she thinks it's bad for society?
The wealth of data? How do we have a wealth of data? Are there that many kids in that situation that we know what the deal is?
Who gathered this data? More importantly how do they know what's going to happen in 10 years or so? Even if today this is very common,(which it's not) it's also very recent. there wasn't a whole lot of two mom/two dad households 20 years ago, so all this "wealth of data" is very recent. We don't know how it will affect these kids into adult hood.
Personally, i don't think gays should be allowed to marry, i don't have a problem with civil unions, i don't think we need a constitutional ammendment either. Let the states decide. and if they want to adopt a kid, i gotta believe it's better than a orphanage or bouncing kids around from home to home, but i don't think it's the ideal situation either.
I'm not a bigot, i'm not a homophobe either.... what are you a fag or something?
lily when you finish your doctorate i will lick you... i mean your boots of course. Let me know how that goes.
I don't know about Mike Rogers is a genius but Mr.Rogers was...and he didn't even go to an Ivy League school...or did he?
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Well if I can chirp in on one thing- I am totally for gay marriage/civil unions but I think that the trouble with the word marriage for some people is that it is a religious word that has been adopted to apply to a legal contractual relationship. There is married sacrament and married 'legal'.
So some people argue that in a separate society really ALL people should engage in legal civil unions and marriage be returned to the religious realm where it applies. Church/State issue.
Now that gets into semantics, etc. BUT what some people take exception to is not the extension of rights but the description of that relationship as a marriage. So the thinking is that if the term marriage was dropped and all people had the option of civil union- gay or straight- it would clarify the matter and perhaps help the situation.
Now the trouble is that when anyone frames it THAT way, people jump up screaming saying "you mean giving them less rights than married people' but this is a question of TERMINOLOGY.Not a rights issue and I agree with Ben on the intrinsic rights point.
Legal rights would not differ but calling it 'marriage' is objectionable to many atheists and agnostics too that oppose theocratic law.
A person must meet certain criteria to be married in the Catholic Church. People are not forced to get married there, it is secondary to the legal process. You are not more or less married because you go to a church. But to some people their religious view is such that the Church ceremony is the meaningful sacrement, not the legal. So the suggestion is that all people have the right to civil unions, and the Churches that bestow the religious marital union set their criteria as they wish with voluntary participation.
Did that make sense?
Yes...
actually yes, that did make sense. imagine my surprise...
I know hollywierd has a different criteria, it's pc criteria and that's fine, but the point of coulters satire was that they are out of the mainstream. that's all.
i don't agree with you on saying anyone who is anti gay marriage for whatever reason is a bigot, but that's your opinion.
finally, i don't know what the numbers are, but in the millions sounds like bullshit. I'm not saying you're lying, i'm just saying that sounds like a big number. Is that world wide? and i'm sure it's been going on for decades, but not in any big numbers. I don't know what the deal is with children raised in that situation, but i don't think anyone else does either. That doesn't mean i'm anti, it just means we don't know.
how the hell did we get on this subject anyway?
"Getting pissed is such a primeval way of expressing your ideologies."
Getting pissed has nothing to do with ideology. It happens to sentient beings that are more than just walking talking shells of ideology. It happens when circumstances are beyond fucked up, and the people that did the fucking up need to see the veins bulging out of your forehead and feel the heat of your hand grasping their spindly throat. This way they sometime suddenly have an epiphany, and realize that the world is comprised of people other than them and there kind.
Thank you Madam Boot. Just to clarify MY position. I do not eschew personal responsibility. I think I said that before during the CorruptCo Blog fest. But there is reasonable times when we should expect government to step in. For instance, if my neighbors and I have well water, and we all have an ant problem. I choose to use a reasonably safe product that does not seep into the water table. My neighbor on the other hand decides to use a very toxic product that not only seeps into the water table, but is very long lasting. Should the government ban that product? Should my neighbor have the right to poison my water? If my neighbors are gay, should they be allowed to use the same ant killer as me? Does their gayness affect the efficiency of the ant poison? Does it affect mine? Should the government ban the use of ant poison by gay households? I'm for small government. However it has to be robust enough to protect the people and the environment.
hmmm gay ant poisoning? i hadn't thought of it before, but since it's gay, i'm anti! lefty i think you should call the police, and get yourself some bottled water.
I think he rasies some important questions...
So I can be obtuse at times. Sometimes having to scratch your head is good for you. I agree with everything thats been said here. I have a signing statement that reflects my veiwpoint.
obtuse. i can't hear or read that word without thinking of shawshank redemption.
LOC can ramble like a crazy man, its better than whining.
Post a Comment