They cover the news they WANT to cover! Why are
Posted By: so many of you blind???! nm on 2008-11-11
In Reply to: They are covering the news....(sm) - Just the big bad
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Liberal news media won't cover it.... CNN did send a
xx
Fox did not cover it because the Fox
did not have a news department then.
Yes, I read your message. Did read you mine?
They only cover 2 candidates because
we don't demand that they do otherwise. Power to the people!!!!
Nice cover - but you know what the COS's job is, right?
Obama would not pick as his Chief of Staff a man who wasn't eye-to-eye on the majority of issues. It's basically the president's wing man. No one's going to buy the notion that Obama picked Emanuel as a counterbalance to his own ideas. He picked him because they share common beliefs, which some of us find a little frightening (like mandatory military-style training and/or service).
Ah, but Obama's cover....
...is that things are SO MUCH WORSE than he was lead to believe during the campaign. Much was concealed from him. He inherited such a big mess and he had absolutely no idea how much work there would be. And when his policies fail, as they are destined to do, he will have made a ruin of our entire way of life and can still blame the whole thing on Bush. It's a no-lose situation for Obama.
The Obama campaign became almost a cult experience. People wailing and crying and fainting. The promise of free stuff: *If I help him, he'll help me. I won't have to worry about filling my gas tank and paying my mortgage.* This is exactly what got Obama elected. Smooth, slick, TelePrompTer dependent without appearing to be, well packaged and carefully managed, lots of emotional appeal. Those who voted for him bought sizzle. The sizzle is starting to fizzle, and there will never be a steak.
Cover up the Prez!! Have you guys seen this?
link
The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.
Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm
I suppose they should cover the mirrors
and rend their clothes in grief instead? They are busting their butts to get things done. I think a little laughter, joy and goodwill is necessary as well as healthy. But, I suspect you would neither understand nor APPROVE of anything you deem "frivolous." The Dow has been up for 4 days running, at least 3 major banks are seeing profits and are stating they no longer require any bailout money.........Bringing in Congress and various insiders for a weekly get-together is a good way to inspire and promote goodwill.....but I guess the WH is something to look at - not live in.
This is inappropriate for a magazine cover
This should go in the National Enquire, Star or something. Sure he's in good physical shape, but whether you think he is nice looking or not is all a matter of opinion. My MIL thought Bill Clinton was "the bees knees" saying "I wouldn't kick him out of my bed, or he can park his shoes under my bed. I felt like throwing up every time I saw him. But, pics of shirtless leaders should should stay in the tabloids. he is supposed to be a leader. This goes to show more and more that he is not. As someone said he's acting like a "Hollywood wannabe". This is not the actions of someone who is supposed to be a stateman, the leader of a country. If you're going to put the pic of a country's leader on the front cover of a magazine they should be properly attired. Could be one of the reasons why most don't refer to him as President Obama, but rather as Mr. Obama.
I don't think he sent the picture to the magazine to be placed on the cover -
My goodness, ya'll would blame him no matter what. He does not decide what picture goes on the cover of a magazine - the Editor of the magazine decides.
And, I do not think that being President of the United States means you cannot go to the beach anymore or have a vacation with your family without covering yourself and if someone wants to take a picture of him in that way, then what can he do?
You want freedom of the press, freedom of speech, no censorship, etc., but then you are wanting to censor this magazine!
Better cover your eyes, if you're so squeamish.
Your pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact...(sm)
that there is no basis for the comment above (that being that Obama is taking rights away) by trying to distract the conversation by attacking me personally does nothing but show the absolute absurdity of the republican party's talking points.
I think the vanity fair cover was not a smart thing for her to do...sm
even though she wore a scar and big glasses.
Correction: The cost to cover Montana kids.
.
McCain should draft Tammy to cover all his bases.
nm
Double standard doesn't cover Obama
@@
You're right. They cover their ears, close their eyes,
what they're taught in Bible School, I suppose.
They must figure that if they bore their opponents with their nonstop jabbering, that when that person finally gets fed up and walks away, they have somehow 'won'. WHAT they think they've 'won' is beyond me.
The booby-prize, perhaps?
Shirtless Obama Makes Washingtonian Cover
The May cover of Washingtonian magazine features those paparazzi photos of a shirtless Barack Obama strolling the beach in Hawaii last year. The photo illustrates the magazine's "Reasons We Love Washington," the #2 reason for which is "Our new neighbor is hot."
Honey, your Bush derangement syndrome is showing...cover it up!
//
FOX news IS the news. The only 1 that tells BOTH
nm
It's all over the news - and I mean ALL news stations.
not just the ones you don't like.
Do you get any news except at the DU? ????? NM
Believe it or not, I do keep up with the news.
I realize this is an old story, but it has a new twist to it because now Gary Bernsten is now giving the specifics surrounding it.
When the news first came out that he was..sm
hosting a fundraiser for her I thought it was weird, but now that you bring it up (and it's a good question) I did some research and it appears that old Ruppert has a history of switching his backing between parties. Some believe his main objective is monopoly in broadcasting, not party loyalty or belief in party ideals (aka Big Business 102).
Excerpt from wsws.org: 'When it comes to politics, Murdoch, known in media circles as the “dirty digger,” is equally adaptable in pursuing his personal gain. The most loyal right-wing Tory and friend of Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, as he built up his media holdings in Britain, he switched his loyalties to “New Labour” when he saw that Tony Blair could provide a fresh face for even more reactionary politics and was more than willing to further Murdoch’s interests in return for editorial backing. He made similar swings in his native Australia between the Labor and Liberal parties to further his efforts at monopolizing the print and broadcast media.'
Actually, I saw it on ABC News....
the footage of Obama not putting hand over heart for pledge. In all fairness, that is the only footage I have seen of him not doing so....never was a recipient of whatever chain email you are speaking of. Believe it...yes, saw it with my own eyes. Why he did it, have no idea. There could be a multitude of reasons why he didn't do it. Here is the big BUT...it does make one a but curious when coupled with the fact that he dispensed with wearing of the flag pin on his lapel. I heard his explanation; I am just not sure I buy it. Each thing alone not such a big deal...together, it does make one wonder, so I can see why nanna might have reservations. It is good to question things and not take everything at face value...be the candidate Dem, Repub, Inde...whatever.
Fox news
A propanganda machine for repubs. No one is obligated to appear on that network. There are plenty of other media outlets. Fox's ratings are dropping and MSNC's are climbing. Fox disguises these facts by including their entertainment ratings in with their "news" ratings. As far as ALL OTHER MEDIA being liberal, that is a transparent technique to keep viewers from getting opinions from ANY OTHER source than Fox. I certainly wouldn't fall for that bunko. I also notice that they concentrate on certain sites such as Media Matters and NY Times specifically because those sites are excellent at presenting the truth about distorted information disseminated by the propaganda machine. To each his own.
Where do you get your news?
Sorry, I'm conservative, but have to ask why you would go down that road when you can find those answers yourself.
Might I suggest worldnetdaily.com, townhall.com, drudgereport.com, breitbart.com, talk radio (and the hosts' web sites, including Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc.). There are countless news stories that never make the mainstream media.
Another thing to consider is who a person keeps for company. When questionable names keep coming up (Pflager, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc.), that would concern me if I were considering any kind of relationship with someone, but that's just me.
Those who support Obama get their news from MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and so on. Those networks alone have been proven repeatedly to be biased. All the times that McCain went abroad, where were Couric, Gibson, and Williams? Why would any American think that the Democrats, who are determined to reinstate Fairness Doctrine, think that it won't come back and bite them? Why should any American be silenced just because one group disagrees with another?
Do you know what is posted on blogs like the DailyKos and HuffingtonPost?
Lastly, a couple more stats. The #1 most liberal Senator is Obama. Kennedy is #2, Biden is #3. Even the moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from him. This info is documented and not fiction.
That's rather left of left, I would say.
I'm already looking for my fire extinguisher, but the truth hurts sometimes.
Trust your own gut.
She knows it because it was all over the news
nm
news
You have more options now than anytime in history to gather information. You can gather information from both sides of the issue and verify the facts and then make your own decision based on your personal values.
Old news....nm
xx
Fox News is the only one I DO believe.
nm
SP on ABC News
Just saw first installment of interview with SP with Charlie Gibson. In my opinion, she really messed that up! Experienced and ready to lead? No way. Danced around every question and flat out lied when asked what she said about Iraq War being a mission from God. What's the worst thing about listening to her for the first time in her own words, she says NUCULAR!!! Just like George Bush. Oh no...not again.
SP on ABC News
She was so nervous, she had big red blotches on the side of her neck. He pressed on dancing around and not answering the questions he asked. She looked like a deer in the headlights to me.
old news....ho hum.. nm
xx
NBC news...
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/17/1413605.aspx
old news
This happened years ago, not yesterday. How come you are just hearing about it? Did you check your dates in snopes?
Maybe old news, but why does no one get it? sm
do you just want to ignore all the blatant truths about Obama being linked to terrorists and cling to hope that he is not REALLY a terrorist and hope that he really will do what he says? So just blindly accept him at his word and ignore all the indications that tell us otherwise. Do you not see any huge red flags waving in front of your eyes??
Fox NEWS is not the news
Joe the plumber is a plant! All your info is wrong.
Fox News
Plenty has been said about Sarah Palin's appearance, from her designer glasses to her striking similarity to actress Tina Fey.
But lately her stylish look has come at a price -- more than $150,000 of which was paid for by the Republican National Committee -- according to a report Tuesday by Politico.
The Web site cited financial disclosure records that suggest the wardrobe makeover began in September and included bills from Sak's Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling nearly $50,000.
The documents also show a $75,000 shopping trip at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in September, as well as about $4,700 spent on hair and makeup, Politico reported. Documents don't show similar costs in August.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/report-rnc-spent-g-spruce-palin/
fox news
Good Evening,
1. On Sunday night at 9 on Fox News, Hannity's America will run "The Ten Reasons Why Barack Obama Should Not Be President." Please spread the word.
2. The article that follows is about Sarah Palin and the elites (both Democrat and Republican). It is well worth the read:
And this is news how?????
HA HA HA HA HA. I never trusted her. I just hope I see as less of Dillary than I do of Condi.
It's news because...(sm)
Israel is getting ready to invade Gaza and is already in the process of bombing raids. Meanwhile the current US administration (aka Bush/Condi/Cheney/etc) is perpetuating the lies about Gaza, such as who is the real terrorist, ignoring a legitimate democratically elected council, etc. The OP explains all this. Bottom line is that the US is giving Israel a green light, which to some of us (as well as a large portion of the world) is condoning genocide.
And Americans wonder why the rest of the world has such a bad opinion of us. 
Old news.......
I posted the entire article on how Obama wants to pay for abortions in Ethiopia and abroad with MY money but instead of responses of "NOT MY MONEY", all I got was criticism for being AGAINST abortion......
Go figure..... that's what I mean when I say this country has lost its loyalty to itself and we have a president who has absoluely no loyalty to this country; his loyalties lie elsewhere
I saw it on the news. It is to try
this stimulus. Also that is why Obama had townhall meetings to show congress "We the people" want this stimulus to pass.
Boy, Obama sure loves campaigning and speeches.
Old news - nm
nm
I would think Fox News would be enough
Unless, of course, you have built up your tolerance for it by listening to Michael Savage.
The ones that have been all over the news -
x
As far as what is said on the news....(sm)
I'm not responsible for that. Having said that though I do think that as a whole people are more tolerant (I wouldn't go so far as to say accepting). However, that doesn't diminish the fact that violence against homosexuals is still a prevalent crime.
I actually do wish more people would teach their children as you described above. If that were happening, none of this would be an issue and there would be no need to take it to the schools.
Let's take Patty, for example. She has already said that yes, she does call homosexuals names in front of her kids. She does this at the same time that she's spouting out references to the Bible. So what do you think her kids think? Maybe that it's God's will that they call homosexuals names? I don't know what they're supposed to think or how they are supposed to act given her example. Do you think she's teaching tolerance? If not, who will if not the schools?
Anybody else see this on the news?
The taxpayers just footed the bill for Pres and Michelle Obama's $20,000 date this weekend in New York. Yeah, won't we ALL be making sacrifices - all of us to pay for them? Boils my blood to see any one in politics spending public money on such foolishness and so excessively.
Just saw that on the news also.
nm
You might want to re-evaluate where you get your news..
wednesday, june 29, 2005
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers announced tonight that the Army has exceeded its recruitment goals for the month of June: Army reverses series of recruitment shortfalls. (Hat tip: Ethel.)
PENTAGON—After months of declining enlistment, the Army has more than met its recruitment goals for the month of June.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers announced the turnaround during a “town hall” meeting this afternoon at the Pentagon.
Myers did not provide numbers, nor did he indicate how far above the recruitment target the enlistment number is.
|
