[X3pilot]

Pretty telling when Hollywood liberals rip the bizarro FoxNews..

In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

But by far, the most profound quote of this article:

On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.

Funniest quote:

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Full story

 

[jimmydean]

I would rather punch Sean Hanity in the face than Keith Oberman.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Who the hell watches MSNBC?

 

[sanjuro]

I do. A lot of my friends do.

And trust me, if I thought there was a huge bias, I would not watch it.

Yeah, they are liberal, but objective.

P.S. Obama is on Maddow on Thursday.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Yeah, they are liberal, but objective.

Hahahahaha, right. Nine out of ten in the media (not just MSNBC) are registered democrats. "I'm sure they're always objective."

 

[1000-Oaks]

I would rather punch Sean Hanity in the face than Keith Oberman.

I hear that, can't stand that guy. He logic is usually sound but his attitude and delivery gives conservatives a bad name.

Gotta have him on the show to balance Colmes though, who's just as big a schmuck.

 

[Defenestrated]

Corporate media is all bad.

 

[N8 v2.0]

the media is a joke... even the media thinks so..

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

 

[jimmydean]

Who the hell watches MSNBC?

I get all my news from The Daily Show. I can't trust any of those other jackasses.

I enjoyed Oberman on Sports Center, though.

 

[sanjuro]

Hahahahaha, right. Nine out of ten in the media (not just MSNBC) are registered democrats. "I'm sure they're always objective."

Don't forget, Fox News is still the leader in reporting, although they "Fair and Balanced". They have the Washington General himself, Alan Colmes.

 

[Silver]

I hear that, can't stand that guy. He logic is usually sound but his attitude and delivery gives conservatives a bad name.

Gotta have him on the show to balance Colmes though, who's just as big a schmuck.

Ok, ok...I hate to ask the question, but you aren't actually considered medically retarded, are you?

You think Hannity is on that show to counterbalance the left wing stylings of Alan Colmes? You think Hannity has usually sound logic?

Jesus ****ing Christ on a dildo...

 

[TheMontashu]

This is just speaking on the presidential coverage, I watch Fox and MSNBC and watch O'rieley, and Oberman. I have to say both stations are bias, but the big difference is that the negatives about the candidates on MSNBC seem to be pretty well founded and factual. While fox will just about say anything that has some sort of base in something resembling fact. Fox spent tons of time on Obamas very weak connection to Ayers and that voter group (the name escapes me now) saying over and over how Americans need to know what the connection was, even though it had been established weeks prior that yes the connection is there, but its a very loose connection that showed nothing negative on Obama's caricature.

Although on the other side of things, if the Republicans had an honest candidate that had a campaign based on issues with no real ghosts from the past. And the Dems had an old laing sack of crap who has a lot of ghosts in the closed and a VP candidate that down right terrible then I think Fox would be the honest ones and MSNBC would be pulling stories out there asses

 

[1000-Oaks]

Fox spent tons of time on Obamas very weak connection to Ayers and that voter group (the name escapes me now) saying over and over how Americans need to know what the connection was, even though it had been established weeks prior that yes the connection is there, but its a very loose connection that showed nothing negative on Obama's caricature.

If Obama has a very loose connection with Acorn and decided to give them $800,000 (to buy votes for dems), how come he didn't knock on my door and give me $800,000 too? He has "no connection" to me either, where's my "donation"?

Personally I don't consider $800,000 insignificant, but that's just me.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Ok, ok...I hate to ask the question, but you aren't actually considered medically retarded, are you?

You think Hannity is on that show to counterbalance the left wing stylings of Alan Colmes? You think Hannity has usually sound logic?

Jesus ****ing Christ on a dildo...

The masses will believe whatever BS sounds like it will personally benefit them, some of us read between the lines and see the cracks in the propaganda. But roll with it if it helps you feel better, never once considering you could be a victim of brainwashing yourself. I always keep that in mind: is XYZ based on reality, or is it political control in a feel-good package? These attempts to control us come in many forms and disguises, from the right and the left.

 

[TheMontashu]

If Obama has a very loose connection with Acorn and decided to give them $800,000 (to buy votes for dems), how come he didn't knock on my door and give me $800,000 too? He has "no connection" to me either, where's my "donation"?

Personally I don't consider $800,000 insignificant, but that's just me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11acorn.html
Come on dude, there was little to no evidence of voter fraud, it was an embezzlement case.

 

[sanjuro]

Although on the other side of things, if the Republicans had an honest candidate that had a campaign based on issues with no real ghosts from the past. And the Dems had an old laing sack of crap who has a lot of ghosts in the closed and a VP candidate that down right terrible then I think Fox would be the honest ones and MSNBC would be pulling stories out there asses

Obama is in the lead, and he has several strong advantages, like Bush sucks, Palin's an idiot, etc.

You are right that there is no need to hammer McCain, but I bet if we watched Olbermann or Matthews back in 2004, they would be lamenting about Bush's victory, not making out-and-out lies about the Republicans.

Everytime I hear Hannity talk, I just think jerk-off/puppet.

Olbermann may be tremendously biased as well, but he has a certain fear for his job, since he has had to quit before.

 

[Anders]

comcast made it digital cable only so i dont get it

 

[1000-Oaks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11acorn.html
Come on dude, there was little to no evidence of voter fraud, it was an embezzlement case.

So, what about the 5,000 fraudulent registrations in Ohio? Yes, those "voters" have not voted yet and thus technically can't be called "voter fraud. Yet.

But come on. It's like a naked guy getting caught cheating by his wife, wearing a condom just before mounting his girlfriend. "But I'm not cheating honey, nothing happened (yet)."

Sure, he's innocent. Just like Acorn is innocent in Ohio and a bunch of other states. Funded to the tune of $800,000 by the Obama campaign. Can't argue with the facts.

 

[ohio]

So, what about the 5,000 fraudulent registrations in Ohio? Yes, those "voters" have not voted yet and thus technically can't be called "voter fraud. Yet.

Do you understand how Acorn works?

They pay people to collect registrations. Inevitably, some of their workers falsify registrations in order to up their income. Acorn vets ALL of their registrations, but they are required by law to turn in any registration they receive even if they know it is fraudulent. So they flag the fraudulent ones for the state elections board. Acorn does this, and has always done this.

Now, on the off chance that their vetting process misses a fraudulent registration, explain to me how that will be converted into a vote. It's pretty difficult for a non-existent dude, condom or not, to **** your wife.

 

[Echo]

Do you understand how Acorn works?

They pay people to collect registrations. Inevitably, some of their workers falsify registrations in order to up their income. Acorn vets ALL of their registrations, but they are required by law to turn in any registration they receive even if they know it is fraudulent. So they flag the fraudulent ones for the state elections board. Acorn does this, and has always done this.

Now, on the off chance that their vetting process misses a fraudulent registration, explain to me how that will be converted into a vote. It's pretty difficult for a non-existent dude, condom or not, to **** your wife.

You really need to stop confusing these poor conservatives with reality.

Seriously, these conservative morons are talking like there's going to be an army of colored folk out there with duffle bags full of false identification, who just vote, get back in line, vote again, get back in line, until they have used up all the ID's in the duffle.

Of course this will all be coordinated by a massive computer system at ACORN, which will keep track of where each negro needs to go, and of course there is a massive training center which teaches the negroes how to properly forge signatures, pronounce names, etc.

 

[TheMontashu]

So, what about the 5,000 fraudulent registrations in Ohio? Yes, those "voters" have not voted yet and thus technically can't be called "voter fraud. Yet.

But come on. It's like a naked guy getting caught cheating by his wife, wearing a condom just before mounting his girlfriend. "But I'm not cheating honey, nothing happened (yet)."

Sure, he's innocent. Just like Acorn is innocent in Ohio and a bunch of other states. Funded to the tune of $800,000 by the Obama campaign. Can't argue with the facts.

Did you read that article, the ones who reported about the fraudulent registration were acorn. There were some shady people working for them that did some bad things, and were caught and turned in by its own organization. You also act like the republicans are guilt free in voter issues, in 2000 the republicans LITERALLY stole the election. I think the Obama Campaign's donation to acorn also makes sense in that new voters vote democratic. Obama's campaign has spent alot of money in every battle ground state trying to get people registered

 

[$tinkle]

do you know what literally means?
did you know that palestra.net is an arm of foxnews, and not acorn?

stick to what you do best: ddr'ing w/ alexis_dh

 

[jimmydean]

Of course this will all be coordinated by a massive computer system at ACORN, which will keep track of where each negro needs to go, and of course there is a massive training center which teaches the negroes how to properly forge signatures, pronounce names, etc.

I thought it was Bill Ayers that was doing the "community organization" for this?

 

[kidwoo]

The masses will believe whatever BS sounds like it will personally benefit them, some of us read between the lines and see the cracks in the propaganda. But roll with it if it helps you feel better, never once considering you could be a victim of brainwashing yourself. I always keep that in mind: is XYZ based on reality, or is it political control in a feel-good package? These attempts to control us come in many forms and disguises, from the right and the left.

When I think 'original thought' I definitely think of you.



And by 'reading between the lines' you pretty consistently come up with every right wing talking point parroted 1000s of times a day. Amazing where all that insight brought you.

 

[Defenestrated]

Last I checked there was some shady sh!t that went down in 2000, Republicans.

The a supreme court (which suspiciously has a conservative majority) should never decide the president.

And you talk of voter fraud...

 

[X3pilot]

Last I checked there was some shady sh!t that went down in 2000, Republicans.

The a supreme court (which suspiciously has a conservative majority) should never decide the president.

And you talk of voter fraud...

Technically, the Supreme Court in that decision had to fix the screw ups of the Florida Supreme Court that had violated the Equal Protection laws.

But what do I know?

Bush v. Gore

 

[Defenestrated]

Technically, the Supreme Court in that decision had to fix the screw ups of the Florida Supreme Court that had violated the Equal Protection laws.

But what do I know?

Bush v. Gore

You do realize that the issue with the Equal Protection clause was that Bush contended that recounting the votes would lead to ballots being thrown out due to discrepencies whereas Gore contended that it would not, since each ballot would have clearly illustrated the "voter's intent".

Simply put, this means that Bush felt strongly enough that he stood to lose the state if recounts were allowed and the true amount of legit votes were made known that he was willing to take the issue to the courts.

Here is the dissenting opinion written by justice Stevens. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-949P.ZD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Technically, the Supreme Court in that decision had to fix the screw ups of the Florida Supreme Court that had violated the Equal Protection laws.

But what do I know?

Bush v. Gore

headshot

 

[Defenestrated]

N8 did you read the dissent?

 

[X3pilot]

You do realize that the issue with the Equal Protection clause was that Bush contended that recounting the votes would lead to ballots being thrown out due to discrepencies whereas Gore contended that it would not, since each ballot would have clearly illustrated the "voter's intent".

Simply put, this means that Bush felt strongly enough that he stood to lose the state if recounts were allowed and the true amount of legit votes were made known that he was willing to take the issue to the courts.

Here is the dissenting opinion written by justice Stevens. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-949P.ZD

No, the issue with the Protection law, in the opinion of the majority, was that by continuing the recount under the State imposed deadline, would actually cause votes for both candidates to be mis-counted or discounted, therefore violating Equal Protection

The dissenting ruling stated simply that the dissenting justices felt that it was not an extreme enough situation to use federal Constitution authority to over take the States Supreme Court right to allow voting for the state's electorate.


FWIW, I'm not defending Bush's decision to petition the matter, just the common assumption that Bush 'challenged' the outcome of the Florida vote.

 

[X3pilot]

N8 did you read the dissent?

No, I don't think he did, if you were referring to N- ate and not me.

 

[Defenestrated]

Of course he didn't, he is begging the question (when isn't n8 begging the question?).

 

[ohio]

No, the issue with the Protection law, in the opinion of the majority, was that by continuing the recount under the State imposed deadline, would actually cause votes for both candidates to be mis-counted or discounted, therefore violating Equal Protection

The dissenting ruling stated simply that the dissenting justices felt that it was not an extreme enough situation to use federal Constitution authority to over take the States Supreme Court right to allow voting for the state's electorate.


FWIW, I'm not defending Bush's decision to petition the matter, just the common assumption that Bush 'challenged' the outcome of the Florida vote.

That's not the way I understood the majority opinion, which was two-fold. First that, applying human judgement to intent of a ballot invited (additional) human error into the process. Second, that they it would necessarily violate the deadline set forth for congressional decision.

The dissenting opinions (note that there are 4 of them) rightly point out that the first reason is ridiculous and implies that state supreme courts are incapable of defining "intent", and that people are incapable of judging a vote beyond a reasonable doubt even though both are fundamental to criminal law among others. They point out that the second reason is a fringe technicality that doesn't even apply in this case. And FINALLY, they point out that the US supreme court has no business intervening in this, as each state is endowed with the power of determining it's electoral vote as it sees fit and obtaining votes through any variety of mechanisms.

 

[JumpinJen]

What a mess...