Hillary Clinton: Ready to suck from day one.

Seriously though, this is the exact kind of thing civil liberties liberals and limited gov't libertarian conservatives can agree on

civil liberties/schmivil schmliberties...

Thanks a lot, Glorious Leader.

This is exactly the sort of thing that caused me to support Obama. I want someone in office who has strong positions on civil rights and ethics.

Manic_repressive, that picture is hilarious yet horrifying at the same time.

I really don't want Hillary to be the nominee, let alone be the president. But the concerted fellating of Obama on Fark and most everywhere else is just astounding.

"How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News" indeed.

Barack Obama will be out next president. Count on it. John McCain doesn't stand a chance against him. I predict a popular vote of 60/40 Obama McCain.

It will be McCain in 2008. Just watch.

Gregory F. Stuart: I don't understand why we're arguing about who's better, Obama or Clinton, when everyone knows McCain is going to win.

Look, it's simple: Americans are dumb farks. Therefore, it follows that they're going to vote in McCain, as sure as the sun rises in the east.

Anyway, don't you think it's time Americans got the kind of leadership that they deserve?

You know, when canyoneer first joined the dark side I thought he was just trolling.

Empanda: This is exactly the sort of thing that caused me to support Obama. I want someone in office who has strong positions on civil rights and ethics.

This.

Gregory F. Stuart: And, if they do make such an unwise choice, then perhaps they truly do deserve the full brunt of the consequences.

Really? ALL Americans deserve the consequences? Not just the dumbfarks who voted for the asshole...ALL Americans DESERVE the consequences?

Gregory F. Stuart: I don't understand why we're arguing about who's better, Obama or Clinton, when everyone knows McCain is going to win.

Look, it's simple: Americans are dumb farks. Therefore, it follows that they're going to vote in McCain, as sure as the sun rises in the east.

Anyway, don't you think it's time Americans got the kind of leadership that they deserve?

You're probably right, but I have to keep telling myself that you're not in order to maintain what little faith I have left in humanity.

And-1: I really don't want Hillary to be the nominee, let alone be the president. But the concerted fellating of Obama on Fark and most everywhere else is just astounding.

"How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News" indeed.


Wait, Obama attempting to fix the Patriot Act and Clinton blocks it is "crap passed off as news"? WTF, is this stuff getting in the way of you getting all the Britney coverage you require?

How is reporting fact "Obama fellating"? Did you even read the article or the attached NYT op-ed?

Gregory F. Stuart: Such is the tyranny of democracy.

Bullshiat. All must suffer the consequences; not all deserve the consequences.

Dododado:
It will be McCain in 2008. Just watch.


Word.

All it takes is Bush/Cheney provoking somebody, like Iran, sometime around September and the American sheeple will run to whoever promises to torture and bomb more people.

Atillathepun: Wait, Obama attempting to fix the Patriot Act and Clinton blocks it is "crap passed off as news"? WTF, is this stuff getting in the way of you getting all the Britney coverage you require?

How is reporting fact "Obama fellating"? Did you even read the article or the attached NYT op-ed?

You are missing the point. Fark and a great deal of the media scramble to print anything positive about Obama, and anything negative about Clinton. There is no need to lie to be biased in reporting; there is no need to make things up to be passing off crap as news.

And clearly the Britney fantasy is yours - seeing as how you are the only one talking about her in this thread, you cumsucking arsegadget.

Go ahead And-1, tell us something positive about Clinton. I'd probably take her over McCain, so I'm not just baiting here.

I really do think Obama is a better candidate, and that's why there's more to like about his press releases/ads.

Gregory F. Stuart: Then leave the country. Otherwise, you have consciously decided to stay and accept the consequences of other people's decisions, and therefore can be said to deserve those consequences.

That's the stupidest fkn thing I've seen in days.

So I make an effort to avoid this bullshiat, but I deserve it anyway? ...and the only "out" is to emigrate?

You are fkn moran.

And-1: Atillathepun: Wait, Obama attempting to fix the Patriot Act and Clinton blocks it is "crap passed off as news"? WTF, is this stuff getting in the way of you getting all the Britney coverage you require?

How is reporting fact "Obama fellating"? Did you even read the article or the attached NYT op-ed?

You are missing the point. Fark and a great deal of the media scramble to print anything positive about Obama, and anything negative about Clinton. There is no need to lie to be biased in reporting; there is no need to make things up to be passing off crap as news.

And clearly the Britney fantasy is yours - seeing as how you are the only one talking about her in this thread, you cumsucking arsegadget.

Yes, the fawning press who trumpeted a slight NH win as profound for Clinton. The press who listed Clinton as the frontrunner for much of the primary season, even though Obama has never trailed in pledged delegates. The press who called a 1 delegate loss in Nevada as a Clinton victory. The press who pushed the stupid plagiarism charge. The press who called Mo. for Clinton before Obama won it. The press who consistently had Hillary's mug plastered on their front pages until Obama began winning state after state. The press who called Super Tuesday a win for Clinton (at first,) even though Obama won more votes, states and delegates. Yeah, poor poor Hillary.

Yeah. Sure. You know, the press has pretty consistently been trumpeting whoever appears to be winning at the moment. YOU'RE just pissed off that it happens to be Obama right now. HOW DARE the press do such a thing! The horrors. The horrors.

And-1: You are missing the point. Fark and a great deal of the media scramble to print anything positive about Obama, and anything negative about Clinton. There is no need to lie to be biased in reporting; there is no need to make things up to be passing off crap as news.

You are missing the point.

All partisans claim that the press is uniquely unfair to their candidate. Go check out Kos if you think no one complains about the media's treatment of Obama.

See, because they agree with the candidate they like, and they disagree with the candidates they don't like. When the press criticizes their candidate, it seems like they are unfairly doing so because, well, they don't think the criticism is valid.

This is not to say that no media bias exists, and that criticism of such bias is unequivocally invalid--just that it is absolutely unremarkable for people to claim the press is being unfair in their coverage.

Oh, and it could just be that Obama truly is the superior candidate. At least, that's what I think.

Skleenar: Go check out Kos if you think no one complains about the media's treatment of Obama.

Or, more conveniently, Atillathepun's post above.

Gregory F. Stuart: You're the one who stayed in the country and willingly accepted the rape, even though you chose otherwise.

Oh...yes, yes...if I don't abandon my home and pick up my family and change nationalities when my fellow Americans vote for assholes, then I deserve to be "raped."

Fk you, asshole...

And-1: I really don't want Hillary to be the nominee, let alone be the president. But the concerted fellating of Obama on Fark and most everywhere else is just astounding.

"How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News" indeed.

Diagnosis: you spend too much time on the internet.

lolmao666: Yeah sorry but socialized health care is against civil liberties.

Generally thinks like taxes and transfer payments fall on the economic side the debate. If you want to get in the civil liberties side of health care you need to look at things like patient privacy and living wills, and that whole choice debate. Whether to do socialized medicine or not is an economic decision, especially since everyone needs health care at some time or another.

Republicans and Democrats that don't agree on tax and fiscal policy can be of like minds when it comes to things like freedom of expression. The Republicans I hang out with (who tend to be low-tax, minimal government, pro-business conservatives) also tend to agree with me on social and civil libertarianism.

Skleenar: Skleenar: Go check out Kos if you think no one complains about the media's treatment of Obama.

Or, more conveniently, Atillathepun's post above.

Hey, I'll admit the press has been generally more pro Obama recently. I think it's more a case of the media following and trying to make money off of trends rather than the other way around. Do you disagree that early on, most of the coverage seemed to support Hillary?

My point is that the press/media are like people who root for whatever sports team appears to be winning. Front runners. Douchebags.

Atillathepun: Do you disagree that early on, most of the coverage seemed to support Hillary?

Well of course it did. She was inevitable.

Apik0r0s: All it takes is Bush/Cheney provoking somebody, like Iran, sometime around September and the American sheeple will run to whoever promises to torture and bomb more people.

Considering that as a former POW, McCain was one of a very few Republicans who was adamantly against advocating the use of torture on suspects, I think you need to come up with something a bit more realistic to make your point stick.

How about, "when Bush/Cheney start prokoking Iran, McCain will play up his hawkish nature and capitalize his military experience to show that the only way to save us from the former administration's errors is to continue those errors" and the American public will eat it up.

McCain: anti-torture, pro-blowing up brown people.

Empanda: This is exactly the sort of thing that caused me to support Obama.

Same here, and I honestly don't understand why he's not just hammering her on her voting record on things like this.

I mean, I know he wants to take the high road and stay positive as much as he can, but there are things like this that so clearly reveal to us exactly who Hillary really is that I wish he'd leverage them more on the campaign trail and, more importantly, get the media discussing them on the nightly news.

And-1: Fark and a great deal of the media scramble to print anything positive about Obama,

Reality has a well-known Obama bias. :P

FWIW - yes Fark loves Obama. I think the admins would like to greenlight more flamewars threads about Clinton or McCain but since all Clinton and McCain seem to do is talk about Obama then those become Obama threads too.

This too shall pass.

The media fellates whoever's ahead. Partisan websites fellate whoever they support. After the election, fellation turns into ass-rape, no matter who wins.

End of story.

gundamtsubasa: Considering that as a former POW, McCain was one of a very few Republicans who was adamantly against advocating the use of torture on suspects, I think you need to come up with something a bit more realistic to make your point stick.

You bolded the wrong word in that sentence.

Try 'was'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html

lolmao666: Yeah sorry but socialized health care is against civil liberties.

Care to demonstrate the reasoning, if any, behind that statement?

Erik_Emune: lolmao666: Yeah sorry but socialized health care is against civil liberties.

Care to demonstrate the reasoning, if any, behind that statement?

He hates taxes, so it's unconstitutional.

Neil Boortz told him so.

Anyone who thinks the media is too kind to Obama is conveniently forgetting the constant fellating they were doing to Clinton right up until Obama mopped the floor with Clinton in every primary after Super Tuesday. Someone from the media even commented that the only reason why Clinton is still considered a front-runner after her abysmal showing in the primary so far is because the Media has been treating her with kid gloves.

Atillathepun: Nice list. Pity you cannot (dis)prove a generalisation by citing specific examples. I did not say the media never does, and never has, promoted Clinton. I said that the media now is annoyingly weighted toward Obama. So your short list of times when they did favour Clinton is no doubt correct, but ultimately meaningless in this context.

Atillathepun: YOU'RE just pissed off that it happens to be Obama right now.
Skleenar: because they agree with the candidate they like, and they disagree with the candidates they don't like.

You both seem to think I support Hillary, that she is my candidate. Not at all - as I said quite clearly the first time I posted in this thread. Pointing out partisanship in others does not necessarily make me partisan.

This is not to say that no media bias exists, and that criticism of such bias is unequivocally invalid

Exactly what I am saying. Thank you for agreeing with me. ;)

Belac: The media fellates whoever's ahead.

This is probably closer to the answer than any spurious accusations of my own partisanship. In fact, it probably points to the partisanship of people like you, Atillathepun, that you seek to defend or deny the partisan media when it is YOUR candidate they are supporting, rather than simply acknowledging their (current) bias.

Andric: Diagnosis: you spend too much time on the internet.

Yes. No doubt.

Murkanen: Anyone who thinks the media is too kind to Obama is conveniently forgetting the constant fellating they were doing to Clinton right up until Obama mopped the floor with Clinton in every primary after Super Tuesday.

Recognising the bias of today does not require anyone to forget the bias of yesterday.

So, technically, he didn't distinguish himself.

Wouldn't a vote to end debate prompt an up or down vote (I really need to read Robert's)? Why does Obama like to filibuster? Stinking republican.

Guess_Who: So, technically, he didn't distinguish himself.

That would be incorrect. It could be argued that it's not an actual "accomplishment," but it can still be a distinguishing moment.

Some guys distinguished themselves at the Alamo by sticking around to get their asses handed to them, for example.

And-1 said:

There is no need to lie to be biased in reporting.

So... if one party were to nominate a philandering, serial-killing, canibalistic satanist, who kept the hearts of his victims in small glass jars on his desk in his Senate offices... and another party were to nominate a loyal, honest, trustworthy man who donated 50% of his salary to Habitat for Humanity, and spent his weekends helping give food to homeless people at the local soup kitchen...

...then, if the media simply reported the absolute 100% truthfull facts about each candidate, then the media would be "showing bias"?

Is that what you're saying?

You're saying that you resent the inherant bias that is shown by speaking the unvarnished truth?

General Zang:

He did not say that telling all of the truth could be biased. He said that one could be biased without lying. Imagine, in your own scenario, if the media neglected to mention the cannibalism and such of the first candidate and the charitable donations and such of the second candidate. This would not be lying, but it would absolutely be biased.

Clipsy said:

He did not say that telling all of the truth could be biased. He said that one could be biased without lying. Imagine, in your own scenario, if the media neglected to mention the cannibalism and such of the first candidate and the charitable donations and such of the second candidate. This would not be lying, but it would absolutely be biased.

I agree with what you just said.... until you said that lying by ommision isn't lying.

Leaving out inconvenient details, and telling halftruths may not meet the legal definition of perjury, but it is most definatelly lying.

Also, while I agree with most of what you said, I also believe that this is not what And-1 was trying to say.

He certainly seemed to be saying that if one candidate sucks ass and is simply a rotten human compared to the second candidate, that to simply report the truth of the matter (that Candidate A sucks ass) is some sort of "bias" that should be avoided.

In fact, it seemed to me, that And-1 would be the one arguing that the first candidate's cannibalism be left unreported, and that the second candidate's charity be left unreported... so that there wouldn't be any "bias" in the reports.

At least, that's the distinct impression that I recieved from reading And-1's posts.

lolmao666: Yeah sorry but socialized health care is against civil liberties.

As opposed to socialized postal services, socialized police forces, socialized fire departments, socialized libraries, etc. etc. etc.

General Zang:

Obviously I can't speak for And-1, and I may be incorrect. However, the post of his which you quoted states:
You are missing the point. Fark and a great deal of the media scramble to print anything positive about Obama, and anything negative about Clinton. There is no need to lie to be biased in reporting; there is no need to make things up to be passing off crap as news.

This is almost exactly analogous to my scenario of the cannibal and the charitable man, and he quite clearly thinks that it is a form of bias.

General Zang: Your analogy is fundamentally flawed - Hillary and Obama are not that far apart. Your post is just Reductio ad absurdum.

But essentially Clipsy is right. If the media chose to only report the wholesomeness of one candidate, it would be showing bias. If it chose only to report the evil of the other candidate, that would also be bias. Neither would be lies.

The media is biased in what facts it chooses to report. It is also biased in how it chooses to report those facts. This is probably a truism, and seems to me naive that it even needs to be said.

And despite your assertion to the contrary, that is not lying - although it may (arguably) be deceptive.

Clipsy said:

Obviously I can't speak for And-1, and I may be incorrect. However, the post of his which you quoted states:
You are missing the point. Fark and a great deal of the media scramble to print anything positive about Obama, and anything negative about Clinton. There is no need to lie to be biased in reporting; there is no need to make things up to be passing off crap as news.

This is almost exactly analogous to my scenario of the cannibal and the charitable man, and he quite clearly thinks that it is a form of bias.

Well... let us assume that you're correct in your guess, for the sake of argument:

(1) Let us assume that And-1 was speaking of the type of scenario that you put forward.

In that case, And-1 would be making two assertions:

(A) That there is possitive news about Hillary Clinton's record, accomplishments, character, goals, and activities that have gone unreported.

(B) That there is negative news about Barrack Obama's record, accomplishments, character, goals, and activities that have gone unreported.

These assertions require evidence to back them up.... which And-1 conspicuously failed to provide.

In fact, if my knowledge of basic logic is up to snuff... Occam's Razor would tend to indicate that the *reason* And-1 failed to provide any evidence to back up his assertions, is because there simply is no such evidence.

In other words, he is simply imagining that there somehow MUST be some unknown, nebulous, and shocking good news about Hillary Clinton that the "biased media" won't tell us about... and he is also simply imagining that there MUST be some unknown, undefined, and devastatingly bad news about Barrack Obama that the "biased media" refuses to air.

To that, I must say that And-1 has a good imagination, but a rather crappy chance of actually getting anyone to buy into his story without providing evidence that it is anything other than a fantasy.

Or, to sum up my entire post in two sentences:

(1) I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.

(2) As they say in Missouri: Show me.