If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicker)   Obama gives his big speech in Ohio, and the glowing press reviews are in: Politico wishes it was 20 minutes shorter, ABC dismisses it as just another lecture,and MSNBC rates it "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard"   (politicker.com) divider line 214
    More: Amusing, President Obama, ABC News, MSNBC, politicos, Ohio, stump speeches, Mike O'Brien, Jonathan Alter  
•       •       •

2066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-14 09:28:57 PM  
Well, there's your liberal media.
 
2012-06-14 09:38:18 PM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-14 09:42:03 PM  
If the goldfish media hate it, it was probably very informative.
 
2012-06-14 09:42:23 PM  
Sheesh, it's as if the media believes all black people must give Martin Luther King Jr.-like speeches every time they try.
 
2012-06-14 09:43:32 PM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


You're right. MSNBC isn't liberal at all.
 
2012-06-14 09:45:08 PM  
Wow, never knew how much racism these networks would show. This racist bullshiat must end.
 
2012-06-14 09:56:20 PM  
I dunno. I liked the speech. It definitely didn't have any quick sound bites that the news could use to ramp up the ULTIMATE BATTLE AGAINST OBAMA AND ROMNEY though, so that's probably why they thought it sucked.
 
2012-06-14 10:09:52 PM  

cmunic8r99: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-14 10:24:41 PM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media lamestream lieberal msm media.


FTFY
 
2012-06-14 10:29:38 PM  
Makes me pine for the good old days. Where's Ricky Santorum and his fiery stump speeches of yore?
 
2012-06-14 10:36:57 PM  
In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media
 
2012-06-14 10:45:00 PM  
I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.
 
2012-06-14 10:53:11 PM  

LasersHurt: He makes a good case


This.

It's not his job to entertain the press corps. It's not their job to tell us what we should like.
 
2012-06-14 11:03:57 PM  
What do you expect from the conservatively biased media?
 
2012-06-14 11:06:26 PM  
Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.
 
2012-06-14 11:08:58 PM  

GAT_00: cmunic8r99: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-14 11:18:04 PM  

violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.


He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.
 
2012-06-14 11:33:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.


They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.
 
2012-06-14 11:40:10 PM  

violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.


Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.
 
2012-06-14 11:42:00 PM  

violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.


I did watch it. Those criticisms are silly, by and large, and entirely subjective.
 
2012-06-15 12:06:00 AM  

violentsalvation: I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.


That's the joke.
 
2012-06-15 12:07:27 AM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.


I think that study was a bit disingenuous, but it isn't trying to be. I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do? There is no intelligent discourse to be had. Nobody played hardball with them because some producers (I guess producers) wanted the viewers to see the derp unhindered. And the unwillingness to play hardball speaks of modern journalism sucking and not necessarily a bias.
 
2012-06-15 12:21:13 AM  

violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?


Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?
 
2012-06-15 12:24:05 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?

Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?


Not a chance.

Negativity = $$$$$
 
2012-06-15 12:26:44 AM  

cman: Wow, never knew how much racism these networks would show. This racist bullshiat must end.


The response to a claim no one made. I'm sure it is difficult for you to comprehend why this wouldn't just be an issue of how the liberal media...isn't.
 
2012-06-15 12:27:36 AM  

meat0918: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?

Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?

Not a chance.

Negativity = $$$$$


Precisely why I wish we had a BBC-like option here in the US. NPR is great, but even they had to come out and ask their audience if they wanted more fact-checking in articles.
 
2012-06-15 12:27:59 AM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.


God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.
 
2012-06-15 12:29:10 AM  

MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.


Prove it.
 
2012-06-15 12:29:43 AM  
fta ...reporters were clearly dissatisfied with end result.

A blogger ignoring the issues, and instead opining about reporters. What's his fark handle?
 
2012-06-15 12:31:09 AM  

violentsalvation: GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.

I think that study was a bit disingenuous, but it isn't trying to be. I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do? There is no intelligent discourse to be had. Nobody played hardball with them because some producers (I guess producers) wanted the viewers to see the derp unhindered. And the unwillingness to play hardball speaks of modern journalism sucking and not necessarily a bias.


Watch most morning shows interview.the obamas, then watch a conservative. Tell me who gets softball questions.
 
2012-06-15 12:31:21 AM  
Yes, the person asking to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth should not give speeches that are 'Long' and 'Wordy'

ffs.
 
2012-06-15 12:33:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.

Prove it.


Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.
 
2012-06-15 12:33:42 AM  
The GOP had better be careful, or the Democrats will steal the biased media talking point just like they have been grabbing the sane planks from the Republican platform since Clinton ran in '92
 
2012-06-15 12:36:18 AM  
www.cineol.net
 
2012-06-15 12:36:27 AM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.

Prove it.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.


i cite my posts all the time. Don't get pissy just because you can't. And it's not MY work if you are the one making the assertion. Come on.
 
2012-06-15 12:38:50 AM  

MyRandomName: God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.


That was derptastic, even for you. Two "dumb"s means someone really got under your skin. And "the president always receives harsher treatment" followed by "The media didn't even investigate Obama" really pulls the shiatheap together.
 
2012-06-15 12:39:18 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: meat0918: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?

Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?

Not a chance.

Negativity = $$$$$

Precisely why I wish we had a BBC-like option here in the US. NPR is great, but even they had to come out and ask their audience if they wanted more fact-checking in articles.


Precisely why I try to only get my "news" from BBC, NPR or PBS. PBS kinda sucks though, but good investigative journalism.
 
2012-06-15 12:39:41 AM  

violentsalvation: I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.


Huh. Well...
 
2012-06-15 12:40:04 AM  
On the air, MSNBC's Jonathan Alter said it was "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard Barack Obama make."

"one of the worst speeches I've ever heard Barack Obama make" =/= "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard." Nice edit, derpmitter.
 
2012-06-15 12:41:15 AM  
lack of new material

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.
 
2012-06-15 12:41:29 AM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.

Prove it.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.


I thought your policy was to shiat out disgusting diarrhea for as long as you are allowed.

/I guess I was wrong.
 
2012-06-15 12:41:29 AM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


They want a horse race.
 
2012-06-15 12:42:24 AM  

Triumph: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

You're right. MSNBC isn't liberal at all.


I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.
 
2012-06-15 12:43:36 AM  
Subby sounds concerned.
 
2012-06-15 12:43:49 AM  

SilentStrider: GAT_00: cmunic8r99: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-15 12:46:03 AM  

MyRandomName: Watch most morning shows interview.the obamas, then watch a conservative. Tell me who gets softball questions.


There is a difference between FOX and MSNBC, sure. Everyone knows that, they report to THEIR audience. But if you don't think journalistic standards as a whole have almost completely collapsed, and collapsed without a bias, you are a fool. There are large-assed Kardashians to watch, FFS.
 
2012-06-15 12:50:01 AM  

violentsalvation: MyRandomName: Watch most morning shows interview.the obamas, then watch a conservative. Tell me who gets softball questions.

There is a difference between FOX and MSNBC, sure. Everyone knows that, they report to THEIR audience. But if you don't think journalistic standards as a whole have almost completely collapsed, and collapsed without a bias, you are a fool. There are large-assed Kardashians to watch, FFS.


"This is CNN".

/worst offender in the chasing the juicy headlines business.
 
2012-06-15 12:56:29 AM  

The Lone Gunman: Triumph: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

You're right. MSNBC isn't liberal at all.

I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.


What's hard news? Election coverage? One of their main guys for that is Al Sharpton.
 
Ehh
2012-06-15 12:56:40 AM  
Yeah, they want to sink him. Remember that, peons.
 
2012-06-15 12:57:58 AM  

Triumph: The Lone Gunman: Triumph: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

You're right. MSNBC isn't liberal at all.

I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.

What's hard news? Election coverage? One of their main guys for that is Al Sharpton.


You ignore that they don't use the "Some people say" tactic.
 
2012-06-15 12:59:53 AM  
Don't care. This is a failing of the American politician system. We should be supporting the Syrian rebels; instead, we're so terrified of reelection that we can't be bothered to do anything besides make unfounded accusations. Who cares if the Russians are giving them brand new or refurbished Mi-24s? They're giving the Syrians Mi-24s! That's the problem, not whether they're new or Cold War vintage!
 
2012-06-15 01:00:28 AM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


Totally in the tank for that guy.
 
2012-06-15 01:09:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking


But that's such statesmanlike behavior.

i284.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-15 01:10:41 AM  

El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking

But that's such statesmanlike behavior.

[i284.photobucket.com image 85x95]


farking honkies.
 
2012-06-15 01:13:49 AM  

Sabyen91: violentsalvation: MyRandomName: Watch most morning shows interview.the obamas, then watch a conservative. Tell me who gets softball questions.

There is a difference between FOX and MSNBC, sure. Everyone knows that, they report to THEIR audience. But if you don't think journalistic standards as a whole have almost completely collapsed, and collapsed without a bias, you are a fool. There are large-assed Kardashians to watch, FFS.

"This is CNN".

/worst offender in the chasing the juicy headlines business.


They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.
 
2012-06-15 01:13:50 AM  
You libtards don't understand. The liberal lamestream LLSM media is double reverse water carrying for Ba'ku Haakonian Ocampa. By saying that the pResident's speech sucked, they can give themselves cover from accusations that they are in the Current Occupant's camp.
 
2012-06-15 01:15:05 AM  
O'Donnell said something like, "Both candidates gave speeches today but if you wanted to hear Romney's policy proposals you had to listen to Obama's speech."
 
2012-06-15 01:15:37 AM  

Sabyen91: You ignore that they don't use the "Some people say" tactic.


Fox was first. They made a conscious decision to lean right - hell to plant a flag there. But then NBC made a business decision that MSNBC would counter Fox and be liberal. (It also decided CNBC would be almost fascist, for that matter, or at least decidedly "pro-capitalist" so as not to offend its viewers.) It's an audience building strategy where they all claim to be fair and balanced, but spend all day and night reinforcing stupid opinions about shallow, petty left/right battles that usually amount to nothing significant.
 
2012-06-15 01:17:23 AM  

cmunic8r99: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-15 01:17:25 AM  

moothemagiccow: lack of new material

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.


I'm going to hate the next 6 months of my life just being subjected to this crap on a daily basis.

Can we just vote already?
 
2012-06-15 01:20:43 AM  

Triumph: Sabyen91: You ignore that they don't use the "Some people say" tactic.

Fox was first. They made a conscious decision to lean right - hell to plant a flag there. But then NBC made a business decision that MSNBC would counter Fox and be liberal. (It also decided CNBC would be almost fascist, for that matter, or at least decidedly "pro-capitalist" so as not to offend its viewers.) It's an audience building strategy where they all claim to be fair and balanced, but spend all day and night reinforcing stupid opinions about shallow, petty left/right battles that usually amount to nothing significant.


This is why I get my TV news from foreign sources unless I catch the Big 3 nightly newscasts.
 
2012-06-15 01:22:42 AM  

violentsalvation: Sabyen91: violentsalvation: MyRandomName: Watch most morning shows interview.the obamas, then watch a conservative. Tell me who gets softball questions.

There is a difference between FOX and MSNBC, sure. Everyone knows that, they report to THEIR audience. But if you don't think journalistic standards as a whole have almost completely collapsed, and collapsed without a bias, you are a fool. There are large-assed Kardashians to watch, FFS.

"This is CNN".

/worst offender in the chasing the juicy headlines business.

They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.


That is true. They could but they go for missing blonde wimmins.
 
2012-06-15 01:24:20 AM  

Mrtraveler01: moothemagiccow: lack of new material

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.

I'm going to hate the next 6 months of my life just being subjected to this crap on a daily basis.

Can we just vote already?


No way, I haven't decided who I am voting for.

/Anybody who doesn't know by now should just stay home.
 
2012-06-15 01:24:38 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: O'Donnell said something like, "Both candidates gave speeches today but if you wanted to hear Romney's policy proposals you had to listen to Obama's speech."


Romney has policy proposals?
 
2012-06-15 01:24:53 AM  

Mrtraveler01: moothemagiccow: lack of new material

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.

I'm going to hate the next 6 months of my life just being subjected to this crap on a daily basis.

Can we just vote already?


I vote we throw them all in a tank of starving piranhas and whichever one makes it to the surface, he's our next President.
 
2012-06-15 01:25:01 AM  

moothemagiccow: He's not farking radiohead.


Michelle, on the other hand...


Heyo!
 
2012-06-15 01:26:24 AM  
LasersHurt [TotalFark]


I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.


www.doggydeucerml.com
 
2012-06-15 01:27:32 AM  

ImpendingCynic: MyRandomName: God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.

That was derptastic, even for you. Two "dumb"s means someone really got under your skin. And "the president always receives harsher treatment" followed by "The media didn't even investigate Obama" really pulls the shiatheap together.


lol
 
2012-06-15 01:27:35 AM  

numbone: LasersHurt [TotalFark]


I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.

[www.doggydeucerml.com image 400x267]


At least he created a job.
 
2012-06-15 01:30:28 AM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.


QFM-FT
And that included the three ring circus
Consisting of:
Rick Santorum
Michelle Bachmann
Newt Gingrich
Boring guy
Tim Pawlenty
Pizza Nutcase
Other Boring guy

Liberal media my aunt fanny
 
2012-06-15 01:32:39 AM  

Sabyen91: numbone: LasersHurt [TotalFark]


I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.

[www.doggydeucerml.com image 400x267]

At least he created a job.


Shovel garden trowel-ready, even.
 
2012-06-15 01:33:14 AM  

violentsalvation: Sabyen91: numbone: LasersHurt [TotalFark]


I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.

[www.doggydeucerml.com image 400x267]

At least he created a job.

Shovel garden trowel-ready, even.


Nice!
 
2012-06-15 01:34:41 AM  

Mentat: violentsalvation: I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

That's the joke.



Well played sir, well played.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: O'Donnell said something like, "Both candidates gave speeches today but if you wanted to hear Romney's policy proposals you had to listen to Obama's speech."


NPR summed the two speeches up with Romney basically saying "if you don't think the economy is awesome, vote for me" and Obama saying "Look at the things I do on the economy. Look at the things Romney will do. Pick the one you think will be better".

One of those two makes sense to me, and the other seems more like a deflection.
 
2012-06-15 01:34:53 AM  

violentsalvation: They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.


I just finished watching the speech. It was okay. It did have quite a few more facts than the average political speech. It was fairly confrontational. A lot of "if you think X is okay, vote for the other guy" stuff.

But I think I know why all the reporters are upset: Obama challenged them to report on the facts. He kinda hinted they needed to stop being so lazy and sensationalistic (yeah, I know).

I think he made them mad, lol. What? Actual reporting instead of who made a mistake today? How dare you!
 
2012-06-15 01:35:24 AM  

Mrtraveler01: moothemagiccow: lack of new material

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.

I'm going to hate the next 6 months of my life just being subjected to this crap on a daily basis.

Can we just vote already?


I wish. The primaries aren't even technically over. Romney won't get the nomination for another 2 and a half months.
 
2012-06-15 01:43:48 AM  

downpaymentblues: violentsalvation: They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.

I just finished watching the speech. It was okay. It did have quite a few more facts than the average political speech. It was fairly confrontational. A lot of "if you think X is okay, vote for the other guy" stuff.

But I think I know why all the reporters are upset: Obama challenged them to report on the facts. He kinda hinted they needed to stop being so lazy and sensationalistic (yeah, I know).

I think he made them mad, lol. What? Actual reporting instead of who made a mistake today? How dare you!


It's a bummer. They're really bad at their jobs. And they really don't seem to enjoy being told that.
 
2012-06-15 01:45:54 AM  
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


People said this one blew, too.
 
2012-06-15 01:47:12 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

People said this one blew, too.


It insisted upon itself.
 
2012-06-15 01:51:38 AM  
Remember folks...when the media reports on "x", that means "x" never happened.

/you still won't get it in the morning if your liberal
 
2012-06-15 01:54:17 AM  
Dammit.

your = you're
 
2012-06-15 01:54:50 AM  

downpaymentblues: violentsalvation: They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.

I just finished watching the speech. It was okay. It did have quite a few more facts than the average political speech. It was fairly confrontational. A lot of "if you think X is okay, vote for the other guy" stuff.

But I think I know why all the reporters are upset: Obama challenged them to report on the facts. He kinda hinted they needed to stop being so lazy and sensationalistic (yeah, I know).

I think he made them mad, lol. What? Actual reporting instead of who made a mistake today? How dare you!


Well, I am probably not going to watch it so I can't really have an actual opinion on the speech itself. And it might entirely be possible that the reporters felt pissed about Obama calling them out, but from what I read in the link it was the basically the same old Obama speech re-regurgitated and too long. I'm not saying he wasn't right in what he said or that it doesn't bear repeating.jpg, I can't, I didn't watch it. Basically what I read was they were hyped about a speech and they though '08 Obama was going to give it, but that wasn't the case. And I don't see that as media bias.
 
2012-06-15 01:55:19 AM  

skipjack: Remember folks...when the media reports on "x", that means "x" never happened.

/you still won't get it in the morning if your liberal


How hard is it to get that? It was a petty, moronic statement.
 
2012-06-15 01:57:01 AM  
Yeah, I think they're just pissed Obama told them to get off their ass and do their job.
 
2012-06-15 01:58:47 AM  

violentsalvation: downpaymentblues: violentsalvation: They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.

I just finished watching the speech. It was okay. It did have quite a few more facts than the average political speech. It was fairly confrontational. A lot of "if you think X is okay, vote for the other guy" stuff.

But I think I know why all the reporters are upset: Obama challenged them to report on the facts. He kinda hinted they needed to stop being so lazy and sensationalistic (yeah, I know).

I think he made them mad, lol. What? Actual reporting instead of who made a mistake today? How dare you!

Well, I am probably not going to watch it so I can't really have an actual opinion on the speech itself. And it might entirely be possible that the reporters felt pissed about Obama calling them out, but from what I read in the link it was the basically the same old Obama speech re-regurgitated and too long. I'm not saying he wasn't right in what he said or that it doesn't bear repeating.jpg, I can't, I didn't watch it. Basically what I read was they were hyped about a speech and they though '08 Obama was going to give it, but that wasn't the case. And I don't see that as media bias.


The problem I have with it is it was an average speech by Obama. Ok...average is pretty much what you would expect, right? These news outlets must have been expecting...what, Demosthenes? And he didn't live up to their expectations...so it is automatically a negative article.
 
2012-06-15 02:04:08 AM  

Sabyen91: skipjack: Remember folks...when the media reports on "x", that means "x" never happened.

/you still won't get it in the morning if your liberal

How hard is it to get that? It was a petty, moronic statement.


Oh good. That means we both agree that just because a biased media reports on their bias, that their bias doesn't exist
 
2012-06-15 02:04:11 AM  

Sabyen91: violentsalvation: downpaymentblues: violentsalvation: They are also the only cable news with any potential to cover the news well. It's sad.

I just finished watching the speech. It was okay. It did have quite a few more facts than the average political speech. It was fairly confrontational. A lot of "if you think X is okay, vote for the other guy" stuff.

But I think I know why all the reporters are upset: Obama challenged them to report on the facts. He kinda hinted they needed to stop being so lazy and sensationalistic (yeah, I know).

I think he made them mad, lol. What? Actual reporting instead of who made a mistake today? How dare you!

Well, I am probably not going to watch it so I can't really have an actual opinion on the speech itself. And it might entirely be possible that the reporters felt pissed about Obama calling them out, but from what I read in the link it was the basically the same old Obama speech re-regurgitated and too long. I'm not saying he wasn't right in what he said or that it doesn't bear repeating.jpg, I can't, I didn't watch it. Basically what I read was they were hyped about a speech and they though '08 Obama was going to give it, but that wasn't the case. And I don't see that as media bias.

The problem I have with it is it was an average speech by Obama. Ok...average is pretty much what you would expect, right? These news outlets must have been expecting...what, Demosthenes? And he didn't live up to their expectations...so it is automatically a negative article.


I think that it was over-hyped by someone and the twitterers in the the link didn't get what they were expecting.
 
2012-06-15 02:04:52 AM  

Sabyen91: These news outlets must have been expecting...what, Demosthenes? And he didn't live up to their expectations...so it is automatically a negative article.


The cable news networks want blood. The bulk of them (I parse out some scattered individuals from the pack, like Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow, that continue to actually do their job) all but abdicated their role as journalists in favor of treating this not as a decision to decide who will lead this country, but as the ultimate reality show with the ultimate reality-show prize. And anything that doesn't make for good reality television is frowned upon.

I mean, really, how much time do any of the three networks spend in any given day covering non-political news or attempting to railroad news into political discussions? Like, say, covering an earthquake and letting it stay simply earthquake coverage as opposed to 'how will this earthquake affect the next election'?
 
2012-06-15 02:05:45 AM  

skipjack: Sabyen91: skipjack: Remember folks...when the media reports on "x", that means "x" never happened.

/you still won't get it in the morning if your liberal

How hard is it to get that? It was a petty, moronic statement.

Oh good. That means we both agree that just because a biased media reports on their bias, that their bias doesn't exist


What media reported on their bias?
 
2012-06-15 02:08:19 AM  

Gosling: Sabyen91: These news outlets must have been expecting...what, Demosthenes? And he didn't live up to their expectations...so it is automatically a negative article.

The cable news networks want blood. The bulk of them (I parse out some scattered individuals from the pack, like Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow, that continue to actually do their job) all but abdicated their role as journalists in favor of treating this not as a decision to decide who will lead this country, but as the ultimate reality show with the ultimate reality-show prize. And anything that doesn't make for good reality television is frowned upon.

I mean, really, how much time do any of the three networks spend in any given day covering non-political news or attempting to railroad news into political discussions? Like, say, covering an earthquake and letting it stay simply earthquake coverage as opposed to 'how will this earthquake affect the next election'?


It is silly. Bush got rave reviews for horrible debates...because they didn't expect more. Palin was expected to flame out and because she didn't piss her pants it was spectacular. Obama has, in the past, made incredible speeches. The fact that this one didn't hit their sweet spot and now the speech should be 20 minutes shorter. I guess he shouldn't have worn that short skirt.
 
2012-06-15 02:10:23 AM  

violentsalvation: I think that it was over-hyped by someone and the twitterers in the the link didn't get what they were expecting.


There is a pattern. See my previous post. Dan Quayle would get rave reviews if he avoided saying the word potato. Churchill would get poor reviews if it wasn't the absolute BEST speech he had ever given.
 
2012-06-15 02:11:47 AM  
Conservatives have short attention spans.
 
2012-06-15 02:12:52 AM  
MSM pro-Romney bias
http://www.politicususa.com/media-bias-exposed-romney-gets-3-times-mo r e-positive-coverage-than-obama.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/11/why-didnt-repo r ters-call-romney-a-liar.html
http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/03/secrets-and-lies-new-york-times-re p orters-give-mitt-a-free-pass
 
2012-06-15 02:13:49 AM  

violentsalvation: but from what I read in the link it was the basically the same old Obama speech re-regurgitated and too long.



It was just okay, and yes, it was too long. I wouldn't go out of your way to watch it.
 
2012-06-15 02:16:13 AM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT.

Prove it.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.


Technically, the burden of proof was on you.

Someone asserted argument X.
You refuted X.
Someone asked for sources.

This isn't the slightest bit complicated.
 
2012-06-15 02:40:48 AM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


Yet the myth will continue.
 
2012-06-15 02:55:54 AM  

skipjack: That means we both agree that just because a biased media reports on their bias, that their bias doesn't exist


Really? That's what you believe?
 
2012-06-15 03:01:37 AM  
If he ain't singing Mammy and juggling watermelons then he's not entertaining.
 
2012-06-15 03:03:01 AM  
It's Ohio. If it was boring, straightforward, just the facts, honest, no flowery bs, no clever allusions or symbolism, just saying what he meant, then he gave an excellent speech.
 
2012-06-15 03:03:54 AM  

Pincy: If he ain't singing Mammy and juggling watermelons then he's not entertaining.


He wasn't fetchin' anything. WTF is up with that?
 
2012-06-15 03:09:20 AM  

Pincy: If he ain't singing Mammy and juggling watermelons then he's not entertaining.


You are so 1930s. Ever heard of the Temptations? Singing "My Girl"? Update your music, and change the watermelon juggling to dancing FTW.
 
2012-06-15 03:12:32 AM  
I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.
 
2012-06-15 03:15:08 AM  

Kevin72: Pincy: If he ain't singing Mammy and juggling watermelons then he's not entertaining.

You are so 1930s. Ever heard of the Temptations? Singing "My Girl"? Update your music, and change the watermelon juggling to dancing FTW.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-15 03:17:37 AM  
Actually, if he DID sing "My Girl" at campaign appearances, his numbers would skyrocket. Democrats vote with their hearts. If he did a stunt singing a verse or two to Michelle while acting totally in love, the only women that would vote against him would be rock-ribbed Republican Ladies-Against-Women.
 
2012-06-15 03:20:33 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.


This is my shocked face.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-15 03:22:15 AM  

Triumph: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

You're right. MSNBC isn't liberal at all.


They only keep Maddow on because of the huge discrimination lawsuit they'd get if they fire her.

And they only keep O'Donnell on because he inherited Olbermann's incriminating photos.
 
2012-06-15 03:25:33 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.


The MSM bias is pro-horserace, anti-runaway. To stay "relevant" even when they are not. It's a more subtle kind of attention-trolling than outright attention-whoring.
 
2012-06-15 03:27:10 AM  

IlGreven: They only keep Maddow on because of the huge discrimination lawsuit they'd get if they fire her.


What does this mean?
 
2012-06-15 03:28:06 AM  

Kevin72: Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.

The MSM bias is pro-horserace, anti-runaway. To stay "relevant" even when they are not. It's a more subtle kind of attention-trolling than outright attention-whoring.


Fox is interested in a horserace? I agree with most outlets but Fox is a major part of the MSM.
 
2012-06-15 03:48:11 AM  
By Hunter Walker

Patrol machines. Built in automated factories. But they're not too bright, Rick Conner taught us ways to dust them.
 
2012-06-15 03:49:30 AM  

Sabyen91: Kevin72: Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.

The MSM bias is pro-horserace, anti-runaway. To stay "relevant" even when they are not. It's a more subtle kind of attention-trolling than outright attention-whoring.

Fox is interested in a horserace? I agree with most outlets but Fox is a major part of the MSM.


No. Fox News is not interested in a horserace. And Fox News is NOT mainstream news. It is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Notice that the geniuses who call the MSM the "Lamestream Media" DO NOT consider Fox News to be "lamestream".
 
2012-06-15 03:59:06 AM  

Sabyen91: IlGreven: They only keep Maddow on because of the huge discrimination lawsuit they'd get if they fire her.

What does this mean?


It means that somehow IlGreven either never noticed how cute, clever, hard-hitting without it being noticed, and on and on about how wonderful Rachel Maddow is. Or he demonstrated Poe's Law to us.
 
2012-06-15 04:08:09 AM  

Kevin72: Sabyen91: IlGreven: They only keep Maddow on because of the huge discrimination lawsuit they'd get if they fire her.

What does this mean?

It means that somehow IlGreven either never noticed how cute, clever, hard-hitting without it being noticed, and on and on about how wonderful Rachel Maddow is. Or he demonstrated Poe's Law to us.


I don't watch any of the pundit shows but Maddow is very intelligent and well-informed (know this from her old radio show).

/Oh...that is why Il Greven doesn't like her.
 
2012-06-15 04:51:09 AM  
Damn liberal med...

Oh, I see we've got that covered.
 
2012-06-15 05:04:10 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: If the goldfish media hate it, it was probably very informative.



That means they didn't have sound bytes and outrage to trump up from the speech

/I hate the media so much
 
2012-06-15 05:05:13 AM  
I figured the liberal lamestream media was going to be critical of Obama's speech when CNN cut away after 10 minutes, saying "we gave Romney 10 minutes, so..."

I watched the whole thing online though, and to me it didn't seem lecture-y at all, especially in contrast to Romney. It was positive, fairly detailed, well cited, and had a good balance of gravitas and humor. Part of the reason it was so long was due to the long pauses while Obama waited for the applause and cheering to simmer down. There were a couple minutes near the end that could have been cut, but still fell solidly within the "tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them" rule of speechifying.

I think part of the problem, aside from the media wanting a horserace, is that the bar is set so much higher for Obama. He's shown that he is such a good speaker that anything that falls short of "I have a dream" or "Ask not what your country can do for you" is seen as a failure, where any Romney speech in which he doesn't insult the audience is seen as a success.
 
2012-06-15 05:08:02 AM  

Basij: Don't care. This is a failing of the American politician system. We should be supporting the Syrian rebels; instead, we're so terrified of reelection that we can't be bothered to do anything besides make unfounded accusations. Who cares if the Russians are giving them brand new or refurbished Mi-24s? They're giving the Syrians Mi-24s! That's the problem, not whether they're new or Cold War vintage!



Piss off Russia, that's a big deal. You should learn about global politics before you second guess their actions. Russia only has Syria and Iran left as allies in the region. America has taken and invaded the rest.
 
2012-06-15 05:49:54 AM  

dave1y: LasersHurt: He makes a good case

This.

It's not his job to entertain the press corps. It's not their job to tell us what we should like.


Have you been in a coma for the past twenty years?
 
2012-06-15 06:34:17 AM  
MaudlinMutantMollusk
2012-06-14 10:36:57 PM
In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media


Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so. But you DO hear about Romney's high school jinks 30 years ago or Nixon forty years ago, yeah. Why don't Woodword and Bernstein do some REAL reporting and go after the Obama administration--the most corrupt administration in history, with Eric "I will not prosecute MY people" Holder.
 
2012-06-15 06:52:09 AM  

MyRandomName: GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.

God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.


All right, since I cited mine, I demand you cite yours.
 
2012-06-15 06:58:39 AM  
He must not have applied enough faux Baptist-preacher voice.
 
2012-06-15 07:17:20 AM  

tony41454: Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so.


You're joking, right? I've heard every single one of these stories (except the college communist group, which is surely something fake you picked up from Free Republic) and I'm sure that everyone else has, too. Did you dig them out yourself? Of course not. Maybe you've been drinking too much of that champaign to remember where you got these stories.
 
2012-06-15 07:18:35 AM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-15 07:19:54 AM  

jules_siegel: tony41454: Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so.

You're joking, right? I've heard every single one of these stories (except the college communist group, which is surely something fake you picked up from Free Republic) and I'm sure that everyone else has, too. Did you dig them out yourself? Of course not. Maybe you've been drinking too much of that champaign to remember where you got these stories.


He's been a-derpin' up a storm this morning! I'd stay and help you poke fun at him some more, but unlike him and so many of our other resident right-wing trolls, I have a job to go to.
 
2012-06-15 07:35:13 AM  

ghare: He's been a-derpin' up a storm this morning!


Dee-derp-a-loo-loo, he's our babee...

I'd stay and help you poke fun at him some more, but unlike him and so many of our other resident right-wing trolls, I have a job to go to.

So do I, but I'm a freelancer, so it's right here at this very keyboard, converting my books to eBooks, an arduous task when you want to preserve the visuals and some of the typography. I guess I am going to have break down and get a Kindle and an iPad so that I can see what I'm actually doing.

One thing that's great about freelancing is the unlimited opportunities for probastination. It's also the reason why it's more like a euphemism for permanent unemployment without the benefit of benefits.
 
2012-06-15 08:09:55 AM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


Anyone who hasn't realized the media are completely in the tank for Romney this time around is blind.
 
2012-06-15 08:26:47 AM  

numbone: LasersHurt [TotalFark]


I actually watched the speech. It was very good - packed with facts, a little partisan snark here and there, but mostly good. He makes a good case, and I'm picking up what he's putting down.

[www.doggydeucerml.com image 400x267]


Didn't your momma teach you not to play with your food?
 
2012-06-15 08:28:43 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

People said this one blew, too.


Greatest unintentionally hilarious equivalency ever.
 
2012-06-15 08:31:46 AM  

cman: Wow, never knew how much racism these networks would show. This racist bullshiat must end.


LOL!
 
2012-06-15 08:39:20 AM  
Sabyen91


Kevin72: Hobodeluxe: I swear I just saw an ABC news piece by Jake Tapper on both men's speeches today and Fox News couldn't have done a better job for Romney. Totally negative to Obama and totally positive for Romney.

The MSM bias is pro-horserace, anti-runaway. To stay "relevant" even when they are not. It's a more subtle kind of attention-trolling than outright attention-whoring.

Fox is interested in a horserace? I agree with most outlets but Fox is a major part of the MSM.


Giddy Up
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-15 08:41:51 AM  
When you make Bill Clinton look brief and to the point for MSNBC, you've got problems.
 
2012-06-15 08:48:05 AM  
Weird, isn't it. It's almost like the president is choosen before the election and the media sells it to the masses. What if I told you that W wasn't as bad a president as you think?
 
2012-06-15 09:01:25 AM  
Well, when you start with something like

So, Ohio, over the next five months, this election will take many twists and many turns, polls will go up and polls will go down, there will be no shortage of gaffes and controversies that keep both campaigns busy and give the press something to write about.

And threaten to expose how full of BS the media is when they cover you, then yes, of course they're going to hate your speech.
 
2012-06-15 09:07:53 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media


He did for the last 4 years especially during 2008. Nothing but c*ck sucking and ass kissing from the media for Odumbo.
 
2012-06-15 09:13:17 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

People said this one blew, too.


That's true, but his real strength really was hunting vampires.
 
2012-06-15 09:14:05 AM  

tony41454: MaudlinMutantMollusk
2012-06-14 10:36:57 PM
In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media

Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so. But you DO hear about Romney's high school jinks 30 years ago or Nixon forty years ago, yeah. Why don't Woodword and Bernstein do some REAL reporting and go after the Obama administration--the most corrupt administration in history, with Eric "I will not prosecute MY people" Holder.


I've heard of all the fictitious things you speak of about Obama.
 
2012-06-15 09:15:21 AM  
Well, speeches with content tend to be boring - especially if you were dumb enough to major in Journalism to begin with.
 
2012-06-15 09:17:46 AM  
The right-wing noise machine -

1. Make up shiat about Democrats.
2. Blast them into the right-wing derposphere.
3. MSM media reports "on the controversy", doesn't find evidence, abandons story.
4. Right-wing complains that the MSM won't report bad things about Democrats.

It's really pretty brilliant if you think about it, the bigger the lie, the more likely wingnuts will believe there is a conspiracy against wingnuts in the media.
 
2012-06-15 09:20:04 AM  

Job Creator: I've heard of all the fictitious things you speak of about Obama.


What about the communist group? What was that? These people are code-talkers.You need a pad to interpret their jargon.
 
2012-06-15 09:22:22 AM  

jules_siegel: ghare: He's been a-derpin' up a storm this morning!

Dee-derp-a-loo-loo, he's our babee...

I'd stay and help you poke fun at him some more, but unlike him and so many of our other resident right-wing trolls, I have a job to go to.

So do I, but I'm a freelancer, so it's right here at this very keyboard, converting my books to eBooks, an arduous task when you want to preserve the visuals and some of the typography. I guess I am going to have break down and get a Kindle and an iPad so that I can see what I'm actually doing.

One thing that's great about freelancing is the unlimited opportunities for probastination. It's also the reason why it's more like a euphemism for permanent unemployment without the benefit of benefits.


Trolling message boards is their job- you don't think all of Sheldon Adelson and Koch money is for TV ads, do you? I did the same thing for teh libs but my Soros check didn't arrive.
 
2012-06-15 09:25:47 AM  

jules_siegel: Job Creator: I've heard of all the fictitious things you speak of about Obama.

What about the communist group? What was that? These people are code-talkers.You need a pad to interpret their jargon.


They talk and talk and all I hear is derpderpderp.

A generation ago these ideas were disseminated through shadowy newsletters from PO boxes and packaged in brown paper wrappers. Now they have a whole TV network and hundreds of newspapers, websites and magazines to push these memes.
 
2012-06-15 09:25:53 AM  

Job Creator: It's really pretty brilliant if you think about it, the bigger the lie, the more likely wingnuts will believe there is a conspiracy against wingnuts in the media.


It's no more brilliant than when the Nazis were using the same tactic in Germany back in the 20s and 30s.

jules_siegel: What about the communist group? What was that? These people are code-talkers.You need a pad to interpret their jargon.


Excepting a "stopped watch" scenario where the biatching can actually be tied to some legitimate grievance, here's all the possible translations for any right-wing whining about Obama:

1. He's a democrat
2. He's black
3. He's a black democrat
 
2012-06-15 09:32:44 AM  

Basij: Don't care. This is a failing of the American politician system. We should be supporting the Syrian rebels; instead, we're so terrified of reelection that we can't be bothered to do anything besides make unfounded accusations. Who cares if the Russians are giving them brand new or refurbished Mi-24s? They're giving the Syrians Mi-24s! That's the problem, not whether they're new or Cold War vintage!


You really don't think that the US is not supplying weapons via proxy? The US is providing arms to Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are then supplying the rebels.
 
2012-06-15 09:44:24 AM  
Splinshints

Job Creator: It's really pretty brilliant if you think about it, the bigger the lie, the more likely wingnuts will believe there is a conspiracy against wingnuts in the media.

It's no more brilliant than when the Nazis were using the same tactic in Germany back in the 20s and 30s.

jules_siegel: What about the communist group? What was that? These people are code-talkers.You need a pad to interpret their jargon.

Excepting a "stopped watch" scenario where the biatching can actually be tied to some legitimate grievance, here's all the possible translations for any right-wing whining about Obama:

1. He's a democrat
2. He's black
3. He's a black democrat



Just keep banging that drum.....with each unproved, unreasonable, unsounded, unsubstantiated, wacky, without basis or foundation cry of racism that comes from your side. the more foolish you look.
 
2012-06-15 09:44:39 AM  
Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.
 
2012-06-15 09:48:29 AM  

karnal: Just keep banging that drum.....with each unproved, unreasonable, unsounded, unsubstantiated, wacky, without basis or foundation cry of racism that comes from your side. the more foolish you look.


oops
you forgot to call him a DIM oh wise one.
 
2012-06-15 09:50:23 AM  

Sabyen91: I don't watch any of the pundit shows but Maddow is very intelligent and well-informed (know this from her old radio show).


What really irritates the right about Maddow is they know that she'll welcome any of them onto her show, politely allow them to state their case, and then politely obliterate them.
 
2012-06-15 09:53:26 AM  
unexplained bacon

karnal: Just keep banging that drum.....with each unproved, unreasonable, unsounded, unsubstantiated, wacky, without basis or foundation cry of racism that comes from your side. the more foolish you look.

oops
you forgot to call him a DIM oh wise one
.


I didn't forget.
 
2012-06-15 09:55:28 AM  
Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.



Some people are just a lost cause.
 
2012-06-15 10:00:30 AM  

karnal: Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.


Some people are just a lost cause.


Yes you are.
 
2012-06-15 10:05:39 AM  
cameroncrazy1984


karnal: Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.


Some people are just a lost cause.

Yes you are.


www.thevictoryformation.com
 
2012-06-15 10:13:45 AM  
Complex thoughts and complex sentences. Not enough sound-bites. Too much work for the poor journalists' brains to reduce it to pap that the talking heads can burp up.
 
2012-06-15 10:17:22 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yes you are.


Haha, don't waste your time with "cornhole". BTW what's "goldfish" as an epithet? Haven't heard that one before.
 
2012-06-15 10:20:01 AM  

Wooly Bully: cameroncrazy1984: Yes you are.

Haha, don't waste your time with "cornhole". BTW what's "goldfish" as an epithet? Haven't heard that one before.


Goldfish are famous for having very short memories, and therefore attention spans. At least in urban legend, I don't think it's actually true.
 
2012-06-15 10:21:31 AM  

bugontherug: djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

Anyone who hasn't realized the media are completely in the tank for Romney this time around is blind.


i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-15 10:24:30 AM  
Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?

Can't be. Must be a Media Conspiracy meant to take down my favorite candidate.
 
2012-06-15 10:24:52 AM  

beta_plus: When you make Bill Clinton look brief and to the point for MSNBC, you've got problems.



ZOMG! WHY DOESN'T 0BAMA MAKE SPEECHES THE LENGTH THAT I WANT??!! IMPEACH!!



/that's what you're going with?
 
2012-06-15 10:36:18 AM  
MSNBC rates it "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard"

FTFA:

On the air, MSNBC's Jonathan Alter said it was "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard Barack Obama make." He refused to back down.

Liars go to Hell, Subby, do you really think nobody would have noticed that? We also noticed that it wasn't "MSNBC" that made your claim, just one guy, and by the "He refused to back down.' line, it also sounds like OTHER people on MSNBC disagree with your distorted bullshiat.

Nice try though, you just fail at the execution, too obvious.
 
2012-06-15 10:37:55 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?


Except that when you watch the speeches you realize that no, this isn't true. The media just does not like when you give long, fact-heavy speeches with no big soundbites.
 
2012-06-15 10:38:59 AM  

Mikey1969: We also noticed that it wasn't "MSNBC" that made your claim, just one guy


"I was going to vote for Obama, but then Jonathan Alter criticized that one speech so I changed my mind" -all Democrats

- Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 14, 2012
 
2012-06-15 10:41:04 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lost Thought 00: Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?

Except that when you watch the speeches you realize that no, this isn't true. The media just does not like when you give long, fact-heavy speeches with no big soundbites.


Part of being a good speaker is being concise and conveying the necessary information as efficiently as possible. Obama didn't do that. It happens.
 
2012-06-15 10:44:07 AM  

Lost Thought 00: cameroncrazy1984: Lost Thought 00: Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?

Except that when you watch the speeches you realize that no, this isn't true. The media just does not like when you give long, fact-heavy speeches with no big soundbites.

Part of being a good speaker is being concise and conveying the necessary information as efficiently as possible. Obama didn't do that. It happens.


Did you watch the speech personally? What parts did you find were not conveyed well?
 
2012-06-15 10:46:38 AM  

ferretman: Basij: Don't care. This is a failing of the American politician system. We should be supporting the Syrian rebels; instead, we're so terrified of reelection that we can't be bothered to do anything besides make unfounded accusations. Who cares if the Russians are giving them brand new or refurbished Mi-24s? They're giving the Syrians Mi-24s! That's the problem, not whether they're new or Cold War vintage!

You really don't think that the US is not supplying weapons via proxy? The US is providing arms to Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are then supplying the rebels.




Somebody should tell them they're doing a poor job of it.

Link
 
2012-06-15 10:48:51 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Part of being a good speaker is being concise and conveying the necessary information as efficiently as possible. Obama didn't do that. It happens.


Information can only be compressed so much before vital content starts getting lost. If you put the sentiment you outlined under some scrutiny, you may find that you're really speaking to a problem with the audience, not the speech itself.
 
2012-06-15 10:48:57 AM  
I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.
 
2012-06-15 10:48:58 AM  

Lando Lincoln: I dunno. I liked the speech. It definitely didn't have any quick sound bites that the news could use to ramp up the ULTIMATE BATTLE AGAINST OBAMA AND ROMNEY though, so that's probably why they thought it sucked.


Bingo. Those tweets reaked of, "stop wasting my time! I have a column to write and you aren't giving me anything to work with!"

Sorry journos, sometimes a speech isn't full of things you can "fact check", sometimes it's not full of bumper sticker slogans, gaffes, or inspirational rigamarole.

Man. You have a an opportunity to sit in a room and listen to the president of the united states talk. To you. Specifically. And you're sitting their counting words like a farking clock-watching middle schooler. Immature beyond belief. An hour. NOT EVEN an hour and these people are squirming in their seats sending tweets.

No comments on what he said. Just *how much* he said. Great work press corp. Now kindly go fark yourselves while bloggers and forums disseminate the actual news so you can continue peeling airtime directly off of youtube. Christ on a cracker our press is pathetic.
 
2012-06-15 10:50:04 AM  

Mentat: violentsalvation: I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

That's the joke.


And just think - only 20 more weeks of it.
 
2012-06-15 10:51:22 AM  

LasersHurt: Did you watch the speech personally? What parts did you find were not conveyed well?


No, I didn't listen, I only read the transcripts. Maybe it flowed better live, but on paper it started to get repetitive in the section where he starts enumerating things wrong with the Republican budget. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the facts presented, it's just their organization. He gives a dozen examples where 2-3 would suffice. It's like he's trying to find a bunch of little niches so that the maximum number of people agree with him, instead of finding a few overarching points that are generally. The text just seems to drone on and doesn't work to keep the listener engaged with his core message.
 
2012-06-15 10:51:37 AM  

nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.


He lowered the price of gas for you so STFU and GBTW
 
2012-06-15 10:52:30 AM  

Biological Ali: Information can only be compressed so much before vital content starts getting lost. If you put the sentiment you outlined under some scrutiny, you may find that you're really speaking to a problem with the audience, not the speech itself.


This may be true, but you can't change the audience. If the speech doesn't fit the audience, that's a problem with the speaker.
 
2012-06-15 10:52:32 AM  

Lost Thought 00: LasersHurt: Did you watch the speech personally? What parts did you find were not conveyed well?

No, I didn't listen, I only read the transcripts. Maybe it flowed better live, but on paper it started to get repetitive in the section where he starts enumerating things wrong with the Republican budget. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the facts presented, it's just their organization. He gives a dozen examples where 2-3 would suffice. It's like he's trying to find a bunch of little niches so that the maximum number of people agree with him, instead of finding a few overarching points that are generally. The text just seems to drone on and doesn't work to keep the listener engaged with his core message.


As with most speeches, they're best judged when watched/listened to. And you'd do well to ignore media reviews of it until you've watched it, I promise.
 
2012-06-15 10:53:21 AM  

nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.


I love the "get to work on it" thing. Like it's just a machine he can start working on at any moment.
 
2012-06-15 10:55:16 AM  

nmiguy: I wish President Obama the GOP House would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.


FTF reality
 
2012-06-15 10:55:26 AM  

monoski: nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.

He lowered the price of gas for you so STFU and GBTW


Well of course gas prices have fallen. The president has switched from riding his presidential limousine to horseback riding...
 
2012-06-15 10:55:37 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Maybe Obama actually didn't give a great speech? Perhaps Romney actually did give a good one? And perhaps reporting it as such is actually the truth and not a sign of bias?

Can't be. Must be a Media Conspiracy meant to take down my favorite candidate.


Holding Obama to a standard of "great" and Romney to a standard of "good" is a sign of bias.
 
2012-06-15 10:55:37 AM  

karnal: cameroncrazy1984


karnal: Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.


Some people are just a lost cause.

Yes you are.

[www.thevictoryformation.com image 416x600]


You know. If you're going to post this much, people are going to be forced to ignore you. And I know you love yourself way to much to let that happen.

So how about we tone it down a bit karn, eh? Here's a tip on the cheap:
1) Write up your post.
2) Go read something for 5 minutes
3) Come back and read your post
4) Make your decision about whether that's something worth saying.

A lil' "look before you leap" can help you maintain your thinning veneer of legitimacy until the election actually happens. And that's where the REAL attention whoring can happen. Blow your load now and you better have a handful of seasoned alts to work with, or I'm afraid you're gonna be really damned bored come November.

Just sayin'.
 
2012-06-15 10:55:54 AM  
And by "fund raisers," I mean abortion bills.
 
2012-06-15 11:05:27 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Biological Ali: Information can only be compressed so much before vital content starts getting lost. If you put the sentiment you outlined under some scrutiny, you may find that you're really speaking to a problem with the audience, not the speech itself.

This may be true, but you can't change the audience. If the speech doesn't fit the audience, that's a problem with the speaker.


Not every speech will attempt to "fit" every single person who listens to it (and the speeches which do attempt that tend, with a few exceptions, to be more meaningless and contribute little if anything to intellectual discourse). So if you watch a speech and have a problem with it (absent some specific criticism of the arguments contained in the speech), there's a good chance that it never was meant for you in the first place.
 
2012-06-15 11:09:38 AM  

natazha: Complex thoughts and complex sentences. Not enough sound-bites. Too much work for the poor journalists' brains to reduce it to pap that the talking heads can burp up.


Who knew that TL;DR would one day be considered as actual journalism.
 
2012-06-15 11:10:48 AM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


Done in one, close it up, we're through here.
 
2012-06-15 11:32:30 AM  

badhatharry: Weird, isn't it. It's almost like the president is choosen before the election and the media sells it to the masses. What if I told you that W wasn't as bad a president as you think?


Your saying that W's policies, No Child Left Behind, "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie", the Bush tax cuts, ignoring pre-9/11 terror memo, his choice to put 2 wars on a credit card, extraordinary rendition, torture, having no interest in capturing Osama bin Laden, etc, etc, etc, were all nothing more than a media construct? I don't think anyone can believe that. Bush was, and still is, reviled around the world. Not because of media reports, but because of his actions, policies and decisions.
 
2012-06-15 11:35:10 AM  

LasersHurt: nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.

I love the "get to work on it" thing. Like it's just a machine he can start working on at any moment.


Well what exactly has he done? Anything? Okay. I don't believe a single person got a job at Sarah Jessica Parker's fund raiser.
 
2012-06-15 11:41:26 AM  

nmiguy: LasersHurt: nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.

I love the "get to work on it" thing. Like it's just a machine he can start working on at any moment.

Well what exactly has he done? Anything? Okay. I don't believe a single person got a job at Sarah Jessica Parker's fund raiser.


He created a jobs package including many pieces of legislation designed to boost hiring and the general economy. It has all been stonewalled by congress. Still, several measures have gone through, including lots of tax breaks for small businesses and startups.

He is doing things, but not everything is getting passed. That's not "doing nothing." He has been "at work."
 
2012-06-15 11:52:57 AM  

cman: Wow, never knew how much racism these networks would show. This racist bullshiat must end.


It's only racist when you hate him because he's black, not because you might disagree with what he says. Most often, trolls and the like will say something racist while criticizing him. When they're called on their racist bullshiat, they counter with "omg i'm just criticizing him!". No they're not. Criticize him, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. "That ni-bong sonofabiatch really sucks at fixing the economy!" is completely different from "President Obama isn't very good at this Presidenting".

once you learn the difference, i think you'll understand why your post is so freaking stupid.
 
2012-06-15 11:58:25 AM  
When broken out and counted separately, the words "Uh" and "Um" consisted of a full 13 minutes and 29 seconds of the speech.
 
2012-06-15 11:59:37 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Biological Ali: Information can only be compressed so much before vital content starts getting lost. If you put the sentiment you outlined under some scrutiny, you may find that you're really speaking to a problem with the audience, not the speech itself.

This may be true, but you can't change the audience. If the speech doesn't fit the audience, that's a problem with the speaker.


The president just outlined his record, and therefore his campaign strategy, to the farking press. And the presses reaction is that his record is too long and complicated and can't you just tell the American people that Romney's mormonism is a problem or something so we can write a quicky article and get paaaaid.

You don't make the press think. That's just something you don't do.
 
2012-06-15 12:01:46 PM  

nmiguy: LasersHurt: nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.

I love the "get to work on it" thing. Like it's just a machine he can start working on at any moment.

Well what exactly has he done? Anything? Okay. I don't believe a single person got a job at Sarah Jessica Parker's fund raiser.


Negotiated and passed trade deals with S. Korea, Colombia and Panama.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., called the package of agreements a "no-cost jobs plan "that would create a quarter-million jobs by boosting worldwide exports 1%.
 
2012-06-15 12:11:08 PM  

Shaggy_C: When broken out and counted separately, the words "Uh" and "Um" consisted of a full 13 minutes and 29 seconds of the speech.


It would not surprise me if some idiot actually takes the time to do this.
 
2012-06-15 12:15:03 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

People said this one blew, too.


It's interesting that Lincoln was wrong about this. Most people have heard "Four score and seven years ago", but don't know what happened at Gettysburg, other than there was a battle there.
 
2012-06-15 12:18:18 PM  
Obama is such a hack, that MSNBC is complaining about him.

That's bad. Real bad.

Obama needs to go play some golf. Unwind a bit, and send the wife off on a luxury vacation with 80 people. That will help.

What's really happening is that Romney is aggressive, and he is slapping Obama around. The Obama media want Obama to fight harder and smarter, that's all.
 
2012-06-15 12:22:06 PM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.


This just proves that the liberal media can safely be ignored EXCEPT when they are attacking Obam, in which case their every word is gospel truther, because why would the libby-est libs who ever libbed attack their Messiah unless what they were saying was not only true, but worse than they were letting on?

See the post directly above mine by Barney fife for a perfect example of this
 
2012-06-15 12:23:47 PM  
He was never a good speech maker. The media is just now waking up to the fact.
 
2012-06-15 12:34:18 PM  

PanicMan: Well what exactly has he done? Anything? Okay. I don't believe a single person got a job at Sarah Jessica Parker's fund raiser.

Negotiated and passed trade deals with S. Korea, Colombia and Panama.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., called the package of agreements a "no-cost jobs plan "that would create a quarter-million jobs by boosting worldwide exports 1%.



Does Cantor understand that is treason in the GOP?
 
2012-06-15 12:45:25 PM  

Butterflew: cman: Wow, never knew how much racism these networks would show. This racist bullshiat must end.

It's only racist when you hate him because he's black, not because you might disagree with what he says. Most often, trolls and the like will say something racist while criticizing him. When they're called on their racist bullshiat, they counter with "omg i'm just criticizing him!". No they're not. Criticize him, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. "That ni-bong sonofabiatch really sucks at fixing the economy!" is completely different from "President Obama isn't very good at this Presidenting".

once you learn the difference, i think you'll understand why your post is so freaking stupid.


'twas a joke
 
2012-06-15 12:58:30 PM  

mcoctopus: He was never a good speech maker. The media is just now waking up to the fact.


Name a few politicians in politics today that give better speeches.
 
2012-06-15 12:58:51 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

People said this one blew, too.


In fact, it's said that Lincoln turned to his aide after he finished the speech and said "well that fell over the crowd like a wet blanket, didn't it?"

Reason? Too confusing. Too curtly delivered and most importantly, too short in its eloquent brevity. The fault with that speech may very well have been its modern strength. It must be read to be fully appreciated. The point he makes is far too philosophical and introspective to be received and absorbed in a single sitting.

It's why we organize political speeches like checklists these days. An enraptured audience can still easily miss the point or be confused.
 
2012-06-15 01:12:43 PM  

djkutch: Well, there's your liberal media.

 
2012-06-15 01:15:58 PM  

nmiguy: I wish President Obama would stop horsing around at fund raisers and get to work on the economy.


Welcome to the post-Citizens United world. Fundraising is now a politician's single most important job function. Everyone thank the Supreme Court.
 
2012-06-15 01:29:29 PM  

gaspode: Yes, the person asking to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth should not give speeches that are 'Long' and 'Wordy'

ffs.


i.crackedcdn.com
Welcome to America.

/seriously, we're that dumb
 
2012-06-15 01:41:12 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: Obama is such a hack, that MSNBC is complaining about him.

That's bad. Real bad.

Obama needs to go play some golf. Unwind a bit, and send the wife off on a luxury vacation with 80 people. That will help.

What's really happening is that Romney is aggressive, and he is slapping Obama around. The Obama media want Obama to fight harder and smarter, that's all.


This sounds like the sort of stuff Sean Hannity's balls whisper to each other after he falls asleep

/ but how's your girl Hillary doing?
 
2012-06-15 02:13:59 PM  
Lando Lincoln

mcoctopus: He was never a good speech maker. The media is just now waking up to the fact.

Name a few politicians in politics today that give better speeches.


Ed Miliband's "new bargain" speech was long and complex and was quite good. And he's isnt even the best speaker in UK.
 
2012-06-15 02:14:23 PM  

HeartBurnKid: gaspode: Yes, the person asking to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth should not give speeches that are 'Long' and 'Wordy'

ffs.

[i.crackedcdn.com image 314x219]
Welcome to America.

/seriously, we're that dumb


Sad but true.
 
2012-06-15 02:23:07 PM  
BeesNuts

karnal: cameroncrazy1984


karnal: Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.


Some people are just a lost cause.

Yes you are.

[www.thevictoryformation.com image 416x600]

You know. If you're going to post this much, people are going to be forced to ignore you. And I know you love yourself way to much to let that happen.

So how about we tone it down a bit karn, eh? Here's a tip on the cheap:
1) Write up your post.
2) Go read something for 5 minutes
3) Come back and read your post
4) Make your decision about whether that's something worth saying.

A lil' "look before you leap" can help you maintain your thinning veneer of legitimacy until the election actually happens. And that's where the REAL attention whoring can happen. Blow your load now and you better have a handful of seasoned alts to work with, or I'm afraid you're gonna be really damned bored come November.

Just sayin'.



Thank you, Mr Moderator....you seem to be quite the fan of hearing yourself drone on.
 
2012-06-15 04:20:56 PM  

karnal: BeesNuts

karnal: cameroncrazy1984


karnal: Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.


Some people are just a lost cause.

Yes you are.

[www.thevictoryformation.com image 416x600]

You know. If you're going to post this much, people are going to be forced to ignore you. And I know you love yourself way to much to let that happen.

So how about we tone it down a bit karn, eh? Here's a tip on the cheap:
1) Write up your post.
2) Go read something for 5 minutes
3) Come back and read your post
4) Make your decision about whether that's something worth saying.

A lil' "look before you leap" can help you maintain your thinning veneer of legitimacy until the election actually happens. And that's where the REAL attention whoring can happen. Blow your load now and you better have a handful of seasoned alts to work with, or I'm afraid you're gonna be really damned bored come November.

Just sayin'.


Thank you, Mr Moderator....you seem to be quite the fan of hearing yourself drone on.


You can go ahead and ignore the warning. But you're gonna have to work extra special hard come september, and while I'm sure you've got the work ethic, I'm not sure there's enough time in the day.

Let not the lessons of our Trollfathers go unlearnt! Heed the hard-won warnings of the past! Skook not, lest ye become the father of Skookums! Turn to the light.
 
2012-06-15 04:30:20 PM  
BeesNuts

karnal: BeesNuts

karnal: cameroncrazy1984


karnal: Trapper439

Get back to me when a Republican has delivered a better speech, subby.

Hell, get back to me when a Republican delivers a speech in which they detail an actual alternative policy position.

I've heard that both sides are bad, but that argument for voting Republican doesn't convince me.


Some people are just a lost cause.

Yes you are.

[www.thevictoryformation.com image 416x600]

You know. If you're going to post this much, people are going to be forced to ignore you. And I know you love yourself way to much to let that happen.

So how about we tone it down a bit karn, eh? Here's a tip on the cheap:
1) Write up your post.
2) Go read something for 5 minutes
3) Come back and read your post
4) Make your decision about whether that's something worth saying.

A lil' "look before you leap" can help you maintain your thinning veneer of legitimacy until the election actually happens. And that's where the REAL attention whoring can happen. Blow your load now and you better have a handful of seasoned alts to work with, or I'm afraid you're gonna be really damned bored come November.

Just sayin'.


Thank you, Mr Moderator....you seem to be quite the fan of hearing yourself drone on.

You can go ahead and ignore the warning. But you're gonna have to work extra special hard come september, and while I'm sure you've got the work ethic, I'm not sure there's enough time in the day.

Let not the lessons of our Trollfathers go unlearnt! Heed the hard-won warnings of the past! Skook not, lest ye become the father of Skookums! Turn to the light.



It's almost like you are speaking in a whole different language.
 
2012-06-15 04:43:38 PM  

unexplained bacon: This sounds like the sort of stuff Sean Hannity's balls whisper to each other after he falls asleep

/ but how's your girl Hillary doing?


Just listen to how silly you sound believing that Sean Hannity has balls.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-06-15 04:54:03 PM  
~800K people can now get jobs. What does this do for the jobs number between now and November? Let's assume 20% of these people were working under the table and another 20% would have taken jobs if they would have been allowed to. That's 320,000 potential new jobs. Might be high but I think 100K to 200K of new jobs is realistic (including small businesses getting started as well).
 
2012-06-16 09:27:46 AM  

mrshowrules: ~800K people can now get jobs. What does this do for the jobs number between now and November? Let's assume 20% of these people were working under the table and another 20% would have taken jobs if they would have been allowed to. That's 320,000 potential new jobs. Might be high but I think 100K to 200K of new jobs is realistic (including small businesses getting started as well).

 
2012-06-16 09:36:20 AM  
Unfetchable image links.... anyway, my response to you is here.
 
2012-06-16 02:33:23 PM  

tony41454: MaudlinMutantMollusk
2012-06-14 10:36:57 PM
In before some f*cktard claims Obama gets a pass from the media

tony41454 Smartest Funniest 2012-06-15 06:34:17 AM
(favorite: Attack! One pump Tony)

Actually he does get a pass. Do you ever hear about Fast and Furious? Solyndra? his early participation in a college communist group? his cocaine use? the leaks of classified info from the WH to help O's election champaign? No, didn't think so. But you DO hear about Romney's high school jinks 30 years ago or Nixon forty years ago, yeah. Why don't Woodword and Bernstein do some REAL reporting and go after the Obama administration--the most corrupt administration in history, with Eric "I will not prosecute MY people" Holder.

 
2012-06-17 12:36:13 AM  
The problem with this speech, whatever you think of his politics, has nothing to do with the content of his speech. The problem is that he thinks he can fix problems and make an impact with a "big", "important" speech - even after three years of being in office. This means one of two things. Either he and his team have bought into all of the crap that the sycophants and Obama fanboys say about him, that he is such a great orator and he's a transformational leader, or it means that he is a one trick pony. All he has is a speech. That's the only tool in his toolbox. He seems to like to give speeches/lectures about his version of anything and everything except for meaningful proposals on how to actually solve problems and make it happen. Let's think about it for a second...What problems has he actually solved? Even "Obamacare" was really an invention of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi after the single payer system preferred by Obama was shot down. It seems as though everything this administration has pushed has not had the political savy, the will, or even passed the test of common sense to make any dent on reality. Cap and trade? No. The tax code? Nein. Every budget from the administration? Nyet. The debt limit debacle? In the end, In Absentia. Transparency? Racial Harmony? Same ol' same ol'. The seas? Not receding. Now, I personally think he is wrong on almost every issue, but for liberals it must be starting to get incredibly frustrating that this man who was supposed to be smarter than all of us and was voted for almost entirely on faith has proven to be completely ineffective.

For the most part what we are seeing following this speech is not the media finally performing their journalistic duties but a media, and the rest of the liberal world, that is slowly growing tired of carrying his water and making excuses for him. If you look at the comments its all constructive criticism or things they'd like to see. "It's too long". "We've all heard this before". "There weren't any good soundbites". They sound like a bunch of movie geeks upset that the sequel wasn't as good as the original. So in summary, this is just the media's way of telling the president to kick it into gear, write better speeches, and maybe even...accomplish something, else we will have a Romney Presidency.
 
2012-06-17 03:09:03 AM  

fublius: The problem is that he thinks he can fix problems and make an impact with a "big", "important" speech - even after three years of being in office


Citation please.

Difficulty: the fact that he made a speech doesn't imply that he thinks said speech will fix problems.


The rest of your post was pretty much whargarble.
 
2012-06-17 11:39:34 AM  

Sabyen91: Kevin72: Sabyen91: IlGreven: They only keep Maddow on because of the huge discrimination lawsuit they'd get if they fire her.

What does this mean?

It means that somehow IlGreven either never noticed how cute, clever, hard-hitting without it being noticed, and on and on about how wonderful Rachel Maddow is. Or he demonstrated Poe's Law to us.

I don't watch any of the pundit shows but Maddow is very intelligent and well-informed (know this from her old radio show).

/Oh...that is why Il Greven doesn't like her.


It ain't Maddow I don't like. It's the "libruls" that run MSNBC.
 
2012-06-17 12:42:45 PM  
IlGreven that makes even lesss sense. Why in the world would the librul management even consider firing Rachel Maddow? I'm calling a Poe's Law troll again.
 
2012-06-18 12:10:03 AM  

Smackledorfer: fublius: The problem is that he thinks he can fix problems and make an impact with a "big", "important" speech - even after three years of being in office

Citation please.

Difficulty: the fact that he made a speech doesn't imply that he thinks said speech will fix problems.


Frankly, his motives aren't important. Maybe he's that naive and maybe he's not. The important point is that we all know that he's not going to follow with any action. He will never do the politically uncomfortable things that need to be done to actually get things done. That knowledge makes any speech he gives from here on out hollow and decidedly unimportant. When it gets to the point where the president can't give a speech that anyone will take seriously makes him all the more an ineffective leader. Whargarble or not, you KNOW that a serious legislative proposal is NOT forth coming.
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report