It takes someone pretty far to the right to accuse a group of major corporations of being too liberally biased.

Noam Chimpsky: commie-pervert

To be fair to you, that's the kind of awesome phrase that would have been right at home in a letter from Hunter S. Thompson.

Rumo: The media wants a horse race, and after awhile they'll get tired of dealing with a candidate who won't help their ratings. They'll turn on Romney and we'll get a month or so of nothing but pro Obama coverage simply out of spite. The media (Fox being the exception) aren't left wing or right wing, they're pro money. If a candidate won't play, they'll turn.

I'd agree with you, but even with the PPACA getting through judicial review even the mainstream media was eager to find a "This is bad news, for Obama," angle out of it.

I don't really have a problem with Mitt looking for favorable places to hand him softball questions and positive exposure leading up to the election as long as he does actually participate in the debates... all of them.

The issue I have is that he's apparently choosing Breitbart.com This is a web outlet that's become synonymous with blatant, made up, predatory propaganda and yellow journalism. This is the place that funded and aired the atrociously misleading and vile "Acorn" tapes along with the "edited to say the complete opposite of the actual statements" Shirley Sherrod tapes.

I wouldn't expect *ANY* president to choose Stormfront as their official communication front. I wouldn't expect them to choose Code Pink, or a white supremacy media wing as their "official" media venue....and I wouldn't expect a presidential candidate to choose Breitbart. It's disgraceful.

downpaymentblues: bmr68: MSNBC blatantly edited one of his speeches to make him look ridiculous.

If you are talking about the Andrea Mitchell "edit", I would say you are very wrong. The entire speech makes him look MUCH worse and more out of touch than the shortened piece she did.

I would add, how can you say "don't go to them. they edit video to make you look bad", as a way of supporting Breitbart?

Hee hee.

Rumo: verbaltoxin:
I'd agree with you, but even with the PPACA getting through judicial review even the mainstream media was eager to find a "This is bad news, for Obama," angle out of it.

RIght now, they're still trying to play fair, but if the Conservatives flat out refuse to play the game, they'll start losing money. Like I said, I'm guessing it'll take until September or October before they turn. And that's only IF Romney really does ignore them. If he gives them anything worthwhile, then they'll continue to kiss up and "play nice" by ignoring Romney's idiocy and pointing out Obama's every fault.

I remain highly skeptical of the mainstream media. They are party to their corporate masters, and they are the mouthpiece for government more often than not, especially those actors in government whom favor business' interests. i.e. not the President.

Ed Finnerty: Hey, isn't that something an actual fascist would do?

No, they'd go into the newsroom and answer all questions approved by Josef Goebbels.

propasaurus: Relatively Obscure: Politicians prefer favorable outlets? The hell you say.

Sure, true. That's why you'll never see Obama on Fox News.

And Romney will still appear on other news networks. There are still preferences.

Mrtraveler01: Lligeret: MSM = Mainstream Media.
MSM Media = Mainstream Media Media.

Why bother using an acronym when you you write out half of the words anyways. Stop it.

That reminds me, I need to stop at the ATM Machine today.

Don't forget your PIN Number.

hubiestubert: Folks are shoving folks right out of the party, and guess what? The new faithful, are loyal. And the folks like myself and others? We remember and if folks want to hand the middle of America further into the hands of Independents and Democrats, good luck with that. The current leadership is not exactly reassuring anyone, except the Wing Nut Brigade...

I guess it's kind of a weird Laffer-ish curve. As the Conservatives elect a few Tea Party members here and there, it pulls the Republican Party as a whole to the right, which, if the parties are roughly balanced in representation, pulls the entire government to the right. However, as more and more Super-Right-Wingers are elected, more Moderates leave the Republican Party for the Democrats, and you wind up with the Democrats controlling the center.

Tea Partiers can try to pull the whole Republican Party to the right, but eventually, something is going to snap and they'll only have what small amount is in their hands while the biggest part is flung back to the left.

El Morro: FloydA: bmr68: MSNBC blatantly edited one of his speeches to make him look ridiculous.


Don't blame him for avoiding MSM outlets

I agree. We should condemn as "completely untrustworthy" any media outlet that uses deceptive editing to make their political opponents look bad. I promise to stop watching, reading, or listening to any media outlet that is caught using deceptive editing in that way.

Will you join me in that promise?

Nice try, but you should have gone a different rounte. No way he'll take you up on it. Way, way, waaaaaaay too obvious that you were looking to relate it to FOX "news"

/how they can be considered a news outlet after all their shenanigans is beyond me.

Yeah, but I had to try.

Rumo: The media wants a horse race, and after awhile they'll get tired of dealing with a candidate who won't help their ratings. They'll turn on Romney and we'll get a month or so of nothing but pro Obama coverage simply out of spite. The media (Fox being the exception) aren't left wing or right wing, they're pro money. If a candidate won't play, they'll turn.



"I resent that. If the loser Gen-Xer's had half the disposable income of these Tea Party f*cks, we'd be airing drum circles and pro-pot demonstrations singing Kum-Ba-Yoccupy all the way to the f*cking bank. You think Murdoch cares what we put on here? Have you seen the crap he puts on Sky News in England? In the US, the old f*cks have the money, and the old f*cks hate the black guy. Don't accuse me of partisanship when I'm a straight-up f*cking capitalist."

Alphax: That guy's been a Republican operative for several decades now.



"What can I say? They met my price."

ox45tallboy: I guess it's kind of a weird Laffer-ish curve. As the Conservatives elect a few Tea Party members here and there, it pulls the Republican Party as a whole to the right, which, if the parties are roughly balanced in representation, pulls the entire government to the right. However, as more and more Super-Right-Wingers are elected, more Moderates leave the Republican Party for the Democrats, and you wind up with the Democrats controlling the center.

Tea Partiers can try to pull the whole Republican Party to the right, but eventually, something is going to snap and they'll only have what small amount is in their hands while the biggest part is flung back to the left.

The thing is: I haven't been pulled Left. I have stayed fairly Centerist, and still Conservative, but the GOP has warped far beyond anything that I can, in good conscience, support. It's not Conservatism to support the state backing any Church. It's not Conservative to piss away chances at lasting peace and security. It's not Conservative to continue this No Tax and KEEP Spending policy. What passes for "Conservative" in the news cycle is outright radicalism that is based on hate of one's neighbors, fear of our allies, and suppression of rights for citizens. I stayed in the party a long time, hoping to vote away from this drift into radicalism, but in the end, it didn't do a damn bit of good. There is too much money to be made to support a radical shift away from good Conservatism, and simply rebrand what "Conservative" means.

You see it here. Oafs who call themselves Conservative, and yet, support the most radical shift away from power to the electorate that we've seen. A radical shift in the courts. A radical shift in the legislatures, and an attempt to just ignore the fact the very principles that this nation was founded upon, and cover with a flag and pretend that shutting down libraries and setting the poor ablaze is what the Founders would want.

And what is interesting, in the fullest Chinese curse sense, is that there are idiots who keep buying this tripe, because it's got the flag near it. So long as there's a pin on someone's chest, then they'll vote to strip care from vets and continue to send boys that they don't want to vote even, off to get shot for Dame Profit...

El Morro: Romney's a f*cking coward.

He couldn't stand up to the teabaggers.
He couldn't stand up to the fundamentalists.
He couldn't even stand up to Rush Limbaugh.

I've had problems with other GOP candidates/presidents in the past, but at least they HAD A F*CKING PAIR. For Chrissakes, Romney has used his wealth to drown out his primary opponents, and since has skated his way around any real challenge presented to him by the media (his response to the DREAM act/Executive directive was particularly pathetic).

How much longer can this dude just coast like this? If Obama has any sense in his head, he won't let Mitt dodge the issues in the debates by letting him get away with canned responses. The president better b*tch slap that punk pussy ass loser with a fury. Because that's probably going to be the only time Mitt will be FORCED to stand and defend his ground.

Un-friggin-believeable.

This is why I think Mitt was dancing in the aisles when he heard about the Supreme's decision this week.

Now he gets to spend the next four months telling us about how he's going to repeal Obamacare. He doesn't have to say what he's going to replace it with, or even acknowledge the idea that the Republicans might need a plan. (After all, they have one, developed by the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor, they just decided they didn't like it for some odd reason.) He can simply run "REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL" ads over and over, and nobody will ever question what happens next. It will be all sunshine and rainbows!

Glockenspiel Hero: Now he gets to spend the next four months telling us about how he's going to repeal Obamacare. He doesn't have to say what he's going to replace it with, or even acknowledge the idea that the Republicans might need a plan. (After all, they have one, developed by the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor, they just decided they didn't like it for some odd reason.) He can simply run "REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL" ads over and over, and nobody will ever question what happens next. It will be all sunshine and rainbows!

But no unicorns? Fark that, I'm voting for Obama. At least he promises unicorns.

Rumo: you mean a graduate degree in tuba playing won't get me a say in the political discourse? Fark that, that degree was the most useless 150,000 I've ever spent.



"You really should have studied classical violin."