Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media had a field day (week) covering and harping on the "infamous" prank...oh wait, "bullying" .... incident from 50 years ago regarding Romney that MAY or MAY NOT have even happened (frankly, even if it did, who cares, it was 50 years ago in high school). Yet a NEW interview with wannabe Reverend Wright brings NEW details of his relationship with Obama and Wright HIMSELF said an Obama pal offered him money to shut up. Wright also alleged that Obama told him that he speaks the "truth" too much (basically saying, hey learn to lie like I do).
So why, besides the well known fact of a biased liberal media, should this not be covered.
1. Its NEWS. And its NEW.
2. It involves Obama himself, Obama's words to his pastor of 20 years.
3. It involved Obama aide or pal offering MONEY to get someone to shut up until after the elections are over.... For today's class, the word of the day is............BRIBE
4. Obama telling Wright he speaks the "truth" too much, indicates that a) he damn well did agree with everything Wright said and b) he lies to further his political career.
So again, WHY isnt this suppose to be news? Why are we suppose to just shut up about it? Why the hell dont we have a damn non-corrupt media in this country that asks the tough questions anymore and tries to get answers?! Even when it is against one of their own?
And if you're just going to be a drone and respond with the predictable bs, dont bother. Im done responding to you type of dummies.
Last edited by CaseyB; 05-18-2012 at 06:02 PM..
Reason: off topic
The media had a field day (week) covering and harping on the "infamous" prank...oh wait, "bullying" .... incident from 50 years ago regarding Romney that MAY or MAY NOT have even happened (frankly, even if it did, who cares, it was 50 years ago in high school). Yet a NEW interview with wannabe Reverend Wright brings NEW details of his relationship with Obama and Wright HIMSELF said an Obama pal offered him money to shut up. Wright also alleged that Obama told him that he speaks the "truth" too much (basically saying, hey learn to lie like I do).
So why, besides the well known fact of a biased liberal media, should this not be covered.
1. Its NEWS. And its NEW.
2. It involves Obama himself, Obama's words to his pastor of 20 years.
3. It involved Obama aide or pal offering MONEY to get someone to shut up until after the elections are over.... For today's class, the word of the day is............BRIBE
4. Obama telling Wright he speaks the "truth" too much, indicates that a) he damn well did agree with everything Wright said and b) he lies to further his political career.
So again, WHY isnt this suppose to be news? Why are we suppose to just shut up about it? Why the hell dont we have a damn non-corrupt media in this country that asks the tough questions anymore and tries to get answers?! Even when it is against one of their own?
And if you're just going to be a drone and respond with the predictable bs, dont bother. Im done responding to you type of dummies.
We no longer have an impartial media. That's why its important to dig around and do your own research. Its also why more alternative news web sites are doing so well. While they may, indeed, sensationalize how the stories are presented; they will at least put the story out there so we can then go do some detail fact checking ourselves. At least they make us aware of the stories the msm doesn't want us to know about.
Don't look for media reporting to become anymore unbiased in the future. Warren Buffet is in the process of purchasing over 60 newspapers for Berkshire Hathaway Media.
We no longer have an impartial media. That's why its important to dig around and do your own research. Its also why more alternative news web sites are doing so well. While they may, indeed, sensationalize how the stories are presented; they will at least put the story out there so we can then go do some detail fact checking ourselves. At least they make us aware of the stories the msm doesn't want us to know about.
Agreed. It would be helpful though, if the media werent as biased to the level they are. We all know, you can search around for hours on the internet to get real truth due to blogs, etc etc. There had to be a time where the news media, journalists took their jobs seriously. Where they truly had a desire for truth. Where is that today? There are very few journalists today that I can honestly say I trust and that truly strive for truth and not their agenda.
This Wright bribe story came out last week. Not much of anything from the media. Can we atleast get to the bottom of it and find out if its true? Why not? We can talk about some stupid prank from 50 years ago but not a possible friggin bribe?! Just imagine if a non-liberal, say Romney, has an aide or pal that bribed a close friend of his who was as controversial as Wright, to shut up until after the election. Whether the story was true or not, just a sniff of that and the media wouldve been all over it. It would be on headline news for days and days if not longer.
I want truth. I want non-biased from our journalists. Sadly, we can not find it from the biggest outlets in "news" today. All the networks, all the cable news are full of biased filtered garbage.
He cut his hair.... but fine. Call it what you want. But it was 50 years ago and even the guys family doubts the story. But I think we've heard enough of that one. The media made certain of it. How about you get on topic.
He cut his hair.... but fine. Call it what you want. But it was 50 years ago and even the guys family doubts the story. But I think we've heard enough of that one. The media made certain of it. How about you get on topic.
"He cut his hair"??? Are you ****ing kidding me?? That's what a barber or hairdresser does. And even then not until you get into the chair and it's obvious you want your hair cut. When you knock somebody to the ground and then hold him down against his will and then cut his hair against his will that is NOT "cutting his hair" that's assault and battery.
That's like saying the bank robber was "making a withdrawal"
Are you talking about when Obama describes how HE am assaulted the little girl in his book?
Obama pushed the girl, once if I'm not mistaken. Not quite the same thing as being the leader of a bunch of thugs like Mitt was. Also Obama has already expressed remorse for the incident and he didn't laugh about it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
