Contrast: How the L.A. Times Portrays Republican Opposition Now, Vs. How They Portrayed Democrat Opposition in 2001
If you think Republicans and Democrats are portrayed the same at the L.A. Times, read on.
It’s “Obama is bipartisan and Republicans are jerks!” week at the Los Angeles Times.
On Monday we were told that Republicans signaled they “would not be daunted by President Obama’s soaring approval ratings” — and McCain was chided for his “sharp[] criticism” even though he was the “recipient of aggressive outreach as part of the new president’s efforts to forge an image of bipartisanship.”
Yesterday we were told that “Republicans have continued to snipe at [Obama’s] signature initiative.”
Today’s Los Angeles Times contains another song of praise for the very, very bipartisan Obama, and more loaded language portraying Republicans as intransigent jackasses:
Trying to build support for his $825-billion economic stimulus plan before a crucial vote, President Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday but continued to meet a stubborn wall of complaints from Republicans that the cost of the package was unacceptable.
So to sum up: Despite Obama’s reaching across the aisle, Republicans “aren’t daunted by [his] soaring approval ratings.” Instead, Republicans are continuing to “snipe” with their “sharp[] criticism” and “stubborn wall of complaints.”
Just as a reminder: in 2001, when newly elected President Bush was pushing a tax cut plan, the Democrats in opposition were portrayed a little differently:
Democratic leaders, now on the defensive, argued that Bush’s plan is too large and too heavily skewed toward the wealthy.
They fear that projections of the federal budget surplus–$5.6 trillion over 10 years–could be wildly overestimated and that the tax plan’s fiscal drain could be underestimated. If so, the tax cut might leave none of the surplus to shore up Medicare and Social Security and pay down the national debt.
Among Democrats sensing the growing sentiment for a tax cut, opposition is built around concerns that the federal budget cannot handle increased Pentagon spending, growth in Medicare and funding of domestic policy initiatives that Bush favors while leaving a “rainy day” fund to protect the balanced budget against an economic downturn.
Democrats served notice, however, that they would support tax cutting, but only so far.
How courageous! And how different from Republican sniping and that stubborn wall of complaints from the GOP.
But just remember: all this newspaper is doing is reporting the news, straight down the middle. Nothing more, nothing less.
As we wait for the inevitable wall of silliness from some, I’ll spare them the trouble and channel their thoughts here –
Oiram – I don’t see anything here that proves that why is LAT mainstream media not Limbaugh MSM never heard of spellcheck what is nuance stop being obfuscating what is obfuscating.
Ed Rendell’s Arse from PA – this proves nothing, I got a source from the Schenecdtady Shopper Daily that says the exact opposite. BTW, what does the “search” button on my console mean?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:25 amOf course Obama’s got better approval ratings than Bush did at a similar point in his presidency. Public support for the stimulus package is also very , very high.
“Intransigent jackasses”, however, is a good phrase. I think Patterico may have described congressional Republicans quite pithily. I think I’ll adopt it.
tamizdat (e8f5ce) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:33 amTamizdat – If public support is so high for this “stimulus” package, why do they need Republican support?
Dmac – Epic
JD (ef3802) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:39 amDmac-Priceless.
Old Coot (543f9d) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:49 amContrast that with how a conservative news source portrayed the Dems in 2001 for their lack of enthusiastic support of Bush then and how that same source portrays the Reps’ opposition to Obama now. It shows you are all the same. So suck it up. It will be your turn again. 🙂
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:50 amEmperor7, maybe if you actually found this example that is so obviously on the tip of your tongue …
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:52 am#5) so, you concede that the LATimes is a “liberal news source”?
What about that vaunted objectivity?
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:53 amObviously, they don’t. Damn the
GOPtorpedoes! Run, Forrest, run!2010 is just around the corner.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:54 amOver at Washington Monthly, they are complaining that there isn’t enough left wing spending. Poor O Man can’t win.
I just hope the Republicans stick together. Obama is their best chance for a return to power. He is over reaching and has only been in office a week.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:00 amComment by Techie — 1/28/2009 @ 7:53 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:01 amDo you know of one that isn’t biased? Either way? The liberals will sing the praise of their man and condemn the other while the conservatives will do the same. Praise and support their candidate and denounce the other. It’s politics.
2010 is just around the corner.
Yeah, just in time for the recessionary cycle to begin the inevitable readjustment to a growth curve. Funny, isn’t it, that 2010 is the same time as when this massive pork bill finally gets going in earnest. The Command – and – Control economic policies didn’t die with Nixon after all, it lives!
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:05 amI’m not so sure about the inevitability. Seeing what I’m seeing…
Pablo (99243e) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:45 am2010…… isn’t that when California’s new emissions requirements kick in?
will Detroit spend billions it doesn’t have on meeting the engineering and testing requirements, or will they write off the market, which is, IIRC, 20~25% of all cars sold. either way, i doubt it’ll help the “inevitable readjustment to a growth curve”.
i predict that Juggy’s economic depression will last for years. coupled with his inevitable failure in the area of national security, he will eventually replace the peanut farmer as “worst President ever”.
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:47 amI’m still hopeful that the trend will be similar to past recessions, Pablo; if not, then we’re all in for some very deep doo – doo.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:54 amThe Republican Party chose the Elephant because elephants never forget. The Democrat Party chose the Jackass because jackasses are stubborn even when being more understanding would be better for them. It is unfortunate, though, that Republicans in general continue to hold their hand out, expecting a hand-shake, only to get it cut off.
Democrats are actually depending on history. “This too shall pass” as it always has. The American populace will not remember what happens today when it comes time to vote in 2010. But we can hope for a low turnout in 2010. That would bode well.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:00 am“Contrast” Yes Let’s do that.
We’ll start with the original sentence (Uncut) containing the word “Snipe”.
So far, his gestures have shown few signs of success, as Republicans have continued to snipe at his signature initiative
“Success” – an event that accomplishes its intended purpose;
You see so far Obama’s gestures have shown few signs of success.
Negative to most………
I don’t really need to fact check further than that.
Dog Trainer is it? You do realize you are doing exactly what you are accusing The Los Angeles Times of doing don’t you?
But then again, it is all about the “Spin” zone right?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:42 am#3 Tamizdat – If public support is so high for this “stimulus” package, why do they need Republican support?
Dmac – Epic
Holy Crap JD, you truly do want to live in a polarizing, partisan rooted country don’t you?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:47 amThe LA Times said: On Monday we were told that Republicans signaled they “would not be daunted by President Obama’s soaring approval ratings”
Is that the approval rating that soared from 80% to 65% in one week?
Spartan (5e5470) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:48 amOh stop this Pat. You cannot compare apples and oranges in this way and not sound dumb. There’s a world of difference between opposing tax breaks for the wealthiest as the Dems did in 2001 and the semi-criminal, socio-pathic irresponsible short sightedness, of refusing to even deign to find a compromise or middle way with a President that has (and will continue to) reach across the aisle to pass an emergency stimulus bill in the face of an economic disaster, caused in no small part by those very Republicans in the WH and Congress whose failed policies have now reached full fruition. Yet, they want the same failed approaches and policies. Unable to hear the the broken record of failure and bankrupt ideas they have become.
Let them continue to play this stubborn and foolish and self-sabotaging game. The voting public will register their (further) outrage in 2010.
Sorry Pat. Still no traction on this one.
Score:
LA Times – 1
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:57 amPatterico – 0
Holy Crap, Oiram, you’ve been asleep since 2001, haven’t you?
And, seriously, if people believe something’s wrong, shouldn’t they oppose it? Isn’t dissent the highest form of patriotism?
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:57 amOiram, you mean the one that Democrats contributed to with such venom over the last 8 years?
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:57 am#20 “Venom”……… or just reporting the news SPQR?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 9:59 amExcellent satire, Peter! That’s almost a pitch-perfect example of a brainless partisan Democrat!
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:00 am#3: If public support is so high for this “stimulus” package, why do they need Republican support?
Depends on what you mean by “need”. They don’t need Republican support to pass the bill, but they do need Republican support to render the bill bipartisan so that if this blows up in their face they can claim that everybody screwed up, not just them. In that light, their shrill insistence on running up as many Republican votes as possible on this bill is telling.
Sean P (e57269) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:01 amIs that the approval rating that soared from 80% to 65% in one week?
Yes, the very same approval rating most politicians would trade in their left nut, or ovary, to brag about.
It’s no secret that his approval rating, as it does for all presidents in their first year will take a plunge, but I predict it will be a smaller drop off than most and let’s look at thos numbers again in six months and compare them to other presidents, especially W. before 911.
NExt.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:01 am#19 Absolutely Rob, opposition is the highest form of patriotism.
All I was pointing out is that JD appears to question why Obama needs to reach out to Republicans, even though he has a high approval rating.
It’s at least one campaign promise Obama is keeping.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:03 amThere’s so much wrong with that comment, it’s hard to know where to begin. But there has been a compromise proposed. Unfortunately, you can’t listen to it and get things done.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:03 am#24 Hey Peter, tell them to get back to us when Obama’s approval rating is at a solid 34%…… or maybe that’s what they’re hoping for 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:04 amObama’s “reach out” would seem more honest if he actually tried to compromise. His refusal to compromise with Republicans — less pork spending, more tax cuts — makes his “reaching out” seem disingenuous. At best.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:06 amTamizdat: “Intransigent jackasses”, however, is a good phrase. I think Patterico may have described congressional Republicans quite pithily. I think I’ll adopt it.
Here. here Tamizdat. Pat deserves a hearty pat on the back for that, pithy and accurate description of the Repubs. I too, was very impressed with it. I can’t wait to use that in a conversation or comment also. Like so:
The Republican intransigent jackasses in the Congress wouldn’t recognize a viable, or care for, a bipartisan gesture even if it bit them on their (fat) asses.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:07 amBipartisan = giving the Democrats everything they want.
Glad that’s been cleared up.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:09 am#27 Oiram.
Not only is that what they’re hoping for, but actively working towards. Same as a disoriented man who’s just been bitch-slapped says: “Thank you sir, may I have another!”
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:10 amBTW, how are the approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Or did I just imagine the 2006 mid-term elections?
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:12 amTechie: Bipartisan = giving the Democrats everything they want.
No, bipartisan = stop playing poker (politics) with the well being of the economically suffering citizens of the United States who’ve been ass-raped by 8 years of dysfunction and failure in the White house..
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:12 amMike K.: He is over reaching and has only been in office a week.
No, he’s not. It is the GOP and the blinkered far right that over-reaching and he’s only been office a week.
I’m just watching all this as I would enjoy a well played chess game between two opponents who are vastly mis-matched. Yet, one of them arrogantly thinks the same old moves are going to work as they did before and doesn’t notice he’s having his ass handed to him.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:16 amCongressional Approval Ratings…
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/13-14/09…..23
NBC/Wall Street Journal
1/9-12/09……23
USA Today/Gallup
1/9-11/09……19
Stellar numbers, those.
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:18 amPeter, it’s rare to see an adult with such a rich fantasy life.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:19 amPay no attention to the man behind the curtain, AD.
Look! Over there, Rush!! Stimulus! Peace through Weakness!
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:20 amNot rare enough, Rob.
I’m just sayin’
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:31 amRob: And, seriously, if people believe something’s wrong, shouldn’t they oppose it?
Yeah, they should, funny though these are the very same people who gave Bush everything he ever wanted, no matter how poorly conceived or executed or big government and wasteful and fiscally irresponsible and lacking in oversight, with predictable results, yet now, shazam!! They’ve rediscovered all their “conservative” principles and “better ideas” and “integrity”.
I’m glad Rush Limbaugh is showing the way to be good Republicans. That fat windbag is a cancer on the party and they just sit and swallow his crapola.
Look I’ll even give you guys the way out of this mess. Find some balls, fins a middle way. Give the far right, beginning first and foremost with Rush Limbaugh the finger and be done with it, because let’s face it, they’re killing you guys. Learn to compromise and put the needs of the country over the party and some dead fantasy of endless Ronald Reagan grandeur.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:37 amPeter is full of vitriol and other forms of fertilizer today. But, as is normal among liberals, he is severely lacking in documentation, facts, historical evidence.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:41 amGood God, Peter, you really believe all that, don’t you?
Who called for regulation of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac?
Who blocked regulation of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac?
Ponder those questions, find the answers, and ask yourself why you’re demanding compromise only from one side.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:42 amPeter, more fantasies on your part. Republicans did not “gave Bush everything he ever wanted”.
Rob’s right – quite a rich fantasy life.
As for putting the needs of the country over party, that’s why the “stimulus” bill has nothing but Democratic pork eh? Like hundreds of millions in pork to buy condoms?
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:42 amAnd, yes, let’s detract by pigeon-holing and attempting to redirect at the most hated man in the socialist community.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:42 amIs that before or after our last President, John? Because man, they hated him and tried to block pretty much everything he tried to do. For the good of the country, natch. Whereas disagreeing with The One is treason.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:46 amMr Crawford, I’ll answer your questions since no liberal will. The center-left John McCain raised the alarm about Fannie and Freddie, saying the complete lack of regulatory oversight of those governmental agencies and their practices would result in a catastrophic bank failure. The Democrats immediately accused him of being racist. His anti-black colors were shining through and his alarm must needs be ignored. A few years later, after billions being pumped into Democratic coffers, Fannie and Freddie failed. The Democrats were quick to blame “greedy Republicans” for the failure.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:47 amYou know, I realize that this is a deceased equine I am hitting with a whiffle bat, but when I read someone write:
I just think about the voting records of the Senate over the past twenty five years for Republican nominated members of the SCOTUS and the Democratic nominated members of the SCOTUS.
Did Republicans stand in the way of Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Then look at the voting records—and the shameful comments, including those of the current VP—regarding, well, Alito and Roberts.
I won’t even bring up other nominees.
Actually, I do think that bipartisanship is important. But only when it means bipartisanship.
Otherwise, we are back to Inigo Montoya: “I do not think that word means what he thinks it does.”
I also love the “in times of crisis” argument. It wasn’t such a big deal in 2006 – 2007 regarding Iraq, I notice.
No, that was different.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:50 amPablo:
I think that Jon Stewart is confusing “treason” with “sedition.”
But your point is still accurate.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:53 am#34 Stellar numbers, those.
And yet they still managed to retain control……. imagine that.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:01 amComment by Peter — 1/28/2009 @ 10:37 am
If the VRWC gave GWB everything he asked for, why do we not hear of:
Justice Harriet Miers;
Social Security privitization;
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
I’m sure there are other, and even stronger, examples of your disgusting
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:02 amliesdistortions of reality, but I will leave that to others who have more time and patience.RoB: Who called for regulation of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac?
Who blocked regulation of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac?
You forgot to mention that it was the poor African-Americans who got loans that caused the economic mess.
Yet, how to explain Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch or scum-bags like Madoff, or the lack of proper over sight at the SEC or the treasury or the Fed.? Or lassiez-faire economics and the fact the “the market regulates itself.” or the creation of ARM and sub-prime products from banks that weren’t regulated by the COmmunity REinvestment Act? Or the loosening of fed. regulations over financial instruments pushed through by Phil Gramm (who thinks the economic downturn is all in our heads), and a GOP Congress in 1999 that spurred the creation and lack of oversight on an industry that happily screwed the pooch as long as they could get away with it?
Or the price of healthcare or the needless speculation in Oil prices that was a gift to the mega oil co.’s by the Bush/Cheney White House…
The Republican’s originated it, spurred it on and sent it into overdrive and they have paid the price and will continue to pay the price, no matter how much you guys try and obfuscate and confuse the issue, the American public knows who to blame and will continue to do so.
SPQR: As for putting the needs of the country over party, that’s why the “stimulus” bill has nothing but Democratic pork eh? Like hundreds of millions in pork to buy condoms?
That’s boldfaced lie, not that I’m surprised that you would resort to sleazy self-serving GOP AKA “the party of Rush Limbaugh” lies and distortion.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:18 amLiberal Media Bias: L.A. Times on Opposition Against Bush in ’01 Vs. Obama in ’09…
I was hoping someone would to do this eventually. From the Patterico’s Pontifications blog: Contrast: How the L.A. Times Portrays Republican Opposition Now, Vs. How They Portrayed Democrat Opposition in 2001 If you think Republicans and Democrats are…
Vocal Minority (0436bf) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:19 am#49 Peter, I agree with almost all of what you wrote. Well done.
‘cept this one little part:
“The Republican’s originated it, spurred it on and sent it into overdrive and they have paid the price and will continue to pay the price, no matter how much you guys try and obfuscate and confuse the issue, the American public knows who to blame and will continue to do so.”
They paid what price? And continue to pay what price?
Oh now I get it, they will have to get by with 3 cadilacs instead of 4….. *wah* *wah*
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:24 amAD: If the VRWC gave GWB everything he asked for, why do we not hear of:
Justice Harriet Miers;
Social Security privitization;
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Oh, my mistake. They only gave him 99.5% of everything he ever asked for, because the items you mention above (all in W.’s 2nd term) were just too egregious for them to consider either politically (and risk upsetting Rush Limbaugh) or were just too stupid on their face for even the Republican COngress.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:25 amCheck out where “that scumbag Madoff” sent his political donations. Or don’t, you don’t want your narrative being clouded by facts.
“Poor African-Americans.” There it is, racist remark. Race baiting. This is the self-same thing Democrats threw out when the left-leaning John McCain warned about the imminent collapse of Fannie and Freddie. John McCain was being racist in his inane sounding of the alarm. McCain hated blacks and wanted to harm blacks. That’s why he sent out the ridiculous alarm about the fully-stable Fannie and Freddie failing. After all, Fannie and Freddie were pumping billions into Democrat coffers. (Oops, Fannie and Freddie failed. Let’s blame Republicans for that.)
Also note the oil speculation and sudden rise only occurred after McCain gained the edge in polling data vs Obama prior to the elections. After the elections were over, the oil prices dropped back to a normal range. Coincidence? Since there was no proper oversight, we will never officially know.
Peter, you need to learn something about sites like this. Unlike the liberal sites you most assuredly enjoy, this site has people who are actually informed on issues and history and other matters. So you need to do more than throw out mindless talking points to carry any weight here.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:30 amOiram: Oh now I get it, they will have to get by with 3 cadilacs instead of 4….. *wah* *wah*
In the election booth 2008 and forever more if they don’t moderate and work with the DEMS and cut out the cancerous Rush Limbaugh and the too long coddled arrogant corrupt far right.
But, that’s not to say some truly egregious Right wing fanatic doesn’t rise up and stir up some vicious lies to create a scapegoat and take this country into a truly dark place.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:31 amAnd there’s that “Rush Limbaugh” talking point. Peter, your attempt at misdirection will not prevent you from being fully thrashed on your ignorance of facts. And believe me, you are fully ignorant of facts. You are also full of “If I can’t win, I will misdirect.”
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:32 am#54 Peter, do you really believe with the lure of money and bail out parachutes, that the Republican party can’t shake off a loony bin like Rush?
Guaranteed rebound by that bunch.
Funny thing is I’m actually rooting for it, as long as it’s done correctly and humanely.
This country can ill afford to have one party or the other in complete control.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:41 amAttacking, and demonizing Rush….
Right out of the Saul Alinsky play-book, right Peter?
Well, you’ve got a big job ahead of you with an audience of over 20M to convert to your socialist/anarchist/wobblie retro-progress.
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:42 amWhat did Rush do to you, Peter? Seems like somebody sees a bogeyman. This tsunami of stoopidity is fun.
JD (df39e3) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:43 amPeter, its a lie that the stimulus bill is filled with Democratic pork?
You’ve gone from a rich fantasy life to utter delusional.
Its amusing that you cite to Madoff since he gave so much campaign donations to Democrats.
You really don’t get out much do you, Peter?
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:45 amHitchcock: Check out where “that scumbag Madoff” sent his political donations.
Yeah, well he was living the Republican pipe dream of endless laissez-faire prosperity. It doesn’t matter who he was sending his damned political checks too. This town (NYC) is decidedly Democratic and sociopaths don’t give a rats ass either way.
Also, I think you’re mistaking facts with talking points and GOP twaddle. There’s a big difference although to give you some credit most of the people here do that too.
Rx: Avoid sanctioned Right-Wing mouthpieces and liars. Use your own eyes and think for yourself.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:46 amComment by Peter — 1/28/2009 @ 11:18 am
Representative Franks in 2003:
This guy is still in power making ( incompetent or corrupt ) decisions and nobody in his party has asked for his resignation. If the country comes first, Representative Franks should resign (or at least be asked to step down from his current position as head of House Financial Services Committee). I guess it has never dawned on the leadership of the democratic party to do so.
Pons Asinorum (61628f) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:46 am#57 Well, you’ve got a big job ahead of you with an audience of over 20M to convert to your socialist/anarchist/wobblie retro-progress.
…… and yet he still gets unfactored in discussions of the “Liberal Main Strem Media”.
20M…… that’s a lot.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:48 am“Avoid sanctioned Right-Wing mouthpieces and liars.”
Translation: Listen to who we demonize and immediatly dismiss any of their arguments or any facts they present. Refer to Obama’s campaign website or MSNBC for all your news and to hear the latest facts as presented to you by your government. If you disagree with any of what you hear you are simply a distraction and will be demonized also if you speak up. Reference Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin. Be on the good team and you can get away with anything, reference Blago, Barney Frank, Geihner, Dianne Fienstien, and the Clintons.
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:50 amThat is some rich, creamy irony right there.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:51 amConsidering the source (after reading many posts by the person in question):
Wow. Just wow.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:52 amWell, it’s because he’s not Liberal, nor part of the Main Stream Media…
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:52 amOther than that, you’re 100% correct; but still a semi-conscience, obsessed moron.
Peter and Mario are the only ones that think for themselves. They are enlightened. The rest of you are mindless sheeple that take you guidance from Rush. Haters.
JD (df39e3) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:54 amRush: What did Rush do to you, Peter?
He’s polluted the body politic with foul lies and self-serving ego-maniacal fecal matter. He’s a loud obnoxious liar that appeals to and encourages the fantasies of the weak willed, insecure, frustrated, lost, scared, angry and ignorant.
All for self gain. Ka-Ching!!
All to the harm of this nation. I want him to be compared to Obama, because side by side with the man it’s like watching Curly attempting to appear the equal of Einstein.
It’s endlessly hilarious and entertaining to watch an arrogant fool and liar make an even bigger fool and liar out of himself.
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:55 amOh yeah I love how they bring up Rush’s drug problem but completely blind themselves to the fact the new president snorted coke and smoked crack by his own admission. Fantastic.
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:56 amDon’t worry, the Obama Administration will make sure you’re getting the correct message:
(via Hotair)
The link to the story is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18011.html
James Carville appears regularly on CNN’s Situation Room. Paul Begala also appears regularly on CNN. George Stephanopoulos has his own ABC show on politics, This Week.
Truly, “accountability journalism” at it’s finest.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:57 am#67 JD?? Was it really that easy to convince you??
Welcome to the human race 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:58 amWhat the hell are you talkin about when does he lie? All he does is spout right wing political opinions. I guess if you can do enough blunt force trauma to your head where you can rationalize that any political OPINION other than yours is a lie then anything is possible. Get the hell over yourself.
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 11:59 amPeter is the classic example of that great New Yorker cover of the Center of the Universe, and the rest of the World west of the Hudson.
Hint: Life does not end if you actually enter one of the tunnels under the Hudson. You might actually find fullfillment in ‘Jersey, or the environs to the West, North, and South.
You could even travel to, say, Nebraska, stop, and look around, and not see evidence of any other human being less the road you’re travelling on.
Frightening, isn’t it?
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:00 pmEinstein
Einstein
Einstein…
Peter (e70d1c) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:03 pmSo can I just go around saying Obama lies just because I disagree that the “stimulus” bill will help the economy? Is that how your logic works peter?
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:07 pmComment by Peter — 1/28/2009 @ 12:03 pm
…and you meant to say?
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:12 pmOr, does the extent of your intellectualism only extend to posting pictures of famous mathematicians?
Another funny thought that just popped in my head is how this idiot is calling Rush Limbaugh a liar for airing political opinions, but yet Obama can pledge on national TV to accept public financing for his campaign and then break that promise when he found out he could raise a billion dollars and he is the risen savior of all mankind. WTF is this guy smoking?
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:18 pmMr. Pink – Don’t forget about his statement that he was not running for President immediately after being elected to the Senate, and then proceeded to do just that. Liar.
JD (df39e3) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:34 pmMike K.: He is over reaching and has only been in office a week.
No, he’s not. It is the GOP and the blinkered far right that over-reaching and he’s only been office a week.
I’m just watching all this as I would enjoy a well played chess game between two opponents who are vastly mis-matched. Yet, one of them arrogantly thinks the same old moves are going to work as they did before and doesn’t notice he’s having his ass handed to him.
Comment by Peter
I normally don’t respond to juveniles but, since this was directed to my comment, I will respond.
I see no facts here; just bluster. You might go back and check on Clinton’s 1993 tax increase vote. Here, I’ll help you. What was the result of that vote with all Republicans voting no ?
Remember 1994 ?
If Obama is right and this porkfest revives the economy, the Democrats will get all the credit, and that is as it should be since the bill contains every Democrat wet dream for 40 years.
But if it doesn’t…
Mike K (8df289) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:36 pmLet’s clear this up right now ..
It’s not “Liberal Media Bias” .. it’s “Democrat Media Bias“
Neo (cba5df) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:38 pm#78 JD, I think Obama lied about chopping a cherry tree back in 74. Don’t forget about that one!
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:38 pmYeah thanks for the trip down memory lane JD. I also seem to remember something called FISA.
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:41 pmAlso reference “I can no more disown Rev. Wright than my own grandmother”.
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:44 pmWell, it’s because he’s not Liberal, nor part of the Main Stream Media…
Other than that, you’re 100% correct; but still a semi-conscience, obsessed moron.
Comment by AD — 1/28/2009 @ 11:52 am
I see so if Rush was a liberal, spouting his mouth, off making a ton of money with 20 million listeners, then he would be part of the “Liberal main stream media”.
Gotcha 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:47 pmI don’t understand the tone of these comments from the left. We could debate the policies and that would be worthwhile. Back in 2003 and 2004, there were debates at Washington Monthly that I enjoyed and sometimes learned something from. That went away about the time of the 2004 election. Since then we have the sort of thing that Peter posts.
What about the stimulus package ? Bush proposed the bank bailout and it passed. The money went to banks, for better or worse.
There are ideas that might be really helpful in the present crisis. For example, we are not going to buy bad mortgages but what about a tax rebate for home buyers who pay 20% down ? Interest rates are low and should stay that way for a while. If we get the housing market going again, and it has picked up in December, that should help the distressed CDOs.
Second, the feds could enact a six month holiday from FICA. It would be costly but no more costly than what Congress is doing and it would put money in working people’s pockets right now.
Third, the capital gains tax, which is the highest in the developed world, could be cut. That is more of a Republican policy so it would be less popular.
Instead, we get this pork circus that some blue dog Democrats are balking at. Maybe they remember Marjorie.
And here we get nonsense about Einstein that is a waste of photons. What about a few adult comments.
Oiram, are you happy with this bill ?
Mike K (8df289) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:49 pmI will continue to say with absolute certainty MSM is not showing bias. Prove me wrong.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:50 pmSo Mario is cool with overt lies as long as his guy is doing it.
JD (df39e3) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:52 pmOh yeah I love how they bring up Rush’s drug problem but completely blind themselves to the fact the new president snorted coke and smoked crack by his own admission. Fantastic.
Hey Mr. Pink, Did Rush admit to his drug problem in his own auto biography the way Obama did?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 12:55 pmHow about this one Oiram. Rush and Barack were in different physical condition when they illegally did drugs.
THAT MEANS IT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!!one!
bonhomme (418462) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:00 pm#87 No JD, I’m not “cool” with it. But it’s a bit different when the lie in question is about whether or not a candidate says he is going to run for president or not. That kind of nitpicking is just ridiculous……. but I’m pretty sure your talking writing
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:04 pmmouth knows that.
bonhomme, it is very important not to fall into the trap that a need-based painkiller can develop an addiction. The need-based addiction is just as bad, if not worse than, the fun-based addiction, especially if the need-based addict is conservative and the fun-based addict is liberal.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:04 pmYou probably have heard of “security theater“.
This “stimulus bill” is an exercise in “economic security theater”
The politics of fear continues.
Neo (cba5df) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:06 pm#91 Three consecutive presidents did drugs, can anyone guess which two told us they did them?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:06 pmMario, did you just say it’s alright to lie about whether you’re running for president? I mean, heck, not nit-picking or anything, but when someone just gets into congress and immediately starts running for president while claiming he isn’t… and you’re okay with that?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:06 pmI like the need vs fun based differentiation. Barack was just slumming in needle-town, Rush was a resident.
TOTALLY DIFFERENT!
bonhomme (418462) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:13 pm#94 John, you mean to tell me you think that every person asked on the spot “Mr Blank do you have aspirations of being president someday” has told the truth?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:14 pmAnything on the public funding, or does the One get a do-over?
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:17 pmMario, you are trying to build a straw man. I do not give you permission to mow my lawn.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:17 pmAlso, if Rush were a liberal, I doubt he’d have 20 million listeners.
Notice the soaring triumph that was Air America………
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:18 pmIt’s not just fun for Oiram when his preferred politicians lie to him, he NEEDS it.
Oiram is Sheryl Crow
Lie to me
bonhomme (418462) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:18 pmI promise I’ll believe
Lie to me
But please, don’t leave
See, Mario demonstrates its vapid nature. In response to a direct question, it responds by questioning the honesty of all, when only the honesty of one is in question.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:19 pm#98 Gotcha John……….. just what I expected your answer would be.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:21 pmProbably not, but is this your defence for Obama’s lie?
Steverino (69d941) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:26 pm#101 See JD, when the honesty of the one in question, is something that is so commonly lied about or rather something that many greats have changed their mind about, partisan nitpicking can only be the description.
But after all it’s all about your “nehhretttive”. Sorry I can never get your spelling quite right.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:27 pm#103 Steverino please see #104
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:28 pmOiram is Sheryl Crow…
…and he proceeds to $hit everywhere and expect that it will clean up with just one-sheet!
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:28 pmIt is a vapid and obtuse waste of pixels.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:30 pm#91 Three consecutive presidents did drugs, can anyone guess which two told us they did them?
Comment by Oiram
OK. I see that you are not interested in issues. The lie that Bush did coke interests you more than policy.
I thought you were more serious but I see I was mistaken.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:33 pmSo, it’s okay for Obama to lie about running for the President because other people lie about it? Is that your argument?
Steverino (69d941) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:34 pm#106 AD, it’s funny you mention that “one sheet”.
As Green as I could be, I also thought the “One Sheet” comment by Crow was bizarre.
My butt needs at least 10 squares after listening to you guys.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:36 pmClose. It’s okay for Baracky to lie about it because Baracky is his guy. It is all about the D or R after the name.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:36 pm#108 No Mike, you’ve got me all wrong. If you had read above, people were giving hell to Obama for doing drugs. Especially in the context of Rush being castigated by libberals for also doing drugs. (Rush never wrote about it to my knowledge)
I simply felt the need to examine which presidents admitted doing them, Clinton and then Obama in his auto biography.
It makes no difference to me that Bush did drugs or not, that is not my issue with him.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:41 pmWhoa. You made the claim that Bush did drugs. Now you say it makes no difference. Are you always this cavalier with your accusations?
BTW, Clinton sorta kinda halfway admitted to using pot, but (to my knowledge) he never admitted to doing cocaine, even though his brother claimed to have done coke with him.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:44 pm#111 Close. It’s okay for Baracky to lie about it because Baracky is his guy. It is all about the D or R after the name.
Hey JD, do you examine as closely your presidential heroes to see how they responded, when being asked about running for president?
Especially years before running?
Do some checking, you might see that your sentence above might be framed at you as well.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:47 pmAbout that public financing, mario….
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:48 pm…… and yet he still gets unfactored in discussions of the “Liberal Main Strem Media”.
It took the Trollbot1000 less than 10 minutes to knee – jerk his way back to his tired meme of the past year. As predicted, right on cue.
Gotcha John……….. just what I expected your answer would be.
It fails to see it’s own senility and hypocricy, and all in less than a day’s posting. I now predict that Trollbot1000 will ask Petey for a reach – around, post haste.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:49 pmI do not care about the rest of them. If any of them lied, they should not have. That does not make Baracky any less of a liar. He also lied, yes lied, about public financing. And, FISA. And, Kyoto.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:50 pmMy butt needs at least 10 squares after listening to you guys.
Right – and…oh, forget it. It’s just too easy to watch him continue to beclown himself apace. When does the slaughter rule come into effect here? Can we ask the recently – defrocked coach about that?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:51 pmDmac – That was sexist, racist, and homophobic, all in the same comment. Bravo!
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:52 pm#113 So let me get this straight Steverino, you are accusing me of lying because I said that it makes no difference to me that Bush did drugs?
While I was telling you that Clinton and Obama also did drugs?
Did you and JD just come from a nitpicking convention or what?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:55 pmDmac – He is not beclowning himself. He is beshitting himself. It is a subtle, but important distinction.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:56 pmIn the Mario Unabridged Dictionary, nitpicking means pointing out where a Leftist is less than honest.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 1:57 pmAbout that public funding pledge, mario.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:00 pmSo let me get this straight Steverino, you are accusing me of lying because I said that it makes no difference to me that Bush did drugs?
If not a lie, at least a major clump of hypocrisy for bringing up the subject of Bush and drugs in the first place.
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:01 pmFirst you bring it up, then you declaim that it is not of importance to you.
That is the type of discussion that brings you the level of disrespect you receive.
Ummm.
Clinton never really admitted to doing drugs, remember.
He didn’t inhale.
Depending on the definition of “is,” I mean.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:03 pmYou expected me to call you on your attempt at straw-man? And that makes you better than me how? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:03 pm#116 “Trollbot1000” Cute Dmac.
The hypocrisy is that I can’t tell you how many times Liberal Limbaugh equivalents have been lumped into “Liberal Main Stream Media” by commenter’s here, as well as conservative talking heads in the *ahem” MSM.
I still contend that the definition of “Main Stream Media” being thrown around this room needs to suit an agenda.
That’s especially apparent to me when the likes of John Hitchcock, and JD expect The Los Angeles times to call Obama “disingenuous” in a non op-ed piece. Although JD apparently took his back (Thanks JD).
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:05 pmIs Oiram really firing up the “they did it too” defense for Baracky today? That’s all he’s got?
Very, very disappointing that he can’t defend the dirty socialist on his own merits and instead has to resort to one of the lamest arguments in the book.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:06 pm#125 Hey John, I never said I was better than you. I have no idea if I am or not. Nor do I care.
It’s apparent that you think you are though.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:07 pm“I can’t tell you how many times Liberal Limbaugh equivalents have been lumped into “Liberal Main Stream Media” by commenter’s here”
Oiram – Who are these equivalents?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:08 pmThere is not one single fucking ounce of integrity in this one. It is willfully obtuse or aggressively ignorant, neither of which are appealling characteristics.
Fuck that, Mario. I did not agree with you, and it is aggressively dishonest to suggest that I do. I laid out my position, quite clearly, and since you do not have the sufficient character to accurately describe my position, please refrain from doing so.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:09 pmIts inability to even acknowledge the meaning of the term MSM is the most obvious example of how willfully obtuse it is.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:10 pmNo, Oiram. Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of lying. Nice try to twist my words, but I’m much smarter than you are.
I said you were cavalier with your accusation that Bush had done drugs, since you made the accusation and then very quickly said it didn’t matter to you whether or not Bush had done drugs.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:13 pm#127 No daley, taking out of context is what you do isn’t it?
My original comment pertaining to this post could be found at #15.
Yes I am fired up with a “they did it too” defense when it pertains to someone here calling Obama out on his drug, use after reading an accusation by a liberal on Rush’s drug use.
That’s all I got. As JD only harps on known facts, like Obama actually lying about whether or not he is going to throw his hat into the presidential ring back in ’04.
Sorry if I’ve nitpicked, I’ve learned from the best……. JD, Hitchcock, Dmac, Daley, Steverino, Mr. Pink…… did I leave anyone out?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:14 pm“Especially in the context of Rush being castigated by libberals for also doing drugs. (Rush never wrote about it to my knowledge)”
Oiram – To my knowledge does not exactly sound like a very high standard. What did you do to ever check.
During his legal battle on the subject he maintained a large history on the subject on his website which would have been easy for you to view.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:14 pmWhat is this thing called “search,” Daley?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:16 pm“#127 No daley, taking out of context is what you do isn’t it?”
huh?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:17 pm#131 O.k. Steverino you accused me of being “Cavalier” with my accusations.
While I was telling you that Clinton and Obama also did drugs?
Did you and JD just come from a nitpicking convention or what?
Satisfied?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:17 pmPlus, he talked almost endlessly about it on his radio show,
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:18 pmbut we wouldn’t expect mariO to know that, because he never listens to the “MSM”.
Nitpicking means pointing out when an Obamatard is flying kind of fast and loose with the facts.
JD (446d75) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:19 pm#129 Let’s see. Oprah Winfrey comes to mind. Sean Penn, Rosie O’donnel, Leo Decaprio……. Do you really want me to continue Daley?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:20 pmAt least I can take pride in being declared one of the best.
Oh, heck, a mindless liberal fanatic called me one of the best. Nevermind. His/her accounting has no intellectual value as evidenced by the full weight of all his/her other posts. I remain as I was, floundering in mediocre anonymity.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:21 pmAbout that public financing pledge, mario.
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:22 pmOiram – I read your #15 and thought it was stupid because you were taking issue with Patterico using the exact words used by the LA Times. He is not their editor. If you have a problem with their choice of words, you need to take it up with them rather than Patterico, but it’s too bad you didn’t think about that before commenting.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:25 pmLeo, Oprah, Penn, Rosie have not been part of MSM convo so far as I know. Unless they have become anchors or reporters for some “esteemed” network somewhere I’m not aware of.
Seriously, Leo and Penn? Are you doing the same drugs as Penn pretended to do in “Fast Times?” Nobody, nowhere, no time, would ever call them MSM.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:27 pmYou completely missed the point of my post, Oiram. Please try to engage me on a more thoughtful level.
It doesn’t matter that you were mentioning Clinton’s and Obama’s drug use. You were cavalier in accusing someone else of using drugs, and then just minutes later saying that it didn’t matter whether he used them. Do you understand my point? Would you like me to use simpler words? Pictograms, perhaps?
Just in this thread, you have tried to rationalize Obama’s lying, news reporting bias at The Los Angeles Times (not editorial bias, we’re all fine with op-eds being slanted), and your own ill-thought accusations.
You’re carrying so much water for the Democrats it’s amazing you can move at all.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:27 pm#138 Sure you may see it that way JD.
Especially when your appauled that a Senator actually changed his mind about running for president.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:27 pm“Oprah Winfrey comes to mind. Sean Penn, Rosie O’donnel, Leo Decaprio……. Do you really want me to continue Daley?”
Oiram – They all have radio shows? Who knew?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:27 pmI think Oiram is overtaking Peter and EFP in the race for twatwaffle of the day, but there is plenty of time left to mark your ballots.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:31 pmIts not “stimulus”, its Democratic lobbyists wish fulfillment ie., the biggest set of pork earmarks in history.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:33 pmWe’ve got Oiram’s Daily Doubleof rationalizations as follows:
They did it too
You took it out of context
————————–
I predict the trifecta soon to follow!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:37 pmSlipping in that accusation about Bush doing drugs, then quickly backing away (“What, me doc ?”), then claiming it didn’t matter, is the sort of stuff you see in junior high. I guess I picked the wrong generation person to invite to a discussion.
This is all mindless reflex-level stuff we get from the Obamabots.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:37 pm#144 Steverino you are the one who needs pictures. The point I made earlier to, I forgot who (Mr. Pink, I think), was that comparing a man who admits to using drugs in his auto biography, is quite different than a man who only writes about wanting Obama to fail (Rush).
As long as the person above felt the need to defend Rush by calling Obama out on his cocaine and crack use (not sure about the latter), I felt the need to remind him of who owned up to their drug uses and who didn’t.
But let me make it clear, I could care less how much Coke (Obama, Bush), Pot (Clinton), or oxicotin (Rush) has done.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:42 pmWhat is Oiram point?
That one dude to sell books admits to naughty things in order to be provocative and while other who already sells enuff books and stuff does not need to be provocative?
OK, got me there! Obama had to be a bigger whore to get published whereas Rush has accomplished it based on his provoking intellect.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:45 pmProvocative in a admitting to doing bad things. Not provocative in an intellectual way.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:46 pmRush Limbaugh only writes about wanting Obama to fail?
bonhomme (418462) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:47 pmOiram’s mighty feisty today – must be slow traffic at the Slurpee machine this afternoon.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:48 pm#146……….. Daley….. Thank you so much!
No they don’t have radio shows do they.
So, I’ve been told by seemingly intelligent people here that “Main Stream Media” is defined as news organizations reporting the news. Of course conservative talk show radio does not tell us the news, they give us opinion.
Do you think Oprah Winfrey is part of the “Liberal Main Stream Media” just because she is on television as opposed to radio?
Yeah, I’ll admit, I’m looking for a “gotcha” moment Daley.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:49 pm#155 No actually the popcorn machine 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:49 pmOiram, you have been running this scam of attempting to redefine the term “mainstream media” for months. You hijack nearly every thread into the same repetitive and unimaginative nonsense. It got old about an hour into the schtick months ago.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:53 pmOiram, you really don’t read for comprehension, do you? I don’t care what your beef was with Mr. Pink. I don’t care what else you wrote. I was only addressing the fact that you made an accusation about Bush and then just minutes later said it didn’t matter. Do you understand how ridiculous that is? Do you understand how stupid it makes you look? But instead of owning up to your idiocy, you try to deflect it and talk about other subjects.
And now you’re back to accusing Bush. Nice.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:55 pmOprah is not MSM. She’s just a “star” figure in yellow-journalism-tv. Nobody here will classify Oprah as MSM.
What’s worse is the fact the obvious yellow-journalism rag National Inquirer actually gets more news items right than Oprah. How damning is that?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 2:55 pmAbout that public financing pledge, mario..
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:05 pm#158 SPQR, if it got old, then please for the Love of God talk Patterico, Rush and all of the other talking conservative heads to define it once and for all. Because I’ve seen it done countless times. I’ve even heard people refer to Hollywood Movies as “Liberal Main Stream Media”.
Please define it once and for all so that the ditto heads narrow their field of assault.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:05 pm#161
Refer to number coment #23
https://patterico.com/2009/01/28/inoperative-obamas-pledge-when-i-am-president-lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/#comments
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:07 pmOiram, that’s your excuse for hijacking threads with your little obsession for redefining terms?
Pathetic.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:09 pm#164 No SPQR, what’s pathetic is accusing me of hijacking a thread when I was addressed on a coment by one of your comrades Dmac.
Oiram – I don’t see anything here that proves that why is LAT mainstream media not Limbaugh MSM never heard of spellcheck what is nuance stop being obfuscating what is obfuscating.
It was coment #1 for God’s sake!
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:11 pmMainstream media — MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, newspapers, news magazines
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:17 pmOh, and PBS
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:17 pmYes, I added FOX to MSM because it is. But its centrist or center-right stance is like poison to the rest of MSM.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:19 pm#166 Clarification please John:
All programming on those networks are Main Stream Media?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:21 pmWhat is Oiram (sic) point?
The only point that mariO has is the one on the top of his head.
Mental-Midget Lawn-Darts anyone?
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:24 pmWhenever you read something that starts:
Emphasis added.
You need to remember that the rest of the statement is not about debate or illumination. It’s about argumentation. It’s a taunt to lead to more “slap and counterslap” style statements.
But that is the point here, I think.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:25 pmHere’s the plan, Stan:
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:28 pmWe award mariO the tratwaffleoftheday award, and then ignore it forever.
What about Malcolm in the Middle? Is that MSM? Re-runs of “That’s My Mama?” Give me the parameters, please.
carlitos (9e0bdf) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:34 pm#171 Eric, I was asking John not you.
But since you are talking to me.
You need to know that my argument from day one is that not everyone knows exactly what “Main Stream Media” actually includes.
If John tells me it’s “all programing” on the networks he listed in his definition #166, 167 and 168, then it is definitely the wrong answer to what many of the tribal leaders here claim MSM to be, thus proving my point.
If you don’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:34 pmProject much?
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:35 pmWhat about Malcolm in the Middle? Is that MSM? Re-runs of “That’s My Mama?” Give me the parameters, please.
Comment by carlitos — 1/28/2009 @ 3:34 pm
Depends on the agenda of the day carlitos.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:36 pmAs an aside, no Republicans voted for the stimulus package and 10 Democrats voted agaisnt it, but it still passed, 244-188.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:37 pmYou guys come down on me when it was Dmac who brought me up and my arguments on coment #1.
Nice
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:38 pm“…that not everyone knows exactly what “Main Stream Media” actually includes…”
And that is so much BullShit!
AD (ca3284) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:39 pmUnless, of course, you mean the two goatherders in that village south of Khabul who had their cable disconnected.
Oiram….Just STFU, and go away!
Yeah, and it was a farkin’ parody of your usual claptrap, Oiram. Do you even understand the nature of the word, or the context of the comment? I was parodying your expected threadjacking style that you employ on every…farking…thread. And you went for it, like a fly goes for sh-t on the side of the road. You are a ridiculous person – please go play in traffic in the middle of the highway at your earliest convenience.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:43 pmMario, it depends on what’s news in “news” doncha know. It also depends on what “is” is. Or does the definition of sexual activity include forms of oral sex or forms of auto-eroticism? What if that auto-eroticism is viewed by a known onlooker? Is that sex? What does “experimenting with drugs” entail? Trying marijuana 100 times without inhaling? Is that included in experimentation or is that actually drug use? Is it rape if the rapist is a powerful Democrat and the victim lives in a trailer park or is it just adult play? Is it a felony to suborn perjury all the time or is it only a felony if you are not a powerful Democrat? Is it treasonous to give away secrets to build intercontinental ballistic missiles or is it only treasonous to speak out against Obama? Is it a violation of Federal law to accept international money in election campaigns or does it depend on who does it?
I could continue, Mario, but your head is so thick you wouldn’t be able to answer any of my further questions honestly much less honestly answer these I have written.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:48 pmAbout that public financing pledge, mario…
Techie (6b5d8d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:50 pmSo, Dmac you parody me and expect me to just sit back and take it right?
It’s funny I’m still waiting for clarification from your comrade John on #166, #167 and #168.
He seems to know quite a bit and is insinuating that the networks he listed are all part of “MSM”, including all of their programing.
Careful Dmac, parody me and you might just get burned.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:53 pm#181 Sorry Techie, don’t know what you’re talking about.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:54 pmMario, as I stated before, you are looking for straw and I am still refusing to allow you to mow my lawn.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:55 pmHouse passes bill. Not one Republican vote for it. Way to go herd, I mean folks! Good job.
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:55 pm#180 No need to go further John.
I rest my case.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:55 pm#185 If the stimulus bill works, do you think the herd here will own up to it working?
I’m guessing the “Liberal Main Stream Media” will let the Republicans have a pass on being wrong.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:58 pmOh, you’re beyond parody.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:04 pmThe stimulus bill, as written, will fail. That is a guarantee. Gummint will require more stimulus bills, and I mean more than just one more. And they will fail, too. What we will end up having, if Democrats get their way, will be gummint owning everything and taxpayers owing everything. The fact no Republican in the House voted for it means the failed bill will rest wholly on the heads of Democrats.
The problem is MSM will figure some cloak-and-dagger way to blame Republicans for the failure.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:04 pm#189 Here’s hoping right John?
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:05 pmThis is way back up thread but a troll said Bush never compromised. WTF? His first two major pieces of legislation were both compromises. In 2000 Bush said nobody should pay more than 1/3rd of their earnings to the federal goverment. Final legislation had the top rate at 35% (or slightly higher). On No Child Left Behind, Bush wanted testing, with funding just for testing. The Dems wanted more federal spending on education. Bush ended up signing a bill that more than doubled federal spending on education.
The Dems were elected to lead. Lead means being out front. If you need someone to hold your hand at the front of the line you’re not leading.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:08 pmUnlike you, Mario, I do not hope for America’s demise when a President I vehemently disagree with holds office. I hope the socialist (and anti-Christian) desires of the President do not get passed. And when they do get passed, I know what those results will be. Those results will be bad for the country, bad for individuals, bad for society.
Do I want bad to happen? No. Do I want our socialist President to fail? Yes. Is there a dichotomy there? No.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:10 pm#192 Fine Line John, fine line.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:13 pm#188 Oh, you’re beyond parody.
Hey Rob can you tell me with a straight face that everyone who is respected here knows what Main Sream Media really is?
Especially after reading John’s response on #180?
Yeah, I’m beyond parody allright.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:18 pmIt’s only a fine line, Mario, if you can’t see the stark differences as I have written them. But that’s alright. You can’t see actual statements in your neverending search for straw.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:18 pm#195 John, you had a wonderful opportunity to shut me up on what people have been complaining about me for months. (one of anyways)
What the true definition of Main Stream Media is.
Seriously, if you had given me the definition that tribal leaders here have given me in the past, I would of shut my damn mouth on that topic forever, even if I was goated into it the way Dmac did on comment #1.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not putting you down for not knowing, it’s been my point since day one.
We all don’t know, and we all use that ignorance to our advantage. I see every party use it when things are not quite going the way they would like them to.
Oiram (983921) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:25 pmMSNBC news, FOX news, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN news, PBS news, newspapers, news journals (on air and in print), news magazines. And only you, Mario, don’t know what the definition of “news” is. Actually, Mario, I know you are trolling for some sort of way to sneak in and snark and misrepresent statements for your own straw-man trollish desires. And, yes, you are doing your level best to derail the topic at hand, which is the fact the Dog Trainer attacks Republicans while defending Democrats.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:40 pmWow.
Racist!
Sorry, JD.
It’s just about arguing, folks. That’s all. And the ironic part is how this person complains about having been taunted earlier…and then consistently uses language such as I just quoted.
Of course, I’ll be told that THEY did it to him FIRST.
Riiigggghhhht.
I have been following this person’s comments for quite a while, and…um…not so.
Whatever.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:44 pmOh, good Allah. This again? It is a broken record. No matter how many times it is explained to it, it will either play dumb, or be dumb, and pretend to not understand, or actually not understand. Plus, those non-typos are so annoying. Learn fuckin’ basic English grammar and spelling.
And the Twatwaffle of the Day goes to … Drumroll … Still a toss-up between Mario and Peter. Plenty of time left to secure the coveted prize.
JD (a6c07c) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:45 pmoiram:
Now there is your problem.
We read with our eyes, and listen with our ears. Our butts are not involved.
GaryC (ea4bfa) — 1/28/2009 @ 4:54 pmWhat Tribal Leaders?
EricPWJohnson (852352) — 1/28/2009 @ 5:11 pmI’m part American Indian, but I haven’t seen tribal leaders in a few decades. Maybe he’s talking about that, I don’t know.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/28/2009 @ 5:14 pmAw shoot, I was voting for Peter (loved his name-calling and rant at # 67) but I think I lost. Well there is always tomorrow…
Pons Asinorum (61628f) — 1/28/2009 @ 5:35 pmI think the Times editors are slipping a little. The somehow managed to allow a small kernel of the truth to slip past them
The One is not all interested in any actual bipartisanship – merely the image.
Stephen Macklin (f552f7) — 1/28/2009 @ 6:15 pm[…] L.A. Times, just because the Republican’s are “sniping” and ’stubborn” does not mean you are right about the stimulus/crap on a […]
Two stupid things: the Bailout and a military FAKER « Chockblock’s blog (725c82) — 1/28/2009 @ 6:37 pm[…] “Straight down the middle” reportage Presidential Humor | Caffeinated Thoughts pinged back with Presidential Humor | Caffeinated […]
I miss Bill Clinton! - UPDATED | The Anchoress (a05f7c) — 1/29/2009 @ 4:43 amDJIA end of session on January 4th 2007, the start of the Democratically controlled 110th Congress: 12,800.18*
National unemployment rate for December 2006: 4.5%
Federal Deficit for 2006 $247 Billion
GDP Growth 2006 3.4%
Average monthly GDP growth for 2006: 3.4%
toby928 (253a3c) — 1/29/2009 @ 12:27 pmWhereas all the Democrats who voted for it are rugged individualists.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 1/29/2009 @ 2:24 pm