The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

Rachell MadCow is totally biased. She hates anything or anyone that doesn't think like her. She's like a female Hitler, while Bill O'Reilly from what I can remember, gave Obama a mildly tough but respectful interview a few months ago.... the way an interview should be

...you should be questioning the Liberal pussy reporters ....

You should be ashamed of these idiots...

Now lets see if these idiot Liberal reporters are gonna do ...

Always with the name-calling. Why is that?

You think Maddow is a female Hitler and O'Reilly is respectful?

Comparing just about anyone to Hitler is shameful.

If you call interrupting Obama 48 times respectful, your standards are different than mine.

 

[RogueWriter]

I don't understand why you keep picking on Palin when others do the same or even worse. Instead of being obsessed with Palin you should be questioning the Liberal pussy reporters who do an excellent job when questioning Republicans and the Catholic Church (and rightfully so) but then go and ask Obama if his Golf Swing is improving or how Michelle's White House Vegetable Garden is coming along and other softball questions.

You should be ashamed of these idiots, not Palin

Exactly, but that does not fit within the parameters of verbsters political bias.

As for O'Reilly, even he was a little on the soft side. Big deal, one or two mildly non-easy interviews for every 500 softball pre-arranged 'interviews' ( if you can really call them that ) .

The only time I think the liberal media will truly be tough on Obama is near the end, when the media has to 'prove' their credibility so it is not questioned when they start asking Hillary softball questions, promoting her indirectly for the Presidency ( because "it's time for a female voting block ---err--- I mean a female President", doncha know ) .

One last point, while Oprah was busy fawning all over Obama back in 2008 in interviews on her show shortly before the election, Palin tried to get on the show as well; Oprah could have done her best to destroy Palin publicly, but she refused to give Palin a voice, would not interview her until after the election. She was afraid that Palin might make valid points, and Oprah couldn't have that now, could she, she wouldn't have wanted her audience to be exposed to information that conflicted with her personal bias.

Oh, and even though someone took away my thread tag, the left "still hates freedom".

 

[verbster]

Exactly, but that does not fit within the parameters of verbsters political bias.

I've always wanted to know what my personal parameters of political bias might be. Please enlighten me.

As for O'Reilly, even he was a little on the soft side. Big deal, one or two mildly non-easy interviews for every 500 softball pre-arranged 'interviews' ( if you can really call them that ) .

One last point, while Oprah was busy fawning all over Obama back in 2008 in interviews on her show shortly before the election, Palin tried to get on the show as well; Oprah could have done her best to destroy Palin publicly, but she refused to give Palin a voice, would not interview her until after the election. She was afraid that Palin might make valid points, and Oprah couldn't have that now, could she, she wouldn't have wanted her audience to be exposed to information that conflicted with her personal bias.

I have no idea why Palin wasn't on the Oprah show, but neither do you. The difference is you are willing to post completely groundless opinions like Oprah being afraid Palin might make "valid points" (like what?). Why do you assume it was Oprah's fault? It could just as easily have been Palin's fault. What makes you think Palin didn't present terms like insisting on a scripted selection of questions she could research before appearing that Oprah wouldn't agree upon.

How could you possibly know (or even assume) Oprah was afraid Palin might make valid points, which, using your assumptive logic, would be points that fall within your parameters but not mine?

How would you know what Oprah's personal biases are, and what conflicts with them?

Oh, and even though someone took away my thread tag, the left "still hates freedom".

People posting crap like "the left 'still hates freedom'" is beyond my parameters; however, as much as I may not agree with what you posted, it shouldn't be removed for undefined reasons. however, since you seem confident you know, do tell me what "freedom" the left hates.

 

[GILSAN]

If you call interrupting Obama 48 times respectful, your standards are different than mine.

Indeed my standards are very different to yours. I don't take crap from Liberals and I don't take crap from Conservatives, unlike you, who will close your eyes and ears to whatever evil the Liberals do.

Now lets talk about the Hollywood sickos, or is that too Politically Correct/Incorrect a subject for you?

Oprah is a nobody in my Books, even before she started kissing Obama's ass before the elections.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

As for O'Reilly, even he was a little on the soft side. Big deal, one or two mildly non-easy interviews for every 500 softball pre-arranged 'interviews' ( if you can really call them that ) .

The only time I think the liberal media will truly be tough on Obama is near the end, when the media has to 'prove' their credibility so it is not questioned when they start asking Hillary softball questions, promoting her indirectly for the Presidency ( because "it's time for a female voting block ---err--- I mean a female President", doncha know ) .

Exactly. Isn't it amusing that Liberals always forget about the 500 pre-arranged softball interviews, but they never forget the one, mildly non-easy interview by O'Reilly. How dare he interrupt the President 48 times, according to Verbster's count.

And you are right about the Liberal Media being a little tougher on Obama just before the next elections. Who are they trying to fool? the 53% who voted Democrat? Must be , because they certainly will not fool the rest of the population or Gilsan on this side of the Pond.

 

[Theo Goodman]

conservative and liberal media both do bias pre planned non softball interviews, amazing discovery. I dont think either does it more than the other.

 

[GILSAN]

conservative and liberal media both do bias pre planned non softball interviews, amazing discovery. I dont think either does it more than the other.

Because the vast majority of MSM is Liberal, that makes them the main culprits. They are the ones that do the most brainwashing, because of their sheer numbers.

When you talk of the main networks there is only one conservative (Fox) the rest is Liberal. Same story with newspapers, while Hollywood is the biggest brainwasher of all, where at least 95% are Liberal

 

[Theo Goodman]

the main culprits.

I donno about that, Rush has a huge following but still not considered "MSN" for example. Just because you are not "MSN" doesnt mean you cant do a cake walk interview, such interviews are not exclusie to msn or liberals.
These are the companies that own the "MSN" in the USA:

 

[GILSAN]

I donno about that, Rush has a huge following but still not considered "MSN" for example. Just because you are not "MSN" doesnt mean you cant do a cake walk interview, such interviews are not exclusie to msn or liberals.

The biggest brainwashers, are TV and Movies where it's easier to influence people and those two are highly dominated by Liberals.

Of the Big 6 Media giants, one can be considered Conservative (News-Corp) while the other 5 are Liberal.

No matter what you try to say, Numbers don't lie, but TV and Movies do

 

[RogueWriter]

How dare he interrupt the President 48 times, according to Verbster's count.

And a good question for verbster might be, how many times did Obama attempt to answer O'reilly's questions in a non-relevant way? Obama never answers the hard questions directly, he answers the questions he thinks he should have been asked instead. O'Reilly, like he does with every other interviewee, redirects his guest back to the original question, not settling for the bs answers that politicians give.

If Obama had answered the original question directly, he would not have been interrupted, even once.

The fact that Obama tried to re-arrange the questions 48 times shows you how much bs he is used to getting away with.

 

[DU]

But, you keep on with your crusade to make 80 year olds pay for birth control benefits, if that makes you happy.

Those younger pay for their viagra so it's only fair.

 

[Theo Goodman]

The biggest brainwashers, are TV and Movies where it's easier to influence people and those two are highly dominated by Liberals.

--Of the Big 6 Media giants, one can be considered Conservative (News-Corp) while the other 5 are Liberal.--

No matter what you try to say, Numbers don't lie, but TV and Movies do

I think the main problem here is the overurge to compartmentalize putting your mental ideas, groups, and people into compartments. This makes it very easy to have people to blame for every and anything.
What I mean is that it really depends on how you define liberal and conservative, sure News corp is pertty clear, GE owns nbc , I guess that is pertty clear too. Viacom is funny, BET and CNT - CNN = Liberal, sorry not in my eyes, the regurgitate white house lines no matter who is in office, and we could go on, but it is not as nearly black and white as you paint it. Again, republicans and fake libertarians often give crappy pre meditated "interviews" and go around hard questions at least just as much as "liberals". No the media is not dominated by "liberals" but a mix of conservatves and liberals that want to make money by playing on peoples black and white world view.

 

[DU]

I think the main problem here is the overurge to compartmentalize putting your mental ideas, groups, and people into compartments. This makes it very easy to have people to blame for every and anything.
What I mean is that it really depends on how you define liberal and conservative, sure News corp is pertty clear, GE owns nbc , I guess that is pertty clear too.

It's not as clear as even you make it. NBC, Fox etc all have their local market affiliates and because they are all in the business of making money they tailor their local programming (i.e. news) to match the demographics. You only have to watch local news in a few major markets to see the massive difference. Local fox news (not Fox News national) will be liberal or conservative depending on where you are and depending on how money is spent. Rupert Murdoch, for example, doesn't care about anything other than making money and being the last newspaper owner in the world. He could care less about American politics except when decisions can hit his pocket. I don't think he's liberal or conservative - he's just A1 sleaze.

 

[Theo Goodman]

I agree with DU
AND
I think the whole "blame the liberal media" a simple finger point knee jerk, and I dont even like Madow or whatever her name is.

 

[Theo Goodman]

 

[RogueWriter]

Had to grind my teeth in line once again last night. Lady had like 10 ice cream bars, 2 40 ounce sodas, spent five minutes trying to remember which brand of cigarette her man wants, cant remember so shebuys different brands, then pulls out the ole snap food card to pay fr the ice cream, candy bars and sodas. -sigh- She had the money to buy extra cigarettes. So not only do mytaxes go to her sugar fix, her childrens college education, etc, my taxes will also go to pay forher stupid healthcare when shegets diabetes or lung cancer.

 

[DU]

Half of it goes back in taxes on the baccy, I suppose, but I hear you.

More of my taxes go to middle class programs and defense spending though. I'm in that shrug.. what can you do ..mood.

 

[RogueWriter]

I guess one of the main reasons that irritates me is she is using the snap card for enjoyment. The purpose of a snap card is to help people in distress survive until they pull themselves back up into the middle class. Instead it has become this entitlement that -so- many people abuse. It is generational. I can remember people being ashamed about having to have it, they would travel to different cities or neighborhoods to shop, so people would not see them use it. Now they flip it out for soda pop charges, buying overpriced food at convenience stores, for God's sake. One study suggested as much as 4 billion each year is charged to the snap program for candy and soda pop.

The snap card should only work for vegetables, fruits, milk, venison and ground beef.

 

[GILSAN]

and I dont even like Madow or whatever her name is.

Just call her MadCow... much easier to remember

 

[RogueWriter]

I would enjoy watching a non-scripted debate between Ms. Clinton and Ms. Palin. I'm sure it would be very educational.

I would very much enjoy that as well, but I doubt that will happen. I don't think Hillary has the stamina to run and I think Palin is having too much fun remaining outside of the cubbyhole that dems try to put her in. Win or lose, I honestly think it would be a great representation of how different they are from each other; a conservative wanting business growth/reduced government spending/teaching people to help themselves against old school liberalism, buying entitlement freebies for her voting block. Very enlightening, indeed.

 

[verbster]

Just call her MadCow... much easier to remember

And only offensive on a few levels . . .