What we learned. Actually, it’s not news to me. This kind of one-sided media bias has been on full display for a very long time.
I am sure Sen. Edwards would agree with you (rolling eyes…)
Under the Constitution its the media job to explore the character of those running for office. What do you think the first amendment is about? Its up to the voters to evaluate such charges and if they are even important.
And its nothing new despite Newt Gingrich’s claims. Stories on claims of sex scandals have been going on since the birth of the republic. Look at the charges made against Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson when they were running for office as examples.
I am sure Sen. Edwards would agree with you
Are you posting this from some planet where the media exposed Edwards as soon as the National Enquirer reported on it, instead of doing everything they could to ignore it and cover it up for months? Or are you just nuts?
Gee, he was sure in a big hurry to grab that Tar Baby wasn’t he Rand?
It seems Thomas has decided not to return to this thread. Good on Thomas recognizing the first rule of holes.
Unlike several folks here I work for a living and its the start of a new semester. Yes, faculty work on weekends, especially where they are authoring new online courses.
Yeah Puckett, Matula sometimes is a little slower at getting his work done and needs more time.
You really drank deep from the Fox News kool-aid didn’t You? You actually believe there are leftists under every bed. Pity you missed the good old days of tail-gunner Joe.
Spoke too soon. I see the poster-child champion lead paint-chip eater for 1979 is back!
Someone has to provide a balance to counter Rand’s right wing rants.
And you claim you are a Republican…….[drevil]Riiiight[/drevil]…….
OK, so you’re doubling down on the insanity? Because that’s the only possible explanation in the real world.
You seem to have left the real world a long time ago in terms of political beliefs, given that you claim to have voted for both Jimmy Carter and Ralph Nader.
Yes, we’ll never forget the day ABC News the Enquirer broke that story, or how ABC News Drudge-Report broke the Clinton scandal…
Under the Constitution its the media job to explore the character of those running for office. What do you think the first amendment is about?
So since the media has completely failed to do its job vis-a-vis Democ rats for the last half-century or so, we can abrogate the “freedom of the press” clause as being a dead letter, yes?
Under the Constitution its the media job to explore the character of those running for office.
I couldn’t find that in my copy, but taking your word for it, I just issued an arrest warrant for everyone employed by The Weather Channel, National Geographic, E!, ESPN, and the Home Shopping Network for failing to perform their Consitutionally required duties. I will see them all rot in jail, if not hang.
I guess you come from the Christine (I am not a Witch) O’Donnell school of Constitution scholars
And what investigative reporting did the media do on Clinton’s character back in 1992 when he was running for office? How about for most of the 8 years of his presidency? The main media outlets did nothing about John Edwards until the National Enquirer broke the story and they couldn’t cover for him any more.
They only exposed Gary Hart when he effectively dared them to. How about the “Waitress Sandwich” by Senators Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd?
When you’re a Democrat, you can get away with just about anything as far as the Press is concerned. Only a bald faced liar or an idiot would claim otherwise.
If you think you are able to do a better job you are free to become a journalist or even start you own paper. If the current press is doing such a bad job you should have no problem being successful at it
new parlor game – how many logical fallacies has Thomas made THIS time?!
I have a life. I didn’t go to journalism school to “change the world.”‘
If you start noticing errors in your bank statement or retail checkout receipt, you’ll be concerned. If the errors are all in the favor of the establishment, you’ll know you’re being ripped off. The Press is incredibly biased and it’s blatantly obvious to anyone who doesn’t share their bias or have a room temperature IQ. Is it too much to expect them to do their job, which is to report on both sides evenly? Apparently so. As the JournaList example shows, a lot of so-called journalists are little more than the propaganda arm of liberal politics in general and the DNC in particular. And then they wonder why their print circulation and TV viewership is declining. It’s like what someone said about Fox News, “They discovered a niche audience – half the country.”
All press outlets are biased one way or another. Its human nature and its foolish to believe otherwise.
That is why you NEVER depend on a single outlet for news, especially political news. The great thing about the Internet is you are able to scan multiple sources and develop a much more balance view of the world. But you have to make the effort to check more then one news source…
Oh, and I forgot to ask, but how much did the Press investigate Obama’s character before the 2008 election? Even on electio night, they were admitting they didn’t know anything about him. It was their job to find out and they didn’t.
The Press should be glad there aren’t any media malpractice laws out there.
Guess we had to elect him to find out what was in him…
There were many stories about his background in Chicago, law school, experience, etc. You just had to take the time to look for them. Which I did and which was why I voted for Senator McCain. Its not my fault you folks don’t take the time to do any research before you vote. Then cry and whine about who you get in office.
So at what point did the media, whose job it was to explore character, do any exploration of Barack Obama’s? I don’t seem to remember the half-hour interview they did with his drug dealer (very interesting, after all that “Bush is a cokehead” stuff they were peddling around), I don’t remember seeing the expose’ on Obama’s grades, or his behavior in college, or interviews with his ex-boyfriends/girlfriends.
Did the Framers only intend “Freedom of the Press” to work when it helps Democrats?
The Constitution does not oblige the media to do a damn thing.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Gore.
How many of the sex scandals there can you even -name-? Edwards made it into the spotlight – well after his primary chances were done, and it was via the rags, not the vaunted New York Times – who confirmed that they knew about it but “Didn’t want to influence the race.” Clinton’s scandals in office were covered also covered in an after-the-fact, who-cares-now? sort of fashion. “Boys will be boys, but isn’t this sort of stuff primary material? It’s a little to late to care….”
What bias? I’m sure none of Obama’s water-carriers in the media ever voted for Bill Clinton.
I’m waiting for stories from His law school students from the University of Chicago, His Ponahou High buddies, His Occidental College classmates, the girls or guys he dated at Columbia, from the staff of the Harvard Law Review, the guys who sold Him His nose candy, and all sorts of other people who dealt the Community Organizer in Chief before His Ascension. You’d think in our Facebook, 5 minutes of fame, tell everyone your innermost secrets culture we’ve created, some of those people would come forward with some juicy detail. Where are they? Enquiring minds want to know. Instead we are treated to warmed over non-news about Romneys tax rates and Gingrich’s well know serial marriages.
On the other hand, maybe none of those people exist and He really is the Messiah.
“He really is the Messiah.”
This nonsense again?
How can you sit there using your internet enabled computer, the greatest information retrieval system ever devised by humanity, and proclaim your lack of knowledge?
Google what you want to know. It works. For example, try searching on “Obama’s former students”:
And don’t stop at the first result. The first result will probably be relevant, but Google tries out different algorithms on different populations, so the first one will be different for different people.
You asked “where are they” and the answer is “They are on the internet”. Why haven’t you seen them before? Well, do you just read rightwing blogs? Maybe they aren’t in the rightwing echo chamber you read (if this is the case for you) because people generally have nice things to say about Obama, things that the echo chamber wouldn’t be interested in.
See, look at all these juicy details:
You know, I bet there are nerdy engineers who read (and post to) this very blog who are just as boring as Obama….
I see the SOPA blackout is over, and bob has the ability to function again.
Hey bob, I tried this: http://www.google.com/search?&q=obama's+ex+girlfriends
I ended up with Larry Sinclair. Perhaps bob could look him up in wikipedia and tell us what he finds? What does factcheck got to say?
I think you are bonkers.
“Public records and court filings reveal that he has a 27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit.”
Sounds like interesting information, bob. One would think a fair review would be an interview of Larry Sinclair by ABC News with opposition information such as what you found. Yet it hasn’t happened. Ever.
Hey Bob, remember when people discredit Paula Jones. Perhaps you can look that up on the internet. Let us know the juicy details you find.
Oh, and when you get around to it, maybe you can find Obama’s ex girlfriends, since you told Raoul that such information is easily found on the internet. Come on bob, we have faith in you. Find the information, and get back to us. Careful on those juicy details that are NSFW.
Even you, Bob, must know that Barky wasn’t a professor, but an adjunct lecturer — little more than a glorified TA. That makes Wonkette’s source seem a bit lacking in either intelligence, honesty, or both
Wonkette’s source said: “2. There is no “lecturing” in a law school, and anyone deriding Prof. Obama for his “senior lecturer” title is a fool. Law school classes are participatory and interactive, whether through the formal Socratic method or through more informal conversation. ”
Find me one person from the University of Chicago law school (or who otherwise would be equally knowledgeable) who disagrees.
You’re just playing on the semantics of what the word “lecturer” is. Obama was not a tenured professor. His formal title was “Senior Lecturer”. Whether not in his position as a Law school “lecturer” actually entailed the act the lecturing is moot. And whether what his formal title was and what people informally referred to him as is insincere. And this is not a talking point engineered by the wingnut echo chamber. This was a claim made by the Hillary campaign during the primary.
And is nothing more than someone’s anecdote of a women that played pick up games of soccer with him? Oh, and they had discussions sitting on the steps of the library, “like all the other students do.” And the other link link just reinforces people perception of him that he really doesn’t take the Constitution very seriously. The student writes 100 pages with his interpretation of the federalist papers and Obama tells him to forget all that and just worry about saying and doing what it takes to get things done in the “real world”; how enlightening.
Whether it is moot or not depends on what point you want to make. The point that he was a “glorified TA” is refuted by the source I listed — Obama taught classes in a demanding educational environment. But you are right that this is irrelevant if you want to make the point that he didn’t have the same status as a tenured prof. However, there is this official statement from the University of Chicago Law School:
Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.
That statement is oxymoronic. Being on the tenure track is what distinguishes professors from lecturers.
Actually there are lots of faculty with the title of professor that are not on the tenure track. You really need to move beyond the 19th Century European view of education you seem stuck into the 21st Century.
Wonkette’s source said: “2. There is no “lecturing” in a law school
Then why do law schools have lecture halls?
You know, I bet there are nerdy engineers who read (and post to) this very blog who are just as boring as Obama…
Nice narrative there Bob. Our community organizer in chief is… boring. If you doubt it, just google away. See?
Are you sure you want to stick with that? Many of your fellow socialists are going the other way: “The media has been SO unfair to him! If they’d just lay off him we could really get some things done!”
Though I guess you could do both. “He’s really just a boring, likable guy. It’s the media that has portrayed him as something he’s not.”
I need some aspirin.
The media has done much worse than that. Have you ever wondered why I am so angry and bitter all the time? It’s because, during what should have been the best years of my life, the 1990s, the media and Hollywood, in service of Clinton’s Communist regime, began a pogrom against gun owners.
Not surprisingly, this put the end to my chances of marriage and children. Keeping in mind that single women were and are overwhelmingly Democrat, my chances of getting married in that climate were about equal to the chances of a Jew marrying a German in Nazi Germany. The Democrat operatives specifically instructed single women to demand that their boyfriends get rid of their guns, and if they didn’t, to report them to Democrat HQ to be put on Clinton’s illegal list of gun owners.
There are no other males in my family, other than one adopted line which really doesn’t count. Essentially, Clinton and his media and Hollywood supporters exterminated my family.
Good thing I got married in the eighties…
I hope you can find love.
And if that single republican women site doesn’t do it for you (because you are a libertarian), try this one:
The common theme here: if you want something, go look for it (and since you are already on the internet right now, google it.)
Well, I appreciate the help. I realize it was well-intended.
Unfortunately, I have changed in the meantime. I wouldn’t be very attractive even to the rare Republican woman any more. Seriously, what would I put as my interests? “Stalking Democrats online”? “Trying to agitate Republicans into a right-wing revolution”? This isn’t a moby thing, as many people seem to think; it isn’t even online hyperbole on my part. This is really who I am, and it’s pretty much all I am. I’m 44 years old and I’ve never even had a girlfriend. That in itself would pretty much be a dealkiller for most women.
But I do appreciate the attempt.
Aw, c’mon. Yes, agitating for a revolution and stalking Democrats (like me) is indeed unattractive to many people, but the internet has been wonderful for linking up people with unusual interests. Generally, if you are interested in something, there is a place on the internet for meeting people with similar interests. (Once you find these people, please do not actually violate any laws or hurt anyone, even Democrats like me.)
As for your age and dating history, I think you’d be surprised at how unimportant that is once you find the right someone. A lack of dating history means that you are prone to making the first-time mistakes that most people make in their teens and 20s, but so what? And your age itself is fine — there are tons of women in their 30s and 40s who are looking for someone your age, and some of them might even like you.
Give online dating a shot. Or, join a church. Or join a tea party group. Please don’t join a gun club. I know you didn’t want a pep talk, but look, this is blog full of people who would like to go make money on the moon. So cheer up, shoot for the moon, and find a nice girl.
….and don’t shoot Bob!
The good news is people actually are becoming more and more aware of how the media distorts the news (thus raising the status of all other sources.)
The bad news is that the big lie continues to work.
Comments are closed.
©2001-2013 Transterrestrial Musings | Powered by WordPress with Easel
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑
Switch to our mobile site