(06-22-2012 10:22 AM)Max Power Wrote:  It just kills me how cons are all up in arms about the Zimmerman edit (which got an NBC producer fired) and this, all the while this has been Fox's standard operating procedure. Watch the video clip I posted-- they did it THREE TIMES on the same day as Mitchell's edit (which was wrong too).

How do you figure Shepard Smith and Greta van Sustren are liberals? I've seen their shows and they sure as hell don't strike me as liberal. Though maybe that's because Smith doesn't really give his opinions but is more of a talking head.

Chris Matthews "It's My Job to Make Sure Obama's Presidency Works"

Oh yea MSNBC is *clearly* less biased than fox..

I prefer to take all major media outlets with a grain of salt. They all have their own version of Roger Ailes pulling the strings.

(06-22-2012 11:00 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 10:22 AM)Max Power Wrote:  It just kills me how cons are all up in arms about the Zimmerman edit (which got an NBC producer fired) and this, all the while this has been Fox's standard operating procedure. Watch the video clip I posted-- they did it THREE TIMES on the same day as Mitchell's edit (which was wrong too).

How do you figure Shepard Smith and Greta van Sustren are liberals? I've seen their shows and they sure as hell don't strike me as liberal. Though maybe that's because Smith doesn't really give his opinions but is more of a talking head.

Chris Matthews "It's My Job to Make Sure Obama's Presidency Works"

Oh yea MSNBC is *clearly* less biased than fox..

I would prefer a biased journalist doing so than politicians making sure Obama's presidency doesn't work because a journalist can't make legislation(or filibuster legislation) to make sure the president fails. Politicians can.

(06-22-2012 11:14 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I would prefer a biased journalist doing so than politicians making sure Obama's presidency doesn't work because a journalist can't make legislation(or filibuster legislation) to make sure the president fails. Politicians can.

This whole idea that republicans are interested only in making Obama fail requires an assumption that I'm not willing to concede because I don't believe it to be appropriate. The idea is that Obama is trying to make things better, and republicans oppose him because they want to make things worse so Obama can fail.

I'm not a republican, but I happen to believe that the things Obama wants to do are exactly wrong, and I believe a lot of republicans agree with me. If you are convinced that what Obama is trying to do is wrong, and will do far more harm than good, then aren't you duty-bound to oppose it? How is opposing what they other party wants to do different from what has always happened?

I will accept the argument that if you oppose it, you should try to compromise. Back in sixth-grade civics, they taught me that was supposed to be the essence of the American political system. But I haven't seen anything approaching a legitimate effort to compromise from the leadership of EITHER party. On ANY issue. And one party certainly cannot do compromise by itself. The most obvious example to me is Bowles-Simpson, or alternatively Domenici-Rivlin, which were truly bipartisan attempts to identify ways to close the budget deficit and start to address the ballooning federal debt. And yet, have you seen any leader of EITHER party making even the slightest effort to bring about either one? Any effort, no matter how slight? On any issue, perhaps since the days of Clinton and Newt and triangulation? I certainly haven't.

I also thing far too much is being made of the comments from certain republican leaders about wanting to make him a one-term president. Weren't the leading democrats saying the same thing during Shrub's first term? For that matter, weren't republicans saying it during Clinton's first term, and democrats during GHWB's and Reagan's, and republicans during Carter's, and so on, ad infinitum? I don't recall any opposition leader EVER saying, "He's from the other party and we want to help him get re-elected." Until I do, I'm going to take any comments about "making him a one-term president" as nothing but typical partisan rhetoric.

(06-22-2012 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 11:14 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I would prefer a biased journalist doing so than politicians making sure Obama's presidency doesn't work because a journalist can't make legislation(or filibuster legislation) to make sure the president fails. Politicians can.

This whole idea that republicans are interested only in making Obama fail requires an assumption that I'm not willing to concede because I don't believe it to be appropriate. The idea is that Obama is trying to make things better, and republicans oppose him because they want to make things worse so Obama can fail.

I'm not a republican, but I happen to believe that the things Obama wants to do are exactly wrong, and I believe a lot of republicans agree with me. If you are convinced that what Obama is trying to do is wrong, and will do far more harm than good, then aren't you duty-bound to oppose it? How is opposing what they other party wants to do different from what has always happened?

I will accept the argument that if you oppose it, you should try to compromise. Back in sixth-grade civics, they taught me that was supposed to be the essence of the American political system. But I haven't seen anything approaching a legitimate effort to compromise from the leadership of EITHER party. On ANY issue. And one party certainly cannot do compromise by itself. The most obvious example to me is Bowles-Simpson, or alternatively Domenici-Rivlin, which were truly bipartisan attempts to identify ways to close the budget deficit and start to address the ballooning federal debt. And yet, have you seen any leader of EITHER party making even the slightest effort to bring about either one? Any effort, no matter how slight? On any issue, perhaps since the days of Clinton and Newt and triangulation? I certainly haven't.

I also thing far too much is being made of the comments from certain republican leaders about wanting to make him a one-term president. Weren't the leading democrats saying the same thing during Shrub's first term? For that matter, weren't republicans saying it during Clinton's first term, and democrats during GHWB's and Reagan's, and republicans during Carter's, and so on, ad infinitum? I don't recall any opposition leader EVER saying, "He's from the other party and we want to help him get re-elected." Until I do, I'm going to take any comments about "making him a one-term president" as nothing but typical partisan rhetoric.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mitc...2D&first=0

(06-22-2012 12:19 PM)RobertN Wrote:  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mitc...2D&first=0

Are you implying that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid would have said something materially different with respect to Shrub at any point during his presidency (with the proviso that during the second term it would have been oriented necessarily toward electing a democrat rather than a republican to succeed him)?

What I heard from them was pretty much the same thing. If you heard something different form them, that's what you need to be linking, not this.