Reply With Quote
Don't forget what was said about the situation in Seattle either!
According to Joe Scarborough, his colleagues at MSNBC booed the Prez during a State of the Union address.
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories...hs-state-union
Don't forget what was said about the situation in Seattle either!
Corso's gonna have to talk... to the ol' ball coach... after that one.
Corso.
The mentality of the liberals/conservatives now-a-days is kind of scary, because of the disunity, almost reminds me of the 1850-1860's. I'm sure Conservative groups/newsgroups have booed Clinton or Obama.
Without a doubt. See Limbaugh, Rush "America Held Hostage"
But when a supposed "non partisan" en y like the media, which is supposed to only report the news in a non-biased manner chimes in on one side or the other, don't they influence the overall landscape?
I think the demographics have already been influenced enough through other means for them to favor or lean towards one side of the spectrum so when it comes to the news or what type of TV in general you watch that deals with politics, social and world affairs I think the people watch what they believe in, so Republicans will watch Fox, because it's familar and they'll watch CNN or MSNBC to ridicule/laugh at it and vice versa for Democrats.
IMO I think the only non-biased news group/station is PBS World Nightly News with Jim Lehrer. He just gives you the facts and some comments/analysis, nothing else.
Bingo. Divided we stand and only the sheep refuse to realize it, preferring to blame the other end of the political spectrum.
and what is so bad about booing this incompetent president?
Those of us who have chosen this profession should do our best to show as much objectivity as possible and we owe it to our readers/listeners/viewers to be as fair as possible and to seek out the truth, whatever that may be.
And plus, it's simply idiotic for those of us in this profession to think we can get away with not doing so. This profession is under so much scrutiny nowadays (and that's good) that we ourselves need to apply the rule of "assume nothing" to any of our actions.
The problem is many "seek out the truth" as they see it.
Not necessarily as it is.
I wished that they would just publish: Who, What, When
and Where. Or report it on the TV. But many don't. And
some just omit anything that doesn't agree with their
agenda. By that I mean, they don't really twist the facts,
just don't report all of them.
Perfect example of how the White House uses MSM as much as anybody and why they might hear some boos:
Bush claims over and over how much of the future hinges on the Petraeus report.
With it's very first mention, anyone with half a brain knows immediately that this is a blatant lie.
It's simply another inclusion to their pathological history of deception and collusion.
a blog is supposed to be biased, no?
I was using it to reference what went on in the newsroom.
Interesting question, what would you call an unbiased blog?
I have seen such things, but not in the same ways. I have heard booing for statements from those on the left, not just for the person.
People on the right with very few exceptions give those they dislike respect. I would say the left disrespects the right by about a 10 to 1 margin. There are those on the left will actually go as far as assaulting those on the right. Then, how many of the left complain about their ilk doing things like throwing stuff at Ann Coulter?
Aren't those on the left suppose to be the party of tolerance?
ing hypocritical cowards.
I suppose the left was responsible for lynchings and Jim Crow. That's a lot of respect.
Funny how current KKK members in congress are from the left. Funny how over 80% of the republicans voted for the Civil Rights laws of 1964, and far fewer democrats.
Yep... the right owns the Jim Crow laws...
Well the party of the left sure doesn't support the
blacks that have run for office under the dimm-o-craptic
party banner. They have thrown several under the bus.
Also may I ask any blacks we may have on here and even
some of the hispanics Why do you support the
dimm-o-craps? They were in power for over 40 years
and they keep saying they are going to support you in
your causes and still all the stuff goes on and on and on
and on that you are against. It isn't the Republicans doing
it to you. It is your dimm-o-craps.
Funny how a senator from south carolina filibustered the Civil Rights act. Funny how the majority of racism in this country is in the South, which are all red states.
Who are Hispanics supposed to support? The part that wants them out of the country? The Democrats haven't treated either side as well as whites, but they've treated them better than the Republicans
Red states now, but weren't they blue states in the 60's?
Yeah. You're the one that brought up Republican vs Democrat. I said right vs. left in response to your original point. Just cause they were Democrats in the 60s doesnt mean they weren't conservative and racist.
Makeup of the congress in 1964:
Funny how both senators in South Carolina were democrats. I guess you meant a republican from S. Carolina mounted the filibuster? What an awesome trick!
Ever check you facts before contracting that foot-in-mouth disease?
Makeup of the 1964 civil rights vote, from wiki:
Oh look above. The house had 94 southern democrats to 10 souther republicans. The senate had 21 douthern democrats and 1 southern republican. Yep, that sure is a red state when you liberals wear those rose colored glasses dipped in propaganda.Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
By party
The original House version:
* Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Links:
88th congress
110th congress
1964 Civil Rights Act
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-18-2007 at 04:22 PM.
Conservatism and rascism are not partners. Regardless of left/right leaning, the democrats have always been the party that attracts more racism in the upper levels.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
