So what's the deal with the Keystone XL pipeline project?

Are you kidding? He's not going to touch that subject with at 10-foot pole! RLM is right, also. The media isn't covering these stories, therefore most of the public has never even heard of them. By some miracle, if Obama mentions Keystone tonight, the public will think he's talking about beer.

 

Tangentially the sky is not blue. The sky is clear. Unless its cloudy.

 

You nailed that one!

 

You do realize why people call you a brown nose don't you?

 

If none of the media is covering the stories then how do people know about them? My personal opinion is that people claiming the media isn't covering something are mainly trying to avoid corroborating evidence or simply relying on conspiracy theories.

 

Really?

 

Those of us involved enough to have this conversation are not the ones needing to be aware of what the lamestreet media is not covering. It is those whose only news is from switching too early to watch American Idol, Entertainment Hollywood, Jersey Shore, etc. Their vote counts just as much as the knowledgeable.

 

That did not answer the question. If none of the media is covering it then who do you know about it.

 

If you care enough to dig, you can find the information.

 

Just where did I say "none of the media" was covering such stories? What I stated was that "lamestreet media is sure doing a good job of not covering them". Do I need to define "lamestreet" for you?

 

My original reply was to coinOKC who stated that none of the media was covering the issue.

 

See;

 

I didn't say "none of the media". Get your facts straight. Perhaps I should have made it a little clearer for those readers with cognitive disabilities by saying, "The media isn't covering these stories like they should".

For example, the media covered previous scandals (e.g., Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.) like they should, but they haven't covered current scandals (e.g., Solyndra, LightSquared, Fast and Furious) like they should. The media is, therefore, being disingenuous and "not covering the stories".

 

The libs get very literal when it suits them.

 

Why go back to Watergate, and Iran-Contra. You needn't go past Cain's supposed "scandal" that I still have not figured out. Or compare the violence documented at OWS versus that reported and compare that to the lack of documentation for the Tea Party compared to what has been reported.

 

You're absolutely correct. The Cain "scandal" got a lot more airplay than Fast and Furious. Does that tell you where the media's sympathies lie?

 

Have you even figured out what Cain did? I have heard a lot of "accusations", but not many facts. Just like the violence supposedly tied to the Tea Party, but I have yet to see proof that the Tea party has even not cleaned up their litter.

 

Why is it always the media's fault when they refuse to carry water for the Right? Isn't Fox News being completely in the pocket of the GOP enough for you guys? They are the most popular cable station after all. Isn't their overt partisanship enough for you guys?

 

No, everyone should be getting the truth not just the savvy right.

 

I am always literal when it comes to most discussions. Unless used carefully words don't really mean anything. I am a semanticist. I will remain a semanticist.

If your going to say the media isn't covering an issue then you need to specify where you are getting the information you are using. The source of the information is essential to determining validity Otherwise you are just ranting without factual support.