And Then There Was Willard Mitt Romney

Umm... As distasteful as the fact might be Barack Obama is President of the United States. That alone guarantees him a spotlight in the various media outlets. Faux News certainly doesn't ignore him. Just kind of works that way with Presidents of the US. The First Lady, by virtue of her albeit unofficial position, also tends to have her own personal spotlight. In their day George Bush and Mrs B generated quite a bit of media attention as well.

Obama's allegedly being a Radical Muslim/Radial Christian//Communist/Fascist/anti-White Racist/Supporter of High Gas Prices/Un-American/Gun Hater/Foreigner, and possible Manchurian Candidate not to mention the Anti-Christ just adds to the interest. I mean that's a hell of a combination of stuff to find in one man not to mention a US President. Who wouldn't want the media to cover a guy like that?

If you feel the Obamas are being treated too gently by CNN or MSNBC or whoever I would suggest that you contact their sponsors, start a boycott or a signature campaign or something and attempt to rectify the situation. If that sounds like too much trouble, just kick back and listen to talk radio and watch Faux and I think you'll rarely hear an opinion you can find fault with. There are lots of people out there in medialand who agree with you and who are supportive of your ignorance, xenophobia, and fear.

 

I know It makes me sad. I loved Rick Santorum and actually thought for a while that he had a chance. At last, I said to myself, here was someone who didn't know how to use an Etch A Sketch. I would have loved to have seen him on the campaign trail against Obama. Theocracy VS Corporatism. But the money guys have spoken and now that Ricky is out of the game he means nothing to me. I have my crushes but I don't hang with losers. In a stroke the whole campaign has been reduced to an intramural struggle for leadership of the National Corporatist Party. Yawn. It's probably time to get back on Netflix.

 

You actually believe that Obama is one of your kind. It is pretty sad. He was propped up and owned a long time ago. From the start he had money pouring in from overseas. The so called small on line donation via computer is as an easy way to not only pump money into your guy but also get around election laws as are PACS.



In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anLDS9WWPQW8

During his 2008 election campaign, Obama managed to raise a whopping $750 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-set-announce-election-bid/story?id=13283111

 

You actually don't get how the media abused their power when they picked Obama to be president.

Washington Post ombudsperson Deborah Howell wrote a column in her own newspaper comparing the paper's front-page coverage of Democratic nominee Barack Obama with that of Republican John McCain.
Her findings? Examining stories from June 4, when Obama became the presumptive nominee, until Aug. 15, the Post ran 142 political stories about Obama, compared with 96 about McCain. As to front-page stories, Obama was 35 to McCain's 13.
What about photographs? The Post ran, during this time, 143 pics of Obama versus 100 of McCain.
The paper's assistant managing editor for politics explained the discrepancy this way: "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/percent-25074-obama-mccain.html

TV news election coverage of Barack Obama was twice as favorable as John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s coverage, according to the a new report from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) Election 2008 NewsWatch. Obama’s coverage was more favorable than any other presidential nominee’s coverage since CMPA began tracking TV election news in 1988.
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_12_2_08.htm

 

From a most liberal hollywood news outlet.
Yet even on Fox News, the study noted, McCain’s "negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost two to one." Also, the proportion of negative stories about Obama and McCain were identical at 40% of all Fox News stories about each candidate. And while Fox trailed other media in positive stories about Obama, the cabler reported more positive stories on Obama than on McCain — 25% vs. 22%.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994881?refCatId=14

Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal by the way directly is the second largest shareholder in Fox news and indirectly through private group investment funds may even own more then Mr. Murdoch. Never mind the shares members of his extended royal family have along with other gulf nation shieks. The Saudi's wanted Obama and did everything they could to get Obama to win. As for the manipulation of Fox news coverage they did just enough to down play McCain while not losing their base audiance. I am not taking politics for the Saudi's also loved the second Bush who somehow won two elections whereas few would think he had the brain power to win anything other then a drinking contest.

Anyone who thinks obama is for America is a fool. Anyone who thought the Bush family wasn't only taking care of itself and its good boy network is the fools brother.

It is more fun just posting pictures of obama then telling it like it is.

 

Hey people in this nation called Bush a conservative and Obama a socialist but if you ask me they seem to have the same spending policys as well as the same foreign policy. I think Bush tried to be a conservative at first economically but then just gave up and let his handlers run the nation.

 

I too enjoy a good political cartoon, and have even "liked" some of the ones posted by coin, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on our interpretations of what the cartoon is about. It may well be that to you the cartoon says one thing, to coin another, and to myself yet another. These cartoons may be political expressions, but by their nature they are also a form of artistic expression, and art is always subject to the observers interpretations. I'm sure you know all of that, but I just felt the need to clarify it a bit more lol

As for islam being a religion of war? Then war with it is unavoidable, but that's not my own belief. I'm not any more interested in going to war with a religion than I am on a war on terror, or drug. All will ultimately fail in the long run since they are not a war against a people but against an idea.

Besides, I have faith that the more moderate sects of islam are eventually going to denounce the more aggressive ones, in effect, the war may be mostly between the two.... with us backing the moderates. Again though, total victory against an idea isn't going to happen. As long as people exist, some form of aggressive idiotic religion is going to be present, that's just the way people are.

 

When you say you are you talking about me? Because if you are saying that I think that Obama is one of my kind you have been badly misinformed. If you aren't talking about me, never mind.

 

Well thank you, thank you... I'm glad I can be of service:



View attachment 408

 

My interpretations? The guy could be saying he "acted stupidly" for more than one reason:

For putting a bumper sticker on his car... or maybe that's his wife's car, and she wants the old sticker removed so the new "Obama '12" sticker can be put there.

Maybe his boss is a republican and the guy is just remembering what his boss told him as he ordered the guy to remove the sticker from his car or be fired. Yeah, that might be illegal to say, but maybe the guy doesn't want the hassle of a court fight in addition to the loss of his job.

Maybe the guy is saying he picked the wrong tool to scrape off an obviously old sticker. Old stickers are on there pretty good and using the right methods makes all the difference. From the looks of it he's using a wood chisel... not the ideal tool. It would be better if he used a scraper with a razor blade head, and had preheated the sticker.

Maybe the guy hit his head on the car as he bent over to remove the sticker and is chastising himself for being so dumb.

Maybe the guy is having a flashback to a time where someone had said that to him and, over the years, the comment is stuck repeating in his head over and over. I hope he's not a postal worker. He looks like a postal worker. Someone's mail may be about to get all bloody.

There are countless reasons that are possible, but one thing is certain: The sticker is old. It should have been removed shortly after Obam's victory. Also, the guy may wanna buy some better fitting cloths, unless he enjoys being referred to as "plumber-butt."

 

All good possibilities IQ! But what does the Fraternal Order of Police sticker say to you? I can't quite figure the logic behind including that.

 

You know Andy, citing 2 Right-wing organizations as proof that all the other media organizations are biased towards the Left might not prove your point as much as you initially believe. The Orange County Register is a well-know Right leaning rag. As far as the CMPA goes, they claim to be a nonpartisan organization while at least one media transparency group claims that they take 86% of their funding from "conservative leaning foundations". I guess the long and the short of it is, don't believe everything you read without knowing who wrote it and why. He said, she said eh?

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor. After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification," which concluded, "The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators."

Progressive organization MediaTransparency (now run by Media Matters for America, itself a liberal organization) documented that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation). The organization, which collated information from returns filed by numerous conservative foundations, claimed that 86% of CMPA's total funding came from conservative-leaning foundations. In response to Media Transparency's claims, CMPA posted on its website a listing of $1,766,500 in grants received from 19 "non-conservative" and centrist foundations and non-profit organizations.

 

I'd say the owner probably also has other stickers on the car like, "Proud to be an AMERICAN!", "NRA", and/or "Jesus is your Lord."

But there's a more pressing issue:

What it suggests is that the owner of the vehicle is a police officer, and that isn't necessarily true. It seems to me that only actual members of the police, and possibly former members, should be allowed to display such stickers. Why? Impersonating an officer.

 

was one of the three references I used out of many out there. I did not realize that thee Hollyword Insider News Source turned into a right wing organization. Do you think Sean Penn knows? Or just you.

 

You can always tell when the Right is losing an argument, other than merely seeing their lips moving I mean. They trot out the "Socialism" label or the "Communist" label. The fact is that if what they called Socialism actually was Socialism, it would be being practiced by almost every single western county on the planet.

Further, if you take your wealth and buy enough influence to make sure that all the wealth in the country,(at this point 90-95%) goes to the upper 1%, you aren't being greedy or corrupting the political system to favor your elite little cadre, you are just being anti-Socialist. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

 

was one of the three references I used out of many out there. I did not realize that thee Hollyword Insider News Source turned into a right wing organization. Do you think Sean Penn knows? Or just you.​

You might as well be wearing Ray Charle's glasses for when it comes to seeing the truth you are blinded by leftist doctrine.

 

Yep, you can always tell when the left is losing an argument. They immediately change the topic because they cannot handle the facts the right throws at them.

 

LOL.. what argument? Who is arguing? I'm just posting funny little snippets for your entertainment. You and your cohorts have entertained me here for so long, I thought I'd return the favor.

 

View attachment 409