This is my first attempt at blogging. but I feel as though I have to put my thoughts down on paper (so to speak) . As an American that is very proud of my country, with all of its warts. It is still the best and most desirous country in which to live in in the world. When I see the way the mainstream media being admittedly so pro Democrat. I feel this is exactly the way our elementary teachers told us in the sixties how the Soviet Union used the mass media to influence people and not tell the whole truth but present the facts as they wanted them seen and to select the truth based on there agenda and the agenda that they choose for us to see. The only difference in the two is that our media is controlled by corporations (and there talking heads that decide what is best for us to see and know) .Where the Soviets owned the media and there government decided what was best for us to see. Shame on you Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson to name a few, your obvious choice has lessened your value so much and you have shamed the journalism profession because you can't or won't control what is reported or not reported by your people. This is something that most Americans know is happening now and are very upset about it. Americans fear there is a serious threat to freedom of speech and thought by your selective reporting of Obama and Biden, its just like in the fairy tale the "EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES" you just continue to report what you think America should see, even if we can see he has no clothes on. Your reporting is so bias it is appalling to see it benefit Obama positively and is so negative to McCain. Anything that you and your reporters have determined shouldn't be important, (sounds like what Nixon said about Watergate).Example : Joe Bidens incompetence that you continue to ignore (this man is a heartbeat way from the presidency also),and Barack Obama's terrible lack of judgement in picking him. Sarah Palin had the courage to say what all of us have been saying for along time, I just wish she had said it to Tom,Katie and Charlie and you might have taken it seriously but then again I forget YOU know what is best for America to see. (more to come)
`signed; AMERICANFREEDOMWRITER
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Awesome. I get to be the first commenter. Let me start by saying, I'm so glad you've decided to start a blog. And I can't wait to thoroughly fisk (blog term) every post. I hope we can construct a good dialogue here in the comments, though I certainly don't want to infringe upon your blog. I shall start with my next comment.
Watch this video (http @ bottom). This is the real truth. Yes, the media is bias. Both parties are just pawns for the "Illuminati". They know who they want to win and they use the media (because they own it) to make it happen. NOTHING will ever change unless we have monetary reform. That means getting rid of a debt based system by abolishing the IRS and central banking system. Untill then all points are moot. As long as we argue rep/dem we are just playing there game that keeps the eyes off of them. Ron Paul R-Texas is the only potential candidate to speak this truth. Just my $0.02.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=money+masters&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=the%20money%20masters%20full&src=3
wow. I'm going to assume that you are not a troll (if you are: yay, first troll), but rather misguided . The IRS is a revenue collecting body, with no control over /raising/spending (and no real control over anything, since it is a congressionally created entity). The federal reserve system is something every industrialized country relies upon, and its effects have helped created the wealth that this country has enjoyed for the last centruy and a half. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
No, i am not a troll and i'm going to assume you didn't watch the video. "misguided" How exactly?
Fact: the Federal Reserve isn't federal and there are no reserves. It is owned by PRIVATE bankers(Rothchilds, Warburg, Rockerfeller, J.P.Morgan,ect.). Fact: your federal income tax (collected by the IRS) goes directly to pay the interest on the money the feds created from thin air and then loaned our gov.
Fact: the money to pay the interest comes only from more loans at interest. So, there is no way to get out of debt. That is why we have a national deficit of over 10 trillion. 3.81 billion per day and counting.
"effects have helped created the wealth that this country has enjoyed for the last century and a half" you mean like the great depression and the current situation? Do you enjoy giving you hard earned money to bankers? Do you enjoy paying 360k for a 150k house?
"federal reserve system is something every industrialized country relies upon" Yes, every nation is under the central banking system. Thats the problem.
Here's how money is created.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=money+as+debt&hl=en&emb=0#
The media is no doubt in the tank for the almighty Obama.
Example: Obama said he would participate in public financing if John McCain did the same. He said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." He lied. He decided to be the first candidate in a general election to opt out of the primary system. He has raised $600,000,000. If the shoe was on the other foot the media would be going nuts? We would hear that McCain and his rich white friends were buying the election. How could McCain lie about receiving public financing? How could we let him have a 30 minute paid program in primetime without a response? There would be hearings before Congress. We would hear daily about how unfair this is and that the system is broken. Instead we hear how good of a fund raiser Obama is and how much America must be behind him.
Another example: A 20 year old was robbed with a knife to her neck by a black man today and after he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car he beat her up and carved a “B” on her face. I know most all including democrats think this is terrible. This must not be newsworthy though because the NBC Nightly news didn’t mention a word of this tonight. I didn’t see any of the other broadcasts but I doubt they had anything on it either. I’m sure they chose not to mention this because they didn’t want to sound racist. Once again put the shoe on the other foot. A black woman robbed by a white man and having an “M” carved on her face. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. would be on the news for the next 2 weeks ringing that bell and the major networks would keep the story on the frontlines. I think we can all agree that both scenarios are terrible, why the media would treat them differently. They should call a hate crime a hate crime. The media has completely lost all credibility and they are doing whatever is necessary to get their guy elected.
Terrible.
Jeremy,
No I didn't really have 3 hours to watch a movie about what one can gather in 20 minutes on wikipedia. But, your description of the federal system is accurate, but leaves things out. Such as other revenue raising (taxes and T-bills). Taxes do not come through (though they might have originated in)the fed. The federal debt is in fact a product of borrowing too much money. But that's a political problem in which the Government continues to spend/borrow more than they take in in taxes/bonds/tariffs. Meanwhile, (economically speaking) I pay 150K for a 150K house. But because of the time value of money, that 150K looks like 360K. But I got to live in the house for that 30 years instead of saving up 150K. So yes, I do like it. And there was a 80 year gap of properity b/w the Great Depression and today's market turmoil Depression
Scott,
OK, I get it. You like being an economic slave to bankers that control the globe for their own profits. That are moving us towards a New World Order. That's cool. No real change. Just bring up the next puppet. I can lead you to the water but....
But I digress, the original bloggers point was that the media is unfairly covering reps (negatively) while not covering dems with the same scrutiny. Just for the record i do not subscribe to either reps or dems. I do see his point and think he is correct. With that being said you have to ask "why" and "how". To say that dems are going to win the election because of it gives them (media) too much power. With that logic they put reps in the last two elections. Maybe it's just enough to influence. I don't know. Even dems have to concede that it's unfair coverage. The main point i'd like to make here is the "Big Ten" are owned by corporations, the corporations are owned by big bankers, and the big bankers are the feds. Follow the money up the chain of command. You are NEVER going to get unbiased news coverage from the media. The internet is the last bastian of truth and you still have to be critical of it.
Vince,
The lady could have did it to herself. The "B" is backwards. I'm just sayin.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/mccain-volunteer-says-mugged-b-carved-face/
Maybe i can appeal to your religious nature.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6945496607417862803&ei=ff4BSZ7BEImwrQKYhVg&q=)national+debt+to+whom+we+owe+it&hl=en
While checking out Joe the plumbers tax history and finding out how much Sarah Palin's wardrobe costs, who has time to think about Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Acorn, "Spreading the wealth" or the 4-5 scenario's Biden thinks Obama will be tested with? The only way, Obama, the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in history can even be compared to McCain's 40yr. record is bias. With a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation, Russia, etc. conservatives cannot believe how close this election is. With a financial advantage and a media advantage, Obama's lead is ever shrinking. Hopefully, and there is plenty of hope, substance will win over style.
Not only is there an obvious and undeniable lean toward the unsightly goal of an elected liberal Obama in the words of American Media's talking heads. even more startling is the result of select polling in this nation to reflect somthing other than fact. it is done to discourage republian turnout in the face of 'hopeless defeat', and to encourage dems and independants to vote so they can all be a part of this bold new movement for "change". Simply so an elitest who's words are greater than his resolve and integrity (somthing the Media can identify with) can weild this position of power as per there preference.
But don't take my word for it....few will argue the bias of sources like CNN who are known to lean left, and it shouldnt be much of a surprise that I've written off Gallop after finding that they seem to track hand in hand with CNN.
some will tell you the Real Clear Politics is a reliable source due to the fact that they average a number of polls to reach their final figures.
in the event that the vast majority of the nations polls made available are biased to the left, averageing the lot of them would only give you an average as tainted as the polls from which they are drawn.
however the investors business daily affiliated TIPP shows numbers that differ from the Rassmussen/Fox, Gallops, Real Clear Politics polls made so readily available on national media.
they show Obama with a rapidly shrinking lead that is currently 6.3 points smaller than the R.C.P. national average.
for those not familiar with the TIPP, their poll in 2004 predicted G.W.s victory within 3/10 of a % point despite national pollsters showing Kerry leading prior. not many Media outlets will carry this data; you have to search for it..
perhaps they'd rather you feel the election was stolen when the election results dont match the polls leading into the election simply for the story
in a close election media & polling bias are simply trying to give an election to the candidate they favor. and doing a damn good job. god forbid they make a donation like everyone else, and report actual events and legitimate data free of bias
OK so example no. 2 turned out to be a crazy person. I forget that those are out there. I'm just glad I had 2 examples listed.
I love Ann Coulter! Clearly a few of these poll dates she found are nearly a month before the election, but make up your own mind.
"Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.
In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.
In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.
In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.
In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized."
Post a Comment