So, if I understand you correctly gcoll, this is:
1. An invalid poll, because people dissatisfied with the result of the election are simply choosing the worst possible choice given, and
2. A poll that is only being reported on because it fits into the narrative the liberal media wants to portray.
Do I have that right?
Visit my Blog.
"Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP
OBLs anti US rhetoric was really a anti- capitalism and anti-colonialism mentality and the funny thing is if he JUST spoke his mind and tryed to gain political support through peacful means he might have changed some minds.
there is little question that the house of Saud was "given" Saudi arabia with the edect that they needed to keep the oil comin to us in the west, and we really didnt give a crap what kind of government they ran or how they treated their people.
And IMO there is little doubt that the Rs starting with Bush 1 started adopting some of the political strategys of the saudis in the states to pilfer the citizenry and raise the staus of the financial elite(which was another OBL claim).
why any of that being true or not led him to believe it was a good idea to launch terrorist plots is baffeling, as it diminished the message he was trying to convey behind the actions of a psycho, but trying to compare his rhetoric with liberals is a stretch.
Of course overall any act of protest is demonized by the corporate media, and when one nut in a large group does or says something crazy(in both protests), it will get covered to both demonize the movement and to get ratings. However from following it closely, I didn't see favoratism overall by the media towards one group or the other.
Of course you ha done channel endorsing the Tea Party, and another trying to co-op the OWS protests as part of the Democratic party...but overall I see a stark difference between coverage of the two.
Here'e a link to what I'm talking about: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...Bush_knew.html
And my point about the media was unrelated to the poll.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50jIRIf3fSwOriginally Posted by The Schmooze
This is just from a quick investi-google. But, that was the general coverage of the Occupy movement. They viewed at as this great grassroots collection of young people looking to make an impact on politics, and downright sick and tired of corporate greed.
Whereas the coverage of the Tea Party was confrontational and derisive.(except Fox News, which was very positive toward the Tea Party). They kept calling the Tea Party a bunch of angry racists. The shooting in Tucson occurred, and they spent about a week trying to blame it on the Tea Party. Even when evidence came out (that day) that Jared Loughner wasn't a Tea Party member, and was most likely insane, they still tried to link it to the Tea Party.
This was also seen more recently. The Aurora shooting. They tried to link that to the Tea Party as well.
Newsbusters isn't always the best source, but here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
There was actually a really funny thing that happened in the media. After months of bashing the Tea Party, when the Occupy movement rolled around, they started trying to positively compare it to the Tea Party.
Last edited by gcoll; 12-10-2012 at 07:38 PM.
hipĚpie also hipĚpy (hp)
n. pl. hipĚpies
A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.- check.
We know they were dirty. There was ample reporting on the lack of sanitation in the protest areas in New York, Boston, and other cities. So now we've checked off on the fact that they were dirty hippies, before we even take into considering the dude who took a dump on the police car.... nothing says class and intellectual integrity like dropping a deuce on a cop car.
In terms of those who didn't know what they were protesting, that's a simple google search away, and a plethora of pictures, videos, or articles will give you all you need to prove that one in spades. If a guy is wearing a "V for Vandettta" mask at a protest, well, I would have a hard time keeping a straight face, let alone actually engaging said moron in an actual discussion of issues.
I'd argue the occupy movement was granted far and away more credit as a movement of any value or benefit whatsoever than it deserved. As for the Tea Party, I feel the same way. The moment a birther sign or speech was made, they shoudl have cleaned that up right away. They did not. And anyone who supports Bachman, O'Donnel, Santorum, and the like isn't going to get any love from me.
OK I guess they were pretty much hippies according to Webster's definition, but the reports you heard of unsanitary conditions and that one dude(who may or may not have been in OWS) taking a dump on a cop car...further proves my original point. The media takes the most extremist stories and morons they can find, then try to link that to the entire movement.
They did the same with the handful of racists in the Tea Party. You take one person then try and link it to thousands of people. They also did the same in the 60s with the Vietnam war protests. Find the dude in a flower suit or the guy dressed as Hitler. That way outside observers miss the message, and think the entire group is nuts.
and OWS absolutely knew what they were protesting. It was written clear as day on their website from the early beginning. People had individual areas of focus, and many ideas on what to change...however the overall message was consistent.
No. They didn't with Occupy. The tone of the coverage was very positive. I posted that clip from NBC News. That reflects the tone of the coverage.Originally Posted by The Schmooze
Not on Fox News, of course. Fox News was as derisive of Occupy as the rest of the media was of the Tea Party.
I think it's tough for either of us to accurately define the total tone of the coverage of OWS and the Tea Party, but overall I believe you have both groups looked at pretty unfavorably, as with any group that protests the status quo.
I realize I opened up a can by claiming OWS' treatment was worse, but in reality it's difficult to define. I'll concede my point in that regard. There are certainly differences between both groups and how they were defined, covered, etc...I'm just not sure how it stacks up when you look at everything.
people will find any excuse to rabble rouse, that is nothing new, but the underlying principle of the OWS movement was by far the most insiteful examination of the hypocrasy of the plutocrasy that this country has ever mounted.
The market is based on risk.
that is a cornerstone of the "greatness" of the "free market" , cant be picking winners or losers right Rs?
so what did they do? they went High risk and lost, and then blackmailed the american people to absorb their loses.
See ,only we should be bound by any rules.
This is the incredible lie that you "free market" Capitalists refuse to acknowledge.
The market isnt free, and entities dealing within in the market are not bound by rules and engage in fraud ,trickery, larceny,bribery, insider trading,all day long.
when you support the market, all you are really saying is one day YOU TOO hope to gain access to the "platinum Club" and be able to lie, cheat and steal without reprisal too.
No. I am making two separate points.Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat
My point about the media paying attention to nuts has to do with the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" type stuff. When a Republican says something nutty, the media asks every single Republican to answer for it.
I think that might be due to some type of confirmation bias, or maybe some type of in-group/out-group type thing.
My point about the poll is that I don't believe that 49% of Republicans believe the election was stolen, any more than I believe that 50% of Democrats are truthers. I don't even think 50% of any group are truthers. I don't even think 50% of truthers are truthers.
Last edited by gcoll; 12-12-2012 at 11:03 AM.