Story Comments
Posted by: pc25 1 year, 1 month ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
35%
pc251 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose,
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
He must be kidding right......story line more important than the ISSUES......-
71%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
83%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I supported America and everything it used to stand for before BushCo started raping the constitution. I supported the possibility of change instead of eight more years of the same failed policies. I supported a man who I believe will do more good for this country in one year (barring obstructionist Repugnant Cons) than Bush has done in his lifetime. That he was the 'winner' just shows that a majority of Americans felt the same way.
Reply-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
86%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um...the media prints and runs what people watch. If you didn't want to watch the dirty parts of the election to try and run constant stories about the filth and lies McCain threw out about Obama, then you would understand that people voted for Obama because he was better. Because he isn't Bush. Bush and Palin lost that election for McCain.
Reply
Now go to another thread and tell us how wonderful Bush is. -
-
80%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the MEDIA DIDN"T ALLOW DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUES
Reply
By the 'issues, ' Pc25 means, the Michelle Whitey Rant Tape, and the Norway API interview; and Misters Ayres, Wright and Rezco.
And all too often, the media ignored Obama's middle name ,
and his birth-certificate and the mystery-authors of his books!
They ignored these vital issues
treacherously allowing Obama to talk about the economy.
What is this country coming to?
Better things, apparently.
Way to go, Media! -
-
-
-
-
75%
djn3nunez31 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(After licking Scott's tears off the table)
Reply
Cartman: Ohhh, the tears of unfathomable sadness, mmm, yummy… yummy you guys!
http://www.dailynugget.com/2003/06/ -
43%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WaPo has been an unabashed left-leaning tool for a very long time, pc25. This is nothing new.
Reply
My family and friends write LTEs to the Post and Times, and the Post rarely prints anything that is not embraced by the left. The Times will print both, although some consider it right-leaning overall. I can actually point to specific examples where WaPo printed left-biased material based on bad data, if you're interested. But it sounds like you're already in the know.-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
80%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't claim to be unbiased but my opinion was based on the poster's statements--which are there in black in white for all to read. Meme seems to claim that one paper is more biased than the other based only on anecdotal evidence. Meme's observations and third person accounts are not ironclad proof that the Times is more moderate than the Post.
Reply
-
-
17%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There have been recent analyses on their biased actions--one showed a 10,000 attendee-Obama fundraiser on the front page, with a 30,000-attendee Palin fundraiser in an inside section, and even in the story on the Palin fundraiser, it quickly switched over and continued focusing on the Obama one.
Reply
Some memorable standouts are a piece based on claims made by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition which presented such badly skewed statistics as to make them laughable, and no one checked them out; an opinion again based not on available statistics but on partisan hype written by PG state's atty. Glen Ivey; and another stands out that was also based completely on partisan hype and not available statistics by MD Del. Currie. Remember that WaPo itself tried to get someone from the "right" on staff to self-correct its own perceived bias.
We're all biased. It's part of the human condition. (Or do you really think your endless ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and mocking are unbiased?) And I still read the Post and other major newspapers--I just know to look deeper whenever I read a story about something where I'm personally familiar with the statistics.
What makes it funny for me is I'm accused of being on both the right and the left because I don't glue myself to partisan platforms--I stick to issues.-
80%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think you fully understand the concept of bias, meme. Let's say we agree that the Post leans left and the Times leans right. Just because you *feel* that based on your research, the Post is more biased than the Times doesn't make it so. What criteria are you using to compare the two publications because it's apparent that you've been studying one publication more than the other. That's *bias* and that makes your research (as it were) tainted. Your approach to drawing a comparison is not methodical or scientific.
Reply
And you and Endo both have really poor reading comprehension. I never claimed to be unbiased but that's irrelevant because biases can't change facts. Your information was anecdotal. The fact that you've read some studies suggesting that the Post leans left is unremarkable. We already know that. What we don't know (based on *your* comments, anyway) is that the Post is more biased than the Times. You do not provide any compelling information to prove this other than your opinions and your research--which are based on your biases. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
62%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the "tilt" was just about nothing, as the article points out.
Reply
""""The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that."""
One should also remember that Deborah Howell is a right-wing neocon whose own actions at the WaPo included trying to cover up lies about Jack Abramoff, Bush lies about WMDs, ...
Deborah Howell and Fred Hiatt: Fact Free and Loving It
I go back and forth on the Deborah Howell conundrum -- ignorant or craven? I always find myself touching down on the Upton Sinclair quote:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
And so we find ourselves with Lil' Debbie, failing to disappoint with this week's excuses about last week's Fred Hiatt column:
.... Yes, we know you have a lot invested in your warmongering. It has no doubt paid the giant cocktail weenie bill for years. But the fact is that there was no reason for the president to believe Iraq was seeking uranium at the time. Do we have to go through this again? I guess so. ....
http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/15/deborah-howell-a... -
37%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well pc25, it is certainly true that there are monstrous issues that never get touched by our corporate media.
Reply
Obama, Emanuel and Israel
In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.
...Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.
...The profound loathing and hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States, which has always had its roots for America's unconditional support for the injustices inflicted and still being inflicted on the Palestinians, can fairly be considered the core of the primary foreign policy and "national security" problems confronting the United States in recent years. Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment? Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the ealiest opportunity?-
29%
ugagentorange1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When are the stupid Liberals gonna get over the fact that Bush did NOT lie about WMD's. There is a HUGE difference between bad intelligence (CIA and FBI provided Bush with his "lies") and outright lying. Grow up and get an education.
Reply-
89%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He DID lie about WMD when he said "We found them."
Reply
"Bush, May 29, 2003: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
http://zfacts.com/p/581.html -
75%
bruhaha1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He lied about them. We knew those aluminum tubes weren't for centrifuges. France told us that those mobile trailers were for weather balloons, not WMDs. Bush knew the Nigerian yellowcake story was bogus but he said it anyway.
Reply
Yes, he got evidence from the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Some of it said yes there might be, others said no. He ignored evidence that said no WMDs.
I'll call that lying.
-
-
-
44%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off "think tank", the Washington Institute for Near East Policy...
Reply
... it may well be salutary not to waste eight more days (let alone eight more years) playing along and playing the fool while more Palestinian lands are confiscated and more Jewish colonies and Jews-only bypass roads are built on them, clinging to the delusion that the charming Mr. Obama, admirable though he may be in so many other respects, will eventually (if only in a second term, when he no longer has to worry about reelection) see the light and do the right thing. It is long overdue for the Palestinians themselves to seize the initiative, to reset the agenda and to declare a new "only game in town".
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/07/obama-em...-
44%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Reply
Who pays your salary, hyperbole? It seems to me that you are so prolific on these pages that there is naught left for a 40 hour workweek. Just who is your benefactor?
Shall we now assume that you are adamantly opposed to Barack Obama?
-
-
75%
ADAGUY1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is no different than the efforts of the RNC and the GOP party leaders to blame Palin for their losing the election. I personally don't understand why they never learn from their mistakes. The GOP will continue to be a party of greed, and corruption, yet when they loose an election, they are always yelling "liberal media".
Reply-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
33%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Palin did not create the problem and this election has made her a star to the GOP. It is you on the left that could not stand a person who had moral principles and stood by them. All of the lies that your side created to try and destroy her shows what kind of people you are.
Reply-
-
-
-
25%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
That is not what all of the lies that were posted here and you amongst others had a rhetorical orgasm over them and later found out it was all a lie. Or did you ever find that out and just go on to the next lie posted here and repeat the orgasm again?
There were 1 to 3 stories posted here per day that were lies. Where was the outcry from the left that those lies were despicable. One had her banning books before they were published.-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dude, even though she knew she lacked experience on the National Stage, she failed to prepare for an interview with Couric and made a laughing-stock of herself.
Reply
"Where was the outcry from the left that those lies were despicable." It's not our job to defend YOUR candidates. -
-
100%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your post (and avatar) made me think of those on the right as chefs who repeatedly enter and lose baking contests because they keep using different variations of awful recipes. Cons will use ingredient they know taste disgusting and when their entries lose they'll say things like "Gee...we used the same rotten eggs we did last time. I can't believe that didn't wow the judges. Oh, well...Let's try again with a *new* batch of rotten eggs next time." ;-x
Reply
-
-
-
-
17%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy,
Reply
I'm an atheist, and I was horrified at the way this woman was treated based on her religious beliefs. I am a strong supporter of the first amendment, and I respect people's right to freedom of religion.
Overt sexism was palpable, including ugly anti-female epithets spewed at her. She had a total of 9 weeks to come up to speed, and I thought she did a fabulous job under stress on short notice. In fact, if Obama had only had 9 weeks to prepare, he would have been completely lost. She held up well, took the attacks, and was strengthened by them. I was very disappointed in Rick Warren, for publicizing what should be a private matter when an individual consults the clergy. She was hit on all sides.
I may disagree with her moral principles, but I admire her for holding fast to them. And so many ugly lies continue to circulate about her. And I think some females can be harder on other females than the most vitriolic sexist males can be.
What's funny is people keep saying Palin weakened the ticket, but all the Repubs I spoke with really like her and think McCain is a little too much of a RINO. I think he was hurt most by his association with Bush.-
67%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm an atheist, and I was horrified at the way this woman was treated based on her religious beliefs."
Reply
--Still claiming to be "independent" huh? How was she mistreated based on her beliefs?
"She had a total of 9 weeks to come up to speed, and I thought she did a fabulous job under stress on short notice. "
--Boo hoo...Who's fault is that McCain chose someone who needed to be brought up to speed in the first place? Who is responsible for that?
"In fact, if Obama had only had 9 weeks to prepare, he would have been completely lost."
--Uh...Are you medicated? McCain had the GOP nomination back in JANUARY. Obama didn't finish his race with Hillary until June. What was McCain doing all those free months that he was stuck with a candidate he needed to bring up to speed in mid-September? Oh wait...I just remembered. Palin was a spur of the moment decision. Nevermind...
"She held up well, took the attacks, and was strengthened by them."
--Yep, you're sounding more "independent" by the minute. What about all the filth that bird-brained Alaskan trollop slung at Obama? Get serious. ;-( -
-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
82%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OMG here we go again. The same routine by the Alpah Tomatoes as after 2006. Waaahhhhhhh they didnt publish our lies, Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh they didnt buy our spin Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh they didnt let us smear Obama. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh hes been President ELECT for almost a week and the proiblems hes idneitifed havent been fixd and the "liberal" media isnt exposing him as a fraud. Wahhhhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhhhh
Reply-
27%
ugagentorange1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another splendid example of Liberal debating skills. After 8 years of whining, you would think you would be a little more understanding, especially since this is all payback. Better prepare yourself for alot more mudslinging at Obama the next 4 years. Lets see how Liberals enjoy the whining and crying now. Maybe you Liberals can give us some pointers??
Reply
-
-
62%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, it could simply be a reflection that McCain was a worse candidate than Obama. McCain struggled to differentiate himself from the policies of Bush and caved to pressures from the neo-conservative ranks on several of his 'maverick' stances. In the final analysis, the McCain campaign was mostly about negative attacks and 'staying the course' rather than a new direction for the country. This is not only evident is his ads, but in campaign stump speeches delivered by both McCain and Palin. Lots of jingoism, lots of Obama attacks, nothing substantially new policy-wise.
Reply
Palin was also a heavy drag on the ticket after the early novelty wore off. It became clear early on, Palin was merely window dressing meant to 'energize' Republicans and carve off a portion of Clinton supporters. When she failed to prepare for interviews and present herself as something truly serious, McCain's judgment came into question.
It is not the job of the media to make up positive stories for the sake of 'fairness' when the content simply isn't there. -
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
80%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't need to do better with your self-evident idiotic comments, and the misfits, losers, and remaining discontents who still support an agenda that has finally been laid to rest 6 feet under, where it belongs.
Reply
The neocons like you will go by the way of David Duke in time or join their heroine, Sarah Palin in Russia ... well it's near Russia. ha. Good riddens.
-
-
-
loading ...
Klarissa
DaneL
CactusAnnie
nostalgia
normallysilent
jimdoze
BBcamaro
KayleeSowdenc
Wolfie2007
dbe928
corl64
DenCuddy
Secret_Asian_Man
juvel
dissent
GWHayduke
PsychoHosebeast
tchef
bonaroo
TFL
mesodude
dunkirk
Spadecaller
cushi
sumptuousdigs
hamy
bruhaha
Goppy
jovial
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.