More slime on my former profession as liberal journalists planned ways to help Obama

• believer

  

  jhay78;429181 wrote:If a couple of KKK dudes stood outside a polling place dressed in white robes, uttering racial slurs and wielding a freaking nightstick, you and I and everyone else who watches more than 5 seconds of TV news would've heard about it and been reminded about it 3 times a day for the past 18 months, the perpetrators would've had the book thrown at them by the (In-)Justice Department, and it would be front-page, in your face reminders come November 2010: "Law enforcement officials are cracking down at polling places across the country to avoid a repeat of the hideous, scary, intimidating KKK incident two years ago." Every member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be foaming at the mouth denouncing what happened.

  Swoosh.....Nothin' but net!
• sjmvsfscs08

  
• stlouiedipalma

  All Clinton was able to do when Newt and the boys ran Congress was get himself re-elected. There are times I really wish that the Republicans take over Congress this fall. Then we'd get a chance to see if they really do have any workable ideas. Even if they can muster 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate it isn't the same as overriding a veto. If the Republicans do gain control of one or both chambers I can see 1996 happening all over again.
• believer

  

  stlouiedipalma;431954 wrote:All Clinton was able to do when Newt and the boys ran Congress was get himself re-elected. There are times I really wish that the Republicans take over Congress this fall. Then we'd get a chance to see if they really do have any workable ideas. Even if they can muster 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate it isn't the same as overriding a veto. If the Republicans do gain control of one or both chambers I can see 1996 happening all over again.

  
  
  The Repubs will take back the House kicking Pelosi's ass out of the Speaker's chair and back to being minority "leader" where she can do little harm. But the Dems will control the Senate by a much narrower margin. Reid's constituents in the meantime will send his ass packing and the Dems will be forced to find a new Senate majority leader who will be forced to work with the Repubs.
  
  How BHO fares after that will depend largely on if the Repubs have learned any lessons the past several years. We'll see.
• Bigdogg

  ccrunner609;432238 wrote:Do you realize that the bigger crime was commited when our own justice department didnt do anything about it? To just call it as a few whacko's is kinda like calling a hurricane a small rain cloud. The true criminals in this case turned out to be Holder and Obama.

  
  Fact Check disagrees with you and putting the blame on the current administration. Again, it is not a story that will sell any papers and only gets reported by Fox news for their own political purposes.
  
  http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Sorry, I'm am extremely skeptical of any "fact check" that is done by the media itself. Odds are about 8 in 10 that the folks doing the checking will have a bias that favors the left side of the political spectrum.
  
  The proper thing in this case would have been to take the case to court and see if there was enough evidence to validate the original findings. If not, the judge could simply dismiss the case.
• jhay78

  

  Bigdogg;432513 wrote:Fact Check disagrees with you and putting the blame on the current administration. Again, it is not a story that will sell any papers and only gets reported by Fox news for their own political purposes.
  
  http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/

  
  So, Obama's Justice Dept. can say "Don't go near a polling place with a weapon until 2012", but they can't pursue charges against all four individuals?
  

  The Justice Department, did, however, follow through with its case against King Samir Shabazz, concluding that his display of a nightstick at the polling place "supported the allegation of voter intimidation." The Department asked for, and got, an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012.
  
  Some may say the government was too lenient, that the case should not have been dropped against the three other defendants, or that the injunction against Shabazz should have extended nationwide -- not just in Philadelphia -- and for a much longer time (not just until 2012). Those decisions were made during the Obama administration.

  And I don't buy that it was Bush's justice Dept. who decided not to pursue criminal charges. The fact check article just expects us to take this at face value:
  

  Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed to PolitiFact that that determination not to file criminal charges was made prior to the filing of the civil case.
  
  In other words, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration.

  Sure Tracy, we all believe you.
• Bigdogg

  Yep shoot down the fact check with your own unsubstantiated bull shit. Feel free to present your own facts with the supporting evidence and then we can talk.
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;432536 wrote:Sorry, I'm am extremely skeptical of any "fact check" that is done by the media itself. Odds are about 8 in 10 that the folks doing the checking will have a bias that favors the left side of the political spectrum.
  
  The proper thing in this case would have been to take the case to court and see if there was enough evidence to validate the original findings. If not, the judge could simply dismiss the case.

  
  Odds are 8 in ten? Where did you pull that one out Rush?
• queencitybuckeye

  Bigdogg;432665 wrote:Odds are 8 in ten? Where did you pull that one out Rush?

  
  Probably the same place where you assume that because they named themselves "fact check", that it gives them automatic credibility.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;432665 wrote:Odds are 8 in ten? Where did you pull that one out Rush?

  
  One of the journalism biggies (Columbia or someone else) polled students/faculty on their beliefs and found that more than 80 percent were decidedly liberal. It's that poll I'm remembering. If I can find it, I'll link it. The results were hardly surprising; it just verified what anyone who had worked in the profession already knew.
• believer

  

  queencitybuckeye;432675 wrote:Probably the same place where you assume that because they named themselves "fact check", that it gives them automatic credibility.

  
  
  Of course it does. The "mainstream" media - despite the clear and obvious liberal bias - believes it knows everything we need to know.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;432849 wrote:One of the journalism biggies (Columbia or someone else) polled students/faculty on their beliefs and found that more than 80 percent were decidedly liberal. It's that poll I'm remembering. If I can find it, I'll link it. The results were hardly surprising; it just verified what anyone who had worked in the profession already knew.

  
  I imagine if we polled every major college football team's quarterback they would believe that the way to beat their opponents would be to rely on the adept passing skills of the quarterback and do their best Texas Tech impersonation. Nonetheless, why would their personal inclinations matter when they're not calling the plays?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  You're assuming they want to maintain objectivity -- which today's "journalism" says isn't the case. When people have a particular bias, even as journalists, they are going to end up framing stories in ways that follow what they believe. Some are much more blatant than others, but virtually all of them do it.
  
  Certainly since Obama, the media has made next to no effort to challenge almost anything he's done. They have truly been a lapdog press.
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;433019 wrote:You're assuming they want to maintain objectivity -- which today's "journalism" says isn't the case. When people have a particular bias, even as journalists, they are going to end up framing stories in ways that follow what they believe. Some are much more blatant than others, but virtually all of them do it.
  
  Certainly since Obama, the media has made next to no effort to challenge almost anything he's done. They have truly been a lapdog press.

  
  More facts pulled from the dark recesses of your underbelly. Still waiting for you to refute anything in the article by your so called liberal media.