First lady gets booed

[Sub-Husker]

... however it's safe to assume that Southern conservatives attending the race aren't big fans of liberal Democrats.

 

Or moderate Democrats or conservative Democrats.

 

Or moderate Republicans.

[carlfense]

I noticed that and I think that was a wise thing to do. That said, lumping WND in with actual journalism is a mistake.

 

I'll take it a step further.....What is actual journalism?

 

Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC? MSNBC, owned by GE, that doesn't pay taxes, run by Obama's Job Czar. It all makes sense.

Actual journalism? It's a great question. I always get a good laugh when someone tries to tell others what is and isn't actual journalism as if their opinion is some kind of authority on the subject. The lines have been so blurred that it's hard to trust any source that doesn't have some kind of agenda driving what they have put out. Personally, I can't stand any of the major cable new outlets for TV. Newspapers are no different. All I want out of my news is facts, what happened, period. Don't give opinions, editorials, the Five, Hannity, Ed, Maddow, yada, yada, yada. Just tell me what happened and let me figure out my own opinion. The thing is these days people want to be told what to believe, thus the popularity of O'Reilly, Maddow, etc. It gets the ratings so simple factual news reporting is long gone because it doesn't sell ads and makes money.

+1.

 

Great post.

[carlfense]

Unrelated: Here is a recent example of hard hitting WND reporting. http://www.wnd.com/i...w&pageId=370177

 

(confession . . . I read stuff over there at least once a week just to get a good laugh. They NEVER disappoint. Highly recommended.)

[gobiggergoredder]

I noticed that and I think that was a wise thing to do. That said, lumping WND in with actual journalism is a mistake.

 

I'll take it a step further.....What is actual journalism?

 

Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC? MSNBC, owned by GE, that doesn't pay taxes, run by Obama's Job Czar. It all makes sense.

http://www.varight.c...a-than-foxnews/

 

 

 

Did you even watch the video for the article that you posted? What is shocking about it? For article that carries the subject 'MSNBC more Negative towards Obama than FoxNews', I would think they would post a video that actually has something negative.

 

You posted a few threads up that you agreed that you like facts in your news. Can you interpret any of the following quotes for me?

In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were (overall) positive and 53% overall negative.

 

What the hell does that mean? What's negative? What's positive? Who decides? If that video is the example of a negative story they want to go with, this is all pretty lame. You just used a glorified Blog post. If you look at one of the varight.com links at the bottom, it is the #1 blog in Virginia. Well done.

 

I was thinking more Rick Santelli on CNBC from a few years back. I'm surprised he didn't get fired. That was negative.

 

I really should be fair. Using a blog is a step up from what you guys typically have.......Daily Show and South Park clips.

[carlfense]

I noticed that and I think that was a wise thing to do. That said, lumping WND in with actual journalism is a mistake.

 

I'll take it a step further.....What is actual journalism?

 

Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC? MSNBC, owned by GE, that doesn't pay taxes, run by Obama's Job Czar. It all makes sense.

http://www.varight.c...a-than-foxnews/

 

 

 

Did you even watch the video for the article that you posted? What is shocking about it? For article that carries the subject 'MSNBC more Negative towards Obama than FoxNews', I would think they would post a video that actually has something negative.

 

You posted a few threads up that you agreed that you like facts in your news. Can you interpret any of the following quotes for me?

In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were (overall) positive and 53% overall negative.

 

What the hell does that mean? What's negative? What's positive? Who decides? If that video is the example of a negative story they want to go with, this is all pretty lame. You just used a glorified Blog post. If you look at one of the varight.com links at the bottom, it is the #1 blog in Virginia. Well done.

 

I was thinking more Rick Santelli on CNBC from a few years back. I'm surprised he didn't get fired. That was negative.

 

I really should be fair. Using a blog is a step up from what you guys typically have.......Daily Show and South Park clips.

I didn't link it because of the video.

 

You asked for a single negative story about Obama on MSNBC. I tried to provide a big picture story but since you will apparently be content with a single example I'll leave this for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

 

Now, if you'd like to change your argument and request more than one example I would happily oblige.

[Sub-Husker]

Rachel tells it like it is!

[johnnyrodgers20]

Rachel tells it like it is!

 

 

Thanks for that laugh!!

[Sub-Husker]

Rachel tells it like it is!

 

Thanks for that laugh!!

 

Can you site where she is less accurate than any other mainstream news presenter, or are you continuing to make a fool of yourself?

[gobiggergoredder]

I noticed that and I think that was a wise thing to do. That said, lumping WND in with actual journalism is a mistake.

 

I'll take it a step further.....What is actual journalism?

 

Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC? MSNBC, owned by GE, that doesn't pay taxes, run by Obama's Job Czar. It all makes sense.

http://www.varight.c...a-than-foxnews/

 

 

 

Did you even watch the video for the article that you posted? What is shocking about it? For article that carries the subject 'MSNBC more Negative towards Obama than FoxNews', I would think they would post a video that actually has something negative.

 

You posted a few threads up that you agreed that you like facts in your news. Can you interpret any of the following quotes for me?

In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were (overall) positive and 53% overall negative.

 

What the hell does that mean? What's negative? What's positive? Who decides? If that video is the example of a negative story they want to go with, this is all pretty lame. You just used a glorified Blog post. If you look at one of the varight.com links at the bottom, it is the #1 blog in Virginia. Well done.

 

I was thinking more Rick Santelli on CNBC from a few years back. I'm surprised he didn't get fired. That was negative.

 

I really should be fair. Using a blog is a step up from what you guys typically have.......Daily Show and South Park clips.

I didn't link it because of the video.

 

You asked for a single negative story about Obama on MSNBC. I tried to provide a big picture story but since you will apparently be content with a single example I'll leave this for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

 

Now, if you'd like to change your argument and request more than one example I would happily oblige.

 

 

I guess man. Definitely questioning him. Hardly a beating. I would think you wouldn't have to back 2.5 years to find a video, but whatever.

 

That Maddow guy seems like a fair journalist. Immelt was appointed in January of this year by the way. I'm sure there is a graph you can find that will support whatever point it is you are trying to make.

[Sub-Husker]

That Maddow guy seems like a fair journalist.

 

Gender smack!

[carlfense]

I noticed that and I think that was a wise thing to do. That said, lumping WND in with actual journalism is a mistake.

 

I'll take it a step further.....What is actual journalism?

 

Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC? MSNBC, owned by GE, that doesn't pay taxes, run by Obama's Job Czar. It all makes sense.

http://www.varight.c...a-than-foxnews/

 

 

 

Did you even watch the video for the article that you posted? What is shocking about it? For article that carries the subject 'MSNBC more Negative towards Obama than FoxNews', I would think they would post a video that actually has something negative.

 

You posted a few threads up that you agreed that you like facts in your news. Can you interpret any of the following quotes for me?

In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were (overall) positive and 53% overall negative.

 

What the hell does that mean? What's negative? What's positive? Who decides? If that video is the example of a negative story they want to go with, this is all pretty lame. You just used a glorified Blog post. If you look at one of the varight.com links at the bottom, it is the #1 blog in Virginia. Well done.

 

I was thinking more Rick Santelli on CNBC from a few years back. I'm surprised he didn't get fired. That was negative.

 

I really should be fair. Using a blog is a step up from what you guys typically have.......Daily Show and South Park clips.

I didn't link it because of the video.

 

You asked for a single negative story about Obama on MSNBC. I tried to provide a big picture story but since you will apparently be content with a single example I'll leave this for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

 

Now, if you'd like to change your argument and request more than one example I would happily oblige.

 

 

I guess man. Definitely questioning him. Hardly a beating. I would think you wouldn't have to back 2.5 years to find a video, but whatever.

 

That Maddow guy seems like a fair journalist. Immelt was appointed in January of this year by the way. I'm sure there is a graph you can find that will support whatever point it is you are trying to make.

It was the first one that showed up on my youtube search. I didn't see a date requirement in your post.

 

Here is your quote if you have forgotten: "Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC?"

 

I found one for you. Now you're changing your parameters. Shocking.

 

I can provide a graph if you're not keeping up.

[gobiggergoredder]

It was the first one that showed up on my youtube search. I didn't see a date requirement in your post.

 

Here is your quote if you have forgotten: "Can anyone find a negative Obama story on MSNBC?"

 

I found one for you. Now you're changing your parameters. Shocking.

 

I can provide a graph if you're not keeping up.

 

I know what I wrote....hence the 'I guess'. No changing of parameters I just find it interesting that in order to prove your point you first post a blog that is over a year old. It is the number 1 blog in Virginia. As rock solid as that is you take a step further by posting a clip that is 2 1/2 years old. How long had he been president? 3 months. It's your graphs that really do it for me. There should be one coming soon.

 

You're the only one that can critique sources. You may want to go back to your post (#3) were you ignore 4 articles so you can needle one. The reason those articles were posted was in response to 'Why someone might have issues with Michelle Obama' (Which is an opinion), so were they came from really isn't relevant to begin with. You have a knack for finding something out of left field and trying to make it the focus.

 

I do understand if you post something (graphs included) it's rock solid, everyone else...it just depends on whether you agree with them or not.

 

You posted 1 video. That is what I asked for. You win.

[Excel]

When I first saw this thread I definitely read "booed" as something else.

[carlfense]

You win.

Well, then!

[johnnyrodgers20]

Rachel tells it like it is!

 

Thanks for that laugh!!

 

Can you site where she is less accurate than any other mainstream news presenter, or are you continuing to make a fool of yourself?

 

 

The only fool is you. She takes one morsel of truth and then extrapolates it out to her own end. One of her best was when someone threw a rock through a dems window in Ohio. After she was done connecting the dots it was a conspiracy by the RNC. She is no better than Hannity but she is telling you what you want to hear so she is your hero. Again her show is so lame it is hard to watch. She gets people from obscure little news papers or left wing propaganda orgs. to come on and reinforce whatever she thinks. Pretty pathetic but if you just want to hear about her point of view good for you just remember it is not news but her opinion!!