|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 29th, 2004 08:13 AM | |
| mburbank |
Did any of you see Ralph Reed on the daily show last night? It was hysterical and creepy all at the same time. First, there's Reeds eerie twelve year old Satan's imp quality, then there's the fact that when he was fronting for the Christian right he couldn't say a sentence that didn't have Jesus in it and now he's so secular it's like he never was an evangelical born again crusader and I trust him about as much as a Christian Rock band trying to go mainstream... and then, John Stewart says "C'mon, lower my expectations about Bush in the debate" And Reed, completely ignoring the Irony, goes on and on about how Kerry is the single greatest debater who ever lived. So now we're supposed to call Bush not saying 'fuck' or wetting himself as a win for Bush. See, when some political operative in their attempt to spin insults my intelligence, it just makes me feel... well... insulted. And I don't care who's political operative it is. |
| Sep 28th, 2004 07:34 PM | |
| Ant10708 | Last time I saw Chris Matthews he was interviewing a Republican outside in front fo like 100 protesters and they were screaming murderer throu most of the interview. |
| Sep 28th, 2004 06:56 PM | |
| conus | Just out of morbid curiousity I watched Chris Mathews during the conventions. I chose his show since he's generally considered to lean toward the side of the Democrats. What I saw was Chris Mathews shouting accusations at any Democratic representative who showed up. Okay, I thought at first. He's just playing devil's advocate. But he didn't stop, and when the Republican convention rolled around he seemed as awestruck and gullible as a 12-year-old boy at Michael Jackson's Neverland. |
| Sep 28th, 2004 06:13 PM | |
| El Blanco |
Liberal analysis of the media: There is an obvious relationship between Bush and the media to make him look near God-like Conservative analysis of the media: There is an obvious movement in the media to demonize Bush to make him look near Hitler. And you think the New York Times should be talking about anyone else's politcal bias? |
| Sep 28th, 2004 05:22 PM | |
| Preechr |
Absolutely. The buzz this year is all about the focus on the post-debate spin superceding the actual performances of the candidates. They ought to just throw Al Michaels and Dan Dierdorf in there as commentators to talk all over the debates and sell popcorn in the bleachers. I'd like to see both candidates dressed up in Nascar type jumpsuits with a billion dollars of advertising covering them head to toe, changing ballcaps every 30 seconds. DANCE BITCH! DANCE!!! |
| Sep 28th, 2004 04:49 PM | |
| conus |
Post-debate analysis: NOT Paul Krugman pointed out something in his column today that I noticed during the conventions. Without exception the cable news programs demonstrated a pro Bush bias in their analysis. I have a feeling that it won't matter what is said tommorow. If George Bush stands at the podium and declares that the sky is green, they will comment on how decisive he sounded when making the declaration. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/op...28krugman.html |
