And seriously, how is four men, from four countries, "most of the world"?
Re-read my post. I said:
So? Much of the world supported either Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, Mussolini or Stalin. Does that mean they were right?
If the whole world jumped off a cliff... Oh, never mind.
Much != Most
But, when you consider that three of the men were Axis leaders and the Allies were on the side of Stalin, that pretty much covers MOST of the world anyway. I would even say a "vast majority".
But the whole point is, What is good for the rest of the world is not necessarily good for America. The "rest" of the world has been known to do some stupid stuff from time to time (not that America hasn't, just making a point).
Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?
Even though it is what TFA does, you can't really just compare the raw numbers. One MSNBC commentator got a "chill up his leg" after hearing Obama speak. Obama went to Europe and every major news outlet sent high level reporters to follow him. McCain went to Iraq and Afghanistan and it was ignored.
And it's not so much that Obama got better coverage. You have to also consider the negative coverage that was left out. Take the VP's for example. Sarah Palin, who has more executive experience than anyone on the ticket, was constantly labeled as "inexperienced". Meanwhile, you have Joe Biden, who can't keep his foot out of his mouth, will say something like "Three letters: J-O-B-S", tells a wheelchair bound man to stand up, says that Hillary would have been a better choice and it is barely reported. The Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Public Allies stories were barely touched on while Palin's trooper trouble even got it's own "Gate" suffix. Then you had the whole "Fannie/Freddie" thing. The media never reported that John McCain cosponsored a bill that would have prevented it over two years ago. Here is a McCain quote from May 25, 2006 that the media did not report:
If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
If the press had reported this, the election would have been won by McCain. Instead, they bought into the line that the whole mess was Bush's fault even though Bush also supported the bill (Democrats blocked it).
Even when Obama received negative coverage (Jeremiah Wright), it was only during the primaries. Once he received the nomination, all negative stories on Obama were labeled "old news", even though very few people pay attention to primaries and had ignored coverage up to that point.
So, sorry, simply comparing the numbers is not at all the whole story. Actually look at what was reported, and more importantly, what was not.
...the voters. Isn't it natural that the winning candidate will appeal to the journalists more aswell, than the losing one? Especially in a historic election as this one.
Is this a joke?
You say that the press supported Obama because he was going to win. I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him. Personally, I feel that the election was close enough that it could have gone the other way had the media been fair.
What is really surprising is that this is news! The media has admitted to this weeks ago.
Even worse, you will see people deny that Obama was given better treatment than McCain. They will probably say something similar to that old Politico story that basically says, "We had to give Obama better coverage. It's not our fault that McCain sucks".
Whether or not it's a good thing... I don't know. It seems perhaps a bit much to force students to help out... but then, it could do some serious good as well.
If this becomes mandatory, it will be bad. It reminds me of Animal Farm where the puppies got taken away. Here is some more information on it:
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation â" the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
...
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."
One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."
The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military â" and stick American taxpayers with the bill.
For an idea of how it will work, read up on Obama's "Public Allies" program in Chicago. Here is how one member put it:
A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles Public Allies class, Nelly Nieblas, says itâ(TM)s just a lot of talk about race. Itâ(TM)s a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias. One of those isms is heterosexism, heterosexism, which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago remember, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama, in Chicago. Thatâ(TM)s their chapter. A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capital quoting of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege, end quote. By the way, your tax dollars now fund about half of Public Alliesâ(TM) expenses, through Bill Clintonâ(TM)s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it to a national program some say will cost $500 billion.
IMHO, it sounds like a liberal brain-washing machine to me.
How about the collective interests of the entire world, not just the interests of any one single country?
That's all well and good, but the job of the US president is to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not the world. If you want a world president, have your country's leader propose the idea to the UN or whoever. But for now, the POTUS's primary concern should be the well being of the USA. The rest of the world is important, but not first.
I'm glad to hear you guys are excited. However, as I kept hearing all throughout this election cycle what other countries wanted, I had to wonder:
Do these countries want what's in America's best interest, or do they put the interest of their own countries above the USA's?
I sincerely hope it's the latter for your sake, but it does kinda put a value on opinions of those from other countries. Which makes me wonder, why would the press even bring it up?
and his running mate managed to beat Joe Biden in the say-something-dumb contest, completely even coverage was never going to happen.
Oh, come on! Palin never said anything as stupid as, "Three letters! J-O-B-S!"
As for the rest of your comment, you make a good point about Ayers and Wright ducking out of the media limelight. Unfortunately, the searches we performed were not limited to "recent" news stories. It's easy to customize you search for all of 2008, which shows that "Joe the Plumber" got more coverage in the past two months than the other two guys got all year!
Insert Twain's statement here about statistics and lies.
Okay, we'll take poor Joe out of his quotes. We still get 28,389 results. Still less than quoteless Wright or Ayers.
Searching for Joe the Plumber OUT of quotes will show hits from all sites that contain all three words, or more to the point, all sites that contains both words, "Joe", and "Plumber". Just like your search for "Reverend" and "Wright" will return all sites with both words. It may be a site for a church that is led by Reverend Smith and has a Deacon Wright. Not exactly the same thing. The only way to get proper results is to perform all three searches, with both names in quotes. In other words, google for "William Ayers", "Reverend Wright" and "Joe the Plumber".
But come on! You know how to do a Google search don't you? If not, you should turn in your slashdot card now! If you do know how to do a proper Google search, then you are being intentionally deceptive and you are proving my point about how easy it is to present false information as truth.
That isn't even funny or witty. Can't you do better than that?
ACORN was legally required to submit all the voter registrations they collected, they flagged all the ones they could tell were bogus.....
Try again, your smoking gun isn't smoking or a gun.
ACORN was paid $800,000 by the Obama campaign. ACORN was trained by Obama. ACORN takes tax dollars, yet still endorsed Obama. ACORN has turned in hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms.
You need to put "Bill Ayers" in quotes like you did with "Joe the Plumber": Results 1 - 10 of about 13,131 for bill-ayers. (0.24 seconds) Same for "Reverend Wright": Results 1 - 10 of about 2,520 for "Reverend Wright". (0.06 seconds)
Also, I did a straight news search, not the "archives", but it looks like once you provide the quotes, the end result doesn't change as the corrected results still show that "Joe the Plumber" still has more hits than "Bill Ayers" or "Reverend Wright".
And it's well known-that one of your good high school buddies was a pedophile. I'm going to show up at your job tomorrow and let everyone there know about how you like to pal around with pedophiles. You cool with that?
If he were a known pedophile when I was associated with him, and I was applying for a job protecting children from pedophiles, then YES, I'd be cool with that.
Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!
I think you are imagining things in order to fit your ideology. Searching in Google for these guys (even restricting searches to Google's News 2008 archive) turns up far more results for Ayers, Wright and Rezko than for Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.
Maybe you should try the test before you are made to look foolish.
Resultsfor "Joe the Plumber": 1 - 10 of about 29,040 for Joe-the-plumber. (0.46 seconds) Resultsfor Reverend Wright: 1 - 10 of about 1,063 for Reverend Wright. (0.16 seconds) Results for "William Ayers":Results 1 - 10 of about 18,930 for William-Ayers. (0.29 seconds) Results for "Tony Rezko": Results 1 - 10 of about 1,936 for tony-rezko. (0.19 seconds)
(Reverend Wright was not in quotes. With quotes, it was about 460 hits)
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.
Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
First, once the primaries ended, all remotely honest reporting ended with it. Even the primaries coverage was biased. Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?
McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.
As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too. Not intentionally of course, but because they only work with what they are given. An example would be where they say that McCain's add about Ayers is false. Here are some quotes:
A McCain TV ad says Obama "lied" about his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical, bomb-setting, anti-Vietnam War Weather Underground group. In a Web ad, McCain says the two are "friends" who have "worked together for years."... They met in 1995, when Obama was asked to head the board of a school reform group, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that Ayers had helped start.... Also, Obama and Ayers overlapped for two years on the board of another foundation... Ayers hosted a coffee in his home when Obama was running for the Illinois state Legislature.
Let's see. Worked together for years... Check. Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning. So, my fact check on factcheck. FactCheck.org FAILS! I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)
Here are some examples of the media's bias and bias by omission: Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported. Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported. Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools. Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet. How many times has CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC or ABC shown the picture of Ayers standing on the American flag?
Please! Don't even try to say the press was balanced during the campaign.
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
These guys may have been investigated, but nothing was said in the media. Sure, Reverend Wright got some play, but I've never once heard a "news person" mention William Ayers, only "talking heads" and commentators.
Also, wasn't there a video of Obama at a dinner with a Palestinian spokesperson that the LA Times refuses to release? Didn't they release a similar video of Arnold during his election? Their excuses is the person who gave it to them asked them not to release it. I call BS. Why would you give a video to the press if you didn't want it released? That's like giving your phone number to someone on the condition that they never EVER call.
Please, don't even try to say that the press has been fair during this election.
Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.
Examples please. Can you tell me how YOUR life has changed due to Bush "taking away your civil liberties"? What could you do in before Jan 2001 that you can not do now?
It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand communism (or any 'everyone works together' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed.
And let's not forget the millions that have died at the hands of communism. Stalin killed more people than Hitler could have dreamed. Stalin made Hitler look like Stalin light.
And, of course, let's not forget the corruption that is inherent in the system ("HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED") and the effect it has on human rights. How free are the Chinese to research Tienanmen Square? What happens to politicians who oppose Putin? Sorry, but communist countries are not well known for their stellar human rights records!
Don't even get me started on economics. Cuba, The Soviet Union, N. Korea are all fine examples of the communist economic record. China is the exception, but they have a way of mixing capitalism in with their communist ideals. Still, their people are basically slaves in the factories (hard to compete with slave labor) and their quality of life pales in comparison with capitalists countries.
You mean like calling him a terrorist, a socialist, and a Marxist? I guess we can give McCain credit for at least stopping short of calling him a pedophile. But then, McCain still has a few hours left, so don't count that out yet.
Terrorist: No one said Obama was a terrorist. But it is a well known fact that Obama has ties with at least one known terrorist. An video that a major press outlet (LA Times) refuses to air would probably show another.
Socialist: He wants to take the property of the rich and businesses and give it to those that didn't earn it. "Spreading the wealth" is a key component of socialism.
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power.
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't. Can you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been on a board with an abortion bomber? Could you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been a member of a church that preached racism? Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
The press ran Obama's campaign. They elected him a year ago!
he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him
Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!
Slashdot Mirror
And seriously, how is four men, from four countries, "most of the world"?
Re-read my post. I said:
So? Much of the world supported either Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, Mussolini or Stalin. Does that mean they were right?
If the whole world jumped off a cliff... Oh, never mind.
Much != Most
But, when you consider that three of the men were Axis leaders and the Allies were on the side of Stalin, that pretty much covers MOST of the world anyway. I would even say a "vast majority".
But the whole point is, What is good for the rest of the world is not necessarily good for America. The "rest" of the world has been known to do some stupid stuff from time to time (not that America hasn't, just making a point).
Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?
Even though it is what TFA does, you can't really just compare the raw numbers. One MSNBC commentator got a "chill up his leg" after hearing Obama speak. Obama went to Europe and every major news outlet sent high level reporters to follow him. McCain went to Iraq and Afghanistan and it was ignored.
And it's not so much that Obama got better coverage. You have to also consider the negative coverage that was left out. Take the VP's for example. Sarah Palin, who has more executive experience than anyone on the ticket, was constantly labeled as "inexperienced". Meanwhile, you have Joe Biden, who can't keep his foot out of his mouth, will say something like "Three letters: J-O-B-S", tells a wheelchair bound man to stand up, says that Hillary would have been a better choice and it is barely reported. The Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Public Allies stories were barely touched on while Palin's trooper trouble even got it's own "Gate" suffix. Then you had the whole "Fannie/Freddie" thing. The media never reported that John McCain cosponsored a bill that would have prevented it over two years ago. Here is a McCain quote from May 25, 2006 that the media did not report:
If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
If the press had reported this, the election would have been won by McCain. Instead, they bought into the line that the whole mess was Bush's fault even though Bush also supported the bill (Democrats blocked it).
Even when Obama received negative coverage (Jeremiah Wright), it was only during the primaries. Once he received the nomination, all negative stories on Obama were labeled "old news", even though very few people pay attention to primaries and had ignored coverage up to that point.
So, sorry, simply comparing the numbers is not at all the whole story. Actually look at what was reported, and more importantly, what was not.
The media (with the exception of Fox News) has always had a pretty large liberal bias.
Really? To the rest of the world (or at least western Europe), even 'left wing' American newspapers appear hilariously conservative.
So? Much of the world supported either Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, Mussolini or Stalin. Does that mean they were right?
If the whole world jumped off a cliff... Oh, never mind.
...the voters. Isn't it natural that the winning candidate will appeal to the journalists more aswell, than the losing one? Especially in a historic election as this one.
Is this a joke?
You say that the press supported Obama because he was going to win. I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him. Personally, I feel that the election was close enough that it could have gone the other way had the media been fair.
What is really surprising is that this is news! The media has admitted to this weeks ago.
Even worse, you will see people deny that Obama was given better treatment than McCain. They will probably say something similar to that old Politico story that basically says, "We had to give Obama better coverage. It's not our fault that McCain sucks".
Looks like I missed the link.
HERE it is.
They did talk about it, actually. There was also a YouTube video, one of the "Blueprint for Change" series.
Whether or not it's a good thing... I don't know. It seems perhaps a bit much to force students to help out... but then, it could do some serious good as well.
If this becomes mandatory, it will be bad. It reminds me of Animal Farm where the puppies got taken away. Here is some more information on it:
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation â" the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
...
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."
One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."
The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military â" and stick American taxpayers with the bill.
Read the whole thing HERE
For an idea of how it will work, read up on Obama's "Public Allies" program in Chicago. Here is how one member put it:
A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles Public Allies class, Nelly Nieblas, says itâ(TM)s just a lot of talk about race. Itâ(TM)s a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias. One of those isms is heterosexism, heterosexism, which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago remember, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama, in Chicago. Thatâ(TM)s their chapter. A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capital quoting of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege, end quote. By the way, your tax dollars now fund about half of Public Alliesâ(TM) expenses, through Bill Clintonâ(TM)s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it to a national program some say will cost $500 billion.
IMHO, it sounds like a liberal brain-washing machine to me.
from HERE!
How about the collective interests of the entire world, not just the interests of any one single country?
That's all well and good, but the job of the US president is to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not the world. If you want a world president, have your country's leader propose the idea to the UN or whoever. But for now, the POTUS's primary concern should be the well being of the USA. The rest of the world is important, but not first.
As a european citizen, thank USA!
I'm glad to hear you guys are excited. However, as I kept hearing all throughout this election cycle what other countries wanted, I had to wonder:
Do these countries want what's in America's best interest, or do they put the interest of their own countries above the USA's?
I sincerely hope it's the latter for your sake, but it does kinda put a value on opinions of those from other countries. Which makes me wonder, why would the press even bring it up?
and his running mate managed to beat Joe Biden in the say-something-dumb contest, completely even coverage was never going to happen.
Oh, come on! Palin never said anything as stupid as, "Three letters! J-O-B-S!"
As for the rest of your comment, you make a good point about Ayers and Wright ducking out of the media limelight. Unfortunately, the searches we performed were not limited to "recent" news stories. It's easy to customize you search for all of 2008, which shows that "Joe the Plumber" got more coverage in the past two months than the other two guys got all year!
Insert Twain's statement here about statistics and lies.
Okay, we'll take poor Joe out of his quotes. We still get 28,389 results. Still less than quoteless Wright or Ayers.
Searching for Joe the Plumber OUT of quotes will show hits from all sites that contain all three words, or more to the point, all sites that contains both words, "Joe", and "Plumber". Just like your search for "Reverend" and "Wright" will return all sites with both words. It may be a site for a church that is led by Reverend Smith and has a Deacon Wright. Not exactly the same thing. The only way to get proper results is to perform all three searches, with both names in quotes. In other words, google for "William Ayers", "Reverend Wright" and "Joe the Plumber".
But come on! You know how to do a Google search don't you? If not, you should turn in your slashdot card now! If you do know how to do a proper Google search, then you are being intentionally deceptive and you are proving my point about how easy it is to present false information as truth.
That isn't even funny or witty. Can't you do better than that?
ACORN was legally required to submit all the voter registrations they collected, they flagged all the ones they could tell were bogus.....
Try again, your smoking gun isn't smoking or a gun.
ACORN was paid $800,000 by the Obama campaign. ACORN was trained by Obama. ACORN takes tax dollars, yet still endorsed Obama. ACORN has turned in hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms.
Smoking gun. Hardly. More like a flaming canon!
"What landmarks did Liddy bomb?"
Right you are. As best I recall..... he just napalmed our Constitution and tried to nuke our electoral process. Nothing important.
I'm assuming you are saying that since his terrorism was state sponsored it was different? Right you are....
Oh! So he's like ACORN.
Don't forget that McCain also got a free pass about G Gordon Liddy.
Who did Liddy kill? What landmarks did Liddy bomb?
Nice try.
But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.
Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.
You need to put "Bill Ayers" in quotes like you did with "Joe the Plumber":
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,131 for bill-ayers. (0.24 seconds)
Same for "Reverend Wright":
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,520 for "Reverend Wright". (0.06 seconds)
Also, I did a straight news search, not the "archives", but it looks like once you provide the quotes, the end result doesn't change as the corrected results still show that "Joe the Plumber" still has more hits than "Bill Ayers" or "Reverend Wright".
Good try though!
And it's well known-that one of your good high school buddies was a pedophile. I'm going to show up at your job tomorrow and let everyone there know about how you like to pal around with pedophiles. You cool with that?
If he were a known pedophile when I was associated with him, and I was applying for a job protecting children from pedophiles, then YES, I'd be cool with that.
I think you are imagining things in order to fit your ideology. Searching in Google for these guys (even restricting searches to Google's News 2008 archive) turns up far more results for Ayers, Wright and Rezko than for Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.
Maybe you should try the test before you are made to look foolish.
Resultsfor "Joe the Plumber": 1 - 10 of about 29,040 for Joe-the-plumber. (0.46 seconds)
Resultsfor Reverend Wright: 1 - 10 of about 1,063 for Reverend Wright. (0.16 seconds)
Results for "William Ayers":Results 1 - 10 of about 18,930 for William-Ayers. (0.29 seconds)
Results for "Tony Rezko": Results 1 - 10 of about 1,936 for tony-rezko. (0.19 seconds)
(Reverend Wright was not in quotes. With quotes, it was about 460 hits)
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.
Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
You mean like this?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
As for accuracy...
First, once the primaries ended, all remotely honest reporting ended with it. Even the primaries coverage was biased. Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?
McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.
As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too. Not intentionally of course, but because they only work with what they are given. An example would be where they say that McCain's add about Ayers is false. Here are some quotes:
A McCain TV ad says Obama "lied" about his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical, bomb-setting, anti-Vietnam War Weather Underground group. In a Web ad, McCain says the two are "friends" who have "worked together for years." ... ... ...
They met in 1995, when Obama was asked to head the board of a school reform group, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that Ayers had helped start.
Also, Obama and Ayers overlapped for two years on the board of another foundation
Ayers hosted a coffee in his home when Obama was running for the Illinois state Legislature.
Let's see. Worked together for years... Check. Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning.
So, my fact check on factcheck. FactCheck.org FAILS!
I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)
Here are some examples of the media's bias and bias by omission:
Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported.
Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported.
Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools.
Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet.
How many times has CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC or ABC shown the picture of Ayers standing on the American flag?
Please! Don't even try to say the press was balanced during the campaign.
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
These guys may have been investigated, but nothing was said in the media. Sure, Reverend Wright got some play, but I've never once heard a "news person" mention William Ayers, only "talking heads" and commentators.
Also, wasn't there a video of Obama at a dinner with a Palestinian spokesperson that the LA Times refuses to release? Didn't they release a similar video of Arnold during his election? Their excuses is the person who gave it to them asked them not to release it. I call BS. Why would you give a video to the press if you didn't want it released? That's like giving your phone number to someone on the condition that they never EVER call.
Please, don't even try to say that the press has been fair during this election.
Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.
Examples please. Can you tell me how YOUR life has changed due to Bush "taking away your civil liberties"? What could you do in before Jan 2001 that you can not do now?
It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand communism (or any 'everyone works together' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed.
And let's not forget the millions that have died at the hands of communism. Stalin killed more people than Hitler could have dreamed. Stalin made Hitler look like Stalin light.
And, of course, let's not forget the corruption that is inherent in the system ("HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED") and the effect it has on human rights. How free are the Chinese to research Tienanmen Square? What happens to politicians who oppose Putin? Sorry, but communist countries are not well known for their stellar human rights records!
Don't even get me started on economics. Cuba, The Soviet Union, N. Korea are all fine examples of the communist economic record. China is the exception, but they have a way of mixing capitalism in with their communist ideals. Still, their people are basically slaves in the factories (hard to compete with slave labor) and their quality of life pales in comparison with capitalists countries.
You mean like calling him a terrorist, a socialist, and a Marxist? I guess we can give McCain credit for at least stopping short of calling him a pedophile. But then, McCain still has a few hours left, so don't count that out yet.
Terrorist: No one said Obama was a terrorist. But it is a well known fact that Obama has ties with at least one known terrorist. An video that a major press outlet (LA Times) refuses to air would probably show another.
Socialist: He wants to take the property of the rich and businesses and give it to those that didn't earn it. "Spreading the wealth" is a key component of socialism.
Marxist: See Socialist above.
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power.
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't. Can you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been on a board with an abortion bomber? Could you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been a member of a church that preached racism? Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
The press ran Obama's campaign. They elected him a year ago!
he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him
Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!