<<So do you see that same thing happening year after year as a sign of bias?>>

Of course...everyone has a bias or a point of view. You are biased, I am biased, every sentient being is biased. It is part of human nature. We all have a bias towards absolutely everything...food preferences, whom we find attractive, what music we like, what movies we watch, what we drive, what airline we fly, etc. You claim bias like it is something bad. It is the way of the world.


How do you know that the endorsements are not reflective of the readership's preferences? Major papers are in large cities. Urban areas tend to be more liberal, do they not? And you have still not addressed the question of why the leadership of a private business is not free to express their political views. You are a big fan of Citizens United. You have gone and on why that is healthy for the political process. It seems rather hypocritical for you to target one particular industry...a Constitutionally protected one at that, and complain about "bias". IS not Karl Rove "Biased", The Koch brothers?

The fact that the business is a newspaper seems to make this a case of, I don't know, freedom of the press, maybe?

Swamp...why do you hate the Constitution and the freedoms we have in America?

That's right...newspapers are people too.

There is a clear pattern year after year of liberal bias.

That isnt evil or malicious.

It is just reality.

The OPED pages are biased. The papers leaders are liberal, so they would lean to the left in stories. Not crazy bias, just slant.

That is all we are saying.

The media may not be telling the truth and here is why we believe that...

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/30/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
There is a clear pattern year after year of liberal bias.

That isnt evil or malicious.

It is just reality.

The OPED pages are biased. The papers leaders are liberal, so they would lean to the left in stories. Not crazy bias, just slant.

That is all we are saying.

The media may not be telling the truth and here is why we believe that...

That's all you've got? How about responding to my post?

I did respond to your post.

I just didnt respond how you wanted me to.

You were again trying to set up some kind of gatcha moment and I avoided it.

You are confusing bias with preference.

Bias has a negative point to it. Liking Pepsi over Coke is not a bias.

So liking Obama over Romney doesnt show a bias. Liking every Democrat always shows a bias.

And newspapers are supposed to start from a position of neutrality. It doesnt seem odd to you in the least the about 30% or so of the readers papers are for Romney when about 50% are going to vote for him?

Every time? Over and over?

So look up the word bias and re post your thoughts.

I did respond to your post.

I just didnt respond how you wanted me to.

You were again trying to set up some kind of gatcha moment and I avoided it.

You are confusing bias with preference.

Bias has a negative point to it. Liking Pepsi over Coke is not a bias.

So liking Obama over Romney doesnt show a bias. Liking every Democrat always shows a bias.

And newspapers are supposed to start from a position of neutrality. It doesnt seem odd to you in the least the about 30% or so of the readers papers are for Romney when about 50% are going to vote for him?

Every time? Over and over?

So look up the word bias and re post your thoughts.

as  a lefty, I kind of like Romney-won't be voting for him, but compared to Reagan, W.Bush, Santorum, Gingrich, Palin, Perry, et al, you could do a lot worse 

Mitt seems an alright guy, for a corporation

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/30/2012 7:25:00 PM (view original):
I did respond to your post.

I just didnt respond how you wanted me to.

You were again trying to set up some kind of gatcha moment and I avoided it.

You are confusing bias with preference.

Bias has a negative point to it. Liking Pepsi over Coke is not a bias.

So liking Obama over Romney doesnt show a bias. Liking every Democrat always shows a bias.

And newspapers are supposed to start from a position of neutrality. It doesnt seem odd to you in the least the about 30% or so of the readers papers are for Romney when about 50% are going to vote for him?

Every time? Over and over?

So look up the word bias and re post your thoughts.

<<And newspapers are supposed to start from a position of neutrality. It doesnt seem odd to you in the least the about 30% or so of the readers papers are for Romney when about 50% are going to vote for him?>>

Why are editorial boards of newspapers supposed to be neutral...or "start from neutral"? What does that even mean? Does Rush "start from neutral"? He is using the public airways, for Pete's sake. Anyone can own a newspaper. How do you know that 50%  of the readership of an Obama endorsing newspaper is going to vote for Romney? Your premise is flawed to start with.

And I see that you have not answered the question about the federal response to Sandy...afraid of a "gatcha" moment. Do you want a good federal response or do want a Katrina-like response?

Former FEMA director Michael Brown, who was heavily criticized for the agency's failure to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, has criticized President Obama for responding to Hurricane Sandy too early.
In an interview with Denver Westword, Brown said, "One thing [President Obama's] gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [Hurricane Sandy] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in ... Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas? Why was this so quick? ... At some point, somebody's going to ask that question."
Brown said the president may have had a more positive effect had he waited until Sunday afternoon to address the storm instead of holding a press conference that morning.
Brown's insinuation that Obama responded too early is a gutsy move considering his role in the 2005 disaster. Brown, who was famously called "Brownie" by President George W. Bush, was seen as a symbol of government failure to protect and evacuate people from the path of Katrina.
In emails he wrote that later became public, Brown came off as inexperienced and uncaring. On the morning of the hurricane, Brown wrote, "Can I quit now? Can I come home?" to Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs. Later, in a separate email, he wrote, "I'm trapped now, please rescue me."
Brown resigned from his FEMA position a short time later. He now co-hosts a program on Denver talk radio.

There were some problems in the Federal Response to Katrina and I would hope that we learned lessons and the mistakes of the Federal, State and local governments would be avoided in all future incidents.

I of course believe that the state should be the first responders in a situation like this.

And of course the Federal Government needs to support the states.

What exactly are you looking for?

Me to scream out all the poor black people should die?

Last one first. There was alot of comments that Katrina response was racially motivated and all your Katrina questions looking for a gotcha moment lead me to assume a racial comment from you was coming.

And although he never actually said those words, I could see Fema being abosrbed into another agency and the states dealing with local issues in a more efficent way.

Clearly Government needs to be smaller and less intrusive. The exact size is debatable between resonable men.

I believe you mean his pledge to not raise taxes. And if a person believes that America needs to look at how much we spend and reduce some of it he is within his rights to sign a pledge to the same.

We should always try to offset any emergency spending with reduced spending in other areas.

Does that mean that you...

Support raising taxes to fix the debt even though most experts agree that we need to reduce spending?

Think that it is immoral for someone to make a no tax pledge?

Think that money for emergencies should not be made up for with cuts to other programs? You think that we should just put every emergency on our Childrens credit cards?

Think that every agency and Department in the Government is cast in stone and should never be reorganized or eliminated?