Posted on 10/03/2012 12:45:47 PM PDT by ajernig
Call it my senior mind but I had completely forgotten how surreal the 2008 presidential was until I saw the Citizens United film, "Hope and Change." The movie that was shown at the GOP convention was broadcast on television all last week. A neighbor who had also seen the film discussed it with me over a coffee klatch and was pretty blunt in her reaction. She happens to be a young black woman and she laughed and said: "I never saw so many dumb white people in one place." She may have been amused but I found it extremely frightening because those huge numbers can still vote and polls show that the media is successfully covering up a scandal worse than Watergate.
(Excerpt) Read more at irishexaminerusa.com ...
The president of the United States is this country’s worst enemy, mindlessly supported by Big Media.
It would have been nice if the excerpt let us know which “bigger than Watergate” Obama scandal we’re talking about.
The scandal surrounding Ambassador Steven’s murder in Benghazi, Libya. It was very near the article’s end.
Tell that young black woman that the social ministry where I do volunteer work is run strictly by honkies and that 65% of the people we assist are black, mostly single mothers.
I don’t see many blacks helping blacks.
Not sycophants. Co-conspirators.
On a side note, Fox’ Shepherd Smith is spewing MSM BS like never before. He just smeared Mitt Romney worse than Chris Tingle. F*ck you, Shep. That suicide on T.V. should have gotten you fired!
Yes, Shep is turning into an exceptionally bitter old queen.
Since when did the venerable "Introductory Paragraph" become a license to elucidate anecdotal reports about last week's lunch without a single reference to the subject at hand?
Lately I've been seeing tons of articles with "catchy" "artsy" intros that give me no clue whatsoever that I should bother to continue reading.
Tell me what you're going to tell me.
Tell me.
Then tell me what you told me.
I would blame it on "writing-for-web-hits" except that it accomplishes the direct opposite.
> I don’t see many blacks helping blacks.
I have seen people of many backgrounds and extractions helping blacks but I have never seen a black helping blacks.
Not only about Ambassador Steven’s murder in Benghazi, Libya, but also the rumors that the Obama White House supplied the lethal military weaponry to the rebels that they then may have used to storm the consulate. Big coverup going on, folks.
Think he was killed on purpose by the admin?
No, absolutely not. I do believe they thought they would help the rebels bring on “democracy” in the region, so they secretly supplied weapons to bring it about. But it backfired big time. When the ambassador got killed they immediately went into coverup mode. How else to explain their excuse that it was a video that caused a spontaneous mob uprising, despite the fact that heavy military weapons and tactics were used?
What's the point? Help them so that their kids can apply to elite colleges and get gifted 250 SAT points and a full point in GPA and displace your more qualified kids? Help them so their burden is lessened and they can have another kid or two, to add to the 95% Black Obama Voting Block? Help them so their kids grow big and strong and can better terrorize your family on the public transport?
the media is successfully covering up a scandal worse than Watergate.“The media” is such an amorphous term. Specifically, it is journalism - national journalism, really Associated Press journalism - which is promoting its own interest at the expense of the public interest.What is the interest of the Associated Press and its membership newspapers? That lies in attracting the interest and admiration of the public. Journalists don’t provide food, clothing, shelter, or security - yet they are determined to command more respect than those who do. So they systematically engage in cheap criticism and second guessing of the people who provide for our necessities. This slant of journalism produces a powerful propaganda wind down which opportunists sail. The result is that an entire political party has dedicated itself to getting along and going along with journalism’s self-interested propaganda. Journalism rewards them with positive labels such as “liberal,” “moderate,” or “centrist” - and punishes their opponents with negative labels such as “right wing” and “conservative.”
That tendency inheres in journalism as such - but the critical change which united journalists, and has prevented ideological competition among journalists since the memory of living man runneth not to the contrary, is the wire service. Adam Smith warned in 1776 thatPeople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10Since the middle of the Nineteenth Century, the Associated Press newswire has constituted a continuous virtual meeting of the significant people of the trade of journalism. The AP calls journalists “objective,” and does so with such a powerful propaganda campaign that people never stop to think how ridiculous a conceit that actually is. The only way to even attempt objectivity is to be candid about any and all reasons why you might not be objective - but doing so is precisely the opposite of claiming actually to be objective. Hence, all window dressing about giving “both sides of the story” notwithstanding, journalists aren’t even trying to be objective. In that state, they are in no position to even truly understand that there is another side to the story than the one which journalists find congenial. Much less, to understand that that other side of the story actually is usually right.
I read ‘ya.
Posting on FR needs to follow simple quidelines; who, where, when, what, and possibly how/why. Just good, old-fashioned reporting. And if the article doesn’t supply the info, tell the readers it is preliminary and this is all there is at posting time.
There is, in addition, a comments section. Few use it wisely while many should.
Yet you folks keep watching Fox. Why?
Congratulations of knowing the correct spelling of “its.” I daresay that over 90 percent of Freepers spell it as “it’s,” which is the contraction of “it” and “is.”
They don’t, they won’t.
Unless it’s part of a government or nonprofit $$$ job for them. Volunteers out of the goodness of their hearts? Naw. For non-blacks? Triple naw.
“You folks”? Uhh, no - I just catch the occasional snippet when channel-surfing, or a clip posted here. Fox is just another part of the MSM, as far as I’m concerned. It exists solely because some study showed that lots of people were turning off ABCNBCCBSCNN, so they created an alternative with a catchy slogan (”Fair and Balanced”) to go after those viewers and their money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.