Phht is right! I think it's mild to call him just a Socialist. I think he's way worse than that. That is what I don't understand the media. If they are afraid to call things what they are, how can we ever talk about what needs to be done about them? I think we are past the time for being polite.
No, no, the Fellatio Media is quite comfortable calling things what they are, and in harsh terms, such as 'racist TEA Bagging terrorists'.
I said it elsewhere because it's true and the Republican Party has yet to figure this out: He who controls the language of the debate controls the debate. Just look at how gun owners are now being vilified, made into the other, soon to be criminal. The words used in such stories are deliberate in their negative nature concerning guns, high capacity magazines and other nefarious evil black rifle stuff (usually made up on the spot). The media sets the tone of the debate because they control the language of the debate. So the media will investigate and do a thorough job when the spirit moves them, as in the case of Gov. Palin. I'm only surprised we never heard how many pads she used a month they dug so deep into her background (and trash; in covering her, they took
dumpster diving to a whole new depth). But Owebama is one of them, an elite liar and fraud with the right C.V. who is quite glib about his stupidity (even if he doesn't know it; 'corpse-man' said twice in the same speech,
profit to earnings ratio and hundreds of other verbal diarrhea), so move along, nothing to see here (and if you TEA Bagging racists dare utter
natural-born citizen, h8n on the first (half) black president, shut up they explained). The media are now like teachers, there simply is no talking back to them on any rational level. They go to school to learn how to be a journalist just like teachers go to college to learn how to teach. What's missing from the equation is what to teach, as in having a solid background in some field and not pontificating on every and anything that seeps into their little pea brains. (A fine example of this is the Gang of 88 at Duke, those esteemed university professors well versed in the field of exploiting victimhood, even if there was no victim, except for white boys, but they don't count anyway so forget an apology while they keep their tenure.) Another example is how no one in the media, 'cept for a very small number, even understands what the 2nd Amendment is about, so they lie about what they
think and
feel it's about. We're being ruled by emotional, hysterically screaming, progressive totalitarian thugs (just look at footage of any teachers' union protest). Facts do not matter. The Constitution does not matter (as in the NYSlimes calling for ignoring it as being outdated, as if Freedom is ever outdated).
So yes, the progressive media is quite willing to call things what they are -- and they control the local and national airwaves, the newspapers and news magazines, the wire services, the news reporting, infotainment, the whole sh1t and shebang. The media are (with few exceptions) full-throated communists and they've waited a long time for this moment. I remember in 1996 when Dan Ra
ther called the election for Clinton by exuberantly stating, "We won!" Nah, no bias there, none whatsoever. Whatever would give rise to such a thought?
Now here's an idea. Why not have the media discuss regulating their 1st Amendment rights to the degree they seek to regulate our 2nd Amendment rights? Now that would be 'Must See TV!'.