Is Saturday where the Cain campaign goes burst?

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
Because of the questionable "competence" and quality of who is running on the GOP side this time it is now time for a few more of the hopeless individuals to fold a few more tents.

My feeling towards Herman Cain has nothing to do with what is alleged by a couple of females many years ago. Right now he is part of what is dividing a party and preventing a clear ideological picture of exactly what the new candidates are actually going to do. Right now it is still early and we have a great number of pie in the sky promises. These will continue until we are able to say goodbye to a few more of the candidates that are hanging on.

Right now based on "war chests" the Democrats have out raised the Republicans in campaign funding by an incredible margin. The sad part is that has been said that: "We get the best politicians money can buy", and unless the Republicans can fatten their war chest by a great deal it may be a Democratic win for far more than just Barak Obama.

November of 2012 is still a year away and we have a great deal of time, and a great deal can happen on both sides before that election takes place.

The one thing that rings loud and clear is that the little birds of politics are now rearing their ugly heads and the candidates will start over the next few months to fall like ten pins in a bowling alley. In politics this is part of the natural progression. The absence of a few of these people will be welcome in my eyes.

It appears that the smearing is starting about two months before it usually does and Herman Cain will be the first one to possibly crash and burn under the fantasy magnifying glass of those manipulating the party.

Time will tell and 2012 will prove to be one very interesting election.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Right. A researcher with a clear bias that appears on the most biased network ever to rise out of the gutter and is funded by conservatives and his 'research' is to be believed. Right. Any 'regular' on Fox News is nothing more than a paid political hack. All of them.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

So it appears that there are only TWO media outlet's he approves of. That's right two. All the rest liberal rags...........
Back in 2005, Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo -- who have a history of receiving grants and fellowships from various conservative foundations -- published an article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that claimed to demonstrate "a strong liberal bias" in all news outlets it examined except for the Washington Times and Fox News' "Special Report."

Tim Groseclose's Theory of Liberal Media Bias Remains Shaky



And as your other source? More propaganda funded by the right.
The Media Research Center (MRC) is a content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene"

Apparently you don't understand what "poisoning the well" means. It is also a form of ad hominem (both logical fallacies).

A disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.

For instance, the finding from this research that journalists, self reporting on their voting habits, tend to vote Democratic. I find that more revealing than any article either of us could post.

Your example: because a person is funded by a certain group then their findings must be false.

My point in posting any articles was to show that, despite your article from a left leaning journalist trying to disprove the claim of a liberal media, there is research from other sources that shows the exact opposite.

Your silly animations and ad hominem circumstantial arguments don't hold water.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
My point in posting any articles was to show that, despite your article from a left leaning journalist .......

I'm sorry did I miss something? Have you proven he/she is a 'left leaning journalist'? Anything that doesn't dovetail into what the 'right wing' is saying is automatically left-leaning? Are facts now right leaning and left leaning? The 'right' doesn't like facts. They even made up their own Wikipedia ('Conservapedia'). As it has been said 'facts have a liberal bias'.

Your 'scientist' was indeed a writer who is a regular on FoxFauxFixed News. That in of itself is grounds for automatic mistrial. And then you attempted to back it up by posting a link to a website founded by another FoxFauxFixed News hack. Zero diversity in your sources.


The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
<snip>

For instance, the finding from this research that journalists, self reporting on their voting habits, tend to vote Democratic. I find that more revealing than any article either of us could post.

<snip>

I like to nit-pic. It's what I do.

I don't dispute the finding that journalists tend to vote democrat. It's pretty well known, in fact. However, college educated people in general tend to vote democrat. So pointing to journalists and saying their voting habits are proof of bias in their work is pretty specious.

Aside from that, I agree with you that there is bias on both sides.

From my viewpoint, however, the bias is biased toward the conservative side of the spectrum.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Apparently you don't understand what "poisoning the well" means...........

Mon amie I understand full well the terms I just chose to ignore your conjecture :wink2: Do you feel you have to respond to every sentence in a typical conversation with someone? I've found 'ad hominem' attacks quite useful in cutting through the bullshit. Conservative talking points are so heavily laden with total bullshit there is really no point in diving into them for any length of time. Attempting to prove something to someone who will never accept any 'proof' is both counter-productive and a misuse of the limited time I have on this planet.