PDA

View Full Version : Obama's 2000 body count milestone goes unnoticed.



Sev
06-23-2012, 07:04 PM
On June 13, 2012 the 2000th US soldier was killed in Afghanistan under Obama's watch.

It went largely ignored except for the CBS Evening News with a story devoted to it by David Martin.

Not so on October 25, 2005 when the mainstream media was wall to wall on the event when Bush's death clock clicked over to the 2000th death in Iraq.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...arker-afghanis

Amazing what a change of party in the White House does for such coverage.

LWW
06-24-2012, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama II</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Obama-Myths.jpg
SEV, THEY ONLY BELIEVE WHAT I TELL THEM TO BELIEVE.

Barry O</div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-24-2012, 06:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On June 13, 2012 the 2000th US soldier was killed in Afghanistan under Obama's watch.

It went largely ignored except for the CBS Evening News with a story devoted to it by David Martin.

Not so on October 25, 2005 when the mainstream media was wall to wall on the event when Bush's death clock clicked over to the 2000th death in Iraq.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...arker-afghanis

Amazing what a change of party in the White House does for such coverage. </div></div>

So what? People are tired of wars, all wars. What do you call, Mainstream Media, anyway?

Additionally, the number of deaths WAS nooted on nearly every cable station, running along the streaming scroll!

Do you really believe that Mainstream Media, isn't owned and operated by Corporations?

Which party do you really believe is in the bag for the corporations, owned by multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires?

There is no myth more prevalent than the myth of the "Liberal" media.

And speaking of Morning Joe, tune in every morning to MSNBC, for three hours of Repiglican Joe Scarborough's non stop bashing of Liberals, and of the president. He has a whole cabal of RW radicals, lying their asses off, annd reversing reality, every morning. Joe can't start a sentence without the words, Me, I, My, and Ronald Reagan.

IMO, there is no Liberal Media, other than a handful of tokens, used to cover up massive media Repiglican support.

G.

Sev
06-24-2012, 06:50 AM
Its the old forest through the trees dilemma.

LWW
06-24-2012, 06:55 AM
]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama II</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Obama-Myths.jpg
I told you ... you wouldn't listen. Here's how it works ... from my hips to the cabal's lips.

Barry O</div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-24-2012, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its the old forest through the trees dilemma. </div></div>

What is?

G.

Sev
06-24-2012, 07:00 AM
That you dont see the the liberal bias in the media.
When one is to close to something one unable to discern the problems.

Gayle in MD
06-24-2012, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That you dont see the the liberal bias in the media.
When one is to close to something one unable to discern the problems. </div></div>

Why would the media be Liberal?

The owners are all millionaires and billionaires, corporations!

It isn't even logical to think they would support any party other than the Repiglican Party.

I suppose you deny that Fox is a RW Propaganda network?

G.

Sev
06-24-2012, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That you dont see the the liberal bias in the media.
When one is to close to something one unable to discern the problems. </div></div>

Why would the media be Liberal?

The owners are all millionaires and billionaires, corporations!

It isn't even logical to think they would support any party other than the Repiglican Party.

I suppose you deny that Fox is a RW Propaganda network?

G.
</div></div>

FOX does not deny it leans to the right.

Meanwhile ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the rest are in denial about their leanings.

Jounalism is basically dead. Its almost all opinion pieces anymore.

Gayle in MD
06-24-2012, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That you dont see the the liberal bias in the media.
When one is to close to something one unable to discern the problems. </div></div>

Why would the media be Liberal?

The owners are all millionaires and billionaires, corporations!

It isn't even logical to think they would support any party other than the Repiglican Party.

I suppose you deny that Fox is a RW Propaganda network?

G.
</div></div>

FOX does not deny it leans to the right.

Meanwhile ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the rest are in denial about their leanings.

Jounalism is basically dead. Its almost all opinion pieces anymore. </div></div>


There are good reporters out there, the right just refuses to read what they write.


Then, later, when the undeniable proof is revealed, the right denies the validity.

I've been saying for years, If one is concerned about what the truth is, one must READ BOOKS, in order to decipher it.

G.

Sev
06-24-2012, 02:51 PM
Books lie as well Gayle.
Its rare if not impossible to find an author that writes a history without a bias.
And if you do both sides scream about lies and inaccuracies.

Soflasnapper
06-24-2012, 05:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On June 13, 2012 the 2000th US soldier was killed in Afghanistan under Obama's watch.

It went largely ignored except for the CBS Evening News with a story devoted to it by David Martin.

Not so on October 25, 2005 when the mainstream media was wall to wall on the event when Bush's death clock clicked over to the 2000th death in Iraq.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...arker-afghanis

Amazing what a change of party in the White House does for such coverage. </div></div>

True, if you mean by 'under Obama's watch' the total of all deaths during his presidency and Bush's presidency.

Not sure if you realize that it is false to say all those deaths occurred under Obama's watch. It is.

So, it's really an 11 year figure, and therefore, considerably different from a 2 or 3 year figure, in terms of annual deaths. Moreover, it's an inherited war, not a war done by him for mendacious and personal power and success reasons.

Nor did Obama say it would be quick or painless, that we'd be greeted as liberators with flowers and candies, and be out quickly without any serious consequences or costs, as the W administration framed their Iraq misadventure going in.

W even told Pat Robertson that there would be NO US casualties, according to what he'd heard from God.

So, an entirely different level of f-up in the Iraq war, relatively speaking.

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Books lie as well Gayle.
Its rare if not impossible to find an author that writes a history without a bias.
And if you do both sides scream about lies and inaccuracies. </div></div>

LMAO!

When an expert in any field, writes of his own experiences, naming names, quoting stattements, telling a story from beginning to end, and he isn't sued by those whom he has exposed, one can usually trust the information.

When that is followed up with many more books, written by others in an organization, documenting the same exact story, and one reads all of them, one at the very least, has a far more thorough education on the subject.

I won't bother listing all of the corruption and lies, we have on Bush, Rove, Rice, Libby, Cheney, and the lies that led us into Iraq, because it has all been documented and is in our own Archives, not to mention the ones we have on video.

Additionally, all of the lies that are written here about the AHCA, abouut President Obama's citizenship, about Unions, about voting fraud, none of it holds up to documentation.

This thread of yours is a good example of skewing the facts, as, forgive me, but I must say, most of your thread titles are.... an exercise in unreality, skewed in the interest of bashing the president, with unfounded statements, IOW, lies..

G.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2012, 09:39 AM
FOX does not deny it leans to the right.

Yes, actually it does. Why do you think Ailes claimed there was only ONE conservative in their lineup? They have long pretended they have straight news without right leanings until the primetime lineup of commentators. Now Ailes claims that even among the primetime lineup, none of them save one is even a conservative. Plenty of Foxbots I speak with state that Fox really IS fair and balanced, look at all the (alleged or former) <s>liberals</s> Democrats (of whatever conservative leanings or party disaffection that they don't understand) they have on to 'tell the other side'!!! They fail to see that 'balance' is also skewed with such house 'Democrats' who often are not even Democrats any longer.

Meanwhile ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the rest are in denial about their leanings.

No, the RIGHT is in denial about how centrist and non-left those corporate news sources are. MSNBC is the sole exception and that is recent.

How do I know this? I have watched how the mainstream media treats Democrats and their candidates. They always say they need to ditch the base, forget the minorities, disappoint labor interests, and move to the center. They claimed Clinton, among the more conservative Dems to hold the office, took a hard turn left that disappointed the <s>country</s> chattering class, even though those alleged new left moves (which weren't) had already been key campaign promises during the campaign. All the millionaire pundits hated the tax hike for their high bracket.

I have seen this dynamic for a long time. The Dems shun their more liberal candidates in favor of the most moderate Dem (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry), who nonetheless gets pilloried as way left, and when a milquetoast moderate Democrat is beaten partially because they couldn't mobilize the base by dissing the base (who knew??), they say it was because they were way too left, and the party needs to get still more centrist.



Jounalism is basically dead. Its almost all opinion pieces anymore.