Quantcast

Barack Obama would be nothing without the slobbering left wing media, agree?

KCurtis 2012/12/02 22:03:26
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Time magazine gushed in 2008 about Barack Obama's 12-year tenure as a
law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, saying, "Within a
few years, he had become a rock-star professor with hordes of devoted
students."

FACT: In 1999, only 23 percent of the students
said they would repeat Obama's racism class. He was the
third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law school that year. And in 2003,
only a third of the student evaluators recommended his classes. A spring
1994 class attracted 14 out of a student body of 600; a spring 1996
class drew 13.

Shortly after Barack Obama won the 2008
presidential election, Prairie State Blue, a liberal blog, attributed
his victory to the fact that Illinois' deeply entrenched government
corruption had forced "political reformers" in the state legislature
like Obama "to network outside the traditional political circles."

The
claim illustrated Obama's success throughout his career at presenting
himself as an outsider and reformer even as he became a skillful
operator inside one of the nation's most corrupt political systems.

FACT:
Former Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a maverick Republican and
reformer, told The Washington Examiner that Obama never fought
corruption, even when it was being done by Republicans. "I've never seen
him fight corruption. He never wanted to upset the apple cart with the
Chicago machine," Fitzgerald said.

Chris Lauzen
said Obama "was not on the playing field. In my opinion, Barack Obama
was a product and beneficiary of how politics are practiced in Illinois.
It would be impossible to call him a reformer."

Barack
Obama's carefully constructed image as a civil rights lawyer who wanted
to heal the black community was greeted with skepticism by some Chicago
activists.

FACT: Robert Fitch, a radical leftist and
freelance journalist who specialized in urban politics and economics,
said Obama surrounded himself with people who got rich on Chicago's $1.6
billion neighborhood demolition program known officially as the Plan
for Transformation.

At least 25,000 low-income
apartments in Chicago were destroyed under the program, which forced
thousands of black families -- many of whom lived in Obama's state
Senate district -- to move out of the city. Obama's political allies
directed the effort.

"What we see is that the
Chicago core of the Obama coalition is made up of blacks who've moved up
by moving poor blacks out of the community," Fitch charged in a 2008
speech before the Harlem Tenants Association. Fitch died in 2011.

More
and more it is ever apparent that the Barack Obama the liberal media
has been selling as a savior, is a fraud. He has stepped his way to the
top on the backs of hard working Americans. Sorry to break it to the
dumb masses that follow his garbage talking points, but your King has no
clothes.

Read the full series, the Obama You Don't Know

Read More: http://www.followingjohngalt.org/barack-obama-woul...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • truthzx95 2013/02/19 03:03:15
  • The Birdman ~ PWCM~JLA 2012/12/07 04:15:58
  • ☆ c61☆ 2012/12/07 02:27:52
    Obama is a Fraud
    ☆ c61☆
    +1
    And those who voted for him have just proven the theory of the dumbing down of America.
  • Annette 2012/12/07 02:14:31
    Obama is a Fraud
    Annette
    +3
    With or without the media he is a fraud; however with the media he is a complete disgrace to the country and to media - they're just too stupid to realize that!
  • rightside 2012/12/05 22:06:27
    Obama would be nothing with the slobbering left wing media
    rightside
    +3
    The way they demonized those running against him and validated all of his lies as truth goes to prove that he wouldn't have made it to senator without them.
  • Erok 2012/12/05 09:55:02
    Obama is a Fraud
    Erok
    +4
    Came out of nowhere not qualified for the job has hidden all of his past!
  • SIMPATTYCO 2012/12/05 01:10:06
    Obama is a Fraud
    SIMPATTYCO
    +6
    FRAUD That says it all!
  • Krissy Webster 2012/12/04 16:58:21
    Obama is wonderful, loons check here
    Krissy Webster
    I don't understand why people feel the need to make posts just to have a reason to argue? "loons" I guess I am a little looney, but at least I'm not angry.
  • GAC 2012/12/04 15:39:09
    Obama would be nothing with the slobbering left wing media
    GAC
    +4
    He would not have lasted without the media at all after he had the nerve to say, "You didn't build that!" Seriously, the journalists are licking his toes!
  • Mr. T 2012/12/04 15:36:19
    Obama is wonderful, loons check here
    Mr. T
    Let's start with your argument. You claim a "loony liberal media" is the cause of the support for President Obama and then you point to TWO quotes from media sources during the entirety of the time that Obama has run for president. We are talking six years and you can only come up with TWO?! Not to mention that one of the sources is a self-proclaiming liberal blog. Do I really need to post the THOUSANDS of cites from conservative blogs claiming that Obama is not a citizen, is a fraud, is a nazi, etc. to counter your notion of a liberal media?

    Now, let's address a rational argument. The "media" is a business composed of literally thousands of sources, including print, radio, TV, and internet. As with any business, they depend on revenue to succeed. Revenue for the media is dependent upon viewership. If the media were to report everything from a liberal perspective, then they would alienate a substantial portion of their viewership and hence, cost themselves a great deal of money. You can allege that certain individuals within these organizations are liberal, but you would be a fool to claim that those same individuals are the ONLY ones making the business decisions for the company. Even if you limit yourself to "main stream media," which is, by definition, a media source wi...

    Let's start with your argument. You claim a "loony liberal media" is the cause of the support for President Obama and then you point to TWO quotes from media sources during the entirety of the time that Obama has run for president. We are talking six years and you can only come up with TWO?! Not to mention that one of the sources is a self-proclaiming liberal blog. Do I really need to post the THOUSANDS of cites from conservative blogs claiming that Obama is not a citizen, is a fraud, is a nazi, etc. to counter your notion of a liberal media?

    Now, let's address a rational argument. The "media" is a business composed of literally thousands of sources, including print, radio, TV, and internet. As with any business, they depend on revenue to succeed. Revenue for the media is dependent upon viewership. If the media were to report everything from a liberal perspective, then they would alienate a substantial portion of their viewership and hence, cost themselves a great deal of money. You can allege that certain individuals within these organizations are liberal, but you would be a fool to claim that those same individuals are the ONLY ones making the business decisions for the company. Even if you limit yourself to "main stream media," which is, by definition, a media source with a viewership or listenership above a certain number (let's say a million people), then you would have to include such amazingly liberal sources as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News.

    There is no such thing as the "liberal media."
    (more)
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/04 22:25:59
    KCurtis
    +4
    Read the definition of the Free Press it has nothing to do with business.
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/05 01:08:37
    Mr. T
    Please, enlighten me on the definition of the "Free Press" and, while you're at it, go ahead and tell me the relevance of that definition to my post or this poll.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/05 01:50:08 (edited)
    KCurtis
    +3
    The definition of Free Press is a media agent not restricted, controlled or influenced by government or administration on it's coverage of politics or ideology. The Free Press is a guarantee in the Constitution that the government shall not interfere with a news media's coverage of the facts regarding a political policy, action or delegation.

    It is the responsibility of the media to police the actions of both parties with equal coverage and to do so without prejudice or personal bias.

    There are two quotes shown above in a Series of 12 Articles that you are welcomed to read, research and verify. They not only cover the 6 years to which you half-assedly commented on but they also cover nearly 25 years of Obama's protected history. Try reading some of it before you come here and condemn them.

    Consider yourself enlightened now idiot, this is information I learned in 1980 during my tenure as a journalism student and then expanded on during my career as an investigative reporter in Chicago. No go put that business crap in your Bong and smoke it because it's pretty evident you are stoned.
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/05 02:53:05 (edited)
    Mr. T
    Let's be clear on what we are discussing when we are talking about the press. I am discussing the press that actually attempts to gather information and then spread that information via radio or TV or print primarily. In other words, sources that incur costs when trying to spread that information - not some dude discussing issues on a twitter or facebook or free blog account like sodahead. If they incur a cost and, at the same time, are trying to gain a revenue from the costs that they have input, then they are a BUSINESS. As such, they must attempt to garner viewership and would determintally harm their business by alienating a substantial portion of the population.


    So yea...the free press to which you are referring is "free from government" control. The free press to which you should be referencing (as per my post and this poll) is NOT free from market forces.

    Your post about the free press is thus ironic - namely in that it supports my point because the free press will NOT just report what the President wants. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant to this survey.

    Also, I will point that out that the sheer FACT that you are able to cite to sources of negative information regarding Obama's "protected past" indicates that the information is not so protected or secret. It also would indi...

    Let's be clear on what we are discussing when we are talking about the press. I am discussing the press that actually attempts to gather information and then spread that information via radio or TV or print primarily. In other words, sources that incur costs when trying to spread that information - not some dude discussing issues on a twitter or facebook or free blog account like sodahead. If they incur a cost and, at the same time, are trying to gain a revenue from the costs that they have input, then they are a BUSINESS. As such, they must attempt to garner viewership and would determintally harm their business by alienating a substantial portion of the population.


    So yea...the free press to which you are referring is "free from government" control. The free press to which you should be referencing (as per my post and this poll) is NOT free from market forces.

    Your post about the free press is thus ironic - namely in that it supports my point because the free press will NOT just report what the President wants. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant to this survey.

    Also, I will point that out that the sheer FACT that you are able to cite to sources of negative information regarding Obama's "protected past" indicates that the information is not so protected or secret. It also would indicate that the media is out there doing its job by gathering that information.

    Unless you want to tell me that it was the guy on Twitter or Facebook or Sodahead that uncovered that information?
    (more)
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/05 10:27:27
    KCurtis
    +2
    My post is about the loss of Free Press. My post outlines what's wrong with media today. It's not a business. It was never suppose to be a business. It was supposed to police the government and politicians. That's what's gone from the media, morals and ethics, instead they've become Obama's water carriers and people like you are just fine with that.
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/05 15:50:06
    Mr. T
    If it wasn't a business, then it would be controlled (in part) by the government because there would be no other way to address the costs associated with researching, editing, and displaying the news.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/05 21:51:02
    KCurtis
    +1
    You have those now they are NPR and MSNBC
  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/12/04 14:56:15
  • Jackie 2012/12/04 13:47:34
    Obama is a Fraud
    Jackie
    +3
    I am so scared and sad there are 15% of votes on here that say Obama is wonderful..WTF is wrong with you people????
  • Mr. T Jackie 2012/12/04 15:28:08
    Mr. T
    +1
    Seriously? 15% refusing to say that Obama is a fraud or that he would be nothing without the "non-existent" liberal media scares you?

    The man was just ELECTED with a MAJORITY of votes. More than 50% of this country supports the man.
  • Jackie Mr. T 2012/12/04 21:35:39
    Jackie
    +5
    Was only 15% on here at the time, and yes, I know. There is over 50% of this country out their freekin minds...
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/04 22:44:31
    KCurtis
    +3
    No sorry again to point out your fallacy. He was elected with 50% of the vote not 50% of the country. There were 118 million votes cast out of a population of 318 million just a little over 1/3 of Americans actually voted, not counting those who are dead or not citizens.
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/05 01:10:21
    Mr. T
    Basic statistics tells us that a poll comprised of 1500 will have margin of error of plus or minus 3. As the sample size gets larger, the MoE gets smaller. At the point where we are talking about 118 MILLION, then the MoE is close to 0.01%. So yes, I stand by my point that a majority of the country supports the man.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/05 01:52:29
    KCurtis
    +1
    I see you have issues with Math too.
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/05 02:58:13
    Mr. T
    Here's the source: http://americanresearchgroup....

    Try putting in the following values:

    350 million for population (which is larger than the number you cited)
    118 million for sample size

    The resulting MoE is: 0.01%.

    Math is fun.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/05 10:29:49
    KCurtis
    +1
    What does margin of error have to do with anything 62 million people voted for Obama, there are over 300 million people in the US. 62 Million is not more than 50% of 300 million.

    "The man was just ELECTED with a MAJORITY of votes. More than 50% of this country supports the man."

    Do you need help from a 5th grader?
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/05 15:47:32
    Mr. T
    Ok...let's break this down very simply. The Margin of Error refers to the ability of statisticians to accurately predict what a population would say based on the results of a sample size. The census, political polls, focus groups for companies, and a host of other individuals rely on the science behind the Margin of Error to make these predictions. The larger the sample size, the smaller the margin of error and thus, the more accurate the prediction. At 1500, the MoE is about 3...at 118 million, the MoE is 0.01%.

    Thus, at a sample size of 118 million, the results will be within 0.01% of the result from a poll that actually obtained the results from all 300 million. Seeing as how Obama garnered more than 50.1% of the popular vote, one can reasonably extrapolate that if you actually got all 300 million to vote, the result would be pretty much exactly the same.

    Obama would still get more than 50% of the vote.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/05 21:51:40
    KCurtis
    Sure ok whatever.
  • Mr. T KCurtis 2012/12/06 15:36:49
    Mr. T
    I know, math and science are tough subjects sometimes. It's OK.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/06 22:56:19
    KCurtis
    +1
    Your Math is nothing more than a red herring. Look that up.
  • Jackie Mr. T 2012/12/07 14:34:00
    Jackie
    +1
    Does that count the 108% of people in an Ohio town that voted for him..
  • Cat 2012/12/04 11:31:42
    Obama would be nothing with the slobbering left wing media
    Cat
    +3
    The media, Hollywood, the pop and hip-hop music industry and people who vote color over policy made Obama our president.
  • Mr. T Cat 2012/12/04 15:29:12
    Mr. T
    I suppose that it's rather unfortunate for you that the "media, Hollywood, the pop and hip-hop music industry and people who vote color over policy" make up more than 50% of this country.
  • KCurtis Mr. T 2012/12/04 22:45:13
    KCurtis
    +2
    Stop spreading lies.
  • Cat Mr. T 2012/12/05 03:03:20
    Cat
    +2
    Any intelligent person would understand that the media and the pop and hip-hop music industries influence the opinions of far more people than those employed in those fields and only needs to reach 36% when added to the 15% voting skin color to make 51%. Even that amount is not necessary when one takes into consideration all the voter fraud and voter intimidation that took place during the recent election.
    Gloat now Mr. T because the election results were as unfortunate for you as for me and all Americans.
  • Mr. T Cat 2012/12/05 04:21:04
    Mr. T
    You notice how you assume that 15% of the country voted specifically on race? Well, I would like to expand that number to roughly 30%. The other 15% referring specifically to the caucasian individuals who refused to vote for Obama specifically because of his race as well.

    Now, you can try to tell me that there is no way I can prove that 15% of America refused to vote for Obama specifically because of his skin color. But guess what, you can't prove that 15% voted for Obama because of his skin color either.

    As for your allegation of voter fraud....yea...good luck proving that voter fraud/intimidation had ANY significant impact on a result where Obama won the electoral college by 130 votes and the popular vote by nearly 2.5 million.
  • Cat Mr. T 2012/12/05 04:26:29
    Cat
    +1
    Prove? This is social media! Prove that you are really Mr. T.

    MrT
  • Crank_It_Up 2012/12/04 07:01:02
    Obama is wonderful, loons check here
    Crank_It_Up
    +3
    lol, more whining from the sore losers, too funny
    romney sore losers crying
  • Theodon 2012/12/04 06:33:15
    Obama would be nothing with the slobbering left wing media
    Theodon
    +3
    he'd be a petty community organizer attending a black church with a racist minister blaming the jews for all their problems
  • scottcleaves 2012/12/04 06:04:34
    Obama is wonderful, loons check here
    scottcleaves
    +3
    Question: Why did your candidtae lose the presidential election? Answer: Because America rejected him and YOU. Take a hike, righties.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 11:13:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals