Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Corporate Media: Primaries

TheVictors

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
14,220
The coverage is waaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaay overboard. The minute by minute, byte by byte obsessive programming is nauseating. There are other things in the world that are far more newsworthy than how Gingrich is attacking Romney in SC or how the wholly irrelevant Palin endorses anybody.

So fucking annoying and so many fucking months to go. The US corporate media -- and yes, that includes FoxNews too -- is an embarrassment to the intellectual integrity of our country and the people who live here.
 
TheVictors03 said:
The coverage is waaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaay overboard. The minute by minute, byte by byte obsessive programming is nauseating. There are other things in the world that are far more newsworthy than how Gingrich is attacking Romney in SC or how the wholly irrelevant Palin endorses anybody.

So fucking annoying and so many fucking months to go. The US corporate media -- and yes, that includes FoxNews too -- is an embarrassment to the intellectual integrity of our country and the people who live here.


Wow, weirdest thing, it's like I see a post like this every 4 years.
 
Hardly. More like every 2yrs now and its an incestuous process. One douche bag network covers something, therefore all douche bag networks have to and this election year is FAR WORSE than prior ones. Maybe it's just I'm old enough to recall days when news was news and not part of a corporate agenda that is so fucking transparent.
 
you might as well tune out.

the only newsworthy thing to follow is how this same media (and other candidates) will continue to marginalize Ron Paul, the only candidate (yes, I am including Obama with the rest of the GOP field) who represents a threat to the entrenched interests in DC: the defense industry, and Wall street.

I agree entirely with Taibbi's column on this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

he wrote this Jan. 3...
 
I have tuned out (or try) but nowadays every airport, hotel, a lot of offices I go into ...all have corporate Cable TV blaring. Makes it hard to avoid completely.
 
MichChamp02 said:
you might as well tune out.

the only newsworthy thing to follow is how this same media (and other candidates) will continue to marginalize Ron Paul, the only candidate (yes, I am including Obama with the rest of the GOP field) who represents a threat to the entrenched interests in DC: the defense industry, and Wall street.

I agree entirely with Taibbi's column on this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

he wrote this Jan. 3...

And Paul being marginalized by the powers that be isn't really a newworthy event, anyway - nothing new about that.

I guess maybe it's news that Paul is getting more people voting for him than the establishment expected.
 
Ron Paul is no threat to the Republicans , until he announces a 3rd party run.
 
Well, not exactly... if Paul stays in the primaries all the way through, he will presumably have a chunk of delegates to bring to the convention.

at that point, he can play hardball, refuse to back Romney (assuming Romney wins), demand concessions, or a speaking role. The GOP has to decide how to handle him then. since everyone in DC (both Dem & Republican) is horrified at the prospects of his views receiving primetime air like that... it would be interesting.

If the GOP refuses any concessions to his positions on banking, defense, foreign policy, etc., he can at least force a vote. He will lose it, but a strong showing could result in some momentum for his 3rd party candidacy (not sure when he as to declare that though) which would doom the GOP in November.
 
MichChamp02 said:
Well, not exactly... if Paul stays in the primaries all the way through, he will presumably have a chunk of delegates to bring to the convention.

at that point, he can play hardball, refuse to back Romney (assuming Romney wins), demand concessions, or a speaking role. The GOP has to decide how to handle him then. since everyone in DC (both Dem & Republican) is horrified at the prospects of his views receiving primetime air like that... it would be interesting.

If the GOP refuses any concessions to his positions on banking, defense, foreign policy, etc., he can at least force a vote. He will lose it, but a strong showing could result in some momentum for his 3rd party candidacy (not sure when he as to declare that though) which would doom the GOP in November.


hopefully he does well in SC and Florida....I actually dont mind Ron Paul.
 
If Romney is smart he would nominate Paul as his running mate. Paul has already publicly defended Romney's business record against Noot's attack ads.

Most political insiders would say it's too risky but IMHO he needs a wild card/split on independent voters to win a general election anyways.

The marriage of a free market exec and a libertarian on a return to the go-go 80s economic fix can play to a wide base.

Romney's advisers will probably stick him with some christian conservative to offset the Mormon haters though.
 
Ha, ha. I think Paul claims to be a Christian himself.

But politically he's libertarian.

Like Reagan.

Although Reagan didn't go around telling everybody he was libertarian.

But pretty much he was.

Or maybe more accurately, in a lot of ways he was.
 
Reagan only said he was christian in speeches to dumb, gullible assholes (i.e. christian conservatives). he never actually went to church with any regularity like GW Bush did.

he and nancy did have a White House astrologer, though. very hollywood of them.
 
MichChamp02 said:
Reagan only said he was christian in speeches to dumb, gullible assholes (i.e. christian conservatives). he never actually went to church with any regularity like GW Bush did.

he and nancy did have a White House astrologer, though. very hollywood of them.

Yes, that's what I'm talkin' about.

Played 'em like a fiddle.

Kinda the way Obama played the anti-war and anti - Wall Street folks who got him nominated.
 
[color=#551A8B said:
TinselWolverine[/color]]
MichChamp02 said:
Reagan only said he was christian in speeches to dumb, gullible assholes (i.e. christian conservatives). he never actually went to church with any regularity like GW Bush did.

he and nancy did have a White House astrologer, though. very hollywood of them.

Yes, that's what I'm talkin' about.

Played 'em like a fiddle.

Kinda the way Obama played the anti-war and anti - Wall Street folks who got him nominated.

indeed. I don't consider them assholes though, because I think they are sincere, and their beliefs are actually social, responsible, and compassionate.
 
I like Taibbi's stuff ... thanks for that article post. Sums things up perfectly and ties in to the premise behind the OP.

I've been watching BBC and other non-US Corporate news lately .... they cover things besides primaries, Lindsay Lohan, Casey Anthony and whatever wacky non-news event that was captured on film that day and turned into a news event.
 
hey, don't troll people like that.

the whole thing is pretty rotten, isn't it? not much of a democracy anymore.
 
MichChamp02 said:
Reagan only said he was christian in speeches to dumb, gullible assholes (i.e. christian conservatives). he never actually went to church with any regularity like GW Bush did.

he and nancy did have a White House astrologer, though. very hollywood of them.

LOL - I get it - so it's only people who go to church regularly that you hate. Not that its surprising, but it explains a lot. ;*)
 
Back
Top