The democratic candidates for President put on a good show for us yesterday! Or did they?
Actually, it was the network that put on the good show . . . the candidates only played the part of actors in a program!
How can I say this? Simple . . . all the questions from the citizens of our fair country were submitted to the network. Some employee of the network reviewed them all and, following such directions as he(she) may have been given, made the selection of the questions that would be used in the actual broadcast. Obviously, the number of questions selected for the program was quite small when compared to the number that had been submitted!
So what?
So if the network or the person selecting the questions favored a given candidate, questions that gave him(her) the best chance to make a good showing would be included on the list for the show. If the network or its employee was in favor of a specific problem or against it, such as abortion, immigration reform, the war in Iraq, you name it, the questions submitted on that subject would be selected so that a bias could be created in the direction of the network's wishes.
Now we all know that the general media bias is liberal, so it is not unreasonable for us to assume that any candidate of a conservative persuasion is going to be somewhat handicapped by this question selection modality.
So who came out looking best on the show? Well, which was the candidate most loved by the liberals?
Manipulation . . . by the same media that typically manipulates the news presentations to assure that publicity through this avenue promotes the media's favorite candidate or position on key issues! And by the same media that conducts all the polls that are so couched in wording that choices that are negative to what the media wants may be difficult or impossible to select.
Ah, dear reader, gather all the information you can on both sides of the choices you make, then make your own decision, unless you are willing to be led around like a bull with a ring in his nose!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Henry,
I think you're unnecessarily consumed with liberalphobia. The media are "liberal"? You mean the WSJ, Ann Coulter, Limbough, Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al?
But then John F. Kennedy confessed in 1960:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."[i]
Henry said . . . spoken like a true liberal. In the remarks that you attributed to John Kennedy, first he defines the meaning of the word liberal for those with whom he disagrees and then he spouts the same rubish that liberals always spout, but which they do nothing about when then get elected to public office. Look at the record: The democrats have never been able to come up with a decent health plan, our kids graduate from schools where even the teachers are as ignorant as the product they produce. It is common knowledge that our institutions of higher learning are all staffed by liberals . . . anti capitalists who retreated into a job where they could be de facto leaders because they were not able to compete in the open market for leadership positions.
The core of the liberals are very vocal, constantly screaming that big business and capitalism are keeping them down, but refusing to get real jobs that would allow them to demonstrate that their abilities qualified them to tell the rest of us how we should conduct our lives. They want to take from the rich and give to the poor, never giving thought to the fact that the capital of the rich is invested in the business ventures that provide the jobs that the poor and the rest of us work at to support our families.
Come on Charlie Brown, do you really believe that those of us who work for a living should be taxed into extinction so that the politicians can take a cut of the monies so raised, before passing it on to those who choose not to work for a living? Do you really believe that one man is entitled to participate in the earnings of another man simply because that man has the ambition to work hard amd invest his money wisely, while his counterpart chooses to not get the kind of education that will enable him to hold the higher paying jobs that he is not willing to work at in the first place? Do you really believe that it is the fault of the more successful workers of this country that all those kids are dropping out of school to take those sucker jobs provided by the misguided minimum wage program? Come, come, look at all the sides to the equation, and you will see the fundamental truth: If a man is willing to work for a living, not just hold a job, but really work at that job, and if he is smart enough to stay in school and learn the basics of our language, mathematics, and communication skills, do you really believe that the fruits of his labors should be taken from him and given to someone who dropped out of school and now enjoys the fruits of his lack of planning and his misguided ambition?
Post a Comment