Time Editor Works For Obama

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Is there any wonder why most of the news publications, newspapers and magazine and TV hate conservatives and do anything and everything to portray them as the terrible enemy of America?

They are mostly liberal rats that omit and censor stories that put the Democratic party in a bad light while repeating half truths and picking at old wounds from 41 frickin years ago - Watergate (which pales compared to the deaths that occurred in Benghazi etc…)

FAUX News? The real FALSE news which imitates journalism resides in the editor offices of the major media empires in America. Time, Newsweek, Playboy, Rolling Stone, Esquire and of course major newpapers from NY Times to LA Times all slant left and down.

You can tell who they are by their low TV ratings and publications going bankrupt. You can tell who they are because they have all the girly men as their anchors and reporters.

Real man believe in free enterprise capitalism, continuation of traditions, minimal government intervention in economy, strict law and order enforcement, and gradual change as opposed to radical reform. F__K the phony communist George Stephanopoulos’s of the news world.

They are all whores waiting for cushy jobs in return for leaning forward with communism.

You’re a fucking idiot. Your ranting and raving MIGHT have some merit if this were some sort of new phenomenon in politics. However, the fact is that journalists have worked in literally EVERY. SINGLE. ADMINISTRATION. EVER.

Hell, one of Bush’s press secrectaries, Tony Snow, was a journalist for more than 20 years at FoxNews, amongst others, prior to joining the administration. Shit, the Bush administration even admitted to paying several journalists to publish Bush-friendly pieces and/or work for them on various issues that the Bush White House wanted to promote.

So this shit is hardly unique to liberals and it’s hardly news. Get off your soap box and stop acting like an infantile hypocrite.[/quote]

Tony Snow was a journalist. You are correct, but he wasn’t the fuckin EDITOR of THE MAJOR MAGAZINE IN AMERICA.

How’s that for an infantile hypocrite. You’re another Algore fucktard.

Nice avatar pffftt

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Weekly Standard
National Review
Taki’s Magazine
The American Review
The New American
The American Spectator
The American Conservative
FrontPage Magazine
The Christian Science Monitor
Human Events
CyberCast News Service
The Atlantic
The Economist
Harper’s
Forbes
Daily Caller
Fox News
A plethora of talk radio and cable news programming
Too many websites to mention

I’d say the conservatives are pretty well represented in the media.
[/quote]

Most of the conservative magazines are full of words not pictures. Therefore they are not widely read and certainly not on par with Newsweek, Time, Rolling Stone, Playboy, Esquire subscriptions.

I realize the conservative cable news like FOX wipes the competition off the table, but there are so many of them even though they are propped up by liberal money. With PBS tax money is used to promote their politics.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Playboy? Rolling Stone? I’m so surprised that a magazine devoted to naked women and another that was founded by hippies in the 60’s (in San Francisco no less) would lean left. What doesn’t surprise me is that you try and bolster your argument by referring to these magazines when mentioning serious journalism. Who the hell READS Playboy? Does anyone over the age of 15 even buy Rolling Stone?

And if their ratings are so low and they are going bankrupt doesn’t that imply they don’t have much influence?

Stick to your nanny job. [/quote]

You are not very well read.

“Playboy is an American men’s magazine that features photographs of nude women as well as JOURNALISM and fiction.”

“Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine generally reflects a liberal editorial stance.”

“Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture.”

The fact that there are hundreds of liberal slanting periodicals is the problem. You don’t go in for a doctors appointment and find the Standard Weekly next to Time.

Right wingers logic:

Boast A: Fox is crushing the competition. Look at Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, etc. ratings! No one watches MSNBC. New York Times is hemorrhaging subscribers!

Whine B: Every single media member in America is a die hard liberal!

It has to be tiring keeping up with all this. And what goes through conservativedog’s mind when he picks up Time and reads the article in there from the National Review which frequently has a page? Probably too busy thinking about his favorite black people list.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Right wingers logic:

Boast A: Fox is crushing the competition. Look at Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, etc. ratings! No one watches MSNBC. New York Times is hemorrhaging subscribers!

Whine B: Every single media member in America is a die hard liberal!

It has to be tiring keeping up with all this. And what goes through conservativedog’s mind when he picks up Time and reads the article in there from the National Review which frequently has a page? Probably too busy thinking about his favorite black people list. [/quote]

Whine B:

The proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same since a survey began in 1962. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes.

It couldn’t be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades.

Would President Bush have gotten kinder coverage? For sure, and I’ll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again.

The effort to hire more minorities and women has had the effect of making the media more liberal, because that group overwhelmingly leans to the Democratic party.

By diversifying the profession in one way, they were making it more homogenous in another.

High-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism only seem to happen to liberal journalists and politicians. What a diverse media. So many Choices of plagiarism for liberals.

Your last statement sums up how frustrated you must feel:

Only in a politically correct fucked up liberal retard world can a “favorite black people” list be construed as racist. How is that racist?

There is an inferiority complex at work in liberals that paints any non liberal a RACIST if they write or speak about African Americans. Truly the mark of a racist.

-----You guys wouldn’t know racism even if someone yelled “I Hate White People before they killed you.”

FROM Coulter is… Acting Like an A$$ blog - I think I make a very good point…

The left wing media matters :Left-wing foundations lavish millions on Media Matters

…tape of Ann Coulter arguing that Obama only got into Harvard because of Affirmative Action is most likely a truth. How is that RACIST?

When white firemen sued after being passed over in favor of making the fire department diverse and inclusive by promoting firemen who performed poorly on the STANDARD TEST was that a good thing?

Is it not RACIST not to mention life threatening to promote inferior firemen over more experienced or superior firemen?

Just because a left wing media organization infers that someone said something racist and then includes a snippet of audio where Ann Coulter states he got into Harvard because he is a BLack American, does not prove that she is racist. How infantile.

Please share with me the liberal logic that infers that this is racist:

If I had written Favorite Women… Favorite Homosexuals is does that patronizing superiority???

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Please share with me the liberal logic that infers that this is racist:

If I had written Favorite Women… Favorite Homosexuals is does that patronizing superiority???[/quote]
You could have written about your UFC preparations.

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Playboy? Rolling Stone? I’m so surprised that a magazine devoted to naked women and another that was founded by hippies in the 60’s (in San Francisco no less) would lean left. What doesn’t surprise me is that you try and bolster your argument by referring to these magazines when mentioning serious journalism. Who the hell READS Playboy? Does anyone over the age of 15 even buy Rolling Stone?

And if their ratings are so low and they are going bankrupt doesn’t that imply they don’t have much influence?

Stick to your nanny job. [/quote]

You are not very well read.

“Playboy is an American men’s magazine that features photographs of nude women as well as JOURNALISM and fiction.”

“Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine generally reflects a liberal editorial stance.”

“Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture.”

The fact that there are hundreds of liberal slanting periodicals is the problem. You don’t go in for a doctors appointment and find the Standard Weekly next to Time.

[/quote]
I’m not well read because I don’t read Playboy or Rolling Stone? Are they part of the Western Canon?

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Most of the conservative magazines are full of words not pictures. Therefore they are not widely read…
[/quote]
Because conservatives can’t read? Save them Overnanny!!!

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Most of the conservative magazines are full of words not pictures. Therefore they are not widely read…
[/quote]
Because conservatives can’t read? Save them Overnanny!!![/quote]

Somebody had to say it…maybe they should try picture books? Free crayons might help, but that would be socialism…

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Most of the conservative magazines are full of words not pictures. Therefore they are not widely read…
[/quote]
Because conservatives can’t read? Save them Overnanny!!![/quote]

Somebody had to say it…maybe they should try picture books? Free crayons might help, but that would be socialism…[/quote]
As long as the crayon box doesn’t have too many colors.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Most of the conservative magazines are full of words not pictures. Therefore they are not widely read…
[/quote]
Because conservatives can’t read? Save them Overnanny!!![/quote]

Somebody had to say it…maybe they should try picture books? Free crayons might help, but that would be socialism…[/quote]
As long as the crayon box doesn’t have too many colors. [/quote]

Burnt Sienna? That damn Obama…

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Weekly Standard
National Review
Taki’s Magazine
The American Review
The New American
The American Spectator
The American Conservative
FrontPage Magazine
The Christian Science Monitor
Human Events
CyberCast News Service
The Atlantic
The Economist
Harper’s
Forbes
Daily Caller
Fox News
A plethora of talk radio and cable news programming
Too many websites to mention

I’d say the conservatives are pretty well represented in the media.
[/quote]

You forgot the Wall Street Journal.[/quote]

I was considering including it, but they seem more balanced, both in readership and editorial slant, than some of the other rags. I’ll give you the New York Post and Washington Times, though, and plop USA Today on top like a sickly-sweet, artificially colored maraschino cherry.
[/quote]

Certainly need to add the Journal if it is a comparison, not so much if were are going by objective measures.

I’ve also seen some pretty pro-left stuff out of the Economist, Forbes and The Atlantic, so I would put them closer to middle than firmly right.

The larger issue is the narrative. Which basically says: all things left are good, any thing right is “living in the bubble” and/or bad. Most people aren’t independent thinkers so they eat up the culture that is fed to them. Conservatives have lost the culture war.

People have been complaining about media bias since the dawn of the country, and they all have legit complaints. The media is bias, and it is a clusterfuck of shit piles with flashes of integrity now and again. This isn’t a new issue, nor is it going away. Each side lives in their own bubble, just so happens lefty bubble is the “cool” bubble right now for the majority…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Weekly Standard
National Review
Taki’s Magazine
The American Review
The New American
The American Spectator
The American Conservative
FrontPage Magazine
The Christian Science Monitor
Human Events
CyberCast News Service
The Atlantic
The Economist
Harper’s
Forbes
Daily Caller
Fox News
A plethora of talk radio and cable news programming
Too many websites to mention

I’d say the conservatives are pretty well represented in the media.
[/quote]

You forgot the Wall Street Journal.[/quote]

I was considering including it, but they seem more balanced, both in readership and editorial slant, than some of the other rags. I’ll give you the New York Post and Washington Times, though, and plop USA Today on top like a sickly-sweet, artificially colored maraschino cherry.
[/quote]

Certainly need to add the Journal if it is a comparison, not so much if were are going by objective measures.

I’ve also seen some pretty pro-left stuff out of the Economist, Forbes and The Atlantic, so I would put them closer to middle than firmly right.

The larger issue is the narrative. Which basically says: all things left are good, any thing right is “living in the bubble” and/or bad. Most people aren’t independent thinkers so they eat up the culture that is fed to them. Conservatives have lost the culture war.

People have been complaining about media bias since the dawn of the country, and they all have legit complaints. The media is bias, and it is a clusterfuck of shit piles with flashes of integrity now and again. This isn’t a new issue, nor is it going away. Each side lives in their own bubble, just so happens lefty bubble is the “cool” bubble right now for the majority…[/quote]

I agree with this, but IMO it is starting to change a bit. If the Right can get out the older Republicans, and embrace the Libertarians then the “cool” bubble will turn.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I agree with this, but IMO it is starting to change a bit. If the Right can get out the older Republicans, and embrace the Libertarians then the “cool” bubble will turn.
[/quote]

Sure, it will turn, almost irrelevant of what happens.

I laugh, full throated at people that feel like Obama killed “the right” or that the “republican party” is dying. Anyone that actually believes that is deluded to basic American history, politics and human nature in general.

There will always be opposition’s voice, no matter whom may be winning at the moment. And I don’t care how minority that voice may be, everyone and anyone involved in government will inevitably fuck it up eventually, and the opposition voice will come into favor.

We are all human, and even though the ruling class likes to pretend it is different, they really don’t know all that much better. Even they fuck it up, and certainly without checks to their ideas from other points of view.

In short: there will always be a need for reeducation camps…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

In short: there will always be a need for reeducation camps… [/quote]

TSA at the Airports…your security is our top priority. You liberty is our last priority. Already happening Beans.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Playboy? Rolling Stone? I’m so surprised that a magazine devoted to naked women and another that was founded by hippies in the 60’s (in San Francisco no less) would lean left. What doesn’t surprise me is that you try and bolster your argument by referring to these magazines when mentioning serious journalism. Who the hell READS Playboy? Does anyone over the age of 15 even buy Rolling Stone?

And if their ratings are so low and they are going bankrupt doesn’t that imply they don’t have much influence?

Stick to your nanny job. [/quote]

You are not very well read.

“Playboy is an American men’s magazine that features photographs of nude women as well as JOURNALISM and fiction.”

“Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine generally reflects a liberal editorial stance.”

“Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture.”

The fact that there are hundreds of liberal slanting periodicals is the problem. You don’t go in for a doctors appointment and find the Standard Weekly next to Time.

[/quote]
I’m not well read because I don’t read Playboy or Rolling Stone? Are they part of the Western Canon? [/quote]

Simply stating the obvious. I don’t read Vogue but I have a very good idea that it’s content revolves around our American fashion and lifestyles.

My point was to object scoffing at the idea that Playboy or Rolling Stone didn’t have current event or political articles.

My comment on conservative periodicals not having as wide a readership because of more words and not as many pictures was to the point Playboy and Rolling Stone do.

It’s much easier to pick up and thumb through one of those “picture” magazines than to stick with a conservative five or six page column on government tightening the noose on our individual rights and privacy.

Most people take the entertaining and easier way out. TV is especially becoming much more “pop culture” oriented in it’s reporting because it means more viewership. It also shortens the news programming time allotted for anything that portrays Democrats negatively. Liberals win in that category even though it ultimately affects their financial bottom line.

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Playboy? Rolling Stone? I’m so surprised that a magazine devoted to naked women and another that was founded by hippies in the 60’s (in San Francisco no less) would lean left. What doesn’t surprise me is that you try and bolster your argument by referring to these magazines when mentioning serious journalism. Who the hell READS Playboy? Does anyone over the age of 15 even buy Rolling Stone?

And if their ratings are so low and they are going bankrupt doesn’t that imply they don’t have much influence?

Stick to your nanny job. [/quote]

You are not very well read.

“Playboy is an American men’s magazine that features photographs of nude women as well as JOURNALISM and fiction.”

“Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine generally reflects a liberal editorial stance.”

“Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture.”

The fact that there are hundreds of liberal slanting periodicals is the problem. You don’t go in for a doctors appointment and find the Standard Weekly next to Time.

[/quote]
I’m not well read because I don’t read Playboy or Rolling Stone? Are they part of the Western Canon? [/quote]

Simply stating the obvious. I don’t read Vogue but I have a very good idea that it’s content revolves around our American fashion and lifestyles.

My point was to object scoffing at the idea that Playboy or Rolling Stone didn’t have current event or political articles.

My comment on conservative periodicals not having as wide a readership because of more words and not as many pictures was to the point Playboy and Rolling Stone do.

It’s much easier to pick up and thumb through one of those “picture” magazines than to stick with a conservative five or six page column on government tightening the noose on our individual rights and privacy.

Most people take the entertaining and easier way out. TV is especially becoming much more “pop culture” oriented in it’s reporting because it means more viewership. It also shortens the news programming time allotted for anything that portrays Democrats negatively. Liberals win in that category even though it ultimately affects their financial bottom line.
[/quote]
You do realize that you make no sense. On the one hand you say Playboy has some sort of influence with its journalism but on the other say that its “readers” are only looking at the pictures. Good job OF.

I wonder if Lindsey Graham “reads” Playboy.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You do realize that you make no sense. On the one hand you say Playboy has some sort of influence with its journalism but on the other say that its “readers” are only looking at the pictures. Good job OF.

I wonder if Lindsey Graham “reads” Playboy. [/quote]

I learned many years ago that no matter how much evidence or simple ideas laid out in map like fashion, the liberal mind is unable to follow and perceive.

Conservative ideas, for so many generations THE TRADITIONS OF AMERICA, all so easy to follow but the new age liberal socialist mind could not (not would not) they could not see what their great grandparents and past families lived and believed. It was all tainted, so all needed to be removed.

When I was a kid homosexuality was considered deviant. Now it’s celebrated. Every show has a homosexual.

Abortion. Once upon a time the reason to find a doctor to perform the operation was because of the scandal, embarrassment and ridicule of being pregnant and not married. Now marriage is a second thought option. African Americans have the lowest marriage rate in America and the highest out of wedlock childbirth rate. It didn’t used to be that way.

Traditionally people relied on their families and their local church to help them when times were difficult financially. Replace that with by government freebie handouts so that you do not have to work are now the reason immigrants invade our country. $650 million in welfare benefits to “undocumented” parents in Los Angeles. $650 million. DOLLARS NOT PESOS.

Obama phones, section 8 housing, food stamps/EBT, free medical care with politicians telling these takers that America’s problem are those who are heartless and work for money and vote against Democratic socialist ideas.

The noose is tightening around freedom’s neck. The liberal mind is veiled from this. The Bible even speaks: “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart.” Is it any wonder that ALL of the mass shooters were registered Democrats or big Obama supporters and had mental illness?

Gifford’s shooter a left wing mental nutt.

God works in many fashions but I think that is one of the ways that he brings about retribution and the reckoning on those that turn away from our conservative heritage.

P.S.

Lindsay Graham only reads Playboy for the pictures.

Causative or correlative, one wonders. And if causative, in which direction?