Are there any consequences?

[manchambo]

Fox News lied to its audience throughout the entire election. They told them that Obama is wildly unpopular and Romney would win easily. Rove, Krauthammer, Dick Morris and others were just spectacularly wrong. And Rove is now on every day to provide "expert" analysis on what happened. He made a complete fool of himself on election night. How wrong would he have to be to lose credibility with these people? At what point would the Fox News audience be unhappy with Fox for lying nonstop to their faces?

[baja]

No they will tell them this is God's work.

Obama had to win to fill the anti Christ prophecy

[Traveler]

Fox News lied to its audience throughout the entire election. They told them that Obama is wildly unpopular and Romney would win easily. Rove, Krauthammer, Dick Morris and others were just spectacularly wrong. And Rove is now on every day to provide "expert" analysis on what happened. He made a complete fool of himself on election night. How wrong would he have to be to lose credibility with these people? At what point would the Fox News audience be unhappy with Fox for lying nonstop to their faces?

Can't get those that "should"want credibility to seek it if they refuse to get out of that Fox News spin bubble. Some folks happily want to stay uniformed or do want to deal with reality. How Rove is still employed by them is mind boggling.

[DenverBrit]

Fox News lied to its audience throughout the entire election. They told them that Obama is wildly unpopular and Romney would win easily. Rove, Krauthammer, Dick Morris and others were just spectacularly wrong. And Rove is now on every day to provide "expert" analysis on what happened. He made a complete fool of himself on election night. How wrong would he have to be to lose credibility with these people? At what point would the Fox News audience be unhappy with Fox for lying nonstop to their faces?

They apparently need to be lied to, reality is more than they can handle. Limbaugh has been a lying, misogynist hypocrite for years, but the idiots still flock to him and he influences the far right just like Coulter does.

They'll get around to blaming Romney for not being extremist enough.

[houghtam]

As long as Republicans refuse to believe in mathematics, there will be no consequences, because they are telling their viewership exactly what they want to hear.

A perfect example of this was watching Kaylore, That One Guy, a few others, and most notably ColoradoDarin in the Election Day! thread. They kept saying things like, "why are we talking about polls when people are already voting?" and "I think we win Ohio because my sources tell me Democratic turnout is lower and Republican turnout is higher than in 2008."

That's what they wanted to hear, regardless of whether simple math (I'm talking 9th grade algebra and first year college statistics) shows them they are wrong.

It's a fundamental problem with the right these days, IMO. They're the ones who laugh about the lack of substance of "Hope and Change", yet when it comes to real, knowable things such as whether icebergs are melting, whether ocean levels are rising, whether voter fraud is an actual problem, whether the earth is older than 10,000 years, or whether an aggregate of polling methods provides a more accurate answer than one or two with flawed polling methods or "internal polling", they continually believe what they want to, regardless of facts and figures punching them right in the face.

This election, because of all those factors, should have proven once and for all the folly of favoring faith over fact.

Somehow I doubt anything changes for them.

[Rohirrim]

<param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjE4NDYtNDk4NDE?color=C93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjE4NDYtNDk4NDE?color=C93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="336" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjE4NDYtNDk4NDE" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

[Missouribronc]

This election, because of all those factors, should have proven once and for all the folly of favoring faith over fact.

This sentence is pretty ironic.

Obama has driven up a deficit larger than any president has in the past, and yet he got re-elected on a "it's going to get better" platform.

Faith over fact...no?

[houghtam]

This sentence is pretty ironic.

Obama has driven up a deficit larger than any president has in the past, and yet he got re-elected on a "it's going to get better" platform.

Faith over fact...no?

Apparently someone doesn't read the CBO or TPC research. The "it's going to get better" platform IS based on fact.

[Taco John]

Of course there are consequences. They lost the election, and not only that, they lost it losing 2 million voters since the last one. Of course, same goes for the other side - only they lost about 7 million votes from the last time around and still won.

[Jetmeck]

As long as Republicans refuse to believe in mathematics, there will be no consequences, because they are telling their viewership exactly what they want to hear.

A perfect example of this was watching Kaylore, That One Guy, a few others, and most notably ColoradoDarin in the Election Day! thread. They kept saying things like, "why are we talking about polls when people are already voting?" and "I think we win Ohio because my sources tell me Democratic turnout is lower and Republican turnout is higher than in 2008."

That's what they wanted to hear, regardless of whether simple math (I'm talking 9th grade algebra and first year college statistics) shows them they are wrong.

It's a fundamental problem with the right these days, IMO. They're the ones who laugh about the lack of substance of "Hope and Change", yet when it comes to real, knowable things such as whether icebergs are melting, whether ocean levels are rising, whether voter fraud is an actual problem, whether the earth is older than 10,000 years, or whether an aggregate of polling methods provides a more accurate answer than one or two with flawed polling methods or "internal polling", they continually believe what they want to, regardless of facts and figures punching them right in the face.

This election, because of all those factors, should have proven once and for all the folly of favoring faith over fact.

Somehow I doubt anything changes for them.



Well said.....................

[Jetmeck]

This sentence is pretty ironic.

Obama has driven up a deficit larger than any president has in the past, and yet he got re-elected on a "it's going to get better" platform.

Faith over fact...no?



Quit making Missourians look stupid.............you know damn well a very large portion of that defecit was and is still cleaning up the mess of the greatest recession in history next to the great depression.

Pull your head out ...your side's policies suck ass or they would have won.........

[BowlenBall]

As long as Republicans refuse to believe in mathematics, there will be no consequences, because they are telling their viewership exactly what they want to hear.

A perfect example of this was watching Kaylore, That One Guy, a few others, and most notably ColoradoDarin in the Election Day! thread. They kept saying things like, "why are we talking about polls when people are already voting?" and "I think we win Ohio because my sources tell me Democratic turnout is lower and Republican turnout is higher than in 2008."

That's what they wanted to hear, regardless of whether simple math (I'm talking 9th grade algebra and first year college statistics) shows them they are wrong.

It's a fundamental problem with the right these days, IMO. They're the ones who laugh about the lack of substance of "Hope and Change", yet when it comes to real, knowable things such as whether icebergs are melting, whether ocean levels are rising, whether voter fraud is an actual problem, whether the earth is older than 10,000 years, or whether an aggregate of polling methods provides a more accurate answer than one or two with flawed polling methods or "internal polling", they continually believe what they want to, regardless of facts and figures punching them right in the face.

This election, because of all those factors, should have proven once and for all the folly of favoring faith over fact.

Somehow I doubt anything changes for them.

Nice post... but you forgot to add "thinks the deficit can be balanced by cutting taxes for the rich".

Basically, the republican party is math- and science-challenged, and proud of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This sentence is pretty ironic.

Obama has driven up a deficit larger than any president has in the past, and yet he got re-elected on a "it's going to get better" platform.

Faith over fact...no?

^

Speaking of the Fox News audience... ::)

Good Lord, you're an embarrassment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted is fast becoming one of the most despised election officials in the country for his many attempts to restrict early voting and throw out legitimate provisional ballots. He’s also alienating federal judges left and right. After Husted issued a last-minute directive that could invalidate thousands of Ohioans’ votes, US District Judge Algenon Marbley did not bother to hide his impatience with the secretary’s hijinks.

Judge Blasts Ohio’s Last Minute Disenfranchisement Effort: ‘I Don’t Want To See Democracy Die In The Darkness’ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/09/1169321/federal-judge-not-amused-by-ohio-gop-secretary-of-states-last-minute-disenfranchisement-directive/)

[Rohirrim]

The next big fight will be the Right trying to apportion electors to congressional districts. Since they've gerrymandered the hell out of many states in order to keep their dominance in the House, this would almost automatically give them the WH as well, without having to change their ideology one iota. BTW, they lost the popular vote in the House as well, but because of their gerrymandering of districts, they keep control, bypassing the will of the people.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/

[manchambo]

Of course there are consequences. They lost the election, and not only that, they lost it losing 2 million voters since the last one. Of course, same goes for the other side - only they lost about 7 million votes from the last time around and still won.

But none of those are consequences for Fox News. As a matter of fact they will probably make more money in the next four years than if Romney had won. The consequences should be that, having been spectacularly wrong, Fox News would lose credibility with its viewers. But that unfortunately will not happen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But none of those are consequences for Fox News. As a matter of fact they will probably make more money in the next four years than if Romney had won. The consequences should be that, having been spectacularly wrong, Fox News would lose credibility with its viewers. But that unfortunately will not happen.

This is good news for Democrats.

"Stay the course," Fox! :~ohyah!:

[nyuk nyuk]

Obama lost 7 million votes from last election to this one. Would you all say this meant Obama was BMOC?

[nyuk nyuk]

^

Speaking of the Fox News audience... ::)

Good Lord, you're an embarrassment.

In other words, he made a factually accurate statement and your only defense was a drive by Fox News slur. I must give you today's golf clap for originality.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ljti4j.gif

[nyuk nyuk]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/

Without ThinkProgress, where would America's intellectual knowledge arise? Without these guys, I for one would be stumbling around blindly in the dark without a light upon my path for my frightened feet to tread upon.

[nyuk nyuk]

Quit making Missourians look stupid.............you know damn well a very large portion of that defecit was and is still cleaning up the mess of the greatest recession in history next to the great depression.

Pull your head out ...your side's policies suck ass or they would have won.........

Your boy lost 7 million votes since last election. Such cockiness is idiotic.

And it's spelled DEFICIT, you brainiac.

Instead of spiking the football and pretending that you have the world at your back (you did this in 09 and it exploded in your face in 10), you need to be asking why so many jumped ship and what you can do in '16 besides construct more Republican vote-blocking conspiracy theories to explain your losses.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, he made a factually accurate statement and your only defense was a drive by Fox News slur.

You and your fellow Fox moon bats wouldn't know a "factually accurate statement" from a gopher hole.

This election is all the proof anyone with the brains God gave a dust mite could possibly need.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your boy lost 7 million votes since last election.

Hilarious!

I know arithmetic has no place inside the cocoon you inhabit, but how do you figure this?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bad news for right-wing bubble dwellers...

Demographics as political destiny

By Greg Sargent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/greg-sargent/2011/02/24/ABvj85M_page.html)

Peter Beinart, reflecting on the spectacular electoral success of Obama’s bet on America’s changing demographics, makes a bold prediction (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/obama-victory-signals-new-democratic-dominance-in-u-s-politics.html):

Four years ago, it looked possible that Barack Obama’s election heralded a new era of Democratic dominance. Now it looks almost certain....the face of America changed, and only one party changed with it....From the beginning, Obama has said he wants to be a transformational figure, a president who reshapes American politics for decades, another Reagan or FDR. He may just have achieved that Tuesday night. Along these lines, Pew Research has released its analysis (http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/07/changing-face-of-america-helps-assure-obama-victory/) of the the exit poll numbers. It is striking:

Nationally, nonwhite voters made up 28% of all voters, up from 26% in 2008. Obama won 80% of these voters, the same as four years ago.

Obama’s support from nonwhites was a critical factor in battleground states, especially Ohio and Florida. In Ohio, blacks were 15% of the electorate, up from 11% in 2008. In Florida, Hispanics were 17% of the electorate, a slight increase from 14% in 2008. While minority compositional gains were not huge, they offset a strong tilt against Obama among white voters. Nationally, Romney won the white vote, 59% to 39%. Romney won nearly six out of every 10 white voters, and still lost. The key point here is that the GOP explicitly bet on a reversal of demographic trends. The case for a Romney victory always rested on the hope that the electorate would be whiter and older than it was in 2008. The opposite happened — the election seemed to confirm that these trends will continue marching inexorably forward.

Before yesterday, gay marriage had never been ratified by popular vote. Now that has happened in three states, and gay marriage is legal in nine of them. The Defense of Marriage Act very well may be struck down by the Supreme Court next year, meaning all the gay couples in all these states will enjoy full recognition as married couples from the federal government. Health care reform is here to stay.

Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/the-american-president.html):

America crossed the Rubicon of every citizen’s access to healthcare, and re-elected a black president in a truly tough economic climate. The shift toward gay equality is now irreversible. The end of prohibition of marijuana is in sight. Women, in particular, moved this nation forward — pragmatically, provisionally, sensibly. They did so alongside the young whose dedication to voting was actually greater this time than in 2008, the Latino voters who have made the current GOP irrelevant, and African-Americans, who turned up in vast numbers, as in 2008

[Rohirrim]

Of course there are consequences. They lost the election, and not only that, they lost it losing 2 million voters since the last one. Of course, same goes for the other side - only they lost about 7 million votes from the last time around and still won.

As of this morning, all the votes have still not been counted. We don't know if turnout was down from 2008, yet.

[Taco John]

As of this morning, all the votes have still not been counted. We don't know if turnout was down from 2008, yet.

Yes we do. In 2008, Obama got 69.4 mil. The AP reports this morning that his totals in this election are 61.7. That's nearly an 8 million loss in votes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

He still won the popular vote with a more comfortable margin than GeeDubya in 2004.

[nyuk nyuk]

Yes we do. In 2008, Obama got 69.4 mil. The AP reports this morning that his totals in this election are 61.7. That's nearly an 8 million loss in votes.

And the media are going to bury that one in the back pages. :spit:

[nyuk nyuk]

^

He still won the popular vote with a more comfortable margin than GeeDubya in 2004.

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something. It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous. :clown::clown::clown:

[Taco John]

And the media are going to bury that one in the back pages. :spit:

Doesn't matter if they do or don't. What is, is.

[peacepipe]

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something. It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous. :clown::clown::clown:

it also means something when obama gets 7 million less votes and still wins.

[peacepipe]

lets look at the other end of this, romney inc. had just about everything in his favor high unemployment,slow growth, obama screws up the 1st debate,voter enthusiasm,hatred of obama,paul ryan, but can't even get out more votes than what McCain got in '08.
seems you guys have reached your cieling. at least McCain has a good excuse for his numbers,sarah palin & the financial collapse.

[gyldenlove]

Your boy lost 7 million votes since last election. Such cockiness is idiotic.

And it's spelled DEFICIT, you brainiac.

Instead of spiking the football and pretending that you have the world at your back (you did this in 09 and it exploded in your face in 10), you need to be asking why so many jumped ship and what you can do in '16 besides construct more Republican vote-blocking conspiracy theories to explain your losses.

Which voting losses would this be? popular vote for presidency, senate or house?

[gyldenlove]

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something. It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous. :clown::clown::clown:

Some times you score 40 points, some times you score 25 points, but a win is a win is a win - all you need to do is get more than the other guy.

[baja]

lets look at the other end of this, romney inc. had just about everything in his favor high unemployment,slow growth, obama screws up the 1st debate,voter enthusiasm,hatred of obama,paul ryan, but can't even get out more votes than what McCain got in '08.
seems you guys have reached your cieling. at least McCain has a good excuse for his numbers,sarah palin & the financial collapse.

Plus America was looking at Sara "I can see Alaska from my porch" Palin as a relief hitter for a 70+ year old guy with a medical history.

Edit; Opps see you mentioned that.

[houghtam]

lets look at the other end of this, romney inc. had just about everything in his favor high unemployment,slow growth, obama screws up the 1st debate,voter enthusiasm,hatred of obama,paul ryan, but can't even get out more votes than what McCain got in '08.
seems you guys have reached your cieling. at least McCain has a good excuse for his numbers,sarah palin & the financial collapse.

Good luck hammering this point home. Many of these knobs still don't know that the recession was well underway before Obama was elected.

[TonyR]

Good grief, reading the nyuk nyuk idiot's posts you'd think Obama lost the election!

[TonyR]

Obama lost 7 million votes from last election to this one. Would you all say this meant Obama was BMOC?

LOL Which right wing media hack, who probably predicted a Romney landslide victory, did you get this talking point from? Does it really make you feel better? Does it make your tears less salty?

[houghtam]

LOL Which right wing media hack, who probably predicted a Romney landslide victory, did you get this talking point from? Does it really make you feel better? Does it make your tears less salty?

LOL

Obama lost 7 million votes and it was still the second-most participated election in over 50 years.

Oh and have we mentioned yet that he won?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something.

It means two things, actually:

1) There are a lot of idiots in red state America.

2) The Bush Crime Family and the GOP are accomplished at the art of rigging elections (not exactly news to people who care about facts and evidence.)


It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous. :clown::clown::clown:

It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

You should ask the nearest grownup to explain this thing called the "electoral college" to you sometime.

It's going to be your nemesis for years to come. :D

[chadta]

really ?

there are no consequences for politicians lying, yet there should be for journalists ?

[manchambo]

really ?

there are no consequences for politicians lying, yet there should be for journalists ?

There are sometimes for journalists. Romney lost, after all.

[Missouribronc]

Quit making Missourians look stupid.............you know damn well a very large portion of that defecit was and is still cleaning up the mess of the greatest recession in history next to the great depression.

Pull your head out ...your side's policies suck ass or they would have won.........

How do you double the nation's debt and continue to blame it on someone else?

How does this happen?

[houghtam]

How do you double the nation's debt and continue to blame it on someone else?

How does this happen?

It's called math. You should look into it.

Care to venture a guess where we would be right now if we HADN'T bailed out Detroit and Wall Street.

My guess is you'd be bitching that the Dow was down below 10k (for the first time since...well, Bush), and blaming that on Obama too.

Did you fail Econ, or just never take it?

[Missouribronc]

It's called math. You should look into it.

Care to venture a guess where we would be right now if we HADN'T bailed out Detroit and Wall Street.

My guess is you'd be b****ing that the Dow was down below 10k (for the first time since...well, Bush), and blaming that on Obama too.

Did you fail Econ, or just never take it?

Yeah. Math...

Obama has doubled the national debt in four years. Something no one else has done. Ever. I have done the math, and I'm not "failing" econ.

The country can't continue at that pace. And the only "answer" (and I use that term loosely) that we seem to be getting is, "well, it was Bush's fault we spent all this money, and it might get better."

That's a ****ing terrible answer.

[houghtam]

Yeah. Math...

Obama has doubled the national debt in four years. Something no one else has done. Ever. I have done the math, and I'm not "failing" econ.

The country can't continue at that pace. And the only "answer" (and I use that term loosely) that we seem to be getting is, "well, it was Bush's fault we spent all this money, and it might get better."

That's a ****ing terrible answer.

You didn't answer the question, I noticed. So I'll ask it again, and will keep doing so until you can give a coherent answer. Where would we be without the bailouts?

You also apparently got a "needs improvement" grade in your lower tier reading group, because the answer given by non-partisan sources isn't that it "might" be getting better.

You did get the part right about it being Bush's fault, though, so gold star for you.

[Missouribronc]

You didn't answer the question, I noticed. So I'll ask it again, and will keep doing so until you can give a coherent answer. Where would we be without the bailouts?

You also apparently got a "needs improvement" grade in your lower tier reading group, because the answer given by non-partisan sources isn't that it "might" be getting better.

You did get the part right about it being Bush's fault, though, so gold star for you.

The bailouts are something like 1 percent of the debt incurred. Who's not doing math?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The bailouts are something like 1 percent of the debt incurred. Who's not doing math?

The voters weren't fooled by the lies and BS you're peddling.

What makes you think you're going to have better luck on this board?

[baja]

The voters weren't fooled by the lies and BS you're peddling.

What makes you think you're going to have better luck on this board?

I;m thinking the voting machines had a glitch in the "change vote to Republican" program, strange too since it worked so well in 2000 & 2008

[houghtam]

The bailouts are something like 1 percent of the debt incurred. Who's not doing math?

And Obama's policies account for just over 10% of the debt incurred over the past 10 years, sooooo...you are the one not doing the maths.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obama has doubled the national debt in four years. Something no one else has done. Ever.

:bs:

Ohio governor John Kasich (http://www.wkyc.com/news/state/article/258305/23/Kasich-talks-debt-uses-anecdote-at-RNC) and Virginia governor Bob McDonnell each insisted that President Obama "doubled" the debt. First, this is patently untrue. The debt has increased by just 41.4 percent (http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm) during the first several years of the president's term, from around $10 trillion to $15 trillion. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, presided over a near-doubling of the debt, increasing the number by 188 percent. Bush 41 presided over a 55.6 percent increase, and Bush 43 presided over an 89 percent increase. At the same time, the year-over-year increase in the debt under President Obama has dropped from 15 percent to 4 percent. The president also cut the deficit from $1.4 trillion in his first year to $900 billion in 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/10/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm) (projected by the CBO) -- and it's worth noting that $1.2 trillion of the 2009 deficit was inherited (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/) from a George W. Bush spending request in 2008.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More inconvenient math for right-wing crack smokers...

<center><center>http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-08-29-cbpp_debt_chart.jpg</center></center>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/69104_492893777399159_1946293838_n.jpg

[Jetmeck]

And the media are going to bury that one in the back pages. :spit:

Finally come out from under your rock ?

Carter 2.0 kicked your ass.........quit your bitchin and

eat your crow !

[Jetmeck]

How do you double the nation's debt and continue to blame it on someone else?

How does this happen?


Dude you were dropped on your head as a baby ?

Recession your party created was still worsening when he took office....not to mention two wars your ahole party started.

Quit embarassing yourself..........

[Odysseus]

Fox News lied to its audience throughout the entire election. They told them that Obama is wildly unpopular and Romney would win easily. Rove, Krauthammer, Dick Morris and others were just spectacularly wrong. And Rove is now on every day to provide "expert" analysis on what happened. He made a complete fool of himself on election night. How wrong would he have to be to lose credibility with these people? At what point would the Fox News audience be unhappy with Fox for lying nonstop to their faces?

If you want to learn textbook cases on how to lie with statistics Fox news provides daily examples. I realize that "all" networks do this but Fox has dominated news market so much that some news sources are tainted because they get their news FROM Fox news and are never challenged to where they got their information.

Fox is too big, too profitable, and too much of a force. They are right about whatever they say because they have the might and money to be right.

[Odysseus]

More inconvenient math for right-wing crack smokers...

<center><center>http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-08-29-cbpp_debt_chart.jpg</center></center>

Obama is right to "right size" the military. Any concepts of buying more crap for the military is really stupid. The Bush tax cuts are widely documented as being ineffective.

The right wing mantra regarding tax cuts is not an idle threat. Price fixing just like some of the job cuts are orchestrated. Small business owners are affected by large manufacturers decide to so any cascading failure can be falsely generated. Corporations create jobs not government.

The real problem is how do you cure runaway capitalism? The right salve, no matter how well applied, can be perceived as a poison.

[Odysseus]

really ?

there are no consequences for politicians lying, yet there should be for journalists ?

Yes.

It has to start somewhere or do you propose that because they do it we should all do it? The problem is not your question because that will never happen. The press wants to be "free". The problem is your logic.

[Jetmeck]

Get your head out of the bubble and turn off FOX NEWS. I turn them on for a laugh once in a while................they are like a bad SNL skit.............lol

[Jetmeck]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/69104_492893777399159_1946293838_n.jpg



We beat that stupid **** by 16 points and I am glad to say I was a part of that.......knocking on doors and donations.

Good guys won

[Odysseus]

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/11/07/election-watch-karl-rove-vs-the-arithmetic/

Prove the press actually works from time to time against their own judgment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Finally come out from under your rock ?

Carter 2.0 kicked your ass.........quit your b****in and

eat your crow !

Haven't you heard?

According to EpicNyuk, Obama only won by the skin of his teeth. Ha!

[TonyR]

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/11/07/election-watch-karl-rove-vs-the-arithmetic/

Prove the press actually works from time to time against their own judgment.

Yup.

It was a fitting moment for an election that often seemed to be a campaign over the idea of mathematical knowability itself. But it was also a glaring, and embarrassing, example of the extent to which Fox News has become an arm of the Republican Party and is expected by GOP operatives to behave as one. Rove may be a party big shot, but he’s just a guy giving analysis on Fox’s air. He does not run the network, even if his friends do.
...
In the end, Rove is a numbers guy too, and he finally had to concede to the arithmetic–but not before creating a defining image of a partisan, and a network, at war with the very reality it could not avoid reporting. Kelly, who at least took the whole interlude in good humor, at one point deadpanned, “That’s awkward.” Yes, it was. And kind of amazing.