You are right, this smells. Kind of like the Starr Report. Hugh Hewitt has no credibility. He's a screeching right wing lunatic.
First stone lands, first "Profile not found" dog yelps.
bc bud,With your Profile Not Available you're one to be talking about credibility.
So you get those "profile not found" cranks here as well, huh?They're like a dime-a-dozen over at my blog.Fred
Dan, can't you tell who sends these comments by their email since you are the blog owner?
In short, no.But I have suspicions.
Liberal meanstream media such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and newspapers like the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc... will blast this soundbite about Governor Palin and the vast majority of people will swallow it, hook, line, and sinker.4th estate, 5th column, the medium is the message....
In my opinion, one of the most awesome displays of the Lord's power in American election history was the election of George Bush by 500 votes in Florida coming from polls showing Gore leading 51 to 40 percent.With the media in the bank of Obama, lying for him and slandering Palin, by all accounts show that Obama should be in shoe. My hope and prayer has been that the Lord would display His power in this way: that with insurmountable odds, McCain and Palin would win the election.We know from Daniel that the Lord accomplishes His will through the heavenly hosts and men on earth so McCain and Palin won't win apart from the voters electing them. But while much of the electorate don't like Bush or Republicans, and probably don't want to vote for McCain, many of the electorate are very, very, very, unsure about voting for Obama. Let's hope that fear carries through on Nov 4 and they pull the lever for McCain/Palin.
Living in the DC area, I'm not that familiar with the Christian sub-culture present on this blog. I have read back through several posts and the main theme appears to be that the media is out to get us. Sounds somewhat paranoid to me.A recurring pattern is apparent here. Whenever negative news is reported about the McCain and Palin camp you attack the messenger rather than the message. When negative news is reported about the Obama and Biden camp you embrace it as gospel truth. You also make the claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal. A claim that may be true when it comes to the major newspapers but certainly is false when minor papers are considered. Those minor papers are what the vast majority of Americans read when they retrieve the paper from their porches. It also conveniently dismisses the overwhelmingly conservative bias of talk radio and Fox News. If the print media is really out to destroy anything Republican then why has there been no coverage of the Rolling Stone piece about John McCain's reckless youth and the trashing of three fighter jets? The stunt that cost 133 sailors their lives? Why are they unwilling to cover a story that could certainly hand the election to Obama? As an aside, one of your commenters said polls showed the Democratic Candidate Gore ahead of the Republican Candidate Bush in 2000 by 11 points. The polling data I remember from 2000 had President Bush ahead by 6 points on the weekend before the election. Can you provide a link to the data you referred to?
Thank you for the link. I checked it out and you were right about that tracking poll. Maybe that is good news for Senator McCain. A lot can happen in four weeks so things could improve. Is that why you selected a tracking poll conducted a month before the election rather than one conducted on the weekend before? We know that polls are only snapshots of current moods and it is highly unusual for a candidate with an October lead to increase it because most people have made up their minds. Those who have not decided yet will break for the incumbent party by a 2-1 margin. More good news for John McCain. I am likely in that camp even though I am wary of giving his party four more years.
Ironman: A lot can happen in four weeks so things could improve. Is that why you selected a tracking poll conducted a month before the election rather than one conducted on the weekend before? Um, the reason why I did not select a poll the weekend before the election is because I would have nothing to compare that poll to today, because we are not yet, at the weekend before the election. We are a month (well, 23 days or so out), which is why I selected that poll.
Dan,We're a sub-culture? Gee golly, I thought all Christians were biblical like us? What was I thinkin'?Fred
Fred - I live in San Jose - all the culture we got here is in the dairy section of the grocery store.As for Ironman's reference, I wasn't quite sure to what he was referring, but was kind of waiting to find out what he meant, or for Dan to ask, because, you know, we're biblical and Nice. And biblical and Funny. And Nice. :)
My reference to a sub-culture had to do with the tone of this and other Christian-Political sites I have looked at recently. Many of the sites I have looked at tend to deal with negative news about the Republican ticket by dismissing it as the ranting of a liberal media, and thus a pack of lies rather than careful examination of the assertions followed by a refutation.It just seems to me that when you begin with the premise that what you are hearing/reading/seeing is somehow a slimy attempt to destroy someone then it is the beginning of a dangerous and slippery slope. In other words, if the newspapers are reporting biased information to the left and the talkies are reporting biased information to the right, where does one find the truth about these kinds of things?
Dan,You're a Christian-Political site? I thought you were just into preaching and stuff? Honestly, no one here is speaking of conspiracies of any sort. It is just a matter of fact that many in the MSM lean heavily to leftist ideology and tend to interpret political issues through those glasses. What is laughable is how they claim to be "neutral" and "unbiased." Hence the meta-narrative in our political culture that Fox News is a right-wing activist channel, where as CNN is just a news outlet.Look at that picture on the front page. You don't think there was some sort of an agenda by the folks investigating this so-called trooper gate non-sense? That when the MSM reported the "findings" of this probe which were filled with all sorts of speculative language like "may have" and "maybe" that they just happened to over look the fact it was a heavily partisan, pro-Obama group leading this investigation? Do you think a conservative, Republican group could have gotten away with such shenanigans without being called out by the MSM if it was a pro-Bush squad investigating Obama? All Dan is saying here is lets have some honesty when doing reporting. There is nothing "sub-culture" about that is there?
ironman: My reference to a sub-culture had to do with the tone of this and other Christian-Political sites I have looked at recently. Many of the sites I have looked at tend to deal with negative news about the Republican ticket by dismissing it as the ranting of a liberal media, and thus a pack of lies rather than careful examination of the assertions followed by a refutation.Wrong. In a Rasmussen Reports Survey published last month, almost seven out of 10 voters remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe reporters are trying to help Sen. Barack Obama.It's not merely "Christian sub-culture" problem. It's merely a fact the majority of the electorate is seeing. Naturally, because the media is for Obama (and therefore negative against McCain/Palin), you're going to see criticism of the liberal media from us.
Fred,I did look at that picture again, as well as check some media reports of what the investigation found. I also compared that to Sarah Palin's interpretation of the report. I'm utterly confused.First, all the media reports indicated that the report was put together by a single, independent investigator, not the group of people in that picture. Second, the investigator concluded that Palin "abused her power" as governor.Third, Palin said the report found "no wrongdoing" on her part.Who is right? CR said something about surveys showing people believe reporters are trying to help their preferred candidate. Of course people believe that because it is what they have been conditioned to believe. Survey results are often not indicative of reality or IOW, just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.I have to go work on some computer systems so I won't be around for a few days.
ironman: CR said something about surveys showing people believe reporters are trying to help their preferred candidate. Of course people believe that because it is what they have been conditioned to believe. Survey results are often not indicative of reality or IOW, just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.Well, anyway, in part, I was addressing your insinuation that the "media is out to get us" is a phenomenon attributed to only the sub-culture of Christian blogs. I've already shown that 7 out of 10 voters believe that the media is biased and supports their candidate and on a 5 to 1 margin, they believe the media is in the tank for Obama. Unless you believe the Christian sub-culture outnumbers everyone else on a 5 to 1 basis, the observation of media bias is not just something held by the “Christian sub-culture.”You stated previously that most Americans read small time newspapers, not the big huge goliath conglomerates. If that is the case, then why, still, on a 5 to 1 margin does the public believe the media is in the tank for Obama? You may not believe it is reality, but the fact remains, this phenomenon of media bias is not "paranoia" of the Christian "sub-culture" as you say, but something that 7 out of 10 Americans observe.
Post a Comment
Amazon also has it available for immediate download on Kindle
Also at Amazon
See details at Kress
NEW! Also now available for download at Logos