Liberal Media Death Spiral State, National, International, posted by Pleasanton Mom, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:22 am
What would cause average Americans to get off the couch and join a Tea Party? INFORMATION.
Here's just one example: When Obama appointed a self-avowed Communist to the White House (Van Jones), Fox News reported on this over 100 times up through Jones' resignation. Mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.) NEVER REPORTED ON THE VAN JONES APPOINTMENT until after his resignation. If you only watch mainstream media you know nothing about the President of the United States appointing a Communist to the White House.
March 30, 2010
Liberal media death spiral intensifies
CNN, the liberal cable news network which reported "at least dozens" of people attended the Tea Party Express rally in Searchlight, NV last week, may soon be measuring its audience in similar quantities. Bill Carter of the New York Times reports:
CNN continued what has become a precipitous decline in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010, with its main hosts losing almost half their viewers in a year.
The problems in prime time, the most lucrative part of the broadcast day, are catastrophic in scope:
Mr. [Larry] King's audience dropped 43 percent for the quarter and 52 percent in March. He dropped to 771,000 viewers for the quarter from 1.34 million in 2009. More alarming perhaps, Mr. King, whose show has been regularly eclipsed by Rachel Maddow's on MSNBC (and is almost quadrupled by Sean Hannity's show on Fox), is now threatened by a new host, Joy Behar on HLN (formerly Headline News.) [....]
Mr. [Anderson] Cooper has long been regarded as the strongest host at CNN, but his show has suffered badly as well. For the quarter, Mr. Cooper dropped 42 percent in viewers and 46 percent among the 25-to-54-year-old audience that the news channels use for their sales to advertisers.
Larry King's brand of pablum (he never bothers to read an author's book, and specializes in softball questions) is out of step with the times, as an aroused citizenry confronts a president downsizing America's standing in the world and their own economic prospects.
Anderson Cooper, the openly homosexual Vanderbilt heir, is now damaged goods, having applied the label "teabaggers" (homosexual slang for a graphic sexual act) to the Tea Partiers. He should have lost his job for that exercise in smutty sarcasm, but instead continujes to destroy bnoth his own and his employer's standing.
Meanwhile, Fox News Channel, the only major news source willing to ask tough questions to President Obama and the Democrats, continues to soar in the ratings:
At the same time, Fox News, which had its biggest year in 2009, continues to add viewers. Greta Van Susteren's show was up 25 percent from a year earlier. Bill O'Reilly, whose show commands the biggest audience in prime time with 3.65 million viewers, was up 28 percent, and Glenn Beck was up 50 percent from a year earlier.
There are ironies aplenty in this report appearing in the New York Times, which remains even more stubbornly wedded to pushing the liberal party line on a nation now more suspicious of both the media and the liberal political establishment. Not only does Fox News Channel's stunning success offer a clue to the clueless publisher Pinch Sulzberger about how to preserve his patrimony by changing its political orientation, but FNC's lush profits (reportedly well into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year) are helping finance the expansion of the Wall Street Journal into serious competition with the NYT as a general interest national daily. Rupert Murdoch has openly spoken of his intent to go after the luxury goods advertisers which provide a large share to the Times' advertising revenue, while attracting subscribers with enhanced general interest content and special price offers to both advertisers and readers.
The New York Times and CNN are both circling the drain, looking at each other across the vortex swirling both of them toward unprofitability and ultimate insolvency.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:34 am
Here's a great example of DECEPTION by the mainstream media. Look at the photo they chose to use to represent the crowd at the Searchlight Nevada Tea Party.
Despite aerial photos showing thousands upon thousands of people, they showed that sparsely-populated HILL that overlooked the major crowd. My husband and I climbed that hill - it was steep treacherous loose rocks - impossible for most folks to access.
Why would Yahoo News choose that photo? They deceived and lied to you.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:38 am
PM, once again a lengthy conservative rant that I haven't the patience or inclination to waste time on - right in the first line this is (again) quoted in your post:
"CNN, the liberal cable news network which reported 'at least dozens' of people attended the Tea Party Express rally"
Either you did not take time to listen to the commentary or you are conveniently printing a distortion, as those who saw this clearly heard that the commentator stated there were "hundreds, at least dozens" and later went on to state there was no way to know exactly how many were present.
I can do the same - find extremist views that support my position by distorting truth and outright lying.
If you had some integrity regarding what you regurgitate on this forum I might be more interested in your opinion.
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
There was no distortion in what PM said and you have to know this. Her parsing of the entire statement "hundreds, if not dozens" hardly qualifies for that accusation.
Clearly there were thousands of individuals at the rally at the time that this was reported. CNN reporting "hundreds, at least dozens" is not only factually inaccurate, its just plain silly. How you or anyone else can argue this point is beyond me, really.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 8:27 am
Dan: really? Consistently printing the same PARTIAL quotation to support a position (in spite of the particular omission being pointed out in other threads) does not meet your criteria as truth distortion?
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:08 am
I used to watch the usual NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN until and changed from channel to channel but then I saw that the only place I could consistently get the truth was Fox. The other thing which has drawn me to Fox was the complaining by Obama by his treatment by them. Anytime a leader expresses displeasure with something it is time to dig deeper into what he is actually up to.
Posted by Repleasnacrat, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:23 am
Please people, at least be honest with yourselves. Each and every channel mentioned has its' own bias. I watch Rachel Maddow and Kieth Oberman, they sometimes drive me nuts! But the same can be said for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. They're there to ENTERTAIN you. They are all whacked...especially Glen Beck.....but sometimes I love what each of the aforementioned has t say! go figure
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:41 am
That's quite a conspiracy theory. EVERY. SINGLE. "MAINSTREAM." MEDIA. SOURCE. IS. LIBERAL. Print. Internet. Television. Radio.
How on earth did we pull that off?
And Fox News is the only truth. No bias. That's why they have Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Palin, and all the other pundits who obviously have NO political leanings. Just lookin' for the truth. Givin' the facts. You betcha.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:46 am
I believe the best and most unbiased is Bret Hume. He more or less tells it like it is without any bias. Unfortunately for Obama he consistently calls him on his socialist agenda. Actually, Hume said the other night that Obama is just doing what he ran on . He made no bones about the fact that he was for big government and was a socialist. We voted for him and now he is just doing what he said he was going to do all along. That said, I believe many people voted for him because of how he spoke but not what he said.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:01 am
Dan, honestly I don't read PM's cut/pastes anymore. I work in the healthcare trenches and have a family member (with spina bifida)who has been denied health benefits and another losing benefits thanks to the current corrupt system. PM's posts are so extremist that there is nothing new or of value in them at all. She is perpetuating a distortion in the first sentence - why bother to read the rest?
At some point we need to think more humanely - just because my benefits suit me, doesn't mean I shouldn't be mindful of the plight of others who are denied medical care, or the fact that health insurance execs have gotten fat off the backs of those who have been denied benefits or decisions stalled until they died. That is reprehensible.
Pati - when did Pres. Obama state he is a socialist (not that it bothers me, just curious)?
Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:31 am Parent of Two is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
It's interesting how you rail against the corrupt healthcare system, yet you're willing to overlook the corrupt political system that took political contributions from the lobbyists and allowed them to run amuck for decades. If the politicians had simply allowed insurance to compete across state lines and instituted tort reform, the whole situation might not have risen to crisis level. Instead, the federal government, the single most inefficient organization in the country, will now be managing everyone's health care.
Maybe you should have voted out every single incumbent in Congress rather than re-electing the very bozos who caused the problem and letting them completely trash what they've already broken.
And if you think health insurance execs got fat, what do you think of Congress and their pensions?
Posted by Ubiquitous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:38 am
Sharon sure sounds like anti-stupid, who's been getting trashed recently. Several clues jumped out.
I have been watching more CNN lately...I think they are 'trying' to split the differences (all except Larry King who is a bumbling, blatent liberal}. Only recently (with all the talk) I have started
checking in some to Fox...parts are OK.(just stay away from nuts like Huckabee). I try to watch ALL Sun morn shows on ALL channels..recording that many takes some doing. The most FAIR and professional is David Gregory, Meet the Press on NBC...yet the most foul, liberal, radical, lying are the MSNBC show...so you cannot label entire networks....including Fox ! The panel on 'This Week' is always excellent, but their host situation is not good.
What started this was the 'CROWD' in Searchlight. I saw it and there were 1000s as far as the eye could see, across the desert to the mountains. But, because I watch all the shows, I'm not real sure which, but it could have been fox.
It was sad that truth-tellers John Stossel,ABC and Lou Dobbs,CNN, were victims the administration thought had to be silenced.(like he tried on fox, but they must have been too big to fail!).
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:40 am
I also believe that term limits should be enacted on the representatives in the senate as well as the house. I mean come on can you tell them that we are getting a lot out of Robert Byrd? Two terms maximum for the Senate and 6 terms for the house or a maximum of 12 years and then you are out. This way we get fresh ideas and some youth in office. McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Byrd are all over 70 years old. Why not retire and at the very least let someone younger have a job.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:56 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Too right Po2! The hypocrisy is genuine. Every move by Obama is justified and welcome, but any opposition is either hypocritical because the right never complained about Bush (false) or we just are a bunch of racists.
The pensions paid to Congress are not the problem tho, it's all the other money.
The real problem is corruption built into the system. It has resulted in the watered down HCR we now have with the indivdual mandate that in actuality, no one likes.
newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out en masse and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.
The deeper problem is how to preserve American freedom while eliminating the big moneyed interests from the campaigning and governing process. At this point McCain-Feingold essentialy trying to make it illegal was struck down by the SCOTUS, so individual pledges from candidates to not accept any PAC or corporate contributions is the only possible answer I can see.
The Saints won a Super Bowl, so nothing is impossible.
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:58 am
I've tried, unsuccessfully, to re-direct you to the real issue - that CNN was the source of the distortion - but you continue to focus on PM. Your mis-trust of PM is so deep that even when given clear and concise evidence, you shut yourself off from the facts. I can only shrug.
I am truly sympathetic to your family medical situation and I hope things work out.
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 11:44 am
Guess what, PM -- it is not illegal to be a communist, any more than it is illegal to be Catholic. To suggest that the beliefs someone holds are criminal just because you don't share them is McCarthyism at its purest. And don't get me started on the anti-gay slant of your remarks. Sad.
As for network news, it has been a very long time since any of the cable channels (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) offered hard-core, information based news broadcasts. They primarily produce commentary and infotainment. The old TV media networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) still manage to put out unbiased, researched reporting every day.
Consider a return to the old school news sources if what you really want is authentic news rather than opinion.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 11:49 am
Nothing wrong with being a communist if you are so inclined and that is what is good about this country free speech. The bigger issue is being a socialist or communist and trying to pretend you are something other than that. The proof is in the pudding or in this case viewership. Looking at the ratings Fox is by far and away the most watched news. Therefore, they will continue to get most of the advertising dollars and at the end of the day, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and yes even CNN will go the way of the dinosaur unless they start being more objective.
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Can you tell me when the national ABC/NBC/CBS nightly news reported on the Acorn scandal?
Here is one of the biggest scandals to hit one of the largest organizations in the country and yet not one of those news agencies ran with the story when it happened. They buried it, plain and simple. Why?
This scandal was so big that congress defunded Acorn and they had to rebrand themselves. And there are other that I don't have time to get to, but you get the point.
To say that this isn't biased (because of what is NOT reported) is just plain wrong.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Here is some infomration about how "Looking at the ratings Fox is by far and away the most watched news. Therefore, they will continue to get most of the advertising dollars and at the end of the day, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and yes even CNN will go the way of the dinosaur unless they start being more objective:"
Apple, others boycotting Fox News-
"More than 200 companies have joined a boycott of Beck's program, making it difficult for Fox to sell ads. The time has instead been sold to smaller firms offering such products as Kaopectate, Carbonite, 1-800-PetMeds and Goldline International. A handful of advertisers, such as Apple, have abandoned Fox altogether. Network executives say they believe they could charge higher rates if the host were more widely acceptable to advertisers...
... By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility."
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 2:31 pm
So let me see if I have this right; Apple is now boycotting because of Glenn Beck and yet, Fox is still rising in the ratings.
Sorry, I'm trying to get the point here?
Fox is a business and they are clearly not hurting from this, though maybe time will tell. And even if they lose money, who cares? They're a business and should be allowed to fail just like any other.
On the other hand, Fox news is hardly the reason why Gallup/Rasmussen et al are poling Obama at below 50% now. Who on earth would you blame for that? Fox?
The paranoia regarding Fox is laughable. Fox competes and beats all it cable competitors combined (I thinks its something like MSNBC/CNBC/CNN vs.Fox). Do you really think its because only the ignorant watch Fox?
By the way, I rarely watch Fox except on the weekends and only for the business programs in the morning. Even though I am conservative I can't stand Bill O, Hannity or Beck, but I am quite fond of Greta when I am home from work early enough to catch her. The news with Brett Baeir(sp) is fair and balanced as far as I can tell.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 2:39 pm
My point was to address the comment Pati made regarding advertising dollars, which I indicated at the start of my post. My post had nothing to do with Fox's ratings, and certainly nothing to do with President Obama's ratings. (Since you bring it up, though, Gallup has his ratings at 50% and climbing since HCR passed.)
Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 2:44 pm Parent of Two is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Jane is typical of the ignorant liberals who bury their heads in the sand and pretend that all the news networks are unbiased and present, as she incorrectly put it, "unbiased, researched reporting". I guess she was busy at the Acorn rally when CBS ran with the Bush documents, allegedly from his college days, that were written in MS Word. Or when Dan Rather walked off the stage.
I'm not claiming Fox News is unbiased (far from it). But they do present both sides (albeit tipped to the right), which is more than the other news channels can claim. Remember when CNN used to have "Crossfire" with one liberal and one conservative bracketing some poor guy in between? What happened to that? Yeah, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck are overwhelmingly conservative and bombastic, but THAT'S ISN'T THE NEWS. They have opinion shows. If you're expecting opinion shows to be unbiased, well, you don't understand the difference between opinion and news.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm
The Beck advertising thing is old news and happened when is called Obama a racist which is his opinion and the last time I checked was protected by the constitution the same as it is for others to call George Bush a War Criminal or Bill Clinton a baby killer. The point is that Beck has one of the highest rated shows and he is not having problems getting advertisement. My point is that there is a reason why people are watching Fox and tuning out the others.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 3:48 pm
The Beck advertising thing is not OLD news, it's CONTINUING news. And the point is, he IS losing advertisers, not only for his show, but for the network as a whole. That's it. Fox News is losing advertisers because of biased shows like Beck's. Fact.
There is also a reason why people are watching Dancing With the Stars and American Idol and not Frontline. It's called entertainment. The problem is when entertainment tries to pass itself off as legitimate news programming.
Posted by Divided, about to be conquered, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2010 at 3:57 pm
CNN's ratings are dropping while Fox's are still strong? Hooray! What a triumph for misinformation! Let's hear it for the ascent of bigotry and lies over ojbective reporting and hard news! This can only mean that America's cultural decline is accelerating--what comfort this must give to the enemies of freedom!
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Divided and PM for T,
It is not working so please try a different tactic. Fox News regardless of your leaning is gaining viewers and will continue to do so until such time as the other networks become more objective. Ask yourself a question. Why did President Obama go on Fox with Bret Bair to pitch his healthcare initiative at the last minute?...........Should be obvious. As much as he hates them holding him accountable and objectively evaluating his performance he knows that if he wants to get in front of the masses they have the largest audience bar none.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Beck's listenership and viewership have increased despite the attempt by an organization Van Jones founded encourage an advertiser boycott.
In addition to exposing the Communist Van Jones, and the ACORN scandal where tax payer dollars were used to assist illegal activity, Glenn Beck also exposed that the White House attempted to the National Endowment for the Arts, again using tax payer dollars, to create art that supports an Obama polily, the artists were encouraged to pick any Obama agenda item they liked, and created art about it.
Excerpt from AmericanThinker: "But one invitee, film producer Patrick Courrielche, soon blogged that the call turned out to be an effort to get participants to push the administration's agenda: "They told us: We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change. We knew 'how to make a stink,' and were encouraged to do so."
In other words, the nation's top funder of the arts was abusing its position as custodian of taxpayer dollars to promote the Obama agenda. This is unprecedented".
Had you heard about this? We Fox News viewers sure did.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 5:47 pm
You deserve HUGE kudos! Keep up your terrific posts.
By the way, if you believe that you'd like to channel your energies in another way...equally productive...I would encourage you to please consider supporting David Harmer for Congress. He is a very strong conservative...tho he does not have the funding support of McNerney. David needs all the support he can to fight the rapidly encroaching socialism in America.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.
Patti, please stop trying to argue. You keep using ratings to make a point about my post that is irrelevant to the post. I am not talking about ratings. I am talking about advertising. They are not the same.
Pleasanton Mom. American Thinker. Right. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. You send an artistic representation of the goals of a democratically elected President through the bad man filter and turn it into the "Obama Agenda" and it's all evil and oogly. That's simply the most negative way to interpret his intentions, and since you don't like him, that's the spin you pick.
Dan, I mostly like the tone of your posts - thank you for that. :) My point is that ratings obviously DON'T always equal advertising money, since companies are refusing to advertise of Fox, which is the highest rated news channel.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I could not care less about advertising dollars I am only talking about viewers and choice to watch what we want and pointing out that there is a huge difference in viewers between Fox and the other networks. People are smart enough to see through the false information being spread by the other "news" broadcasts. They just make up stories or do not report significants events.
As a side note, I bet Fox does quite well with the advertising revenue otherwise they would not be able to attract all of those big names who have worked at the other networks. Stoessel, Dobbs, Beck, Hume, Kralheimer (sic), Geraldo. Seems the other networks are left with the leftovers!!!!! Leftovers!!!. Seriously thought PWT you can watch whatever you want and can have your MSNBC or whatever.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Lies, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Sorry, PM4T, but it IS true, only on a much larger scale than you could ever imagine. Reuters, BBC Worldwide--they're all in on it! Have you noticed how the rest of the world echoes America's liberal media in their coverage? They LOVE Obama and they were out to get Bush. Note how although Georges Sada made money writing a book saying that Iraq DID have WMDs, Fox News was the only one to cover it? The rest of the world and even most of America still believe there were no WMDs!!
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Why the disrespect? I do not know why you feel it important to impose your beliefs on others? We should feel free to watch, listen, and say what we want to. I am only pointing out that Fox News is by far and away the most popular and there is a reason for that. If you choose to take leftovers please feel free. I travel quite a bit to Canada and enjoy watching Global and CTV as well. It gives me a feel for what a true socialist country thinks like and acts like. I am a registered independent and make up my own mind who I vote for. My presidential record is Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and finally I voted for McCain not because he was a good candidate but rather I was and am fearful of Obama.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Yes Perot because I believed and still do believe he was right about NAFTA. Remember that giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the US? Well he was right and we have lost millions of jobs out of this country.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 8:58 pm
With all due respect you are a swinging lib and that is ok with me but I do not believe that big government and giving our decisions in life over to others in my thing. I just disagree with your viewpoint. If you cannot figure out what I am talking about then not much I can say other than happy days for you.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:03 pm
I voted for Perot in '92 as well. I was pretty young, but even then I felt that both political parties were quite alike in corruption and influence peddling. That era was when greed and lobbyists went into high gear. The choice split the electorate and got Clinton elected, which got us the Contract with America and a GOP dominated Congress two years later.
It helped that I worked for EDS (Perot's first billion) until 1990, so I knew the man's personal history, and knew that he surely knew how to build and run a major corporation. He was a leader. He built that company from nothing.
The maligning of him due to his eccentricities were a smear job all the way, from the same lame stream media who missed Carter and hated Reagan. They puked all over themselves destroying Perot and glorifying the Clinton's, repeated in 2008 when they built up and tore down McCain and fell in love with Obama.
Posted by Interesting perspective!, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Just a small rejoinder (aka "response") to Pleasanton Mom for Lies (and might I say that this is a moniker that I sure wouldn't have chosen if I was letting people know that I was telling the truth?):
your statement "Sorry, PM4T, but it IS true, only on a much larger scale than you could ever imagine. Reuters, BBC Worldwide--they're all in on it! Have you noticed how the rest of the world echoes America's liberal media in their coverage? They LOVE Obama and they were out to get Bush."
makes me wonder: well, if the truth IS true on a much larger scale than here in America, then, well, wouldn't one begin to doubt that taking a stand that says this much larger truth is not true is rather ridiculous?
The world at large DOES love Obama, as do many here in the ol' US of A. I support him as well... after all, he IS our elected President, by majority (remember?)
And the world was NOT out to "get Bush". As I remember it, Bush pretty much sabotaged himself in the eyes of many (very patriotic) Americans and the world...
Posted by What Community of Character People?, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Embarcadero publishing owns more than a few town papers that have this same Weekly forum format.
Please take a minute to go look at adults normal, educated and diplomatic communication in regard to all these issues tkaes place, our side of our little cozy P-Town.
We are a supposed "Community Of Character" and we express our opinions and behave like little uneducated back woods children, or more like little lab rats.
This strategy of adults hurling insults, belittling one another and the sheer insane back woods rhetorical thinking and expressing opinions and communicating, or lack thereof, on most important issues within our town in this manner, is nothing short of embarrassing and Pathetic.
"Community of Character" is written all over our schools people, Our children are taught basic values and elementary kids are taught effective non violent communication (NVC) in the trues form, however the adults in this community conduct themselves and behave like savage beasts.
P.SD. The "Community of Character and T.R.I.B.E.S taught in the PUSD are very DEM-Liberal based concepts and teachings,m text book, so NO WONDER whay the parents here simply can NOT grasp any form of the concepts the children are learning and are held accountable to.