Those wacky Communists

[Speelgoedmannetje]

As if all European eyes are aimed at the US :roflmao:

Sure seem to. One retro hardware producer who will remain unnamed told me about the pretty eye rolling prime TV shows he/she saw while over in France. Another retro hardware producer who will remain unnamed just told me this morning that he/she knew about the hurricanes because "we are all watching the US election" and the RNC was disrupted by them.

You can laugh, but the USA is an object of fascination for Europeans. Amiga.org Coffee House and Whyzzat are another example.

Thankfully, Amiga.org isn't. Whyzzat is being spammed by it, and that's why I don't visit it much.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

As if all European eyes are aimed at the US :roflmao:

Sure seem to. One retro hardware producer who will remain unnamed told me about the pretty eye rolling prime TV shows he/she saw while over in France. Another retro hardware producer who will remain unnamed just told me this morning that he/she knew about the hurricanes because "we are all watching the US election" and the RNC was disrupted by them.

You can laugh, but the USA is an object of fascination for Europeans. Amiga.org Coffee House and Whyzzat are another example.

Thankfully, Amiga.org isn't. Whyzzat is being spammed by it, and that's why I don't visit it much.

 

[faethor]

I had to quote a biased article, because the media is run by biased liberals who worship Obama. heck, even the RNC coverage last night just loved focusing on jackass hecklers in the crowd. They don't even try hiding their bias :roll:

Strange Red. Watching Fox they covered hecklers in the crowd. Did they become liberal all of a sudden? Of course not. They know excitement sells so that's what they do.

I think one notable thing out of the last 2 weeks was Obama's ability to fill an 85,000 crowd stadium and people forced to stand outside due to lack of room VS McCain's ability to not fill the Xcel energy center (about 1/3 the size). The press claims a neck-in-neck race. (Well Obama's ahead by 8 now) Yet items such as the above does make it appear a much bigger favor for Obama.

 

[faethor]

I had to quote a biased article, because the media is run by biased liberals who worship Obama. heck, even the RNC coverage last night just loved focusing on jackass hecklers in the crowd. They don't even try hiding their bias :roll:

Strange Red. Watching Fox they covered hecklers in the crowd. Did they become liberal all of a sudden? Of course not. They know excitement sells so that's what they do.

I think one notable thing out of the last 2 weeks was Obama's ability to fill an 85,000 crowd stadium and people forced to stand outside due to lack of room VS McCain's ability to not fill the Xcel energy center (about 1/3 the size). The press claims a neck-in-neck race. (Well Obama's ahead by 8 now) Yet items such as the above does make it appear a much bigger favor for Obama.

 

[faethor]

I had to quote a biased article, because the media is run by biased liberals who worship Obama. heck, even the RNC coverage last night just loved focusing on jackass hecklers in the crowd. They don't even try hiding their bias :roll:

Strange Red. Watching Fox they covered hecklers in the crowd. Did they become liberal all of a sudden? Of course not. They know excitement sells so that's what they do.

I think one notable thing out of the last 2 weeks was Obama's ability to fill an 85,000 crowd stadium and people forced to stand outside due to lack of room VS McCain's ability to not fill the Xcel energy center (about 1/3 the size). The press claims a neck-in-neck race. (Well Obama's ahead by 8 now) Yet items such as the above does make it appear a much bigger favor for Obama.

 

[faethor]

I had to quote a biased article, because the media is run by biased liberals who worship Obama. heck, even the RNC coverage last night just loved focusing on jackass hecklers in the crowd. They don't even try hiding their bias :roll:

Strange Red. Watching Fox they covered hecklers in the crowd. Did they become liberal all of a sudden? Of course not. They know excitement sells so that's what they do.

I think one notable thing out of the last 2 weeks was Obama's ability to fill an 85,000 crowd stadium and people forced to stand outside due to lack of room VS McCain's ability to not fill the Xcel energy center (about 1/3 the size). The press claims a neck-in-neck race. (Well Obama's ahead by 8 now) Yet items such as the above does make it appear a much bigger favor for Obama.

 

[faethor]

I had to quote a biased article, because the media is run by biased liberals who worship Obama. heck, even the RNC coverage last night just loved focusing on jackass hecklers in the crowd. They don't even try hiding their bias :roll:

Strange Red. Watching Fox they covered hecklers in the crowd. Did they become liberal all of a sudden? Of course not. They know excitement sells so that's what they do.

I think one notable thing out of the last 2 weeks was Obama's ability to fill an 85,000 crowd stadium and people forced to stand outside due to lack of room VS McCain's ability to not fill the Xcel energy center (about 1/3 the size). The press claims a neck-in-neck race. (Well Obama's ahead by 8 now) Yet items such as the above does make it appear a much bigger favor for Obama.

 

[faethor]

I had to quote a biased article, because the media is run by biased liberals who worship Obama. heck, even the RNC coverage last night just loved focusing on jackass hecklers in the crowd. They don't even try hiding their bias :roll:

Strange Red. Watching Fox they covered hecklers in the crowd. Did they become liberal all of a sudden? Of course not. They know excitement sells so that's what they do.

I think one notable thing out of the last 2 weeks was Obama's ability to fill an 85,000 crowd stadium and people forced to stand outside due to lack of room VS McCain's ability to not fill the Xcel energy center (about 1/3 the size). The press claims a neck-in-neck race. (Well Obama's ahead by 8 now) Yet items such as the above does make it appear a much bigger favor for Obama.

 

[the_leander]

Stop using words you don't understand.

You do not, nor have you had in your lifetime, a liberal media.

Your media is owned, lock stock and barrel by a tiny handful of insanely powerful media moguls. The reason these people, people such as Murdoch, are looking at the democrats is simple: Backing the Republicans is hurting these media giants profits.

Speaking of myths.. I was not refering to Fox News, which is owned by Murdoch.

I used Murdochs name simply because it was a well known one. It doesn't change the fact that your media is owned by a handful of people.

Come to Europe, we'll show you what a liberal media actually is.

Even worse bias in much of European media. I don't need prime time serious documentaries about how the moon landing was a fake or how Jerry Springer is a good representation of the US populace.[/dquote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF?!

There is no such thing as unbiased media. The difference is that in Europe you get a vast spectrum of biases from right to left, which is the sign of a truely liberal media market.

You don't like my use of the term liberal democrat, that is term they chose to describe themselves. The media hides their affiliation to this group, but it is there.

"They?" Show me one media conglomerate who defines themselves at liberal democratic in nature. Further, show one that *acts* in a liberal manner. I won't wait up, I know the answer already.

Oh come off it Red you can do better then this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media. Seriously, watch the documentary the myth of the liberal media and get back to me.

The word goes round and around, but as with you, it's used as a derogarotory comment on things that you don't like. In the case of big media, it has the effect of pushing themselves further and further to the right in the process.

 

[the_leander]

Stop using words you don't understand.

You do not, nor have you had in your lifetime, a liberal media.

Your media is owned, lock stock and barrel by a tiny handful of insanely powerful media moguls. The reason these people, people such as Murdoch, are looking at the democrats is simple: Backing the Republicans is hurting these media giants profits.

Speaking of myths.. I was not refering to Fox News, which is owned by Murdoch.

I used Murdochs name simply because it was a well known one. It doesn't change the fact that your media is owned by a handful of people.

Come to Europe, we'll show you what a liberal media actually is.

Even worse bias in much of European media. I don't need prime time serious documentaries about how the moon landing was a fake or how Jerry Springer is a good representation of the US populace.[/dquote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF?!

There is no such thing as unbiased media. The difference is that in Europe you get a vast spectrum of biases from right to left, which is the sign of a truely liberal media market.

You don't like my use of the term liberal democrat, that is term they chose to describe themselves. The media hides their affiliation to this group, but it is there.

"They?" Show me one media conglomerate who defines themselves at liberal democratic in nature. Further, show one that *acts* in a liberal manner. I won't wait up, I know the answer already.

Oh come off it Red you can do better then this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media. Seriously, watch the documentary the myth of the liberal media and get back to me.

The word goes round and around, but as with you, it's used as a derogarotory comment on things that you don't like. In the case of big media, it has the effect of pushing themselves further and further to the right in the process.

 

[the_leander]

Stop using words you don't understand.

You do not, nor have you had in your lifetime, a liberal media.

Your media is owned, lock stock and barrel by a tiny handful of insanely powerful media moguls. The reason these people, people such as Murdoch, are looking at the democrats is simple: Backing the Republicans is hurting these media giants profits.

Speaking of myths.. I was not refering to Fox News, which is owned by Murdoch.

I used Murdochs name simply because it was a well known one. It doesn't change the fact that your media is owned by a handful of people.

Come to Europe, we'll show you what a liberal media actually is.

Even worse bias in much of European media. I don't need prime time serious documentaries about how the moon landing was a fake or how Jerry Springer is a good representation of the US populace.[/dquote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF?!

There is no such thing as unbiased media. The difference is that in Europe you get a vast spectrum of biases from right to left, which is the sign of a truely liberal media market.

You don't like my use of the term liberal democrat, that is term they chose to describe themselves. The media hides their affiliation to this group, but it is there.

"They?" Show me one media conglomerate who defines themselves at liberal democratic in nature. Further, show one that *acts* in a liberal manner. I won't wait up, I know the answer already.

Oh come off it Red you can do better then this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media. Seriously, watch the documentary the myth of the liberal media and get back to me.

The word goes round and around, but as with you, it's used as a derogarotory comment on things that you don't like. In the case of big media, it has the effect of pushing themselves further and further to the right in the process.

 

[the_leander]

Stop using words you don't understand.

You do not, nor have you had in your lifetime, a liberal media.

Your media is owned, lock stock and barrel by a tiny handful of insanely powerful media moguls. The reason these people, people such as Murdoch, are looking at the democrats is simple: Backing the Republicans is hurting these media giants profits.

Speaking of myths.. I was not refering to Fox News, which is owned by Murdoch.

I used Murdochs name simply because it was a well known one. It doesn't change the fact that your media is owned by a handful of people.

Come to Europe, we'll show you what a liberal media actually is.

Even worse bias in much of European media. I don't need prime time serious documentaries about how the moon landing was a fake or how Jerry Springer is a good representation of the US populace.[/dquote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF?!

There is no such thing as unbiased media. The difference is that in Europe you get a vast spectrum of biases from right to left, which is the sign of a truely liberal media market.

You don't like my use of the term liberal democrat, that is term they chose to describe themselves. The media hides their affiliation to this group, but it is there.

"They?" Show me one media conglomerate who defines themselves at liberal democratic in nature. Further, show one that *acts* in a liberal manner. I won't wait up, I know the answer already.

Oh come off it Red you can do better then this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media. Seriously, watch the documentary the myth of the liberal media and get back to me.

The word goes round and around, but as with you, it's used as a derogarotory comment on things that you don't like. In the case of big media, it has the effect of pushing themselves further and further to the right in the process.

 

[the_leander]

Stop using words you don't understand.

You do not, nor have you had in your lifetime, a liberal media.

Your media is owned, lock stock and barrel by a tiny handful of insanely powerful media moguls. The reason these people, people such as Murdoch, are looking at the democrats is simple: Backing the Republicans is hurting these media giants profits.

Speaking of myths.. I was not refering to Fox News, which is owned by Murdoch.

I used Murdochs name simply because it was a well known one. It doesn't change the fact that your media is owned by a handful of people.

Come to Europe, we'll show you what a liberal media actually is.

Even worse bias in much of European media. I don't need prime time serious documentaries about how the moon landing was a fake or how Jerry Springer is a good representation of the US populace.[/dquote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF?!

There is no such thing as unbiased media. The difference is that in Europe you get a vast spectrum of biases from right to left, which is the sign of a truely liberal media market.

You don't like my use of the term liberal democrat, that is term they chose to describe themselves. The media hides their affiliation to this group, but it is there.

"They?" Show me one media conglomerate who defines themselves at liberal democratic in nature. Further, show one that *acts* in a liberal manner. I won't wait up, I know the answer already.

Oh come off it Red you can do better then this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media. Seriously, watch the documentary the myth of the liberal media and get back to me.

The word goes round and around, but as with you, it's used as a derogarotory comment on things that you don't like. In the case of big media, it has the effect of pushing themselves further and further to the right in the process.

 

[the_leander]

Stop using words you don't understand.

You do not, nor have you had in your lifetime, a liberal media.

Your media is owned, lock stock and barrel by a tiny handful of insanely powerful media moguls. The reason these people, people such as Murdoch, are looking at the democrats is simple: Backing the Republicans is hurting these media giants profits.

Speaking of myths.. I was not refering to Fox News, which is owned by Murdoch.

I used Murdochs name simply because it was a well known one. It doesn't change the fact that your media is owned by a handful of people.

Come to Europe, we'll show you what a liberal media actually is.

Even worse bias in much of European media. I don't need prime time serious documentaries about how the moon landing was a fake or how Jerry Springer is a good representation of the US populace.[/dquote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF?!

There is no such thing as unbiased media. The difference is that in Europe you get a vast spectrum of biases from right to left, which is the sign of a truely liberal media market.

You don't like my use of the term liberal democrat, that is term they chose to describe themselves. The media hides their affiliation to this group, but it is there.

"They?" Show me one media conglomerate who defines themselves at liberal democratic in nature. Further, show one that *acts* in a liberal manner. I won't wait up, I know the answer already.

Oh come off it Red you can do better then this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media. Seriously, watch the documentary the myth of the liberal media and get back to me.

The word goes round and around, but as with you, it's used as a derogarotory comment on things that you don't like. In the case of big media, it has the effect of pushing themselves further and further to the right in the process.

 

[faethor]

There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media.

Amen!

 

[faethor]

There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media.

Amen!

 

[faethor]

There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media.

Amen!

 

[faethor]

There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media.

Amen!

 

[faethor]

There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media.

Amen!

 

[faethor]

There is nothing, repeat nothing, liberal about your media.

Amen!