Media evidently condones violence against Republicans

Why am I not seeing this in the local paper?


I have heard dribs and drabs about this, mostly from references in internet discussions. This is the first time I have seen actual instances related and collected.

Evidently violence against Republicans is okay?
Imagine if these acts had been perpetrated against abortion clinics. Think you would not be reading about them in the paper?

 

This link is retarded. Is the Union Leader a real newspaper or a blog?

"....jackbooted thugs threw down old ladies who dared hesitate when asked if Bush was the devil...."

 

The Knoxville, TN gunshots are for real.

 

I've heard it all when the Dems are cast as tough guys.

 

Michelle Malkin does not personally write for the paper, she's a national columnist.

The Union-Leader is a conservative, highly regarded newspaper.
They publicly endorsed Bush on the front page of today's edition, which will be regarded as significant (though hardly surprizing) by the national press.

From where did you derive your quote?
(jackbooted thugs threw down old ladies who dared hesitate when asked if Bush was the devil)

 

Thanks for the info. I made up the quote (that's why I didn't use any html tricks with it) but I can see why that's confusing. Just goofing on the article a little.

It's hard to give the paper too much credit based on this article. So, which way is it now: Dems are weak and the terrorist will hand us our a$$ if they're elected or they're a bunch of tough guys looking for a fight and they don't care with who?

 

That depends on what you want to hear..

(j/k)

 

The instances referred to hardly describe tough guys. Thugs and vandals. They are capable of violence, doesn't mean they see the war on terror in the correct light. Kerry is back to talking about law-enforcement being the answer. Same answer we accepted for twenty years.



Two Democrats decide to go into business selling Christmas trees. They buy a bunch of trees in the country for $10 each, then truck them into the city, where they sell them all for $10 each.
When they get home anf count up all their cash, they are disappointed. One looks at the other and says "You know, this was a good idea, but we didn't make much money. Perhaps we need to try something different."
"Your right", the second guy says, "Next year we get a bigger truck"

 

It's a mixed message at best. If you want to harp on the Dems as a bunch of pussies then you need to be consistent. There a whacko's on both sides but the poster-boy Dem is a tree hugging liberal not a violent NRA member. Stick to the party line!

I hate metaphor's so I'm ignoring the last part. I'm not trying to defend Kerry I'm just puzzled by this link and why your getting so carried away with it. This just reads like partisan drivle to me.

 

Why I posted it is clearly outlined in my first post. The media has ignored or downplayed these acts of violence against Republican targets. If the same violence were perpetrated against something the media supports, like abortion clinics, or prisoners in an Iraq jail you would read plenty about it in the papers.

And when did I harp on the Dems as a bunch of pussies? I don't think they don't want to stand up to terrorists because they are afraid, I think they are just sticking their heads in the sand.

Even pussies are quite capable of violence when they feel the urge.

The world isn't black and white. Violence isn't confined to NRA members, nor is it even their forte.

 

Michelle Malkin is a neo-con mouthpiece, just spouting more partisan drivel.

 

Do you honestly think one article citing four examples is significant? That Fox is missing a scoop?

 

But I thought Fox was the Conservative-bias media? No, wait, that's CBS, or maybe ESPN?

I'm soooo confused....

 

I think your being paranoid. The Dems haven't cornered the market on misguided followers. There is no conspiracy. The media hasn't picked up this story because its not a story.

 

it sure would have been, if it had been Repubs, doing it to Dems..............!!!!! They tried blaming the Florida hurricanes on Bush, for christ's sake...........

("Had Bush paid more attention to the enviromental issues regarding global warming, we wouldn't be having so many hurricanes".........was the exact quote)

The media, (Liberal Dems) portray the news the way they want you to see it, and if it makes Republicans look good or decent, then it's not even aired..........

 

Alright, the paranoia seems to be spreading. Everyone check their sanity for a moment. Network news is biased on a network by network basis. I've seen no "media" bias only "network" bias. No one wants to single out a network and I'm guessing there would be no consensus anyway but the issue gets labeled "media" bias as a catchall and we all fill in the blank for ourselves.

600inline4 - The Dems were hot to seize on the Florida Hurricanes because Bush I lost alot of support when he was slow to get relief to Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Clinton capitalized on that situation. They took another run at it after the hurricanes this summer but Bush II did a much better job so it didn't gain momentum. The political jab your cited is ridiculous but it was just part of a bigger strategy by the Dems that didn't work and I'm sure we've heard the last of it.

And back to the Democratic bullies: The Dems haven't cornered the market on nut cases! It's just foolish to think that there is a one-way street of violence and provocation in this contentious political climate.

 

Can somebody please wake me up on Nov 3rd?

 

There is more than network news out there, there is a lot of print journalism also. In fact, very little of the news I get comes from tv, I am not in the habit of watching.

And how exactly do you judge the content of news that you don't "see"? That's kind of like watching a beauty pageant and assuming they just showed you any girls worth looking at.

As reported in the same paper, During a campaign stop in Iowa, Edwards said, “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is President, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”
This ridiculous and offensive statement went unreported by the AP wire service, which picks up on tons of less important and controversial stuff.

First you say the media isn't biased, then you explain coverage blaming hurricanes on Bush as the Dems trying to cost Bush support in Florida. Definetly a non-story, since it was complete nonsense, so why did I read about it in the papers and see it on the news? The obvious implication is that this nonsensical non-story was covered by the media because it would be detrimental to conservatives/Republicans.

Not my point at all. The point is the violence is only covered when it happens to the right people.

 

Team Atomic is a liberal mouthpiece, just spouting more partisan drivel.
And not even getting past the point of insulting someone to make an argument. As usual. Go back to sleep.

 

IYC, your losing it. Every media source is biased. Every person is biased. Recognizing bias isn't hard unless your too opinionated to admit your own. Looking for an affirmation of your opinions in the press is just a silly waste of time. The link you posted is biased and you don't seem to see it. Time to check yourself.

Do you think the RNC would pass up any opportunity to show Dems in a negative light? Do you think the DNC would pass up any Repubs in a negative light? I'd suggest to you that if your not seeing it balanced then your not sampling enough outside of the sources that affirm your opinions.

Just because I understand the motivations behind Dems attacking Bush over the hurricanes means nothing other than I owned a home in Florida in 1992 and I remember.....and this summer gave me deja vu. Nothing more. If the RNC hasn't beaten the Dems to death with that ridiculous political jab then they're not doing their job! Same goes for the Christopher Reeve statement. It's just stupid! Nobody buys it! Edwards didn't make a campaign promise he just said something stupid. Both sides are guilty of this on a daily basis. I can't think of a campaign were I've seen both candidates step on their d!cks more often. Who needs to keep score on the balance of the reporting after awhile!?