WSJ: Obama Speech 'Most Dishonest in Decades'

Originally posted by centurion1211

The bottom line point - now pay attention - of this thread is that the tide of public opinion is turning against obama. You can read it in editorials like in the OP, you can hear it on MSM that once rabidly suppported obama,

What MSM 'rabidly supported obama' but are now 'turning against him'?

The murdoch owned WallStreet Journal?

It's funny to me how you seem to base your entire argument not on referenceable fact, but on projections and assumptions.

I suspect you will assume I am supporting Obama by challenging you to actual have some substance behind your assumptions.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by centurion1211


Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.

The WSJ, owned by rupert murodoch, is often enthusiastically in support of Obama? Can you provide some examples of that?

Obama bailed out Wall Street ...

As is the Wall Street Journal ...

Now go find some of your own examples ...

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by centurion1211


Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.

The WSJ, owned by rupert murodoch, is often enthusiastically in support of Obama? Can you provide some examples of that?

Obama bailed out Wall Street ...

As is the Wall Street Journal ...

Now go find some of your own examples ...

I see. So, you think Obama bailed out the Wall St Journal?

Please, clarify. I'm amused.

Originally posted by centurion1211


Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.

You mean articles like this one from 2008 falsely claiming nobody remembered Obama from Columbia?

Yeah, such "enthusiastic support".

online.wsj.com...

WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch... so an anti-Obama Story or editorial should be as expected as you would find on FOX News. WSJ = Rupert Murdoch

Originally posted by centurion1211
Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.

Since when has Rupert Murdoch media been giving Obama a pass instead of being so utterly biased that his media outlets lie on a regular basis? Would you suggest MSNBC and Keith Olberman were Bush cheerleaders?

Originally posted by neo96
that is hilarious it really is hilarious

if murdoch had so much power that the left gives him obama would not be president.

"So much power?" You mean the power to influence how his magazine is run?
I am curious why that seems so impressive.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by centurion1211
Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.

Since when has Rupert Murdoch media been giving Obama a pass instead of being so utterly biased that his media outlets lie on a regular basis? Would you suggest MSNBC and Keith Olberman were Bush cheerleaders?

Indeed they were
just there to give us the feeling someone was against him while diverting attention from the fact they are a bunch of evil satanic puppets.

digging thru rivals old post is fun a bump a flag n a star for the OP

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by centurion1211

The bottom line point - now pay attention - of this thread is that the tide of public opinion is turning against obama. You can read it in editorials like in the OP, you can hear it on MSM that once rabidly suppported obama,

What MSM 'rabidly supported obama' but are now 'turning against him'?

The murdoch owned WallStreet Journal?

It's funny to me how you seem to base your entire argument not on referenceable fact, but on projections and assumptions.

I suspect you will assume I am supporting Obama by challenging you to actual have some substance behind your assumptions.

It's kinda sad, but I would say, don't even bother with this...when people make references to opinions on drudge and other highly biased sites as their "evidence", then you know they are grasping at straws (or straw men)...you can tell just by the language that they use to frame the debate, that it's not honest intellectual discourse. Something that real libertarians often lament about on the right, this disdain for facts and intelligence, since libertarians, on average, tend to be both educated and intellectually honest. I've read up plenty on libertarian philosophy and policy positions and I can tell you that anyone who defends the obscene defense budget and wars of aggression, is most positively not a true conservative, but a neo-con. Also known as a neo-liberal by the rest of the world. I'm sure you know all about these people and their globalist police state agenda. That is what these people are defending, NOT "liberty" and "freedom" like they all claim to be so proud of. They are nothing but apologists for the wealthy elite, authoritarian loyalists, and mouth pieces for the vampiric corporatists who hate the middle class and average american. There is no good reason to defend American imperialism, endless wars, and the military industrial complex...all I have to say is Eisenhower knew what was coming, and boy was he right (unfortunately)!

(By the way the worst is when they reference conservapedia which, I've seen people on this thread do before.)

I would also say that these people are unwittingly adept at using logical fallacies to argue their claims. Because of course asking for verifiable evidence for their assumptions automatically means you are an "evil-commie-obama-nazi lover", didn't you know that??? Disagreeing or questioning something means you are automatically the polar opposite of what you are disagreeing with! see how that works?