or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by zalb916

 First, kudos for highlighting in pink in this thread! That was nicely done. Second, you sometimes have a tendency to not say what you really are thinking, and it often makes it hard to follow your point. Okay, so you "rarely find non-FNC media coverage to be a net positive for Repub," because ... why? The statement/observation is kinda meaningless without an explanation of your intent, so we are left searching for what you are insinuating. Is it because the MSM is biased...
 As an aside to your aside, your NPR dig about its evolution article is not about what you're trying to imply. NPR's headline writer was really just trolling people on that one. I guess you bit.
 Actually, Hillary did have her own headlines. For instance:  I really don't care enough to go back in my time machine and see whether or not CNN or NPR or whatever other media entities put Hillary headlines on their main page on Friday when they reported it. Although, it does seem to be a bit of shifting the goal posts from your orginal contention. I'm not sure what the point of all this is. You seem to be saying that the media is giving more attention to Republican...
 You realize that the media coverage of Cruz probably has to do with the fact that he said he plans to make his opposition to the same-sex marriage ruling "front and center" in his presidential campaign. Cruz, in particular, is garnering extra attention, because he's continuing to talk about the issue.  edit: I happened to see Cruz on the Today show this morning talking about the ruling. (Yeah, I just outed myself as watching the Today show. I'm ashamed.) I'm not saying...
 CNN and NPR? Sure. I would not consider the BBC as part of the MSM, because "mainstream" generally implies American mainstream. The BBC's coverage targets a very different audience than the rest of the American press. I assume you are referring to Hillary when you say "our next POTUS." If so, CNN reported her reaction to the ruling:http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/hillary-clinton-virginia-marriage/ NPR reported her reaction to the ruling in a report among the...
 Are you talking about the mainstream media? Or the inane rantings of idiots on stupid forums, message boards, and comment sections (CE-excepted, of course) that, for some bizarre reason, you spend your time reading and then commenting about here as if they have some real significance? The mainstream media's coverage has relevance to political discourse. The latter kinda sounds like this, "Hey, male clothing enthusiasts talking about current events, power, and money! Idiot...
I would have expected different numbers. Curious what the reasoning is. Social conservatism among blacks? Decreasing support of Obama? I have no idea.
Actually, polling tells a different story.Obama announced his support of gay marriage in May 2012. Black support at that time? 40%Black support in 2015? 41%White support jumped from 49% to 59% during the same time. There was almost no movement among blacks since Obama announced his support three years ago, while support among the rest of the country has jumped considerably.
The real goal for people is not to stop crazies from shooting up churches. Nor do people actually think removing the flag will end racism. So those are not really productive or worthwhile places from which to start.   It's not really worth going into further, particularly if you just don't buy into it. Moreover, I'm not trying to change your mind, so there's no point arguing. Nonetheless, there is plenty of scholarship across a variety of fields (psychology, sociology,...
I'm in.
New Posts  All Forums: