Headlines today featured on Yahoo "News":
"Santorum may hoave won in Iowa--Romney says it was "a virtual tie" (yet another reason to vote GAINST Ropmne--NO grace at all, and a hypocrite)
"Rick Santorum belated win in Iowa: to late to matter" (current "featured" headline)
Notice how the FIRST headline does nto even really acknowledge the "win" of Santorum in Iowa. These are DISHOENST peopoe, spreading HISHONESTY every single day. Buyt it is much worse than that.
Go back to the night of the Iowa primary. Waht did this blog tell you? This blog told you that it DID NOT MATTER whether Rick Santorum had "won" Iowa by a few votes or had "lost" Iowa by a few votges. It was a TIE. I wote that when Santourm was actually ahead a few votres, but I told you -then and later--that the vote wsa so close that it was a TIE. 8 votes NEVER meant anything. I would have more respect form Mitt Romney IF he had said THEN that it ws a tie (ta;lomg apbit tje sicceeddomg days when the media was talking aoubt Romney's "historic' feat of "seeping" Iowa and New Hampshire). As it is, I havce little respect for Romney--really less every single day. Of course, I ahve NO respect for the media, including the unfair and unblanced network. They have YET AGIAIN been exposed as LIARS--rist, last and always. They insisted upon attaching significance to that 8 vote Romney "win" in Iowa, when it NEVER had any significance at all. And this is NOT hindsight on the part of this bog. It is FORESIGHT. I told you this right after the Iowa vote, and in every article in which I have mentioned the subjet since. I TOLD you that the Iowa vote was so close that it could eve CHANGE. Talk about TOMORROW'S NEWS TODAY!!!!!!! That is what you get from this blog.
Is this a correctg headline: "Did Media LIars, including Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Megyn Kelly, Bret Baire, and all of the rest, COST Santorum the nmination by LYING aboujt the significance of the Iowa resutls, and the fact that EITHER Snatorum or Romney might eventaly be declared the "winner" in a vorte this close?"
In actual fact, I don't think the media did "cost" Santorum the nominatin. Santorum MUST get within 5% of the lead in South Carolina (NOT a "victory"), or his campaign is essentially over. Right now , it is likely Santorum will NOT get that vote. I say that NOT because of EVIL polls, but because Rick Perry endorsed Gingrich. Would Perry have done that if he thought Santourm had a real chance at the vote in South Carolina, or at the nomination? I don't think so. But it is really the MEDIA--including the unfair and unbalanced network--who are this STUPID, and all about AGENDA rather than FACTS. NONE of them would know an actual FACT if it fell on their head out of the sky. Nevertheless, Santourm just has filed to CATCH FIRE. He is simply--as this blog has told you--toom much of a standard politician, even if he is the most solid conservative in the race and pretty much RIGHT on most things. This blog continues to endorse Santourm, for that reason, but the ONLY reason for him to stay in the race, IF he cannot come within 5% of the "winner" in South Carolina, is to hope for either a DEADLOCKED convention or a MAJOR gaffe by both Gingrich and Romney. Santorum cannot stand a DISTANT thrid place finish in South Carolina, although he would be fine if his t"third palce" finish was with;in 5% of the top. What is it the media does nto understand about MEANINGLESS differences in these primary/caucus votes? Well, they may, sort of--these are turly STUPID people--"understand". They just DON'T CARE. They are LIARS to theri very core,not intterested in INFORMATION (or, God forbid, "turth"), but only in their particular way of HYONG their own ratings and how they think these things can be "SPUN". O'Reilly's "o spin zone"................................................................................................sorry, on the foor laughing/crying agani.....is oen of lthe BIGGEST LIES ever invented in media, right after "teh fair and unbalanced network".
If lyou can't "blame" the media for Rick Santroum not doing better,, yhou can balme them ALL for LYING to you. And I do. For more lthan eight yyears, I have esposed those LIES. You will remember my futuile Sodom and Gommorah searhc--I will never forgive Him for sticking me with that "assignment", as a punishment for me being an agnostic--for an honest, competent AP reporter. No such animal exists. But I will go further; There is NO such thing as an honest, competent "journalist" in today's world. Nope.. I will NOT accept the extended Sodom and Gomorrah assiganment of TESTING this statemetn. ep. I continue to suggest you BOYCOTT the unfair and unblanced network.
But the headline contins mmy strongest recommendation: Do NOT believe, or act upon, a single word these peole (today's media) say. What you MUST do, is conslt blogs like this one, along with multiiple "news" "sources" (like Drudge), and then READ BETWEEN THE LINES. Ignore the S+MEARS. Yep. This "open marriage" SMEAR against Gingrich is something yuou should INGORE, except to cause you to have yet more CONTMPT for "journalists", who wre th ePRIMARY purveyors of NEGTIVE ADS in this country. What is this "oopen marriage" tripe, from an EX-WIEF, other than a vicious NEGATIVWE AD. It has NOTHING to do with whether Gingrich should be President., and I say that as someone who wil NOT vote for Gingrich--even against Obama (reserving the right to change my mind here, if Gngrich somehow manages to stay FOCUSED on the RIGTHT things for months at a time, instead of his usual HOURS).
How can yuou have ANY respect for, or pay anty attention to, peole (media) who LIE to you, and then say that it is too bad that Santourm was not declared the winner EARLIER-too bad that the Meia MISPRESENTED the results for so many weeks (unlike this blog, which told you the truth).
I worry that I am holind back again, and not giving you the full idea of how ANTRY I am at these people (our media, including the unfair and unbalanced network). The problem is that non-curse words just don't exist that are adequate to show my CONTEMPT for these peole sABC? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? LIARS all, and BENEATH CONTEMPT. Scu? Not an adequate word? Whores? An insult to honest whores who provide a serivice, althouygh I sort of like my recurrent headline: "Andrea Mitchell is a whore.". Evil.. Well, that is both taure, and almsot adequate, but nobody believes you are serious when you use a word like "evil". I AM serious. I have often stated that I look forward to MEETING ALL OF THES PEOPLE IN HELL, IF HELL EXISTS. Maybe that is the bbest I can do to show jsut how much contempt I have for these people. Just LOOK at those headlines I quote above, and remember all of the LIES you have bben told ove th e past several weeks. What esle is adequate?
I say I have LESS respect for Romney every day, and that is true. However, I have some qualms about condemning Romney for NOW saing that Iowa was "a virtual tie", and not saing it THEN. (after that "official" 8 vote "margin"). Do I KNOW that Romney did ot say it? No, because the MEIDA are sluch LIARS and INCOMPETENTS. It is possible that Romney DID say it, and the media just ignored it as "modestry" No, I am pretty convinced that Romney did NOT say it as STRONGLY as he shoudl have, and as consistently. But jhe MAY have said it. It would NOT have been reported. Romneh's prolbem remains--see last nights's article--that he does NOT "connect" with eeople, and contiues to put out PABLUM that is "focus grouop tested". No way I will eVER vote for Mitt Romne for President. As stated, myh opnion of him has gone DOWN almsot eveery day since 2998, when I endorsed him for the GOP nomination (partly, let us be honest, because MCCAIN was his main opoponent).
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
P.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment