Originally Posted by BBQMan

The Times, along with most daily newspapers, continues to lose circulation and importance - not to mention money. The sole exception among major papers is The Wall Street Journal. I noted in another post that I continue to read the journal because of its objective coverage. Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way:

http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-grap...st-two-decades

For those of you who are interested, the times continues to lose circulation, having lost an additional 6% in the last year. Unless people can believe what a paper writes, there is no reason for subscribing.

BBQman I have subscribe to the Wall Street Journal since 1978 until present. They seem to be one of the few papers left with any crediblity.

it seems the only things that are credible are those that you agree with. Anything that you disagree with is not. Simple

Originally Posted by Tbugs

BBQMan,

You definitely got a good head on your shoulders. The Wall Street Journal is an excellent newspaper.

Hancie -
... or had crib notes scribbled on their hands.

Speaking of the WSJ, an NBC/WSJ Poll conducted 6-13 surveyed 1000 adults via cell phone regarding Congress, Obama, and the Republican field of candidates. The link to the pdf is listed below. The document is 31 pages long.
Question 6 surveyed their feelings about the Tea Party Movement and the Republican candidates. . Those who are very positive and somewhat positive for the following: Tea Party 13 and 15%. Negative (Somewhat and Very) 14 and 27. Then it surveys the candidates on page 10 as Total positive and total negative.I left out not sure.
Obama 49 37
Christie 23 14
Romney 27 26
Democratic Party 38 39
Ryan 17 18
Pawlenty 14 15
Huntsman 7 9
Perry 12 15
Tea Party 28 41
Republican Party 28 41
Palin 24 54
Question 9 Who they would vote for 1n 2112
Obama 45
Republican candidate 40
Gingrich 16 48
Cain and Bachman were not listed. She was listed on Question 12b asked of registered voters who said they would vote in the Republican primary. Maybe the survey was prior to the debate.
There is lots of data to digest.

Here is the link http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...0Filled-in.pdf

From what I read in Mitch's posting from the Wall Street Journal, President Obama does not have much to fear from the Republican potential candidates.

It is very interesting to see that the American mainstream voter is definitely not represented by the majority of the posters on this forum. Gripe as much as you want, but you must remember the majority of Americans voted President Obama into office - and it looks as though he will be staying another term.

Originally Posted by Hancle704

It's getting harder to find facts on the NY Time Editorial/Opinion Pages and it's not too hard to find opinions on the NY Times news pages.

Reminds me of Mark Twain who wrote...
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

The editorial or opinion pages of any newspaper or magazine are for exactly that--editorials or opinion. If you wish to read news, you need to go to other parts of the paper to read columns written by reporters, not columnists.

When people criticize a media source of being left or right, it's often because of what they publish on the editorial or opinion pages, articles written by columnists. Oftentimes those same media sources do a superb job of reporting the facts of the news in news articles. I won't argues that the New York Times columnists don't tend to "lean left". But I will argue that the paper does a superb job of reporting the news.

It seems as though "ilovetv" will not answer a direct question either.

Sounds like one of those Republican/Teaparty darlings that would not answer direct questions either on their "debate".

Just want to get your talking point in without taking any responsibility for it nor answering a direct question is NOT how to proceed either in a debate or a forum.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

....I continue to read the journal because of its objective coverage. Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way...

No, not really. Of the four papers delivered to my driveway every morning (The WSJ, New York Times, USA TODAY and Villages Daily Sun), the WSJ is lots better in many respects.

Of course, the WSJ doesn't have very much of an opinion page or very many columnists, an average of only about one page a day, so the majority of what it prints is news. And not much national news of a general nature, and no local news at all. So it really does require reading more than just the WSJ to be reasonably completely informed.

If Obama, a nobody from no where with no accomplishments or qualifications, except dole out the kool aid can come along with NOTHING but words...ANYBODY on the list can do like wise. I totally am amused by the inference that Obama has nothing to fear from who ever it is being bashed at the moment.

He and the dems, have much to fear that is why the negative rhetoric about ANYBODY that does not have a 'D' after their name.

The Dems performance on the economy, jobs, energy, immigration, health care and the babbling about bringing change (uuurrrpppp!) to Washington, the deficit and the increased number of wars are what they have to fear.

Isn't it funny there is not much about these major topics by the mainstream media. What is also missing from any reporting is anything about Herman Cain.
When the media reported the debate the first week they did not mention one word about him. Hmmmnnnn...a black with an 'R' after his name who has no fear about taking and stating positions with risk.

Based on promises kept and accomplishment of improving the stature, integrity of America all merit Obama and his sheeple an F on his report card. Yes, whether the 'D' faithful like it or not....THEY HAVE MUCH TO FEAR!!!!


btk

With the economy in the toilet and more of the same from Obama coming; such as his still held plan of destroying the coal industry and in effect raising power costs in this country to astronomical heights, the only weapon the Democrats have is to try to disillusion the Republican electorate and hopefully deter them from thinking they can oust Obama so that they dejectedly stay home with their votes un-cast.

Ain't gonna happen in 2012. The lame-stream media's plan is doomed to failure. Keep the faith.

Generation 3A nuke plants can destroy the coal industry, lower our electric bills and provide the electrical oomph that we're going to need as more and more cars run on electricity.

What's more is that we can stop blowing the tops off of mountains and filling in the rivers with spoil in West Virginia if we do that.

Originally Posted by djplong

Generation 3A nuke plants can destroy the coal industry, lower our electric bills and provide the electrical oomph that we're going to need as more and more cars run on electricity.

What's more is that we can stop blowing the tops off of mountains and filling in the rivers with spoil in West Virginia if we do that.

Good luck getting those nuclear plants past the environmental lobbyists who wield great power in liberal Democrat circles.

and the oil companies that own the republican party

Originally Posted by waynet

and the oil companies that own the republican party

You would like to obtain the power to run this nation, how?

the same way we always have,out of the ground but perhaps without the billions in subsidies we give the oil companies. Oh I forgot the oil companies millions in donations to the republican party,guess they will keep those subsidies for awhile longer.

Originally Posted by waynet

the same way we always have,out of the ground but perhaps without the billions in subsidies we give the oil companies. Oh I forgot the oil companies millions in donations to the republican party,guess they will keep those subsidies for awhile longer.

response.