[cr]

I listen to beings who exist in another reality all day long, but they don’t listen to me.

They’re called politicians.

[cr]

I listen to beings who exist in another reality all day long, but they don’t listen to me.

They’re called politicians.

[cr]

I listen to beings who exist in another reality all day long, but they don’t listen to me.

They’re called politicians.

[cr]

I listen to beings who exist in another reality all day long, but they don’t listen to me.

They’re called politicians.

[cr]

I listen to beings who exist in another reality all day long, but they don’t listen to me.

They’re called politicians.

[cr]

Foreclosures and falling prices are but an effect of the real cause.

Anyone who says we need to stop foreclosures (McBama), and and stop falling prices doesn’t understand the problem: home prices went too high in the first place. That’s the cause, and of course it’s also the effect of lending standards, entitelment, lying, etc, but you get the point.

You can’t stop the consequences once prices outpaced reality. And any attempt to do so will be short-lived and reap greater consequences.

[cr]

Foreclosures and falling prices are but an effect of the real cause.

Anyone who says we need to stop foreclosures (McBama), and and stop falling prices doesn’t understand the problem: home prices went too high in the first place. That’s the cause, and of course it’s also the effect of lending standards, entitelment, lying, etc, but you get the point.

You can’t stop the consequences once prices outpaced reality. And any attempt to do so will be short-lived and reap greater consequences.

[cr]

Foreclosures and falling prices are but an effect of the real cause.

Anyone who says we need to stop foreclosures (McBama), and and stop falling prices doesn’t understand the problem: home prices went too high in the first place. That’s the cause, and of course it’s also the effect of lending standards, entitelment, lying, etc, but you get the point.

You can’t stop the consequences once prices outpaced reality. And any attempt to do so will be short-lived and reap greater consequences.

[cr]

Foreclosures and falling prices are but an effect of the real cause.

Anyone who says we need to stop foreclosures (McBama), and and stop falling prices doesn’t understand the problem: home prices went too high in the first place. That’s the cause, and of course it’s also the effect of lending standards, entitelment, lying, etc, but you get the point.

You can’t stop the consequences once prices outpaced reality. And any attempt to do so will be short-lived and reap greater consequences.

[cr]

Foreclosures and falling prices are but an effect of the real cause.

Anyone who says we need to stop foreclosures (McBama), and and stop falling prices doesn’t understand the problem: home prices went too high in the first place. That’s the cause, and of course it’s also the effect of lending standards, entitelment, lying, etc, but you get the point.

You can’t stop the consequences once prices outpaced reality. And any attempt to do so will be short-lived and reap greater consequences.

[cr]

[quote=urbanrealtor]It would be more accurate to say that the media is a distorted magnifier of the public sentiment.
The argument that the media just favors certain people unfairly, does not have a lot of value. [/quote]

Not necessarily. In fact, I’d argue they influence and even determine it for many uninformed voters.

Whether you agree or disagree with that depends on your own stance in regards to current public sentiment. In other words, if your views are in line with public sentiment then you’re more likely to think things are fairly and accurately conveyed by the media, even if you did come up with the same conclusions by researching both sides on your own. That’s why Fox News seems so right winged, ultra conservative to Obama supporters. It’s all perspective.

However, most people’s perspectives are determined only by what they see on the news, or read in major metro papers.

That’s the entire point of Card’s letter. The media is no longer fair and unbiased. Again, whether you agree or disagree with that more depends on your own views, and your own levels of research.

Proof of this is in the reactions of Obama supporters who discount Card because he is “ultra-conservative.” Well most MSM looks equally ultra-liberal but the masses buy into everything they say.

[cr]

[quote=urbanrealtor]It would be more accurate to say that the media is a distorted magnifier of the public sentiment.
The argument that the media just favors certain people unfairly, does not have a lot of value. [/quote]

Not necessarily. In fact, I’d argue they influence and even determine it for many uninformed voters.

Whether you agree or disagree with that depends on your own stance in regards to current public sentiment. In other words, if your views are in line with public sentiment then you’re more likely to think things are fairly and accurately conveyed by the media, even if you did come up with the same conclusions by researching both sides on your own. That’s why Fox News seems so right winged, ultra conservative to Obama supporters. It’s all perspective.

However, most people’s perspectives are determined only by what they see on the news, or read in major metro papers.

That’s the entire point of Card’s letter. The media is no longer fair and unbiased. Again, whether you agree or disagree with that more depends on your own views, and your own levels of research.

Proof of this is in the reactions of Obama supporters who discount Card because he is “ultra-conservative.” Well most MSM looks equally ultra-liberal but the masses buy into everything they say.

[cr]

[quote=urbanrealtor]It would be more accurate to say that the media is a distorted magnifier of the public sentiment.
The argument that the media just favors certain people unfairly, does not have a lot of value. [/quote]

Not necessarily. In fact, I’d argue they influence and even determine it for many uninformed voters.

Whether you agree or disagree with that depends on your own stance in regards to current public sentiment. In other words, if your views are in line with public sentiment then you’re more likely to think things are fairly and accurately conveyed by the media, even if you did come up with the same conclusions by researching both sides on your own. That’s why Fox News seems so right winged, ultra conservative to Obama supporters. It’s all perspective.

However, most people’s perspectives are determined only by what they see on the news, or read in major metro papers.

That’s the entire point of Card’s letter. The media is no longer fair and unbiased. Again, whether you agree or disagree with that more depends on your own views, and your own levels of research.

Proof of this is in the reactions of Obama supporters who discount Card because he is “ultra-conservative.” Well most MSM looks equally ultra-liberal but the masses buy into everything they say.

[cr]

[quote=urbanrealtor]It would be more accurate to say that the media is a distorted magnifier of the public sentiment.
The argument that the media just favors certain people unfairly, does not have a lot of value. [/quote]

Not necessarily. In fact, I’d argue they influence and even determine it for many uninformed voters.

Whether you agree or disagree with that depends on your own stance in regards to current public sentiment. In other words, if your views are in line with public sentiment then you’re more likely to think things are fairly and accurately conveyed by the media, even if you did come up with the same conclusions by researching both sides on your own. That’s why Fox News seems so right winged, ultra conservative to Obama supporters. It’s all perspective.

However, most people’s perspectives are determined only by what they see on the news, or read in major metro papers.

That’s the entire point of Card’s letter. The media is no longer fair and unbiased. Again, whether you agree or disagree with that more depends on your own views, and your own levels of research.

Proof of this is in the reactions of Obama supporters who discount Card because he is “ultra-conservative.” Well most MSM looks equally ultra-liberal but the masses buy into everything they say.

[cr]

[quote=urbanrealtor]It would be more accurate to say that the media is a distorted magnifier of the public sentiment.
The argument that the media just favors certain people unfairly, does not have a lot of value. [/quote]

Not necessarily. In fact, I’d argue they influence and even determine it for many uninformed voters.

Whether you agree or disagree with that depends on your own stance in regards to current public sentiment. In other words, if your views are in line with public sentiment then you’re more likely to think things are fairly and accurately conveyed by the media, even if you did come up with the same conclusions by researching both sides on your own. That’s why Fox News seems so right winged, ultra conservative to Obama supporters. It’s all perspective.

However, most people’s perspectives are determined only by what they see on the news, or read in major metro papers.

That’s the entire point of Card’s letter. The media is no longer fair and unbiased. Again, whether you agree or disagree with that more depends on your own views, and your own levels of research.

Proof of this is in the reactions of Obama supporters who discount Card because he is “ultra-conservative.” Well most MSM looks equally ultra-liberal but the masses buy into everything they say.

[Author]

Posts