Liberally Biased Media endorse Dems to forget what the People want

Today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" notoriously biased journalist from The Washington Post Eugene Robinson endorsed a radical idea that Democrats should forget what the People in America want/don't want regarding Healthcare Reform & just pass whatever plan they want into law - while they still can!

Never mind that the People do not want the fatally flawed plans that the House & Senate have put up for vote... or that the White House version isn't any better - Robinson wants the Democrats to just pass their will into law before the November elections - when the People will most likely show Washington D.C. that they aren't behind the Democrats & their total control of the country anymore... and before an almost certain defeat of Democrats in general removes them from power in at least 1, if not both aspects of Congress.

That is about as Unamerican and partisan as it gets folks!!!

Never mind what the voters want, just force your will upon them & later on demands they say thanks - regardless of how damaging it is to the Country!!!

Robinson has always been liberally biased, as 99.9% of the NBC/Universal "journalists" and their affiliated media outlets are... but this puts him in the wacko category with the likes of Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, Shuster, Matthews, Todd, Brewer, etc. in a way that hurts our Country... and this needs to be stopped before the liberally biased media that forwards the Democrat agenda at the expense of truth & to the detriment of America succeeds in stealing another election cycle - and before they succeed in damaging our Country further!!!

Irony of ironies!!! MSNBC's hypocritical way of using double standards to declare only the opposition guilty of hypocritical behavior

Instead of doing the same old scam of misleading the viewers with yet another "Hypocrisy Watch" where you distort the facts to make republicans seem to be the ones to blame - when it's actually the democrats deserving the blame for several failures you choose not to report... and do a "Hypocrisy Watch" that gets the story right because the truth determines the outcome - not some agenda for the liberal cause?


If you cared to research the situation, you would see that Republicans aren't as bad off as you keep telling the viewing public - and it's actually the Democrats that fit the description you use to label Republicans.

The liberal media says that the Republican party is in trouble because they have nobody leading them - and the fabricated "Limbaugh" problem is used as proof...

But what would you call a party that has one person claiming to be the leader, and then has his agenda defeated by members of his own party as they try to prove that they are in charge?


Well, that is the Democrats since Obama took office.

The President claimed to be in charge as he told Congress how he expected things to work out... and then the House Democratic leadership showed Obama by their counter-productive actions that they won't listen to him telling them what to do... and as this is going on the Senate Democrats add to the problem by still not being able to get anything accomplished - even after two years of them being in total control.


Then add in how Obama's senior staff behaves in ways directly contradicting his campaign promise of leaving partisanship in the past...

Having two democratic strategists that are so partisan it borders on delusional behavior like Begala & Carville having daily secret meeting with Obama's senior people - resulting in the smoke & mirrors scam of distracting the American people with the fabricated Limbaugh drama to keep us from seeing how the Dems & the Obama Administration took the bad situation handed to them from Bush's departure - and making things exponentially worse by flawed policies - and you in the liberally biased media mislead the people by covering up the obvious flaws of the democrat's agenda as things keep getting worse.


It's been 2 years of Democrat rule in Congress, so still blaming Bush & co for the current debacle only makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

Your choice of still trying to find ways to blame Karl Rove long after he stopped having any say in public policy doesn't help solve the problem at hand... but holding Begala, Carville, Obama's senior staff (as well as other super-partisan democrat pundits like Mark Penn) accountable for what you call "operation chaos" when their efforts would be better used in finding a way to work with Republicans, not against them (or in spite of them) is the first step to a better day for all Americans.


Karl Rove isn't the boogeyman you want people to believe him to be...

But as bad as his ideas were to the American public as a whole way back when he had some clout to shape the Bush policy... what Obama's senior staff and super-partisan pundits are doing now is far worse than what Karl Rove ever did.


And allowing people to come on air and get away with personal attacks against Rush Limbaugh - using several offensive adjectives as he sunk to the low level of personally insulting someone just because they disagree with you.


What made this offensive display of unprofessional behavior by the guest commentator was the way Chris Matthews not only allowed the string of insults to be said on air without one word of discipline... Matthews clearly showed his approval of this unwarranted attack by loudly laughing for several seconds.


If you want to expose hypocrisy, the first thing you need to do is clean house at MSNBC of such unprofessional behavior before you can have any integrity at being the watchdog of being in the wrong.




If you have any integrity at all... you need to hold Matthews & his guest accountable for being a much bigger offender than what you believe Karl Rove is still guilty of.

If you fail to set Matthews & his associate straight... then you don't have a leg to stand on as you judge those who disagree with you... and not one tiny bit of moral ground to stand on.


If you can't or won't apply this moral standard to everyone - regardless of political affiliation or personal connection to you... then it's time for you to quit - if not then you would be the biggest example of hypocrisy!!!

Contessa Brewer & her delusions of grandeur

I love to watch MSNBC because it's better than going to a comedy show. I have to laugh at how the on air personalities pretend to be actual journalists reporting news - when really they are just a bunch of clowns.

The latest example happened today when Contessa Brewer reported the story of Rush Limbaugh challenging President Obama to come on his radio program to debate the current issues - Democrat vs. Conservative.

As expected, MSNBC is bashing Rush & the Republicans... they try to make news by repeating ridiculous questions and coming up with crazy thoeries that demonize Limbaugh and attempt to portray Rebublicans as outdated, impotent dupes to Limbaugh's alleged political capital.

And when Contessa Brewer got her turn on air, she set a new personal record for stupidity - and I must say, that's some accomplishment because Brewer has a long history with being the village idiot at MSNBC/NBC!!

After berating Limbaugh and making fun of his challenge for Obama to debate him on his show Brewer loudly proclaimed that she found Limbaugh's comments funny - and then she explained how she had issued a similar challenge for Limbaugh to come on her program and debate political issues.

I almost felt sorry for her as she expressed how confused she was that Limbaugh seemed to have no desire to debate political issues with her - especially since he was implying negative things about Obama for not meeting his challenge while Limbaugh was guilty of the same thing... almost.


What Brewer fails to understand is that Limbaugh wouldn't consider meeting her challenge, and her cluelessness as to the reasons she'll never see Rush in her studio is both pathetic and a perfect example why she should never be allowed on air again.


Why would Limbaugh lower himself to debating Brewer? This is the person that couldn't tell when Tommy Chong was making fun of her when she tried to interview him on MSNBC during the Paris Hilton jail fiasco. Contessa had no clue at all about what Chong was trying to get across to viewers as he made her look like a 3rd grader who got held back twice.

Another sign of how unfit for the job Brewer is was when her interview went sour and she decided to try insulting Chong - implying that he might be stupid or brain damaged from smoking pot... she even went so far as to ask him if he had smoked anything that morning - as if his witty, sarcastic commentary was really just him not being very smart.

I'm sure Cronkite, Murrow, Walters, etc. totally approved of the way Brewer rolled her eyes at Chong in obvious disgust.


And this rude, condescending attitude is normal behavior for Brewer, as witnessed by the way she berated Limbaugh today, and again awhile back when she was rude when interviewing Rick Santelli who was on location at the NYSE.

Brewer was so obviously rude that another MSNBC on air commentator pointed out how rude she was at the end of the segment. This time, Contessa chose to also berate, demean, and make fun of someone Santelli had made the mistake of including in the segment's conversation... and I'm sure her wished that he never got on air since the result ended in a certain humilation for him on national tv.


But if that wasn't enough, Limbaugh could use the many examples of how unprofessional & unqualified Brewer is for making intelligent conversation with someone... not to mention conduct a professional & informative interview. If Brewer can't keep it together for the easy segments, what makes her think she's is ready for a hard-hitting debate on issues with an informed opponent who is a true believer in how right his views are?

When Contessa was talking to a reporter on location in Galveston in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane. As the reporter talks to Contessa about how Ike has caused chaos for so many people now without a home to go back to, and a graphic tells of the $16 Billion in estimated damages, Brewer shows her lack of professionalism by ignoring the tragedy & loss on camera to talk about a bug that is on the camera's lens. I'm sure those effected by the disaster took comfort in how Brewer gave a bug more importance than them and what they were going through.

And don't forget the time Contessa decided that she needed to put lip gloss on her lips more than MSNBC needed someone at the studio being seen paying attention to a reporter telling how there was a serious security concern at a Giuliani campaign event.

I guess you can't expect someone like Brewer to be interested if the topic is a natural disaster or a potential security risk event for a Presidential candidate... Contessa herself admitted that she loves "computer solitaire, ice cream (with a twist!) and Bloody Marys" - so it's understandable why bugs & lip gloss mean more to her than paying attention while real news is happening on her watch.



But I'm sure a big reason why Limbaugh wouldn't come to MSNBC for any reason, let alone debating political issues with anyone of the on air staff, might be the way MSNBC makes sure their point of view is the one viewers get to see, and the hosts of the MSNBC shows have many tricks they will use to make the opposing viewpoint seem ridiculous while also making theirs seem to be the only reasonable one to have.


People at MSNBC will berate, bully, censor, cut off, and even shout over a guest foolish enough to have a view that differs from the liberal talking points. No tactic is too low if it means forwarding the liberal agenda... even if it means reporting inaccuratly what the other side said as the host gets in the last word as the segment is wrapped up.



It's not like Brewer has a track record for getting the facts straight if it means the Republicans/conservatives end up looking good to the viewers... and you can forget a correction if it becomes obvious to everyone that a report is totally wrong.



Maybe Rush is concerned that Brewer will have another bad day like the time she totally misreported a story about John McCain. (never confirmed, and never corrected after the inacurrate reports aired)

How can you try to have an honest debate on important issues when the other person has no problem putting incorrect information out as undisputed fact??

And if that person is in control of how long the debate will last, has control over how the process happens, and is in charge of the footage and can edit it however they wish - having the final say on what the viewing public gets to see when they allow it to air?


Contessa Brewer is an idiot if she actually believes she has what it takes to debate any informed opponent on serious political issues. But she is delusional if she thinks that someone like Limbaugh - a person who muct be high up on the MSNBC list of people they consider "the enemy" - would fall victim to what would never be an honest debate.

Who in their right mind would allow such an obviously biased media outlet like MSNBC have total control over what the video of the debate would look for the viewing public if it gets recorded at the MSNBC/NBC studios by MSNBC/NBC employees?

The bottom line is that Rush wouldn't lower himself to play whatever crooked game anyone at MSNBC would try on him... but if he was crazy enough to give it a shot, you can be certain that he'd never let himself be reduced to sharing a stage with someone not fit to read the times for movies at a small town theater.


But it was fun watching Contessa report the type of stories someone like her should be lucky to get rather than waste airtime as she totally fails trying to read a real news story from the prompter. (remember when she fell for the "I'm not gay" prank pulled on her?)


The final slam to Brewer & her delusions of grandeur was watching her get relegated to reading stories about the Octomom's crazy 911 call, getting excited over Michael Jackson's insane idea to charge people around $500 to see him suck as bad as Brewer doing karaoke, show video of the judge throwing the book at a dumb criminal, an idiot getting hit by a train & thinking it was a good thing, and Robin Williams health issues, and Obama's gray hair drama, among other non-important stories - while the other people get to talk about real stories people actually care about.


Contessa should worry more about not looking like a total d-bag every day rather than trying to get in the big leagues by challenging someone to a debate - how stupid is she to ask for something that would only make her look completely unqualified to all who have nothing else better to do than tune in to her ramblng.

Oh, one final clue for Contessa...


Why would Rush debate you when you have never had an original thought worth saying on air? The only reason you sound halfway competent some of the time is because someone else is in charge of writing what you get to say as you "report"?? And even that only works some of the time since you have this habit of saying whatever dumb thought pops into that empty head of yours.

You would be an embarrassment if you were still on a local network affiliate... but it's so sad to see a national network let an airhead lower the quality standard and ruin what little reputation is left for MSNBC/NBC.

You should do us all a favor & quit... go spend more time on your solitaire, ice cream, & Bloody Marys... please.

So much for a "new era" of post-partisan politics by the Obama Administration/Democrats in Congress

Rush Limbaugh is as much a Republican party leader as any of the
liberally biased talking heads at MSNBC are leaders of the Democrat
party. Rush is simply the very vocal minority of the Conservative
aspect of the Republican party - and even though he likes to think he's
a major player (in the same way that liberal
commentators/strategists/members of the media want the viewing public
to believe) he has no "political capital" to get his agenda done.


Unlike
the liberally biased members of the media at MSNBC/NBC, Huffington
Report, DailyKos, etc. - who have been rewarded by the current
Administration & Congressional Leaders for the hard work they did
during the election process as they mislead the American People with
liberal propaganda in place of objective news reporting (not to mention
whatever dirty tactic they could think of as they forwarded the liberal
democrat agenda - whatever it took as long as it meant stealing the
election for their democrat bosses)


Chris Matthews
bragged that he lets his personal opinions shape how he presents
information to the viewing public, not caring one bit about how a
journalist should conduct himself, as he (and almost everyone else at
MSNBC/NBC) gave up any sense of having integrity as they chose instead
to sabotage the process for one party over another.


Rush
Limbaugh has his right to express whatever opinion he wishes to
broadcast to his listeners - regardless of how stupid they may be...
but that doesn't mean he has the power to force his views on the party
as a whole, especially since his positions are on the fringe of the
movement, and people need to know that there aren't as many of people
who agrees with him as people want us all to believe.


Just
as Rush should stick to commentating & not trying to run the show,
his counterparts of the liberally biased viewpoint shouldn't be allowed
to have any more of a say than anyone else in this country. It's time
for the liberally biased media outlets like MSNBC/NBC to stop doing the
exact same thing they demonize Rush for trying to do for his party of
choice.


Unless pundits,commentators, opinionists,
"so-called journalists", bloggers, etc. hold themselves to the same
standards they hold the opposition to, then it would be better if they
just didn't say anything at all.


Like Obama said during the campaign - there's not red states or blue states... we live in the UNITED STATES.


So,
it's time the media tried to follow in those footsteps... and maybe
Obama's staff & fellow party members should get the memo about how
Obama wants to have a different kind of post-partisan era for his 4
year term... that way maybe "do nothing" democrats can work together
with "stubborn" republicans so they can fix the system they all helped
to break before it's too late for all of us here in the USA!!

Hypocricy Watch on MSNBC/NBC

Why do you selectively choose how you frame each "story" to help Dems and/or hurt Republicans? Why do you only say Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, but not report the entire commentary with the context? Limbaugh wants Obama to fail IF his goal is to replace the capitalistic free market with a liberal Democrat version of Socialism - NOT that he just wants the President to fail in every way possible. That is misleading to say it the way you do, and it promotes the same agenda that the Obama Administration is using to take the focus away from how badly the Dems are destroying the country ever since people like you helped them gain power back in 2006.

Obama claims to want a different type of Administration - one that is post-partisan... yet he has his chief of staff conduct secret meetings with the most partisan of liberal democrat strategists. Obama has his staff do the dirty work for him while trying to fool people into buying his "new politician" scam. How can Obama let his senior staff consort with such delusionally partisan hatchetmen as Begala - secretly polling the public with opinion polls so loaded against the Republican Party that it must be hard for even the super biased MSNBC/NBC people to keep a straight face as you say whatever will make the typical dirty tactics seem perfectly ok.

And why do you guys say RNC chairman Steele is not doing so well at his new job, but make excuses galore about why Obama deserves less scrutiny on his performance over the same time frame?

Why is it ok for the WH to attack a radio personality as they force how the Republicans try to do their jobs... but say that's it's wrong for Republicans to call attention to how the WH is tarnishing the reputation of the Office of the President by attacking a citizen and hiding from the battle with the opposing party??


Why is it wrong for someone not of the Democrat/liberal affiliation to say they don't want Socialism to replace our way of living... but it was totally fine for Democrats to make outrageous personal attacks against the former President - basically saying he was either mentally challenged or totally incompetent? (and how about the way the liberal media said nothing when the Dems tried to destroy John McCain's reputation by making many comments that said he was not mentally competent and too old to be President)

no big surprise...

It was no surprise when MSNBC proudly proclaimed that the new season of Saturday Night Live would have a Sarah Palin sketch where former cast member & writer, Tina Fey, returning to portray the Republican VP candidate... mostly because the entire NBC/Universal family is totally ok with expressing their liberal/democrat beliefs/opinions.

And because of the way the NBC/Universal family has an obvious lean to the left on the issues, it was pretty much a sure thing that the sketch would be one that pokes fun at Palin and her political party while also promoting the opposing party that is so beloved by this group of networks & other media outlets.

As anyone watching MSNBC on the Monday following that Saturday night can tell you, the sketch from SNL received total praise from what seemed like every single employee who was let on air for even the shortest time period.

If you had missed the show that night, you could easily come to believe that this wasn't just a simple sketch of comedy, but a historical event that will be talked about years from now as if it were Martin Luther King, Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech... if you hadn't seen the skit firsthand that is.

It was an ok skit, but nothing to brag about. When the time comes around next year, do get upset when it doesn't get nominated for an Emmy, let alone win the respected award for television excellence.


It was about as funny as any number of skits I could name from SNL's past year, but I can name at least 10 (or even a dozen) other things I have seen on tv over the past year that are much better than the way Tina Fey & Amy Poehler set the bar very low by putting several obvious and uninspired jokes into the skit.

I would actually say that the two women didn't put much effort intomaking a skit that would be intelligent, original, or even very funny - instead of just "phoning it in" as so many other SNL cast members (and former members) do when it comes to how they use whatever skills they might have as they attempt to make people laugh. I remember when SNL had cast members so talented that they couldn't help but strike comedy gold almost every time they were on the show... it's so sad to see how many of them simply do the same technique every time regardless of the situation (either because they can't or won't put enough effort into developing more than one character in their bag of tricks) like Adam Sandler, Will Farrell, Mike Myers, and even David Spade does in whatever they are doing at the time.

Another prime example of a lazy comedian (or maybe just a talentless one) who keeps going to the same old thing everytime long aftr it stopped being funny was when Chevy Chase showed up on "Morning Joe" that same morning to promote some charity cause his wife was associated with.

Chevy was so limited when he was chosen to do President Ford way back when that rather than try some half-assed impression (let alone an amazingly accurate one like so often done by Phil Hartman on SNL or even a Frank Calliendo on Mad TV) all we got from Chevy back then was his usual dumb trick of just flailing around like a drunk idiot who would use any fall to distract you from how bad his acting/comedy was that you couldn't wait for it to be over so he would leave your sight.

And like any of these people who can't even do that one thing they used to do anymore, Chevy resorted to answering questions on Morning Joe in a very loud & obnoxious old white guy tone as he just spit out some very partisan talking point as he made it very clear that he's a liberal democrat who is totally closed minded to any other viewpoint.


Which (finally) brings me to something I just heard on MSNBC about another former SNL cast member who was so untalented that after leaving the show he had no other choice but to do what Chevy did and run head on into the angry old white guy who also spits out the liberal democrat talking points and keeping his mind closed - I'm talking about professional d-bag, (and liberal political commentator) Al Franken.


Seems that Al is taking credit for at least part of the sketches on SNL recently where John McCain is made out to be as doddering of an idiot as Senator Byrd is on any given day in Washington.


Big deal... Al FRanken is still a Republican hating liberal as he tries to beome the worst thing any Minnesotan (and by extension, every American) would have to endure as he attempts to lower the quality of character (even for a Democrat in Congress) in Congress should be win his bid to be a US Senator in this fall's election in Minnesota.

It's no surprise that people like Franken, or the others at NBC/MSNBC who choose to let their liberal bias taint the way they do their job as an on air employee of a media outlet so obviously biased that they have stopped even trying to deny it anymore.


What did surprise me was that Senator Obama (or someone in his camp) had a moment of intelligent & origianl thought for once that resulted in Obama deciding to not appear on the same SNL episode that had the Palin skit on it.

It's not normal for these types to pass up a chance for double exposure - where you can attempt to slam your opponent while making yourself look as good as posible. But someone saw that having Obama appear on the same show that has a skit poking fun at the opposing party's VP candidate might come off as being too much for a reasonable person to consider acceptable... which probably was the correct choice.

There's no shortage of liberally biased media personalities tainting the airwaves - from Oprah's public comment that she would refuse to have Sarah Palin on her show until AFTER the election so nothing positive could happen to help the McCain/Palin campaign when Oprah made it publicly clear that she supports Obama 2000%

Or the many shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Real Time with Bill Mahar, any of the segments on Air America or MSNBC... hell, even such lightweight shows like ABC's The View, & The Soup and Chelsey Lately shows on the E! channel have taken a hard left when it comes to expressing their viewpoints.


It's so sad that the only examples of the opposite are just as idiotic like FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc make you want to throw up. Even the semi-reasonable Glenn Beck can't get through an hour without forcing his agenda down our throats.

I miss the days when news was unbiased, objective, and just reported the facts not attempt to force me to agree with them or be labeled a social pariah.

But I doubt it will end anytme soon... so what can a porson do?

In case you needed further proof...

More examples of why NBC/MSNBC news are biased to the liberal/Democrat agenda - as if you needed more from the many I have provided in the past:

MSNBC makes a huge production of the Dems convention, shipping every possible member of the on-air staff to be on location, but not as much of an effort for the Republican convention the following week.

The only example of this that needs noted is how the big pooh-bah of bias (Keith Olbermann) was on location with Chris Matthews as they found new ways to praise the Dems, but Keith & Chris had to do a long distance tag team effort when time came for Olbermann to deal with the Republicans. No reason was given for this obvious unequal manner in which to cover the convention of the party Olbermann is paid huge bonus $$ to attack every night on his "news show".


The more and more often instances where off screen staff can be heard laughing loudly - and every time a Republican is the reason for the overt display of disrespect & unprofessional behavior.


More liberal media outlets & commentators are booked for the forwarding of the liberal Democrat agenda or whatever talking points the Obama campaign wants the viewers to see/hear instead of actual facts from objective reporting - while less conservative Republican commentators are booked to provide anything resembling "equal time".

Liberal commentators are allowed to make distorted/false comments unchallenged while conservative commentators can barely get a sentence on record because of the way MSNBC on air staff join in with the liberal commentators to prevent an actual debate of the issues... most of the time a liberal commentator isn't necessary because the MSNBC staff is already doing the Dems work for them.


Tucker Carlson, the network's only independent voice, was punished for being so open-minded by having his show taken from him so that Dan Abrams could fill that hour with his biased opinions. Tucker was reduced to political commentator for the network before basically disappearing from the airwaves on MSNBC totally.

The lone conservative on MSNBC staff, Joe Scarborough, was moved from a prime-time (ish) slot to the boondocks of airtime at MSNBC - the 6am - 9am slot. Joe had to deal with having his show being hijacked by other on air staff who range from the idiotic ramblings of Willie Geist to the overtly rebellious way Mika negates Joe's comments by inserting the liberal talking points as the final thoughts of any conversation topic.

But as if that isn't enough punishment to teach Scarborough to convert to the liberalism of MSNBC, Joe must endure being a guest on other shows where he gets treated with total disrespect by liberal commentators or even hosts while any point he might make gets discredited or made into a joke.


But the final example I need to provide is how MSNBC went beyond the point of no return at light speed by taking a member of the most radically liberal and blindly partisan commentators over at Air America and giving her a show of her own on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow was rewarded for being even more biased than Olbermann with a show that fills the time slot that Tucker once had what MSNBC should be airing every hour.

The original tucker show had equal time for both liberal & conservative views that he kept honest by his moderate viewpoint & objective presentation.

From there the format was changed to include Maddow from being 1 segment bit player to more of a full show side kick as she was allowed to force her views at the conservative guest that might get stuck with her.

Then we saw a steady progression of less Tucker (and objective views) and more Maddow (and biased propaganda/lies) on the MSNBC airwaves.


Now the network is so slanted to the left that you wonder if the Dems are paying them to do it - or if they are willingly doing the Dems work.


Phil Griffin & Steve Capus should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the network to far pass FOX News in bias while doing the American people a total disservice as they have made NBC/MSNBC into a place where only viewpoints that agree with the liberal Democrat agenda are allowed to prosper.


This should be totally against what the fcc should allow on the public airwaves... but I guess Capus & Griffin are totally ok with letting people like Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Brewer, Mika, Shuster, Mitchell, O'Donnell, Gregory, Todd, etc forward the agenda of a party that is ok with spreading lies, propaganda, and other forms of biased views rather than being truthful, honest, objective, or professional.

So much for "integrity" that Steve Capus swore would be the foundation at NBC/MSNBC after the Imus scandal....

Robin Meade & CNN make a joke of journalism with sarcastic Bigfoot report

Why is Robin so sarcastic in her reporting of the alleged bigfoot remains as she asks for our comments on the topic?

There is nothing saying that a large primate could not live in modern times & still mostly remain undetected. Other lower primates have shown amazing intelligence and if something like a missing link as a bigfoot is out there it makes sense they would be possibly smart enough to hide themselves from threats to their safety that we humans would be to them.

Look at such creatures as the Coelacanth, a "lung fish" that was believed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago... until a living member of that family tree was found alive about 70 years ago. Since then many other species that were presumed extinct have been found in remote regions.

Think of a recent event in the news where over 100,000 gorillas were discovered that changed our opinion of their status as an endangered species. Almost 1/8th of a million huge creatures avoided detection for many years... so imagine what a primate more closer to human intelligence could do in remote parts of the U.S.A. that even today remain basically untouched. There are millions of square acres of wild forest areas in this country that are basically the same untouched condition as when Lewis & Clark explored the northwest after the Louisannia Purchase.

As for Robin's question of how to validate any DNA samples offered as "proof" an acceptable answer doesn't require her repeated mentionings of some sample to compare with this alleged Bigfoot - even though no "verified" bigfoot DNA sample is on file anywhere.

All that is needed is for the DNA sample of the supposed Bigfoot to not be from a human donor, while also not being a match of any known primate's DNA signature.

If the sample is in good enough condition that the technicians can get DNA from it, then it is a very simple process to get the "signature" from the DNA sequence that the sample yeilds.

Primates like gorillas, chimps, etc have a DNA signature almost exactly like us humans, but the minute differences easily tell each species from any other, and science has taken a long time to accurately detail what separates the lower primates from each other, and from humans as well.

If DNA can be pulled from whatever biological material is offered for the sample, then there will be no problem telling if the DNA signature matches any of the many lower primates, that of humans, or if it is from another animal such as a dog, wolf, or other wild hairy creature.

If the sample is fake, that will be quickly known as well. If the hair is synthetic or of other fake origin, the technicians will know without any doubt.

To finally make the long answer come to an end to let Robin (and the rest of you wondering at CNN) know how it can be determined if the sample is of a Bigfoot even though nothing is around to compare for verification.

If the sample is a fake, it will be known. That means no Bigfoot was found and a hoax was stopped from being considered truthful info.

If the sample yeilds a DNA signature of some lower primate, that means no Bigfoot was found - but that someone came by that creature's remains and attempted to defraud us with a false claim. (possible criminal charges might apply if the sample was obtained in a way that harmed the animal as the men obtained it in this ordeal)

If the remains are of some creature known to science, but not of a primate species, then the Bigfoot will not be a Bigfoot, instead it will be the remains of whatever animal it used to be. (again as above, possible criminal charges could apply depending upon how the animal's remains got into the men's possession)

If the DNA testing yeilds a signature that is human, then the men will need to explain how they came across a dead person's remains and why they chose to hold on to it and misuse the corpse in a fraudulent Bigfoot claim.

BUT...

If the test results come back as being genuine biological material that has a DNA signature not matching a himan being, any lower primate, or any other known species of animal - but instead has a DNA signature of a creature similar to primates, but not falling into any primate known catagory... then it would be something new to the science catalog, and this would be an historic event because the claim of a Bigfoot could be called true.

If the DNA is of primate origin, but not human or any known primate on record, then what the creature would be, could be called Bigfoot, Yeti, or whatever you wish... or whatever the men finding the creature decide to name it. (scientifically of course, not just the common name)


BTW...


If the creature was kept after it died, then it would begin to decompose.

That means even a 7' plus creature could be put into a space such as a 6' refridgerator.

The body goes into rigor mortis soon after death, but that doesn't last forever. After about 36 hours the body relaxes enough to be placed in a cramped space... or haven't you seen any murder cases of note in recent years??

One major murder trial that comes to mind is how Ira Einhorn put his girlfriend Holly Maddux into a traveler's trunk that reports said was small enough to fit a child half Maddux's size... yet Einhorn managed to cram her adult sized body into a space seemingly far too small to fit her body - and if he hadn't left the trunk is his closet 18 months after the murder, Einhorn might never been found out.

By the time police found the trunk, Maddux's body was only about 35 pounds from whatever it was when she was alive. (which police say she was when Einhorn stuffed her into that trunk)

The body of any living creature goes through changes after life ends. That's why we bury our deceased loved ones no more than about 3 days after death, to avoid seeing them change from how we remembered them in life to what they become as death takes its toll.

Suppose the creature is real (we can debate the bigfoot aspect later, now is just a formerly living creature) - then it depends on many factors as to whether that thing would look like some fake or if it still looked real enough.

If it was placed in a freezer, that would effect the condition of the body, as would the change from cold storage to warm... ice turns to wetness, and a body looks waxy after a few days...


It's possible that a real living creature would end up looking like some cheap costume depending on many aspects of how the men kept the body until turning it over for examination.

Bottom line is I doubt that it's some fake these guys brought out for display... that would make them more of a laughingstock than when that lady tried to cash in by suing Wendy's for an alleged finger they allowed to be in their food served to the public... science showed far too soon that she was behind the fraud and that she was directly linked to the person who used to have the finger on his body.

And if they took/found a bear or some other zoo animal, then it won't be long before it is found out & the proper criminal charges land these guys in jail...

My guess is that is is a genuine body of some creature... and that science will let us know what exactly it used to be.

If CNN had done even an hour of google searching they could have found plenty of info to use in their "story" being repeatedly reported on air by Robin in total unprofessional fashion.

Heck, any hack could have come up with the "Hogzilla" hoax that went down a few years back. A network like National Geographic Channel did an investigation, and simple junior-level journalism found many flaws in the story of the mythical hog.

They found doctored features in the "proof" photo being used as evidence, and pushed the men to show where the body was buried - and after digging it up the truth was known without much effort.

Turns out the Hogzilla was about 25% smaller than the claim and even though this was probably the biggest wild hog found & killed... it was not the huge beast the men claimed it was.

So I challenge CNN (And Robin) to get off their asses and actually do some investigating before reporting this story anymore!!!

Send someone to the scene to get first hand reports & facts, get experts on air to give credible information pro/con about what this creature might be, have some assistant google enough info for the on air staff to not look way below the quality of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert... for once.

Take out the personal opinions & sarcastic remarks, and have Robin show us she can do more than just read a teleprompter - even a trained monkey could mimic what she is doing.

Stop the amateur hour, and show us some real journalism!!!

Obama, the "silent accomplice" of the radical left

There are two reasons Obama hasn't talked much about the opinion offered by Phil Gramm about the whiny Democrats in Congress & their liberally biased minions in the media...

1. What Gramm said was his opinion, and he is just as correct in believing it as the flood of pundits & "journalists" on the DNC payroll do in believing the exact opposite. Bottom line is that Gramm has more education & experience on the topic than all the blowhards demonizing him (also McCain and the President by extension) do. It's a subjective thing... I know several people that are "newly made Americans" that see many native born Americans as Gramm does... IF Gram was calling us the whiners rather than the Democrats in Congress and their blind followers. To many immigrants and "regular" Americans, this is still a good time to be an American...

No matter what the dem pundits, liberally biased media, & dem politicos want us to believe.


2. But the main reason Obama can do "nothing" is because the radical left has been doing that job for him - The number of people who use propaganda, rhetoric & outright lies to smear McCain is only outnumbered by the number of liberally biased outlets available and the even more numerous times allowed for these partisan attacks to be broadcast into the public consciousness.


Obama has an army doing his dirty work for him as he hypocritically clings to the "change" mantra of his campaign. Too many so willing to make mountains out of molehills so that the only "news" we hear is the schemes of the liberal left...

If enough of them keep saying the same smear attacks & lies often enough on every media outlet in bed with the Dems that means almost all we get as "news" is badmouthing of the Republicans that hides the many many stories exposing Obama's minions for what they are, that should be getting reported, but never do.


Obama's silence allows the partisan thugs to drown the truth in their sea of propaganda, rhetoric, & lies!!!


Obama is not a new beginning if he continues to let the radical left continue to sink the democratic portion of this election ever deeper into the gutter... he will be just another version of the type of politician that put us in the bad situation they tell us we are in.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This silent Obama is as unpresidential as that criminal, the impeached "Slick Willy" Bill Clinton... or like the Republican version of the same - we don't need another Nixon or Clinton.


Obama needs to prove he is what he claims to be & put an end to the radical left's "swiftboat-like" smear agenda... if not, then he isn't even worth considering as we all should vote for McCain!!