Paper with 100% record of endorsing Republicans

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This appeared in the brief news sidebar of the local paper today:

 

No endorsement by Detroit Paper

 

One of Detroit's two major newspapers refused today to endorse either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry.

 

"The Detroit News will not lend its endorsement to a candidate who has made too many mistakes, nor to one who offers a governing philosophy we reject," the paper said in its Sunday editorial.

 

"This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water," the editorial stated.

 

The paper has never endorsed a Democrat.

 

LMAO. Even loyal Republicans can no longer endorse this guy in good concience. Those of you who treat him like he's a God among common men in the interest of presenting an angelic picture of your party's candidate can back off, even the conservatives don't want to see this guy win.

[Guest Nanks]

Is this paper encouraging its readers not to vote??

 

That's pretty ordinary.

[Guest Brian]

You don't have to vote for a president. Your vote has far more impact on local elections.

[Vyce 0]

 

Man, I remember when Jobber at least engaged in interesting discussion here in this folder.

 

I look forward to the end of the election, wherein perhaps he'll regain his senses and get back to his old self.

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee, more Kerry fanboyism (although more BUSHSUXORS2004) from Jobber.

 

Shocking I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

We should have made a big thread for these endorsements

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Gee, more Kerry fanboyism (although more BUSHSUXORS2004) from Jobber.

 

Shocking I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Replace "Bush" with "Kerry" and it describes you perfectly. You, of all people, have no room to speak in this department.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Gee, more Kerry fanboyism (although more BUSHSUXORS2004) from Jobber.

No, sir. It's not Kerry fanboyism. Never has been.

 

Everything so far, it's all out of Bush hate, thank you.

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee, more Kerry fanboyism (although more BUSHSUXORS2004) from Jobber.

 

Shocking I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Replace "Bush" with "Kerry" and it describes you perfectly. You, of all people, have no room to speak in this department.

Yep, my analysis of the first and third debates where I didn't think either won proves my 'Bush fanboyism'....................

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Rob:

 

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000683265

 

The Short Bullet Point Version

 

* Kerry Leads Bush 125-96 (Bush beat Gore 138-52)

* Kerry Leads Bush in Total Subscribers 16-10 million

* Kerry has won 35 "2000 Bush" papers

* Bush was won only 2 "2000 Gore Papers"

* The Detroit News, which has never endorsed a Democrat, and which backed Bush in 2000, announced that it would sit out the 2004 election, not happy with either candidate. The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, another Bush backer in 2000, said the same thing today in an editorial titled "No One to Champion." A third Bush supporter in 2000, The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa., also declared neutrality today.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Gee, more Kerry fanboyism (although more BUSHSUXORS2004) from Jobber.

 

Shocking I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Replace "Bush" with "Kerry" and it describes you perfectly. You, of all people, have no room to speak in this department.

Yep, my analysis of the first and third debates where I didn't think either won proves my 'Bush fanboyism'....................

You're ignoring, of course, the fact that you were harping on how "a draw isn't enough for Kerry!!!"

 

Trust me, your posts in virtually every thread are enough to label you as just as much a partisan hack as anyone else. Calling Jobber a "fanboy" because of this thread completely ignores your likewise activity in support of dear leader in every other one.

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee, more Kerry fanboyism (although more BUSHSUXORS2004) from Jobber.

 

Shocking I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Replace "Bush" with "Kerry" and it describes you perfectly. You, of all people, have no room to speak in this department.

Yep, my analysis of the first and third debates where I didn't think either won proves my 'Bush fanboyism'....................

You're ignoring, of course, the fact that you were harping on how "a draw isn't enough for Kerry!!!"

 

Trust me, your posts in virtually every thread are enough to label you as just as much a partisan hack as anyone else. Calling Jobber a "fanboy" because of this thread completely ignores your likewise activity in support of dear leader in every other one.

Of course YOU'RE ignoring all the KERRYRULZINTEHDEBATEDOODER!~ posts that killed the thread, thus bringing on all the 'reality check' posts. But what the hell, I'm sure you weren't one of them right?

 

And yeah I've begun SO many threads with OMGBUSHRULZ2004 right?

 

And actually I trust you about as much as I care about the content of your postings and your general opinion of me, 0.0%. So, sorry.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeah, your hysterical replies to me -- and your insistence that you're unbiased and independent -- really show that, sport

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee, I'm so stunned. I haven't quite proven my non-bias to you, Tyler

 

Yet I somehow fail to care.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Stop it with the facts, man. They get in the way. Just keep it down at personal insults and namecalling and WORDSALLSMASHEDTOGETHERYEARATTHEEND10001!!!111~~~~~one stuff. You keep it up with that fancy stuff and GreatOne can't keep up. It's like working a Hogan match.

 

I'll give MikeSC credit, he at least argues against statistics or presents conflicting ones instead of saying "O YEAH, WELL YOUR MOMMA WEARS ARMY BOOTS."

 

Well, not always but most of the time.

[Vern Gagne 0]

More meaningless fun.

 

starvedforattention.com

 

Somebody didn't get a Christmas Card.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

so The Detroit News is a generally conservative paper?

 

Huh. I didn't know that. Then again I didn't care.

 

We used to get the News, but it would get delivered so late to our neighborhood (3 or 4 pm) that we switch to the Free Press (which gets here at like 5 am).

 

Anyways, the News is a pretty big paper around here> It's at least nice to see that they're sticking by their own ideals, and not "forcing" a "lesser of two morons" endorsement.

[2GOLD 0]

What's really sad is people are actually keeping track of this stupidity. Management for papers change, management for stations change, and so it's not hard to believe that papers/networks will change their opinion on someone to reflect the opinion of the editor/manager.

 

Again, why does any of this matter? If who you vote for is decided by who has the most endorsements then you shouldn't be voting anyway since you are nothing more than a bandwagon voter with no actual brainwaves helping you make decisions.

 

I wouldn't care if Jesus and Buddha endorsed Bush or Kerry, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Jobber, you just lost your "Fluff Alert" responsibilities.

 

Everyone, meet the new Fluff Nazi *points to self...*

[Guest GreatOne]

Stop it with the facts, man.

Facts?

 

You give some WAY too much credit here, Jobber.

 

Especially when you ORIGINATED this oh so factual thread.....................

[Vyce 0]

Jobber, you just lost your "Fluff Alert" responsibilities.

 

Everyone, meet the new Fluff Nazi *points to self...*

You?

 

Let the record show that it was I who pointed out Jobber's little fluff-fest here.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow. So you got on this thread before I did. Big f'n deal. I was all like "Wow, what a serious topic" until you showed me the light.

 

Besides, I claimed the "Fluff Alert" position before you did, hippie...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Gee, I'm so stunned. I haven't quite proven my non-bias to you, Tyler

 

Yet I somehow fail to care.

Yet for some reason you continue to comment on it.

 

[Special K 0]

Play nice. You can all be fluffers.

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee, I'm so stunned. I haven't quite proven my non-bias to you, Tyler

 

Yet I somehow fail to care.

Yet for some reason you continue to comment on it.

 

Don't confuse my interest in his pursuit to find that long-lost clue with any sort of caring.

[cabbageboy 0]

I find it amusing that someone would say "Look at my analysis of the 1st and 3rd debates, I said neither guy won!" as a defense against being called a Bush fanboy. Considering the general consensus of the debates (Kerry smoked him in the 1st and 3rd, 2nd was basically even), I'd say this stance alone makes someone an even bigger Bush fanboy.

[Guest MikeSC]

I find it amusing that someone would say "Look at my analysis of the 1st and 3rd debates, I said neither guy won!" as a defense against being called a Bush fanboy. Considering the general consensus of the debates (Kerry smoked him in the 1st and 3rd, 2nd was basically even), I'd say this stance alone makes someone an even bigger Bush fanboy.

The general consensus being erroneous and Kerry fellating, apparently.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

I find it amusing that someone would say "Look at my analysis of the 1st and 3rd debates, I said neither guy won!" as a defense against being called a Bush fanboy. Considering the general consensus of the debates (Kerry smoked him in the 1st and 3rd, 2nd was basically even), I'd say this stance alone makes someone an even bigger Bush fanboy.

How anyone can say either smoked the other in the third debate when SCHIEFFER was the mod and the whole debate was the political equivalent of Iowa/Penn St (maybe that's being a little harsh Texas/OU maybe) is beyond me.

 

But apparently, it's somehow NOT fanboyism to say Kerry trounced Bush in ANY of the debates, GOTCHA.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I find it amusing that someone would say "Look at my analysis of the 1st and 3rd debates, I said neither guy won!" as a defense against being called a Bush fanboy.  Considering the general consensus of the debates (Kerry smoked him in the 1st and 3rd, 2nd was basically even), I'd say this stance alone makes someone an even bigger Bush fanboy.

How anyone can say either smoked the other in the third debate when SCHIEFFER was the mod and the whole debate was the political equivalent of Iowa/Penn St (maybe that's being a little harsh Texas/OU maybe) is beyond me.

 

But apparently, it's somehow NOT fanboyism to say Kerry trounced Bush in ANY of the debates, GOTCHA.

Not when it is exactly what happened. Nothing fanboy about it. Which IS fine considering everyone KNEW before hand that Bush was not the stronger speaker. So the results, while not surprising, are what they are. Besides, the debates, like the constant barrage of poll results only give you an idea of whats going on. So relax about it. It WOULD be fanboyism if anyone here actually DID act the way you say they act with the whole LOLBUSHSUX2004!!! bit you do. Christ, MUST you and Mike minimize everything?

[Guest MikeSC]

Saying Kerry didn't win the last 2 debates is minimizing things?

-=Mike