OMG!!! obama facebook scrubbing!!! (re: sarah palin facebook scrubbing in realtime)

no... i don't really think this is evidence of president obama scrubbing his facebook page of negative comments. i was referred to the video "sarah palin facebook scrubbing" by another youtube user.

video link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG5Rd8k3bio

lawrence o'donnell's breaking news!!!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ErBJo7pv4I

i was curious to see if this was actually proof of palin removing comments or just a glitch in the comment counting system on facebook. so i checked obama's fb to find the exact same thing.

with over 100,000 views it's sad nobody has even bothered to see if this was just a glitch. you would think with so many liberals claiming to be on the side of reason, that so many wouldn't be so religious in their acceptance of what they are told.

sorry palin haters...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• sarah palin
• barack obama
• facebook
• removing comments
• glitch
• msnbc
• lawrence o'donnell
• poor fact-checking

[cristoballs]

@cristoballs and you don't think the people in the media didn't realize this blog post was trying to equate palin with her alleged "team of editors" who allowed the hitler comment to remain?

[cristoballs]

@eirefrance yes... it is right to criticize liberal reporters when they do something wrong. and it right to classify their reporting as being liberally biased, when that's obviously what it is. had they not been so biased, they might have taken two minutes to verify this stuff. as for the point of the obamalondon post, you can't be serious. you don't think there was some intention to defame palin even further? (cont.)

[eirefrance]

@cristoballs Maybe there is a double-standard. Does that make it somehow correct when you do it?

[eirefrance]

@cristoballs Or the whole point was to report on something she discovered about Palin's Facebook page. And then made a speculation that somehow you've inflated into low journalism and 'liberal' chicanery. Its possible that, entirely subjectively, Sarah Palin is a shallow media-obsessed figure who knows how to use a few slogans effectively, but is clumsy on the bigger picture. She's proven that again and again. And its possible that pointing out instances of that media clumsiness isn't bias.

[cristoballs]

@cristoballs why is it i could make a dozen videos criticizing members of fox news for their conservative bias, i get largely positive feedback? but when i do the same thing only for news programs on msnbc, all of sudden, i get tons of negative feedback. it's a double standard if you ask me.

[cristoballs]

@eirefrance the whole point of the obamalondon post was demonize palin further, by saying she'll delete comments critical of her but doesn't care if they compare the death of a 9yr old girl to killing hitler, a point which people like randi rhodes, et al., were all too happy to spread.

furthermore, i don't think there's anything wrong with referring to msnbc and other news outlets as liberal, or left-leaning, in the same manner i don't think it's wrong to say fox news has a conservative bias.

[eirefrance]

@cristoballs And no, before you try to make it sound like I said something I didn't, I'm not calling you a racist. I'm objecting to your broad use of a term. Besides, as I pointed out, Obamalondon did nothing more than state a theory based on some of her own research; an opinion which was repeated in a few places, all of which linked back to her story. And all you did was point out a weakness in her theory. That is hardly proof of "losing sight of right vs. wrong".

[eirefrance]

@cristoballs Well, that's a problem of labeling. Its no more 'liberal' to be blindly antagonistic to Sarah Palin then it is 'conservative' to be blindly antagonistic of Obama. You use the term 'liberal' to refer to individuals who espouse their own opinions on issues, not mine. Its the same as calling Lloyd Blankfein a Jew Banker. Yes, he is Jewish, but now the terms been taken to tag all Jews, regardless of their profession.

[cristoballs]

@TheMysteriousAtheist i'm a bit fuzzy on the exact conversation, but i believe the point i was making was that a family of 4 making 4x's the poverty level qualified for assistance. here's an explanation from the new york times.

"Assistance would originally have been available to people with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four)."

[TheMysteriousAtheist]

No cristoballs, it isnt just this video. I used the word devolved, so its change overtime. From your complete lack of understanding of health care reform ( you insisted that you, making 80 grand a year would be getting tax credits for health when you didnt want them, but no, you wont get them) to your broad mischaracterizations of Democrat/Obama ideas in your videos to now