Is it Time to Reference the DNC's Shill Organizations More Accurately

My own thoughts... | 09/16/2008 | DoughtyOne

[DoughtyOne]

Folks, please excuse this vanity. It's my hope that my thoughts here will appeal to many of you, and more importantly, we can get some political mileage out of it, effecting change, if we came together on this.

Many of us have spent years on this forum watching the media march right into the tank for the DNC. Today it's no longer a secret to any thinking individual that the major media outlets have shed all pretenses of being fair and balanced. What FoxNews heralded years ago as something of a quasi marketing ploy, is now the sad unabashed reality. The media is not fair and balanced. It's simply another arm of the DNC.

While I do realize that FoxNews was right even then, today the media has become exponentially worse than they used to be even in the early 1990s.

What I would like to propose, is that every sound Conservative across this nation begin to refer to individual media outlets in this manner. Instead of referring to the New York Times, we begin to refer to them as the DNC's New York Times division. When we talk about the Los Angeles Times, we refer to them as the DNC's Los Angeles Times division. When we refer to ABC, we simply refer to them as the DNC's ABC Division. When we refer to Charlie Gibson and his affiliation with ABC, we simply reference Charlie Gibson, from the DNC's ABC Division. When we refer to CNN, we reference it as the DNC's CNN Division. When we reference PBS, we reference it as the DNC's PBS Division.

It's my premise we should never refer to these leftist media outlets without first tagging them as a division of the DNC. Why should we extend respect to them? Why should we reference them in a manner that they would like us to, as a bonified news organization? In truth, there's no valid reason why we should, and every reason not to. When we refer to them simply as ABC, we are lending them an air of legitimacy. IMO, those days should be behind us.

From now on, we should reference all leftist entities in this manner. If they clean up their act, we can talk about referencing them in another manner. Until then, they are the DNC's (insert name here) Division.

If this caught on, you would see folks on FoxNews referencing these outlets as the DNC's New York Times Division. You'd see Michelle Malkin and a lot of other Conservatives in the media telling it like it is for the first time. (Not that Michelle or they wouldn't agree with this, or haven't been frank about the true nature of the media. That's not the point.) If these outlets are going to shill for the DNC, it's time we started making them pay for it. Let their credibility take a hit every time we reference them.

The first phrase out of your mouth is " the DNC's", the second phrase is the name or initials of the institution, and the third part is "Division".

If we do it like this, they will be tagged first and foremost as shills for the DNC. Referencing them as a Division of the DNC is very powerful IMO. If we could get full compliance from our ranks, the media would be framed as never before, accurately across the board.

I wouldn't ask anyone to do this whose opinion didn't coincide with mine. It's my opinion that the media outlets act as a division of the DNC, and I plan on referring to them that way from here on out. If you share that thought, then you can express it because you do. We are not saying these entities are a division. We are saying that in our opinion they act like it, or function like it. We are not slandering them or trying to state they are being paid directly for what they are doing. We are merely expressing an opinion about what they are doing.

This could be used to describe universities and other entities as well. Those entities that are in the tank for the DNC and it's causes, should be outed.

It takes a little time, but it doesn't cost a dime.

[DoughtyOne]

Hi Sal. That would be great. I think it would shake things up if we all signed on this project.