So Michelle Bachmann is an elected Republican. She lied on Anderson Cooper's news program. And then the right wing noise machine picked up the lie and repeated it - simply because it made Obama look bad.
None of the right wing media zombies thought to fact check this. They just repeated it. Glenn Beck even distorted more, by calling the state visit a vacation.
Republicans: how can you keep listening to these people?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opini … edman.html
Rachel Maddow had a great piece recently on how the right wing essentially makes stuff up and then uses each other as their "source"
She lied? Let's look at this, because I think your doing EXACTLY what you accuse her of. Which is not lying, but echoing an exageration.
First, she didn't make up the story, she relied on a story, that was not fact checked. So to say she lied, is an exageration.
Second, Cooper Anderson NEVER completely debunks the story. He only states that he could never identify the "Source". All Cooper does here is point out shody journalism. That's something he should do. To make that an indictment on Bachman is a stretch. She's only guilty of dodging the original question. That's what got her into trouble.
Finally. No matter what the cost, the trip was EXTREMELY expensive. What did it accomplish? It would appear NOTHING..time will tell. So no matter what the cost was, it was probaly money that could have been more wisely spent.
Extremely expensive? Or on par with similar trips taken by other presidents? How do you know how expensive it was? Why weren't you complaining when Bush went to China, or Germany, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever?
This trip is business as usual.
AS for shoddy journalism... or whether Bachmann lied - ok, maybe she was simply misinformed (big surprise there). That still leaves tons of right wing media "journalists" who didn't bother to check her facts but simply repeated them, because they made Obama look bad.
That's the real problem: there is a huge segment of our media that has destroying Obama and the democrats as their sole motivation.
This is dangerous to our democracy folks.
"Extremely expensive? Or on par with similar trips taken by other presidents? How do you know how expensive it was? Why weren't you complaining when Bush went to China, or Germany, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever?"
How do I know it was expensive? Based on FACTS. Historically these type of trips run anywhere from 5 to 50 million dollars, depending on length of stay. This is based on GAO studies. How do you know what I was complaining about 4 to 8 years ago? I'm NEVER a fan of WASTE. I do recall the left complaining about GWB landing on an aircraft carrier, so yes, the left is getting what they gave.
"This trip is business as usual."
Thats the problem! USE NETMEETING!
"AS for shoddy journalism... or whether Bachmann lied - ok, maybe she was simply misinformed (big surprise there). That still leaves tons of right wing media "journalists" who didn't bother to check her facts but simply repeated them, because they made Obama look bad.
That's the real problem: there is a huge segment of our media that has destroying Obama and the democrats as their sole motivation.
This is dangerous to our democracy folks."
Like Larry Flint? Like Ted Turner? Like Dan Rather? Michael Moore? I'll return the loaded question back to you sir, were you complaining when these clowns did the same thing?
Whats dangerous to our democracy is mistaking movement for action. Encouraging a false sense of entitlement that is financially unsustainable. What's dangerous sir, is standing on an ivory tower and calling those who oppose you EVIL, LIARS AND THIEVES.
What we are caught in today is whats called "TIT FOR TAT" in game strategy. Its VERY dangerous to ANY society if the escallation can not be controlled. I guess we are bound and determined to find out which side blinks. So be it. I strongly suspect that those on both the left and the right are NOT prepared for the fall out.
Haha! I agree.
But that doesn't mean it's wrong to call out liars and thieves when you see them.
As for evil... well, it's all relative. Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's killed thousands of innocents by doing that. Was that evil? I won't argue with you about it, I have my own opinion, I'm just asking you to consider it.
Obama has continued the war in Afghanistan. He has failed in a lot of things. A lot of what he said on the campaign trail has not materialized (although I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt).
I would say, if Obama is evil, Bush was way more evil. Conversely, if Bush was evil, Obama is evil as well - although somewhat less so.
But all that doesn't matter really. They are in office, doing what they do.
It doesn't really matter until people start taking sides and killing each other because of which side they are on... then it will be serious.
But it won't be the first time it's happened in America (and I'm not talking about the Civil War).
You'll have to admit Bachmann's lie was a very dumb lie.
All media outlets have the constitutionaly protected right to lie to it's viewers. Fox fought for and won this right that all enjoy today. Fox attorney's in florida stated that the company knew it was lying and claimed that freedom of speech guarantees them the right to do so.
Michelle Bachman will repeat any lie that makes a Democrat look bad or a Republican look good. She's a darling of the Religious Right despite being devoid of basic Christian values. How the same state can elect Bachman and Al Franken is beyond me. She's an insult to intelligence.
The reporters committee for Freedom of the Press
Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation
LMC - I went to this site - seems good, by the way - but search couldn't come up with anything called operation mockingbird. What is this?
Try this one:
The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA"
"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)
Or just google Operation Mockingbird.
Still no Republicans willing to step up and defend their news sources or elected officials?
what's to defend: a lying sleaze bag is a lying sleaze bag.
I would just be afraid of trying to pin this act of filth solely on the Repubs. I'm sure the Democrats are just as guilty of similar "manipulations". Saying things like "universal health care will solve the health care issues in this country" is just as bogus as saying "Obama is spending a billion billion bucks on a trip to fairy gum island" -- it's just that one sounds more credible.
Anyway, my point is that both parties are sleaze bags.
universal would , wouldn't it? it has in other countries. being right wing is not a logical, reasoned approach to managing the country. their method is based on feeling, thusly their news is based on feeling.there is nothing logical to be discussed. whatever they "feel", is the truth. so, they don't feel like paying taxes, their truth is taxes are bad for the country. logic says we are in a deficit and need the taxes more than anything. they dont"feel" like taking the blame for the recession so their truth is obama is a muslim ha ha ha
You're way off base on this one, Joe. Universal health care, according to the citizens of countries who have it, is not working. The idea is that everyone gets to see a doctor when needed, right? Waiting months, sometimes a year, for an appointment is not a good thing. If you've ever been to an HMO, you know you can sit for hours in the waiting room because their income is based on a 'package' of patients. The package is comprised of an amount of people and they don't get paid until there is a full package so they back up appointments and get in as many in a day as humanly possible. The level of care is rushed.
We are being required to buy health insurance which in turn will pay most of the bill when we see a doctor, just like it was before. The difference is we're paying for substandard care, and are forced to buy aspects of insurance we may not want. Some parts of this bill are good but I don't want to be forced to buy insurance for something I don't need.
Additionally, taxes are not bad for the country but I agree that paying taxes to a group of people responsible for running the country who are not fiscally responsible, that is they squander the money we give them, is also not a good idea. The fact that we are in a deficit caused first by war, then by irresponsible spending is not a mandate for me to work more hours so I can pay for someone else's mistakes.
You are you referring to right wingers when you say 'they' don't feel like taking the blame for the recession. I blame Wall Street, the decline and subsequent obsolescence of American manufacturing, the rise of technology services based in foreign countries, among other things. Actually, all things considered, when the alleged recession began, the Democratic Party was in the majority in Congress.
One need not look at other countries to see a failed government run health system. Massachusetts is experiencing increasing problems with delays, availability and retaining doctors. President Hussein points to the Mass. system as a success story while Mit Romney will have his presidential aspirations sunk by the disaster he unleashed.
Perhaps your vision should be corrected. There is no President Hussein.
Thanks for your many thoughtful contributions to the forums.
Wow, humorless and snotty. President Hussein has a better sense of humor about his name than you do. President Hussein seems like a nice enough guy to have a beer with or talk meaningless philosophical positions with. President Hussein is, however, about as good in office as President J. Earl Carter.
Wrong on every count including, once again, the president's name. Consistency is over-rated when all you are able to post is consistent nonsense. Try thinking things through before your next effort, maybe you won't embarrass yourself quite so much.
Really the President of the United States is not Barrack H-U-S-S-I-E-N Obama? That is what you are choking on. I use his middle name instead of his first or last and you you can't let it go. I feel no embarrassment at all calling him Hussein. President Hussein, it just rubs you the wrong way and that makes me laugh and laugh.
After having read multiple forum posts by you and others I can tell you with certainty that very little thinking goes on in these forums by liberals. Liberalism is not an intellectual pursuit and requires no thinking just feeling, especially feeling offended.
Why don't you try spelling his name correctly? Look it up on Wikipedia if you have to.
Cool. Then if Rahm Emmanuel wins for mayor of Chicago, we can just call him Mayor Israel!
Well, there's always Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck.
Speaking of believing things that aren't true because they've been "confirmed" by your own party...
Where are you getting your claim that people have to wait "months or even a year" for care in countries with universal health care? I have lots of Canadian, British, and European friends and acquaintances and have yet to meet anyone from a country with universal health care who hasn't gotten in immediately for emergency care, or who has had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for care that is not emergency.
There are several British and Canadian hubbers here who've also talked extensively about their experiences with universal health care, including a couple who've experienced both universal and American systems. Though I'm sure some such people exist, I also have yet to meet anyone who's experienced both who would trade universal for American.
ETA: By the way, thanks for giving me the motivation to track these two posts down again.
Universal/government health care experiences: http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/453187.html
American health care experiences: http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/452975.html
Wow just recently a Canadian high ranking politician went to Florida for treatment. If their medical system is so great, why do they come here for treatment?
Has it occurred to you that sometimes certain hospitals specialize in certain rare or experimental procedures? I can't say if that's what was happening there, but it seems like a reasonable guess.
The standard of basic care in the US tends to be significantly lower thanks to the difference between the well-insured and the totally uninsured, which do not (or barely) exist in most of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. We've got one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the developed world, for example, largely because many uninsured women can't afford prenatal care.
Yeah but we're number 1 when it comes to the real problem diseases like cancer!
Five year cancer survival rates are higher for insured Americans than they are for Europeans because because we have more aggressive cancer screening standards than European countries. However, if you're an uninsured American, your survival rates are about the same or worse as Europe, depending on the type of cancer.
Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba all have comparable or better five year cancer survival rates than the US.
... you just said that Americans WITH insurance do better off than europeans with insurance...
... and then you said that Americans WITHOUT insurance do ABOUT THE SAME as Europeans WITH insurance...
... you just... like... made my argument for me: "Only government could make a system that's 100% more inefficient than the market -- If you pay for something in a market economy, you get it; but if you pay for something in a government system, you DON'T get it"
And you don't understand percentages either.
Despite your claim that nobody in Europe survives cancer they do survive.
Um, as I said in my post, the primary reason for the difference is because European health care systems don't screen as stringently for cancer as the US.
In countries such as Canada, Australia, Japan, and Cuba that have universal government health care/health insurance AND comparable screening practices, cancer survival rates are comparable or better than the US.
I realize I'm long winded, but please read the whole post before you "correct" me.
Also, your efficiency argument is a little weird considering that we spend substantially more on health care per capita in the US than most government health care countries - more than twice as much as the UK, for example.
and i guess you have made my point . . . so all the people that work yet don't have healthcare because it's too expensive, or corporations have limited their responsibility by hiring contract workers, or treating full time employees as partime by forcing them to work 39 hours. these people shouldn't have healthcare, correct? so then how long will it be before we have to pay for air, and if you can't afford it . . . oh well!
Oh Brenda...oops, I mean lady_love:
I am so grateful that I lived in Canada when I was going through breast cancer. I would not have been able to afford my treatment if I did not have universal health care. Cancer survival rates are about the same in the US and Canada.
No, not according to citizens in general but those right wingers fundamentally opposed to anything vaguely smelling of socialism will tell you it's not working. Meaning it's not worth it to either them personally or to their master to whom they will abase themselves what ever the cost.
It might well be the case during the Thatcher years that one could wait months to see a specialist but seeing a Doctor has all most always been reasonably quick. It's usually during right wing government when they try to bully people into private insurance that the NHS goes down hill.
Look, I took my friend to the doctors this week, she had no appointment but was seen within about 30 minutes and the doctor wanted to admit her as an inpatient on the spot. Why and how is your privatised system any better than that? At no time did she have to prove that she could pay for the treatment.
And another thing, the private health care here regard the NHS as a free source of highly skilled staff.
hi couturepopcafe_i think the thing that i see the most in all the complaints about healthcare is, no one saying that there are 31 million working people without any. your complaint is that you will have to wait a while for a dr's visit. well my entire adult life dr's have double and triple booked appts, because people no show and this is how they are paid too. it works out the same.
i got a copy of the healthcare rules(if you will)the same day and copied the hub(the scary points of healthcare) it says that you can keep the plan that you have, if you like. you say we have to pay for things that we don't want, not so! also if something becomes popular or vis versa it's for a reason. so i looked to see if anyone else might like universal healthcare . now i am a vet and this fight is not mine, but i understand those that don't have it. so i took a look to see if it was just me or was it just you that does or doesn't like it. this is what i found
Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom all have universal healthcare. wonder why!
so i guess then what you're saying is that you have healthy people that are complaining about a wait in the dr's office and i guess you've never heard anyone here do the same. also in the 90's medicare started only paying a nominal amount for dr's visits. i heard the same complaints then but i see no shortage of nor poor doctors.
now you jump to taxes if you make under $250,000 per year you will not be touched. how do you figure you will have to work more hours.it was for only the top 2% of the population would get a 3% increase and bush is the one that did this. what they want to happen is, they want obama to do it again but now we are in a deficit. their lack of taxes will add 4 trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years. so what would you do?
technology partly, but the right looked for ways to get around regulation. ya know as they said it "FREEDOM!" what they actually meant was freedom to pay as little as possible for anything and mit romney was in this up to his elbows. end result, we have G.E. that paid it's employees 4,5,6 hundred per week. moved to mexico where they pay $15 per week. they unemployed thousands and took the taxes with them, yet continue to call themselves an american company and bring their products back here to sell to their former unemployed employees. this has happened thousands of times huge companies pay nothing for taxes.zero! while you and i pay through the nose. i could go on and on but i'll stop here and say then, what would you do my friend?
Universal health care would go a long way to solving our problems.
Yep. And I think our educational system should be universal too. I know it would be very costly to educate people, but, like medical care, it's one of those commie ideas I like.
I would agree with you on the education issue. As long as we got FULL THROTTLE COMMIE education. Not "No Child Left Behind" or "Every Child Every Day College Bound" crappola.
What in the world is 'full commie education'?
If you want socialist education, then make it Utilitarian. Not all children are intilectual equals. Some are intilectually inclined to be rocket scientist and some are more suited to be janitors. There both usefull to society, but the pay scales are drastically different. Conversely it cost a whole lot less to train a Janitor than it does a Rocket Scientist. The US would need more vocational programs and less emphasis on high school and especially college.
It's pretty simple to tell where the aptitude of a child is, very early on. Simply educate them all to a baseline that includes the three R's. Keep the intilectually superior children separate for specialized educations.
Sounds cold doesn't it? Most Lefties in the US would NEVER go for this. How ever it is, to some degree how it's done in France, England and Germany.
Hellll yeah! Sum ub'em caint n'evn spell good.
That's what your fur Ron. Spell chckr. I'ts a union gig, pays ya 29.99 par hr....
Like Hitler said, "If you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, peple will eventually believe you". Fox news and Limbaugh got this down to a science. Take for instance the $200 million a day Obama Asian trip. Acording to CNN's Anderson Cooper, that story originated in India by an Indian jouirnalist. Of cource the right wing ran with it taking it as gosple truth when the truth is the Pentagon doesn't give out that kind of info. But we do know that 1/10 of the Naval ships were never used for this or anything close to $200 million a day.
Yes, and he HATES America!! Hate hate HATES it! In fact, he's out to DESTROY it. bwahahahaha--
So then the Muslim counties will rule the world, and the New Black Panthers will rule America, with ACORN running the elections, of course.
Be afraid, be very afraid.....so you will miss what's really going on: Corporate Take-Over of everything.
"Oh privitize, privitize, friendy neighborhood privitize." (sung to Spiderman)
See the film The Corporation . Corporate takeover happened a long time ago. According to a study on the psychology of the corporation, if a corporation were checked off on a list of qualities generally used for human behavior, the corporation is diagnosed as being a psychopath. Crazy.
I just finished Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem"
about two weeks ago.
I did notice that the exact figure spent on the trip was not disclosed in the article?
Not that it matters, history will judge.
Haha RB - I read that book several years ago and hadn't realized it's the same Friedman.
As for the cost of this trip, it's probably comparable to the cost of any other trip made by an American president in the past couple decades. No reason why it would be any different.
I would like to say that both sides of the aisle are responsible for such misleadings.
A recent post by one of our "Democrat friendly" posters here on Hubpages recently illustrated this. "Stats aren't Spin", I believe, was the title of the forum. I was able to illustrate easily that the stats he provided were spin.
Please be more aware that both parties are misleading you, some are just more obvious than others.
You know, I'm still a registered Republican, although barely, and I still am totally conservative when it comes to small government, low taxes, personal responsibility, gun rights and all that. The big religious push in the GOP drove me towards the door, though I held my nose and stayed because, like I just said, in theory, my party would eventually shrink government and lower taxes etc. I just grin and nod when all the supernatural stuff comes up, bow my head a bit and look out under my eyebrows when grown adults stop a meeting to converse with invisible beings... (sigh). But the whole thing is getting absurd. There's like NO reality left in the party, at least not as it's spoken aloud.
I listen to the crap that the mouthpieces of this party say, and I think, My God, isn't anyone going to say something? Isn't anyone in power going to recognize the damage to trust that letting these idiots speak for them is doing?
In the last couple of weeks I've taken to listening to Michael Savage on the radio. It's like an experiment for me, kind of like how you probe a sore in your mouth with your tongue until it hurts, yet you keep doing it anyway. I drive home with my mouth gaping, jaw dropped in absolute awe at the unbelievable lies and grotesque misinterpretations. He'll play a quote from Obama like, "I think it's important to improve such and such," and Savage will yell into the microphone, "You see! That's what I'm talking about. He's literally telling you he hates America and wants to take away your rights."
Blinking in bewilderment, I stare at the radio trying to fathom how he possibly pulled that assessment from what Obama (or whoever else) said while caller after caller phone in and say they are going to pray for him to keep up the good fight.
Same thing happened top me with Russsshhhhhh after Clinton was elected. Dumb-founded amazement.
And it has only been added onto now with Obama...there is Obama-Hate literally 20 hours a day.
Only relief is Coast-to-Coast.
It's fairly easy to make the case that Obama doesn't care much for America, why else would he run on a platform of change, a promise to fundamentally transform America? Did anyone ask what he wanted to transform America into? Read Dreams from my father, that might give you a clue. Not enough proof? Look at how he's shoved legislation down our throats, in violation of the constitution> Look at his apology tours! There is a wealth of evidence to support the view that Obama believes there is something wrong with America and only a bigger role of government and wealth re-distribution can fix he, and he intends to accomplish this in spite of the opposition.
the election is over! you guys won remember? are you still angry? well what is it now. name for me a president that didn't have opposition... crickets oh well
"in violation of the constitution?!" what? whew... ok.
there are two sides to every story. ok you won't use the healthcare(yeah right) but there are 31 million that "needed" it and millions and millions more that will use the added benefits, except you of course. you're an angry little person aren't you?
lady_love - I'd forgotten about the apology tour and the fact that Michelle said "I never liked America." Another great Michelle quote "what will $600. buy? A pair of earrings?" (referring to the tax rebate). This is a scary mentality and somehow reminds me of the Clintons. They trashed parts of the White House before Bush took the oath, didn't send Air Force I to pick him up as a direct insult, and showed themselves to be low class people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who agree with Obama's Marxist interpretation of the way the world should be. Fortunately, we still live in an America where we can try to change laws the way we see fit and unfortunately, we have to go along with laws when they are not what we want.
That's exactly right! The liberals want to create a CLASS society, they want to deprive individuals of being all that they can be!
I have to disagree. Liberal's don't WANT to create a "class" society. At least not the garden variety liberal. I believe that most simply don't realize that it's where liberal policies lead. All political/economic schemes do end up creating economic classes. The difference is some have upward mobility and others don't. Capitalism does, Marxism doesn't.
And what better way of depriving individuals of being all they can to be than denying them the right to good health?
How many of the unemployed and low paid might have risen to the top
had their parents had access to first class health care and first class education?
"And what better way of depriving individuals of being all they can to be than denying them the right to good health?"
How does "health insurance" or "free healthcare" grant that "right" ? Genetics and nutrition have more of an impact.
"How many of the unemployed and low paid might have risen to the top
had their parents had access to first class health care and first class education?" Like Hitler? This is no more a garantee of success than "free healthcare" The point is that achievers don't sit around and wait for things to happen, they make things happen. Education can be helpfull, lack thereof can be an obstical, but it's NOT the determining factor.
You seem to infer that the unemployed and lowpaid are poorly educated. You also infer that only the formally educated can be inteligent or successfull. I firmly disagree.
Are you suggesting that a shortage of healthy food is genetic? Or that children with good genetic stock don't catch common childhood illnesses or have typical childhood accidents?
I don't recall saying that free healthcare or good education was the determining factor, it is one considerable factor but not the determining factor.
I don't infer that the unemployed are poorly educated but they often are. Neither do I infer that only the formally educated can be intelligent or successful but you surely must agree that good health and good education help.
Tell me, you employ 1000 metal bashers, do you not agree that the ones who turn up every day will have an advantage over those who suffer recurring bad health, perhaps from not being able to afford good accommodation. Or how about the ability to fill in time-sheets and follow written instructions over those who can't.
"All that they can be" = one class of brain-dead zombies who'll do their bidding without any questions!
i understand what michelle meant and it wasn't that she dislikes america( you and i have discussed enough of americas history, so you know) but the right will try to make you think that. the right needs polarization and fear to get your vote, don't be fooled. have you ever read karl marx or marxism? people just throw words around because they've heard someonelse use it. read it yourself, factcheck it, then speak from a position of authority.
Did you even read what I wrote?
My point was not to support or oppose Obama. I don't care if these guys love him or hate him. I just want them to stop lying.
If Obama says, "I had a red Toyota when I was seventeen," Michael Savage will turn that into "Proof positive that Obama is a communist who wants to see the destruction of American industries as part of his plot to become dictator."
THAT was my point. It's fine if you hate Obama. Just do it with actual information. And I don't want to see any of your actual information. I don't care if you hate him or why, nor do I care if you love him and why.
I'm just sick of the lying bastards who are allowed to stay at the top of media by morons who will believe anything that anyone with a microphone or a TV camera has to say as long as it furthers their own desires.
"I'm just sick of the lying bastards who are allowed to stay at the top of media by morons who will believe anything that anyone with a microphone or a TV camera has to say as long as it furthers their own desires."
Amen. And this is why they have just elected them back into power. They believed all that crap.
And we are going back into the Bush nightmare...part deux. Only, on steroids.
I never thought I'd say this, but I hope the Tea-Baggers kick the hell out of the Repub leadership.
Similarly, I have supported mostly Republican and Libertarian candidates since 1980. There was a time (it seems so long ago) where the Republican party included reasonable people who could disagree over matters of degree and situational applications of ideology without the radicals disparaging the moderates as "rinos" or even socialists. The inmates have definitively taken over the right-wing asylum; it's hard to imagine the Republicans ever producing another candidate worthy of my vote.
I voted against Republicans this time by voting for Democrats. I really wish there was a party for the middle that I could support enthusiastically.
Commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have one goal: to contradict the opposing party and their leaders. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of doing this, and I think it would be pretty ignorant to say that one does it more than the other. It's not a right or left issue, it's a political issue.
TAH DAH!!!! DING DING DING, TELL HIM WHAT HE'S WON WILLIAM!
but one does do it more than the other!!!!
There is no comparison between what the Right does and what the Left does.
No comparison. If you can show me, I'd like to see it....
But first you'd have to FIND a left commentator! They've been purged from radio. In 2000, a little thing Bush did with his new FCC. To please the Christian Right....who after all, got him elected.
Pelosi reversed it, but it will take some time for the Left to catch up.
Krist---they even used to have Libertarians! Good ole Gene Burns.
Now it's All Obama-Hate, All the Time.
A.M. 1510, Revolution Radio is starting up...but the strength is very weak...can't get it in the house, and just barely in the car. It will take a while.
I am speechless.
You truly believe that the Left is free from propaganda? You attribute all political slant to the rhetoric of Republicans?
You are either new to this game, or you've been in it so long that your viewpoint is poisoned beyond an antidote.
Both left and right fear-mongering has always and will always exist.
Show me where the Left does it.
I watch MSNBC...I don't see a parrallel to Fox. I listen to Stephanie (?) and Thom Hartmann...I don't hear it.
"health care will solve all our problems and cost us nothing!!!"
"The republicans started this war in Iraq and it's evil"
You name it...
that was easy.
"health care will solve all our problems and cost us nothing!!!"
Who said that? I never heard it.
"The republicans started this war in Iraq and it's evil"
Who said that?
But I believe that's true. I mean......they did, and it is. It is the most horrific, sadistic example of evil I've seen in a long time. Shock and Awe....burning prisoners with cigarettes, raping young kids, using dogs on them, stripping them naked and making them lie in a pile, standing in sh*t all day, hanging fron ceilings, burned with electrodes, on and on and on. If that is your idea of America--you can have it!
Now we have remote-controlled war. Just as evil and sadistic. And costly as all hell too. Boy-if a politician was really serious about saving money, they would fight to end these "wars"...Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson!!
What is the most important thing these "new" Repubs are after? Extending their money base. That's it!
Thanks for tell us we can Keep America, so when will you be leaving? Oh and don't let the door of freedom hit you on the way out! LOL
You would not recognise freedom if it bit you on the bum!
This coming from someone spouting "taxation isn't theft".
From where does freedom come? What guarantees freedom? What institution has deprived the most people of their freedom in the last 100 years?
Big Business - really. I would have thought it was Totalitarian Government since the deprivation of life is by its nature the end of all freedom. If you count the bodies, the balance sheet in this contest favors the communists over all comers.
I know nobody who has ever been killed by communism but a good few who have been killed by capitalism.
Eh, people in the US in particular and the West in general do desperately need to become better educated about the atrocities perpetrated around the world in the name of capitalism, but ignoring or dismissing those perpetrated in the name of communism is not the way to do it. BOTH systems are nightmares for human rights and the environment when taken to extremes. The trick is to find the right balance. Haven't seen it happen yet, but I still hang on to hope...
You did notice that I said I. I know wars that have been started by those who claim to be Communist and wars started by those claiming to be Christians, Muslims, Germans, Americans, you name them and they've probably started a war.
Capitalists not only start wars, they carry on killing during peace time as well.
As you say, the right balance, we've neared it here in the UK in the last century but capitalism is far too powerful and all ways gets it's own way in the end and will continue to do so until they cease to be supported by those they oppress.
That is interesting. I thought you had a first class History education. The Kulaks and Jews, Ukrainians, the Army Purges, the famine(s) from forced collectivization, work camps, gulags, reeducation camps, etc - Stalin's communist government killed over 30 million. Mao makes Stalin look like a piker given the death toll from the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, various purges and forced collectivization, political prisons and reeducation camps. Pol Pot, though a horror, was small potatoes. Everyone wants to flog that Centralized Economic maven, Adolf Hitler, as the big butcher but he couldn't even run a good sized reeducation camp for Mao.
Perhaps a little re-acquaintance with Alexander Solzhenitsyn is in order.
Wasn't it Alexander Solzhenitsyn that wrote about guantanamo bay, rendition, and the likes?
Just because a fascist calls himself a communist does not actually make him one, show me one element of the communist manifesto that justifies their actions and qualifies them as communists, go on, it must be easy, it's not a long read.
No doubt we adopt that which comforts us and reject that which does not. Marxism's expression in the world is in Communism and the Antisemitism at the root of Nazism. Fascism is by it roots is Socialist, Marxist. Fascism attracted Mussolini because the Catholic Church had proposed something similar and being a good socialist, he saw the similarities.
The intermediate stages in the development of the socialist state would see the rise of a communist party. Marx foretold the rise of communism in Russia and China and described Fascism and Nazism accurately. It is the final stages of Marx's fantasy that do not occur, unless you count the dismantling of Communism in Eastern Europe and the rise of free markets.
Marxist theory hinges on the New Man, the recreation through Dialectical Materialism of a socialist man. The New Soviet Man. Just as Capitalism is inextricably tied to Adam Smith so Communism is tied to Marx.
So you can't actually point me to the part of the communist prospectus that justifies the behaviour of Pol Pot and the likes.
Wicked of me I know as I already knew it doesn't exist.
Is there no limit to the amount of junk you'll allow your capitalist masters to ram into you just as long as they keep convincing you that you are somehow better for looking after them than you are looking after your fellow travellers?
Mans capacity for EVIL is NOT restricted to religious believe or political ideology(or any other division/segment of humanity). You know that.
I know that but I'm not the one claiming that every left wing trait is butchering fascism.
I've never in my life suggested that Islam is a violent religion!
I've never claimed that because Hitler was the leader of a party that had socialist in its name he was therefore a socialist and every socialist was a Hitler clone.
So, a well shot but badly aimed arrow.
There are liberal commentators. There's a woman who is really sarcastic and nasty. I can't think of her name because I don't listen to her but come across her now and then. There aren't more probably because they don't draw the audience numbers. You can't get sponsors to pay to support a program if there are no listeners. I listen to Limbaugh. He's fair in bashing both sides. Used to listen to him more often but now just can't stand the negative tone all the time.
What law are you referring to regarding Bush's purging radio of left commentators (which Nancy reversed)?
I saw it on Democracy Now. Way back when the Dems took over the House in 07....but I can't remember what month it was, and going back over a years worth of archives is not something I want to handle But I will try to google it instead. It was something to so with the bandwiths. A by-law put in by Bush's FCC. In 2000.
SHADESBREATH_ The big religious push in the GOP drove me towards the door, though I held my nose and stayed because, like I just said, in theory, my party would eventually shrink government and lower taxes etc. I just grin and nod when all the supernatural stuff comes up, bow my head a bit and look out under my eyebrows when grown adults stop a meeting to converse with invisible beings... (sigh). But the whole thing is getting absurd. There's like NO reality left in the party, at least not as it's spoken aloud.
ha ha ha hilarious and true!
but your party can't shrink gov't. the population has more than doubled since ww11. the only things to change no one wants to budge on. defense of social security.
Create a class society? It IS a class society.
Without money, you live, and are treated like an animal.
And who, pray tell, made it such?
People with money made it so. It's to their advantage. It's not unique to any economic scheme. The answer to money problems is normally NOT more money. Get that idea in your head and no one can stop you. No matter how much or little money you have.
Try telling that to somebody whose essential outgoings exceed their income.
Or how about big business wanting to buy out a competitor but can't raise the capital?
Your's sounds like a typical right wing excuse for not paying the rate for the job and not troubling your conscience with thoughts of people living in poverty.
Sounds like it's time to re-assess your "essentials". Seems harsh, but it's the truth.
Sounds the business has a poor performance record or credit. Basic law of nature, survival of the fittest.
You mean that I should decide that business is more of an essential than people! No my essentials stay the same, people first and that's all people.
Have you considered that the business cannot raise the capital because the owner doesn't belong to the right club or came from the wrong school?
Don't become the fool. Being one sided is what they all want from you. The right spreads their wings as much as the left. It's what gives the bird flight in a corrupt government.
Glenn Beck is the "Face of Fox News." Media Matters:
"To those Fox News journalists who are reportedly "worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network": Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have picked a side in this fight -- and it's not yours.
"For months, accounts of internal tension over Beck have been leaking out of Fox News. Back in March, media critic Howard Kurtz -- then with The Washington Post -- reported that "there is a deep split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network. ... Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility."
"In an October New York Times Magazine profile of Beck, Mark Leibovich -- who noted the "[o]ff-the-record sniping shoots in both directions" and could be related to upcoming contract negotiations -- reported: "But the friction is evident in many areas." In addition to reporting -- like Kurtz -- that some Fox News journalists felt Beck's inflammatory rhetoric undermined the network, Leibovich introduced a new twist: Ailes' support for Beck may have been flagging.
"Ailes, Leibovich wrote, "has generally been supportive of Beck," but he's also "complained about Beck's hawking his non-Fox ventures too much on his Fox show" and has been "vocal around the network about how Beck does not fully appreciate the degree to which Fox News has made him the sensation he has become in recent months."
"With his ratings in a slump, advertisers dropping like flies, and the reported sniping from Ailes, it seemed possible that Beck's influence at Fox might wane.
"Then Rupert Murdoch stepped in.
"When asked at the News Corp. annual shareholders meeting later that month about Ailes' reported frustration with Beck's use of Fox News airwaves to promote his own brand and interests, Murdoch dismissed such concerns, saying, "I don't know whether you watch Fox News, but Mr. Beck is the least of our stars who take liberties in promoting their interests."
"And Murdoch was unfazed when asked at the meeting about reports that nearly 300 advertisers are boycotting Glenn Beck, responding, "That's not true. ... Maybe four or five who have been moved over to Mr. O'Reilly's program. No one has taken any money off the channel."
"But perhaps most surprising was Murdoch's unprompted praise for Beck in a November interview in his native Australia, which was paired with some trash-talking aimed at Fox News ratings giant Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly's "easy" treatment of now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview was "disgraceful," Murdoch said. He then lavished Beck with praise:
'There's a guy on Fox who started on CNN called Glenn Beck.
'He is a little bit of an actor, he looks in the camera all the time. He's very genuine, extremely well-read libertarian, doesn't make any secret of it. He says don't trust the government, don't trust me, just trust yourselves.
He's hit a nerve. Millions -- millions -- watch him at five in the afternoon!""
Take your pick your Fox News lies here:
LOL! Media Matters? You mean George Soros propaganda machine! I thought liberals were supposed to be intellectuals! LOL
You can't dispute the facts, so you simply attack the messenger. Typical.
This from a person who publicly stated the FoxNews was the only reliable source of "real" news.
Though I would never claim to not have viewed and enjoyed some pornography not much above the erotica level, I could never rely on a man who has made his fortune as a pornographer as purely exploitative as you can get for my view of the world events and frankly any woman who says she doesn't care what he does to my sisters, he news is good, probably needs a good long look at the lives of those exploited women.
And any political party quick to get into bed with him is no better than a cabal of pornographers.
What facts? That some jopurnalists complain about Beck? I wouldn't dispute that, I don't doubt that for a moment! Fox has a good share of liberals on it's payrolls so I think that's likely. The rest of the stuff, is exageration and hyperbole based upon speculation and no doubt part of the war Soros is fighting against Fox. The stakes are high for Soros, and for the American people.
Ralph, try Googling "MSNBC lies" and see how many references you find! They ALL lie. That's why I watch all of the "news" shows, along with reading A LOT. I figure maybe somewhere among all the lies and distortions, I might be able to find a grain of truth. lol
So true, habee. Political debates would reap greater benefits if everyone adopted your view on media, information, and "news".
Habee, as you suggested, I googled MSNBC lies and didn't find anything very impressive. Perhaps a bit of fudging by Ed about how many attended his rally versus Beck's rally. It's a big mistake to equate MSNBC with the constant lies of Beck, Hannity and, of course, Limbaugh, the biggest liar of all, and other right-wing commentators. There is no comparison between these characters and Olberman, Ed, and Maddow.
"Oral sex is not adultery." Bwahahahaha
Tom Delay is on trial for illegal pay-offs. He also gave tax money to a man who opened a factory on Marianis Isand where they force employees to get abortions should they become pregnant.
Mike Pence is his prodigee.
Bwahahahaha----Do what we say, not as we do!! Our stated belief systems are lies meant to pacify you and get your vote. Bwahahaha
Gingrich is the one who gave them the blueprint for "Say no to everything the President wants."
Nice choice of demon Glad.
"Why would anyone think for profit health care insurance is better than government healthcare. Then there were the problems of the iraq War and the problems of the Afghan war and the incredible debt and Wall Street falling apart because the regulations were removed. Now we look at Obama facing down Republicans over taxing the billionaires more. 700,000 Americans are homeless. Be proud of that number America. China ia racing into a green future and America fights over wind and solar energy. Obama is like an amazing juggler who is trying to walk a tight rope and Americans yell and scream. Obama didn't make the problems. He is doing his damnedest to fix them. So everyone who voted for Bush and those who accepted his appointment by the Supreme Court take a bow, And stop whining. You asked for it and you got it."
Unfortunately the rest of us did too. Crapitalism/Oil economy.....Old Guard mentality.
Nothing goes down without a fight though, so we will just have to be louder and stronger than they are.
Or, we could just surrender to the turning of the Universe....the Old Guard is meant to die, and a new way replace it. It has always been that way!
This generation will make it happen...I have faith!
Hey, gotta admit I'd repeat any lie that made Democrats/Obama supporters look bad. That's half the fun of politics.
Amusement is one thing, but lying to promote the right's march to exploit the Earth and all who dwell on it, isn't funny--it's irresponsible and foolhardy. Never poop where you eat!
and here, you have heard it straight from a so called americans mouth.they say anything! remember when someone shows you themself. . . . believe them! they have no honor and use no logic in the decisions they make. just one emotion filled response... we do not ever again want unethical and corrupt people near the reigns of this gov't again. remember this . . .this is the right wing mantra!
Oh Fox News is most certainly a despicably slanted, right-wing propaganda machine. But it is also the only media outlet of this nature, floating alone in a sea of leftist hogwash.
Criticism towards Fox is warranted, but it shouldn't be isolated for attack just because their views don't coincide with yours.
No, indeed not but it should be criticised for pushing Murdoch's politic and fiscal aims over the needs of the customers.
It should also be criticised for miss-selling, it doesn't do news as the name would lead you to expect, it tells people what they should believe and who they should hate and why the world would be a better place if Murdoch got just a little bit more power and ran the world.
I wonder, if he did, would looking at pornography become obligatory?
You're missing an obvious point, namely that it's is a question of degree. If Fox News is a blatant example of needing criticism, then criticism of them doesn't necessarily have to do with one's preferences.
"Criticism towards Fox is warranted, but it shouldn't be isolated for attack just because their views don't coincide with yours.
You are implying that because one condemns Fox News, they're also suggesting that all other news outlets aren't worthy of criticism. That's an illogical and false conclusion you've made.
I'm implying that SLANT ITSELF isn't the problem most people have with Fox, but rather the DIRECTION in which it is slanted.
It certainly seems like most of the people who criticize Fox aren't ready to also fess up to the leftist-slant that exists in media as well.
Do I "dig?" (I thought that cliche went out with Dobie Gillis in the Sixties)
I think I "dig" . . .You think criticizing Fox news for lying, exaggerating and stirring up public hatred and resentment means that the critic does does so because they're biased and not objective. That may be a convenient premise, but it's also absurd. It's like saying: I hate green because red is my favorite color!
Ironically, you are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black . . . but I somehow doubt if the irony will get through your obtuse angle of repose.
Oh we get that too in the UK. If the press point out that the tories have raised taxes or destroyed jobs or given themselves pay rises when the rest of us are having our incomes cut, the tories scream left wing bias and how they need to be controlled, ie given over to pornographer in chief Murdoch.
No. One more time, champ:
It's not okay for ANY news organization to misrepresent facts; but there are a number of critics who only think it's wrong when this misrepresentation hurts the reputation of their beloved Barry O.
There are many media outlets -- both right and left -- that distort, manipulate and exaggerate news in order to suit their political agendas. Neither side does it more than the other and both are equally caught up in the political game.
Take a moment. Let that sink in.
There are plenty of stations to spew venom at for telling lies. Specifically targeting Fox from the steaming pile of BS that mainstream media has become is a good indicator of the viewer's political bias.
Glad, I was going to say that the US had the edge over the UK as they don't let non Americans own the media, but then just in time before I made an ass of my self remembered that American citizenship was open to anybody with a fat enough bank account and ownership of plenty of media outlets outside the US.
Our Thanksgiving is Thursday and I always regret that the Native Americans helped the Pilgrims survive their first winter. ( . . . not really, but it's ironic that the so called savages knew more about saving our planet than we seem to!)
Interestingly I have just listened to a Chinese teacher describe Thanksgiving, as they do all western festivities. She described the events and the Indians keeping the Pilgrims alive - ending with "I wonder why they give thanks to their god when it was the Indians they should have been thanking"
That's bulloney. No one does it more than Fox and right-wing talk radio. Do you even listen to it? Even you might get sick. It's over-the-top disgusting.
Meanwhile, I listen to Thom Hartmann, and it's smart, reasoned discussion. And he had Michael Brown on the other day defending himself and x-prez Bush. There was no screaming, bashing, insulting, calling names, exaggerated lies, misleading hype. Just talk. Nice, calm talk. Not once did Hartmann call Bush a jack-ass who doesn't know what he's talking about like Russsshhhhhh did Obama. President Obama...Russsshhhh called him a Jack-Ass.
Ever listen to Laura Ingraham? She makes fun of the Obama's like you wouldn't believe! Tammy Bruce was on there once and she said about Michelle Obama--"now we have trash in the white house"
Driving miss Nanci about Cliburn.
Obama's Presidency is graffitti on America...
His stimulus was "walking around money"
President Obama is anti-American!
These people should be fined just like Howard Stern was. You mean saying poopoo is worse than the garbage they spew? Like hell.
And I never once heard Stern lie. These people do it for a living.
Someone needs to stand up to these Right-Wing goons.
I watch Ed Shultz and Olbermann too---when they criticize, it's for a reason, not just to fire people up into a foaming mass of rage.
You (rightfully) criticize Fox for setting out to contradict opposing political view points, but you (wrongfully) refuse to acknowledge leftist media doing the same thing.
Your delusions are innate, so I give up.
My delusions?--hahahaha! Yea and I suppose the jury from his home state was delusional when they convicted Tom Delay. We have a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
CNBC is "not doing the same thing" as Fox. Not even close. CNBC pundits are partisan, but they have respect for the facts. This isn't true of Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh.
Without reading all the previous posts, my concern is this: Who can we trust? Can we trust the media to be fair and unbiased? No. Can we trust politicians to tell it like is? No. What is truth anymore? Truth is almost like an image that has been tweaked by Photoshop. It looks real. But is it? It seems like everybody has an agenda anymore. And anything can be rationalized so it's believable. It is this lack character and honesty that will be the downfall of this country -- and ultimately the world.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal, variously translated as "Who watches the watchmen?", "Who watches the watchers?", "Who will guard the guards?", "Who shall watch the watchers themselves?", or similar.
"Trust but verify!" [Ronny "The Pitchman" Raygun]
I think I've caught just a hint of poor loser in the air. Rant, rant, rant but the tide has changed. Regardless of the rhetoric, this is not a liberal nation and never has been still, its fun to to follow along and watch the melt down.
Well, since the rest of us have had to listen to poor losers since 2008 I think it's only fair.
You mistake the outrage and indignation over lies and deceit for sour grapes, Tobey--but then you would, because you live in your either/or universe!
Reagan's budget man Stockman on the national debt.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea … -paulson-d
by mio cid 8 years ago
President Obama's jigsaw puzzle strategy is winning him support of women,youth,immigrants and hispanics,black voters,union workers etc. Romney's strategy is based on how bad a president Obama has been and pandering to the republican base which is controlled by the tea party and the extreme right...
by Holle Abee 12 years ago
Do you think this will open the gate for Palin and/or Bachmann??I hope not!
by Audrey Selig 9 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next election? Explain.Romney may try another run at presidency.
by MikeSyrSutton 12 years ago
Out of Republicans only, who would you most likely vote for or Perry, Cain, Romney, or Bachman?If you could only vote for Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, or Mitt Romney, who would it be?
by Tiffany Payne 4 years ago
No matter what you say or how you say it Trump is 100% racist and os feeding off the attention. From the squad to Cummings he wants nothing but to divide us. Sadly it’s working this issue has nothing to do with party but right and wrong. Do you think silence from his party indicates they are too...
by FOOFOO GUY 12 years ago
Do you agree that Michelle Bachman should be the Republican Nominee?So that the Democrats that trash them soundly in what may be the proverbial ''mother of all battles''.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|