The left blogosphere refers to Fox News as Faux News, and the Un-news channel. Here are some of the articles written about Fox and Fox viewers:
Uninformed Glen[n] Beck and Fox News viewers not courageous or smart enough to hold them accountable.
Beck Wants Americans To Stay Uniformed, Unengaged, Fat and Lazy
Considering how critical, cynical and self-aggrandized these people are, it defies all reason that after watching President Obama's media blitz on Sunday none of these highly informed individuals would give pause and ask -- Why did they all ask him the same questions? Why was he only slightly challenged in one interview? Did they learn anything that they didn't already know about healthcare reform. President Obama didn't bother to grant Fox an interview-- actually he said last Thursday that “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it”. But aside for the pettiness, his decision to snub "Fox News Sunday", wasn't very wise considering that a Sept. 16th comparision of cable news viewership yielded this result:
FOX News – 1,548,000 viewers
CNN – 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –421,000 viewers
CNBC – 212,000 viewers
HLN – 336,000 viewers
(Source)
If President Obama's goal is to get the truth out about his healthcare reform plan, then why not contend for and defend the plan that you believe is best for all Americans. Perhaps he knows it's not best for all Americans and just the Americans he cares about, or perhaps he doesn't care who it's best for as long as he brings forth his agenda--dare I say hidden agenda.
On Glenn Beck's show yesterday, he asked the questions that the Lapdog media should have asked but didn't and then showed previous clips of President Obama telling us how he really feels in his own words.
President Obama are you a proponent of single payer universal healthcare plan? If so, are you slow walking it by using the public option? In other words Mr. President are merely laying the foundation for single payer universal healthcare in the future? Is the ultimate goal to do away with private insurance altogether?
Mr. President are you more concerned about the will of the American people, 46% of whom are happy with their insurance or is it more important to you to do the biddings of George Soros and the groups he funds like the Tide Alliance, ACORN,and SEIU? Mr. President what is the probability of the Democrats using the "Nuclear Option" to get this bill passed in the House? Do you support that? Mr. President why do you associate yourself with people who hold such radical points of view?
Mr. President you have been quite critical of former President Bush and not without reason, yet you have maintained and in some instances expanded the very policies you criticized -- Why? You have appointed radical, marxist, revolutionary and even criminal individuals to key positions in your administration -- Why? Do you know what these people have said and done in the past? Are you selecting these individuals because you are of one mind with them? What did you mean your first day in office when you said "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"? Did you mean Mr. President it is your intention to put in place the coalitions of power to bring about redistributive change?
Mr. President you have said in your own words that you have worked closely with ACORN and that they would play a key role in "shaping the agenda" for the United State of America, so are you being truthful when you say that you haven't been watching them very closely? To be blunt Mr. President, why are you playing dumb?
Mr. President, are you at all concerned about lower and middle class Americans who will be adversely affecting by rising energy costs as a result of Cap & Trade? You said yourself that electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket", do you think utility companies will absorb that cost or pass it along to consumers?
Mr. President,is your idea of comprehensive immigration reform granting Amnesty to to 20 million illegal immigrants here currently? If so, then is that how you come to the conclusion that illegal aliens will not be covered in the healthcare reform bill?
So those are the questions that should be put to President Obama but unfortunately the Lapdog Media will not ask. Why? Those of you accusing Fox News and it's host of racism, are these not reasonable concerns especially in light of President Obama's very own words and deeds? Those of you who feel that Fox viewers are uniformed, do you know the answers to these questions? If so, then will you please address them instead of accusing reasonable people of racism, and self-hatred if said reasonable person asking happens to be black. Lastly because I'm really curious do you really give slightly a shade left of a damn who President Obama thinks will win the World Series?
47 comments:
You set the standard and here is the response. Liberals invented this game, see John Stewart do it better, but this time with Glenn Beck. Let me know if you actually watch it because it's surprising.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
MrsGrapevine~So did you logically deduce from Jon Steward's highly amusing monologue (I love butt humor...lol)that Americans after having hemorroidal surgery will feel better cared for by government run hospitals or under ObamaCare? While that little clip was very funny, the issue isn't "care" because let's face it all American's have access to healthcare as it is illegal for a hospital not to treat a person in need of care, and even the level of care is not an issue because we now have a choice of changing doctors, changing plans, changing facilities etc. The issue is what is the real reason that Pres. Obama is pushing the public option? Is it a means to an end? If so, how will that "end" effect you and your family if that "end" is to ultimately put private insurers out of business? Have you thought about those ramifications? Aren't you evenly slightly curious why no one in the media has asked Pres. Obama to clarify his very own statements?
I *heart* you :) Just sayin'
Thanks Allison :)
I was on Itunes looking for some new Podcast to listen too.
I put in the search engine "African American". You know trying to get tha peoples some mo subscriptions.
To my great surprise. Who did I see. CBW herself. Nice to put a voice to the face now.
I'm not sure if you want to write Itunes to have them remove the African American Label from your seldom updated Podcast.
:)
Very funny JC...but actually I wish they'd just call me black. I hate the term african-american.
Podcasts drain me...so I just don't do them very often anymore.
Great post, CBW!
XO
It's not even about medicine; it's a fascist takeover of nearly a fifth of the economy-- fascist in the strict sense of corporate state.
--johninca
Perhps Beck's best point is "Mr. President you have been quite critical of former President Bush and not without reason, yet you have maintained and in some instances expanded the very policies you criticized -- Why?
A fair enough question, BUT more Conservatives should, like myself, appreciate those instances.
Like G W Bush, Barack Obama has made some momentous mistakes...BUT the worst has been expanding on some of Bush's disastrous economic policies....YES, Bush's across-the-board income tax rate cuts and his Capital Gains rate cut had tax revenues skyrocket in their wake, but aside from that Bush spent MORE 9even adj for inflation) than even LBJ did on reckless and wasteful social spending.
G W Bush nearly doubled the national debt from $5 TRILLION to nearly $10 TRILLION (even though 60% of hat was passed by the Pelosi-Reid Congress over his last two years...Bush still signed onto it!
Barack Obama has quadrupled the deficit over his first six months in office AND is on pace to more than triple the national debt and bring the debt burden to over 80% of GDP!
G W Bush's HUGE mistake was embarking on an orgy of overspending and increasing the size and scope of government (called "Keynesianism")...and Barack Obama has moved us into hyper-Keynesianism.
Hyper-Keynesianism is what brought about the Carter-economy a few decades back.
It has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with take-over like Ano Nymous said.
It Is illegal for a hospital not to treat a person in need of care.
It Is illegal for government to issue health care. Illegal illegal, illegal, illegal.
It will be illegal tomorrow, too, but don't say anything; there's a take-over going on.
Some don't know it; others don't care. I figure the jounalists, whatever that means, hs, have educated themselves stupid or this is on purpose or both.
Remember when the media helped stifle communism? I was born in
'50. We feared communism; you know, socialism. We we told to come to our parents if we heard or knew of "one".
I still tell mom whenever i find another "one". Remember mom? she wrote to presidents, often. I'll see how busy she is. I found some more...
CBW,
Very impressively done.
Hopefully the Obamanites will start to see the handwriting on the wall and not be reduced to the classic tangential arguments of their handlers.
I wish you or Digital Publius would consider running for public office. It would be an honor to support a person of character and intellect who happens to be black rather than merely a polished black politician. You make us proud.
@ar:
I was born well after 1950.
You put a pang in my heart and tears in my eyes.
America is a blessing to this world, still.
When its citizens cease to realize that, and chooses a leader that seeks to dismantle the very things that helped to lead to America's greatness, THEY don't deserve a country like America. May God have mercy on the rest of us.
@ JMK:
Where have you been, that's all I wanted is just one conservative to say yes, Bush messed. That doesn't provide an excuse for Obama, but I just wanted to know you were capable of being critical of your own party.
@ CBW:
Remember, I'm a progressive, universal health care doesn't scare me. But the burden on the national debt does. I understand the cries of it's too expensive, better than I do this socialist takeover of government; considering most communist governments have failed and failed hard.
My concerns are mandating the public option, and affording it. I understand why we need to move now, I just don't know about the cost or the burden on the system.
@ CBW,
I take it back; I see the light now; and I have changed my mind.
I love Glenn Beck!!! Who couldn't love a man who said and I quote, "I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama."
Oh wait, you know Hillary, who is definitely for universal health care, Beck had this to say, "I can't believe I'm saying this, I think I would have much preferred [Hillary Clinton] as president and may have voted for her against John McCain."
I don't know why I couldn't see how honest and smart he was before, but I see it now. *sarcasm*
Now tell me Beck is not an opportunist like Van Jones. He will say whatever will gain him popularity.
"Where have you been, that's all I wanted is just one conservative to say yes, Bush messed. That doesn't provide an excuse for Obama, but I just wanted to know you were capable of being critical of your own party." (MrsGrapevine)
<
<
I actually consider myself a "Southern Conservative," despite being raised in New York. I like to say that I'm a New Yorker with "Southern sensibilities." I am a life-long registered Democrat. Two of my cousins are elected Democrats from NY.
I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat."
Richard Nixon and George Bush Sr., and G W Bush were all Keynesians. Yes, this may be hard to admit and sad to say, but all three of them were better fiscal managers, as Keynesians, than the likes of Jimmy Carter and LBJ.
Reagan and Gingrich were Supply Siders, and they, like JFK were ardently pro-business, passionately anti-communists and enthusiastic tax cutters.
Supply Siders believe in a well regulated market-based economy. Those policies help those who work the most....they create more jobs and they cut the tax burden on those workers.
Bush spent more on reckless and irresponsible social spending (so-called "anti-poverty" measures than even LBJ, the previous social spending champ, even adjusted for inflation). He also collaborated with Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd in pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to BUY/guarantee all those new subprime loans.
In 2001 Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's combined share of the U.S. mrtgage market was 24%...a sum considered far too high by most economists.
By 2008, that number had skyrocketed to just over 51% of the U.S. mortgage market and nearly all of that increase was in those new 0% down, subprime loans, championed by Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the folks at ACORN, with the Bush administration happily signing on.
Freddie Mac's packaging those subprime loans as "triple A rated government-backed mortgage securities" and selling them both on Wall St and abroad is what triggered the global Credit Crisis of 2008.
Government meddling in the mortgage market created that global Credit Crisis.
Bush's Keynesian "solution" was comprised of two massive "Stimulus programs" and a HUGE bank bailout Bill.
Those two things alone added over a TRILLION and a HALF dollars to the National Debt....which was increased by nearly $3 TRILLION over the last two years of the Bush administration. The two years he worked arm-in-arm with the Pelosi-Reid Congress.
Barack Obama has started out his administration as Jimmy Carter to G W's Richard Nixon....in the previous economic disaster of the late 1970s (the one Reagan's Supply Side policies pulled us out of), a Liberal Democratic Keynesian (Carter) followed a "Moderate"/Rockefeller-wing Republican Keynesian (Nixon) and generated the worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression, with DOUBLE DIGIT interest rates (a 22% Prime Rate), along with DOUBLE DIGIT inflation and unemployment, as well.
In his first eight months, Barack Obama has quadrupled the Deficit and at this rate of spending, is on pace to raise the National Debt burden from the 64% of GDP he inherited from the very Keynesian G W Bush, to over 85% of GDP before 2011.
I have indeed been VERY critical of my own Party - the Democratic Party, ever since its been dominated by its goofy and senseless Left-wing.
I thought Bill Clinton and his DLC, which was started expressly to bring the Democratic Party back to the Right and become the Center-Right Party it had been during JFK's tenure, was a breath of fresh air.
And perhaps, if 2010 brings the Obama administration its own Gingrich-type figure, perhaps he could also be drawn back to the Center and away from the looney Left of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc.
I've also always been highly critical of any and all Liberal/Rockefeller-wing Republicans, because they are just as Keynesian as their Liberal Democrat pals.
I do appreciate your noticing that.
"Now tell me Beck is not an opportunist like Van Jones. He will say whatever will gain him popularity." (MGV)
<
<
Saying "McCain would've been even worse" is hardly a popular sentiment among those who listen to Beck.
In fact, it's a downright unpopular thing to say overall, as President Obama's approval rating has dropped from just over 70% to just 50% over he last five months!
Beck's observation on that score IS absolutely pescient, even hough you may apparently disagree(?)...you think McCain WOULD have been BETTER?
Perhaps he would've been more cautious and a McCain win would have delivered a divided government, which is generally best for the people, BUT from a purely Conservative, or even Libertarian position, a McCain win would've emboldened the GOP's Left, it's Rockefeller-wing and solidified their political control over that Party.
THAT would've been a disaster for Conservatism.
In that vain, Beck is right about a McCain win having been worse for Conservtism....and worse for America.
"Now tell me Beck is not an opportunist like Van Jones. He will say whatever will gain him popularity." (MGV)
I'm going to respond to this one too.
In addition to saying what he did about McCain, he criticized Bush quite a bit during his administration, and he got a lot of flack from Republicans that thought we should just "stick together."
It takes a little perspective to analyze what Beck's doing. He's criticizing a Democrat administration, but he criticized a Republican one as well.
""Now tell me Beck is not an opportunist like Van Jones. He will say whatever will gain him popularity." (MGV)
To piggyback further, Beck was also making the point albeit poorly that Obama is on such a fast-track towards Marxism and trashing the constitution that he is galvanizing conservatives producing a clarion call to action....this would not have happened if McCain were President.
PS~MGV.....regarding my hubby & I...Love covers a multitude of sins (egos, ideology etc.)so it works. That's all I'm saying about that.
@ JMK, CBW, Judy Bright
My response was pure sarcasm. Beck is an opportunist and will say anything to get attention. Although I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, he has been consistent.
One minute President Obama is "too white" to be called black, and the next he hates white people and is a racist. One minute we have the worst health care system in the world and it needs reforming, to we have the best health care ever.
Thank you all for proving my point, that he puts party over country. When anyone states that they rather see an "insane socialist" his words not mine, elected over McCain because they want to galvanize the base is giving an opportunistic argument. I do question the motives of party over country.
It's like Rush saying he wants liberalism to fail. Guess what in order for liberalism to fail, the country would have to fail to. If the only way you can get people to become Conservatives is to wish failure on a nation, then maybe Conservatives need to re-tool their platform. Or start legislating instead of throwing flags on the play.
Ideologically I could not stand Bush, but I did not want him to fail because that meant the country would, too. I wanted him out of office, but not by failing in Iraq. Why because that would mean people's lives were lost in vain. I prayed that his decision was the right one, and that he wasn't creating another Vietnam.
F.Y.I - Half the country doesn't fall, the whole unit does.
Thank you, you have proven my point. He is basically saying, I want this country to fail in my ideological opinion, so that my ideological party can "galvanize". He would not vote for Hillary or President Obama in any shape or form, and it all was just bs to make a larger political point. He's not an independent as he claims, he's a Conservative, plain and simple. He rather elect someone he feels is evil, just so his party can have a revival.
Opportunist!!!
MrsG, ha ha.
Or were you being serious? Nah.
Cause, MrsGrapevine, if you tell me you were serious I'll think you believe you can say just any old thing and that makes it true.
I can't believe you would do that :O
@ Smile:
Serious about what, about an e-hug, or my right eye tear. I probably always sound sarcastic, but it was genuine. Thanks! :)
It may change after the next round!
As far as Glenn Beck, you know how I really feel. I think he's an opportunist. He's taking it all to the bank!
"When anyone states that they rather see an "insane socialist" his words not mine, elected over McCain because they want to galvanize the base is giving an opportunistic argument. I do question the motives of party over country." (MGV)
<
<
No, that's putting IDEOLOGY over everything else.
Both Right and Left do that all the time....and rightly so, no pun intended.
The Left recklessly politicized the global war against jihadist Islam and our National Security policies. There were no and ARE NO "anti-war" activists, there were only anti-Bush activists.
ALL those so-called "anti-war" protests were astroturfed by the likes of Dave Axelrod.
If there WERE an actual "anti-war" contingent, they'd have loudly protested an equally "UN opposed and unilateral invasion of a soverign nation (Serbia) AND they'd be actively protesting the CONTINUATION of the NSA Surveillance Program, the ratcheting UP of the rendition program and the escalation of Afghanistan, while there has been no draw-back at all in Iraq over the last ten months!
So, there's no denying that the so-called "anti-war" movement was nothing more than the far-Left putting ideology over our national security.
As I noted, Barack Obama has actually ratcheted UP the Keynesianism (Big Government spending) begun under G W Bush. Bush spent MORE on reckless and wasteful social spending than the previous social spending champ (LBJ) even adjusted for inflation!
The current administration is spending even MORE and following EXACTLY what G W Bush did wrong - non-stimulating stimulus programs and more fiscally irresponsbile bailouts.
The last time a Democratic Keynesian followed up a Republican Keynesian, was when Carter disastrously followed Nixon in the 1970s....the previous adminstration was evry bit as Keynesian as Nixon's and the current one is even MORE Keynesian than Carter's.
There's no evidence that the same bad policies will deliver different results just because the calender is open to a different year.
I DO get a kick out of self-righteous liberals who cluck about others putting THEIR ideology "over country," especially after they did exactly that for eight years.
Funny stuff.
@ JMK:
First I'm not self-righteous liberal, I appreciate the compliment, but that's not me. I know that both sides do it, that's why it sickens me. That's my point!!! That has always been my point.
If you realize that liberals are doing it, then you need to recognize when Conservatives are doing it, too. I already admitted that Van Jones was an opportunist, I'm waiting for someone to step up and call Glenn Beck out, instead of defending him. But Nope! I just keep getting excuse after excuse, just like liberals who support Al Shaprton. Glenn Beck is an opportunist, a darn good one, and he's taking it to the bank. I don't even think he believes half of what he says. If you were half as critical of him as you were of Al Sharpton, then you will see what I'm talking about.
I am a liberal because I'm liberal leaning, not because I buy anything that comes from the left. Unlike most liberals I'm a Christian first. I am part of the Christian Left who voice is drowned out. I believe Jesus ordered us to take care of the least among us. Like I said before that doesn't necessarily mean through government.
And like you I'm against all this government spending, and I'm giving Obama a little rope, only because of the mess he's inherited. When his four years are up, I will decided if he's worthy of re-election. I am going to allow him to lead, and stop watching him under a microscope like he's virus; just waiting for him mess up.
Glenn Beck is a self-righteous opportunist and I'm not even interested in debating it. He is what he is, and he's no better than Sharpton or Jones. That's my point. My point has never been that only Conservatives do it. If you would have really read what I wrote, you would know that!
Mind-blowing, grape. Good luck with that. I don't understand a thing u said and i suppose i never will.
"If there WERE an actual "anti-war" contingent, they'd have loudly protested an equally "UN opposed and unilateral invasion of a soverign nation (Serbia) AND they'd be actively protesting the CONTINUATION of the NSA Surveillance Program, the ratcheting UP of the rendition program and the escalation of Afghanistan, while there has been no draw-back at all in Iraq over the last ten months!"
Typical rightwing double speak.
You're playing semantic games.
The left and progressives opposed Bush's unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation which was not engaged in an internecine civil war like Serbia, posed no threat to us nor engaged in any aggression against us or it's neighbors for over 10 years.
Then there was the lie about WMD's and a 9/11 connection.
So 7 years into the Iraq occupation we have not come any closer to facilitating stability.
We overthrew a stable if brutal central government and unleashed a civil war.
Obama cannot drastically drawdown on troops lest the nation devolve into chaos and anarchy between traditional warring factions.
And that means no access to the 2nd largest reservoir of oil in the world which was partially the reason Bush invaded in the first place.
And few thousand American deaths later the righties are still trying to play games and assign blame.
Whose placing ideology over country?
Why do you continue Uptown Steve? you have more determination than me.
Ever consider ObamaBush came from the same shit-hole as ClintonCarter? All the mf are interested in is eliminating the freedom document. Remember that one? Once it is out of the way, then we become United Nations subjects. And pretty much all of us terrorising righties and wacko liberals will standing around holding a wish sandwiche.
Swap the faces of Obushma and Bushama - same agenda, comrad. Same bread and butter - different day.
Get used to it. It will be similar in the internment camps. I hope I'm near you guys, cbw. Any body play instruments? I like singing, lots.
"Bush spent more on reckless and irresponsible social spending (so-called "anti-poverty" measures than even LBJ"
NAME ONE.
"The left and progressives opposed Bush's unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation which was not engaged in an internecine civil war like Serbia, posed no threat to us nor engaged in any aggression against us or it's neighbors for over 10 years." (UTS)
<
<
Wrong on all counts.
The Christians Serbs we attacked in the Balkans were the initial victims of Muslim violence.
When Muslims sought to vote for an independent Kosovo, within the borders of Serbia, and were rebuffed, they slaughtered over 3,000 Christian Serbs in response. That's called "genocide." Milocevic and the Serbs responded correctly, in the vain, of "Whatever you do to us, we'll do worse to you," and slaughtered some 10,000 Muslims in response.
That was a mere "internal conflict," that was of no real consequence to any other nation. That was why the Hague was unable to convict Milocevic of "war crimes." It was NOT anything akin to Saddam Hussein's regime slaughtering upwards of 500,000 Iraqis, from Kurds to various "dissident groups," especially the Shiite Muslims of Iraq.
The so-called "anti-war" movement was nothing more than an anti-Bush movement astroturfed by the likes of David Axelrod.
We still have the SAME number of troops in Iraq today as we did BEFORE the current administration took office. The NSA Surveillance program (which the same deluded dopes called "shredding the Constitution") is still ongoing and the Obama administration has gone to court TWICE to maintain its efficacy and SECRECY...Gitmo is still open and will be UNTIL....and UNLESS...and "so long as we can find other countries"....the RENDITION program (sending captured enemy combatants to foreign locales for more "intensive interrogations" has been ratcheted UP, just as Afghanistan has been ratcheted UP.
IF there were an actual "anti-war" movement, such people would be EVEN MORE outraged that an administration that promised an end to all those things has actually reversed course and adopted the bulk of the "Bush Doctrine" on those scores.
Suffice to say, there isn't one...and I'm not complaining about that at all.
"Bush spent more on reckless and irresponsible social spending (so-called "anti-poverty" measures than even LBJ" (JMK)
NAME ONE." (UTS)
<
<
Try ALL of them. Medicaid spending rose 5.8% per year, Medicare spending rose 4.1% per year, WIC and all the myriad other reckless and irresponsible "anti-poverty" programs rose EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
Then there's the $14 BILLION sent to Africa to "combat AIDS." MORE than all previous U.S. Presidents combined...down a rat hole.
The first non-stimulating "stimulus package," with those $600 checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy and cost BILLIONS.
He cooperated with the idiotic Pelosi-Reid Congress and with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, in signing onto their inane scheme of "delivering more loans (mortgages) to more low-income people. Signing onto the Frank & Dodd 0% Down FHA mortgage requirement, working with them to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to BUY UP/guarantee the bulk of the new subprime mortgages that were flooding the credit market. Fannie's and Freddie's share of the U.S. mortgage rose from an already dangerously high 24% in 2001 to just over 51% by 2008, almost ALL of that increase in the form of the new 0% doen, subprime loans!
Bush inherited a national debt of $5.3 TRILLION and handed off one nearly $10 TRILLION. Of that over four and a half TRILLION dollars in added debt, over $3.5 TRILLION of that came durig the last TWO years of his administration - the TWO years he cooperated with the reckless and irresponsible Pelosi-Reid Congress.
He also introduced one of the most EXPENSIVE REGULATORY initiatives in U.S. history - signing onto the Sarbannes-Oxley Bill, which, among other things, created a new and incredibly expensive government bureaucracy, the PCAOB.
And theere's the NCLB Act - a good idea of mandating national standards, but poorly implemented by a strongly resistive collection of teacher's unions AND the prescription drug boondoggle.
Bush spent MORE on reckless and irresponsible social spending, even adjusted for inflation, than even LBJ did. THAT coupled with the idiotic goal of "increasing low income American's access to credit" were Keynesian disasters.
The "ethnic cleansing" began with a Muslim slaughter of Christian Serbs, after the Serbian government rightfully refused to allow Kosovars to vote on a referendum for independence, just as the U.S. would not allow Wyoming, for instance, to do the same.
Again, THAT'S why Milocevic was NOT convicted of "war crimes" by the Hague.
Medicaid is an "anti-poverty program," so is WIC....the budgets of BOTH skyrocketed during the Bush years, without any reason.
The Prescription Drug boondoggle was also an "anti-poverty program" as well and the NCLB Act that wisely sought to mandate a set of national educational standards (which SHOULD'VE cost NOTHING to implement) was also largely an "anti-poverty program."
G W Bush expanded government far more than Centrist Democrat Bill Clinton ever did.
Richard Nixon was the most recent Keynesian Republican to hold office (and he also greatly increased the size and scope of government)...after Nixon, the reckless and irresponsible Jimmy Carter imploded the economy - a staggering 22% Prime Lending rate, along with DOUBLE DIGIT inflation and unemployment, known as "STAGFLAION." Carter presided over the highest Misery Index (unemployment and inflation added together) since the Great Depression (23) and over the highest average annual Misery Index post-WW II (16.8)....now we've had G W Bush as an even more spendthrift "Richard Nixon," followed by yet another liberal Democrat (Barack Obama) who's been an even more spendthrift "Jimmy Carter"......SAME actions = SAME results.
Unemployment's already hovering around 10% and with the deficit QUADRUPLED over the last eight months and a record printing of money to go with that, higher inflation and interest rates are on the way.
"Medicaid is an "anti-poverty program," so is WIC....the budgets of BOTH skyrocketed during the Bush years, without any reason.
The Prescription Drug boondoggle was also an "anti-poverty program" as well and the NCLB Act that wisely sought to mandate a set of national educational standards (which SHOULD'VE cost NOTHING to implement) was also largely an "anti-poverty program."
"
BULL$HIT.
"Anti-poverty" is just code for blacks and once you were challenged on it you seek to label government healthcare insurance "anti-poverty".
As well as trying to rationalize Milosevic's atrocities by demonizing Muslims.
I'm not a Fox TV viewer JMK so you are going to have to come stronger than this.
UTS~You write:"As well as trying to rationalize Milosevic's atrocities by demonizing Muslims.
I'm not a Fox TV viewer JMK so you are going to have to come stronger than this."
Perhaps that's the problem UTS. While I watch Fox news primarily, I also watch other cable news (well not so much) MSNBC but definitely CNN. Do you read anything other than the Washington Post? Just curious, as you progressive types seem reject all information unless it comes from your favored sources. Don't you think you would get a fuller understanding of things if you consider how others see it.
Regarding President Milosevic, your sentiment is so "Washington Post".
JMK you are right. The left suffers from selective compassion syndrome. When their guy is in charge, it's OK to send US troops traipsing around the world helpingpeople, just as long as we don't help them gain their freedom from a tyrannical dictator. These progressives are just unwilling to hear anything which imperils their ideology -- like facts. When an attack on the U.S is answered with force to obtain victory, and with a successful follow—on effort to reconstruct countries from the ground up, well, that's just all about big oil and Halliburton.
UTS,stop it just stop it. You are too damn smart for this. Come on over to Right side.
"Anti-poverty" is just code for blacks and once you were challenged on it you seek to label government healthcare insurance "anti-poverty". (UTS)
<
<
Just because "anti-poverty" and "the poor" are "codes were black" to you, an ignorant, vile racial bigot, doesn't make it so.
Fact is, 72% of THE POOR in America are white. They have been the fastest growing segment of the poor in America for decades. As American-born blacks have been declining in numbers due to that 12% of the population having 34% of the abortions, poor whites in places like Appalachia and elsewhere are having the same double-digit families they've always had.
The inner city poor are "spoiled" by comparison, with an excess of social services and a wide web of delivery systems, the rural poor are generally much harder people because they tend to live far rougher lives.
Those are the poor that will be crimping everyone's style shortly down the road. Those are the ones YOU'LL be coughing up a huge chunk of your paycheck for whizz kid, as like all the poor, they tend to have an excess of "needs," coupled with a pausity of marketable skills.
Ultimately, we're going to have to deliver the same level of aid to those folks we have to the urban poor....and that's going to cost a bundle.
You are almost certainly one of the most consistently ignorant posters I've ever come across.
While I can't blame you for not knowing much about Serbia, the Balkan conflict, or the Muslim ethnic cleansing of the early 1990s...I can and DO blame you for pontificating foolishly on things you obviously know nothing about.
I get the impression you don't even care enough to believe in the things you spew....which is sadder still.
If you DID, you'd take the time to become better informed.
As a for instance, I DIDN'T "label government healthcare anti-poverty" (if you'd read that post correctly, you'd have known that), I correctly stated that the prescription drug boondoggle and the NCLB Act spending were indeed "anti-poverty programs," and they were, as was the 0% DOWN FHA mortgage program, the pushing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to BUY/GUARANTEE all those subprime loans between 2001 and 2008.
ALL of those things along with the wild increases in Medicaid and WIC fall under the purview of "anti-poverty" programs. Despite the fact that that seems to offend your vile racial bigotry is actually immaterial.
"The left suffers from selective compassion syndrome. When their guy is in charge, it's OK to send US troops traipsing around the world helpingpeople, just as long as we don't help them gain their freedom from a tyrannical dictator." (CBW)
<
<
Yes, that is often the case Robin, but in UTS' case I don't think that's the dynamic in play.
UTS is a seething, hate-filled racial bigot who views EVERY issue through the prism of black vs white.
Anyone in this country who thinks that "poverty is a code word for black," is either woefully and ponderously ignorant, or perhaps that stupid....OR they are so drenched in race-hatred that they sweat bigoted bile.
While many people have overcome the misdirected ideologies of their youth, very few people seem to overcome that kind of deep-seated racial/ethnic animus and bigotry.
"I already admitted that Van Jones was an opportunist, I'm waiting for someone to step up and call Glenn Beck out, instead of defending him." (MGV)
<
<
The fact that you'd compare Glenn beck a mainstream Center-Right commentator to a vile, hate-filled racial bigot like Van Jones, says a lot.
As I noted, Glenn Beck's comment on what would've been a certain McCain disaster is absolutely CORRECT.
Moreover, far from being an "opportunistic" comment, it was actually a very courageous one and one that wasn't at all popular with the viewship of his audience at Fox News, where Independents outnumber both Republicans and Democrats and that sentiment is not at all popular.
"Opportunistic" statements tend to garner favor from those you're reaching, not alienate them....Glenn Beck's "McCain would've been worse" didn't gain him favor with the growing number of Americans dissatisfied with the current administration. President Obama's approval ratings have plummeted from over 70% in February to just 50% with a 49% disapproval rating today.
Van Jones espoused a disgusting anti-American 9-11 Truther viewpoint that's been utterly discredited by actual scientists. See: Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Van Jones made numerous disgustingly racially oted statements evincing not only a NOI-styled race-hatred but a degree of self hatred given his being Married to a white woman.
Kooky as Beck's delivery may be, there's absolutely no comparison between those two.
"Unlike most liberals I'm a Christian first. I am part of the Christian Left who...believe Jesus ordered us to take care of the least among us." (MGV)
<
<
I'm not a Christian myself.
I agree with Tolstoy that Jesus was primarily an anti-colonial/anti-Roman activist. He admonished people who coveted (even counted) what others had and said, "Before you'd take the splinter out of your neighbor's eye (correct him), first take the plank out from your own (work on YOURSELF)."
While I can appreciate Jesus' philosophy of LOVE and embrace those who despise you, and treat others BETTER than they treat you, I understand that such a philosophy runs completely counter to our human natures. That's why the vast majortiy of self-professed "Christians" actually embrace a view that is completely antithetical to Christ's. Ask almost any "Christian" how they deal with others and you'll get the same answer you'd get from almost any Jew, Muslim or pagan..."I treat other people the way they treat me."
You can call a pig a bird but that won't make him fly.
I was raised Roman Catholic, but had a sort of spiritual awakening when I was eight years old, when I saw two vagrant drifters hung, from the beams of a bunkhouse, for trespassing on an uncle's ranch out along the Wyoming-Montana border.
One of those two made the sign of the cross just before he was hung...I'd been an altar boy up through then and thought that the God I was taught about would...do something.......but nothing...nothing at all happened.
That helped me realize that "Jesus doesn't save," least not in any real or temporal way and that we're really all in this world alone.
I gradually lost any "faith" my childhood self had held. By eleven, my Dad let me stop going to Church. By HS I'd found Nietszche and his book "The Anti-Christ" resonated with me viscerally....Nietzsche called charity, the human impulse that blunts natural selection among humans is "the curse of Christ."
When Nietzsche said "God is dead," he meant the influence of religion, was dead, murdered by science and technology.
Over the intervening years, I've become re-spiritualized, as I do accept that this body is just a temporary vehicle for an immortal soul, and that the soul is as a ray of sunlight from the Sun/God/life-force, but I have never re-embraced any religion.
I don't dislike religious people at all, I just don't share all that many of their values, that's all.
The problem with religion, at least for me, is that so many people re-interpret it, or misinterpret it within the scope of their own personal pathologies.
"When their guy is in charge, it's OK to send US troops traipsing around the world helpingpeople, just as long as we don't help them gain their freedom from a tyrannical dictator."
More bull$hit..
The incursion into Serbia was a multi-national effort and it was temporary.
Iraq was/is a US/British invasion and occupation which has been universally condemned as a failure.
CBW, YOU stop it.
At one time I felt that you were just confused but now I see that you are just another race hustling black conservative trying to draw attention to yourself by being over the top.
JMK
Are you upset?
ROTFLMBAO!!!!
UTS~"At one time I felt that you were just confused but now I see that you are just another race hustling black conservative trying to draw attention to yourself by being over the top."
lol...You figured me out UTS. I'm really a black nationalist revolutionary. I write this blog because I've adopted the Van Jones philosophy of working from within...this whole conservative thing... a game, I'm just waiting for Fox to call so I can go on air and really tell whitey what I thing of his boot on my neck. How you guess UTS?
oops...meant to say "think of his boot on my neck"
JMK....Are you upset? (UTS)
<
<
About what?
That you couldn't defend your inane view on the Balkans???
Nope.
I don't blame you for not knowing things. I don't get upset when you're wrong, in fact, I've come to expect it.
More importantly than your Balkan miscue, was your inability to answer my assertion that, "Just because "anti-poverty" and "the poor" are "codes were black" to you, an ignorant, vile racial bigot, doesn't make it so.
Indeed, the fact of the matter is, that 72% of THE POOR in America are white. They have been the fastest growing segment of the poor in America for decades (See Charles Murray's GREAT article The Coming White Underclass, about the exploding population growth in poor, rural predominatly white regions of this country).
As American-born blacks have been declining in numbers due to that 12% of the population having 34% of the abortions, poor whites in places like Appalachia and elsewhere are having the same double-digit families they've always had.
The inner city poor are "spoiled" by comparison, with an excess of social services and a wide web of delivery systems. For that and a host of other reasons, the rural poor are generally much harder people because they tend to live far rougher lives.
Those are the poor that will be crimping everyone's style shortly down the road. Those are the ones YOU'LL be coughing up a huge chunk of your paycheck for, as like all the poor, they tend to have an excess of "needs," coupled with a paucity of marketable skills.
Ultimately, we're going to have to deliver the same level of aid to those folks we have to the urban poor....and that's going to cost a bundle.
President Obama, understands and gleefully accepts that.
An analysis of the new Democratic tax plan proves that in that it would have the top 30% of income earners paying over 99% of all income taxes.
While SOME of the disparities in income in America are due to the FACT that some skills are just far more valuable than others (no one would deny that a heart surgeon IS worth more than 38 teachers, or 37 cops, or 34 long-haul truckers, or 36 firefighters....would they), MOST of the income disparities in this country are due to the widely disparate costs of living in various locations around the country.
It simply costs a LOT more to live in NYC, the D.C. metro area, the Boston hub, L.A., San Fran, Chicago, etc. and jobs in those places pay MUCH higher salaries than they do in places like southern and western Virginia, northern Nevada, Montana, the Dakotas, etc.
The Democrat's tax plan will be a boom to those living and working in places like Tennessee, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, rural Georgia, etc., while it will slam those working in places like D.C., Baltimore, NYC, Boston, San Fran, LA and Chicago.
There IS a delicious irony in that so many liberals live in those urban areas that are about to get swatted, while those gaining are mostly Conservative rural voters, who'll gladly take the extra money, but will never support the agenda of a group they call "the godless liberals."
It really is sought of funny, when you think about it...
@ Ar:
I think you don't understand me because you want to paint me as a stereotypical "liberal" but I'm not stereotypical in any way, and quite frankly I've never been, unless you ask my husband who thinks all women are crazy, and then I fit the stereotype.
I think you understand me more than you would like to, or at least you're starting to. You just don't agree with my line of logic. A lot of the times we start off on the same path and plane, but we come to very different conclusions.
I have people tell me that I'm not really a liberal. That is debatable, but I'm not interested in fitting into a box. I'm certainly more left than most people on this blog, that I do know.
After reading, "The Vatican-Led Illuminati Matrix and U.S. Constitution" I understand you a lot more. You're not a Bush or Obama fan, and you can look past political party to see the evil that really exists, and see the ways government propagate ideology to disguise their true intention. That I do get.
No,no,no, grapie. I don't understand a thing you say. you may start out ok-ish but i am soon baffled with your logic. I'll have to study up on logic.
Call yourself whatever you like. Who knows what a democrat or liberal is or that other party, republic-something.
I think people should be able to open a business and go to work. And i'm not real keen on working half the week for the goobermint. i think that's called slavery.
Did you read Liberty and Tyranny, yet? It might help you explain your logic. ten-time best seller!
Post a Comment