Tag Archives: GOP

For sale, Republican Congressman… as a special gift with your purchase, you get VIP treatment at congressional roundtables and discussions

There are 3 stories  that give you an insightful look at what is in store for the country if the GOP takes over the majority in the House and/or the Senate in November.

First, Rep John Boehner is for sale. Yes, I know this is not news. I know that after activists judges on the Supreme Court ruled companies are really human and as human deserve to buy their own candidates, Rep Boehner ran up to Wall Street to sell himself to the highest bidder. I know that last week Boehner ran to a business lobbyist meeting and sold himself to them also. If there is any question as to whether he did sell himself you only have to look at his immediate actions afterward to verify the sale. Days after his Wall Street client paid for his services, he came out against any Wall Street reform. After cleaning up and immediately following his rendezvous with the business lobby he announced that we should just end all new regulation for awhile because business just can’t make it if they have to follow any new regulation. If the federal government would just let them do what they want,dump where they want, feed us whatever they want,make cars as safe as they want,hire the ages they want and pay them what they want… business could turn this country around. You only have to look at their record with regulation to get a good laugh out of that plan. Seriously, they don’t follow safety regulation when they can be fined , but will follow them if we’d just give them a break for a little while?

The point is, we know Bohener is for sale, but today we know just what he is selling.

According to materials distributed by Boehner’s camp and obtained by POLITICO, lobbyists and other major donors across the country who give the maximum or help raise $100,000 will get meetings with Boehner, calls from senior aides with updates on the campaign and “VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions and interactive panel discussions.”

That’s right, if you’re a lobbyists and you want a seat at policy roundtable discussions, if you want VIP treatment from the Republican party members up to and including the (prospective)Speaker of the House, if you want to be a part of the briefings… all you have to do is buy it.

Huh, I guess for the right price, everything is for sale. I just didn’t think the Republicans would be so brazen with their prostitution and selling of not just their bodies, but the rest of ours.

Of course there are many people who would say that nothing bad can come of this, there wouldn’t be any abuse and lobbyists wouldn’t get anything detrimental to the country out of these ‘arrangements’. These people say, just trust in the Republicans, they have learned their lessons. Well, to them I give the second out of three stories.

Since 2008, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby has steered more than $250 million in earmarks to beneficiaries whose lobbyists used to work in his Senate office — including millions for Alabama universities represented by a former top staffer.

In a mix of revolving-door and campaign finance politics, the same organizations that have enjoyed Shelby’s earmarks have seen their lobbyists and employees contribute nearly $1 million to Shelby’s campaign and political action committee since 1999, according to federal records.

That’s right, when lobbyist paid for this Republican senator they got $250 million in return.

It’s not that these are all bad earmarks…

The University of Alabama System, which has received $175 million in Shelby earmarks since 2008, the first year lawmakers had to publicly declare their sponsorship of pet projects. The earmarks have included $30 million for a state-of-the-art science center, $10.5 million for Gulf of Mexico weather research and $10.2 million for facilities and equipment at the Tuscaloosa campus.

I’m sure these and many others are very worthy for Shelby’s state. The problem is, with Boehner going from state to state collecting money from lobbyist so he can show them a good “VIP” time, the potential for him to pull a “Shelby” is extremely probable. When you add in Boehners actions after his other meetings with lobbyists, this kind of Shelby type abuse is pretty much a certainty.

I have always said “Pork is in the eye of the beholder” and it’s true. I live on the Space Coast, so any ‘pork’ that keeps NASA’s doors open is good for my area so I’m ok with making a farmer in Iowa pay $0.12 additional tax to make that happen. That farmer of course does not like that additional money coming from his pockets at all, and when he decries this pork as bad… he has many on his side screaming the same thing. Well, they only scream about the horrors of pork spending when it doesn’t benefit them, if it was a $0.12 tax increase on Floridians going towards research on how to grow corn in 30 days or less for 1/2 the cost, these farmers would be happy as pigs in mud for that money. So you see, “Pork” is in the eye of the beholder. So what’s the problem with Boehner selling himself and Shelby kicking back to the people who bought him?

RNC fails to report $7M in debt to FEC

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the part I am interested in is this


Mr. Pullen’s amended financial reports to the FEC show that the RNC engaged in deficit spending of $2.2 million in April and $3.7 million in May, spending more on raising money and on operating costs than it gathered in donations.

It’s not just that the Republican National Committee is hiding the loss of money, it’s that even though they profess to be ‘fiscal and ‘conservative”, even though they are going to run as being the ones we should trust with our economy, even after 8 years of Bush’s economic catastrophe, these people still deficit spent themselves into a $7 million hole in 2 months and then tried to hide their spending!

One story tells us they are for sale.
One story tells us they will give back in three’s to those who bought them.
One story tell us even in the face of a nationwide economic collapse, they will still spend money from hard working people, even when they don’t have it to spend!

Why are people even thinking about trusting these financially irresponsible, Paris Hilton spending, buffoons again?

When they are bought by the lobbyists they will pay the subject of that lobby back at an exponential rate even if they don’t have the money on hand. There is always some social security to cut, or medicare payment to curb. It’s not that they don’t care about the middle class, but let’s face it, the VIP’s are the one who pay for a privilege and how can an unemployed machinist on Main Street compete with that?

Advertisements

Bat Boy journalism and Fox News..

Like I said in the blog,  ‘When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it’s politics, stupid!” ,  Fox News adds 2+2 and comes up with 7. As if that wasn’t bad enough they get people to believe them instead truth and facts. They even pull the ‘Hey, we’ve researched’ it card to back up whatever claim they are making. Obviously if they’ve researched it and they are this adamant that their information is correct, then they should be believed… right?

Wrong.

O’Reilly lies to Coburn:

‘Nobody’s ever said’ at Fox you’ll go to jail if you don’t buy health insurance. Oh yes they have.



After Senator Coburn told a town hall meeting not to believe what they hear on Fox News, Bill-O decided he was going to take it upon himself to research his station and find out just when it was that anyone on Fox News said that under “ObamaCare” you would go to jail if you didn’t get health insurance.

O’Reilly: Well, tell me, what — because it doesn’t happen here.

And we researched to find out if anybody on Fox News

had ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance.

Nobody’s ever said it.

Well there you go, that solves it. This rumor was nothing more than another attempt of the “Lame stream media” to attack the honest hardworking fact checkers at Fox News, they researched this problem and found it to be an utterly false accusation.

except..


Beck: But if you don’t play by their new rules on health care, oooh, here’s a new little twist. Have you heard this? You’re going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail.

and

… But if you don’t play ball with them now, if you don’t get into their government health care, there will be jail time. And that of course was

Glenn Beck told his audience on Nov. 12, 2009 that they would go to jail. The next day on O’reilly’s own show, Beck was a a guest and repeated the same claim.


BECK: You know, this is the first time in history in our country where, just to be a citizen, just to not go to jail, you have to buy something.

This doesn’t include the Hannity shows and guests he’s had on who echoed same statements.

Sean Hannity tells viewers,

“Penalties for people who don’t get

government-mandated health insurance,

uh, jail time, a possibility?”

November 10, 2009:

If you just happen to be walking by the TV and the sound was off, you still got the news from Fox when they said at the bottom of the screen “Comply or go to jail.”

In a strange twist, a member of the Fox News team admits this was a falsehood spread by Fox News. Neil Cavuto has owned up to the myth Sen. Coburn was talking about.

“I’ve
researched this, and a
number of Fox
personalities had made that comment.”

Cavuto mentioned this fact the day after the O’reilly/Coburn interview, and even then O’reilly again went on his and insisted that  Sen. Coburn “didn’t really have his facts in line,” when it came to saying Fox News perpetuated the jail time myth.

2+2=7

If you are a viewer of Fox News of course you see that this is all just Lame Stream Media attack and spin, how in the hell could you see anything else? To you, Fox is just trying to keep the record straight and they are really having a hard time being the only name in news to give the “fair” and the “balanced”. The problem is, Fox news operates in another reality where they make up the facts and the research to back them up.  This is not the same as MSNBC spending night after night attacking Sarah Palin for using RNC donations for her clothes, her not returning the money for the ‘bridge to no where’ but spending it instead, or  her pimping for the Tea-Party Express which turns out not to be a grass-roots movement but a Republican Political Action Committee movement made up to fool real tea-party members into donating more money. All of that is real, researched truth,  which is the opposite of what you get when you turn to Fox News.

Look, if people want to believe in leprechauns and unicorns they can, there is nothing wrong with that. Thought and fantasy are still free in this world even if saying them out loud isn’t in some places. But for a “News” network to be considered ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ or ‘trusted’ or hell, ‘news’ they have to follow the same rules as the others. If they want to only report on the other sides scandals and misdeeds to make them out to be the party not to be trusted, so be it! If they want to only report on their sides altruistic ideals and actions to make them seem like better party ok. They can’t claim ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ but ok, have at it. But they cannot just make stuff up and repeatedly get away with it.  Not if their goal is News. If their goal is money, your money..as much of it as they can get, then hell Bat Boy journalism for everyone ! But stop labeling the product incorrectly.

This network has pretty much reduced themselves to, “Bat boy journalism” yet they demand to be treated like real journalism and will cry like scorned little girls the minute they aren’t taken as seriously as a Walter Cronkite-like news organization. Unfortunately for those of us who chose not to believe in unicorns and Bat Boy, we are forced to defend that which is slanted, but true because that slanted journalism is the excuse for the fake or made up journalism. The problem then becomes that we inspire more slant instead of more neutral.

If we didn’t have to live through the consequences of Bat Boy journalism and the voting populists I’d say let them have their sensational stories because like any Jerry Springer episode, they can be good for a laugh.  It’s when we would have to suffer through the choices of the ‘believers’ that we get not just Jerry Springer on TV, but Jerry Springer in the White House that it becomes a detriment to all.

I’m not knocking Springer, but I don’t want this country governed by those who believe his show is on the same level of journalism as a slanted, but accurate,  Rachael Maddow.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it's politics, stupid!

There was another interesting conversation on muchedumbre.com the other day. It started when a poster accidentally slipped into the politikal section, a section usually avoided by most because it’s a cesspool of insults,misinformation and retardation (which I say with love in my heart since I am swimming around in that cesspool with the rest of them). Upon realizing his error, he looked around and said..

“Yeah, I don’t understand how to play here yet.”

This was met with the humorous , yet essential, advice of…

You have to throw in the occassional [sic] Fuck Off! and then I think you’ll have it..



Anyone who is part of a community like ours, may  find the words crude, but they know the advice is integral.  It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet, if one is bound by political party doctrine to ‘deny at all cost’, to live the motto of just say Hell No!’ it doesn’t matter if the other figure is is bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks, there’s going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate.

It was this ‘field guide’ that brought about an insightful reply from Chuck, and I put it here because of the debate it produced. It is probably the most childish,ridiculous and asinine  debate ever held by adults, but once again.. when the party of ‘Hell NO!” meets anyone saying “uh, yes”  intelligence, logic, and reason is soon lost as you will soon see.

Quote from: uselesslegs on March 31, 2010, 02:40:42 PM

Maybe I can explain it a little bit with some other happenings around the U.S.  Though they may seem very direct and to the point and not as “left to interpretation”…well…let’s start.

Item One.

Recently Scott Brown, newly elected Senator from Mass, has said and suggested that MSNBC host Rachael Maddow is going to run against him during reelections.  Through sources on his end, he’s said that she’s “secretly” gathering up steam and will file and run.  Maddow has stated on her show she is not running, has no intention of it.

End of story right?  Nopey.

Scott Brown was asked on a radio show, following Maddow’s statement,  what he thought of her statement that she wasn’t going to run.  He replied, without ever saying, “well, I guess that changes things, har har”, and instead replied, “mumble mumble….bring it on.”  Implying that he still believed she was indeed going to run and that he was ready for her.

Next Maddow, with her own money, took out a front page ad (in the area of interests) newspaper calling Scott Brown a liar and that she was definitely, emphatically, not running.  She had/has no desire to run and that this was getting silly and to quit saying or implying she was running and using her name to collect campaign donations from individuals, with a lie.

His reply?  He said her front page newspaper statement looked like it came straight from one of the writers at the DNC and that he thought Maddow would make an interesting candidate.  Thus never admitting that he (Mr. Brown) was in error and making sure to twice “imply” through his choice of words, that Ms. Maddow was and STILL IS a candidate.

Item two.

Nine members of a Michigan Militia group were arrested and charged with plotting to kill a law enforcement officer and then many others with homemade bombs, in hopes of starting an uprising against the Government…oh and to battle with the anti-christ.

You would think across the Blogosphere and forums alike, we’d see the individuals involved being denounced…but not so fast mister fancy pants…they’re being defended.  Not by seemingly other milita groups or like minded individuals…but rather…by individuals who are making sure to note that anything this current Government/Administration does is to be suspect and dubious.

You’d think something like this would be pretty cut and dry.  Wanna kill law enforcement officers, check.  Wanna kill many more people with homemade bombs, check.  Wanna be prepared and kill the anti-christ, check.  What is our governments REAL agenda here, che…what?

What you will find, in your journey here, will be two sides to the same coin, almost constantly at odds.  Oft times from political stances.  Oft times from personal interpretations…or both.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.

Welcome aboard, you poor fucker.


More than just being explanatory of today’s political world and how truth is ignored for rhetoric and whatever can incite the masses against any opposition, one part of that sticks out as so true it’s scary.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.


You would think adults all across the political spectrum could agree on that elementary concept, but they don’t. Because one side of the political spectrum has made it their goal for at least 4 years, to oppose anything coming from the current administration, 2+2 does not equal 4 if this administration or anyone speaking in favor of this administration is the one saying it. The Maddow/Brown debate is a perfect instances in a long, long list of other equally amazing 2+2 does not equal 4 examples. The fact that Ms. Maddow has said on her show, said in interviews, taken out a full page add to alert the world of the simple fact that unequivocally and emphatically she is not running against Scott Brown doesn’t matter to the party of “Hell NO!” because to them, 2+2 is not 4 and it is Scott Brown’s 2+2=3 equation that is the fundamental truth here.

The argument that this ‘2+2=4’ statement caused, ended up twisting logic until it no longer resembled its former self.  Some where along the way ‘fact’ became, and  is now, interchangeable with opinion,rumor and gossip.

Here’s an example

Keith Olbermann is biased and does slant opinions against the Right. But that does not mean he is making the news up and reporting his ‘rumor’ as fact. He may not focus on an issue like when a Democrat is caught having an affair with his mistress but he will spend 1/2 his show telling you about a Republican getting caught having an affair with his chief of staffs wife. Slanted, yes! but it is still based on the fact that the Republican did sleep with his chief of staffs wife. That nugget is truthful and not an opinion to be batted around until it becomes a truth in the eyes of the viewers[insert Obama not of US birth] .  Keith Olbermann, no matter how biased he is, is still telling you the truth when he’s telling you the Republican slept with his COS wife.

2+2=4

This goes unnoticed because those who want to de-legitimize everything even remotely ‘Left’, stick to their guns with the idea that since Olbermann is truthful in his bias , then so is Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck who made the opinionated allegation, without a basis in fact, that this President was an white-hating racist, is telling the truth and is delivering a fact because Olbermann reported more on the Republican than he did the Democrat. What’s worse, Beck has spent so much time repeating this concept that it’s believed by 31% of those polled. They can’t differentiate the difference in a “liberal news show’ talking more about a factual Republican scandal is not on the same untruthful level as another show presenting their opinions as facts until they become believed as the almighty truth. It is a ‘tit for tat’ that they just don’t get. Sure the Liberals and Democrats opposed George Bush, but when you look at why it’s not like they were wrong for opposing him. The US just does not torture or we just don’t preemptively  invade countries.. These are real,honest,valid and acceptable differences to have. Not liking the amount of time President Obama uses a teleprompter is just as valid of a complaint, saying he is therefore  unable to run the country, is not!

And yet, like everything else, that statement is somehow debatable…

So, back to my fundamental question, what is the arguement [sic] to believe 1 biased source but not another?


Fox news,most of the GOP,Sarah Palin and followers,Tea-party members along with the most if not all of the rest of the people trying to de-legitimize the other side of the aisle, have decided that their opinions and allegations are just as reliable as being truthful as actual facts given by an ‘enemy source’ whether that be MSNBC,Jon Stewart,President Obama,any Democrat leader or any left-leaning person out there.
When anyone tries to point this inaccuracy out, either they really can’t understand the concept that opinion is not fact and fact is not fiction if it’s told by liberal, or they just don’t care because their hate knows no bounds. Either way  they revert back to the concept of

You deem you are the ultimate say so on who is saying 1+1 = 2. And, incidentally enough, all the people you like get it right, and all the people you don’t like don’t get it right.

You are trying to process all this inside your own bias.

Your main problem, is you refuse to believe the bias of the broadcasters

Only when you understand that can you even begin to answer my question: How can we believe the truth when it comes from a biased source?


In order for me to understand, I need to believe Glenn Becks opinion that Obama is a white-hating racist.. when I accept this as truth, then I can see that  fact given by a biased reporter and opinion given by Fox News are the same thing.

2+2 =4 is now debatable and depending on where you ‘lean’ is what your answer is. Keith Olbermann, because he is biased and gives more time to Republican scandals, is not factually correct when he tells you the answer is 4 unless you also recognize that Glenn Beck telling you the answer is 3 is also correct because they are both biased. So either both are to be believed or neither are.

I told you this was going to be childish,ridiculous and asinine.

This argument of ‘slant and bias’ not affecting the actual truth is a fair point though.  You can have a conservative explain  a factual event and a liberal  explain  the same event and while the reasoning behind the event may be slanted and bias, that doesn’t change the facts of the event.  2 maybe a sissy-boy who liked to play with dolls growing up to the conservatives or 2 might have been a devoted pet-lover with a deep seeded love for parrots, but when added together 2 +2 is still going to equal 4.

It’s not that I am deeming only those I agree with as being ‘factual’ or that I disbelieve the other broadcasters, say Fox News, because of their bias.  It’s just that I deem those reporting  actual truths as being better than those reporting opinion as truth and that is the slight, but albeit glaring difference here.

Fox News is in the habit of reporting an opinion in a way that by the end of the day you can barely distinguish where opinion stops and fact starts and thus the opinion they started off with becomes as commonly accepted as the factual concept of gravity. For example, remember the ‘Czars’ Fox News went apoplectic on?

Obama’s Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers

Although former U.S. attorney Alan Bersin and the late Russian ruler Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov appear to have nothing in common, thanks to President Obama, they now share a title.

The slant of the headline and first paragraph, makes it seem like the 1st time a head of a department was ever called ‘Czar’ was under President Obama.  Then there is the slant of the story itself

Czardom does not sit well with Sen. Robert Byrd. Though slowed by age, the West Virginia Democrat remains vigorous in his defense of the powers ceded to the Congress by the Constitution. He said he believes czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress.

There is no constitutional requirement that czars undergo those pesky Senate confirmation hearings.

Yes, those ‘pesky’ Senate confirmations.

If you watched Fox News during this “Fox News made up conspiracy” you would have thought Red Dawn was no longer fiction and we had been invaded by Russians, and with good reason! Glenn Beck let us know that President Obama, just a few short months into his 1st year, had 19 Czars and counting, compared to only 4 Czars in all of George Bush’s time. A month later, Greta Van Susteren  let us know that number had climbed to 30, she also raised the number of George Bush’s number of Czars from Beck’s 4 to 12. Who wouldn’t look at that and wonder, after being told how Communist President Obama was, what the hell was going on. The problem is, by most counts George Bush has 36 Czars filled by 46 different people. That’s a grand difference than Beck’s 4 and Greta’s 12. But this bad information was propagated day and night throughout the Fox News  “Fair and Balanced” 24 hour rotations.

If you had listened to Fox and Friends during the run up to the election,  you would have heard how then Senator Obama had tired of being asked whether or not he was Muslim and had said “Enough already. There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but I have been a Christian for two decades now. Enough!”

When in fact, what he said was that he had been a Christian his entire life.

Does anyone remember the ‘indoctrinating our youth’ hoopla made up by Fox News?

Critics Decry Obama’s ‘Indoctrination’ Plan for Students

Which of course led to Fox’s next big question

Will You Keep Your Kids Home the Day Obama Speaks to Schools?”



That was answered with a “yes, yes we will”. But why wouldn’t they, here is a former Muslim, who is turning this country communist, all you have to do is look at his ‘Czar’ list to see that… This “Unprecedented’…  ‘First time ever’ talk to school children is something all parents should fear.

Except it was not ‘unprecedented’. It was not the first time it’s been done, Republican Presidents have done it before.

What about this symbol?

Missle Defense Agencys Web site featires a new red,white and blue logo-described as scarily similar to Obamas campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Missile Defense Agency's Web site features a new red,white and blue logo-described as 'scarily' similar to Obama's campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Fox didn’t let the fact that this symbol was chosen more than 3 years ago interfere with informing you of how Islam was coming for America, while Rachael Maddow spent her time thoroughly de-bunking this myth before it could make it into another Fox-made rumor turned into fact. Unfortunately it made it’s way throughout the blog-sphere anyway, even with the original blogger retracting his accusation .

At 2200 words I realize that I could spend ten times that amount just on examples of this idea  that Fox News takes rumor and allegation and reports them like they are fact until they become unquestionable fact, but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples.

Those of us who do agree  don’t just ‘deem worthy’ those who are speaking for our political side, we deem worthy those who speak the truth instead of made up rumors. That is the difference,  we chose to believe the ones who tell us 2+2=4,  because  they’re telling us fact. We chose them over those telling us 2+2=7 because they don’t like the ‘lame stream media’, liberals and this President saying otherwise.

You don’t have to take my opinion that Fox news has a problem with facts. (R) James Coburn echoed the same sentiment the other day. At a town hall meeting he said..

Sen. Coburn: “I want to tell you, I do a lot or reading every say and I”m disturbed that we get things like what this lady said [a women had questioned him on people being jailed for not having healthcare, which he flatly denied and said it made good TV on Fox to say this, but it just wasn’t true] and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected from what I know to the facts. And that comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country. And so please balance and be careful


He implored people to not to be biased by Fox news.

And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good.

David Frum, he’s a pretty big deal in the land of conservatives, said a few weeks ago,

Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox.”

He was called into the bosses office the next morning and fired, but he says it wasn’t because of what he said.  Frum also posted a blog saying…

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Just the other day, Frum said

“Fox, like [Rush] Limbaugh has been pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry,…”




The agenda for Fox News is not the agenda of the United States, but the viewers have been lead by Fox news and others like them to believe that it is. Fox News is the business to get ratings which equals money, to do this they must stand out above all the other news programs, to do that they have to have a ‘shtick’ and they do. They ask a question or comment a rumor, they revert back to that ‘rumor’  throughout the day until the opposition is asked about said rumor, and their denial of the rumor is aired, and that’s when the rumor turns into fact.

Example

I heard the Seth Nobody liked to play with dolls when he was a little boy” a commentator on the early morning says.

“Is that so?” says the co-host? “Well Bob, drop that doll and tell us what the weather’s like outside”

Later in the day, on another gossip labeled “News”  show on the same network this rumor pops up again,

“I don’t know where I heard this, but you know Seth Nobody played with barbies as a boy”

to which the co-host replies

“Well that would explain why he dresses so good.”

Before 24 hour news, that might go on for a day or so.. but now, it only takes hours until  you will get a “journalist” from the same network asking someone in charge, or even another reporter on his show.. “People are saying Seth played with girls dolls as a child, do you think he should really be in charge of the more manly dolls like GI Joe?”

Now that this ‘rumor’ is gaining interest, because we all like the salacious more than the mundane.. other, more reputable news outlet being to report,

“Today Seth Nobody denied he liked to play with dolls as a child”

and viola.. Seth, who supported single payer insurance, started off his morning as a normal guy with just a different political view; but by the end of the day he became a ratings horse for a money and political power-hungry gossip labeled “News” network. Poor Seth is now a freak who played with dolls. This is planted and replanted throughout the cycle until it spreads through the viewers and becomes  a known fact to them.Normal, upstanding liberal political leader Seth is just a queer-bait who cross-dresses at night when he’s home alone. You don’t want to vote with him do you?

You can see this process in action here..

Ignoring all the other examples in this interview, when the interviewer gets to the question about VP Biden’s comment of how the US will be tested under OBama, look at the bias that brings an utter falsehood into the world of facts as we know them today…

“..are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America’s days as the world’s leading power are over?”

Well, no.. no he isn’t. That’s just your biased making things up and unfortunately getting too many people to believe you.

Of course we go back to the other ‘fear’ rumor which has made into a ‘fact’ that too many in this country believe as God’s honest truth.. Socialism

“What do you say to the people who say Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”

The only people who were saying that was that interviewer, Fox News who wants rating and candidates who want power. It started as a fear technique to scare people out of voting for him, then it was passed around by the gossiping hens on Fox News, then their ‘journalists’ reported that all important  “People are asking….” it became not just news, but fact. William Randolph Hearst did this and it worked to make him rich just like it’s making Murdoch,Beck,Palin, Hannity and many others filthy stinking rich. Don’t believe me? Do you know what Rush Limbaugh gets for telling you these things?$400 million dollars!

Nah, he has no motive to make his show more interesting and keep his numbers up.

How about if they tell you themselves it’s all about the money, and controversy means cash.. would that change anyone’s perspective that they aren’t hearing truths, but what will make the person speaking more money?

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.

They are an ‘entertainment company’, and yet they’ve been able to convince most of the viewing population that they are the most trusted name in news. How is that even possible? Their goal is new entertainment and ratings.

As I said a few hundred words ago, I could go on and on, I could provide 1000’s of examples.. but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples, but in my quest.. I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this is site ‘Jotman’  has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win. One video is actually from Fox news the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course,  and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian  Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.

The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these  are  people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!

Until you watch the video from the street.

The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting.

For the land of  the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!!

Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!

The horror!

Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was  visual proof and with just the right question put to it, maybe another mention of it later, until finally reporting on as a fact in the later broadcasts, President Obama becomes an elected Communist .There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it  with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love for their country coming from that crowd, instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear, the fear that this  new president also hated white people.

We’ll never know what the flag meant one way or the other, we have video of the overwhelming happiness and pride in the country though, so to me it reinforces the rules of any political debate and that is  …It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet no matter if the figures are bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks there is going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate and to me, this was just a big Fuck you along with a cheerful  goodbye to the despotic  way the country was run for 8 very long years!

Of course this all just my opinion, not a fact and it’s because I know the difference that I deem others who also know the difference to be more worthy of my trust that those who don’t.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does the GOP think BI-partisanship means BI-sexual?

So.. I guess the Obama health plan is bipartisan and does include GOP ideas..


“It’s clear that the American people want health insurance reform.  They aren’t interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas.  They’re interested in the best ideas to reduce costs, guarantee choices and ensure the highest quality care.

They’re interested in ideas that will put them back in control of their own health care.

Throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republican concepts and proposals have been included in legislation.  In fact, hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted during the committee mark-up process.  As a result, both the Senate and the House passed key Republican proposals that are incorporated into the President’s Proposal.”

A lot of GOP ideas… and that’s just Obama’s plan.. hell the Senate plan had 160 GOP amendments..


“Of the 788 amendments filed,67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.”

of course they still voted no..

Why is the only way to bipartisan cooperation is if the Democrats fully embrace the GOP plan?  Shouldn’t the losing party be happy to get a seat at the table.. a seat that gives them almost half of everything they want? Is a bill with 49% (R) input and 51%(D) input not bipartisan enough when the country elected the (D) to decide the majority?

I simply don’t get how the GOP can get away with lying that there’s been no effort to include them. But,even more than that, I can’t understand this demand that  they should have their way in total  if the country is to see any bipartisanship come out of congress.  Is it the prefix ‘Bi’ that throws them? Do they think if they do anything ‘Bi” then they are supporting the homo’s? (disclosure, I love the ‘mo’s.. and this one will back me up on that).

What?

Can you come up with a better reason why the GOP is so anti ‘BI-partisanship” even going so far as to deny it exists when  the bipartisan components are so flamboyantly displayed?

🙂

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

"ClimateGate?" Not so fast…

“Not so fast, let’s see what we’ve got here..,”

I think that’s been the request of everyone over the last few weeks when it comes to ‘climategate’. Well, everyone except every conservative on the planet. To them this was Christmas morning and they were foolish children who could not wait another second to open their presents. Conservatives like Sen Inhofe who thinks that global warming is grand hoax, rejoiced a these emails because now global warming is over and done, that they won and we lost and those who believed it can get a ‘real life’.Yes, the world got together and conspired to perpetuate this hoax upon the entire world so Al Gore could get an Oscar and to make George Bush look bad.

Ok, that’s silly. I really don’t know why the world would want to create this ‘hoax’  that we as human race were hurting the planet, much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.

When the news of the emails broke, there was an outcry from the conservative mainstream media that liberal news wasn’t covering the story. It took Jon Stewart about 30 seconds to disprove this theory, but if there’s one thing we know about today’s conservatives it’s that they don’t want to be held to a standard of truth themselves, they just want to hold everyone else to an impeachable standard. Besides, they just knew global warming was bunk. How did they know you wonder?  Well Sean Hannity tells us that it’s not real because it snowed in Huston.

Wow, you mean global warming is a hoax because it got cold in winter time? Well, I’m convinced…or I would be if I was a conservative. But I’m not and it’s not because I have some kind of agenda. In my opinion global warming is a bummer. Not only because of the effects on the planet but also because of the effects on my lifestyle. I enjoy all my electrical amenities, my small SUV, my virgin toilet paper and my beef.  So global warming is an inconvenience to my personal lifestyle and I would love to bury my head in the sand and forget about it. But living on the east coast of Florida and seeing the increased numbers,frequency and sheer size of some of the last few hurricane  not to mention the heat? Holy shit, this past June was the hottest we’ve have… ever, and  it’s 10 days before Christmas and we’re still having almost 90 degree temperatures.  So no, I can’t afford to ignore something of this nature because like it or not, this has been the hottest decade recorded.

Back to the emails. It wasn’t a ‘liberal’ media conspiracy to hide the news of the stolen emails, it was an effort to say “Hold on a second, lets see what we have here before we get all weepy with joy at catching someone red-handed”, you would think atleast Sarah Palin would have been on the side of those showing restraint. Since she’s condemned the media for making things up ,you’d think she’d want them to get it right.. But this kind of story is like crack to a crackhead, so of course the conservative mainstream media was jonesing to exploit,misrepresent, and bastardize it.

Thankfully we have real journalist who did wait, who did investigate and who did not jump on the tea-bagging bandwagon..

Review: E-mails show pettiness,

not fraud

Climate experts, AP reporters

go through 1,000 exchanges

LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.



Yes Virginia, 5 reporters and seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy have weighed in and it’s not global warming that’s bunk, it’s the believers and pushers of ‘Climate-gate’ who have been found wanting. But even knowing this, will the  vast conservative media network still shill for the oil companies and play to their ‘drill baby drill’ base?  You Betcha!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]