If you love Michael Moore like I do then take some time and watch this clip of him speaking at the Madison protest.
"Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that
you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life
your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot.
The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your
hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from
the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the
uber-rich." -- Michael Moore
How they did it, and how Wisconsin taught us to fight back, at:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-is-not-broke
Fuck the Rethuglican Party
15 hours ago
125 comments:
This is exactly why I, and those like me, cannot and will not come over to YOUR side.
This is just more BS from Micheal Moore, the uber wealthy buffoon of the extreme left.
There is no discussion with the like of Moore or those who idolize his asininity. He may have some valid points from time to time, but the reality is he is playing to a political agenda, a far left political agenda. Just like Soros, one of the other morons of the uber left.
Folks, America is, always has been, and hopefully always will be rather centrist with respect to it's ideological leanings.
The far left, and the far right are just having fun watching it all. And, by the way, having a ball screwing the middle.
You can take Moore, Soros, Palin, Huckabee et all, put them on a boat to "nowhere", and let them have a blast. Doing whatever it is they might do.
.... BIFF ....
sorry RN, but when the left finally gets some backbone and stands up for themselves after being screwed by the right, I'm ALL FOR IT!
RN,
You may not like Moore, but I don't see you trying to prove him wrong. You are just blasting him, not his ideas.
Dear Irrational.... Wisconsin is not broke...
http://mediatrackers.org/2011/03/is-wisconsin-broke/
... just before Walker declare us 'Broke... he passed a bill to give $137 Billion in un-needed take break.... refused over $854 million in Federal aid.... b reaking the unions... will cost another $46 million in lost federal transportation revenues.... roling back state mandated recycling is estimated to cost another $35 million...
of course we should not roll back a temporary tax break for those making over $250K... but those lousy teachers make too much...
and I really think this is a centrist opinion
Sue you said....
"sorry RN, but when the left finally gets some backbone and stands up for themselves after being screwed by the right, I'm ALL FOR IT!"
Wake me when you all figure out that it is BOTH sides in the modern political world that are screwing you. Both sides, republican and democrat. Money is money. Power is power. Regardless of which political side it is found on.
Reason is reason. Emotion is emotion. Both sides play to the side of emotion. Why, it gets them votes.
Ron Paul on the right should in many ways be the hero of the left. He isn't. Why? I don't know. Other than perhaps he scares the hell out of the power structure of both parties. Thus his own party marginalizes him and your arty ignores him.
Have fun boys and girls. It's a long way from here to there. Wherever that is. Especially when ya ain't got a good and honest compass.
.... BIFF ....
there is a left that is farther left than some, you could call them progressives. But for me I would not call them extremists like I would call the far right.
I was reading about the cuts Walker is threatening and one was the recycling, the guy is a loser, plain to see. He'll be recalled and if not he will def be a one termer. I hope Wisconsin learned a huge lesson from all this
Sue - I enjoy your perspective, even when I find it , in my humble opinion, wrong.
However if you actually fail to see that the hard left is just as dangerous as the hard right to our liberties we may all be in great danger of losing it all.
Funny thing, only rational conservatives and the rational liberals {as in classical liberals} seem to be able to cut through the BS.
But what does this independent conservative, moderate Libertarian, and Classical Liberal know?
I did not have the pain of being subjected to the ivy league elitist thought of the Harvard, Princeton, and Berkly icons of intellectualism.
I was forced to think for myself.
@ Sue....
"Fuck the Rethuglican Party"
Just a question.
Is the above part of the problem?
Just wondering out loud.
I'm not as conservative as RN, Sue, but on Michael Moore, I agree with him completely. The guy is a flat-out frigging fraud/hypocrite. 1) The guy is always talking about the importance of unions, but then he continues to use nonunion labor (he refuses to use International Alliance of Theatrical Stage employees). 2) He always talks about the importance affirmative action, but then rarely hires African Americans himself. 3) He always rails against capitalism, but his own portfolio includes Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Sunoco, General Electric, Tenet Healthcare, and, drum-roll please, HALLIBURTON!!!! 4) He always talks about the importance of the rich paying their "fair share", but then hires expensive accountants to exploit every loophole and exemption to reduce his own burden to Uncle Sam. This guy, Sue, shouldn't be a hero to anyone - left, right, or center.
No RN, I despise the rethuglicans and make no apologies about it.
I don't know if there are any moderate righties anymore. If there are they are vilified by the extremists in their party. I guess that's too bad. I think we all agree there can't be a one party rule in this country. Is that what the religious right wants? YES..
Will, are these facts or fabrications from the Moore haters?
Excellent points, Will. Moore talks a good game, but he doesn't walk the walk.
There are many liberals I admire even while disagreeing with them, and the number one reason I do is sincerity. High on my list are
Senator Bernie Sanders, Bono, Martin Sheen... Even Hillary Clinton for her brains and work ethic.
I can't say the same for Moore. He is a propagandist of the first order. He should be given the Leni Reifenstahl Award.
Could someone please explain how this big transfer happened?
A few of my reasons for despising the GOP....
Top 10 Worst Things about the Republicans' Immoral Budget
The Republican budget would:
1. Destroy 700,000 jobs, according to an independent economic analysis.
2. Zero out federal funding for National Public Radio and public television.
3. Cut $1.3 billion from community health centers--which will deprive more than three million low-income people of health care over the next few months.
4. Cut nearly a billion dollars in food and health care assistance to pregnant women, new moms, and children.
5. Kick more than 200,000 children out of pre-school by cutting funds for Head Start.
6. Force states to fire 65,000 teachers and aides, dramatically increasing class sizes, thanks to education cuts.
7. Cut some or all financial aid for 9.4 million low- and middle-income college students.
8. Slash $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health, a cut that experts say would "send shockwaves" through cancer research, likely result in cuts to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research, and cause job losses.
9. End the only federal family planning program, including cutting all federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood to support cancer screenings and other women's health care.
10. Send 10,000 low-income veterans into homelessness by cutting in half the number of veterans who get housing vouchers this year.
America is NOT broke, so why cuts like these??
While the Palins and Huckabees shill for the economic elite and pander to the racist and ignorant, Michael Moore makes movies documenting the class warfare waged against the poor and middle class by the thriving elite.
Les is right; we are being screwed by both corporatist parties. America is trapped in a system governed by a moderate/right Democratic Party and a radical Right Republican Party, both working primarily for the interests of the economic elites.
Now the politicians and corporate media tell us it’s time for everyone to "sacrifice" for the Great Swindle of the Wall Street shell game. Time has come to cut public services and safety nets so we can pay for the debt that Bush’s wars and tax cuts for the rich brought down upon us.
By "everyone" we mean, of course, the unions, middle class and poor. We know what happens when we ask the elites to pay the rates they did before Bush. That is "socialism" and will destroy America.
Above all we must not restore the meager 3 percent of millionaires’ and billionaires’ tax rate. No. That would “punish” and “oppress” them. Remember those tax cuts provided for all the jobs, wealth, and prosperity that "trickled down" during the Bush years, right?
No wonder the future looks bleak. We are more intent on preserving and expanding the wealth of the economic royalists than working for the good of our nation. The entire Republican Party, along with enough Democrats, is dedicated to the cause that has decimated the middle class and condemns more to poverty.
Michael Moore would be happy to pay that 3 percent. He is a patriot. Too bad the elites love money more than America. They won't be satisfied until we become a neo-feudal society where they are the lords and we are the serfs.
Again,
RN takes the e4asy way out and blames both sides. Facts are, that it's the Republicans who have led us to a 14 trillion dollar debt.
Corporations ARE cash heavy. Wall Street (stock market) is doing fine. Making plenty of money for its investors.
So MM is right. There is plenty of money, it's just all in the hands of the rich corporations.
Ron Paul is a Republican, and has voted with Republicans 99% of the time. When we get votes that show not one Republican decenting, why should Democrats make Paul a friend? He doesn't hold with any liberal ideals.
RN has obviously voted Republican and has his responsibility for supporting these dangerous fiscal policies that have built the obscene, irresponsible, criminal debt.
Dave - I continue to hold Moore is nothing more than than an extremely wealthy fraud. When put to test his true colors will show.
Tom - The easy way?
This is the easy way....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. no good night sleepy brain.
Great brainy response RN.
As I expected.
I'm not naive, I know there are dems in the party who follow the GOP, "working primarily for the interests of the economic elites".
When I look at Michael Moore I see a democrat with his heart in the right place. I think he truly believes in the American Dream and is fighting for America to win the battle against those who don't care about "the little guy".
Just listen to Michelle Bachmann, Jan Brewer, Scott Walker for instance. Who do they stand with and for?
When the middle class begins to talk about the redistribution of wealth it is called socialism. When the rich redistribute the wealth so that 1% controls 99% of the money its capitalism.
a comment from Moores FB page.
Les,
Are you suggesting Moore is no different from Glenn Beck?
Fact checking will reveal the fraud.
Tom - This will be my last response to any comment by you. I have been duly warned about you by someone of the left.
I simply haven't the time to involve myself in whatever pursuit you are engaged in with respect to me or my site.
In your case the ignore button is now officially on.
Have a good sleep.
Dave - No, I'm suggesting Moore is Moore, a buffoon of entirely his own kind.
Beck I used to like. Say about three or so years ago. He actually served a purpose, for a time. He has now went over the top and I rarely if ever listen to him anymore.
So I guess in a sense you could say that.
No, Sue, they're facts. Mr. Moore DID refuse to hire union stage hands (not just on "Capitalism, A Love Story" but on a Rage Against the Machine video). He DID own shares of Halliburton. And he HASN'T hired many African American producers. I mean, I know that it doesn't neatly fit the narrative of liberal always = virtue and all but...... abcnews.go.com/Business/michael-moore-snubs-workers-making-capitalism-love/story?id=8715559
You know who else owned Halliburton? George Soros, millions of dollars of it....... andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/soros_buys_hall.html
RN,
How many ways will you deny to answer a direct question?
If you want so badly to avoid me, why do you come on my blog as anonymous and spew your nasty words?
Enjoy living in your corrupt delusion.
Thanks, Sue, for posting this - I'd read a transcript, and I appreciate seeing the visual. Right on, Sister! Great post. It's about time we Dems took a stand. The working class and middle class families have subsidized the corporate rich for far too long. And, Man-oh-man, they don't like hearing that at all! Keep fighting the good fight, Girlfriend! Great job.
Rational Nation USA has not visited the ignored one's blog for months. Not since the last time he made untruthful accusations about its owner.
And Rational Nation USA will continue to avoid the ignored ones site, and will make no comment on his utterances here or elsewhere.
Rational Nation USA will not be run off any site by any individual, particularly one who cannot distinguish between truth and making unfounded delusional self serving allegations about another blogger he happens to dislike.
So, Sue, if you prefer I will discontinue visiting your site and leaving comment. I will respect your wishes. Your are an honorable liberal.
Sue - You said...
"When I look at Michael Moore I see a democrat with his heart in the right place..."
Will said...
"No, Sue, they're facts. Mr. Moore DID refuse to hire union stage hands (not just on "Capitalism, A Love Story" but on a Rage Against the Machine video). He DID own shares of Halliburton. And he HASN'T hired many African American producers. I mean, I know that it doesn't neatly fit the narrative of liberal always = virtue and all but..."
I guess I see a contradiction in Moore's behavior. Don't you?
Jerry - My apology for overlooking your comment.of course I was blasting Moore, for good reason.
I think Will has provided the evidence quite nicely. Better a centrist or liberal offer up the evidence rather than a "delusional rightie."
They were not untruthful accusations. The proof of your attacks, is on my blog.
The proof of your delusions, is in your idiot comments.
I agree with RN and Will. Micheal Moore is one batshit crazy left wing liberal lunatic.
Found somehting I thought was quite fitting for MM.
Should a 400 lb man advise us on the evils of over-consumption?
Should the resident of a million-dollar apartment claim to be a poster boy of the working class?
Should a person who thought that Enron was a great investment, that Ralph Nader, Wesley Clark and John Kerry would win, and that North Korea's Kim Jong was changing for the better, advise us on ANYTHING.
why is it a liberal who makes an honest living, a very well off liberal who makes millions spreading the truth about Americas corporate whores, who stands with the working class, gets criticized and mocked by the right?? Is it his big bank account you find offensive? Can a liberal make as much money as a corporate CEO?? You don't fault the CEO for his massive wealth! You can delve into the personal life of every single human being on this earth and you will find they are not Jesus-like. MM is a good human being and his work proves that. So go ahead call him a rich fat guy, but don't say he is not a humanitarian.
I also would not call a person who speaks the truth batshit crazy. That term is reserved for the hideous batshit crazy Michelle Bachmann. There is factual proof she is a fabricator, a truth twister, and a total dimwit.
It's foolish to draw attention to Michael Moore's girth especially when the GOP is starting a love affair with the behemoth, Chris Christie.
And let's not forget about the hilarious comments from the Hindenburg of Gasbags, Rush Limbaugh. That prodigiously blubbery loud mouth went after the FLOTUS, who by anyone's sane estimation is NOT fat. So let's leave who's fat and who isn't out of the discussion, mkay?
Shaw - Good points. A persons girth has not a wit to do with their intelligence, competency, or lack there of.
Will
Maybe it just feels good to say, "Ha, ha! Liberal hypocrites make money through capitalism." Simplistic and misleading, but it sure sounds good.
ABCNews.com reporter Russell Goldman reports that Moore used Writer's Guild, Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild employees on the project, but bypassed the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.
"For all of the different jobs on the movie that could have used union labor, he used union labor, except for one job, the stagehands, represented by IATSE," a labor source told Goldman.
Tell me how many stagehands are used in a documentary film format, as opposed to, say, a Broadway show? You neglect to say the rest of his crew were union.
When did Moore buy Halliburton stock and when did he dump it? Where do I find the documentation for your claim? Did you know many people may "own" Halliburton through their 401K plans or mutual funds and never know it?
Your accusations mean little without context.
RN... breaks me up RE Michael Moore
//I continue to hold Moore is nothing more than than an extremely wealthy fraud.//
gees, like Beck, Limbaugh, O'reilly... you seem to attack the man and not the message.
Again, it appears that all the Right has are complaints about Michael Moore's behavior, not the truth of what he said. It is all just a smoke screen to cover up the truth.
The American Federation of Teachers didn't think that Mr. Moore's refusal to use International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees was a small thing. They refused to accept his free tickets to the screening. As for the writer's guild, etc., you can't get anything done in Hollywood without those folks. I doubt that Mr. Moore had much of a choice in that matter. And why the lack of black employees? What's his excuse for that one?
Peter Schweizer's book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" uncovers a signed copy of Moore's own Schedule D form that proves his ownership of Halliburton. It also proves that he lied about it.......And what about Soros? He owned tens of millions of dollars worth of Halliburton. No hypocrisy there, either?
Calm down Will. This post is about a good speech given by a good guy who does stand up for the working class of America. Why be obsessed by the what, when, and wheres of his personal life?
I attack the message I am delusional, I attack the man, well, I'm attaching the man and not the message.
So whichever I do I am setting myself up for the topical leftist tactic of evade, evade, and evade some more.
When minds are closed', even in the face of cited evidence there is little purpose for dialog.
Minds have been made up with no intention of considering facts that get in the way of your love and admiration for the fraud.
Have a good day all.
....BIFF ....
RN,
I don't think you have attacked the message yet.
you're right Jerry, and neither has Will.
Moore, the man, makes an easy target. Yes, he may be a sarcastic egotistical attention seeker, but his message is not so easy to dismiss.
Everything said here against Moore is on a personal level and ignores the truth that Moore speaks, and his support for working class Americans; as if his investments somehow "prove" he does not support workers. Nonsense. This is typical Right wing politics of distraction and personal destruction.
But it's far easier to say, "Look at the fat obnoxious hypocrite" than deny the facts. Moore documented the corporate abandonment of Flint and the auto workers. He documented the deadly gun culture in the US. He documented the defeat of democracy in the 2000 election and the lies that led us to war. He documented the suffering of Americans under a corporate dominated health care system. He documented the corrupt swindlers of Wall Street and their victims.
This is the reality the Right wants us to ignore. This is the truth they fight with all their energy. This is why they are obsessed with destroying his credibility. Tyranny must punish the messenger, silence the voices of opposition, suppress journalism, and replace it with the propaganda of their own. Their methods are “fairly unbalanced” and very clear.
This man is nothing like Glenn Beck. In fact he is the opposite. It takes courage and honesty to stand against the powerful economic elite. Beck is a charlatan, a race-baiting, conspiracy-deranged toady of Big Money in comparison.
Thanks Dave! Really well done, I appreciate it!!
Quote ~ "Beck is a charlatan, a race-baiting, conspiracy-deranged toady of Big Money in comparison."
It is very telling when people say such things about G. Beck. You either have never watched his program, or you (like Sue) are so blinded by your partisan bias that you are unable to see the PROOF he offers and the PRIMARY SOURCE videos, book quotes, and other sources of undeniable evidence that his thorough research staff bring in support of the claims made by Mr. Beck.
He is attacked just as any other successful conservative has been attacked...personally and not with any substantive disproval of his claims. If Glenn Beck does make a mistake, he is the first to admit it on the air quickly and completely...I've seen him do it.
If those on the left would put as much effort into research as they have done in personal destruction tactics, they might actually discover the error of their viewpoint...of course, they would never admit it.
You're absolutely right Linda, "Beck is a charlatan, a race-baiting, conspiracy-deranged toady of Big Money", he's also he's also a dimwitted, looney bin, self professed rodeo clown. You sure know how to pick 'em!
Hi Linda,
Beck is unholy. A nice Christian like you should be able to feel it. When he attacked the Jewish rabbis, are you sure he was the first to admit it? Why would he say such a cowardly and irrational thing in the first place? Seems to me he only offered a half-mast apology when he had little other choice.
We try not to watch Beck, just like no one just wanders into a church of satan just to hear the music.
LINDA wrote "...you (like Sue) are so blinded by your partisan bias that you are unable to see the PROOF he offers and the PRIMARY SOURCE videos, book quotes, and other sources of undeniable evidence that his thorough research staff bring in support of the claims made by Mr. Beck."
So, Linda, tell us about the "proof" in what Beck has warned about the "caliphate" that is talking over the world and the United States, and the overthrow of Mubarack was the beginning of the radicalization of the world by Muslims and the taking over of America by Muslim radicals.
What was he offering as proof on that?
Also, according to the man you admire, social justice is tantamount to totalitarianism--the kind of social justice Jesus Christ preached about.
A majority of Americans believe Beck is a nut and a raving idiot.
I used to listen to him 12 years ago when I lived in Florida. The only difference betwenn what he was then and what he is now is the number of people he's managed to fool. There seems to be an endless supply of people in this country who eagerly believe in charlatans.
Beck, your hero, once made fun of a colleague's wife for having had a miscarriage. And he did so on his radio program for everyone to hear his mocking of the unfortunate woman.
What a guy.
Beck is about getting as big an audience as he can to make as much money as he can. Fortunately, his audience is dwindling, and that's probably why his rantings are getting stranger and more out of touch with reality.
Oh, I forgot to mention: for Sue and others who do care,
Less than an hour ago I passed President Obamas motorcade on Route 93. He was traveling south to Dorchest to the tech school to speak, I was traveling north from Cape Cod and back to Boston.
One of my good friends works at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston where Mr. Obama will be at a fund raiser tonight. Can't wait to hear her report!
Dorchester! NOT Dorchest! Duh.
Or as we say in Bahstin:
"Daahchestah."
Linda,
Smart Republicans like Kristol, Will, Scarborough, and even Les, are finally calling Beck out for what he is.
And they agree with us.
His "sources" and "proof" are simply more radical Right claptrap that doesn't hold up to the light of day. As a gullible true believer you cannot comprehend this.
Here's some more good info on Beck...by a Republican.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/
Deal with it or ignore it. I bet I know which you choose.
I'm not a Republican, Dave. Oh, wait a minute, you're talking about George Will, huh? LOL......Good article he wrote about Huckabee, don't you think?
Shaw thats awesome, Bet you felt like a true patriot!
All, if you're so sure America's not broke, then tell the Dems to keep on spending. If you and Michael Moore are right, your beloved Democrats should have no trouble getting re-elected in 2012 and beyond.
@TOM, when you say "it's the Republicans who have led us to a 14 trillion dollar debt", the facts don't back you up. That debt was accumulated while congress was controlled by Democrats (power of the purse, anyone?). Here's proof.
HR we already know the dems will have no problems in the 2012 elections. Even the GOP governors are shooting themselves in the foot. Buyers remorse is rampant among voters who went "right" in 2010.
I have to confess there have been several times I've looked into buying Halliburton stock. My means aren't such that I can afford a portfolio of dozens of positions so I research and pick the one or two to replace the one or two I feel have maxed out. last time Halliburton didn't measure up as well as BP. I have since sold the BP and have looked into Halliburton again. I hink it's price will drop considerably because the rebellions in the Arab World are being correctly handled by President Obama and Secretary Clinton.
And the Saudis understand it's in their interests to keep oil from getting so high the royal family loses support it may need when the rage starts in Saudi Arabia.
Further; I read a couple of Moore's books. In one of them he told of how he wanted his office workers to join a union and he would pay their dues. He went through hell trying to find a union that would organize them. To small a group I guess.
Unions being stuck in a pre Reagan mindset are a subject for another post.
I have to confess there have been several times I've looked into buying Halliburton stock.
Whoa!
Time for a new screen name!!
Peace, or something
What's wrong with the one I have now FJ?
It describes me to a T.
Are you naked this evening Sue?
sorry MDL, Not Yet. I have on sweat pants and a T shirt with PEACE on the front. :-)
The 97th Congress (1981-1983) saw a relatively thin Republican majority in the Senate (53-46, so not enough for the 60% override) and a Democrat majority in the House.
In the Senate, Republicans held the majority until 1987. From 1987-1995, the Democrats held control. Republicans regained the majority in 1995, which they held until 2001. The 107th Congress (2001-2003) saw a tie, with the Senate split 50-50. Republicans regaind a majority for the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003-2007), and then the Democrats had the majority in the 110th and will have it in the 111th.
In the House, Democrats had the majority through both Reagan and Bush, Sr.'s Presidencies, until the Republicans gained the majority (in both the House and Senate) in 1995 (election of 1994). The Republicans ruled the Senate from 1995-2007. Now, the Democrats havea majority, and the recent election will see their majority through at least until January 2011.
That's not quite the Democrat control you claim.
You forgot to mention that it no longer takes a 60% vote to pass financil bills. A Senate rule change made while Republicans had majority. Why Democrats have not changed that rule, is a good question.
You also forgot to mention, that while a party had majority, they passed the opposition President's budget - out of deference to his mandate from the majority of Americans who elected him.
It was the President's budget that passed the oppositions majority. There is a Congressional tradition of passing the President's budget, just as Republicans passed Clinton's budget.
You forgot to mention, that it is Republican ideology to cut taxes AND cut government spending. Yet, President Bush has the honor of never having vetoed a spending bill.
You forgot the Dept. of the Treasury figures which which show the growth of the national debt happened under Republican Presidents.
You forgot that since 1983 (when the national debt was at under 1 trillion) until 2008 (when the national debt reached 13 trillion - within that 25 year period Democrats only held the White House for 8 of those 25 years.
To say the President has no power to pass his budget, is to deny History.
Nice spin, but reality is inescapable. Republicans are responsible for the deep national debt.
Alright, here's an example of Mr. Moore's rather shoddy/slanted advocacy. At the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11, he makes this humongous deal about the Bin Laden family being escorted out of the country by the Bush administration. And he does it totally laced with innuendo (that the Bushes and the Bin Ladens were joined at the hip or something). Well, guess what - the 9/11 Commission found that there was nothing to complain about here; either in the timing or the arrangement of the flights. IN FACT, folks, Michael Moore darling, Richard Clarke, is the one who actually arranged for these flights. OOOOOOPS!!!
Cont.
You seem to be confusing, or purposely twisting/spinning Congressional spending bills and Presidential budgets.
You also forgot to mention, that the war costs under Bush were OFF budget, not a practice the current administration permits.
@TOM, you say, "it no longer takes a 60% vote to pass financial bills" and "thin Republican majority" and "there is a Congressional tradition of passing the President's budget."
Add all the caveats you want. You obviously believe the presidency is more important in budget matters. I believe both branches of government have to share in the responsibility.
Of course, I didn't say the president has no power to pass his budget, as you allege. I believe reporting things like "the debt" by presidential administration is disingenuous.
(Wow, I should've adhered to RN's warning before engaging you!)
As for your other baseless allegations, that I'm confusing spending bills and presidential budgets and war costs that are off budget...
I think it's safe to say you did not read my post on this topic. No problem, I didn't really expect you to, but if you had you would know that I haven't addressed budgets OR spending bills. Every comment I've made, and the post that I linked to, references the national debt in total. You seem to be the one conflating the two.
My point is a simple one, and we obviously disagree: you think the party of the white house is responsible for everything that happens (you'll regret that in 2012, BTW) and I think congress shares the responsibility, particularly with regard to matters of spending.
Now that we know where we disagree, there's no need to keep debating minor points. It's been fun.
You are the one ignoring reality.
I will trust official Treasury Department figures over your opinion.
I only responded to your comment here. I have no wish to go to your blog. Your thinking is just like RN's. You are right, and everyone else is wrong.
I should have known better to even reply to your comment. What a waste of time, to try a converse with such a closed minded person.
I recounted when and who had majority. recount. It was not the Democrat majority you claim.
Math is so simple, but not for some.
RN, I promise to follow all of your advice (or that of the person from the left who warned you) in the future.
These are the same kind of idiots that claim Clinton never had a balanced budget even though top Republican leaders today say he did, because if course, it was the Republican led Congress that passed Clintons balanced budget.
Then their own Republican President (Bush) spent the government to a deficit so fast, Clintons budget never had a chance.
SPIN, SPIN, SPIN until we are bankrupt.
great going Republicans we are 14 trillion in debt! Aren't you proud! What patriots?
The deficit is not so much a product of Democrat spending as it is of:
Republican tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending.
Republican unfunded wars of choice and nation building.
Republican unlimited expansion of defense spending (give away to the military/industrial complex).
If you are serious about reducing the deficit, you need to increase taxes at the top end (more and higher brackets), get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and severely cut the defense department budget.
H.R. - Yes indeed. It always seems best, and usually saves a lot of grief, when good advice is followed.
In this case it will pays in spades!
Here is a very interesting graph of the federal debt as a fraction of GDP that was referenced over at Jazzbumpa's place. It shows that the republicans "consistently, deliberately, takes actions to increase deficits in the long term".
Jerry - While I believe the driving force behind our fiscal problems is that we spend to much, and yes that indeed includes on the MIC, you are exactly correct.
You cannot lower taxes and spend more,or even the same amount and expect any result other than to increase deficits.
We need to cut spending, increase taxes, or a combination of both if we are to ever balance the federal books again.
As a conservative my vote would be to maintain current tax levels and revamp the tax structure to generate greater revenue. And at the same time review our regulatory policies.
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/independent-conservatives-thoughts-on.html
Not perfect for sure. It is however more than just bit*hing by a conservative.
"Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich." -- Michael Moore
Still true after all these comments.
In fact, after all these comments, no one has tried to refute it. They only have bashed Michael Moore, not his statement.
Jerry I guess they didn't want to watch the video. That's why those on the right don't know what's going on around them, they only listen to conservative talking points.
Sue, I gave an example of Michael Moore saying something that was patently incorrect (not to mention, slanderous). Everybody ignored it.
Will,
If you are talking about Bush flying Bin Laden's family out of the US after 9/11, it is true. Bush did help them get out. Secondly, your example has nothing to do with this post.
1) The 9/11 Commission examined this thoroughly and found that there was nothing untoward about it (Mr. Moore's heavy-handed innuendo clearly indicated that there WAS). 2) Richard Clarke has admitted that it was HIM (and solely him) who orchestrated this decision. 3) Part of the topic was Mr. Moore's accuracy and his veracity. I was accused of only criticizing the man and not his work. I provided an example in which I show that the guy's work can in fact be total crap. 4) Period.
Still, will is peddling right wing talking points;
---INSTEAD OF---
Talking about the actual message;
Why is that?
Why does he continuously do that;
I wonder?
Like other right wing posters he attacks the messenger not actually discuss the WORDS and meaning of the message.
I wonder why he does this?
OK, Let' give Will's point some attention. This is what I said in response to his "Less of Moore" post:
I, too, sometimes find Moore an irritating self-righteous egotist. If corporate media covered him as much as the irritating self-righteous egotist, and far more ignorant, Twit of the Tundra, I would be more sympathetic with your position.
At least Moore does not have a weekday program on a "news" channel... If the corporate media were as liberal as the Right claims it is, then that would be the case. But there is no 24/7 liberal media, unlike the voice of the radical Right, FOX(R).
Unlike Moore, you have the 9/11 commission to reference. Did you know both the Bush and bin-Laden families were involved in the Carlyle Group, if not "joined at the hip"? And BTW, Clarke WAS part of the Bush Administration, remember? Do you also remember Clarke was marginalized out of cabinet meetings because he insisted on passing on Clinton's warnings about al-Qaeda? War mongering neo-cons pushing for an invasion on Iraq, on the other hand...Well the rest is history.
Clarke was the only person with enough integrity to apologize to America for the government's pre-9/11 failures. Why shouldn't that make him Moore's, and every American's, "darling"?
So Moore gets a couple things wrong and we need less of him. How about FOX(R)? Or are they protected free speech corporate "press" and somehow Moore's speech is not as free?
Why is it, anonymous, that you only underscore right-wing hypocrisy? And I DID give a specific criticism of his "work"; his ridiculous use of innuendo to somehow connect Bush with Bin Laden (a theory that was totally shredded by the 9/11 Commission).
And I DID give a specific criticism of his "work"; his ridiculous use of innuendo to somehow connect Bush with Bin Laden (a theory that was totally shredded by the 9/11 Commission).
Thank you for PROVING my point will;
You totally ignored the actual words he said in Wisconsin, (and of course what those words showed about the republican party and far right wing funded bu Koch ET AL) to slander Michael Moore, because you want to derail to facts away from his actual words.
You for some reason do this, I just wonder why?
Maybe your rants against Unions on your "blog" might be part of the reason, you hate Unions it seems as much as Koch ET AL do.
Because I underscored an inaccuracy pertaining to something other than his Wisconsin speech (which I didn't hear), THAT proves your stupid point?......As to the unions, the public sector unions fucked me. Ans, so, too, they fucked the taxpayers of the state of CT. The fact that I've been as magnanimous as I've been (criticizing Walker and suggesting early on that he compromise) is a testament to my fairness as a blogger......And since we're asking ?s, why is it that only right-wing hypocrisy bothers you. That, to me, seems rather over the top and partisan.
Will,
Because your union did not do their job to protect you ("the public sector unions fucked me"), you want every other union member in Wisconsin to get fucked too?
Let's share the pain upward, not downward.
The unions protect their buddies. They'll sell their non-buddies down the river in a heart-beat.......And, besides, I have a philosophical problem with elected representatives negotiating with people whose political support is contingent upon their bending over for them.
Will - you have a way of restoring ones belief that there just might be hope after all.
Well said!
RN is a perfect example of today's greedy, selfish generation who haven't got a clue about the History of, or the blood shed by those who fought for the best wages, benefits, and thus lifestyle enjoyed by any people on Earth.
RN's support of conservative politics, policies, and politicians has destroyed unions, the American middle class, and America's economy.
Move to China and live in a country where you can work 12 hours a day and make 5 bucks a day.
Had he lived in the 18th century, I'm sure RN would have been a slave holder.
RN, sit down and write a check to the union of your choice, and thank them for the lifestyle you enjoy living and working in America.
Will,
"I have a philosophical problem with elected representatives negotiating with people whose political support is contingent upon their bending over for them."
Does that problem extend to corporations who donate big money to politicians and then get large government contracts?
Because I underscored an inaccuracy pertaining to something other than his Wisconsin speech (which I didn't hear), THAT proves your stupid point?
"Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich." -- Michael Moore
Funny the title is part of Micheal Moore's speech, which you didn't bother take the time to review BEFORE you unleashed your venom at Mr Moore.
Will you are starting to become more and more like those you rail against at Fox, attack with out any PERTINENT facts.
Seems you are more like those you rail against then you want to admit, eh will?
PS will, you didn't have to "hear" the speech,
Sue included the video in the post she put up.
I guess like the rest of those who use right wing talking points to push their partisan agenda against Unions, you didn't think the facts really mattered.
Coming from Tom I consider his most recent comment with respect to my person a high compliment.
Just considering the source.
Yes, Jerry, it does. I'm a strong proponent of public financing of elections (a liberal position that anonymous will no doubt ignore).
Based on the quote that you've given me, anonymous, I'd say that Mr. Moore (whose currently in court suing for 2.7 million) doesn't quite understand the difference between public and private property.......And before you slam me for being a right-winger, I'm in favor of the top rates going back to 39.6% (just like I was in favor of extending unemployment benefits and providing food stamps).......Why don't you just face it, dude, you're a partisan extremist who has to be agreed with 100% of the time or you panic. Look at RN, he doesn't jump all over people who disagree with him. Why can't you be more like that? I'm not a big supporter of public sector unions - so what! Neither was FDR, George Meany, or Jimmy Carter. Are you going to call those guys right-wingers, too? Just relax, will you......Oh, and I don't like Michael Moore (a guy who actually got pissy with a nice guy like Dr. Sanjay Gupta), sue me (no pun intended)!
Face it Will. You've been exposed for the partisan hack you are. Now go off to your greedy country club and drink some mint julips and tell your trophy wife to stop making goo goo eyes at the pool boy.
Partisan is when you strictly argue for one side, right?
And the trophy goes to Will!
Sorry Morally Depraved Liberal, methinks the sword cut you this time.
Partisan is when you strictly argue for one side, right?
That puts you in the ANTI-UNION side eh will?
Hah! You think you're special sitting in your plush leather, Ethan Allen chair while I sit in a broken recliner from Dollar General RN!
Go on. Smoke your macanudo cigars and look down on the poor and downtrodden. With the support of great minds like mt friend "Anonymous" Working Americans will prevail and soon you and Will shall be sitting in Dollar General chairs while we are sipping mint julips and smoking fine, eco friendly cigars.
Will,
OK we get it. You don’t like Moore, even when he’s correct, apparently.
Here is the context for Moore v Gupta:
According to a CNN poll from May 2007, 64% of Americans supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." This was, of course, before the corporate media, FOX(R), the dozens of senators that Big Insurance Companies bought and paid for, and the greedy teabaggers shoved the great “socialism” propaganda scare into ignorant Americans.
I wonder why corporate media throws up smoke and mirrors to cover for insurance corporations. Could it be because corporate money goes into politicians’ re-election funds, only to be returned to the corporate media through campaign ads?
June 22nd 2007, CBS aired a piece on "Sicko." Reporter Jeff Greenfield offered his critique of Michael Moore's documentary. He said, " ...no one, Democrat or Republican, has come close to advocating the kind of government-run national health system Michael Moore proposes." Right. Except that's a lie. Along with dozens of other representatives, Dennis Kucinich has advocated this system. They have co-sponsored H.R. 676 that proposes just such a program.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer was kind enough to feature an interview with Moore, but not before Dr. Sanjay Gupta offered, for our edification, a "reality check." Yes, the corporate media felt the public couldn't handle a simple interview with Moore without first putting its own spin on the health care issue.
Over the banner reading, "A Healthy Look at the Facts," we were shown Gupta's alternative "facts" and figures. Moore reported that, according to the Bush Administration’s Health and Human Services, annual health care expenses are approximately seven thousand dollars per person in the U.S. This was challenged by Gupta's six thousand and something dollars. No reason was offered why CNN chose a source whose stats were lower. While accusing Moore of "fudging the facts," Gupta then posted across the screen what he claimed was Moore's stated cost of Cubans' annual care at $25. Wrong. "Sicko" showed that to be closer to $250. Still, not bad for a poor third-world island under oppressive economic sanctions. The U.S. is ranked embarrassingly close to Cuba in health care.
Gupta tell us, “You won’t find a medical utopia elsewhere.” I guess we should just forget about reform, then.
You can't blame Corporate News Network for trying. SOMEONE has to defend the big guys.
While Moore was shown in the interview to be a little over-animated at moments, he did hit Blitzer with every sane American's question, "Why don't YOU tell the truth? You're the ones fudging facts about this issue and the war. Why didn't you do your job before the war?"
How about that? Some Liberal called out the media for their dereliction of duty.
a guy who actually got pissy with a nice guy like Dr. Sanjay Gupta
You mean when Gupta was using cherry p9icked right wing talking poimnts;
To Wit;
Every time Michael Moore appears on CNN, they run a report on Anderson Cooper 360 or The Situation Room trying to rip him apart. It's as if they realize that Moore is too big a story to ignore so they'd better cover him, but his ideas are too troubling to the status quo, so we better also try to discredit them. As Gupta tries to defend his clearly biased report by claiming Moore has "cherry-picked" his numbers (a typical tactic employed by Moore's right-wing detractors), Moore explains that all of his figures are from 2007 and were generated from President Bush's Health and Human Services. Favorite moments: When Larry King called Gupta's report "kinda balanced", and when Moore totally shut Gupta up by pointing out that the CNN logo covered up the Cuba figures Gupta claims Moore was trying to conceal in his film. Later on, (not in the video to your right), Gupta complains that Moore makes it seem like universal health care would cost Americans nothing, even though the film clearly points out that tax money pays for these systems. Gupta apparently can't give movie audiences enough credit to understand such a simple fact. Anyway, check out the video to your right for more.
Here
A vey good break down of the WHOLE story instead of wil;l right wing talking points view;
HERE
Nice to see will is sticking to his very partisan view of the world complete with his predictable right wing talking points.
"Corporate News Network"? That's funny, Dave, conservatives call it the Communist News Network. Yes, there was a dispute over some facts. Moore was using one source, CNN was using another. But I remember the interview. Gupta (who Obama wanted as surgeon general, btw) was a gentleman and Mr. Moore a dick......Actually, compared to some of his other work, "Sicko" was in fact quite accurate......Like when he claimed that 5/6 of the 2001 defense budget went to a single line of plane......Or when he accused the Clinton administration of "kicking" 10 million people off of welfare (never minding that a large chunk of these people found work)......Or when he claimed that the U.S. gave 245 million in aid to the Taliban (the money actually consisted of food programs administered by the U.N.)......Or when he altered the footage of a Bush-Quayle campaign ad......Or when he claimed that 2/3 of Bush's campaign funds came from just over 700 people.......Or when he said that the invasion of Afghanistan was a front to build a pipeline for Unocal......Or when he said that the Saudi royal family had "given" the Bush family/their "associates" 1.4 billion dollars (contracts that were awarded to BDM at a time when no Bush family members were involved in the co.. Stuff like that, I'm saying.
spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
Still using diversionary tactics to NOT talk about the actual facts Sue posted eh will?
You seem to do this quite a bit.
Will, There you go. Is CNN corporate owned or Communist run?
Or is the truth "Somewhere in between" as the corporate media like to say.
Did you the Taliban rebuffed requests for a pipeline? Did you know the US gave over $40 million to the Taliban for "anti-drug" measures?
MSNBC is also run by a corporation, Dave. It's not so much the ownership but the messengers. Every survey for the last 30 years has shown a 5-6 to 1 ratio, liberals to conservatives in the media. Now, are they all as blatant as Fox and MSNBC? No, of course not. But it is enough to make you wonder about their total objectivity.......Are you sure that the 40 billion went directly to the Taliban? According to spinsanity, they seem to think that all donations/dollars were distributed by the U.N..
Will,
The Bush administration gave the Taliban 43 million of our tax dollars to destroy poppy farms.
What source is your ratio taken from? Are you saying journalists are generally liberal? Yes, like teachers, most people who are literate, educated, and make a living observing the world tend to be more liberal than the FOX(R)-viewing couch potatoes and greedy teabaggers.
More people in law enforcement and the military are conservative and or authoritarian in nature. You don't hear liberals screaming for more liberals in the Pentagon. The Right wants to dominate every aspect of our culture. And they own most of it now.
So you agree it is corporate media, not communist. There is no left wing version of FOX(R). FOX(R) has no Democrat with his own program. MSNBC does. Maybe if MSNBC gave a nightly program to Kanye West after he said Bush doesn't like black people, you might find some equivalency. Three or four liberal programs offers little “balance” for an entire Murdoch empire of Right Wing media.
Here's what FOX(R)'s own Bill Kristol said. "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95
Remember the NY Times' Judith Miller's parroting of the Bush/Cheney pre-war lies about Iraq? Remember the Times withheld warrantless surveillance stories at the White House’s demand until after the ’04 election? Some liberal media, eh?
“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.” - Noam Chomsky
There is no left-wing version of Fox. Are you out of your frigging mind? Do you watch MSNBC from 4 PM to 1 AM. It's all frigging liberal screed......You're talking about Scarborough, right? A) Scarborough is extremely nonpartisan. B) He isn't an asshole like Hannity and Schultz. C) He constantly surrounds himself with liberals. To say that this is a strong conservative venue is ludicrous......More educated, worldly people tend to be liberal? Maybe in your little echo chamber. And, besides, teachers aren't all that intelligent. This, in that they (as a major) frequently score in the bottom of all standardized tests.
The NY Times totally leans left. If it didn't, I'd have to endure more than that Judith Miller anecdote (over and over and over). And since when has warmongering been strictly a partisan thing. It was LBJ and McNamara who lied us into massive involvement in Vietnam and Obama who put forth this idiotic surge in Afghanistan policy.
Will,
Let's not confuse, or combine, editorial policy with news reporting. These are two very distinct functions. The corporate "overlords" may have a hands-off policy on the editorial content, but very strict controls on news content.
The reporting of "news" is often considered more of an entertainment offering than real news reporting. And we no longer have nearly the amount of investigative reporting that we use to have. The investigative reporting now comes from the likes of the National Enquirer and Rolling Stone.
Will,
I really don’t live in a “little echo chamber”. I pay attention to what the Right says. So “teachers aren't all that intelligent”, eh? And didn’t you mention something about being a teacher? Hmm...I see. ;-)
Let me spell it out again. There is no left-wing version of Fox. The FOX(R)/MSNBC false equivalency is a corporate media, conservative, “fair and balanced”, talking point.
First, some not-so-long-ago-historical Perspective:
After other networks realized it was too close to call the 2000 election, after they withdrew their projection for a Gore win. It was a Bushie who called the election for Bush on FOX(R), when nobody could have made that judgment. For FOX(R) had a job to do. And it was not journalism.
While all the pre-Iraq War propaganda was flashing 24/7 on FOX(R), along with the flag-waving cheerleading for the Bush Administration, MSNBC fired Phil Donahue. Why? Not for lack of ratings...no, no. His ratings were the highest the network had. No, he was fired because he had too many guests on that spoke out against Bush’s Crusade. Never mind he was told to have more pro-war than anti-war people on. Did FOX(R) have war dissenters on? No. They accused, with open contempt, all liberals against the war of being unpatriotic, of course. They were silent about conservatives against the war like Ron Paul and a few other Libertarian types. Nothing to see there, folks. For FOX(R) had a job to do. And it was not journalism.
Second, some perspective on who they are lately.
FOX(R) has had on its payroll numerous Bush Administration members and Republican politicians, who clearly have presidential ambitions. You say Scarborough is extremely nonpartisan. You mean like fair and balanced in a real way, and not the FOX(R) way? How many on the MSNBC payroll were Clinton or Obama Administration members? (No, not Pat Buchanan.) How many on the MSNBC payroll have been on presidential and presidential primary ballots? Not so many as FOX(R)? No not so many at all. For FOX(R) has a job to do. And it is not journalism.
Maybe you saw the exciting promotions. All around the country there were to be fabulous “FNC Tea Parties”, featuring Glenn Beck and all your favorite FOX(R) personalities. Everyone was urged to come see the FOX(R) personalities and Republican politicians at an event sponsored by FOX(R), Dick Armey’s political operation, and the salt of the Earth Billionaire Koch Brothers. Yup, a regular gathering of regular folk to advance the agenda of the corporate elite. FOX(R) calls this “grass roots”. For FOX(R) has a job to do. And it is not journalism.
Remember when Glenn Beck told us Obama was “a racist with a deep seated hatred for white people”? Again, maybe if MSNBC gave a nightly program to Kanye West after he said Bush doesn't like black people, you might find some equivalency. West was chastised by most liberals, in and out of the media. I even joined them. Bush does not hate rich conservative black people. I wonder how many millions of dollars FOX(R) has given to Beck since his “observation”. He’s still working there isn’t he? Yes he is. For FOX(R) has a job to do. And it is not journalism.
I’ll add one more thing.
Jerry makes a point, you know. “Let's not confuse, or combine, editorial policy with news reporting.” You said, “The NY Times totally leans left.” This is a very “fair and balanced” talking point. If you have ever read the Times you’d know that’s not true. They have hired quite a number of conservative columnists over the years.
.
You made a crack about Judith Miller while you ignored something else. Remember the NY Times withheld warrantless surveillance stories at the White House’s demand until after the ’04 election?
I really commend your efforts to find a moderate place in the middle. It can’t be easy. Have you noticed the center has been getting dragged further and further to the Right these past few decades?
Dylan Ratigan at 4, Chris Matthews at 5, that young Turk character at 6, Matthews again at 7, Lawrence O'Donnell at 8, Rachel Maddow at 9, Ed Schultz at 10, Lawrence O'Donnell again at 11, Rachel Maddow again at midnight. I guess that we just have different definitions of what constitutes a liberal version of Fox.......And, fellows, look at the NY Times editorial page. Other than David Brooks (who most conservatives don't even consider a conservative), who speaks with a conservative voice there?......And Dave, here are my sources; the LA Times 1985 (55-17% in favor of liberals), the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1996 (61-9% in favor of liberals), and the Pew Research Center in 2004 (34-7% in favor of liberals)......Yes, I was a special ed teacher for 15 years. Make from that what you will.
"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees." Keith Olbermann Gee,that sounds pretty comparable to me, gents (Olbermann added sexist the next day - in his "apology").
Will,
So six liberal voices on MSNBC makes it the same as the entire FOX(R) operation? Come on. I gave you real differences that you must ignore to make your claim.
FOX(R) is a political arm of, and for, the Republican Party. MSNBC is not the same for the Democratic Party. Liberals don't have a major political party or corporate media of their own. Here's another bit for you. FOX(R) comes basic with every cable and satellite package. Not so for MSNBC. Many people have to pay extra for that. Again we have false equivalency.
Corporate entities own all the media and most of both parties. You still don't see the differences I pointed out? Come on, man. They are not the same.
The NY Times has made an effort to allow conservative voices on their pages, Douthat, Kristol, Safire, etc. The Washington Post has plenty of conservative writers. There's no equivalency at the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Washington Times, etc. They are not the same. Don't you see that?
Now look at the Right Wing radio propaganda empire. No equivalency on the left. Why? Big Money is why. Air American couldn't cut because they had to pay all the way. Limbaugh is foisted for "free" on many stations. Again, no equivalency.
This is corporate America Will, in case you haven't noticed. Money is "free speech" so Big Money speaks loudest.
Do you have a link to clear up what you are trying to say with your stats? Did you know MOST newspaper editors endorsed Bush for president? Some liberal media, eh?
PS
Olbermann's gone. Why is that? Too liberal? Too outrageously liberal? Nobody is too conservative, or outrageously conservative, for corporate media. There's no equivalency in corporate America's corporate media, not in newspapers, TV or radio. Face it Will. "Liberal media" is the Big Lie. And obviously it works, for both fascists and the American Right.
Dave, if 9 consecutive/uninterrupted hours of propagandist and hateful liberal screed isn't enough to convince you that MSNBC is a rump organization/wing of the Democratic Party, then you are just flat-out unconvincable.......I have no idea why Mr. Olbermann was fired. My suspicion is that the dude was such an asshole that nobody in the building could tolerate him anymore. No problem, though - they put another progressive liberal in his place.......And even in the daytime, MSNBC can be biased. Contessa Brewer did a story about one of those tea-partiers who brought a gun to a rally. She asked (rhetorically, of course), "So, do you think that there's a racial component?" Yeah, well, guess what - the dude with the frigging gun was black!!!!! Racial component, my ass.......William Safire? The dude hasn't done a political column in years. And didn't he vote for/endorse Clinton, too?......And your use of the term, corporate, is getting stale. It's like what - all corporations are evil now? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were frigging "corporatists" and, I'll tell you what, those guys have money a lot more effectively and efficiently that the frigging federal government has (I refer you to the latest GAO report).
I'm not entirely sure what you want me to say about Fox (which I've criticized continuously for the past 4 years, btw); that it's bad? That it's worse than MSNBC? Fine, it's bad and it's worse that MSNBC. But if Fox is an F, the MSNBC is a D-.
Most newspaper editors endorsed Bush (in 2004, I doubt it)? Where's YOUR link?......I used to subscribe to Newsweek, btw - back when IT was fair and balanced, before they put Obama on the cover 5-6 times to McCain's once. And let's see, who do they have for conservative columnists? Oh yeah, George Will. LOL
Will,
I get that “You say corporations are evil” all the time from Righties. I have never said it. I say they own our politicians and government because of the perverse ideology of “money is free speech”. I say the interests of the economic elite and plutocratic corporatism are contrary to democracy. Corporate dominance of our political arena is real. Ike warned of the military industrial complex. Does he get accused of saying corporations are evil? No, but I am told I “hate the rich” because I say restoring the elites’ tax rates back up by 3 percent is a good idea. I’m sorry to see you falling into that pit of fallacious assumptions, Will.
If George Will is not a conservative in your view, then I have to wonder about how far to the right you really are.
Do you mean Chris (We’re all Neo-cons now) Mathews? Don’t you remember that?
Rachel Maddow is hateful? My, oh, my, you are sensitive. What did FOX(R)’s Roger Ailes call NPR? A bunch of Nazis. Do you still believe in equivalency?
How about doing a comparison by fact check?
http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=fox+news&x=0&y=0
Maddow is covering the tragedies in Japan and explaining how nuclear, or is it now “nukular”, reactors work. What do you think Beck is fear-mongering about as she shares real information? He’s making Godzilla jokes and comparing the Japanese to his 8-28 rally and his 9-12 project...by not looting.
Look, if one fifth of the country, half of all Republicans, believes Obama is a Muslim, if millions of “birthers” believe Obama is not a US born citizen, then that speaks clearly of the disinformation campaign by the Right. How about Obama’s $200 million a day trip to India? How about the $750 million destruction of the capitol building in Madison? I could writ a book of these lies. What “liberal media propaganda” comes close to this? How about all the money FOX(R) gives to Republicans? Do you still believe in equivalency?
I’m not saying everything the MSNBC people say is true. Just compare how FOX(R) promotes the Tea Cult and attacks pro-workers’ rights. http://mediamatters.org/research/201102180015
If there’s equivalency to the “FNC Tea Parties”, show me the nationwide “MSNBC pro-union rallies”. Please.
Yes the “Liberal” newspaper media endorsed Bush in 2000.
Originally from Salon.com:
http://www.bethemedia.org/newspapers/
In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.
In 2000, the overwhelming trend toward Republicans continued. According to estimates, candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore. On the eve of the election four years ago, Editor & Publisher spelled out the newspaper love affair with Bush in a Nov. 6 article: "The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally."
“Liberal media” is the Right’s Big Lie. Corporate media is the truth, whether you are sick of the term or not.
I’ll accept your grades a token of compromise. MSNBC barely passes. FOX(R) fails.
Peace.
Of course George Will is a conservative. I was laughing because 1) he's the only one there and 2) while, yes, he's an ideologue, he's hardly a partisan (he's hammered Bush continuously on a whole host of issues) - as opposed to, say, a Jonathan Alter.......Surprisingly you're right about 2000. But you have to remember that 1) Bush was a (supposedly) compassionate conservative with a strong bipartisan record in Texas and who uttered that we needed a "more humble foreign policy" and 2) Gore was a dweeb (I voted for Nader, btw). By 2004, a lot of those same papers abandoned Bush and endorsed Kerry (understandable, in that Bush was a lousy President), papers with 16.9 million readership vs those with 10.9 million (pbs.org/newshour/updates/endorse_10-26-04.html).......The Pew Study you can see at weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp
Here's another interesting Study, Dave. It was revealed that the journalists (1,160 in all) at NBC, ABC, and CBS donated $1,020,816 to the Democratic Party and only (via 193 donations) $142,863 to the Republicans. That's over an 8:1 ratio. wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media_bias#Claims_of_a_ liberal_bias
Will,
I hope you read the entire piece. Media bias as presented by the likes of Chomsky v Coulter. Wonder which group is more knowledgeable... The Right is obsessed by reporters being liberal. This tendency is because it is their job to pay attention. The same is true of scientists, you know. Only 4 percent of scientists admit they are Republicans. Both groups work for more conservative owners.
What does this tell us about where the real power is?
Budget is worse than claimed:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/150737-cbo-obama-budget-worse-than-claimed-on-deficit?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Post a Comment