“I am very sorry to report that the the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor as state as Australia was … Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight … We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
A load of garbage is exactly right.
That quote is from leaked e-mails written by some the world’s leading climate scientists — the Globaloney hoaxsters who cooked the data, stifled dissent and manipulated the facts to support their shrill Chicken Little fire alarms about the end of the world.
So why would otherwise respected scientists risk everything to perpetrate such dishonesty? Two reasons I can think of:
1. They are ideologues who will do anything in the name of their misguided cause, even if it means personal risk. It’s similar to the way the Obama administration has shot itself in the foot politically to put terrorists on trial in New York City: almost suicidal stupidity, motivated by self-righteous zealotry. Ditto for the keepers of the global warming mythology. The e-mails show just how warped they were. Some show a creepy glee over the death of one of their critics; others show how they tried to destroy evidence of their fraud and muzzle and discredit scientists who questioned their rigged data. Yet others show how one researcher spent three years trying to reconcile their reports with reality and finally quit in disgust because he was unable to find any consistent and reliable thread of reality. It takes a certifiable ideologue to distort the truth that way.
2. Money. A column in the Wall Street Journal today calls attention to the billions in grants that have been awarded to climate scientists to “prove” global warming and spread the panic.
From Bret Stephens column, “Climategate: Follow the money”:
“Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it that Mr. (Phil) Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries.”
Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit in England where the e-mails were leaked, and was author of many of the incimrinating messages. He and others now claim the messages were “taken out of context” — the modern “last refuge of a scoundrel who has been quoted accurately.” The fact is, the context is all too extensive. Thousands of e-mails are a smoking cannon, complete with the fingerprints of Al Gore’s “End is Near” acolytes.
But here’s the puzzling part: How is it that a bigger fraud than Hitler’s diaries has been completely missed by most of the media? You will look in vain to find honest reporting about it in most newspapers or on the TV network news. They are heavily invested in the stock of global warming — with decades of hyperventilating headlines. They cannot admit the theory is bankrupt, and that annual reports by the UN and the climate “researchers” have been rigged like Bernie Madoff’s portfolio.
So I give the media this week’s Sgt Schultz “I See Nothing” Award.
For the truth, check out another column in today’s WSJ: “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled,” by MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen, a longtime critic of global warming. Among other things, he says that “confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted” and “at this point there is no basis for alarm.”
He calls the globaloney stew of overcooked data “the grossest of bait-and-switch scams.” And he backs it up with real science.
You can find that kind of criticism on the op-ed page of the editorially conservative Wall Street Journal — but practically nowhere else besides talk radio and Fox News.
And they wonder why circulation and ratings for the liberal media are in steep decline. Maybe they can blame it on global warming?
BASAMS The Plumber annoyed Moderator Just when they think they know all the answers, I change the questions. 15000+ posts 18 minutes 11 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: ABC News:Press is Liberal
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
As we all know, the AP put 11 fact checkers on Palin's autobiography but only two on Obama's healthcare plan.
Nambla Zick rationalized this by claiming it was a timing issue, to wit, that there was limited time to get the story out and it was a hot topic:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Palin's a hot topic and they put some resources into her book to fact check it quickly but comparing the short term allocations to long term ones is deceptive. It's ignoring the actual number of man hours put into each. The 2 reporters assigned to the health care bill will still be covering it while the 11 fact checkers were on that for how long? Probably less than a day.
So....
Last night, as we all know, the President gave a "major speech" on the Afghanistan war, the lead-up to which dominated the news for several days.
The very next day, the AP did one of their "fact check" pieces on the speech.
Guess how many reporters they assigned to the "hot topic."
WTF? Do these liberal nutjobs forget they are speaking in public and not amongst their snobbish elite? West Point is the "enemy camp"? Of course it isn;t surprising as liberals consider Iran and Hamas as victims.
BASAMS The Plumber annoyed Moderator Just when they think they know all the answers, I change the questions. 15000+ posts 18 minutes 11 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: ABC News:Press is Liberal
A longtime newspaper reporter says he was unjustly fired after writing a personal e-mail to gay marriage supporters rebuking their tactics.
The Portland Newspaper Guild has filed a grievance on behalf of 58-year-old Larry Grard, who says he was fired Nov. 10 from the Morning Sentinel in Waterville.
Grard sent an e-mail to the Human Rights Campaign the day after Maine voters repealed a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed.
Grard said he was offended that the organization claimed gay marriage opponents used hate and said it was supporters who were being hateful. A worker who saw the e-mail complained to the paper.
how different the world would look if Martha Coakley were a Republican! As it is, she gets the sort of gentle rebukes the press reserves for Democrats. Her campaign was too “lackadaisical,” we are told. She was “overconfident,” and too “buttoned down.”
Reading and watching the MSM, you wouldn’t know that Coakley is a walking minefield. There is now, and there has always been, a completely different set of rules for Republicans.
If a Republican candidate in such a high-profile contest put out campaign literature that misspelled the name of her state, it would be worth, let’s see, mentions on every Sunday gabfest and two, maybe three, jokes on the late-night shows. Dan Quayle’s misspelling is the stuff of legend. Coakley’s? Not so much.
When Coakley was challenged in an October debate about her lack of foreign-policy credentials, she parried: “I have a sister who lives overseas, and she’s been in England and now lives in the Middle East.” Hmm. Just a few months ago, Sarah Palin said something similar, and the smart set has not yet finished laughing. Palin didn’t say, “I can see Russia from my house!” But the Tina Fey parody has replaced the less amusing truth. Saturday Night Live can be brilliant. But if Palin’s comment was worthy of such mockery, wasn’t Coakley’s equally so? Just asking.
The woman who would like to sit in the U.S. Senate announced last week that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan. Not since Joe Biden boasted (during the VP debate) that he had chased Hezbollah from Lebanon have we heard such a loony claim. Where are the titters?
The Democrats style themselves the party of the little guy. They’re for the people rather than the “special interests.” Just ask them. Yet Martha Coakley sneered at the idea of shaking voters’ hands “in the cold,” and chose to spend a critical night just seven days before the election in Washington, D.C., at a high-roller fundraiser sponsored by drug and insurance companies. The host committee included Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and others. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health were all sipping white wine with Coakley.
When the president stumped for Coakley in Massachusetts on Sunday, he praised her humble ambitions: “She became a lawyer not to cash in but to give working people a fair shake. She became a lawyer to fight for working families like the one she grew up in.” Oh yes, and “she went after big insurance companies that misled people.”
Members of the Fourth Estate always claim that hypocrisy is what they cannot stand. They are, they say, utterly nonpartisan scourges of that least forgivable political sin. Accordingly, they explain, if a Republican “family values” candidate is caught in a sexual indiscretion, he’s fair game (even if he never mentioned family values). But when Obama broke his solemn promise to abide by campaign-finance limits, and Coakley passed the hat for insurance-company cash, well, how about those Yankees?
Speaking of sports teams, Coakley is fortunate to be a Democrat, and therefore ipso facto a woman of the people, because she’s a little rusty on her Massachusetts sports knowledge. Asked on a radio program about Curt Schilling’s support for her opponent, Coakley said, “And another Yankee fan!” The incredulous interviewer could only stammer, “Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?” Now it was Coakley’s turn to stammer, “Oh, am I wrong about that?”
Fox News ran the speeches of Martha Coakley and Scott Brown, each in its entirety. CNN and MSNBC? Not so much.
When Martha Coakley (D) took the podium to concede the election, all three channels aired most or all of the eight-minute speech.
However, Republican Scott Brown's address was cut short on CNN after just seven minutes. On MSNBC Keith Olbermann cut Brown's mic and instead attacked the Republican candidate, talked about "teabaggers", and ran commercials. CNN only ran 26% of Brown's speech, while MSNBC aired 37%.
The Illinois Senate race is shaping up to be a high-profile and influential campaign that will have national implications. Not only because Illinois is the most populated state in the mid-west, but also because the seat up for grabs is President Obama’s former seat. If Republican candidate Rep. Mark Kirk, were to win the seat it would be seen as an enormous PR loss for the White House.
The Democratic nominee, Alexi Giannoulias has been under fire because of the failiure of Broadway Bank and his direct connection to it. Believe it or not, there are suspicions of corruption, incompetence and graft with regard to a Democrat in Chicago. Go figure!
Obviously, this is such a damaging story for Giannoulias that Rep. Kirk has been able to gain some serious traction in the race by continuing to focus on the issue. That’s what a politician does when engaged in a tough campaign (Sen. John McCain’s Presidential campaign notwithstanding).
Now we have the spectacle of one of the major local stations in Chicago threatening not to cover the campaign if the Republican continues to discuss the most damaging aspect of his opponent’s record. Is this the role of an FCC licensed station, entrusted with the role of serving the public interest in relation to a free-flow of information for the citizenry? Maybe in Chicago it is.
REPORTER: Channel 2’s made a decision. We’re really not going to cover the Senate race, if it’s consistently only in your terms, is about Broadway Bank. The bank’s been taken over by the government, Alexi’s been pilloried. Tell me, what is your campaign going forward? What are the issues you are going to tell the voters why they should vote for you?
John Christoffersen's article for the Associated Press on Tuesday night highlighted the life woes of Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the failed Times Square bombing plot, citing how "his life seemed to unravel." Christoffersen also noted Shazad's "outspokenness about [former] President George W. Bush and the Iraq war."
The AP writer's article, titled "Times Square bombing suspect's life had unraveled [1]," first detailed the suspect's past "enviable life:" how he had become a U.S. citizen, his wealthy Pakistani family, his MBA, his "well-educated wife and two kids" and the house he owned "in a middle-class Connecticut suburb." Christoffersen then continued with the recent difficulties he faced : "In the past couple of years, though, his life seemed to unravel: He left a job at a global marketing firm he'd held for three years, lost his home to foreclosure and moved into an apartment in an impoverished neighborhood in Bridgeport. And last weekend, authorities say, he drove an SUV loaded with explosives into Times Square intent on blowing it up."
The writer seems to imply that these downturns lead directly to his alleged terror attack. While Christoffersen did mention how Shahzad "admitted getting explosives training in his native Pakistan" and how "[a]uthorities say Shahzad returned to Pakistan then came back to the United States," these were mentioned only in passing, compared to the 23 paragraphs dedicated to additional details on the suspect and his family's history, including his dislike for the former president:
Quote:
Shahzad's behavior sometimes seemed odd to his neighbors, and he surprised a real estate broker he hardly knew with his outspokenness about President George W. Bush and the Iraq war.
"He mentioned that he didn't like Bush policies in Iraq," said Igor Djuric, who represented Shahzad in 2004 when he was buying a home....
Shahzad, 30, is the son of a former top Pakistani air force officer, according to Kifyat Ali, a cousin of Shahzad's father. He came to the United States in late 1998 on a student visa, according to an official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the investigation into Saturday's failed car bombing.
He took classes at the now-defunct Southeastern University in Washington, D.C., then enrolled at the University of Bridgeport, where he received a bachelor's degree in computer applications and information systems in 2000.
"He was personable, a nice guy, but unremarkable," said William Greenspan, adviser for undergraduate business students at the University of Bridgeport. "He would just come in and take the course as needed so he could graduate in a timely manner."...
In 2004, he and his wife, Huma Mian, bought a newly built home for $273,000 at the height of the market in Shelton, a Fairfield County town that in recent years has attracted companies relocating to Connecticut's Gold Coast.
Like her husband, Mian was well educated. She graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2004 with a bachelor of science in business with an emphasis in accounting, the school said.
On her profile on the social networking site Orkut, she described herself as "not political" and said she spoke English, Pashto, Urdu and French. She listed her passions as "fashion, shoes, bags, shopping!! And of course, Faisal."...
Last year, the couple abandoned the home.
Neighbor Davon Reid and his girlfriend, Heatherlee Tyler, said they were puzzled that the couple moved out abruptly and left behind a mess of food, broken dishes and baby formula in the cabinets....He [Reid] said Shahzad was generally friendly but had some quirky habits, including jogging at night while wearing dark clothing.
Shahzad worked from mid-2006 to May 2009 as a junior financial analyst for the Affinion Group, a marketing firm in Norwalk. Company spokesman Michael Bush said Shahzad held a lower-level position dealing with the company's budget and projected income and left on good terms.
Still, Shahzad defaulted on a $200,000 mortgage on his Shelton home, and the property is in foreclosure, court records show. Shahzad took out the mortgage on the property in 2004, and he co-owned the home with Mian.
At the end of the article, the AP writer went so far to describe the tender messages an unidentified person once sent the suspect, which were found by The Connecticut Post and The New York Times outside his now foreclosed home: "The newspaper also found greeting cards, including one in which someone named Fayeza addressed him as 'sweetest Faisal.' 'Wish you happiness and joy now and always,' the card said. 'Praying for your bright future.'"
Earlier in the day on Tuesday, CNN's Jim Acosta also expressed sympathy for Shahzad [1]after a former neighbor described the foreclosure: "One would have to imagine that that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."
This poor tortured soul. Had we known sooner that he had quit his job which led to him losing his home, or that he didn't like the Gulf War I am sure none of us would have rushed to judgment on him. He is obvious in a lot of internal pain.
I wonder if he was ridiculed in Pakistan. As far as I can tell the article makes no mention of him being Muslim. Non Muslims are given a tough way to go in Pakistan. I am sure if he was a Muslim militant the AP would have mentioned it.
News today that the Washington Post Company has put the money-losing Newsweek up for sale reminded me of how during the last presidential campaign the “news” weekly repeatedly showcased their favorite candidate, Barack Obama, on the cover.
Might such obvious blatant liberal advocacy, which anyone could see in the grocery store checkout line, help explain its decline in fortunes – in credibility followed by finances?
By July of 2008, the Weekly Standard had dubbed the magazine “ObamaWeek” in creating this graphic of six covers which had already featured Obama's image:
at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
A group of liberal journalists in 2008 sought to sweep under the rug the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal that threatened to derail then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller, an online publication founded by Tucker Carlson, a conservative contributor for Fox News.
The documents offer evidence to conservative critics who have long held that the mainstream media were in the tank for Obama, and bolsters the argument that reporters with major news outlets are biased in their coverage.
Journalists working for Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic expressed outrage over the tough questioning Obama received from ABC anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at a debate and some of them plotted to protect Obama from the swirling controversy, according to the Daily Caller.
Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent pressed his fellow journalists to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by shifting topics to one of Obama's conservative critics, the Daily Caller reported.
"Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists," Ackerman wrote.
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, urged his fellow members of Journolist, a private listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, to do "what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have."
"This isn't about defending Obama," he wrote. "This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."
The Journolist members went as far as issuing a statement – one that was shaped with the help of Jared Bernstein who went on to become Vice President Biden's top economist -- calling the debate "a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world."
Journolist was shut down last month after leaks exposing member Dave Wiegel's scornful remarks of conservatives led to his resignation at the Washington Post as a blogger covering the conservative movement.
That they expressed bias in favor of Obama didn't surprise me. That they openly conspired to suppress negative coverage of Obama, while launching a slander campaign on Republicans, just to deceitfully fly cover for their damaged candidate, was a surprise and a major revelation.
It was a point in the Democrat primary where Hilary Clinton could have gained the lead, and they might very well have tampered with the election enough to prevent what would naturally have occurred.
Even the liberal Salon.com, named in the article, while making snippy defiant remarks, doesn't even try to deny the facts revealed.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
The Salon article actually does debunk the story. The conservative piece really makes it sound like it was some conspiracy when it wasn't. Some liberals ended up writing an open letter that was published in the Nation a while back. Other liberals didn't agree with them.
Quote:
1) Although the Caller claims that "employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage" (emphasis mine), it only quotes a handful of people, and none of them are employed at anything other than liberal publications. (Thomas Schaller, credited with the idea for the open letter, is an author, a University of Maryland professor and an Op-Ed writer at the Baltimore Sun who periodically contributes to Salon, and more recently, 538.com.) The two people who come off as the most combative Obama zealots are Chris Hayes, who works at the Nation, and Spencer Ackerman, employed by the Washington Independent, both progressive publications. I assume if there had been any evidence that a mainstream media news reporter had colluded in the Journolist "plot" to defend Obama, he or she would have been outed immediately by the Caller. My sources say there weren't any. ...
M E M, how can you possibly look at a conspiracy by multiple reporters to not cover the Jeremiah Wright story as anything other than an attempt to get Obama elected and spin the news in Obama's favor? How much influence they had is not the issue. (And how much influence many other like-minded liberal reporters nationwide had, who weren't part of the Journo-list discussions but clearly were ideologically one with these Soviet-worthy slander propagandists.)
Successful or not (and I think they were successful in pushing Obama over the top by a narrow margin) their intent to circumnavigate the facts, and outright slander Karl Rove, Fred Barnes or others to sell Obama to the public, is clear.
They put their ideological bias ahead of anything resembling objective reporting (i.e. Obama Ministry of Truth reporting), and openly discussed slandering Karl Rove and other republicans, to deceitfully create a diversion to distract from the marxist racism of The Annointed One they conspired to fly cover for.
What you see as a "debunk" I see as badly attempted spin when they clearly have their hands in the cookie jar.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.
The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”
Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”
“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”
Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”
Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.
“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.
Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”
Once again, rather than report the news, these journolisters acted as an auxiliary of the Obama Ministry of Truth, and actively mapped out a slander campaign for the Democrats.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Until these emails started surfacing, while it was obvious that most reporters were liberals I didn't they were was really some sort of "conspiracy" to screw over Republicans and support Democrats. I just figured that most journalists simply weren't aware of their own biases and tended to unintentionally insert opinion into the news.
But this makes it clear, sadly, that there is and was a concerted effort to promote one side over another.
Scary. The independent press is no longer that. It's just a house organ for a single political party.
Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession 7500+ posts 3 minutes 33 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: ABC News:Press is Liberal
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
SEE?! The thread title SAYS ABC News is Liberal! SEE?!!!
iggy annoyed User Promethean Lapdog 4000+ posts 0 seconds ago Checking who's online Prometheus cool Moderator Since 1999 15000+ posts 3 seconds ago Checking who's online Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession 7500+ posts 53 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: ABC News:Press is Liberal Pariah nerdy User The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts 4 minutes 32 seconds ago Checking who's online
I just watched a live press conference by Obama (Thursday, Oct 6th, 11AM-noon), where Obama, infuriatingly, just blames all his own failures on the Republicans.
Asked by a reporter about the frustration of Americans about the lack of improvement in the stalled economy, Obama bemoans the "cynicism" of Republicans who for "partisan reasons" not passing Obama's "jobs bill" (which is actually another stimulus bill, deceptively renamed a "jobs bill" by focus-group-selected wording, but a rose by any other name...) The media --of course!-- doesn't call Obama on the fact that Obama's first 847 billion in jobs spending wasn't used to create the "shovel ready" jobs, and that he cynically joked about this at a previous press conference. And also let Obama off the hook and DIDN'T ask: why should we believe you now? And also didn't bother to mention that, far from being unpassable along partisan lines, a majority of Democrats in congress will not vote for Obama's "jobs bill" either.
Obama was also softballed a question about the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, and asked Obama's opinion about the frustration of people nationwide about the excesses of Wall Street. The reporter DIDN'T ask or follow up that Wall Street was the biggest financial backer of Obama's 2008 campaign, or that GE, Pfizer and other corporate giants have benefitted under Obama like under no other administration in history. (For an extensive documentation of this incestuous corporate feeding frenzy under both the Obama and W. Bush presidencies, read OBAMANOMICS by Timothy Carney).
It makes me ill the way the press consistently enables Obama's cynicism and deceit by tossing these kind of softball questions with no accountability to the true facts.
I just watched a live press conference by Obama (Thursday, Oct 6th, 11AM-noon), where Obama, infuriatingly, acts like he's the President of the United States. Who does that colored man think he is, huh?!! NAZI! Hank Williams Jr. told me to say that after FOXGretchen told us not to listen to ANY other celebrities, except for the ones they show! Sieg Heil!
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy (as slanderously paraphrased by Pro)
I just watched a live press conference by Obama (Thursday, Oct 6th, 11AM-noon), where Obama, infuriatingly, acts like he's the President of the United States. Who does that colored man think he is, huh?!! NAZI! Hank Williams Jr. told me to say that after FOXGretchen told us not to listen to ANY other celebrities, except for the ones they show! Sieg Heil!
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I just watched a live press conference by Obama (Thursday, Oct 6th, 11AM-noon), where Obama, infuriatingly, acts like he's the President of the United States. Who does that colored man think he is, huh?!! NAZI! Hank Williams Jr. told me to say that after FOXGretchen told us not to listen to ANY other celebrities, except for the ones they show! Sieg Heil!
