Stop complaining about where she gets her sources - see messages
Posted By: me on 2009-04-29
In Reply to: You absolutely crack me up! (sm) - Just the big bad
Especially since you only post from MSNBC. Who cares that someone posts from Fox, MSNBC, CNN or whoever. You have nothing to complain about the content of the information, just where she posts from. Personally I trust Fox over MSNBC, CNN, Huffington post or any of the far left liberal rags. At least we get the truth from Fox. If all Fox did was praise the annointed one up and down and all over and was giving us lies 24 hours a day like MSNBC, CNN and others you'd be praising them. You just don't like to hear the reality of what is happening.
Here's a hint - Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all report the same exact news. They just have different commentator shows.
P.S. - Louis Farrakan called Obama the Messiah. I'm sure he's not a conservative (could be wrong, but I don't think he is). Also, Obama NEVER came out to say I am NOT the Messiah. He let people think this with all the miracles he was professing he would do once he got in. The liberals are the one who have said "Obama is the new Messiah". So, everyone just picked up on what the liberals were taughting (sp?) throughout the campaign. Unfortunately too many ignorant people believed it.
So please, enough with whining that someone posts an article from Fox.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Were you also complaining when they were doing
nm
Seems like you're doing enough complaining over there yourself
Why aren't you complaining that...
...we are spending 10 BILLION DOLLARS a MONTH for a fake war in Iraq?
Why aren't you complaining that Bush gave his "hungover" buddies on Wall Street a few hundred billion to play with, without any accountability whatsoever (and Wall Street is still whining for more)?
No Hillary did her own complaining at the time...
They're just waiting like vultures for the O to fail, so she can run again in 2012, and say, see, I woulda been a better choice....just watch
The same people who are complaining about welfare...
are the ones looking for a government handout to pay their mortgages so they can purchase big-screen televisions for their bedrooms and build decks on the back of their government-paid houses. I guess welfare is okay as long as they get their house paid off.
Are you complaining about the "earned income credit?" nm
x
I would never earn a martyr badge, and again, I am not complaining...sm
It seems whenever I attempt to explain a point that someone else brings up, I am getting slammed here. Okay, one more time, having lived in the South and the Midwest and West, and having relatives there, I can just say for certainty that NORTH EAST PEOPLE (not just me) have a way higher cost of living, and I told you why, and it is fact. That is not being defensive or a martyr, YOU ASKED ME that living in the North East had to do with it, and I told you, because it is common economics. I actually thank God for my blessings, because no matter where you look, there are always those that are hurting more, have less, and are struggling way more, and I pray for them honestly every day. I do count my blessings. So one asked me why I "couldnt afford shampoo", which was just a metaphor for being on a strict budget and paying cash for things, giving all we can to our children and also to retirement someday, .....how in the heck is this all getting turned around so much from one single question, one hopeful proposal, something to discuss and ponder perhaps? Are there that many childish people here? No wonder our country is in so much trouble, if people would rather pull apart other people than discuss possible solutions like grown-ups, and this is how Congress acts much of the time....and nothing gets done for the country.
I believe the point was a poster was complaining about conservative posters here when there are
quite a few liberals on the conservative forum.
SNORT! Media Matters! Crappers complaining
X
I think one of his messages was GOP needs to
x
why do you keep replying to your own messages
and the messages are too bizzare. First you answer this post by saying no rest for the wicked, then you answer that post by saying take the day off, then you answer that by saying cough, snort???? None of this makes sense. Are you losing it? Maybe you do need a day or two off (your words).
To answer this original post, first his name is John McCain. It would be a good idea to stick to his name and not the childish words that keep getting posted. I have never seen an independent or conservative say any other name except Obama. So if you go there then expect some posters to call him Obrother, Oliar, OmyGodNo, Oflipflopper, etc, etc. Yes, Bush attacked McCain when he was running for president. Same as Obama attacked Biden, Biden attacked Obama, Clinton attacked Obama and Biden, etc, etc. Everyone attacks everyone during primaries. At least McCain didn't pick one of the other running mates from the primaries. Obama did. Obama promises change he gives us the same. Obama promised he was going to bring the troops home, now he's going to leave them there. I also read recently that Obama has stated he will support a draft and that everyone should fight, not just some. Obama keeps flip flopping everytime he turns around. I had great respect for him during the primaries, but now his lies and flip flops are so obvious. I know you would prefer that Obama can attack McCain anyway he sees fit (lies, misstatements, calling the oponents pigs, etc) and McCain is supposed to be kind to him because he didn't like it when it was done to him????? With all the attacks Obama and his camp is pulling on McCain & Palin for no good reason and not even sticking to the issues, I can see exactly what his character is like, so yes my friend, that does speak of his character. It is not a pretty sight.
Answers to messages below
I watched the film again. Yup, still am disgusted. I looked for those "subliminal" messages. Even backed it up and went through it clip by clip. Nope, nothing "subliminal". The film is telling you about Obama, Ayers, Weatermen, Acorn, etc. The films clips are of actual footage of the outcome from the horrendous crimes. While Obama will quickly dismiss these associatios as "coincidence" or "he just happened to be a person in my neighborhood" he is not being truthful. Read the history. He has had long-term associations with them and still does (maybe he stopped while campaigning, but no doubt he will pick back up once the election is over) - and if he happens to be elected? Well nothing subliminal there. You know what will happen. If you're in agreement with what Ayers did, what Acorn does, etc, then I'm sure you think it is fine, and if some people don't love America like a lot of us do then I can see why they would think this is the greatest man since the invention of sliced bread. But a lot of us do love America. A lot of us do want America to be free. A lot of us do want to own our own business and invest in America and not have our money "stolen" from us by government that we worked 60 or more hours a week for to make ends meet and now have to work more hours cos the people who aren't working but could are receiving their welfare check (i.e., my money that I had to put in an extra 20 hours a week of work to get it).
If you don't like the film fine. That is your opinion. But plenty of us want to know who Obama really is. Who are his ties? Who are his allegiences? And more importantly - why did they choose him? He didn't pick them, they sought him out. Who got him elevated to where he is at so fast? Who made it possible for him (without experience) to rise past Richardson (a governor with more experience), Biden (over 30 years experience), Edwards (over 10 years experience), Kucinich (close to 40 years experience), and others. And even Hillary (8 years experience and 8 years as first lady (16 if you think being a first lady is experience - I don't but its still more than Obama has).
Who is this Obama guy who so quickly was placed into the position when now (even though I voted for Obama over Hillary) we are finding out that Hillary actually did win. Has to make you wonder who put him where he is (hint - it is not the American citizens - not conspiracy - FACT). There are too many unanswered questions. It has nothing to do with propaganda - it has everything to do with learning who and what Obama is.
To the other poster who thinks poor Obama gets slammed 24/7. Looks like somebody googled a dictionary to find a whole bunch of words. Funny how it's okay to slam McCain/Palin 24/7. As would be described by others "we're just trying to get out the word about them". I'm not slamming any posters on the board. I simply am posting a link about a candidate that I feel very strongly is one of the worst choices for a candidate in history. I'm trying to get people to open their eyes and learn more about them. If you don't want to believe this fine. Google Obama put in everything you can. Even use other search engines like Dogpile and others, but for Petes sake, don't go by what's on Obama's website, or stop the smear or any of those other propaganda websites that pull the "poor Obama, everyone is picking on him, he's so innocent, don't beleive them, call them racists, etc, etc." That is propaganda. And if your going to be getting any "subliminal messages" it will be there. When you have 2 candidates you cannot honestly believe any of their info they put out. Candidates lie to get your vote. That's the ways it's always been done. The only thing the conservatives ask is that people educate themselves about each candidate (both of them). Who are they. Who did they associate with. How did they get where they are at. Who is financing them. What organizations did they belong to and what was the purpose of those organizations. Did they attend secret meetings and if so where and with whom and what is the purpose of those secret organizations. What have they done in their careers. What are there voting records like (i.e. if someone (any candidate past, present, or future) votes for the past 2, 3, 4 or more years to raise taxes but now all of a sudden during the campaign has changed their tune and they are promising you they won't raise your taxes or they'll lower your taxes) has to make you think. Also, and most important to me - Is the person we elect going to uphold the constitution or going to change it because it doesn't align itself with their ways of thinking. In knowing everything I know and in other people's feeling Obama is not. Obama associates with people who say "God D@m American" and people who say "American makes me want to throw up".
I posted the video link because it is one of many films (we won't even go into Obama's ties with Kenya) that is trying to put out the truth about Obama. He used video clips of CNN reporters asking questions and everyone KNOWS that CNN is one of the most liberal (MSNBC is the most liberal - CNN is 2nd) TV stations. Do you disagree with what Hillary Clinton was saying? Do you think anyone wanting to know the truth about Obama's affiliation with Ayers should be just shut up?
So until this election is over I will continue to try to get the word out about Obama life (the one he is hiding from Americans and covering up by instructing his followers to call people racists and insult them if they say anything negative about him).
sorry sam, got the messages mixed up
your right. I thought that gourdpainter was saying people on this board were going to be responsible for attacking Obama then I thought she was calling us skinheads. HA HA HA HA....definitely good thing I went and took a dinner break. Now I understand what she was saying and what your reply was. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry, didn't mean any offense to you. I just get irrited at being attacked all the time.
Mixed messages...(sm)
You basically just said we are all in this together but pi$$ on the poor people. Unbelievable. 
There were subliminal messages
encoded on those CDs Obama gave Brown. He has now been assimilated and reprogrammed (not that he needed a he!! of a lot of rewiring to start with.)
Read prior messages...
Messages seem to say prepared = gun ownership/usage
And if you read the previous messages
Nice try!
Not "bull". Read messages above to
nm
I will not stop trying to stop the slaughter of the unborn in this country...
I never said you were a stupid wretch. What I said was, if you can watch that video below and not feel something, your heart must be seared over. If you can watch that video and advocate what you advocate, yes, I'm sorry, I find that cold. I am entitled to my opinion and all your ranting and name calling and belitting is not going to change that. Someone needs to speak for the child. You certainly aren't allowing it any rights, including the right to live. You are okay with that, I'm not.
Then quit asking questions and posting messages
If people stopped posting then it wouldn't have come to this.
Words can come off sounding like an attack, because these messages lack..sm
facial expressions, demeanor, so it leaves the reader to interpret the mood.
I don't know if you were saying me or Sir Percy was a recovering Democrat, but either way I'm a registered Democrat and have never voted for a republican president because of where I stand on social and civil issues.
Speaking of frustrating democrats, and I never thought I would be going here because I have a lot of respect for her. I was even bidding for her to be the first woman president, but Hillary needs to take a stand and stand firm on it, and let us know what it is. Her centrist stance is frustrating because I think she is the one democratic model out there that could speak and be heard and respected. Yet she has been quiet, and too her lack of opposition to the war has taken my respect down for her a few notches.
That is CLASSIC propaganda, music and subliminal messages too
Wow, holy cow is right. How can you allow yourself to be fed this hateful propaganda. It's one thing to take something out of context, but to add in characters and newsflashes about the markets tumbling and to add the dreadful music and paint Barack as some kind of partner in Ayers activities is just anti American. This is anti American crap and you should get educated instead of being a patsy and letting your mind soak in these images. God help you if you ever watch a cult film, you will be drinking the Jonestown Kool-Aid.
I reported 'Ahem's' and 'Anon2's' messages to the moderators
I suppose it is the same person.
Does anybody else get error messages half the time they try to post on this board. ?
.
I have posted many many nice thought provoking messages here and have been called
s
sources
I got it from blogsforjohnmccain.com. Not sure where you get your info. In fact, I don't even know how I got that story, as I'd never been to this site. Here's an interesting one, too: informationvault.com. The resources are endless. It amazes me that the so-called news stations are in business with their pathetic, identical news coverage. Judge for yourself. They always have exactly the same stuff, and the exact, same attitude.
As for FNC, that's why it constantly leaves all the rest in the dust. While I like Alan Colmes okay as a lib, his remark about Sarah was what I thought to be out of character for him after watching Hannity & Colmes all these years. I'll be writing Roger Ailes/FNC to remind them that FNC is way above those tacky networks, and that this won't be tolerated.
Susan Estrich, another FNC lib I like, has gone after the libs for what they've done to Palin. She's a fair lib. She's wrong on politics, but behaves with class while debating.
your sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/is-palin-trying-to-incite_b_132534.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVFWahLTdUo
Need more?
There are other sources...........sm
that are equally as reliable and accurate. All news web sites are going to put their own spin on the news. Factcheck, regardless of what news media uses it, I don't feel is reliable. They are said to have actually touched and examined Obama's birth certificate yet state they can't get their hands on the vault copy. If Obama wanted to produce it, he could. I wouldn't doubt that it may be proven at some point in time that the document that Factcheck holds is a forgery produced by one of his own workers who gained access to the necessary insturments to produce it. Corruption exists at every level of government and money is a powerful motivator. Just as the LA Times what they are doing with their newly acquired 3 million dollars.
It's in other sources too -
I do read and listen to more than just liberal articles and stations.
After looking at other sources...(sm)
...here's my opinion:
1. WBC is a pathetic fringe group that sometimes does nothing more than try our commitment to the principle of free speech (which is always most challenged when people say things we abhore), but sometimes the group steps over the line into illegal activity.
2. When they have stepped over the line, they have been charged and/or sued. This is where such matters belong.
3. Michael Moore knows how to shoot fish in a barrel and make some believe he's provided some important insight. Big whoop. I guess we can expect a piece on the churches that practice snake-handling to be next. My question is: Where's his piece on the other groups that have picketed the funerals of fallen soldiers in order to desecrate their memory?
I'm not holding my breath.
You may want to check your sources.
Actually this may be more accurate:
Katrina Victims Welcomed in Massachusetts
Massachusetts to take about 2,500 refugees from hurricane” – The Associated Press
“Massachusetts will take in about 2,500 Hurricane Katrina refugees in coming days, sheltering them on Cape Cod for up to two months and likely resettling some permanently in the Bay State, Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday.
Romney said federal emergency officials told him Sunday to prepare for the evacuees, who will arrive in two to three days, and will be temporarily housed at Camp Edwards on Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod.
Otis has many amenities to accommodate the large numbers, including beds, a school, medical facilities, a gymnasium and a movie theater, he said.”
Check your sources
Get your facts straight. Obama was sworn in using a bible. It was another congressman, Keith Ellison, who was sworn in using the Koran.
Uh...you might want to check your sources on that one.
Can't get around to the rest of the post this p.m., 'cause it took a little time to get the response together for the first sentence:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html:
On July 17, 2008, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced the committee would be holding a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George Walker Bush and possible legal responses. The hearing convened on July 25, 2008.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9689
Here's some video (July 25, 2008 through August 14, 2008). As you can see, it is ongoing. I included the link above because that is the day Vicent Bugliosi was there.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4333.html:
May not have heard about this on your mainstream media outlets because there has been a media blackout. Of course, for those out there who find this in the least bit interesting, try some alternative media sources. Pacifica Foundation (Pacifica.org) publicly funded, listener sponsored radio outlets (not NPR) would be a good place to start. Their most popular show, Democracy Now!, has put out some fairly interesting stuff on this hearing and it surrounding issues. Here are a few links.:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/14/after_ron_suskind_reveals_bush_admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/13/the_way_of_the_world_ron
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/28/house_judiciary_committee_hold_historic_hearings
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/former_senator_mike_gravel_calls_for
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/despite_opposition_from_his_own_party
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/22/pentagons_pundits_a_look_at_the
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/to_impeach_or_not_to_impeach
The ones from 06/13, 06/17 and 07/28 have more on Bugliosi.
The grounds for impeachment are WAY too long to get into here, but you could always Google "Article of Impeachment GW Bush 2008" for the details.
So far, the committee has heard from these guys:
Robert Wexler, D-Rep Florida
Dennis Kucinich D-Rep Ohio
Sheila Jackson-Lee D-Rep Texas
Tim Johnson D-Rep S. Dakota
Tammy Baldwin D-Rep Wisconsin
Keith Ellison D-Rep
Maurice Hinchey D-Rep NY
Elizabeth Holtzman D-Rep NY
Rocky Anderson former mayor of Salt Lake City
Eliott Adams, President of Board Veterans for Peace
Bob Barr, former R-Rep from Georgia
So much for lack of interest in impeachment hearings. Who knows where this will all end up, but Bugliosi reminds us that there is no statue of limitations on murder. Tune it out if you like...or not.
Uh, you might want to check your sources ....
there are two sides to every story:
They lined up by the hundreds to be a witness to history at the Judiciary Committee's unofficial impeachment hearings of George W. Bush today.
It wasn't called that of course. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-S.F.) had balked at a real impeachment hearing. Something about fearing a voter backlash from the public, already in a bad mood about Congress' inaction on core issues.
But today's hearing by the House Judiciary Committee -- billed as an inquiry to the Bush administration's use of executive power -- was ripe with opportunity for those who want to evict the president from office.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) accused the administration of diminishing legislative power "beyond recognition" and cited "a litany of wrongful actions," accusing the White House of "a dangerous consolidation of power."
Rep. Maurice "Mo" Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said of the White House, "I think this is the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
But Republicans (except for one, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, an outspoken Bush foe) defended the White House.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, belittled Democrats' attempts to turn the proceedings into an impeachment forum. If last month's hearing with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan amounted to a "Book of the Month Club," he said, today's is "an anger management class. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing on impeachment."
And Rep. Steve King of Iowa argued that after 45 hearings -- with such witnesses as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, McClellan and former Ambassador Joe Wilson -- there was no evidence that the Bush administration had committed any high crimes and misdeameanors. King also claimed that a recently declassified CIA document proves the president's controversial 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger are corroborated by Wilson's report.
Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) reminded them both that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing."
I think the words "this is not an impeachment hearing"
tell the tale. More like an anger management class, sounds like. I wuld also be interested in the recently declassified document about the Niger incident.
They wouldn't convict a President that we all know FOR SURE committed felony perjury...don't think anyone would vote to convict even if he was impeached...and the Democrats would be basically saying "yeah, we were stupid, we believed every word he said" if they do impeach him. The same Democrats who call him ignorant, an imbecile, stupid, etc.; they are going to go on record saying this guy who is so dumb he can't tie his own shoes fooled all of us, the American people, and the whole world? And all the stuff left over from the Clinton Admin on Iraq would all come out too. Pandora's box big time. In an election year? Don't hold your breath...lol.
Progressive new sources
On reviewing the posts below, I see someone has supplied you with a number of conservative sources to investigate. For the sake of balance, here is a list I prepared a few days back of progressive sources that will also give some insight into the Obama camp and their beliefs. You could Google around with this list, but don't be overwhelmed. In my personal opinion, the Democracy Now! Amy Goodman is a nice all-round overview of all the others. Here's that link and the list.
http://www.democracynow.org/
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast
Let's put some lipstick on sources, please...
where did these "facts" come from?
Exactly, and the sources you mention actually...
back up their facts that are easily checked, not just commentary or their personal spin on things. THAT is what people need to look at. Even if they are watching those other things, when they hear something, don't take it at face value. Research it, look for facts, not statements. Trust YOURSELF.
Never heard of this - you have sources?
/
The sources as you should be reminded come from
You could get smart and educate yourself. You can look all of this up; you will find it to be fact. The paper trail is there. Heck, even Obama's own "slip ups" came out of his own mouth but I suppose you're gonna tell me they had a double in there and he didn't say anything that should be a disturbing revelation to you.
Credible sources
I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...
What makes a credible source?
Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?
Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?
Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.
Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.
Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?
Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.
Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.
Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.
So, just curious about this.
Credible sources
I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...
What makes a credible source?
Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?
Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?
Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.
Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.
Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?
Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.
Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.
Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.
So, just curious about this.
About Credible Sources
Fox News presents itself as fair and balanced news reporting, when it's clearly not. Olbermann's show and Maddow's show are opinion and present themselves as such. Just check who's on the talking heads Sunday shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Conservative pundits still far outnumber liberal pundits on all of them. Again, you have to separate opinion programming from actual news reporting on all networks.
As for Rense, et al, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation. Lovell, Borman, and Aldrin saw things outside of their experience while in space. That's a far cry from what Rense believes in. World Net Daily, NewsMax, and others clearly have an agenda and make no effort to hide it. Fair enough. But how credible are THEIR sources? What are their sources' agendas?
Here's an intersting tidbit for those who believe in a "liberal media." Here are some former high-level Bush administration officials who've gone on to prominent positions in the so-called liberal media:
* Michael Gerson was picked up as a columnist for the Washington Post.
* Sara Taylor, who was integrally involved in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal and the politicization of federal agencies, became a pundit for MSNBC.
* Karl Rove became a Fox News "analyst," a columnist for Newsweek, and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal.
* Tony Snow went from the White House briefing room to a gig on CNN.
* Frances Townsend also went from the White House to CNN.
* Nicole Wallace went from Rove's office to CBS News before she left to work on McCain's campaign.
* Dan Bartlett is an "analyst" for CBS News.
I could site sources that say there were...
WMDs in Iraq, but would only be dismissed because they did not come from liberal media. Propaganda works both ways. At any rate, I am finished arguing with you people. I suggest we agree to disagree.
To ok, sorry, no link, too many sources
I believe we would be better off in the long run not to let government tinker around in our free market system. Now that they have a foothold, we will never get them out. They will infest everything from here on out. I apologize in advance for being so windy with this post, but this is something I feel strongly about.
I read a LOT of books and a lot of internet material. I stay away from the mainstream media because it is so biased and trivial that I become annoyed and scream at the TV. Once in a while I’m exposed to it accidentally and this only confirms my opinion.
I can’t link you to the source of my New Deal information. My most recent reading on this topic is: New Deal or Raw Deal? By Burton Folsom. You’ll have to hit the library. And reading this is truly ‘déjà view all over again.’
All of the programs that FDR tried willy-nilly over his 12 years (3 terms) had noble stated purposes, and very bad unintended consequences. You cannot adjust a single item in our social and monetary system without it causing a cascade of effects. (And by the way, FDR was the only president to serve three terms, at the end of which is own party introduced a bill to limit presidential terms to two!)
In the earlier post I mentioned the NRA (National Recovery Act) which set wages and prices in an attempt to ‘put more money in the pocket of the working man.’ There were higher minimum wages legally mandated for workers in various industries and higher prices set for goods to support those higher wages. The result was that smaller family-owned businesses which had competed on a local level with larger companies through lower prices could no longer do this. Their workers were willing to stay at lower wages to remain in their small towns with these small companies, but that became illegal – treasonous, even. Raising wages and prices made it impossible for the smaller companies to compete against national companies with their purchasing power and distribution systems. Defying the mandates sent men to jail. Businesses closed. Workers were put out of work, and had to move to large cities for jobs, or go on government relief. Wham! A generation of nomads and dependents.
To benefit female workers in Washington, DC, a minimum monthly salary was legislated, but it applied only to women. The result of this was that women lost their jobs to men who were willing to work for the lower wage. It was now illegal to pay these women their former lower salaries. Women were put out of work, another unintended consequence.
Tariffs on imports resulted in a drop in our export business. Then we had too much farm product being grown, not enough being sold, and prices dropping like a stone.
The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was designed to support crop prices and curb overproduction. Since we had begun taxing imports, fewer countries were buying our exports, so our farm products were rotting in the silos. The government had to destroy tons of it. So farm subsidies were instituted: If a farmer had 1000 acres, he might be offered money to take 10% of that out of production. The choice of which part of his land to designate as out of production was up to him. Most farms have wooded areas or poorly drained areas, etc. So the farmer would choose his poorest acreage - that had never grown a crop. Then he would take the subsidy money and buy fertilizer or use it to irrigate other poorly producing acreage. He would then start producing the crops that the government was guaranteeing good prices for (corn, wheat, cotton) and stop producing his other crops. Suddenly, production of corn, cotton and wheat went up, not down. And now we actually had to import some of the products which our farmers were no longer growing. The consequences were the exact opposite of the intent.
I won’t repeat all the information about the income tax. Let me just say that it is happening all over again, only FDR’s top rate was 79%, and the Obama administration wants 90% of the AGI bonuses, a cap on executive salaries. What’s next?
Excise taxes: Lets tax alcohol more, or tobacco, widgets, or electricity and gasoline to make everyone be “greener.” Taxing us for actual miles driven in our cars, what a great idea! It will be feasible as soon as everyone has a GPS tracker. I’ve heard ideas floating around about taxing internet usage, if they can figure a way to measure it
The WPA (Works Progress Administration) was another way to funnel money to supporters of the administration. If you could bring in the votes, you got to administer WPA funds in proportion to your usefulness. And in turn you could dole out jobs to those who were useful to you. This is in large part how FDR managed to get himself elected to three terms despite an unemployment rate around 20%. He controlled the money and the jobs. He had the ability to squeeze money out of any segment of society he chose. What terrible power to put in the wrong hands. Hiring and firing of WPA workers were cyclical, adding workers in the months before an election, dumping them shortly after, year after year, and it seems nobody caught on. They just agreed to vote whichever way would guarantee them a little work. And those who could not get work had to turn to the government for relief.
The ERA (Emergency Relief Act) supported by the new higher taxes had the unintended consequence of choking off the charitable contributions which had always gone to help the poor. A business owner being taxed at 79% is not feeling very charitable. So the government got to take this over, and become everyone’s benefactor. And these funds were given to governors to administer. Naturally, those states with the right sort of governor and constituency got the lion’s share of ‘relief.’ Both the WPA and the ERA were political patronage systems pure and simple.
And let’s not forget the voter fraud in FDR’s elections. Precincts recorded as 100% for FDR, when republicans in the precinct swore they had voted against him. Precincts recording more votes than registered voters living there. Seems they had an Acorn equivalent even then.
Someone on this board asked what possible purpose this administration could have for bringing down the wealthy. The answers should be obvious. Power. Envy. Covetousness. Revenge. And that favorite word of the new administration: Greed. Got news, though, if you try to take away from me something I have worked for and earned, you are the greedy one, not I.
To some, life is a zero-sum game. The amount of ‘stuff’ available to them is directly reduced by the amount I have. Therefore, I must give them half to level the playing field; maybe a little more than half to make up for the sins of my father and grandfather. It’s like a pie with only so many slices, and they deserve exactly what I have; it’s only fair. But life in America has never been that way. For centuries people have arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their back, taken a menial job, struggled, scrimped, persevered, and ended up owning the company. Others, who were born and raised here, feel they just can’t catch a break and wait passively for somebody else to give them the advantages they feel others have deprived them of.
So when I see this administration starting to take over businesses, cap salaries, tax ‘excess’ profits, legislate personal behavior, and all of the other intrusions that are yet to be disclosed, I am severely creeped out. The un-level playing field is exactly what caused the striving and competition and sparked all the energy and invention this country is known for. Smooth the playing field, give everybody a trophy, and a B on their report card, and I’m not sure what we end up with, but it sure as hades (oh, for the love of pete, the language police won't let me use the other H word) won’t be America.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin
It's the sources you use for your research
and accept as gospel truth. Worse yet are the sources you refuse to accept as truthful and reliable sources to help you distinguish between propaganda and fact.
Most non-partisan sources would not agree with you
But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't. Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists. And then who would you have left to insult?
Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years. The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden.
What is the answer to all this? I don't know. However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist.
Can you post the sources for this information?
On the face of it, it does just look like rhetoric, he said she said...that is why I would like to check the sources. Also...as far as reform...she did get the good ol' boys (governor and many commission heads) booted out. That is fact. That is plenty of reform, taking on your own party and cleaning out corruption. Would that more on both sides would have that courage. :)
andyou know this how? Please cite sources
nm
Could you please cite your sources? No fear here.
Don't you think you are being just a little presumptuous? There is nothing to fear from Saracuda. O will not be addressing her seriously because he is running against the tin man...you know, the silenced sidekick whose mouth has rusted shut that tags along behind her? How presidential do you think that he is looks when he behaves like that? Dems have BTDT 24 years ago. Geraldine Ferraro surged polls up to the sky for a week or 2, yet ended up being the same kind of sideshow JM has become when it was time to come back to earth and address campaign issues. Hype and hysteria is no substitute for substance.
If you want to know the truth, sources and dates...
are provided with this information. It is easily checked for accuracy, unlike the post above. Of course, you actually have to be interested in the truth for that to matter to you. "Nuff said.
Or how many 100s legitimate sources you
Didn't check hundreds, but did check conservative figures on this before posting in an effort to be fair.
|
