Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Self-Created Crisis

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The current debt crisis is a target-rich environment, so here we go...

Games People Play The Obama Administration and its supporters have accused Republicans of not dealing in good faith, and if you've listened to the media coverage, you might agree. However, it should be pointed out it's been the Left's position we need tax hikes, even after Republicans have said they wouldn't accept a plan that would include tax hikes. How exactly is that showing a willingness to negotiate?

Uh... yes... REPUBLICANS, how exactly is that showing a willingness to negotiate? The GOP has made it abundantly clear they have no interest in compromise. Again, they have no intention of giving the President anything no matter what Obama agrees to. The GOP are a bunch of petulant children in desperate need of a swift kick in the ass.

Obama, the Adult? The Left has praised Obama's efforts to date to try to hammer out a budget deal. Whether it was Nancy Pelosi gushing that the President "has the patience of Job" to Leftists saying Obama was "the only adult in the room" at the negotiations, the narrative is being written and repeated without question. The problem: Obama stormed out of one of the meetings. Democrats are quick to point out Paul Ryan did the same thing earlier, but it's different when you're the President. The expectations are a lot higher, and after the image of Obama being cool and intellectual has been touted for going on 3 years, this show of emotion doesn't help his cause any. Personally, I think Obama has been less than adult and less than statesman in his approach, which the Left has seen and is trying to overcome with spin.


The "storming out" was pure GOP spin. Cantor rudely interrupted the President three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the President was wrapping the meeting. You don't constantly interrupt anyone, let alone the President of the United States, in the middle of a negotiation and expect them to continue dealing with you. Cantor's a douchebag who needs to learn some farking manners.This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.

Why does anyone ever vote Republican? Seriously. All I've seen for years out of them is this kind of behavior, immediately lied about and spun to look like "stick-to-it-ive-ness" and standing fast. And right-wing idiots eat that shit up.

The meeting was over. Cantor kept nagging the President about a deal that had already been dismissed as unacceptable. "Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence," said an official in the meeting. "It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide."

Cantor has no respect for the office and needs to be smacked down hard. He's just a legacy Republican whose daddy's connections got him where he is, and Obama shouldn't, and probably doesn't, have any respect for him either. I'd pick Obama in any kind of fight.

That the right-wing shills are admonishing this when they were cheering when Cantor actually did walk out in the middle of the meetings because "the other side doesn't understand compromise" is just too goddamn much cognitive dissonance.

Lies, Damnable Lies, and Statistics At a press conference yesterday, President Obama said 80% of Americans want a balanced approach to dealing with the budget issues, which includes (according to him) modest tax increases. I beg to differ, sir. I think raising taxes is a horrible way to bring in revenue since it takes more money out of the economy and puts it into an entity that has no concept of how to make money or grow the economy. Anyone else see that as a problem? Raising taxes won't raise revenue, nor will it address the primary cause of the budget crisis: spending. Let's ask these same people if they would prefer significant budget cuts or higher taxes and see how many support you, Mr. President.

Meanwhile... in America:

By 45 - 38% they trust the President more than congressional Republicans to handle the economy, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters will blame Republicans over Obama 48 - 34% if the debt limit is not raised.

Voters say 67 - 25% that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts.

"The American people aren't very happy about their leaders, but President Barack Obama is viewed as the best of the worst, especially when it comes to the economy," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.

"Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy, but by 2-1 they pin the blame on former President George W. Bush rather than Obama, who is now more than 60 percent through his term of office."

Let me repeat myself... I advised the GOP some months ago to consider making cuts in some of their pet projects as a means to show how serious they were about getting our fiscal house in order. They didn't take my advice, and now they're having to fight with the President over the budget while at the same time having to fight a PR war to try to persuade the country they're serious. Recent polling data shows the public trust Obama with the economy more than the Republicans. That could have and should have been been avoided by bringing more substance to their budget cuts.

McConnell said their only goal is to make Obama a one-term president... if they have to put more financial pain and misery on the poor and middle classes to do it, then so be it. Besides, when has the GOP ever given a toss about anyone except the wealthiest Americans? They like to blow a lot of smoke up their asses around election time, but they haven't done a damn thing to help the folks suffering in this economy. Not one... But holy shit, they will bend over backwards for corporations and billionaires... It's disgusting.

Scare tactics are only for Republicans? During a recent interview, President Obama suggested he couldn't guarantee seniors would get their Social Security checks if the government were to shut down. Actually, sir, you don't make that call. It's Congress who does, and from the way it sounds, we have enough coming in on a monthly basis to pay Social Security and other interests and still have money left over, and that's without raising the debt ceiling. For you to resort to such blatant dishonesty is an indication you know you're losing the battle.

Sigh... "We may not have enough money to send out social security checks if Republicans won't compromise" is not the same as "I won't send out social security checks if Republicans don't give me exactly what I want."

No Quiet on the Leftist Front Finally, Sheila Jackson-Lee said racism was the cause of the current budget crisis. She blamed the Republicans for wanting the economy to fail because Obama is black. No, ma'am. Republicans aren't opposing the President because he's black. They're opposing the President to try to get this country back into the black.

Says the proven racist and the proven Birther.

In summary: The Republicans had no problem raising the debt ceiling... until Obama was elected.

Monday, July 11, 2011

A Matter Of FACT

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Fox News and Media Matters have been engaging in a war of words for the past few months. It started when Media Matters announced it was engaging in a "war against Fox News" to make them a more responsible source of information, according to them. Fox News has fired back, suggesting Media Matters lose its non-profit status because it has engaged in partisan activity, which is against current law.

Although it might be easy to assume which side I'm taking on this, let me clarify a couple of points. First, Fox News isn't exactly a source of good journalism. As a j-school graduate, I can tell when news and opinion get mixed, and Fox News does a lot of that. When it does straight news, it's solid. However, when opinion shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity" dominate the network's daily programming, it's blurring a line between news and opinion, one that I cannot condone. As to whether Fox News is biased, I have no doubt that it is. Having said that, I do think they're conscious of media bias and, for the most part, strive to eliminate it from their news programming. If Media Matters is truly interested in making Fox News stronger, I say bravo!

However, I don't think Media Matters is serious in its claim because it doesn't exactly hold itself to the standards to which it holds conservative media. What Media Matters often does is take a statement out of context, whip out a quick PR release bashing it, and let others run with the story as though it were true. A good case in point is an incident involving Glenn Beck. According to Media Matters, Beck called the victims of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags," which he did. However, there was an important qualifying statement that put Beck's comment into perspective. I know because I was listening to Beck that day and heard the entire comment where Beck admonished those who were looting and committing acts of violence as "scumbags." Yet, if you paid attention only to the Media Matters version of events, you wouldn't get that context. (And didn't the Left get upset at Andrew Breitbart for allegedly taking Shirley Sherrod out of context?)

The problem I have with Media Matters is the same problem I have with Fox News: being an honest dealer with information. Both entities stretch the truth, just in varying degrees. However, even a slight stretch of the truth from a media outlet can become the perceived truth if enough people believe it and don't bother looking for the truth. Having Media Matters call out Fox News for dishonesty is funny on one level, but necessary on another. We should be holding both Fox News and Media Matters to the same consistent standard: tell the truth.

Until either one can accomplish that on a consistent basis, let them try to knock each other out.

But Lindaman, you said for ages that Fox was totally unbiased! Why are you changing your opinion on this?

Breitbart didn't "allegedly" take Sherrod out of context. He blatantly DID, and Fox News Channel ran with it.

And as far as the Beck incident, Media Matters displays the ENTIRE CONTEXT, after Beck tried to back-pedal, Media Matters again shows the entire context in their RESPONSE. Show us where they did otherwise.

Did you plug up your ears the day you were listening to Beck?

But then, we're dealing with Lindaman, who gets their news from The Spin Cycle, which always puts "Kenyan" after Obama's name. Totally not a bunch of racists. Must be a bunch of honest unbiased people.

Sunday, July 3, 2011


Thomas Lindaman writes:

Yeah, I know I've been slacking with the blogging recently, so to make up for it, here is concentrated bloggy goodness for you all.

[Snipped Budget Comments, as I cover this in the next entry]

Glenn Beck signs off his Fox News show. If you heard massive cheering from the Left this week, it came because they "succeeded" in getting Glenn Beck off the air. Media Matters even held a "going away" party for him. Of course, they don't quite tell the entire story, that being the real reason Beck left Fox News: to start his own network. No matter how much you try to push the line he was fired (which begs the question of why Fox News let him keep airing his show for weeks after he was fired), Beck moved on, but he's not going anywhere. Well, except to Israel in August, but that's beside the point. Celebrate while you can, Leftists. Beck will continue to be a thorn in your sides for a while yet.

You don't "quite tell the entire story" either. The "network" is an internet web channel.

Letting a canceled show finish up is nothing new. Do you really believe Beck quit the number one news channel in order to make what's basically a right-wing webcam show?

There's no need to lie about Beck. He'll probably make a nice profit from the show. But there's no doubt about it: Beck was fired.

Why Sarah Palin isn't announcing yet (if at all). Given the media coverage of the Republican candidates, any candidate with an R behind his or her name is going to be scrutinized heavily. Of course, this isn't a bad thing in my opinion, provided it's done a) evenly, and b) with the intent of finding out the truth, not trying to score petty
political points. So far, the media have failed miserably on both counts, in my opinion. Whether it was Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday asking Michelle Bachmann if she was a "flake"

That's a fair question, as it's something people wanted to know. Wallace shouldn't have apologized (something you didn't mention, BTW, as you love to lie through omission).

"Liberals just hate a strong, not very bright, batshit crazy woman!"

Yeah, she's only bought into the "vaccinations = super retard babies" mantra, which is not only flaky, it's insane.

Her own party is doing her in. The GOP has never supported Bachmann... in 2008 they even refused to support her in her congressional campaign (she won anyway).

to Jon Stewart's adoption of a stereotypical "black voice" to mock Herman Cain, the media have become modern day muckrakers stumping for the Left in varying degrees.

Oh, for god's sake... he doing an impression and sounded just like him. He does that with everybody:


Again, just like when you were bitching about another comedian (Bill Maher), why not ask what black people think?

Oh, because that doesn't fit your narrative:

Yet again, you have to resort to comedians.

I guess when you can't defend the guy you helped get elected President, you have to cut down the people who could oppose him.

Ah, yes, the big "liberal media" conspiracy got him elected. Before you said Obama was elected because he was black.

Oh, and "defend him" from what? You have to do something wrong first. That's why you have to trash him for idiotic things like paper clips. Oh noes! We must defend him! lol

The trial everybody should have paid attention to, but didn't. Geert Wilders was acquitted of hate crime charges stemming from statements he made about Islam. Why this is such an important case is because it reaffirms freedom of speech. Oddly enough, I didn't see too many Leftists taking up for Wilders during his case, but I did see more than a few conservatives, including my good friend Warchick, taking up for him. Makes you wonder who really supports free speech in the world, doesn't it?

Makes you wonder who the racist xenophobes are, doesn't it?

WARCHICK the right-wing tranny?

WARCHICK that proudly states he/she is a "Racist" and an "Oppressor of Brown people"?

Ah well, should be no surprise that he/she is your "friend". After all, you yourself have said you are who you hang out with.


Wilders supports replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.


Even the 14th Amendment revisionists (ie right-wingers) don't support that notion. At least, not out loud.

Wilders is not that hot about freedom of the press either.


Mr. Wilders, if even the populist Canadian tabloids you presumably hoped would sing your praises say you went too far, they may have a point.

Funny how right-wingers defend free speech when it's a right-winger making (shocker!) hate speech against Muslims, but that's about it.

Just because "Leftists" think Wilders is a cocksucker, doesn't mean they don't support the right to free speech.