| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Rangel Bitch-Slapped (For Being A Lying Sack of Shit) |
| 2005-10-13 |
| President George W. Bush, according to Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., doesn't care about the poor. Rangel recently called the president "our Bull Connor," referring to the racist former Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner who turned fire hoses and attack dogs on civil rights activists in the '60s. "If you're black in this country," said Rangel, "and you're poor in this country, it's not an inconvenience. It's a death sentence." Once again, Rangel displays the unique ability -- apparently only possessed by Democrats -- to peer inside the president's soul, to conclude he lacks compassion and concern about the poor. For, one certainly cannot accuse the president of indifference to the poor based on his actions. Since Bush took office, according to the Heritage Foundation, federal anti-poverty spending -- including Medicaid, food and nutrition programs, housing, earned income tax credit and child credits, plus other programs -- increased 42 percent. This is nearly double the rate of increase under President Clinton. Some critics claim increased poverty has driven up poverty costs. But poverty rates have increased less than 1 percent under Bush, and remain lower than the average poverty rates under Clinton. Bush doesn't care about the poor? Let us count the ways. Education: Under No Child Left Behind, Bush increased federal spending on education -- in inflation-adjusted dollars -- from 2001 to 2005 by 38 percent. During the same period, Education for the Disadvantaged Grants (this includes Title I) -- the program designed to decrease the performance gap between urban and suburban school districts -- received an inflation-adjusted increase of 58 percent. Bush increased spending on Education for Homeless Children and Youth by an inflation-adjusted 57 percent during those same years. Under Bush, federal spending for bilingual education has increased 44 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2001. Bush has increased by 52 percent (from 2001) funding for Pell Grants used at technical schools and community colleges. Job Training: President Bush's 2005 budget included 12.5 percent more funding than in 2001 for job training and employment assistance. This comes to a total of $23 billion for 30 programs in nine agencies. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program pays for job training for those "displaced" as a result of free trade. Bush, in his first four years in office, more than doubled the inflation-adjusted dollars spent on this program. Community Service: The budget of the Corporation for National and Community Service -- which includes funding for former President Bill Clinton's pet project, AmeriCorps -- grew by an inflation-adjusted 76 percent from 1995 to 2005. Health Care: The federal share of Medicaid, the joint federal/state program, increased from $129 billion in 2001 to $176 billion in 2004, a 36 percent increase, averaging over 10 percent a year. Health research and regulation funding has gone from $42 billion in 2001 to $63 billion in 2004, a 48 percent increase. Faith-based Initiatives: Tracking of faith-based spending only began in 2003, and was not broken out separately before then. Under President Bush, 600 religious organizations received federal grants for the first time in 2003 and 2004, and faith-based groups received 8 percent of available social service grants in 2003, and 10 percent in 2004. SBA Loans: The Small Business Administration provided twice as many loans in 2004 than it did in 2001, providing over $19 billion in loans and venture capital to almost 88,000 small businesses. Over 30 percent of all loans and all loan dollars went to minorities in 2004, a 34 percent increase from 2003. From 2000 to 2004, the SBA backed more than 283,600 loans worth more than $63 billion, almost as much in those five years as the agency totaled in its first 40 years. Homeownership: Half of all minority households are homeowners, an all-time high. In 2002, Bush vowed to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 million families by 2010. Bush pushed for programs on down payment assistance, and called for increased funding for housing counseling services. Bottom line, under President Bush, the nation has seen the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson. Indeed, much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, President Bush's budgets -- even excluding defense and homeland security spending -- make him the biggest spending president in 30 years. But, Bush doesn't care about the poor. There's a saying: We don't care how much you know, until we know how much you care. If one measures compassion by "outreach," the president placed more minorities and women in his government and with power positions than any president before him. If one measures compassion by spending, the president owes no one an apology. None of this matters, of course, as long as you're a Republican. If "love means never having to say you're sorry," being a Republican means always having to say it. Duh, asshat, you've been royally blooded. Larry rocks. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #65 R.C.: I don't know if it was posted here already, but if not, have a look at this. Via Daily Pundit. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-13 23:38 |
| #64 Just finished reading "Flags of Our Fathers" about the flag raisers at Iwo Jima. Good read, our 1944 Pacific enemy has parallels with the 21st century one. But I digress. I was saddened, but not surprised, that the MSM made up stuff to sell newspapers in 1944. They may have held off on certain things to save lives, but some writers embellished - nah - fabricated - parts of stories. Just to make it more interesting, ya know? The difference was, they were on the side of 'truth, justice, and the American way', instead of whatever-it-is-they're-in-favor-of-today. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-10-13 21:47 |
| #63 Two more examples of press lies: The economy is tanking Bush staged a press conference. This one gets an extra score because the reporter called the head of a left-wing activist group for comment. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 20:51 |
| #62 In fact you have not quoted one single example outside of 'pundits'.... while we have given example after example of the MSM misleading and lying. Now if you replace #4 and #5 with : 4-5) The MSM deliberatly misleads and lies about the policies and project with the express purpose of harming the republicans and BUSHITLER no matter what the price people have to pay (see Newsweek's Koran-in-the-toilet story - how many lives were sacrificed on the hate-Bushitler alter for that one?). and replace 7 with: 7) Bloggers find that the MSM is lying, stand up point to them and yell "LIAR!" AND THEN PROVIDE PROOF!!! (See Rather, Newsweek, etc..). (Hows that for speaking truth to power?). 8-10 and just your koolaid-enhanced imagination. Stop drinking that stuff before you go blind. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 19:50 |
| #61 Anyone else notice that "Cassini" never bothered to confront the lies I pointed out? 7. Bush calls in the RNC "Slime Machine" to ridicule and character assasinate its critics. Never attacking the substance of their criticism. This is mostly how bush got re-elected. How deeply in a fantasy land do you have to be to believe this? Anyone else remember what happened to the Swift Vets? They're still accused of lying, despite no one being able to identify anything they said that wasn't true -- the most they could do is say Kerry disagreed. And talk about never addressing the substance of the critics; Kerry's service records would settle the record once and for all, but he's only released them to friendly journalists. Or what about an example I pointed out above, the Rather story? The "slime machine" was Mapes and Kerry's campaign, who coordinated the story to come out in sync with Kerry's "fortunate son" theme. Oh, and let's not forget the "missing munitions" story, another example of the press coordinating a non-story with the Kerry campaign. Then there were the literal attacks on Republicans. Campaign offices stormed and people assaulted; vandalism of campaign vehicles; record levels of registration fraud. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 19:37 |
| #60 Well, he attempted to ban all hunting on Federal Lands for starters.... |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-10-13 19:29 |
| #59 Failure at least attempted something. What did Slick Willie attempt other than fellating Arafat? |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-10-13 17:12 |
| #58 Bush is a FAILED PRESIDENT. Then why all the bloviating? |
| Posted by: Gleamp Slase2697 2005-10-13 16:59 |
| #57 Oh I get it warhog: Bush is a FAILED PRESIDENT. end of story. end of conversation. Good Night. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 16:54 |
| #56 Cassini is never going to get it. That dog won't hunt. Ignore him and he'll go away like the dissapointing shit he is. |
| Posted by: Warthog 2005-10-13 16:42 |
| #55 This guy makes me pine for Aris. At least he could make an argument, even if he was wrong. |
| Posted by: Omutle Angaviter4195 2005-10-13 16:36 |
| #54 This may go nowhere, but here is an email I sent to some friends about the political process and what we can do about it. I do not know if it will ever get off the ground, but what the hell, FWIW, maybe a start for discussion: ----------------------- With respect to the MSM, the tide is slowly turning. It will take time. The problem is that we as a nation are running out of time, with serious issues not being attended to, illegals and runaway spending, to mention for starters. We are in a race with time. I have no faith in the two parties any more. Both have sold their souls out to one thing or another years ago. So I have been thinking about what to do. Reforming them from within is hopeless. Those at the top have too tight a grip. It is like trying to reform the teamsters or the AFL-CIO. Good luck with that method, heh. So I started thinking about what to do, and I came back to the bypassing strategy in the Pacific in WW2. Truck and Rabaul were heavily fortified bases of the Japanese. Assaults would be extremely costly, so the idea came that the allies starve them out and bypass them to whither on the vine. So I started thinking about what that would mean in the American political process. That would mean having independent candidates run in key places where they could win. Get a foothold, so to speak. Now in congress they would be worthless, but we need press for them so people about the country could see their platforms, and see how mainstream congress treats them like lepers. They need some key issues that hit home so that Americans can identify with them. They are the underdogs. Americans like underdogs with character. Not fringe loons but people like mainstream America, with their interests in mind. We want to capture the mainstream. Then we will work on the edges of the left and the right to make a solid base. The independents are a coalition of the willing. We could call for reigning in Congress, in terms of spending and privelage. This is just the beginnings of my thought process. The guiding principle is to bring people together, celebrate American Values, promote individual freedom AND responsibility, accountability. Build on a few successes and bring real fear into the mainstream parties. I intellectually retch when I even think of the two parties and how they sold out this country. We must bring them to justice, but our main goal is to make positive things happen. We do not need a revolution, French style. J’accuse! We all know how that turned out. Anyway, those are my thoughts, half baked as they are. And if we fail, we can always fall back to civil war, heh. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-10-13 16:34 |
| #53 Mr. Crawford: here's a cause and effect for you.. 1. President Bush & the Republican Party take out a policy position. 2. They proudly trumpet it to the American Public thru Grand Speeches such as State Of the Union addresses and interrupting normal MSM programming for Bush's "important" policy announcements. Thus they have used the MSM to their advantage. 3. The policies are thus implemented thru the system by popular demand and in many cases become law or political action authorized by Congress thru President Bush's blessing and Karl "the genius" Roves profound strategizing. 4. The Bush/Republican Congress policies & rhetoric start to negatively falter and take on a sense of failure. 5. Panic set in the Bush admin. & Repub Congress. 6. Public Polls show negative numbers for Bush as criticism rises to a hilt. 7. Bush calls in the RNC "Slime Machine" to ridicule and character assasinate its critics. Never attacking the substance of their criticism. This is mostly how bush got re-elected. 8. The so-called MSM gets the brunt of the blame for Bush's failed policies for "liberally biased reporting that was done deliberately in agreement with the DNC to slant it against Bush. 9. Finally a fall guy is found within the Bush admin or the repub congress..this person/persons take the "fall" for Bush's failure by bravely falling on their sword for the good of the Republican Party. 10. The Republican echo chamber issues standard canned-assed talking points to rebutt any futher criticism and repeated ad infinitum until everyone screams for them to shut up. Oh yeah thats the real "cause & effect".. Now who has their head up their ass? It damn sure isnt me or fellow democrats..we see EXACTLY what happening..lmao |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 16:23 |
| #52 Repubs are not looking good right now, but the Dems are looking worse. I doubt that any of the angst now will translate into Dem gain in 2006. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-10-13 16:10 |
| #51 Excellent summary R.C. What the hell does 'Party in Power Fatigue' have to do with republician failure? This just proves the point that - at this time of the administration - its normal for a presidents approval ratings to be at this level. Just because the press claims Iraq is a QUAGMIRE and the economy is down, and that (as RC said) the President served a PLASTIC TURKEY doesn't make it true -- no matter how many times the media repeats the lie. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 16:07 |
| #50 Oh, MAN! All this back and forth is HIlarious. Are you sure you didn't script this out beforehand? It's almost as good as "Who's On Second"! |
| Posted by: AlmostStupid5839 2005-10-13 16:03 |
| #49 Secret Master -- to be fair, I was the one that said he had his head up his ass first. I stand by that assessment, BTW. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 15:34 |
| #48 Mr. Crawford I didnt prove your point at all. The Washington Times wouldnt be considered MSM by anyone. OK, let's follow this through. I'm holding out the possibility you *MIGHT* be able to comprehend cause and effect: Step 1) The press lies. It lies about Iraq, about the economy, about Katrina, about anything that it can use to make Bush look bad. Step 2) Slowly, those lies start to be believed. The complete lack of context, the press's refusal to admit when it was caught lying, and the repetition of those lies convinces people they're the truth. Step 3) Polls show people believing the lies. Step 4) Pundit reads polls and extrapolates them into a doomsday scenario. That's my point -- the lies the press tells get believed, and harm not only the president, but also the country and western civilization. They are dogmatically right wing conservative..they absolutely never criticize republicans...what i'm reading in there recently is highly abnormal. "They never criticize Republicans, until they do." How many years have you been reading the Washington Times on a daily basis? So, was I right that you believe the president served a plastic turkey to soldiers for breakfast? Or that he told the Palestinians that God told him to liberate Iraq? Or that the Rather memos were real? Or that FEMA failed in Louisiana? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 15:34 |
| #47 the methane from your OWN HEAD IN THE ASS Syndrome See guys? It's just like I was saying yesterday : you know a liberal is getting serious when they start talking about things going up people's asses. Until then it's all foreplay. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-10-13 15:17 |
| #46 o.k. frank. bob &.com: if you disagree with conservative & liberal pundits, newsmedia, polls that the Bush admnin/ Repub Congress ISNT in political trouble, Whats's YOUR assessment of the situation/political scene for Bush/repubs currently? btw: Mr. Crawford I didnt prove your point at all. The Washington Times wouldnt be considered MSM by anyone. They are dogmatically right wing conservative..they absolutely never criticize republicans...what i'm reading in there recently is highly abnormal. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 15:17 |
| #45 Um, "Cassini", you proved my point. The lies the press has been telling have created political problems for the president and the Republican party. I bet you believe Bush served soldiers a plastic turkey for breakfast. If you personally don't, I bet a lot of your friends do. I know it's a widespread belief in the press -- at least, it's repeated often enough. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 14:54 |
| #44 Lol. It's still here, trying so desperately to pee on something. Yap! Yap! Yap, yap, yap! *snort* |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 14:53 |
| #43 frankly, dipshit, you'll never join the "dark side" and we don't want you either. You source "pundits" for your reality? Pundits, by definition, use exaggeration and hyperbole to advance arguments. I'll take my news straight, thankyouverymuch. Keep drinking the koolaid....consider it chlorine in the gene pool |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-13 14:50 |
| #42 Robert Crawford: IF you can sit there and say with a STRAIGHT face and say that for President Bush and the Republican led Congress, that things are going just "GREAT" on all the fronts listed in my post, the the methane from your OWN HEAD IN THE ASS Syndrome is effectively causing you BRAIN DAMAGE..LMAO Besides your SPPPIIINNNN ON THE ISSUESS IS MAKING MEEEE DIZZZZYYYY....!!! And what's so amazing about your post is that you are even in total disagreement with your own right wing conservative pundits: Here's a sample from the Washington Times a conservative gladrag if i ever read one: "THE GOP'S IMAGE PROBLEM" by Douglas MacKinnon "The Republican Party is in trouble at the moment and, if ignored we face the prospect of devastating losses across the board. With regard to the White House, no matter the approval ratings of Mr. Bush-and I believe history will regard him as on of our greatest presidents-The American people are suffering from "party in power fatigue." Eight years of any party in power in the White House is more than enough for most americans. That is more the reason NOT TO DENY THE OBVIOUS." If you want more quotes from repub pundits acknowleging that bush/republicans are in "DEEP SHIT" let me know, I'd be glad to provide to you. just trying to help shatter your delusions of granduer. lol |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 14:38 |
| #41 Bush is spending too fucking much on the poor. Get them off their asses and have them work for a living. Rangel wouldn't know what work is. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-13 14:31 |
| #40 I'm not saying Bush and Co are entirely blameless. I personally think Bush and company are doing a number of things wrong. (Immigration and failure to secure our borders being one). See posting #4 and #5. These were instances where the media (deliberately IMHO) misled the public. They outright LIED. These are not instances where the republicans did something wrong. The whole Dan Rather episode - where is (again deliberately IMHO) failed to fact-check. Sorry - the 60's and 70's are over. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 14:13 |
| #39 And let me point out that the "loss of public confidence in the war" is the expressed strategy of the Democrats and the jihadists, both. The press goes along with it, to the point of paying for propaganda from the jihadists. The wire services and the networks have been caught using staged photos and video. If you think pointing that out means Republicans are avoiding responsibility, I respectfully suggest you pull your head out of your ass and start breathing something other than your own methane. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 14:06 |
| #38 It's always somebody elses fault. Republicans take responsibilty for nothing that goes wrong on their watch. Bullshit, asshole. It's the blatantly false stories (Katrina "failures", Iraq "failures"), the covering-up of Democrat problems (Schumer's dirty tricks squad, Sandy Burglar), and the consistency of the slant that ticks people off. Many of the things you cite as "going wrong" aren't: job approval ratings Meaningless. Bush is ahead of past presidents at this point in his presidency. You can't/won't get that context from the press, though. loss of public confidence in the Iraq War Driven by a drumbeat of lies from the press. The reality on the ground is infinitely better, but positive news is smothered or ignored, while the most senseless violence from the jihadis is treated as a strategic defeat for the US and Iraq. disatisfaction with the direction of the country is headed in Here's a hint: many of those "dissatisfied" are critical from the right. We're sick and tired of seeing Democrats trash the country, commit treason, and be treated like their saints. the handling of the economy Again, positive news is never reported, or is spun to the negative: "Decreased unemployment is driving fears of inflation..." Criminal Indicments/Investigations of Republican Congressional leaders/Top Bush staffers Again, all the while equivalent or more serious charges against Democrats are ignored. How much coverage has the MSM given the oddities around the DeLay indictment? How would you feel if you were charged with a crime over something that wasn't illegal? Or if you were indicted and it turned out the prosecutor had to try multiple juries before getting the indictment? Or if it turned out a film crew had been following the prosecutor around while he tried to build a case against you? Tell me -- did you support the impeachment of Bill Clinton? If not, then you have no fucking room to talk about anything related to breaking the law. The man committed perjury; he lied in front of a jury. He suborned perjury; he tried to get others to lie, too. If you don't think he deserved to be hounded from office for that, then STFU and admit you're nothing but a whore for your party. You no doubt bought the "it's all about sex" crap fed to you by the press, and bought it because, bluntly, Democrats cannot admit ever being wrong or in the wrong. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 14:00 |
| #37 Crazy Fool: Like I said before, I have been in such Conservative sites as Red States, Polipundit and Hedgehog recently and a pattern persist in each and everyone of them. In each and everyone of them ,practically EVERY NEGATAIVE problem/criticism that has led to the current quandry of Republicans/Bush poor poll numbers on: job approval ratings, loss of public confidence in the Iraq War, disatisfaction with the direction of the country is headed in, the handling of the economy, Criminal Indicments/Investigations of Republican Congressional leaders/Top Bush staffers: THEY ARE MANUFACTURED BY LEFTIST POLITICAL ENEMIES. THEN REINFORCED BY A BLATANTLY LIBERAL BIASED MSM, WHO DELIBERATELY SLANT THE NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS NEGATIVELY AGAINST BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS. In other words Bush and the Republicans have absolulety NO CULPABILITY with the RESULTS of THEIR actions, rhetoric and policies, especially when they blow up in their faces negatively. It's always somebody elses fault. Republicans take responsibilty for nothing that goes wrong on their watch. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 13:31 |
| #36 Depot Guy, That was very eloquently put. I believe you are completely correct, and I have voted on both tickets in my time. The corruptness of the beltway K street sytem has eroded morality and care for the citizenry beyond any reclamation as far as our federal system is concerned. The right and left wings are undiscernable in their right to hold the blame for the sad state of our nation. I blame both, and like many others here seek change and can point to no clear path to a brighter future where normal people and not lunatic zealots are pushed into power. But again, right on. Good assesment. |
| Posted by: Grailet Gleregum5406 2005-10-13 12:15 |
| #35 casinni, .com is right. We here actually look further then the Network News to get the real story. We acually get information from people who are actually there - in the fighting - and not at the hotel bar in Bagdad listening to some jahadi minder or out searching for a 'story' (i.e. anyone who says something bad about how the U.S. is doing). For example take the takeover of that Russian school last year. The MSM fell all over themselves to call the bad-guys 'hostage-takers' or 'gangsters' or anything but terrorists. The MSM buried the fact that they were -to-a-person- islamic extreamists. The MSM covered up the gang-rapes of children and bayonetting of babies. All these things happened yet the MSM deliberately ignored them. We found out about it from non-MSM controlled sources - including non-US media. Just as we fined out about Yassar's billions, the deliberate murder of women and children by the so-called 'freedom fighers' of Palistine. We dont want a Republician / Conservative media. We want a Balanced media. One which would report the school busses which were left (to flood) in New orleanes. One which would report who is responsible for the initial relief after a disaster (hint: its not Bush or the Feds). One which would report that the Gov. of LA refused to allow Bush to act. One which would report the real stories of progress in Iraq (see Michael Yon) and not just the body-bag count (which the MSM seems to report with such glee!). I'm sorry but I too used to be a died-in-the-wool democrat (Damn republicans are ruining everything!) who swallowed Cronkite's reporing on Vietnam without question. However I started looking beyond the MSM - to real websites and non-US sources and found the real stories and hearing from people (like Old Spook ) who actually know something about what they are talking about. I discovered that - wait a miniute - I am being LIED TOO! I am not saying that republicans don't lie. They do - but they often get called on it by the media unlike the democrats who the Media often blindly parrot. For example during the Clinton years he called the Republician plan for social security a 'slash-cut' and that millions of seniors would starve. Yet the fact was that the plan was an increase (just not as much as Clinton wanted - wish I could get a 10% raise!). Yet the MSM parrotted Clintons line even when they knew it was bullshit. (I call Clinton's claim a mild form of terrorism myself...). And if a republican had made a claim like the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' which Hillary Clinton made they would have been laughed at and ridiculed for years -- yet the MSM repeated her claim almost as if it fact. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 12:04 |
| #34 Lol, wotta wanker. So you've redefined your motives a coupla times, now, Cassini. Troll it is. You're very deep, everyone can see that. I should've known better than to be straight with you. Waste of bandwidth. Shine my knob, little one. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 12:00 |
| #33 as a REAL MAN, Cassini, I can also smell and call bullshit, and on you, I do. Enjoy arguing nonsense with yourself |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-13 11:58 |
| #32 (giggles uncontrollably at thought of .com's comments being pre-approved by anyone) |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-10-13 11:54 |
| #31 Nonsense=#30 Case in point. I rest my case. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 11:53 |
| #30 One would think, at some point, the Democratic leadership would figure out that their strategies are just good enough to effectively lose. Unfortunately, for them, their addiction to money and headlines clouds their visions for any substantial victory. The perpetual implosion of the Democratic Party is guaranteed by their dependence on bumper sticker logic. They can no longer sit silent when one within their own ranks makes outrageous comments and tells outright lies. Even in the age of Reality Show Journalism the political pendulum continues to swing to the right. Until they lop off the extreme head of the Democrat Hydra they are destined for more predictable failures. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-10-13 11:50 |
| #29 .com And youre just a brain-washed RNC robot spouting pre-approved canned talking points. I dont consider you to be any type of challenge either. I just enjoy coming into right wing conservative websites like this and shaking my head in disbelief at some of the utter nonsense you people post. It's like you live in some alternate universe that has absolutely no reference point in reality.. The Paranoia level you exhibit is unreal.. EVERYBODY is out to GET THE REPUBLICANS!!! |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 11:43 |
| #28 .com/RC, Fear not. This struggle is far from over. This post from another blog is a good case in point. Read through to, or start at, the middle where he talks about the attitudes of law school students. It has always been the case that the young see the faults of the old much more clearly than they themselves do. The young are seeing through all this PC crap. The boomers are starting to lose power and as they do they will be replaced by 13ths and Millenials who see what a mess their messianic crusades for egocentrism, equal outcomes and environmentalism have wrought. And they'll fix it and in the process make their own mistakes for thier children to find fault with. The beauty of America is that to see any social malady redressed requires only longevity. |
| Posted by: Angereng Choluter1724 2005-10-13 11:28 |
| #27 Cassini - Lol, thank you for your input. You're still sucking the Kool Aid tit, but we're the ones who're deluded. Right. Try taking responsibility for being so happily misled. Educate yourself - this will require an open mind and forswearing the Kool Aid for awhile. You're preaching to people who do their own research and reach their own conclusions - the hard way - and then defend them. You are no challenge, son. Take your half-baked warmed-over pre-digested DU / Deaniac / whatever gruel and go. If you ever find enough honesty within to think for yourself and stop cheating at solitaire (and you do, no doubt), then come back and see us. We'll talk. Today you're just a troll. Buh-bye. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 11:18 |
| #26 I'm sorry but I kind of lost it there for a second. I'm new to this site and I have recently been in conservative sites such as Red State, Polipundit and Hedgehog and they all have common themes such as yours. They ALL blame the so-called MSM for President Bush and the Republican Congress's current troubles and low job approval ratings. It's ALWAYS something that is "manufactured" by your enemies. It NEVER has anything to do with your own policies, actions or their results. WHY is that? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 11:17 |
| #25 Sooner, .com. People like Cassini are a perfect example of the disconnect with reality and low liklihood of finding common ground. Like RC, I don't attempt to discuss most of the time because people either get it, or believe something totally different. The LLL's believe in power, not compromise. They believe that they know better than everyone else, and they are going to force us to do it their way. However, one doesn't compromise with what one deems evil. "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-10-13 11:16 |
| #24 OOPS! Send = second. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-10-13 11:07 |
| #23 -REAL MEN Take Responsibility for their own actions.. You guys Must be LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS? Hmmmmmmm ... send subject reference. Got some kind of fixation, Cassini? |
| Posted by: docob 2005-10-13 11:06 |
| #22 Whatever, Go Back to Your Whining, Bitching and Moaning ab0ut the so-called MSM... REAL MEN Take Responsibility for their own actions.. You guys Must be LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 11:04 |
| #21 Cassini, the president's approval numbers are typical for a president at this point in his second term, in fact, are higher than most. As to the complaining about the MSM, the difference is now that some people know enough to complain. Thirty years ago, what the networks, NYT, and Washington Post said were taken at face value as gospel. Things are changing as newer media allows dissemination of dissenting views. All in all, things are getting progressively better. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-10-13 11:03 |
| #20 Your current poll#s on Job Approval ratings for both are at all time lows and it has nothing to do with the so-called MSM. Of course not! The MSM doesn't have any effect on public opinion. And even if they could, they surely don't have an agenda. Now stick stick your head back in the sand, and/or go back to sleep. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-10-13 10:59 |
| #19 Ah, Cassini, you make this too easy - cuz you don't know jack shit. Read. Learn. Fuck off. But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents: *Johnson: 35% *Nixon: 24% *Ford: 37% *Carter: 28% *Reagan: 35% *Bush I: 29% *Clinton: 37% Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir. Be a Real Man, Eat Drano. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 10:57 |
| #18 No, I'm not stupid. I'm just sick and tired of hearing right wing conservatives & republicans bitching and moaning about how the so-called MSM deliberatly negatively slants political news and current events against Republicans and President Bush. Why dont you be REAL MEN and take responsibility for your own self-produced bad press, based off of the results of poor decision making & failed policies by President Bush and the Republican Congress. Your current poll#s on Job Approval ratings for both are at all time lows and it has nothing to do with the so-called MSM. It comes from the source: President George W, Bush. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 10:52 |
| #17 Actually, RC, indications are that it is both. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-10-13 10:50 |
| #16 Are you stupid or trolling, "Cassini"? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 10:40 |
| #15 Wouldnt it make sense for all of you Right Wing Conservatives to get together and raise enough money to start your own media network? Then you could report and spread your propaganda unfiltered and with the exact conservative view point and slant that you want the easily influneced by the msm general voting public to see and hear. After all, since the MSM has a agreement with the Democratic Party and the DNC to deliberately slant the news in a negative fashion against President Bush, The Republican Party and its Politicians and the Iraqi war, doesnt that make sense? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-10-13 10:29 |
| #14 Another point--the Republican's of "caring" is outspending the Democrats. Or we got more minorities than you. R. C. and others you are correct in the ways of the coverup, spin, lack of coverage. This goes for both sides, including: "open borders" Bush. Keeping on finding my own information. |
| Posted by: Bardo 2005-10-13 10:15 |
| #13 And don't forget MSM's pursuit of the frat hazing at Abu Ghrab. 60 plus article in the NYT alone. We have NOPD looting, jacking caddies, and hammer oppressed minorities. Do we get all day, all night coverage? Hell, no. Ain't going to happen. That's why its the internet and the whole five minutes of real local news for me anymore these days for my information fix. |
| Posted by: Spavimp Angase7679 2005-10-13 09:39 |
| #12 True, but Rather isn't on the evening news anymore and is not as respected outside of the media group-think. Twenty years ago he would be regarded as an journalistic hero. Oh wait... he still is... :( Oh Nevermind! I see where you are coming from. I live just outside the People Republic of Seattle (where the dead, felons, and imaginary friends are allowed to vote but they hide the polling places from conservatives....) Some of the crap (like our recent governor election ) I see around here is very disgouraging. The P.I, Times and Local stations are very biased. the recent election 'reforms' practically ensure that every illegal alien and non-resident is allowed to vote. Anyone who can come up with a (fake or real) utility bill can cast their ballot. I would love to see this brought to a head and lanced. Even Fox News seems to be falling in line recently (distracting us with Natalie Halloway for example). Unfortunately our 'leaders' in congress (and I see in Ohio now) are too gutless to call them out. Would someone please tell them that we won the last election and are the majority party? I just dont think its hopeless. And I think we have made some progress -- but now I see (from your comments..) that perhaps we are beginning to fall behind again :((. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 09:19 |
| #11 Ah, so you're in Ohio - I didn't know that - but it explains your comment about Cleveland, which left me puzzled. Okay, I'm "getting" it, lol. I completely agree with you - we're not winning, we're losing ground. With the MSM, they simply redirect attention wherever they want it, facts, reality, us be damned. I want to bring this shit to a head and lance it. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 09:00 |
| #10 Yet John Kerry did not win the election - even after a media full court press. He lost by a hair. A couple of months ago, a conservative region of Ohio almost elected a Deaniac to Congress. The scandals involving Ohio's Republicans are (rightfully!) getting massive coverage here, while the involvement of Democrats gets almost none. The result will be Ohio going Donk in the next governor's election, and probably in the next presidential election. Blackwell could reverse that, but he's too conservative for the Cleveland RINOs that run the Ohio GOP, and he's effectively been demonized by the Democrats. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 08:53 |
| #9 Remember Dan Rather. Who is still a respected and popular member of the press. If exposing him had any real effect, he'd be out of work and the others in his "profession" would be avoiding him. Instead he's being rehabilitated. And the SwiftVets, when they are mentioned in the press, are mentioned in the context of having lied about Kerry. Sorry, I don't buy it. The liars are running the show, and Katrina taught them that lying loud enough and big enough lets them roll over the facts. Oh, and the Rather example reminded me of Sandy Burglar. Another stellar loss for truth and justice. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 08:48 |
| #8 R.C. Don't loose hope. Remember Dan Rather. This is a case where the Media made up and hyped some story in order to influence the election and and were caught red-handed in a boldface cronkite-class lie. Look at what the media did to the SwiftVets - while completely and deliberately ignoring the flagreant conflict between the DNC and organizations like Moveon.org. Yet John Kerry did not win the election - even after a media full court press. Its because people are starting to realize that they are being handed a plate of excrement and told its prime steak. Part of this is word-of-mouth and part due to real journalists like Michael Yon, and part due to internet, email, and digital cameras - its just too dam easy to hit the 'forward' button in an email client to spread the word of what is really happening in Iraq, or the truth behind Cindi Jihad i and what her son really did (re-sign up to go to Iraq). Its only a start - and perhaps a small start - but its is a start. The genie is out of the lamp now and the media can't get away with the bullshit they pulled during Vietnam. Personally I think its up-for-grabs if they will be able get us to 'give up'. But its not a 'slam-dunk' like it was. Don't lose hope now. If nothing else we are starting to fight back, stand up and point to f-kers like Rather and Rangel and yell 'Liar! Liar!' with the proof to back it up. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 08:40 |
| #7 I said it, in my weird way, in #5 here just recently. I wanna get it on while I can still take down a mess of 'em before I fall. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 08:31 |
| #6 RC - Gotcha - and you're absolutely right. It can't be countered directly, at least not yet, and what would once have been serious sedition is mainstream "news" and "comedy" and the vitriol level just keeps rising. I never could've imagined we'd come to this. I don't know, of course, but I guess that there's a split that goes something like: 40% non-idiotarian 35% "middle ground" wet-finger-in-the-wind twits 25% hardcore asshat Moonbats Of course, 90% of the media (news, entertainment, infotainment, the lot) is going all out to twist and cajole that middle ground group into Kool Aid tools. I only see 2 ways we can go: give up or civil war. So civil war is coming, because there's a solid core in that 40% group that will refuse the play along when the tipping point comes and the "others" finally generate the numbers, by hook and/or crook, to take over. I believe we will be watering the Tree of Liberty, someday. I'm guessing 2012-2015 timeframe. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 08:27 |
| #5 Oh, another case -- the coverage of the anti-war protestors. A WaPo reportor bought into/gleefully pushed the line fed to her by the Marxist filth column, then when she's asked about it, she fights tooth and fucking nail to keep the record from being corrected. If one of us gave as much free propaganda to the Klan, we'd be (rightfully) ostracized. But when the press gets caught fellating the enemies of this country, they act like we're just too stupid to understand the depths of the complexity of their jobs. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 08:14 |
| #4 There's no way we can fight the press. They'll lie, they'll cheat, they'll cover up, and they'll pat each other on the backs, congratulating each other on their "professionalism" while they do it. All the while, they'll be talking about how the "amateurs" are just a bunch of trouble-makers and losers. Fact-checking their asses means nothing when they've tossed facts overboard. I guess I've just been hit by a trifecta of the press's corruption, and can't see a way around it: o Katrina. They lied, they repeated rumors, they made crap up, and then they bragged about how incredibly well they did. How much correcting has been going on? How much time has the press spent trying to repair the damage it did? Little and none. They still act as if it was their finest hour, not a replay of Orson Welle's Mercury Theater "War of the Worlds". o Schumer's Dirty Tricks vs. DeLay's Indictment. Which gets endless coverage, up until the moment it's shown to be prosecutorial abuse, at which point it disappears? Which gets swept under the rug, with the NYT's "public editor" declaring that it just "fell through the cracks"? A politician connected with real criminal activity -- though clean-handed himself -- can't be held accountable if it's not exposed and reinforced -- but one that's frankly the victim of a nutjob with power is being hounded out of office because he's in the party the press dislikes. o Hinrichs, et. al. Why so little coverage? Why almost NO coverage of the guy who shot himself when the police showed up to investigate the chemical smells coming from his place? Why does the little coverage these stories actually get start from the assumption there's no story there? Why does the press treat anyone who doesn't buy their storyline as if they're criminals or subhuman? I can't see a way around the press megaphone. Yeah, we can talk to each other, but what impact will it have? It doesn't help that by a coincidence of my alarm clock's setting, every damned morning I wake up to a rebroadcast of the latest "top ten" from Letterman's show. An easy 80% of the topics aren't humor in any recognizable way -- they're just personal attacks against the president. They're lies, based on lies, depending on lies to even make sense. We're not even talking about attempts at humor that fall flat -- we're talking about basing an entire skit around malicious crap from the National Enquirer -- it's propaganda intended to punish the president for not being one of the Anointed. That shit has an audience thousands of times larger than Larry Elder, millions of times larger than Rantburg. What chance does the truth have? None. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 08:07 |
| #3 RC - Lately it seems like you're just itching for a fight. You dis almost everything - especially the comments of others, instead of the article topic. What's the deal? You given up? You got a beef? Someone dump in your cereal? Why not be a little more specific, if you don't wanna be constructive. I'm perplexed by it. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 07:36 |
| #2 Like it matters that someone fact-checked Rangel. Rangel's party will protect him, the press will protect him -- the fact that he's a lying, dictator-loving piece of shit will never get out to the voters. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 07:30 |
| #1 And don't forget, Larry also went after Michael Moore and did the surprise whammy interview thing on him for a documentry of how guns save lives. Larry Elder is a dude that I would NOT mess with. But yeah, Larry rocks! |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2005-10-13 06:44 |