Dude! The guy who made the original image, and the guy who took that image, removed the Time Magazine parts and slapped the "Socialism" caption on it then hung them up around LA were two different people and the GP was referring to the latter.
No, I didn't read TFA. I read other articles on the subject. I was not aware that there were to different people involved here (the artist and the hanger(s)).
You think a Kucinich supporter is going to use the word "Socialism" in a way that equates it to the anarchic socio- and psychopathic evil of The Joker? HUH?!
Regardless, Alkhateeb does agree with the Obama "Hope" artist about "socialism" being the wrong caption for the Joker image. "It really doesn't make any sense to me at all," he said. "To accuse him of being a socialist is really... immature. First of all, who said being a socialist is evil?"
The townhall screamers are bussed in from outside, they have been instructed by their corporate masters to shut down discussion.
Pictures or didn't happen. I've shown videos of ACORN busing people out from a town hall and articles from a left wing sources telling how Union members are showing up at town halls. And here you are, without a shred of evidence lying your ass off about how town hall protesters are organized.
So, since you don't like the idea of hired protesters being bussed into town you'll be supporting the conservative protesters now, right? If not, you are a hypocrite and a liar.
MSNBC is fairly liberal, I personally can't stand Mathews but Madow is quite informative. MSNBC is about as far left-wing as, oh, CNN is right-wing.
Bullshit! I just showed you a video of a reporter who calls a Bush head with a Hitler mustache a "look-alike" and then calls an Obama made to look like Hitler "offensive". NBC is selling Obama merchandise for Pete's sake! (I tried to find a non-conservative source... BUT NO OTHER MEDIA OUTLET WILL REPORT IT!!!!! Kinda proves my fucking point, doesn't it?)
And it's not just what the media reports, but what it does NOT report is just as important. Take the townhalls. They'll show Democratic congressmen and operatives and Nancy Pelosi saying that these townhall protesters are paid by the insurance companies and bussed from town hall to town hall. Of course, this is not true, but the media is OK because they didn't say it, Nancy Pelosi did. And what they don't show or tell you about is the Democratic groups that are paid and bussing people from town hall to town hall. HERE is a video of ACORN leaving a town hall. Nor will they tell you that people are literally being paid to campaign for health care reform, like in Craigslist ad. Do you see that in the media? Nope, but it is EXACTLY what the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of doing. They are guilty of what they accusing the innocent of doing and the press ignores it. Would you considered union members organized and paid? Here is an article from HuffPo saying that Union members are organizing at town halls! See that in the media? Nope!
Seriously, with just the town hall stuff, I could go on for days with example after example of how Town Hall protesters are called terrorists, Nazi's, BrownShirts and all kinds of other names. They are accused of being Astroturfers, fake, paid, and so on when those that are doing the accusing are the ones that are the true astroturfers. And seriously, you think the press is fair to right wing?
Oh, and to your comment that there is no left wing Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh... you did say you knew who Rachel Maddow was, right? How about Keith Olbermann? Maybe Randy Rhodes? Katie Couric? Al Franking (now Senator Al Frankin... thanks to those hundreds of votes found in the truck of a Democrat poll workers car.... all for Frankin)... Need I go on?
Given what I've said in this comment along with the other comments, including the links, if you seriously think the media is fair or right wing, please, go see a doctor or something because there is seriously something wrong with you. No really, SERIOUSLY WRONG!
Or you are just being an asshole. So you are either psychotic, retarded or just an asshole. Either way, there's really no point in talking with you.
Did you even read that? It's basically saying what I said, because it was the study I was citing: reporters are liberal, editors and owners are conservative. The media 'lean to the left' but are 'more moderate than congress.'
The methodology of this study is somewhat, er, misleading at best. They compare ONLY the number of times a paper cites conservative think tanks versus cites of liberal think tanks. Huh? What is that supposed to show? According to this study, 'The Drudge Report' is liberal!
Seriously, dude, put down the kool-aid. There is no vast liberal conspiracy. It just looks that way to some extremists.
Really? Are you serious? You actually believe that the press overall is fair? Really!?!!? Obama was on news magazine's cover overs repeatedly in 2008. That includes an election year!!!
Time has featured Obama on its cover 14 times since Jan. 1. Newsweek was close behind, featuring the now-president-elect on 12 of its issues. Time has had 52 issues in 2008, so Obama has been featured on more than one-in-four of its covers, or about 27% of the time.
That was from 2008, an election year!
Are you going to tell me that MSNBC is down the center politically? Really? The network with Rachel Madow and Chris Matthews? If you don't know who they are, Rachel Maddow had a show on Air America (are they center also?). She looks like Wesley Crusher. Chris Matthews is the guy who used to write speeches for President Carter and also has his own show like Maddow on MSNBC.
Don't take my word for it. And if you don't like the UCLA study (guess it didn't say what you wanted to hear), google "media bias" study for many more examples. Of course, I understand that if you are left of Marx, you might find the media to be right-wing. I am right-of-center, so I admit my judgment is clouded. That's why I rely on these studies to show that I'm not nuts when I see CNN place a blinking X over Dick Cheney's face and see liberal reporter after reporter who gave glowing coverage of the anti-war protesters, then claim that townhall protesters were bussed in and paid, when in reality the only bus there was from ACORN and the only people paid to promote an agenda is from the left. (Yeah, you don't see that reported in the media either!)
Oooh, what nice anecdotal evidence you have there! That sure proves exactly... nothing. Got any studies citing column inches positive/negative on given issues? Then shut up, you are talking out of your ass.
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
That's 90% of media that is left of center. 90%!!! So, evidently, I'm not the one whose speaking from the ass.
Watch that and please tell me that the press is not biased.
The press is not biased in the way you want them to be. All you've demonstrated is that a reporter was probably biased.
Um... reporter ARE the press. You don't see the producers, camera men, or anyone else that is needed to produce a news cast. All you see is the reporters and anchors. If they are biased, then the news is biased. I've shown that the reporters are biased, without even mentioning the tingle up Chris Matthews' leg when he hears Obama speak.
Also, you've ignored the UCLA study that backs my claim up. See, it's not just me. There are many MANY studies that all say the same thing.
Furthermore, the image seems to have sat their quite happily until a bunch of teabaggers took it and started vandalizing public property with it, shoving it into the media spotlight.
Actually, the guy who created the image is a rabid leftist. He dislikes Obama because he's not liberal enough.
Or are you suggesting that a Dennis Kucinich supporter is a "teabagger"?
Your "teabagger" statement kinda proves the point. Anyone who disagrees with Obama must be "teabagger".
When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white.
OK, then how's this: The media treats Democrats better than Republicans. I could also say that the media treated anti-war protesters much better than the anti-government-insurance protesters or "tea-baggers" as the press likes to call them.
Prime example: Here is a CNN reporter at two different protests. One is an anti-Bush protest where she calls a giant Bush head with a Hitler mustache a Bush "look alike". Then you see the exact same reporter interviewing a Tea Party protester with a picture of Obama as Hitler. She says, "do you have any idea how offensive that is?" Same situation, different presidents, different responses. Watch that and please tell me that the press is not biased.
Here is a quote from a UCLA study (not a conservative school, btw):
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said coâ'author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions
Actually, this is Flickr telling it's users that oppose Obama that they are not entitled to express their political opinions. There's still tons of GWB photos out there that make this Joker image look rather tame. Don't take my word for it. Go onto Flickr and search for George Bush and look at the pictures. Then search for Obama and compare those to the GWB pics. I could not find a single negative Obama pic. I had a difficult time finding a positive GWB pic. And please don't try to tell me that 100% of Flickr's users love Obama and hate Bush.
Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.
Most of which make the Joker/Obama image look quite tame.
This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.
. I also remember GWB giving Saddam the option of leaving Iraq peacefully before moving in.
The difference between N. Korea and Iraq is that nearly every country in the area wanted Saddam taken out. No one in the area of N. Korea wants the area to be glowing in the dark.
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
Notice how it says "...plans and controls... and says nothing about OWNERSHIP.
How is that different than what the President and Congress are striving for?
So when a talking head on Fox News said Obama was acting like a Communist, by this definition, she was correct.
Like I said, I'm not going to argue the definition of communism, but since you provided a link, let's look at definition two:
a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
There's nothing in there about who owns what.
Either way, according to your own definition where ALL business is owned by the government, again, I will refer you to RED China, which is a COMMUNIST country. RED China does allow for PRIVATE ownership of business. So even COMMUNIST China doesn't fit your definition of Communism. No country does. So if you want to argue that Communism doesn't exist, then please come out and say so.
My point was that Obama, with a Democrat controlled congress are taking over private industry in the US. To me, that looks like a Communist take over to me.
If the government owns one bank, they do not abolish the right for private ownership of other banks.
Let's use health insurance as an example and read what I said above about health insurance companies competing with a government run health insurance program. My point is that the government does not have to take over health insurance companies to completely control that aspect of the market. They simply compete unfairly and put them all out of business. Do you not think that is the plan? Here is Obama saying that his intention is to put health insurance companies out of business in favor of a government run, "single payer" system. So if you don't take my word for it, take Obama's. Don't bother telling me that this is not Obama's plan. You need to email Obama himself and notify him that what he says his plan is not really his plan.
We're all still free to start our own companies, retain full ownership of them, and pocket the profits.
Tell that to the oil companies that are making what Pelosi has called "obscene profits". Fact is, if you make too much in profit, the government will take that away. And, in the health insurance case I mentioned above, it is impossible to compete when your competition, the government, doesn't NEED to make a profit and can even operate at an extreme loss every year without going out of business.
I'm not going to argue the literal definition of communism because a true communist society as Marx envisioned it has never existed. But would you call China communist? You should. They call the themselves communist, yet there are privately owned companies in China. From Wikipedia:
China now participates extensively in the world market and private sector companies play a major role in the economy.
What makes them communist is not who OWNS the companies, but who controls them. Like I said before, what good is ownership if you have no control?
I still don't see anyone abolishing private ownership of anything. Anyone is free to open a bank, an auto manufacturer, or hospital, that is privately owned. The government makes all sorts of regulations about what companies can and cannot do all the time. It has even split up companies that abused their monopoly power. That is not Communism.
Sure, you're free to open a bank, but you have to run it the way the government tells you to, give loans to the customers the government tells you to and charge the rate that the government sets. Sure, you are free to open a hospital, but you have to take the patients the government sends you and you have to charge what the government is willing to pay you. If you don't do things the government way, then the government will seize your business, anyway.
So, yeah. You might "own" it on paper, but do you really "own" something if you have not control over it? What can a business owner do to get ahead of the competition if the government dictates what to pay employees, what benefits to offer, how many hours they can work, what prices they can charge, what hours they can remain open, and how much profit (if any) you are allowed to keep? So while you may call yourself the "owner", you're really just the manager.
So other than whose name is on the deed (the bank), what's the difference?
Oh, and when the government "bails out" a business, becomes the majority share holder and dictates how that business is run and by who, they have abolished the private ownership of that company.
You really don't see it? To answer your question, no one is "discussing it". It's being done without actual discussion.
First was the deregulation of the banking/mortgage industry. While this happened under GWB, it was the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. (Dodd, BTW, just got a very sweet deal on a mortgage... illegally. You won't hear about that either.) John McCain tried to stop it as seen HERE. Dodd and Frank blocked it from ever leaving committee. Basically, what happened was that banks were forced to provided loans for low income buyers, and in exchange, they were allowed to dump those high-risk mortgages off on investors on Wall St. So when the walls came crashing down, there was suddenly no one buying these poisoned mortgages, which meant that Fannie/Freddie didn't have money to loan, which meant banks had no money to loan and without money, economies fail. Anyway, back on the off-topic, since Obama has taken office, many banks are being forced to take the bail out money, even if they didn't do the whole sub prime thing and are perfectly solvent. Other banks are not allowed to pay it back now that they no longer need it. Why? Because with the money comes government control. In other words, the government is trying to take over the banks.
Next, there was the insurance failures, AIG was the biggest, but there were others. The government bailed these companies out without actually buying them, but they are still under government control, even though it's not specifically spelled out. Remember the outrage over bonuses and nice, company paid "conventions" to Las Vegas? Notice that those aren't happening any more. Is it because the stockholders said so? Nope. It's because the government told them not to. So if the government can dictate what these companies can do, does that not mean that the government is in charge?
Now we have GM. This was a privately owned, publicly traded company. The government took it over. Sure, they never said they were taking it over, but that didn't stop Obama from firing the CEO. Not the board, not the stockholders, but Obama himself, without so much as consulting congress. So if the President has the power to fire the CEO, doesn't that mean he is in charge? Seriously, read that again. OBAMA FIRED THE CEO OF A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, ALL BY HIMSELF!!! Also, the government also FORCED Chrysler to bought by Fiat. Again, not the board or stockholders, but the president! Seriously! The President fired the CEO of a private corporation. Where is that power listed in The Constitution. And you really don't see it?
Finally, comes health care. Obama and Democrats swear that it won't be so expensive because they will "lower the price". How will they lower the price? Simple! They won't pay high prices. So rather than paying full price for, say, an MRI, they will pay a cut rate. Who do you think will make up the difference? Everyone else who gets an MRI, of course. This will cause PRIVATE insurance rates to go up because they will be the ones paying the higher prices to make up for the government paid shortfall, just like with what happens with Medicare/Medicaid today. Oh, and doctors will be MANDATED BY LAW to take patients, at the government rate. Eventually, private insurers will go out of business because they simply won't be able to compete against a tax-payer subsidized competition with the backing of US Law. This means that the government will be the only real insurer in town (plus a few private companies for the very wealthy). So, without taking over the insurance companies, they will have taken over the medical and insurance industries.
So, what's left. They will have the American auto industry (read: Unions/jobs), the banking industry (your money and home), and the health industry (your body).
At least they're going this far. Imagine this happening under the Bush office. Nope, I didn't think you could.
P.S. I am *not* an Obama fanboi.
Um... the Bush Office didn't write bills. That job falls solely under the Congressional branch of the US government. The "Bush Office" falls under the Executive Branch, just like every other president.
People give the president too much credit/blame. All the president does is sign the bills. Congress writes them and sends them to the Prez. The Prez can either sign or veto.
Please refer to the following educational video for future reference.:-)
Sad that when we are talking about media bias, you bring HuffPo. HuffPo is never a unbiased source. Expecially considering that the person who said it is NOT a FoxNews employee.
Right! What do you call it when the government takes over industry? Is that not the textbook definition of communism? So, how about the other twenty or so networks? Why are they not connecting the dots? There's only two dots to connect; the definition of communism and what is happening.
I'll see your one FoxNews "Obama=Communist" and raise you a MSNBC "Bush=Fascist". The difference is that Bush left office when his term was up. A true fascist wouldn't have done so. But Obama is taking over American industry! First banking and insurance. Then the auto industry. Next on the target list is health care. I'm sorry. Do you know what communism is?
The press are reporting that Obama's approval rating dropped sharply after his comment that the police "acted stupidly" by arresting Gates. You're obviously wrong that the press will not show Obama in a negative light. Could it be that you have some sort of bias that is clouding your perceptions?
At the time he made the "stupidly" comment, it was not a negative thing. It was just a white cop arresting an poor old black man with a cane in front of his own home. It wasn't until we found out that Gates had broken into his own house, refused to show ID, followed the police man out into the street, made a scene and insulted his mother before he was arrested. It was also not known at the time that the officer was actually a police academy instructor on racial profiling or that there were black officers on the scene that backed the arresting cop. So when Obama made the comment, he was being shown as a man of action, not a man sticking his nose where it didn't belong.
You seriously believe that Obama and Bush receive equal treatment? I recall Bush being called a fascist on MSNBC. No such criticism when Obama took over a major American industry (GM) and fired the CEO.
Sorry, but I never saw a reporter say that Bush made a thrill go up his leg!
That's your best example? One weird diversion to talking about pie? I have no idea why he would go off on a tangent like that, but it's nothing compared to Bush's mistakes (there are whole compilations of those on youtube). So even if the media actually did ignore his mistakes (given that a pie discussion if the best you could come up, that's pretty much proven wrong), then youtube should provide an accurate picture.
You have Bush's eight years as president plus his years as Texas governor plus four years as a president's son and another four as the vice president's son. Papa Bush was also head of the CIA, but I don't know of any vids from that era.
With Obama, you have a couple years as a state senator (a job that is ignored by the media), a couple years as a senator and a few months as president.
So of course there is going to be be more on Bush. But the point remains that the press will NOT show Obama in a negative light. If you don't believe this, you are being delusional. Also, it doesn't hurt that has Biden as a gaffe machine.
Still, the point is not what you can find on YouTube. It is what is shown on TV, which is what the 99% of the public sees. Most people don't do you-tube searches.
Well, to be fair, so far Obama doesn't seem to have the education of a chimp, so the parallel doesn't really work out. He's actually pretty witty, I can't think of any major bloopers and blunders he showed during press conferences or TV shows.
Then you're not looking hard enough. There are plenty of Obama gaffes. They all happen off-teleprompter. See, with Bush, every misstep was shown on every news program, every advertisement for every news program, every nightly talk show, plastered all over the web and anywhere else it could be shown.
With Obama, any gaffes are ignored by all except for a few conservative blogs. For example, imagine if Bush had done the following: PIE!!! It would have been on every news cast, every talk show etc. Since it's Obama, it's ignored.
As for Obama's education, have you seen his school records? Neither has anyone else. He won't release them.
The anti-climate people are anti-science and just use enough of it to further their anti-science Faith that humans are not harmful and environmentalism is communism.
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.... But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming.... Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.
While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.
The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.
Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.
(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)
Who am I kidding? You'll just dismiss his credentials say that he's a "anti-scientist" because he doesn't buy into the whole "man is causing the sky to fall" bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude! The guy who made the original image, and the guy who took that image, removed the Time Magazine parts and slapped the "Socialism" caption on it then hung them up around LA were two different people and the GP was referring to the latter.
No, I didn't read TFA. I read other articles on the subject. I was not aware that there were to different people involved here (the artist and the hanger(s)).
You think a Kucinich supporter is going to use the word "Socialism" in a way that equates it to the anarchic socio- and psychopathic evil of The Joker? HUH?!
Here is the quote from the article I read:
Regardless, Alkhateeb does agree with the Obama "Hope" artist about "socialism" being the wrong caption for the Joker image. "It really doesn't make any sense to me at all," he said. "To accuse him of being a socialist is really ... immature. First of all, who said being a socialist is evil?"
The townhall screamers are bussed in from outside, they have been instructed by their corporate masters to shut down discussion.
Pictures or didn't happen. I've shown videos of ACORN busing people out from a town hall and articles from a left wing sources telling how Union members are showing up at town halls. And here you are, without a shred of evidence lying your ass off about how town hall protesters are organized.
So, since you don't like the idea of hired protesters being bussed into town you'll be supporting the conservative protesters now, right? If not, you are a hypocrite and a liar.
MSNBC is fairly liberal, I personally can't stand Mathews but Madow is quite informative. MSNBC is about as far left-wing as, oh, CNN is right-wing.
Bullshit! I just showed you a video of a reporter who calls a Bush head with a Hitler mustache a "look-alike" and then calls an Obama made to look like Hitler "offensive". NBC is selling Obama merchandise for Pete's sake! (I tried to find a non-conservative source... BUT NO OTHER MEDIA OUTLET WILL REPORT IT!!!!! Kinda proves my fucking point, doesn't it?)
And it's not just what the media reports, but what it does NOT report is just as important. Take the townhalls. They'll show Democratic congressmen and operatives and Nancy Pelosi saying that these townhall protesters are paid by the insurance companies and bussed from town hall to town hall. Of course, this is not true, but the media is OK because they didn't say it, Nancy Pelosi did. And what they don't show or tell you about is the Democratic groups that are paid and bussing people from town hall to town hall. HERE is a video of ACORN leaving a town hall. Nor will they tell you that people are literally being paid to campaign for health care reform, like in Craigslist ad. Do you see that in the media? Nope, but it is EXACTLY what the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of doing. They are guilty of what they accusing the innocent of doing and the press ignores it. Would you considered union members organized and paid? Here is an article from HuffPo saying that Union members are organizing at town halls! See that in the media? Nope!
Seriously, with just the town hall stuff, I could go on for days with example after example of how Town Hall protesters are called terrorists, Nazi's, BrownShirts and all kinds of other names. They are accused of being Astroturfers, fake, paid, and so on when those that are doing the accusing are the ones that are the true astroturfers. And seriously, you think the press is fair to right wing?
Oh, and to your comment that there is no left wing Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh... you did say you knew who Rachel Maddow was, right? How about Keith Olbermann? Maybe Randy Rhodes? Katie Couric? Al Franking (now Senator Al Frankin... thanks to those hundreds of votes found in the truck of a Democrat poll workers car.... all for Frankin)... Need I go on?
Given what I've said in this comment along with the other comments, including the links, if you seriously think the media is fair or right wing, please, go see a doctor or something because there is seriously something wrong with you. No really, SERIOUSLY WRONG!
Or you are just being an asshole. So you are either psychotic, retarded or just an asshole. Either way, there's really no point in talking with you.
Good day, sir.
Did you even read that? It's basically saying what I said, because it was the study I was citing: reporters are liberal, editors and owners are conservative. The media 'lean to the left' but are 'more moderate than congress.'
The methodology of this study is somewhat, er, misleading at best. They compare ONLY the number of times a paper cites conservative think tanks versus cites of liberal think tanks. Huh? What is that supposed to show? According to this study, 'The Drudge Report' is liberal!
Seriously, dude, put down the kool-aid. There is no vast liberal conspiracy. It just looks that way to some extremists.
Really? Are you serious? You actually believe that the press overall is fair? Really!?!!? Obama was on news magazine's cover overs repeatedly in 2008. That includes an election year!!!
It's not just Time. Here is a quote from MSNBC:
Time has featured Obama on its cover 14 times since Jan. 1. Newsweek was close behind, featuring the now-president-elect on 12 of its issues. Time has had 52 issues in 2008, so Obama has been featured on more than one-in-four of its covers, or about 27% of the time.
That was from 2008, an election year!
Are you going to tell me that MSNBC is down the center politically? Really? The network with Rachel Madow and Chris Matthews? If you don't know who they are, Rachel Maddow had a show on Air America (are they center also?). She looks like Wesley Crusher. Chris Matthews is the guy who used to write speeches for President Carter and also has his own show like Maddow on MSNBC.
Don't take my word for it. And if you don't like the UCLA study (guess it didn't say what you wanted to hear), google "media bias" study for many more examples. Of course, I understand that if you are left of Marx, you might find the media to be right-wing. I am right-of-center, so I admit my judgment is clouded. That's why I rely on these studies to show that I'm not nuts when I see CNN place a blinking X over Dick Cheney's face and see liberal reporter after reporter who gave glowing coverage of the anti-war protesters, then claim that townhall protesters were bussed in and paid, when in reality the only bus there was from ACORN and the only people paid to promote an agenda is from the left. (Yeah, you don't see that reported in the media either!)
Oooh, what nice anecdotal evidence you have there! That sure proves exactly... nothing. Got any studies citing column inches positive/negative on given issues? Then shut up, you are talking out of your ass.
Why yes, Yes I do! Here is a study from UCLA:
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
That's 90% of media that is left of center. 90%!!! So, evidently, I'm not the one whose speaking from the ass.
Watch that and please tell me that the press is not biased.
The press is not biased in the way you want them to be.
All you've demonstrated is that a reporter was probably biased.
Um... reporter ARE the press. You don't see the producers, camera men, or anyone else that is needed to produce a news cast. All you see is the reporters and anchors. If they are biased, then the news is biased. I've shown that the reporters are biased, without even mentioning the tingle up Chris Matthews' leg when he hears Obama speak.
Also, you've ignored the UCLA study that backs my claim up. See, it's not just me. There are many MANY studies that all say the same thing.
Furthermore, the image seems to have sat their quite happily until a bunch of teabaggers took it and started vandalizing public property with it, shoving it into the media spotlight.
Actually, the guy who created the image is a rabid leftist. He dislikes Obama because he's not liberal enough.
Or are you suggesting that a Dennis Kucinich supporter is a "teabagger"?
Your "teabagger" statement kinda proves the point. Anyone who disagrees with Obama must be "teabagger".
When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white.
OK, then how's this: The media treats Democrats better than Republicans. I could also say that the media treated anti-war protesters much better than the anti-government-insurance protesters or "tea-baggers" as the press likes to call them.
Prime example: Here is a CNN reporter at two different protests. One is an anti-Bush protest where she calls a giant Bush head with a Hitler mustache a Bush "look alike". Then you see the exact same reporter interviewing a Tea Party protester with a picture of Obama as Hitler. She says, "do you have any idea how offensive that is?" Same situation, different presidents, different responses. Watch that and please tell me that the press is not biased.
Here is a quote from a UCLA study (not a conservative school, btw):
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said coâ'author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
Google "media bias" for more.
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions
Actually, this is Flickr telling it's users that oppose Obama that they are not entitled to express their political opinions. There's still tons of GWB photos out there that make this Joker image look rather tame. Don't take my word for it. Go onto Flickr and search for George Bush and look at the pictures. Then search for Obama and compare those to the GWB pics. I could not find a single negative Obama pic. I had a difficult time finding a positive GWB pic. And please don't try to tell me that 100% of Flickr's users love Obama and hate Bush.
Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.
Also, I wonder if the Streisand Effect will hit?
I looks like there are plenty of Bush parodies out there.
Most of which make the Joker/Obama image look quite tame.
This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.
I agree with most of your comment. However, I take issue with this statement:
Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq)...
I seem to remember something about ten years and 17 UN Resolutions
. I also remember GWB giving Saddam the option of leaving Iraq peacefully before moving in.
The difference between N. Korea and Iraq is that nearly every country in the area wanted Saddam taken out. No one in the area of N. Korea wants the area to be glowing in the dark.
Again, from your own link:
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
Notice how it says "...plans and controls... and says nothing about OWNERSHIP.
How is that different than what the President and Congress are striving for?
So when a talking head on Fox News said Obama was acting like a Communist, by this definition, she was correct.
Like I said, I'm not going to argue the definition of communism, but since you provided a link, let's look at definition two:
a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
There's nothing in there about who owns what.
Either way, according to your own definition where ALL business is owned by the government, again, I will refer you to RED China, which is a COMMUNIST country. RED China does allow for PRIVATE ownership of business. So even COMMUNIST China doesn't fit your definition of Communism. No country does. So if you want to argue that Communism doesn't exist, then please come out and say so.
My point was that Obama, with a Democrat controlled congress are taking over private industry in the US. To me, that looks like a Communist take over to me.
If the government owns one bank, they do not abolish the right for private ownership of other banks.
Let's use health insurance as an example and read what I said above about health insurance companies competing with a government run health insurance program. My point is that the government does not have to take over health insurance companies to completely control that aspect of the market. They simply compete unfairly and put them all out of business. Do you not think that is the plan? Here is Obama saying that his intention is to put health insurance companies out of business in favor of a government run, "single payer" system. So if you don't take my word for it, take Obama's. Don't bother telling me that this is not Obama's plan. You need to email Obama himself and notify him that what he says his plan is not really his plan.
We're all still free to start our own companies, retain full ownership of them, and pocket the profits.
Tell that to the oil companies that are making what Pelosi has called "obscene profits". Fact is, if you make too much in profit, the government will take that away. And, in the health insurance case I mentioned above, it is impossible to compete when your competition, the government, doesn't NEED to make a profit and can even operate at an extreme loss every year without going out of business.
I'm not going to argue the literal definition of communism because a true communist society as Marx envisioned it has never existed. But would you call China communist? You should. They call the themselves communist, yet there are privately owned companies in China. From Wikipedia:
China now participates extensively in the world market and private sector companies play a major role in the economy.
What makes them communist is not who OWNS the companies, but who controls them. Like I said before, what good is ownership if you have no control?
I still don't see anyone abolishing private ownership of anything. Anyone is free to open a bank, an auto manufacturer, or hospital, that is privately owned. The government makes all sorts of regulations about what companies can and cannot do all the time. It has even split up companies that abused their monopoly power. That is not Communism.
Sure, you're free to open a bank, but you have to run it the way the government tells you to, give loans to the customers the government tells you to and charge the rate that the government sets. Sure, you are free to open a hospital, but you have to take the patients the government sends you and you have to charge what the government is willing to pay you. If you don't do things the government way, then the government will seize your business, anyway.
So, yeah. You might "own" it on paper, but do you really "own" something if you have not control over it? What can a business owner do to get ahead of the competition if the government dictates what to pay employees, what benefits to offer, how many hours they can work, what prices they can charge, what hours they can remain open, and how much profit (if any) you are allowed to keep? So while you may call yourself the "owner", you're really just the manager.
So other than whose name is on the deed (the bank), what's the difference?
Oh, and when the government "bails out" a business, becomes the majority share holder and dictates how that business is run and by who, they have abolished the private ownership of that company.
Who is discussing abolishing private ownership?
You really don't see it?
To answer your question, no one is "discussing it". It's being done without actual discussion.
First was the deregulation of the banking/mortgage industry. While this happened under GWB, it was the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. (Dodd, BTW, just got a very sweet deal on a mortgage... illegally. You won't hear about that either.) John McCain tried to stop it as seen HERE. Dodd and Frank blocked it from ever leaving committee. Basically, what happened was that banks were forced to provided loans for low income buyers, and in exchange, they were allowed to dump those high-risk mortgages off on investors on Wall St. So when the walls came crashing down, there was suddenly no one buying these poisoned mortgages, which meant that Fannie/Freddie didn't have money to loan, which meant banks had no money to loan and without money, economies fail. Anyway, back on the off-topic, since Obama has taken office, many banks are being forced to take the bail out money, even if they didn't do the whole sub prime thing and are perfectly solvent. Other banks are not allowed to pay it back now that they no longer need it. Why? Because with the money comes government control. In other words, the government is trying to take over the banks.
Next, there was the insurance failures, AIG was the biggest, but there were others. The government bailed these companies out without actually buying them, but they are still under government control, even though it's not specifically spelled out. Remember the outrage over bonuses and nice, company paid "conventions" to Las Vegas? Notice that those aren't happening any more. Is it because the stockholders said so? Nope. It's because the government told them not to. So if the government can dictate what these companies can do, does that not mean that the government is in charge?
Now we have GM. This was a privately owned, publicly traded company. The government took it over. Sure, they never said they were taking it over, but that didn't stop Obama from firing the CEO. Not the board, not the stockholders, but Obama himself, without so much as consulting congress. So if the President has the power to fire the CEO, doesn't that mean he is in charge? Seriously, read that again. OBAMA FIRED THE CEO OF A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, ALL BY HIMSELF!!! Also, the government also FORCED Chrysler to bought by Fiat. Again, not the board or stockholders, but the president! Seriously! The President fired the CEO of a private corporation. Where is that power listed in The Constitution. And you really don't see it?
Finally, comes health care. Obama and Democrats swear that it won't be so expensive because they will "lower the price". How will they lower the price? Simple! They won't pay high prices. So rather than paying full price for, say, an MRI, they will pay a cut rate. Who do you think will make up the difference? Everyone else who gets an MRI, of course. This will cause PRIVATE insurance rates to go up because they will be the ones paying the higher prices to make up for the government paid shortfall, just like with what happens with Medicare/Medicaid today. Oh, and doctors will be MANDATED BY LAW to take patients, at the government rate. Eventually, private insurers will go out of business because they simply won't be able to compete against a tax-payer subsidized competition with the backing of US Law. This means that the government will be the only real insurer in town (plus a few private companies for the very wealthy). So, without taking over the insurance companies, they will have taken over the medical and insurance industries.
So, what's left. They will have the American auto industry (read: Unions/jobs), the banking industry (your money and home), and the health industry (your body).
What's left? Did I miss anything?
At least they're going this far. Imagine this happening under the Bush office. Nope, I didn't think you could.
P.S. I am *not* an Obama fanboi.
Um... the Bush Office didn't write bills. That job falls solely under the Congressional branch of the US government. The "Bush Office" falls under the Executive Branch, just like every other president.
People give the president too much credit/blame. All the president does is sign the bills. Congress writes them and sends them to the Prez. The Prez can either sign or veto.
Please refer to the following educational video for future reference. :-)
Sad that when we are talking about media bias, you bring HuffPo. HuffPo is never a unbiased source. Expecially considering that the person who said it is NOT a FoxNews employee.
Still, what do you call a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership?
Obama has been called a communist on Fox News. There you go again!
Right! What do you call it when the government takes over industry? Is that not the textbook definition of communism? So, how about the other twenty or so networks? Why are they not connecting the dots? There's only two dots to connect; the definition of communism and what is happening.
I'll see your one FoxNews "Obama=Communist" and raise you a MSNBC "Bush=Fascist". The difference is that Bush left office when his term was up. A true fascist wouldn't have done so. But Obama is taking over American industry! First banking and insurance. Then the auto industry. Next on the target list is health care. I'm sorry. Do you know what communism is?
The press are reporting that Obama's approval rating dropped sharply after his comment that the police "acted stupidly" by arresting Gates. You're obviously wrong that the press will not show Obama in a negative light. Could it be that you have some sort of bias that is clouding your perceptions?
At the time he made the "stupidly" comment, it was not a negative thing. It was just a white cop arresting an poor old black man with a cane in front of his own home. It wasn't until we found out that Gates had broken into his own house, refused to show ID, followed the police man out into the street, made a scene and insulted his mother before he was arrested. It was also not known at the time that the officer was actually a police academy instructor on racial profiling or that there were black officers on the scene that backed the arresting cop. So when Obama made the comment, he was being shown as a man of action, not a man sticking his nose where it didn't belong.
You seriously believe that Obama and Bush receive equal treatment? I recall Bush being called a fascist on MSNBC. No such criticism when Obama took over a major American industry (GM) and fired the CEO.
Sorry, but I never saw a reporter say that Bush made a thrill go up his leg!
That's your best example? One weird diversion to talking about pie? I have no idea why he would go off on a tangent like that, but it's nothing compared to Bush's mistakes (there are whole compilations of those on youtube). So even if the media actually did ignore his mistakes (given that a pie discussion if the best you could come up, that's pretty much proven wrong), then youtube should provide an accurate picture.
You have Bush's eight years as president plus his years as Texas governor plus four years as a president's son and another four as the vice president's son. Papa Bush was also head of the CIA, but I don't know of any vids from that era.
With Obama, you have a couple years as a state senator (a job that is ignored by the media), a couple years as a senator and a few months as president.
So of course there is going to be be more on Bush. But the point remains that the press will NOT show Obama in a negative light. If you don't believe this, you are being delusional. Also, it doesn't hurt that has Biden as a gaffe machine.
Still, the point is not what you can find on YouTube. It is what is shown on TV, which is what the 99% of the public sees. Most people don't do you-tube searches.
Well, to be fair, so far Obama doesn't seem to have the education of a chimp, so the parallel doesn't really work out. He's actually pretty witty, I can't think of any major bloopers and blunders he showed during press conferences or TV shows.
Then you're not looking hard enough. There are plenty of Obama gaffes. They all happen off-teleprompter. See, with Bush, every misstep was shown on every news program, every advertisement for every news program, every nightly talk show, plastered all over the web and anywhere else it could be shown.
With Obama, any gaffes are ignored by all except for a few conservative blogs. For example, imagine if Bush had done the following:
PIE!!!
It would have been on every news cast, every talk show etc. Since it's Obama, it's ignored.
As for Obama's education, have you seen his school records? Neither has anyone else. He won't release them.
I know there's a GWB joke in there, I just know it... too bad he wasn't the one whose birth certificate is missing, that would be a zinger now!
Racial overtones aside, why couldn't the same joke be made about Obama? We strive for a color blind society, right?
The anti-climate people are anti-science and just use enough of it to further their anti-science Faith that humans are not harmful and environmentalism is communism.
Tell this guy that he is "anti-science"
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic. ... ...
But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming.
Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.
While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.
The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.
Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.
(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)
Who am I kidding? You'll just dismiss his credentials say that he's a "anti-scientist" because he doesn't buy into the whole "man is causing the sky to fall" bit.
*Fingers in ears* BLAH BLAH BLAH I CANT HEAR YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH
Try coming up with some evidence for anything you are saying. And don't quote the typical crackpots, we all know they are wrong.
Here, let me rephrase what you said:
Please try to come up with some evidence for anything you are saying. And don't quote anyone that supports your view.
There, fixed that for ya.