It’s always fun to see Republicans get angry at things
Democratic politicians do, but not angry at Republican politicians for doing the same exact thing. Especially
when Republicans did it first.
It’s also always fun to listen to Republicans accuse
Democrats of playing the “Blame Game” and insist it doesn’t matter how
something happened – when Republicans are at fault. Then immediately blame
Obama or Clinton or Carter for things that Bush and Reagan and Ford did.
The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the
guilty – and all the shady characters in between.
Enjoy…
This was originally from February 16th of this
year.
Kim
Someone needed to say it. More people should be repeating
it.
Eric
So, let me get this straight....Obama gets more than 2 years
to get things going on the right track, while blaming Bush all along, but
Speaker Boehner gets a month??? Bad, Bad Rachel......
Kim
So, let me get this straight . . . you're pretending that
people on the other side of the fence haven't done this to Obama since before
he was even elected? Or that they didn't blame Clinton for an entire 8 yrs? Or
that they ran on jobs and cutting spending, but they are concerned more about
abortion (which IS legal in this country) than jobs? How exactly are they going
to get things on the right track when they don't even follow the house rules
that THEY put into place? Give me a break. If Pelosi cried like Boehner does,
or said "so be it" in regard to jobs being lost, Republicans would've
laid it on her much thicker only with less facts – if any at all.
Thank you for bringing up the blame thing. Reminded me of one
of my favorite daily show clips: The Daily Show: Blame
Bill Mancuso
So, let me get this straight... I still hear Carter being brought up and blamed.
Boehner complaining incessantly for two years about
"Obama, where are the jobs?" – and now just said he didn't care if
jobs were lost. That’s not hypocritical? And he is fighting to spend a few
BILLION dollars more on an unnecessary extra jet engine that the pentagon has explicitly
said it does NOT want while simultaneously complaining Obama is spending
needlessly. Etc, etc, etc, etc....
The Republican party itself is going against Boehner!!! Bad,
Bad Boehner.......
Jack
We didn't magically inherit the biggest federal government
in the HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES from Bill Clinton. We inherited it from
George W. Bush. We didn't inherit TWO WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST from Bill
Clinton. We inherited it from George W. Bush. He should be blamed. The problem is that conservatives seem to
not want to play the blame game when their guy is actually to blame.
Apparently the Republican Party is only interested in taking
responsibility for its actions when those actions are praiseworthy. When they
aren't, they come at you with "You can't blame Bush for everything!"
It's his fault. Plain and simple. If you don't understand
how messed up this country is because of the actions of that administration,
you are deeply deluded.
Conservative assholes like Sarah Palin sit back and play
Monday Morning Quarterback while people who actually understand politics,
economics, history and geography try to
clean up the mess.
Boehner has been given the keys to the kingdom, and he's
being made fun of by George and Barbara Bush. He isn't getting things done. I
would have less of a problem with him and other Republicans if they HADN'T RUN
ON THE PLATFORM OF "WE'LL FIX IT!!"
Instead they are running around trying to stop funding for
abortions. Please enlighten me on how that is related to the economy or jobs.
It's not. The Republicans are trying to do exactly what they warned us the
Democrats would do if they controlled the Legislature: Force social reforms on
us.
They don't want big government... well, unless you've been
raped, or you are gay, or you need an abortion because childbirth might kill
you or your husband has been raping you nightly, or you are a Corporation that
might not be able to influence every aspect of the federal government through
lobbyists and campaign finances, or if you are an immigrant. In those instances
Republicans are ALL ABOUT big government. They can't get enough of it.
Tabitha
Sorry Jack, have to disagree. It's amazing that the 9-11
attacks happened in less than a year after Bush took office, yet you think
Clinton knew nothing about this threat. The oversize government has gotten out
of control because of neither Clinton nor Bush, this oversize bulling dictative
government is a result of Obama's 2 years and the Democrats having close to
total control during that time with no opposition. Too bad when Obama pulled us
out of that ditch he didn't notice that he pulled us right on to the train
tracks with trains coming in both directions. Personally I wish they would go
back to school and relearn how economics works and how taxing us to death does
not create jobs.
Here are two themes incessantly repeated by Republicans. You will notice them surface throughout this blog:
A.) "Democrats think they can tax us into prosperity." No, they don't. They want to cut needless and unfair tax loopholes for the rich so their tax rates are close to the middle class rates. And no one is being taxed to death. America is currently enjoying the lowest tax levels in over 50 years.
B.) "Lowering taxes for corporations creates jobs." Lowering taxes for corporations does not create jobs. No Republican can give a specific example of this ever happening. I keep asking, though.
Eric
Excellent, Tabitha!!!
Tabitha
Thank you.
Bill Mancuso
Well said, Jack. I appreciate how you used facts to make
your point. I also got a chuckle when those facts were completely ignored and
other laughably wrong Conservative talking points were brought up in the next
post. Which is what invariably happens when people get their info from the most
inaccurate and made-up "news" channel, FOX.
For example, Obama actually lowered taxes - except in the
Foxosphere.
Anyone interested in some facts about the 9/11 attacks and
who knew what when? No? Too bad, because I really hate ignorance, so I need to school you right now with the truth.
Much of what comes next (the words in orange) was already chronicled in my
August 24, 2011 post, “A Conversation with the Decider.”
Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. He
and Bin laden had polar opposite philosophies on life and would never under any
circumstances work together. Hussein was not interested in religious piety but
in greed, power, money and women. Bin Laden, however, is a religious
fundamentalist. Polar opposites. Bush just tried to connect them because they
were both from the middle east. Hussein also had a standing order to capture or
kill any Al-Qaeda members found operating within the boundary of Iraq.
Over 14 United States and international agencies told both
Bush and Cheney that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons
of mass destruction whatsoever. But that didn’t stop the both of them from
going on T.V. almost every day and lying to the American people by saying they
had proof that he did. And Bush used fear tactics like saying “If we don’t
fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Nonsense. And
belligerent playground bully ultimatums like “You’re either with us or you’re
against us.” And, “They hate us for our freedom.” That’s just plain stupid. No
one hates freedom. They hate us because we’re THERE.
And if they hate freedom so much, why do they want it so bad
as evidenced in what's going on over there right now without our having to
illegally invade, overthrow, occupy and force it upon them? (I am referring to the Arab Spring.)
Democrats are weak on national defense has been a Republican
talking point since Reagan. And Republicans repeat it over and over to
brainwash people into thinking it is so. But the facts do not bear out that
claim. During the first year and a half since President Obama took office, his
administration has captured or killed as many terrorist operatives as the Bush
administration did in seven years. Obama just doesn't parade it in front of the
cameras boasting about it like Bush did. Maybe he’s just more interested in
actually getting the job done than standing in front of a camera to get the
glory and feel popular. I haven’t seen him playing dress-up in any flight suits
yet. That’s the behavior of an insecure, small-minded person.
He has also employed the use of drones so as not to put
American lives in harm’s way. And claiming drones are worse than boots on the
ground is partisan rhetoric. It’s no different than mortar fire or missile
launches, high altitude bombing, RPGs, any long range weaponry, really. And no
one ever complained about those. Actually, the main difference is a drone has a
camera and actually may aide in target accuracy, limiting collateral damage.
You're right about one thing, though. Clinton absolutely DID
know about Bin Laden. It's just that FOX "News" ignores all the
following facts to try and blame the attacks on Clinton and pretend it wasn't
Bush's fault...
In 1995, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision
Directive 39 that instructed the CIA to capture foreign terrorists by force,
even without the cooperation of the host government. It was also accepted that
"accidentally" killing Bin Laden in the process of capturing him was
not discouraged.
In January of 1996 the CIA created the unit code-named “Alec
Station” whose sole function was to capture Bin Laden. Then, in 1998, President
Clinton created the office of national coordinator for counter-terrorism and
placed Richard Clarke in that position.
Several efforts were made by the Clinton administration to
capture or kill Bin Laden. Some were aborted due to lack of confidence in
intelligence gathered. However, President Clinton authorized two U.S. cruise
missile attack submarines to sit off the Pakistani coast for months waiting for
any word on Bin Laden’s whereabouts.
On August 20, 1998, Clinton’s CIA launched sixty Tomahawk
cruise missiles at an Afghan camp where Bin Laden was believed to be, but he
left approximately an hour earlier.
Clinton may not have captured Bin Laden, but it was
certainly not for a lack of trying. Bush, however, actually did do nothing.
When he took office, he terminated unit “Alec Station.” Remember? The unit
formed to specifically to capture Bin Laden? Then he went on vacation. A lot.
908 days out of the 2,920 days of his presidency was spent on vacation. That’s
one full third of his term in office. Two and a half years of improving his
swing, improving his time jogging a mile and improving time time cycling. And
clearing brush. All of which he quite often bragged about on T.V. while
soldiers were dying for his needless wars half way around the world.
In the summer of 2001, after Bush took office, the number of
threats to commit terrorist acts upon American soil by Al-Qaeda surged in June
and July according to reports from U.S. intelligence agencies. A terrorist
threat advisory from the State Department in June indicated a high probability
of “spectacular” terrorist attacks in the near future. On June 25,
counter-terrorism expert Richard Clark warned National Security Advisor
Condoleeza Rice that six separate U.S. intelligence reports showed Al-Qaeda was
preparing for a pending attack. Intelligence reporting consistently described
the upcoming attacks would be calamitous, indicating world turmoil. On June 28,
Clarke wrote Rice that a series of new reports convinced him and intelligence
analysts at the Department of State, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and NSA
that a MAJOR Al-Qaeda terrorist attack or series of attacks was likely in July.
A June 30 CIA report was titled “Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks” and
said they were expecting to have “dramatic consequences of catastrophic
proportions” very soon.
Even Bush's friend, CIA director George Tenet acknowledged
things could not get any worse. Between Bush's first day in office on January
20, 2001 and September 10, 2001, over FORTY (yes, FORTY) reports related to Bin
Laden were turned over to him at the President’s Daily Brief by either Tenet or
one of his deputies.
Then, on August 6, while Bush was on a five-week vacation in
Crawford, he was briefed by a CIA official on a top secret memo titled “Bin
Laden Determined To Strike U.S.” The memo cited evidence of active Al-Qaeda
cells currently in the United States and that the FBI observed patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for the
hijacking of planes or other types of attacks and the surveillance of federal
buildings in New York. The memo also noted that Bin Laden implied in U.S. television
interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of
World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and bring the fighting to America. And
the FBI conducted approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the
U.S. that it considered Bin Laden-related.
And when Bush received this memo on August sixth on vacation
at Crawford ranch, he did nothing. He stayed on vacation until August
thirtieth. He received a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.” and
did absolutely NOTHING FOR TWENTY-FOUR MORE DAYS. Except continue to clear
brush.
In December of 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
said at a televised press conference that the American military learned Osama
Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora. The action Bush took regarding this
information was to not send one single American soldier to capture or kill him.
Not one. He never sent any American soldiers after Bin Laden. The man
responsible for the murder of almost three thousand innocent American citizens
in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania and he never sent us after him.
Instead, Bush had three anti-Taliban Afghan warlords and their men handle it.
And knowing that Bin Laden’s most likely escape route was crossing the
southeastern border of Afghanistan into Pakistan, Bush also did nothing.
Rumsfeld again on T.V. said we were going to rely on the Pakistani military -
without any involvement of the U.S. military - to stop Bin Laden. Haji Mohammed
Zaman, one of the Afghan warlords told the press, “If America wants to capture
Osama, why aren’t they trying?” One of Zaman’s top aides said, “I don’t think
the United States wants to capture Osama. We know where he is, we tell them and
they do nothing. So they are not as serious as they say they are.” It seems to
me that Bush didn’t want to capture Bin Laden either. If he did, it would be
over. Public support for him to do anything in his alleged global war on terror
would vanish. And Bush wouldn’t be able to capitalize on Bin Laden still being
out there to give him time to invent a reason to invade Iraq. Was it oil? Did
Bush want to show his daddy he was a man and could finish what his daddy
couldn’t? Why did he commit the United States to an invasion and occupation of
a country that was making NO threats beyond its borders, was PROVEN to NOT be
constructing weapons of mass destruction, was NOT at war and made NO
declaration of war to us or anyone else? Why did Bush intentionally lie over
and over to America? Why are we now in the longest war the United States has
ever fought? Longer than Viet Nam. Why have more brave and noble Americans died
SINCE September eleventh, BECAUSE of September eleventh than in the actual
attacks OF September eleventh?
And by the way, terrorism is a tactic, an idea. You cannot
wage a war against an idea. Bush's wars are without focus, they are costly,
they weakened the economy and safety of our country and needlessly put American
lives at risk.
If Bush really thought we had to fight the 'evildoers' and
the "Axis of Evil" (does than not sound like it came directly from a
'60s Marvel comic book?), he would have taken countermeasures long before
September eleventh based on all the reports he was receiving on a daily basis.
And talking about understanding economics: these two unnecessary Republican wars and Republican tax
breaks to the top 2% richest of Americans and Republican deregulated Wall
Street is why we're in this financial crisis. All of which happened long before
Obama set foot in the White House. Blaming Obama for things that happened before he was even President would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant.
Tabitha
Okay, you’re right about one (Just one?) thing, I'm not well informed
about all of the war issues. I do know that Obama did not lower taxes (You know what FOX told you - not any facts, though.) he
extended what Bush implemented-no new tax cuts and they expire in 2012. I know
(the FOX fact) that the stimulus package did very little for job growth. And I know that
Obama thinks these tax cuts or continuation of them is unnecessary government
spending (Which they are, according to economists.). The money you make belongs to the government and they decide how much
you can keep (Which liar on FOX told you that?). I also know that his hiring of czars is unconstitutional. I know
that we've given him 2 years and things are worse than they were at the end of
Bush's term (Bush's clusterfuck snowball is still rolling - it will probably get even bigger unless the Republicans stop filibustering EVERYTHING Obama tries to do to help.) and I didn't even think that was possible. I know that the liberal
controlled media will always turn things around to make the right look like
crazy loons (If simply playing the recorded footage of what Republicans say is "making them look like crazy loons," then I accept your definition of the "liberal controlled media."). Take a good look sometime of how differently they report something
the left does against something the right does. (When it's the same thing) If
you want to believe their spin on things that's up to you. Personally I wish he
would be more like Reagan like he tries to make us think he is and instead of
blaming his predecessor start fixing things. Reagan could have blamed a lot of
the 70's-80's economical mess on Carter, but he didn't (Yes, he did.). He worked on fixing
things to pull us out (Well, he worked on things to help the wealthy get wealthier - and it worked.). We all need to stop playing the blame game in government
and work on fixing it. One last thing I've noticed from the left. I believe the
new Republicans have only been in office since Nov. yet the left expect them to have
fixed everything by now why is that? I also noticed you mentioned Bush's
vacation time spent. So tell me how much has Obama been on Vacation. I do
believe it's been more in 2 years than Bush took in 8 (Not according to facts. Unless you've figured a way to cram the two and a half years of Bush's vacation time into the two years so far of Obama's Presidency.). But I'm just a crazy
conservative and proud not to be a bleeding heart liberal.
Eric
And let the Liberal name-calling BEGIN!!! (Thanks, Bill
Mancuso)
I do believe the first time anyone leveled a name at someone was Tabitha just then in her last sentence. Douchebag.
Farrah
Well done Jack and Bill.
Eric
It figures, FARRAH.........
Let's give Obama 6 MORE years to get His head out of His
ASS.....
Farrah
Cousin Eric - I just like the use of facts when making an
argument.
Eric
Oh, OK, I wouldn't know about that, however, Tabitha states
some pretty good facts on Her post, and you seem to have omitted Her from
your" well done "post.....
Bill Mancuso
I can't do this argument again. This is about the 12th time.
Here's the problem, almost everything you said doesn't really exist outside the
Foxosphere. You're just repeating Conservative talking point words with no facts
to back them up like 'czars', 'unconstitutional', 'stimulus package', 'liberal
controlled media' and 'Reagan.' Why don't you also throw in 'America', 'patriotic', 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'second amendment' as well and get in the rest of the Conservative talking point words?
Obama did lower taxes. Look it up. The stimulus did create
jobs. Look it up. Reagan blamed Carter well into his second term. Look it up.
Reaganomics screwed the middle class. Look it up. Czars? Do you know what that
means or did you just hear it on FOX as something bad and choose to repeat it
as if it has actual meaning?
I can't keep going point-by-point through what you said and
telling you to look up the facts, but if you choose to look any of it up, try
not to go to right or left wing media
outlets. Look them up at their sources so the information isn't filtered to fit
an agenda. As an example, you said you KNOW the stimulus did very little for job growth. That is a lie you are repeating that you heard on FOX "News." If you went directly to the CBO report, you would KNOW differently.
And when did I ever call anyone a name, Eric? You just made that
up. Did you run out of old lies so you decided to make up a new one? What is
the point?
Farrah
Cousin Eric - I guess I should have said I like the use of
ACTUAL facts. Thanks for making the point Bill. Oh...time for Rachel Maddow!!!
Ellen
Rachel Maddow, I really don't get your point; when will you
learn that you're NOT a comedienne?
Farrah
My point is that the Rachel Maddow Show is on right now and
I was going to watch it on TV.
Eric
Ugh.....I cannot BRING MYSELF to watch "The Rachel
Maddow" show...
Farrah
Really I was just taunting you Eric, I didn't think it would
take long for you to reply :)
Ellen
Jack, The way I see it, it doesn't matter WHAT we inherited
from WHOM (Which backs up Jack’s earlier point that Republicans never want
to play the blame game when it’s something they’re responsible for.). It's there and ours to deal with or not.
As far as "If some of those jobs are lost in this, so
be it" (although seemingly insensitive) To me that doesn't say that jobs
are 'easy come, easy go.' But, it IS the truth. We have NO money to employ and
the "so be it" part will happen if the current policies are
continued, THAT'S THE FACT/TRUTH.
It’s the truth “if the current
policies are continued” only since Republicans keep filibustering any and every program that might help, but it’s NOT what Boehner said. He said
Republicans will have to cut jobs to save money – but that’s a lie:
Jack
If appointing "Czars" is unconstitutional, where
were your protests when Bush appointed them? Most of the appointments to those
positions are to continue to fill posts created by Bush.
As to wanting the new Legislature to get stuff done so
quickly, that's just turnabout for the treatment of Obama. The Republican Party
spent 1 day as the "loyal opposition" and then began taking every
possible step to block any meaningful legislation, encouraging as much hatred
as possible along the way.
And Reagan ABSOLUTELY blamed Carter's administration for the
recession that really had its roots in the Ford administration. The difference
in that case is that Democrats held the Legislature and they actually worked to get things fixed.
As to "giving" Obama six more years:
First, he already has
two more years. It took 8 years to get us into this mess, why would you think
it would take less than that amount of time to get out of it? In the 90's,
Clinton worked with the
Legislature. Government growth was in line with population growth. It was
balanced. We had a budget surplus that Bush gave the lion's share of to the
richest people in the country. He then waged two wars without accounting for
the cost of war in Afghanistan in his budget. We had troops there, we were
fighting there, apparently at no cost to the tax payers.
Obama has presented budgets which account for continued
operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan with the often stated goal of bringing
Osama Bin Laden to justice, something that conservatives seem to not care
about.
Ellen
Jack, It's pretty inconsequential where I was when Dubya
appointed some (He did not ask where you were, he asked why you didn't protest Bush for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING as Obama in appointing "Czars."). We have bigger fish to fry than to play 'gotcha' and point
fingers. (Except, apparently, when Republicans want to.)
I know that you know that we have big problems and I don't
think we have enough BIG people in DC. So, it's up to the citizens to be the
big people that the Washington people aren't. It's time for the yous and mes to
put our heads together.
Eric
Farrah....Sorry it took me 5 long minutes, I'm also watching
the Hawks game in the other room...LUV YA, CUZ.....
I'd LOVE to put my head together with Jack, I think He would
drop like a bad habit.....(LOL)
Jack
I'm not the one talking about the constitutionality of
appointing "Czars" (something that even Reagan did, by the way). That
was brought up as some kind of "see Obama is bad" point. The fact is, it's not unconstitutional. But if that
point isn't refuted, it gives the appearance of being true. It's a tactic that
is designed to wear out the target.
I'd love to put my head together with people. The problem is
that I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't worship the ground that their
party members walk on. I've yet to hear any Conservative say anything about the
fact that taxes for MOST of us have gone DOWN, something that Obama has done. Instead
it's more rhetoric about how it was really Bush from beyond the grave.
I am completely open to compromise, so is Obama. Those olive
branches have been constantly thrown back in our faces while conservatives and
Republicans essentially lie about things. I wasn't old enough to vote for
Reagan, but I would have. I think that were he alive today, he'd be sickened by
the lengths that his party will go to in order to win a talking point, let
alone an election.
Ellen
Eric, when Rachel was an analyst on MSNBC, I watched because
her intelligence was so impressive. Now that she has her own show and try as I
may, I can't watch Rachel or Chris Matthews. Morning Joe can be ok at times.
Kim
Trying to catch up here. Wow.
I don't have much that I could add to this that Jack and
Bill haven't already said, and it most likely wouldn't matter anyway.
All I can say is this (which is just reiterating what Bill
said) look it up. At least try watching another news source (what is so awful
about Rachel or Chris that you can't watch a little bit?). If you question what
they say, look it up yourselves. It's crazy to get your news from one source or
even just two. Watch c-span (unless you have high blood pressure, because holy
moly . . .). Better yet, turn off the tv and read some news. Go to government
websites, look it up. Don't take what the media is telling you as truth. LOOK
IT UP.
Also, thank you all for an interesting read and for keeping
it civil.
Bill Mancuso
According to one source, I’m a Liberal and I’ve been calling
people names.
But seriously, if this was my first time going through this
topic, I would have been swearing and name-calling all over the place. This is
like the dozenth time I'm listening to FOX talking points that don't have any
bearing on the real world. Next up, someone's going to tell me about 'Obamacare
Death Panels.' True in the Foxosphere, but non-existent in the real world. Then
when the truth is pointed out, it's completely ignored and another FOX talking
point is hurled at me and the nonsense continues.
And just saying, "Bush didn't do it, Clinton did."
is not a fact. Or even information, for that matter.
Just tired of being surrounded by willful ignorance.
Kim
Preaching to the choir. Especially the willful ignorance
part. Not only am I tired of it, I am starting to fear it.
Ellen
Hi Bill, "this is like the dozenth time I'm listening
to FOX talking points that don't have any bearing on the real world. "
WHAT in particular are the talking points that don't have
any bearing on the real world? If what the media talks about DOESN'T have any
bearing in the real world, we should hold their feet to the fire. They report
to us and work for US. If you don't like what you hear, how many times have you
written, e-mailed, called to say why you disagree with what they portray?
Jack
The claim that the appointment of Czars is unconstitutional.
The claim that the Health Care Reform Bill would institute Death Panels. The
claim that taxes have gone up in the Obama administration. The claim that the
stimulus has created no jobs. The claim that all media is liberal-controlled.
These points have all been presented as facts by Fox News on a regular basis
apparently in hopes that if they are repeated enough they will become treated
as being true.
Kim
The media does not work for us or report to us. The only
media that comes close to that is publicly funded media which the Republicans
are trying to defund.
It's more important to contact your representatives (and in
my opinion, those in other districts/states also) and tell THEM how you feel.
Jack
The Fourth Estate (also known as the News, Media, Press) is
supposed to report information objectively. That pretty much ended with the
advent of advertising. All Television Outlets are guilty of bias nowadays. Fox
has held fundraiser rallies for and contributed to political campaigns
directly, yet somehow people claim they are unbiased. It's simply not true,
especially to people who see Fox lie about things every day.
It's pretty much the same as how die hard Fox News fans feel
about MSNBC or CNN.
Ellen
Jack, The appointment of czars IS unconstitutional. There is
no place [that I know of] in the Constitution that such power is given to
men/women who are not elected. If there is, I'd like to know exactly when it
was said.
Jack
"Czar" is a term coined by the media, and
appointed individuals have existed within administrations since the days of
FDR. Nixon and Ford revived their usage during their administrations, and
George W. Bush appointed the most "Czars" of any President.
Did you write to your representatives and senators when Karl
Rove was the Domestic Policy Czar?
If the appointment of individuals to those positions is
unconstitutional, why haven't any appointments been taken to the Supreme Court?
It seems pretty cut and dried to me. When Bush was appointing people, I didn't
see Fox News reporting how unfair and unconstitutional it was. It's
disingenuous to suggest illegality for one administration while ignoring the
same behavior from the previous one.
Bill Mancuso
I did not say 'the media has no bearing on the real world.'
I said 'FOX has no bearing on the real world.' FOX is not “news” media. Real
news anchors would be fired for blatantly lying like they do on FOX. Since
Ailes and Murdoch mandate them to portray Republicans favorably and Democrats
unfavorably, no one will be fired if they lie to do that. In fact, they have
gotten more money for doing so.
Please excuse that some of these videos are from liberal
media outlets, but it's irrelevant since it's just footage of FOX deliberately
editing video to fit their Republican fund raising agenda - I mean deliberately
lying. And FOX “News” certainly isn’t going to do any reporting on how FOX
“News” is lying to you.
This one is fucked up about Monsanto & FOX:
Fox News Whistle blowers. UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Fox News Whistle blowers. UNBELIEVABLE!!!
And finally, there's this 1 hour 20 minute documentary:
No comments:
Post a Comment