In spite of previous claim their ads were run "in error," Bank of America again advertises on Beck
From the August 27 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
After Media Matters for America noted that Bank of America, among other companies, had advertised on the August 24 edition of Glenn Beck, we received an email from Bank of America global media relations Senior Vice-President Joseph L. Goode, who wrote in part:
In response to your August 24 blog, entitled "So who's still advertising on Beck? His August 24 sponsors were ...", I wanted to let you know that Bank of America does not air commercials on The Glenn Beck Show. Recently, we learned that there may have been instances of our ads running on the program due to an error by media outlets that air this show. Please be assured that we are working with these media outlets to determine an acceptable resolution for this error.
But will be closing my non-existent account along with my Family.
Like it matters.. But if they lie.. well.. I guess its OK if I lie back to them..
Have fun writing your letters.. Slam Art!
Cause if thats true we might be able to get a lot of Beck's former sponsors to drop FOX entirely if they wont respect what the sponsors do and dont want to be assocaited with
So, is it OK for the HATE that spews from Olbermann? Calling people the "Worst person in the world?" Oh, how about the crap lie he said on the air, when he stated Tuesday that his program was the highest rated cable news show...except for all the Fox News shows. How stupid is that?
Or, is it OK for Ed Schulz (sic) talking about conservatives killing Obama? Maybe Bill Maher saying that "60% of the country still doesn't believe in evolution, and need to be told because they are stupid".
Have some courage. Raise the level of debate. Or...does your weak message and communist values not stand up to intellectual response???
For example (see if you can spot a theme here):
Death Panels and how they were never in the bill and the piece of legislation cited by the GOP as proof was written by a Republican.
Sarah Palin jumping on the Death Panel bandwagon despite the State of Alaska currently being under federal investation due to how mismanaged it's health care system was, and its health system functioned as a Death Panel durring the last 2 years (Palin's term in other words)
Senator Inhofe(R-OK) claiming he will vote against the Health care bill without reading it, despite claims from the GOP about how bad it is for the Dem's to vote for the bill without reading it.
Michael Steele writing out a Senior Citizen Health Care Bill of Rights and then refuting the same Bill of Rights the next day in an interview.
Republican Senator John Ensign refusing to resign from office after his affair despite calling on President Clinton to do the same thing
Republican Governor Mark Sanford refusing to resign from office after his affair despite calling on President Clinton to do the same thing.
(and this one doesnt fit my theme exactly but I want to mention it) Republican Vice President Cheney attempting to send U.S. Military Forces into the state of New York to "detain" suspected terrorists in blatent violation of the consistution.
Republican Senators complaining about and claiming the illegality of attempting to pass a bill with only 51 votes (despite that being spelled out as legal in the Consistution)
Republican Memebers of congress going on the record that they are unsure of President Obama's citizenship, despite the release of his birth certificate, and lack of any legally valid evidence to the contrary.
Michelle Bachmann claiming that she will violate the law and refuse to fill out the Census to protect personal information that is already a matter of public record.
The GOP claiming to be anti federally funded healthcare, yet Pro Medicare and Medicade.
And others but I'm tired of typing.
BTW if you didnt notice the theme: Republican ELECTED officals (not talk show hosts) spreading proven lies and hypocrisy, and all of these stories are from the last month (or two)
If you want to have a debate on controvesy, forgot Beck, Bill-O, Rush, Ed, KO, Rachael, Hannity, and talk about your elected officals.
And yes I know you might be able to compile a similar list for the democrat elected offical (or you might not), but at least I admit my doo-doo stinks when accusing other people of tossing doo-doo at me.
1. Death Panels. I agree that the use of that term went WAY overboard. While I have found zero evidence that a Republican authored that portion of the bill, it has zero bearing in the matter. A Democrat removed it. It is no longer there. The fact was, the legislation was scary, and it offended people...and the truth was it provided incentives for medical professionals to confer with elderly patients about alternatives to end-of-life. It was recognized as bad, and removed.
2. I have found ZERO evidence of any federal investigations in Alaska, and definitely nothing related to Sarah Palin.
3. Any member of Congress that votes on a bill without reading it should lose their seat. Including the disgraceful House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), who said, "I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
4. Not sure about Michael Steele. I'll get back to you on that. Hadn't heard anything.
5. Dude...do you really want to go down the "he didn't resign" path? Blogo refusing to resign, and having to be impeached. Barney Frank, Daniel Inouye...that crap happens on both sides of the line. Again, has nothing to do the the CONSERVATIVE view. I am NOT A REPUBLICAN...I'm conservative.
6. I agree that sending US troops into cities to take action against citizens is unconstitutional. But, his argument was for terrorists...admittedly a gray area.
7. Using the "nuclear" option was not intended for FORCE legislation through that is highly controversial. The point progressives miss is that the Democrats have 60 votes. They don't even have the support of their own party, or they would VOTE. The 51 option was to prevent gridlock in the case of a tighter senate, where one side did not have the votes to move.
8. Personally, I'm not a birther...For the record, the VAST majority of conservatives are not birthers. Done.
9. Bachmann said she would do what is spelled out in the US Constitution. It is not illegal.
10. The GOP is not against Medicare and Medicaid. Hell, they expanded it. Its a public option that put's private business down that they care about. Personally, both those programs are so poorly run and bankrupt, they should be re-evaluated...but that is a conservative perspective.
11. Its nice to see someone who admits that the Democrats are corrupt. Here's the thing: I can absolutely produce a list (MUCH LONGER) of hypocritical and lying Democrates. Hell, I could do 100X this list with just Barney Frank. But I don't care about the Republicans OR Democrats. I care about America. I care about conservative values. I care about the US Constitution. I care about the rights of the individual.
The current administration is VERY MUCH AGAINST the individual. They want to spread the wealth. They want to take money from rich and give to SOME undeserving people. They want to silence my voice, and the voices of anyone who is against them. They have placed admitted communists in the White House. Does anyone have the courage to ask the questions?
2) Information on the Palin investigations are pretty easy to find. You pump yourself up pretty big, but you somehow can't do that. Howcum?
3) Thats what congressional staffs are about. A good staff keeps their boss up to speed on whats important as bills change throught the legislative process.
4) I remember that one. There is an article about it onsite.
5) prove it, there are many good conservatives who post here. I seldom disagree with them, they don't get alot of arguement from the other progressive types here either. None feel obligated to repeat neocon talking points.
6) the use of the US military on US citizens is not a gray area. It is illegal.
7) the nuclear option as it was first mentioned was to eliminate cloture. I'm not going to guess what legislation you consider controversial. The blue dog democrats seem to be the major hold up at least on healthcare reform. As a rule the dems do not march in lockstep to a recieved ideology, or bow to threats from their political leaders. That's democracy for you versis what?
8) Congrates, then why does it not disa ppear from the "liberal media?"
9) So her point in refusing to fill out a census form was what?
10) So one social program that they don't want kill, false and again proof of it is on site. You might want to look arround at the resources this site provides on conservative missinformation. Original sources and original vocals.
11) We're pretty much up on democratic party faults. Corrupt though is a whole nother catagory.
12) your long on accusations, microscopic on any support for those accusations. Accusations are not questions. Accusations need some thing beyond ones feelings honestly brought up or not. I put you In the later catgory till you put up some support.
You still don't get it. If you take the constitution seriously you should be aghast. The language was from a bill co-authored by Johnny Isaakson, a Republican. It makes good medical sense. I wish my mother had such instructions a decade ago when she had a terminal illness as her children w
Have you read section 1233? Do you know how to read a Medicare Reimbursement standard of care, it's not that hard. You appear to have the basic literacy skills. It's core professional competence of members of the US congress to read, or have someone on their staff read, and explain the meaning and practice.
Do you comprehend what a demagogue is? "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
I am an inventor and entrepreneur of medical devices. I strongly support the individual and have no fear of HR3200, nor the current administration, and strongly support Single Payer for national financial and health benefits. My cofounders and I will become very rich with either model, as long as it's not the current private insurance system. Status quo is a recipe for third world debt levels and health.
Your other points are beyond logical response which I suspect is why you've had no other responses.
1 Death Panels: National Insecurity anwser that
2 Palin health care: Ok I mispoke a little and I admit that, not an investigation just a freeze on state medical progams due to mismanagement on Palins watch. http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/864670.html
3 Not reading the bill. I agree with you, and yes I'm aware it happens on both sides (although I'm not sure I remeber anyone other then Inhofe critizing the other side for not reading a bill he wont read). However eweston point is vaild, but I assume if a congressman says he hasnt read a bill it means his staff isnt informing him of it either.
4. as Eweston pointed out check around MMFA. Or just listen to steele interviews on the last several days with a copy of the Washington Post OP-ED in hand
5. True there are many on both sides who didnt resign after scandle. However to the best of my knowlage (which I admit could be flawed) none of the 3 Democrats you named ever called for the impreachment or resignation of another offical for commiting a similar crime to what they themselves did(Sanford and Ensign are on record saying Clinton either should have been impeached or forced to resign for his affair, even without the purjury).If you can find proof they did I will concede the point.
6.Cheney New York: The fourth amendment does not allow the military to conduct police actions such as arrest and search and seizures on US soil. That amendment is clarified by other laws as well
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/25/2009-07-25_dick_cheney_wanted_troops_to_nab_buffalo_qaeda.html
7. 51 votes: Consistution just says majority rule is required. thats 51 votes doesnt matter what the legislation is. Plus if we had to have party unity on every bill nothing would ever get passed on either side when they were in power. If the Dems have 60(now 59 until Kennedy seat if filled) and only get 51 votes it doesnt matter. All the 60 means is they dont any republicans until more the 9 (8) memebers of their own party refuse to vote for it. And if they can get 60 to break a filibuster there is no requirement that those people actually vote yes on the bill. They could get some No votes to vote against filibuster.
8. Birther: I make no claims as to what ideaolgy birthers are. What I do make claims to are Republican elected officals being interviewed and asked point blank if they believe Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen and either saying there is room for doubt, no he is not, or refusing to anwser the question. I'm not saying this is all GOP officals I know its not most, but I dont know a single Dem offical who has not without hesitation anwsered yes he is when asked. The fact that elected officals doubt it, or claim to doubt his citizenship for polical reasons is desturbing and needs to be deal with in order to disassocate the GOP and Birthers.
9: Census: She misread the law, according to the US Census Bureau, which claims her fine might be as much as $5000 if not fully filled out. It's worth noting ( that a group in Minnisota attempted to fill out a Census for her and were only unable to anwser 17 question using information already publicly available, undercuttting Bachmann argument that government should not have this information, they already do.
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/politics/Michele_Bachmann_US_Census_ACORN_June_25_2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5095844.shtml
this is the PDF of Bachmann census' http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/bachmann-census-memo.pdf
10:govenment funded healthcare: Then why does Chairman Steelt point to Medicare and Medicaid in his Senior health care bill of rights as an example of what the Republicans want health care to be? Also to my orginal point, how can the GOP claim to be anti government healthcare yet support medicare, medicaid and the VA, and their own government funded health care? If they are against it they should voted to repeal medicare when given the chance a few weeks ago. As far as I know not a single person voted for the amendment to destroy medicare that was proposed by Rep Weiner (D-NY) specifically to point out the GOP hypocracy on Government funded healthcare
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/weiner-medicare/
11: dont get me wrong I admit that the Dem's have their corrupt points but I'm not saying they are any more or less corrupt then the GOP and for the record i could also do a longer list had i wanted too.
And I was wondering if you could show me an example of the governement actually taking money away from someone rich and giving it directly to someone who was poor? cause I havnt seen that yet.
1. First, we should all (Americans as a whole) stop using the term "Death Panels". That was introduced (I believe) by Sarah Palin in a post on Facebook. It was her opinion. While I respect her as a political figure, that term has been very inflamatory. I think people receiving instruction is great. I just don't think it should be mandated from the federal government.
2. Eh...I read the article. You are right that the ultimate responsibility of the state was hers.
3. Oh yeah, it happens on both sides of the aisle. They should all be ousted. I completely disagree with previous posts saying, "That's what aides are for". No. You are an elected representative. I don't want an aides interpretation. That is a core componenet of their job. No excuses.
4. Well...I've read the Steele stuff. I still am not seeing your point. Not trying to be obtuse...just don't understand what you mean.
5. Who knows. We could do a bunch of research, and probably find that the level of hypocrisy is equally high on both sides of the aisle. I will say this...it sounds like both of us are tired of politicians not living what they preach.
6. You are 100% correct on this. Sorry...I was thinking the suspected terrorists were not US citizens. My bad. Again, I'm not a Republican supporter. They do bad things as well...
7. Yes. It takes simple majority to pass. 51 votes in the Senate. And yes, you said it better...the nuclear option is used for cloture, bringing the bills to vote. I agree that its no illegal. It just stops debate.
8. I would agree. I doubt any Democrat would follow the birther line. But, members of Congress are a wide ranging group. I believe we even have an admitted socialist (Sanders). Who cares if there is a birther in there...? If he represents his constituents...so be it. Not my cup of tea...
9. Michelle Bachmann was standing on principle. She believes that the federal government is collecting too much information on its citizens. That is her right. And, she admitted that she may have to pay the fine. So what?
10. Yep, its confusing. The argument is the public option will lead to single-payer. That sounds like a stunt by Rep. Weiner. The Republicans have pulled similar stunts with war funding in Iraq. Votes like that are used in adds during election time...
1. I agree we should stop using the term death panels. I also agree that end of life care or consultation should not be mandated. I not sure however that the bill the way it was written was actually claiming that it would be mandated, only that they would refund you for the price of meeting with your doctor to set up a living will that would dictate end of life care in a situtation in which you become unable to (like a coma).
3. I do think asking every senator to read every page of every bill would slow down the law making process to much to be benifital. I would be fine with a aid reading a bill for a congressman and writing a congressman a detailed summery highlighting pages and issues which either directly concern the congressman's district/consitutants or interests.
However I believe at the end of the day that this is no longer a debatable point between us as we have now come personal preferance and not a politcal difference, I would be perfectly ok with a congressman of either party who used you method and read everything personally, as long as they can serve their voters effectly and make what the voters consider an informed choice it matters litte to me what method they use.
4. I belive that when Steele on on Tu and W expanded his view on medicare and mentioned how it was a flawed system that needed to be replaced it ran counter to his pledge to protect medicare that was in the Senior Citizens Bill of Rights. And I do not think he has satisfactorally explained that difference (this kinda matches up with point 10)
5 Agreed
8 I agree that memebers of congress are a diverse lot. but I think there is a difference between a member of congress who is a Socalist (or even Communist, if we had one) and a Birther (or to go bi-partisan on this a 9/11 Truther). Socalism is a vaild political ideology that comes with a beleif in the role of the government and adminstration of that government and its relation to the people. It like any other politcal ideology like liberalism, fasism, conservatism, ect. spells out a plan for government and a role for government in order to adress the problems and concerns of the people in a way its supporters find acceptable. I personally would probibly never vote for a Socalist, however if that is how the majority of people in a district believe the government can best function then it is their right to elect a repersentive in the government who can attempt to advance that agenda, the same right and reason they would have in electeding a liberal or conservative.
Birthers and Truthers on the other hand do not have a politcal platform and politcal agenda beyond a completely unprovable belief in the illegitmacy of the government. Since the US government at any given point is made up of (at minimum) Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives, they all wind up taking some of the blame for the illegitmacy of the government and people wind up against those ideologies yet do not provide an alternative ideology of governance (like Socalism would). The result winds up being people who do not trust their own government reguardless of who is in power. This distrust undermines the governments ability to effectively serve it's people. While private citizen are entitled to believe what ever they want personally, a elected repersentitive has an oblgation to uphold and defend the consistution and esposing a personal, not poltical belief that undermines the effectiness of that same consistutionally elected government, of which they are themselves a memeber is not keeping with spirit of that oath. (this is especially trur in situations like the Birthers and Truthers where the overwhelmingly majority of facts avaiable disprove their belief)The elected repersentive is of course entitled to personally believe any of those types of theories however their oath should stop them from endorsing those theories while still a repersentitive of the government.
9. Bachmann was standing on pricipal and does have the right to not fill out the census if she so choices as long as she is willing to accept the fine (which she is). My problem with her is that she is encouraging other people to break the law as well and not making it clear that they are doing so and might face a punishment for doing so. That I believe is irresponsible and underhanded. People do not expect an elected offical to encourage them to under take what might be an illegal action. And if encouraged by an elected offical to take an action they had believed to be illegal they will probibly trust in the officals expertise in and interetaion of the law rather then their own leading them to do something they might otherwise not do were a politican not endorsing it and without a full understanding of the possible consequences.
10. Ok most of this I covered in 4 (that it is confusing). and yes it was a stunt by Weiner and yes the GOP did similar things in the Iraq war for the reason of campaign ads. As I said in four I would just like some clarification from the GOP of what appears to me to be two conflicting and controdictory beliefs.
You then said "I think people receiving instruction is great. I just don't think it should be mandated from the federal government."
No, the legislation was absolutely not scary as written, only as dishonestly portrayed. Counseling was never mandated, the bill only provided that it would be reimbursed. Moreover, "counseling" means providing information and encouraging people to think about their wishes - which is a great idea. The bill never directed what people's wishes should be - it was totally neutral between someone deciding they want all possible measures taken and someone deciding they did not want heroic measures taken. Nothing scary about it, and it's a crying shame it was removed.
2.FEC finds problems with SarahPAC contributions
Since this came out today I would guess they were investigating for a while...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvGATT9d61PSPVV37nx4QBzF-jPgD9AC2BIG0
Word stumble? Maybe. A Republican accidentally told the truth for once. That definitely wasn't in their talking points.
You can't really be defending Beck here. Seriously, you think what Bill Maher says is in some way on the same level as what Beck says?
You talk about courage and raising the debate and then... communist values? That's how you beckon for reason and debate? Weak message and communist values is your lead in? And you refer to that as intellectual?
Ok pumpkin. I'll pass.
And "Thank God! Someone who makes an intelligent response, and didn't call names one time! Thank you."
That's priceless.
Well, this doesn't affect me personally since I never have nor ever will bank there...
However, if this company had any decency or scruples they would do the right thing and distance themselves from the disaster called "The Glenn Beck Show"
If you were up on the boycott at all you'd know who was organising it.
MMfa's concern is conservative missinformation in all forms of media. They do not organize boycotts. They do help with information and illustrate daily the onslaught on it in our "liberal" media.
Wall to wall Limbic was not a pretty picture today.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/27/big-beck-goes-over-3-million-viewers-beats-oreilly-in-demo-cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-august-26-2009/25541