Shuster hosts 11-year-old to respond to attacks from media conservatives
March 19, 2010 11:17 am ET
From the March 19 edition of MSNBC News Live:
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.
Gina Owens said it all.
~
~
By the way, the mom was 16 when she had the kid. There is no mention of a father figure around whatsoever. Isn't this a strong argument that perhaps many of our problems in this country come from a lack of a strong family unit? I wonder how her life would have turned out without having a kid at 16.
If you can''t see it, the the rest of your point is moot.
I don't know about her, but Glenn Beck would've gotten one less hate-boner. What a horrifying thought.
You fail to see many things that a self-proclaimed cynic should. Maybe you should change your login to Blind/Deaf/Dumb Cynic.
Your suggestion that the woman would not have contracted leukemia if she hadn't decided to bear a raise her child (you should praise her for not aborting), is scurrilous. Her mother's strength, and the way her son presents himself are a credit to the strong family unit that has been destroyed by an effed-up healthcare system.
Well-adjusted families and societies come from peace and stability, not from some ideal of mommy and daddy.
But, based upon your logic, it could explain why Beck is such a screwed up mess. His family life has hardly been the model of stability and strength.
"He has revealed himself over and over again as a guy with a deep-seated hatred for white people...he is, I believe, a racist."
And Mags, we tried IMpersonal insults, but they just don't work as well.
"To Whom It May Concern,
Based upon what we have heard, we are leaning towards assuming you are (or at some point were) a moran.
Have a nice day."
And this shows YOU for what YOU really are. You can't argue in favor of the right-wing media dogpiling on an 11-year-old boy who just lost his mother, so you change the subject.
It's HER fault she died because she got pregnant at 16, and therefore the unfair treatment her family has received is deserved.
When you move away from the subject act hand, which is the attacks endured by this family, in order to focus instead on negatively portraying her reproductive decisions, you are shifting blame.
It's like, for instance, when someone shirks the subject of an actual rape in order to instead discuss or negatively portray the way the victim was dressed. It is a mechanism for shifting blame.
1. Beck asking where Grandma (and others associated with their group) were as part of a larger point concerning why the group they belonged to didn't do more to provide immediate and lifesaving relief. By the way, supposedly the mom died nine months after losing her insurance and - at that point - her health was already in dire straights to the point that there wasn't much doctors could do anyways.
2. Limbaugh stating the mom would still have died even with ObamaCare. It's true, but I can see that he put it a little bluntly.
3. A severely cropped quote that doesn't necessarily take Malkin out of context, but leave out much of why she believes the Democrats used the boy as a shield.
4. A NewsBusters posting stating the fact that the kid belongs to a family of liberal activists. Oh the horror of stating a fact.
This poor family must be having such a difficult time "enduring" these four different attacks.
Secondly, let's put aside whether or not you actually think these qualify as "attacks" for a moment. Whether you think so or not, that was what this post was about. But your initial reaction was NOT to discuss that. Your initial reaction was NOT to explain why you thought these things were not attacks, but to instead focus your attention on the fact that this woman was an unwed mother. In order to shift blame. There would be no other reason to discuss the reproductive choices of this woman. None at all, except to try and cast her in a negative light and to shift some of the blame.
Furthermore, Beck's implication was that the grandmother didn't care about the daughter when she was sick, and that she only cared about her daughter after she was dead so that she could manipulate it for a political agenda.
And finally, why is it, do you think, that these conservative media figures did not seem to be bothered by the Republican congressman who used an infant as a prop on the floor of congress?
but you are correct in one thing. i do resort to insults. you people are impervious to reason so their is no point in trying to educate you on the actual issues.
The what-if-ing is juvenile, and you've missed the point about her losing her insurance. She shouldn't have. The system was unfairly prejudiced against her.
There is a judging taking place here, and it's inappropriate to a society pretending to be inclusive. Rather than point at what you consider wrong with her life choices/chances, you might admire her capability under pressure - the evidence is her son. And you might at least acknowledge that this was a worthy human being, a sister of yours, who died because of an unfair system.
Do you propose that someone who made a mistake as a teenager, then grew up, deserves to pay for that mistake with their life? That's what you're implying: that it's her own fault because she was irresponsible as a teenager that she couldn't get the health care she needed, and ended up dying.
he's hiding behind the smile...
You fail, all right.
Calling the child a "poster boy" and "kiddie shield" was plainly, clearly belittling the child and demeaning him. Exactly the intention.
Fail on your part--again.
Frankly, your act is old and offensive, and I don't care wtf you think, but belittling children is pretty disgusting.
And why weren't these same conservative voices outraged over the Republican congressman (who was it again?) that used an infant as a prop on the floor of congress. The content of what he was saying had nothing to do with the baby. He was just holding the baby as a prop.
Typical rightard.
They'd rather not discuss the current state of health care except to vaguely assume it's okay, which it's not.