About us Login Get email updates
Special Reports
Print

REPORT: ACORN OBSESSION: Beck, Hannity obsess over ACORN while virtually ignoring major corruption scandals

September 23, 2009 4:33 pm ET

SUMMARY: In light of the recent attention Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have devoted to a supposed corruption scandal involving ACORN, Media Matters for America reviewed the coverage each host has provided on his respective television programs to a selection of well-documented political scandals and instances of corruption by companies that have received thousands of times more money from the government than ACORN has in the past 15 years. Our findings show that both hosts have been obsessed with ACORN, devoting a massively disproportionate amount of attention to the story in comparison to their coverage of controversies involving military contractors that have received billions of dollars in federal contracts and instances of Republican corruption at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Furthermore, since Beck joined Fox News, the amount of attention he has devoted to ACORN has skyrocketed, while his interest in other corruption scandals has remained limited.

Comments

Key findings

Number of times Beck's and Hannity's programs, combined, referenced ACORN, Abramoff, Blackwater, and Halliburton/KBR from May 8, 2006, to September 18, 2009 (NOTE: For the purposes of this study, a "reference" is defined as the specified topic having been mentioned by either a host or a guest on the program being studied.):

  • ACORN: 1,502
  • Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH): 62
  • Blackwater/Xe: 4
  • Halliburton/KBR: 43

Conclusions:

  • Beck's and Hannity's programs were approximately 35 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors.
  • Beck's and Hannity's programs were approximately 24 times more likely to reference ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney.

The numbers are equally shocking for each show individually:

  • Beck's programs were approximately 50 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors and approximately 149 times more likely to discuss ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney.

  • Hannity's programs were approximately 18 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors and approximately eight times more likely to discuss ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney.

What a difference Fox News makes -- after leaving CNN's Headline News and joining Fox in January, Beck's focus on ACORN skyrocketed, while his disinterest in major corruption scandals continued:

References to ACORN on Beck's Headline News program:

ACORN

Abramoff/Ney

Blackwater/Xe

Halliburton/KBR

43

7

2

11

References to ACORN on Beck's Fox News program:

ACORN

Abramoff/Ney

Blackwater/Xe

Halliburton/KBR

1,002

0

0

8

Reporting on ACORN, Beck and Hannity claim to be concerned with government waste and corruption

Beck implores viewers to "take a stand" because "[t]his is clear-cut, unadulterated, taxpayer-funded corruption" at ACORN due to its receipt of government funding. On the September 15 edition of his Fox News program, Beck aired portions of an undercover video at a California ACORN office and stated (from the Nexis database):

BECK: I am just asking you this -- please, take a stand. Take a stand. This is clear-cut, unadulterated, taxpayer-funded corruption. You love your children. You love your country just like I do. You must understand that what you've been seeing from ACORN on these tapes this past week isn't compassion, it's corruption!

I'm asking you -- demand a full investigation from your representatives of everybody -- ACORN, all the way to the top, everybody in government, all the way to the top, in your cities, and in our nation. And until that corruption is brought under control, we must quarantine Washington, D.C. -- no legislation must come out of it.

Hannity: "The only question that remains is, will this keep ACORN from receiving our tax dollars?" From the September 16 edition of Hannity (from Nexis):

HANNITY: Now the employees in five separate ACORN offices have now showed themselves willing to aid and in some cases participate in child prostitution. Now predictably, ACORN is retaliating by attacking the individuals who exposed them and threatening them with lawsuits.

But the videos, they speak for themselves. The only question that remains is, will this keep ACORN from receiving our tax dollars?

And here with reaction is the author of the best-selling book, "Culture of Corruption," Michelle Malkin is back with us.

You know, if you look at the money and follow the money, tens and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to date, Michelle. And if you add the stimulus, you're looking, you know, at potentially $8.5 billion more. So there are -- there is an effort in Congress to stop it. Will it be successful?

MICHELLE MALKIN, "THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION" AUTHOR: Well, it already has, in some measure. And I think that cutting off ACORN from the Census Bureau partnerships was a big first step, and then of course in the Senate cutting off transportation and HUD appropriations money from ACORN and all of its affiliates.

I think that's very important. I called up Senator Mike Johan's office the other day just to clarify and make sure that it's not just ACORN, the national umbrella group, but all of the web of its affiliates and entities under it that are nonprofit, tax exempt and supposedly nonpartisan.

So all these are a good first step. But I think that the next step, Sean, obviously, is to crack open the books and take a look at how the money they currently have been allocated and allocated in the past is being spent. And that's going to be an incredible forensic undertaking. And hopefully it will be bipartisan.

HANNITY: You talk about these umbrella groups. There's all these groups that would then, you know, sort of subcontract out to ACORN. So it's almost difficult to do the accounting. But the reality is, and I know Governor Tim Pawlenty and I know some others, Richard Shelby was on this morning, and he is working in Washington.

They're saying they want to find a way to get to the real bottom line dollar figure of how much they are getting and cut off all funds because this is only part of the corruption. I mean it's bad enough every office they went to showed a connection, you know, to some of these scandals. But it goes a lot deeper, doesn't it?

MALKIN: It's systemic. And I'll tell you, ACORN plays a game of throwing its rank and file operatives under the bus and then claiming that these were just the indefensible actions of a few, a handful. That's the phrase that Bertha Lewis and the ACORN brass are using.

Both hosts have largely ignored major scandals involving military contractors that have huge government contracts

Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater have received tens of billions of dollars in military contracts and have been connected to major scandals, some even resulting in death. Major controversies concerning work performed by Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary), and Blackwater (now named Xe) broke between 2006 and 2009. According to news reports, Blackwater, Halliburton, and KBR have received a combined total of at least $25 billion dollars in federal contracts since 2001. By comparison, ACORN has received an estimated $53 million in federal funding over the past 15 years, which is an average of $3.5 million per year.

KBR's faulty work in Iraq allegedly killed U.S. soldiers and civilian contractors. For example, KBR, which received more than $24 billion in military contracts in exchange for performing a wide array of services related to the Iraq war, was allegedly responsible for the fatal electrocutions of 13 U.S. service members between the start of the war and July 2008 due to faulty electrical work. In July 2008, The New York Times reported that the Department of Defense ordered electrical inspections of all buildings in Iraq because of the deaths. In September 2006, a group of truckers who had worked for KBR provided congressional testimony against the company, claiming that its practices had unduly endangered them and contributed to the deaths of seven workers in an ambush.

KBR and Halliburton allegedly took foreign bribes. In 2009, Halliburton and KBR agreed to pay a $579 million settlement to the federal government over charges that they took foreign bribes, reportedly the largest fine ever paid by a U.S. company in a foreign corruption case.

Blackwater contractors were connected to the shooting death of 17 Iraqi civilians, and its founder has been named in a murder investigation. Blackwater, whose leadership had well-established ties to the Bush administration and the conservative movement, has received more than $1 billion in federal contracts since 2001. The company has faced mounting criticism following the shooting death of 17 Iraqi civilians in September 2007. At the time, Iraqi officials accused Blackwater of murder. More recently, there have been accusations of a murder plot directly involving Blackwater founder Erik Prince.

Despite their professed concern about corruption, Beck's and Hannity's programs have virtually ignored the controversies surrounding Blackwater, Halliburton, and KBR. Since May 2006, Beck's television programs have referenced the contractors only 21 times. Similarly, Hannity's programs have referenced them only 26 times.

Both have similarly ignored major developments in Abramoff and Ney corruption cases

Both Abramoff and Ney were imprisoned after being convicted of corruption. In the summer of 2006, Ney, who was enmeshed in the Abramoff scandal, retired from office. That fall, reports revealed extensive ties between Abramoff and the Bush White House and Republican congressional figures, threatening the electoral prospects of Republicans throughout the country. Ney soon pleaded guilty to corruption charges and was sentenced to a prison term. In September 2008, the Abramoff trial finally concluded with a four-year sentence for Abramoff himself.

Beck and Hannity consistently ignored developments in these cases of high-level Republican corruption. Despite the fact that the scandal involving Ney and Abramoff received broad coverage and was politically significant, Beck and Hannity largely ignored it. Throughout all of 2006, Beck mentioned Abramoff only a handful of times, often simply to dismiss his significance. For instance, on his November 8, 2006, program, following a major midterm election that returned control of Congress to Democrats, Beck said the following regarding corruption's effect on the election: "According to yesterday's exit polls, voters said the most important issue to them was corruption and ethics. You know, I don't believe that they're talking about Mark Foley or Jack Abramoff. Ask somebody if they even know who Jack Abramoff is." For his part, Hannity did not mention Abramoff once during the week of the 2006 midterm elections, and Ney has been mentioned only a handful of times during the entire course of his Fox News broadcast.

Yet Beck and Hannity have devoted disproportionate attention to ACORN

Beck and Hannity mentioned ACORN 32 times more often than the military contractors. Between May 8, 2006, and September 18, 2009, ACORN was mentioned approximately 376 times as often on Beck's and Hannity's programs combined as Blackwater and approximately 35 times as often as Halliburton and KBR combined. In total, the two programs mentioned ACORN approximately 32 times as often as all of the military contractors combined.

Beck and Hannity mentioned ACORN 24 times more often than Abramoff and Ney. Between May 8, 2006, and September 18, 2009, ACORN was mentioned on Beck's and Hannity's television programs 24 times as often as Abramoff and Ney combined.

Methodology

Media Matters for America conducted a Nexis search for programs hosted by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity between May 8, 2006, and September 18, 2009,* using the following terms:

  • SHOW(Glenn Beck OR Hannity) AND (CAPS(ACORN) OR Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)
  • SHOW(Glenn Beck OR Hannity) AND (Jack Abramoff OR Abramoff)
  • SHOW(Glenn Beck OR Hannity) AND (Blackwater OR Black Water OR CAPS(XE))
  • SHOW(Glenn Beck OR Hannity) AND (Robert Ney OR Bob Ney OR Ney)
  • SHOW(Glenn Beck OR Hannity) AND (Halliburton)
  • SHOW(Glenn Beck OR Hannity) AND (Kellogg Brown Root OR KBR)

For each transcript, every mention of any of the searched terms by any person on the program was included in the study.

*Glenn Beck was off the air between October 17, 2008, and January 18, 2009, during his program's transition from CNN Headline News to Fox News. Included in the results were both Beck's Headline News and Fox News programs, as well as Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, and Hannity's America.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by abstractannie (September 23, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
      5  
      I told someone these fact last week when they started this ACORN grip and they just acted like they had never heard of such a thing. That is typical "Religious Right Mentality" when its on their feet the shoe fits fine, for 100 times more of the cost, but when its on the other side "OUCH It Hurts, Ouch it hurts, that cost toooooo Much". But its 1% of the cost, I just dont get it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tuersm3856 (September 24, 2009 7:18 am ET)
        4 9
        I think the problem here is that MMFA reports stories like this as if corruption is okay...like if the right wing media wouldn't report on the ACORN thing so much, everything would be fine. Or, at least, that's what too many people walk away with when they read these "oh yeah? Well the ___(Democrats/Republicans) did _____(fill in class of corruption that both parties commit but one party's instance is more reported than the other)."

        How about this: both parties are corrupt and are doing horrible things in our name and how much attention they get in the bought-and-paid-for media is not the issue.

        I'm beginning to realize that Media Matters is irrelevant...because the media itself has become irrelevant.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 9:02 am ET)
          8 3
          How about this: both parties are corrupt and are doing horrible things in our name and how much attention they get in the bought-and-paid-for media is not the issue.

          WTF? Haven't you ever heard of priorities?

          How can disproportionate coverage not matter? These people are providing cover for their corporate buddies, who pay their salaries, to promote republicans, who then do favors for their corporate buddies!

          And MMFA missed another opportunity: As little money as Acorn has recieved and as little are their likely to be fined, how much have these bozo's talked about these guys?! Some of these corporation have paid CRIMINAL FINES in excess of the amount of money that Acorn has ever had!

          You must keep these things in proportion! And it is a demonstable, indisputable fact that Republicans are far more corrupt that Dem's, many times over. The evindence for this is overwhelming. Saying "both parties are corrupt and are doing horrible things" is like cmparing a single rotten piece of fruit to a 4-ton compost heap. It a cowardly dodge, to avoid taking sides in a debate where the answer is clear, but percived as unpopular.

          That's what all this Acorn nuttiness is really all about: Trying to distract from their own massive shortcomings, by grossly exagerating the wrongdoings of the other guy. If there realy was "just as much" corruption on the parts of Dems, you'd have heard aout it by now, and it would have dwarfed all this nonsense with Acorn. There would be so much coverage of democratic scandals that Acorn wouldn't even register a blip. But it just ain't there. Acorn is ALL THEY GOT. And it's small potatoes. But you wouldn't know that from watching Fox!

          So quit your cynicism. One side IS, in FACT, better than the other.

          -------------------------------------------------------------------
          Keep things in perspective!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tuersm3856 (September 24, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
              3
            Media Matters cannot replace discernment. It is up to you to watch the media - on both sides - with the extreme skepticism they are due. Anyone who attempts to analyzes news for you has an agenda.

            As far as one "side" being better than the other, can you quantify that for me? "Better" is so vague. Have you considered that both Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin? The policies of Obama are almost identical to Bush's...because they were both put into power by the same puppetmasters. Just think about it and get back to me.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
              2  
              The policies of Obama are almost identical to Bush's...because they were both put into power by the same puppetmasters. Just think about it and get back to me.

              That won't take long. It's nonsense. Again - this "both sides are just as bad" is nothing more than an intectually cowardly ploy. A cop-out to avoid the tough task of actually analysisng the available info and making a decision.

              The most cowardly choice to to choose not to choose.

              As for quantifying it, I DID...

              Here iy is in number of people: http://www.republicanoffenders.com/

              Here it is in terms of dollars: http://www.endgame.org/corpfines.html

              Until you fins me some Democratic lists that are even CLOSE to these in size or scope (and you won't, because they don't exsist, becuase that level of wrongdoing simply hasn't happened) you cannot say, 'they're the same' and expect to be taken seriously by this man.

              And please don't speak to me of skepticism. I know all about skepticism! You sir, are not a SKEPTIC. You're merely a CYNIC. Cynicism is EASY. REAL SKEPTICISM is hard. It requires eventually accepting a conclusion, based on a thourough analysis of the available evidence. It requires a degree of intellectual courage that cynicism doesn not. Cynicism is just refusing to do any of the really hard work, and refusing to ever pick sides.

              And nobody "analysises" the info for me. THIS LIBERAL, like most, thinks for himself!

              --------------------------------------------------------------
              I'm comfortable that I've been skeptical enough.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by manofmystique (September 24, 2009 9:29 am ET)
          4 3
          Don't be a fool, the country is in such bad shape because- for too long the News and political leaders priorities were misplaced. Greed, corruption and poor leadership was ignored, overlooked or downplayed by the media and people like you did not show much concern [not like these misguided protesters].
          Now you have F--ked News continue this trend by personally investigating a small organization that aids poor people, while a major corruption scandal involving billions of dollars get little coverage. Where is the outrage?
          Conservatives, idiots and nutcases like Sean [Klan]nity, Glen Beck and Bill OReilly are more interested in punishing everyone they believe help Obama become successful than anything else.
          The News was alright till America got a new President, a black President. All of a sudden it has become irrelevant? You should be disturbed by a News network using it resources to create stories in order to make a point.
          You should be disturbed with a News agency interjecting them selves into a story, so they can get credit for it. You should be disturbed that they ambush people for interviews.
          You should be disturbed why they are paying more attention to ACORN then Blackwater and Halliburton.
          You should be concern that Fox News, who claims to be “fair and balanced”, is promoting protests and marches that attracts deranged, uninformed people.
          If you are an intelligent man you should not have a problem with “media matters” because, although they have commentators giving their view, you can draw your own conclusions. Media Matters simply let you see what people are saying in their own words.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Koyaanisqatsi (September 24, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
          3 1
          Why concern yourself with MMFA then? Why take all the effort to create an acount, sign in, and bloviate?
          Be gone Troale!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Midnight Kevin (September 24, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
        3 2
        Taking a cue from Glenn Beck, maybe the "liberal" media requires more pictures to capture the American public... here is one to start with! I made it all by myself...

        [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QHwRO3L07eo/SrtqOlMg09I/AAAAAAAAAGk/ZP4GFeo5uvc/s320/acornmilitarymoney.jpg]

        It was very difficult, I tried to get the ACORN's federal funds bar bigger, but because all these other corrupt organizations take so much more, it just really put things into perspective!

        ------------------------
        The Midnight Review
        Mum Is The Word
        Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (September 23, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
      11 3
      Shocking report. That doltish partisan hacks would obsess over the scandal dujour of the opposition while ignoring their own house.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (September 23, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
        8 1
        It shows their hypocrisy. You can't demonstrate similar hypocrisy on the left. Everyone is a hypocrite in some way, but the Republicans have it honed down to a science.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (September 23, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
        6  
        Oh, and FoxNews commentators shouldn't have a partisan viewpoint. It's supposed to be a fair and balanced news channel.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (September 23, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
          3 6
          It is a fair news channel, unlike many others they always have both sides represented. Have you ever seen that on Olbermann's show?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (September 24, 2009 10:57 am ET)
            3 1
            Fairliberal: I don't think "fair" means what you think it means. Just to clue you in:

            Fair: adjective; free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice; or legitmately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules.

            Both your handle and your claim about Fox show that you don't understand the word.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (September 24, 2009 8:19 pm ET)
              2 1
              I'll stand by my statement, fair means that when a Fox personality has an opinion they generally will have a opposing opinion presented too. If you question that then it just means you are ill informed about Fox. Most follow that format. But once again I'll ask the question, have you ever seen that on Olbermann's show? He is utterly incapable of debating anyone. He does nothing more than what he did at ESPN, he reads the prepared text.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 25, 2009 1:03 am ET)
                   
                ... when a Fox personality has an opinion they generally will have a opposing opinion presented too.


                Yeah, Pat Caddell or Susan Estrich confessing that the Democrats are admittedly pretty horrible, but Fox should be nicer to them. Even you don't fall for that crap, do you FL?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (September 26, 2009 10:27 am ET)
                     
                  How about Mark Lamont Hill, Ellis Henican, Bob Beckel, Code Pink, Bertha Lewis etc etc etc. Show me someone like that that your boy olbermann has on. Can you do it? Nope you can't, but you will still throw up the smoke screen. It's all you have.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (September 24, 2009 10:58 am ET)
            3
          No, you're wrong. Commentators are paid to have opinions, so your statement that they shouldn't be partisan is ridiculous. Perhaps that is why most of your posts here are because you don't understand something so simple.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 23, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
      10 1
      HANNITY: Now the employees in five separate ACORN offices have now showed themselves willing to aid and in some cases participate in child prostitution. (my bold)

      Really, Sean? Willing to participate in child prostitution? How far are you going to go with this?

      Stupid question. As far as his audience will let him.

      But the videos, they speak for themselves.


      Especially with commentary like that above.

      Not even mentioned in the counts of references in this item are whether the mentions of the respective issues were positive or negative.

      And the media can determine what is news, based on how many times they mention something.I've seen the other threads here where describing ACORN correctly as a non-story (relative to these other companies) is answered by pointing out that it is having a political effect, making ACORN a story, not the media's deliberate focus on ACORN.

      That's how reality can be determined now, I guess. Get enough money behind a tv channel,distract the public by focusing on the lesser story, and eventually timid politicians are forced to address the less important story.

      That makes it the story.



      Report Abuse
      • Author by diamonds (September 24, 2009 3:40 am ET)
          3
        It is called conspiracy. Had they actually, knowingly given money to support child prostitution and done it secretly like they were, they would have been, by the definition of conspiracy and federal law, been participating in child prostitution and guilty of the same crime.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
          1  
          Had they actually, knowingly given money to support child prostitution...

          True. And had they actually given money to have somebody killed, they would have been involved in conspiracy to commit murder.

          But they didn't.

          Aside from that, I was commenting more on Hannity's choice of words.If you saw somebody being arrested, and were told that he had participated in child prostitution, what would you assume that meant?

          That he overheard somebody in a ridiculous pimp costume talking about the possibility of bringing some underage girls into the country?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (September 23, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
      13 1
      So an organization that helps people register to vote and receives (or used to receive) about 3.5 million a year from the US government is more important in the scheme of things than a military contractor which has been paid one BILLION by the US government since 2001, and is linked to the cold blooded murder of 17 Iraqis.

      Yep, conservatives sure are the watchdogs of government. Old, blind, half-dead watchdogs, but watchdogs nonetheless.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (September 23, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
        10  
        Don't forget various rapes of their own female employees which they then in turn deny coverage for. I guess locking a rape victim up in a container for a day or two must be common practice?


        Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Vincenzo (September 23, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
        10  
        I think that GOP philosophy is that as long as it's your conservative friends that are doing the bilking then it is OK.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jose2 (September 23, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
        2 9
        Halliburton isn't going to knock on my door during the census and ask questions that could lead to stolen identity.

        So yes, $millions to ACORN is more threatening to me than $millions to Halliburton.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by blindmoose (September 24, 2009 11:06 am ET)
          1  
          Yeah, because we all know identity theft is made possible by getting information on how many people live in your house.

          Do you even know how the Census works???
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jose2 (September 26, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
               
            1. There is the matter of gaining access to property. In the city it may not be a big deal but in isolated areas in the country it can be.

            2. How long has it been since the Census stopped after asking how many people live in your house?

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/eye_opener_gop_asks_bachmann_t.html

            ...questions other than how many people live in her home are unconstitutional and feared that political groups, including ACORN, might try to sway final Census numbers.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Koyaanisqatsi (September 24, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
          5  
          Your link to proof that ACORN has done or plans to do as you claim?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jose2 (September 24, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
               
            http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/oct/07/acorn-hire-d-inmates-some-experts-identity-theft/

            A handful of inmates at Casa Grande had been convicted of identity theft-type crimes and were hired as canvassers by ACORN. Read the devastating affidavit at right.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
          4  
          Nice timing, Jose. You really want to associate yourself with the Census Conspiracy right now?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by srichardson (September 24, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
          4  
          That is so sad. So, so sad.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (September 23, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
      16  
      In a related development, it looks like the Republicans' legislation targeting ACORN could also end up targeting some of their defense contractor buddies...

      Whoops: Anti-ACORN Bill Ropes In Defense Contractors, Others Charged With Fraud


      Report Abuse
      • Author by Vincenzo (September 23, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
        4  
        Well its so hard what with all the words in these things how's a politician to know? ;)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (September 23, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
          7  
          Maybe the republicans should have read it before they voted on it...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 23, 2009 7:08 pm ET)
            2 1
            To be fair, it was passed by many Dems too.

            But to be really fair, this nonsense about 'the bill has to be read, cover to cover, by every Congressman before he can possibly vote on it' is just that. Congress didn't read all the bills when Bush was in office, nor when Clinton or Reagan was in office. They normally have more important stuff to fill their time with besides reading all the legalese that has to go into bills, and so that grunt work gets done by peons in their offices.

            Now, with this ACORN defunding bill, to avoid having it ruled an illegal bill of attainer, or whatever the correct phrase is, they should have had someone do a better job of vetting the wording. This was something that didn't get cleared by a competent peon.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by denisemarie (September 23, 2009 10:28 pm ET)
              2  
              I have to laugh at Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindel making an Executive order to block funding from his state where no such funding exists! These people are the "Master of Puppets", and will stop at nothing to create false "outrage", where anger and intellectual curiosity is appropriate!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by diamonds (September 24, 2009 3:47 am ET)
              2 2
              So a congressman should vote for legislation when they don't understand what it does? Isn't that why we have representatives in the first place?!? They are supposed to be the experts on the legislation! Why are we even paying them if they don't even bother to understand what they are voting on?

              It wasn't acceptable under Bush, it isn't acceptable now (if you want to go back further, FDR rammed through bills that no one was able to read too, and possibly in many more sessions). Especially considering that sometimes, even if congressmen want to read the bills, they cannot. The final marked up version of the Cap and Trade bill wasn't available for reading even after they were finished voting on it! That is flat out unacceptable.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
                3  
                No, a congressman should always understand what they are voting for, but, even more importantly, a congressman should understand the far-reaching ramifications of legislation rather than rushing it to the floor in a knee-jerk reaction to what is, ostensibly, a political cat-fight.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by bronxin48 (September 24, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
                1
              What is it casting the taxpayer to write all these Bill that Congress doesn't have time to read? The Gulf of Mexico has more oil undeveloped that would last a life time.Probably the Obama mafia is figuring out a way to get their hands in the refineries before going public?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by HopeNovak (September 23, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
        2  
        Yep, that story made my day!!
        Another question I heard was, Were they (ACORN employees) breaking the law or the public trust? That is a very important question I hadn't heard before.
        I'm gonna go with public trust. No one gave or received any services, and, as far as I can tell, no papers were filed, so, while it has the appearance of criminal intent, no crime was actually committed, except possibly the 2 young kids in costumes, for illegally filming people without their permission.
        I've often said that the shenanigans of Fox and Friends will prove to be a Pyrrhic Victory at best! Which will really be a real victory for the rest of us. Either way it's a win win situation. Acorn gets it's funding returned or Blackwater and etc, lose theirs!!!
        Like I said..made my day!!


        Report Abuse
      • Author by jose2 (September 24, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
           
        The Constitution requires the government to provide for the national defense. I didn't see any requirement that they provide community organizing.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (September 23, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
      2 7
      "Furthermore, since Beck joined Fox News, the amount of attention he has devoted to ACORN has skyrocketed, while his interest in other corruption scandals has remained limited." MMFA

      Wow what a scoop, Beck is actually covering a story that is news right now rather than rehashing yesterday's news. Good catch by MMFA.

      But here's a question, how many times has the left mentioned Blackwater and the others compared to their mentions about acorn? Do you think the results might be the reverse of MMFA's expose?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 24, 2009 8:46 am ET)
        4 1
        How many people has ACORN killed?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 11:12 am ET)
          1 5
          One less than Ted Kennedy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 11:28 am ET)
            5 1
            >>One less than Ted Kennedy.

            And at least a hundred thousand less than Bush's war.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by srichardson (September 24, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
            3 1
            That's really useless and uncalled for. Why would you even say something like that? It has nothing to do with the conversation and you know that Blackwater and Halliburton have done a lot more harm to this country than ACORN.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (September 24, 2009 9:11 pm ET)
          1  
          So using your logic, Acorn should not be investigated or prosecuted because they have not killed anyone?

          What I do know is that numerous acorn employees have been convicted, And I have seen with my own eyes just how unethical an organization acorn is, the video evidence is indisputable. How many Blackwater employees have been convicted?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 25, 2009 1:08 am ET)
               
            How many Blackwater employees have been convicted?


            Probably a question you wouldn't have asked if you were a little brighter, Faily. You described Blackwater as "yesterday's news".How have all of the allegations against Blackwater, KRB, DynCorp etc. been resolved?

            I think you just shot yourself in the foot again, and you don't have a lot of foot left.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (September 26, 2009 10:37 am ET)
                 
              The cases you mention are running their course through the legal system , the acorn corruption is just now being exposed. In fact every day more and more corruption is being exposed. But I see you did not answer my question, I wonder why?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (September 24, 2009 8:59 am ET)
           
        But here's a question, how many times has the left mentioned Blackwater and the others compared to their mentions about acorn? Do you think the results might be the reverse of MMFA's expose? - fairliberal

        No, I doubt very much that it would be based on my own observations. Do you have any data to the contrary?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (September 24, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
        2  
        Actually, the others are still being investigated.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mookie von zipper (September 24, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
           
        that would be an interesting study, perhaps media matters has already done so... but to me what would be more interesting than comparing the left's coverage of acorn vs blackwater and abramoff would be fox vs cnn and msnbc on blackwater and abramoff... i suspect while fox still may come up short (or one might argue the left overkilled those stories like fox is doing with acorn), the gap would be significantly narrower...

        the pew research center did a similar study comparing the coverage by fox and msnbc on positive vs negative stories about mccain and obama during the last campaign:

        [http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l19/mookietxdj/misc%20debris/foxnews_msnbc.jpg]

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 25, 2009 1:15 am ET)
             
          Mookie, you're making the same mistake that others are making, assuming that two things are equal, and measuring the discrepancies from that false starting point.

          Just as the tax dollars and the crimes of the military contractors are in no way comparable to ACORN, The McCain/Palin campaign was a debacle, and in no way comparable to that of the superior candidates.

          WTF was anybody going to report in a positive way about the old geezer and the Alaskan fruitcake? That graph only shows the ridiculous bias of Fox "news".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (September 25, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
               
            let me try again, because i am in agreement that acorn's trouble is indeed an "acorn" compared to the mighty oaks of blackwater, kbr and abramoff... i just think that if media matters has a problem with fox's coverage of these oaks it would be more useful to compare their coverage with that of cnn and msnbc's, rather than comparing fox's acorn vs oaks coverage...

            i don't agree that obama was a superior candidate, but without a doubt he was the superior campaigner...

            and finally, your new grilled chicken is ok, but i think i'll stick with the original and extra crispy...

            Report Abuse
    • Author by webprogrammer (September 23, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
      10  
      MALKIN: And I'll tell you, ACORN plays a game of throwing its rank and file operatives under the bus and then claiming that these were just the indefensible actions of a few, a handful.

      From the same people who brought you Outrage(tm) at any suggestion of investigating anyone for torture because it was just the indefensible actions of a few, a handful of bad apples in the rank and file. I wonder if they're really ready to claim that a few bad apples indict the whole pyramid, and demand investigations? Okay, never mind, I'm awake now.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (September 23, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
        8  
        Good catch. Conservatives will back Bush and Cheney's every atrocity, but find any indiscretion committed by a liberal president or liberal organization beyond contempt, cast them into the sea for the sharks. Perhaps we should investigate, I dunno, ALL instances of breaking the law and let the courts sort the guilty from the innocent.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
        • Author by webprogrammer (September 23, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
          8  
          I'm thinking about offering an IPO for a new corporation with offices in Republican districts. Outrage, Inc., where we manufacture Outrage(tm) using the finest quality ad hominems, false equivalencies, false dichotomies, double standards and organic hypocrisy, with just the right amount of fiction to make it less filling and taste great. I figure it would sell to conservatives like Kenyan birth certificates. By the time they figure out they've been had... Oh, right, the one thing you don't have to worry about is conservatives figuring out when they're being had.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 23, 2009 8:13 pm ET)
            3  
            I want in, WP. Do you need an Outrage Quality Control Inspector, or a Double Standard Engineer?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (September 23, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
              5  
              So much for the "I've never worked for a liberal" strawman! And creating jobs, too!
              Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 1:20 am ET)
            2  
            I would like to volunteer my services in the Straw Man department.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bausmajor5661 (September 24, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
             
          Fantagor,

          You are only partially correct. Republicans would do what you have described but please stop saying conservatives will. I am a staunch Libertarian - just an FYI for those unsure what that means, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I suspect a number of people here probably fall more into that category than a true Liberal... or not. I can assure you, I know of few conservative - zero Libertarians - who agreed with practically anything Bush did because Bush was not a fiscal conservative. He managed to do what Jimmy Carter could only dream of, grow the size of government in lock-step with FDR.

          While I agree that ACORN is small potatoes, it is potatoes none the less. How long will we put up with ALL the corruption that is rampant throughout the beltway? Here is a novel approach, take away the power, give it back to the people, and the corruption goes away. These clowns stopped representing us a long time ago, and more importantly they stopped seeing us as individuals endowed with certain inalienable rights. Now we are just groups and classes of people, divided and separated by race, income, religion and political affiliation... What happened to just being an American?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by toombsie (September 23, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
      2  
      I think the only word Beck truly knows how to spell is ACORN.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Waring (September 23, 2009 7:17 pm ET)
      2  
      Republicans can't do wrong and Democrats are trying to destroy the country is what they are trying to tell us all.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (September 23, 2009 7:18 pm ET)
      6  
      I was just thinking about something, and posted it on another thread, but wanted to post it here as well.

      We've heard the latest fake outrage about the ACORN CEO having contacts inside of the Obama White House, and how that means ACORN is in cahoots with Obama!

      Now, what do you guys want to bet that in the CEO's contact list, were names of people who also worked in the Bush White House? I'm willing to bet that there is more than one in there, since the CEO probably made some calls to the executive branch when Bush was the President as well.

      I'm also willing to bet, from folks like Redstate, we'll never hear about those said same contacts.

      What do you all think? Possible? Probable? Or definite? I'm thinking, definite. I'd LOVE for the CEO to come out and say, "Yes, I have contact names for Obama's White House, but here are the contacts I had in the Bush White House as well..." I'm sure the CEO has names and contact information for lots of republicans. Why wouldn't the CEO have those names? They've got work both sides of the aisle after all.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (September 23, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
      1  
      I son't think it's just Beck and Hannity. It is all of Fox News that never mentions these stories.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lesliedavid (September 23, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
      2  
      That any supporter of the Republican party should point the finger at anyone else for corruption is beyond laughable. Of course, these rabble rousers need a bogeyman. What could work better than an organization of poor people organizing other poor people, many of them people of color. Scary, scary! For Hitler, it was the Jews. For these idiots, it's Acorn!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by galileonardo (September 23, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
      1 9
      I wonder if MMfA will run a similar "media-mention inventory" on the name Hassan Nemazee. Anyone? Nemazee?

      It's so funny to me to see stories like this running while simultaneously the exact situation is happening with the left media's coverage of Clinton's National Finance Chairman's enormous "alleged" fraud. What's the matter Keith? Rachel? Chris? Cat got your tongue?

      I am willing to bet if any of you ask your associates "Have you ever heard of Jack Abramoff?" a majority would say yes and most could probably give a summary of the Abramoff scandal. If you do the same for Hassan Nemazee I am guessing you'd get a mostly cricket response.

      You guys don't seem to get it. Washington is full of crooks and both parties are guilty of taxation without representation. Bitterly defending just the progressive end of the spectrum leaves you at the fringe and erodes your credibility. This crop in Washington needs to be reminded of the power of the people vs. the pull of the special interest donor.

      Many of you will continue to disparage the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the government spending and waste, but you do so to your own peril. When history books are written decades from now, this era will be seen as the time that America lost its way (I hope). If America does wake up and rise up as I am hoping, voices like yours will be relegated to their rightful lonely and inconsequential place.

      I had only previously seen the tail end of this following quote from Thomas Jefferson but was lucky enough to stumble upon it last night. I have now nicknamed him NostraThomas:

      "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

      There will be no need for arms now. All it is going to take is the continued growth of the sentiment that the Redcoats are here again and all of these bums need to be thrown out. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 1 in 4 Americans would keep the current group of legislators if given the option to keep or replace the entire Congress. So a vast majority of the "Friends of Hassan" would trade their nearest-and-dearest Barnies and Nancies if it meant they could rid themselves of Joe Wilson. Some support, eh?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fishergirlusmc (September 24, 2009 12:18 am ET)
        3 5
        Has anyone here ever heard the story of our illustrious state Senator Hiram Monserrate? He's on trial here in NY for stabbing his girlfriend in the face with a broken glass. They have him on a security tape dragging her down the hall as she knocks on neighbors doors screaming for help.I haven't seen one story about this except in our NY daily's. Our blind and dumb governor even started a legal fund for him! Monserrate elected to be tried without a jury of his peers. These are our elected officials, no shame whatsoever. Like that other idiot govenor Mark Sanford who should slink away into the night but won't. TERM LIMITS NOW!!!!!!!!!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (September 24, 2009 1:00 am ET)
          4  
          More than happy to let him go to jail too. What do you think term limits should be - the same as mexico? One term? That's really working out well for them, knowing they have only 4 years to either strike it rich or serve the people. Maybe y'all should consider a better vetting process, something that doesn't allow a Vitter, Craig or Gingrich to serve?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 2:49 am ET)
            1 6
            I never said anything about term limits, though having representatives entrenched for decades surely doesn't help matters.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by fishergirlusmc (September 24, 2009 10:04 am ET)
            2 3
            Snoopy,
            When our founding fathers wrote the constituition, I think they meant that regular citizens should serve and then go back to their lives. Remember the saying "the plumber, the baker, the candlestick maker? Today they are serving decades and they are being corrupted. Look at Strom Thurmund, remember him? He was so old he would fall asleep and drool all over himself. Robert Byrd is the longest serving senator at this time. My personal feeling is that the senate and congress should serve 1 six year term and the president 2 four year terms. If you cannot accomplish what you set out to do in that period of time, you should step aside and let someone else runfor election.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (September 24, 2009 10:52 am ET)
                 
              Remember the saying "the plumber, the baker, the candlestick maker? - fishergirlusmc

              You want to base public policy on nursery rhymes? Also, it was "the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker." I don't think there were plumbers around at the time it was written. Maybe you're thinking of Joe the fake plumber.

              If the founders wanted term limits they would have written them into the document. If we want them now, we need to go through the amendment process. In effect, term limits are telling the people of other states and districts "I don't like it that you keep electing that person to Congress and I want to stop you from doing it anymore." It's arrogant and ignorant.

              We have term limits right now. They're called elections.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 11:40 am ET)
              2  
              >>When our founding fathers wrote the constituition, I think they meant that regular citizens should serve and then go back to their lives.

              It's the fisher girl rule in action. When she states something, you can count on it being untrue. If our founding fathers really believed in term limits, then, maybe they would have put them in the constitution? Do you find any irony in using an originalist argument (we should follow what our founding fathers wanted) and then ignoring the constitution?

              The phrase is actually *The baker,* not the plumber:

              Rub-a-dub-dub, three men in a tub
              And who do you think they were?
              The butcher, the baker, the candlestick-maker...

              I am not aware that the founding fathers were thinking of nursery rhymes when writing the constitution.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
              1  
              I actually agree with you about Thurmond and Byrd, fishergirl. I do think our representatives tend to get re-elected over and over again. But, we have a system to fix that. It is called elections. Despite, what gali's ill-informed ramblings will try to convince you - we do have representation. We elect these guys over and over again. That IS the system. We get exactly the leaders that we deserve. If you get your information from AM radio and Fox News then you will probably continue to get lousy representation.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (September 24, 2009 9:21 pm ET)
               
            How about a Kennedy, or a Geithner?

            But what would a better vetting process do to keep Gingrich out of office? Or Vitter and Craig for that matter. Would it also keep Barney Frank out?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 1:28 am ET)
          2  
          Term limits are anti-democratic. We may not always like the guy who gets elected, but the voters have a right to vote for whomever they would like to vote for.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 2:56 am ET)
            1 2
            Like I said above, I never said anything about term limits. The current political machine favors incumbents (I think something like 95% of incumbents win re-election) and those with deeeep pockets. How many go unopposed? There are exceptions, but the average politician in completely out of touch with the average American.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 10:47 am ET)
              2  
              If you follow the nesting, you will see that I was not responding to you.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
              2  
              "There are exceptions, but the average politician in completely out of touch with the average American." - gali

              That is pricelessly ironic coming from you gali. You think we have no representation and you believe that your ideas (which lost badly in the last few elections) are the majority, but it is every one else who is out of touch. Ever consider that maybe YOU are in the definite minority and maybe YOU are out of touch?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 3:30 am ET)
            3  
            gal is just the latest of the "fair & balanced" trolls who probably sat silently, or chided others to just let the Bush/Cheney machine "do their jobs" as we survived eight years of possibly the worst presidential administration of most of our lifetimes.

            Suddenly, as a Democratic Prez comes along to clean up the mess, he crawls out of the woodwork, very concerned that anybody not as enlightened as he is might not understand that both major political parties are equally bad, and we should get rid of everybody (now that the Republicans aren't in the position to destroy everything).

            Transparent and boring.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 3:44 am ET)
              3 1
              And Nemazee is comparable as a contributor, but not at all as an influence on policy compared to Abramoff.

              To say that Nemazee and his connections to Clinton are being ignored while "simultaneously" posting stories about current issues that have barely been investigated is a joke.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 4:07 am ET)
              3 5
              It will break your heart to learn I was actually campaign manager for a local liberal progressive democrat in 1998 and had a hand in getting my dem congressman elected for the first time that same year (he is still there and votes the party line about 98% of the time).

              I have since opened my eyes to the lunacy that is Washington (having a child does that I guess). Obama/Congress has taken the thievery to a ridiculously high level and in very short order. Take a look at the spending trend and where it's heading. So call me what you'd like but I think you prove that you are delusional most every time you drop a knuckle to a key.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Handsome Pete (September 24, 2009 9:59 am ET)
                5 2
                You need to open your eyes a little further, and look back a few years. Obama is trying to clean up a giant mess left for him by his predecessor, and if you have a better idea how to prevent a depression than increasing spending (which appears to be working so far), why don't you run for public office? Or is bellyaching on a message board your idea of "making a difference"?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 2:26 am ET)
                    1
                  Zzzzzzzzzzz. Okay. Set the hook. We got a live one here. He actually swallowed the fallacy that Obama and congress have averted a depression with their overreach. Keep spending right?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 11:46 am ET)
                4 1
                >>Obama/Congress has taken the thievery to a ridiculously high level and in very short order. Take a look at the spending trend and where it's heading.

                Oh yes, "thievery!" When a president has policies you don't like, call him a thief. Obama has spent a lot of money because he has to in order to stimulate the economy, as Krugman, a Novel prize winning economist, has stated. And the stimulus, so far, seems to be working. If you think the debt is bad, think of how bad it would be if we were in a full-blown depression.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 2:36 am ET)
                     
                  Got another one on! The stimulus is working! I suppose you liked the Bush-Obama bailouts too. You are true to your name.

                  Yeah, yeah, what you want to do when the economy is in trouble is spend, spend, spend.

                  That's what you personally do, right? When you hit a financial wall, you pile on a mountain of debt.

                  Wouldn't want to tighten the belt instead. No. Overspending always works. Ask Japan.

                  Never mind when things "improve" you will have passed along a tremendous burden to our children. Who cares? Live for today!

                  Double-digit unemployment, huge deficits for the coming decade, and interest payments that will match our borrowing by 2020 means "the stimulus is working" and "on the right track" to you? Hmmm.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 25, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
                       
                    That's what you personally do, right? When you hit a financial wall, you pile on a mountain of debt.

                    Yet one more 'fiscal conservtaive' who doesn't know jack about economics. When are you conservtaives going to start taking economics courses? You sound like morons. Your misconceptions are almost painful to listen to.

                    What is good for an indiviudal to do is disasterous for the country. History is repleat with examples of this. Ask Herbet Hoover. He 'tightened his belt' and turned a recession into the great deprerssion.

                    When a country is in recession, Gov't spending will help pull it out. Period. Spending supports income, which supports consumption, which supports INCOME, etc... IT'S A GOOD THING. PERIOD. Cutting spending will only and can only make matters worse. If you can't get your head aournd this, TAKE A G--D---ED ECONOMICS COURSE!!!

                    -----------------------------------------------------
                    MBA, from U of MICH, graduated with Honors, if you're wondering. Aced both Micro and Macro. You FAIL.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 25, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
                         
                      What is good for an indiviudal to do is disasterous for the country


                      Eddie, this isn't even that difficult to explain on a smaller level. A conservative friend was going off on this with me, and he asked me for an example of spending ones way out of debt that made sense in any other scenario.

                      Imagine you own a restaurant, and you hire somebody to manage it (Joe), as you're busy elsewhere.

                      For a few years, your manager neglects maintenance on equipment, hires his incompetent friends, eliminates advertising, buys lower quality food and uses the savings to buy cocaine and hookers, and doesn't keep up with the bills.

                      You put out an ad for a new manager, and you get two applicants.

                      Bill, who says he wants to build the place up, and run a great restaurant, but it's going to take some investment.

                      And Joe (the previous manager) who suggests you give him a chance to give his managerial style another try.

                      Now, you could always abandon the business, and eat your losses, but that's a little tough to do with a country. Who would you hire, Joe or Bill?



                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
                        1
                      I love it when faced with the Mann hockey stick-like rate of growth in government spending, attempts to temper it are looking to "cut spending."

                      You claim I am painful to listen to regarding economics, but then go on to claim, "When a country is in recession, Gov't spending will help pull it out." Now that's painful.

                      I commented below as well and elaborate, but that is wrong. I gave you the perfect example of that failure: Japan. You and Keynes tune out the Japan stories.

                      But since you're so much smarter than me with your MBA, it doesn't matter what I and the rest of the hoi polloi think. For someone so educated and who "graduated with honors" you sure seem to have issues with spelling (perhaps English was not a required course?). Great "typo" with "repleat" by the way. That's classic. I suggest you massacre it further and go with what you really say in your use of it: rebleat.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 25, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Sorry, Eddie. I should have read down further before responding to his post. It just drives me crazy when someone makes such a simplistic argument about economics and expects to be taken seriously as if they have discovered some simple answer that no one else has thought of. What industry do these people work in to think the country's economy works just like their checkbook at home?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 25, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
                    1  
                    "Yeah, yeah, what you want to do when the economy is in trouble is spend, spend, spend.

                    That's what you personally do, right? When you hit a financial wall, you pile on a mountain of debt." - gali

                    Oh, wow. Another simpleton trying to understand economics. This is always a sure sign of someone that does NOT understand the first thing about the economy or even running a large corporation. Gali, you would not last a week even anywhere in my finance department.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                        1
                      Whoa. "My finance department?" You must be super important. Are you on the company dime right now? Is that part of your Keynesian economic model?

                      Simpletons like me only understand simple economic principles. No need for common sense restraint. Not when your prophet Keynes preaches otherwise.

                      Japan? Anyone? Help me understand cuz I'm just so stupid.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
                2  
                Obama/Congress has taken the thievery to a ridiculously high level and in very short order.

                B*llsh!t. How? Proove it. Articulate. I keep hearing this point, but nobody seems to be able to elaborate on it.

                -------------------------------------------------------------
                It's nothing but hypocritical nonsense.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 2:41 am ET)
                     
                  CBO report

                  Take a read. I said this before last week but it bears repeating since you asked. CBO good enough for you? Take a look at the last line of the chart on page 22. It says that the debt held by the public by 2020 will be 87% of the GDP. Grrrrr-eat!

                  How was the vineyard anyway?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 25, 2009 8:02 am ET)
                       
                    What the hell are you talking about? There is no chart on page 22, and nowhere in the entire document do I see a debt projection of 87% of GDP by 2020. I think I saw the DEFICIT being 32% by 2080, but if you think an estimate 70 years out is really worth losing sleep over (or celebrating for that matter) you're a fool.

                    So until you show me where it says anything of the kind, in the words of Joe Wilson, "YOU LIE!"

                    Second - how exactly does 'publicly held debt' constitute theft? That's b*llsh!t right on it's face. No one is stealing anything here. All that spending has a huge benefit to the economy and our security and our standard of living. And cutting that spending would have MORE of a negative impact than cutting taxes would. (If you don't understand that, TAKE AN ECONOMICS COURSE.)

                    -----------------------------------------------------
                    Or come to my blog in a few days. I'm going to do a primer on Kensian economics, becasue no one (esp fiscal conservatives) understand it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 25, 2009 8:54 am ET)
                         
                      OK. You DON'T Lie. But the chart is on page 6, not 22.

                      You still don't fully explain why this constitues 'theft' or why you'd even lose sleep over it. (Japan's ratio is like 140% today. many other countries are in the same boat. That's life.) And, as I said (and John Maynard Keynes agrees with me,) cutting spending would have every bit the negative economic impact that raising taxes would; more so, actually.

                      A little bit of both will be needed to be sure, but we first have to get a point where we'll have a few years of sustainable growth before we should even try to balance the budget. If you bother with it now, you'll end up like FDR in '37, and plunge us right back into recession.

                      And my god, you must really hate Bush, huh? I mean Clinton gave him a budget surplus and the chance and a plan to eliminate the national debt in 10 years times and instead he ran as fast as he could in teh other idrection and created the situation that we're in now, and will be stuck in for some time.

                      So don't go blaming Obama and the Dems, they inherited a mess, and it ain't going to be pretty to get out of it. Bush could have had the easiest balanced budget in the world and could have paiud down most of our debt, and instead he expended all his efforts and energy to f--k it all up as badly as possible.

                      --------------------------------------------------
                      Worst. President. Ever.


                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
                           
                        Page 6 of the document. Page 20 of the PDF. Glad you found it despite my misdirection.

                        I'll surprise you. Clinton did a far better job than Bush at policing the deficit. That shouldn't be a secret to anyone. The ball was already rolling slowly. Bush got it rolling dramatically faster (a fiscal liberal). And now Obama/Pelosi/Reid have picked it up and whipped it further along.

                        As per usual, you confuse a slow down in the rate of growth in government with "cutting spending." That's why you don't flinch at trillion dollar deficits for the next decade. In your Keynesian logic, and in Obama's own words, "It is only government" that can fix this mess, and in your eyes that is through massive federal expenditures and an increase in the government's scope. Not my philosophy. Not the philosophy of most people despite not having taken your crash course in macroeconomics. It's called common sense.

                        You claim I do not know history. Why don't you share with the good folks what happened in Japan when they took your Keynesian approach?

                        And you act like the dems have been on a decade-long vacation in Hawaii leaving the pubs and Bush to run the asylum unguarded. Puh-lease. It goes back to what I said before. Neither party represents our interests. Yes, dare I say it, taxation without representation, or at least, as RAR says, taxation with poor representation. These clowns are leading us down a road we do not want to travel.


                        Report Abuse
          • Author by bausmajor5661 (September 24, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
              1
            We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic for a very good reason. Venezuela and Cuba are 'Democracies'... Hows that working out for them?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (September 24, 2009 9:04 am ET)
             
          Sure, I've seen the stories in a few different sources. The main reason it doesn't get a huge amount of national coverage is that he's a local politician and it's a personal crime, not a political one.

          We have term limits right now. They're called elections.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (September 24, 2009 12:58 am ET)
        4  
        So Hassan Nemazee is a crook. We're more than happy to let him go to jail, we don't need people like him in our party. Too bad reichpublicans don't have the same attitude about crooks in their party. We purge one, you protect 100. got us there, coach...

        P.S. tens of thousands, not millions. Learn to count so you can accurately define "majority of americans".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 3:25 am ET)
          5 1
          So Hassan Nemazee is a crook. We're more than happy to let him go to jail, we don't need people like him in our party.


          Nemazee contributed to Republicans as well.He's more an example of the big money influence on politics than the Democratic supporter he was portrayed as in the media.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 3:58 am ET)
            2 2
            Well you are at least being true to your statement below about "at least [being] good for a laugh" with your posts. What you said is absolutely hilarious.

            "He's more an example of the big money influence on politics than the Democratic supporter he was portrayed as in the media."

            I can barely type that is so funny. You only have to go so far as his wiki page to see how preposterous your statement is:

            "During the United States presidential election, 2004, Nemazee was a supporter of John Kerry and a major contributor to his campaign. He was the New York Finance Chair for the Kerry campaign, and is currently the national finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. With Nemazee as the national finance chair, Chuck Schumer's DSCC in 2006 raised $115 million, outpacing the NRSC by substantial sums, and helping the Democratic Party take control of the Senate. During his presidency, Bill Clinton nominated Nemazee to fill the position of U.S. Ambassador to Argentina...More recently, Nemazee served as Finance Chairman to Hillary Clinton's 2007-08 presidential campaign, and also donated $50,000 (the maximum amount) to Barack Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee. In addition, Nemazee was a bundler for the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee."

            Now I have to ask, were you serious? Of all the ridiculous things I have seen you spew on this site, that is the gold medalist.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 25, 2009 1:27 am ET)
                 
              Before moving into the Democratic camp, Nemazee had backed such Republican senators as Jesse Helms, Sam Brownback and Alfonse D’Amato... Nemazee’s business partner, Alan Quasha, who specializes in buying up troubled companies, has also played both sides of the partisan divide. Quasha gave to both Bush and Al Gore in 2000, and in the 2008 race gave to Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani as well as Democrats Barack Obama and Chris Dodd.

              The strikingly trans-partisan and trans-national nature of this high-stakes influence game is best exemplified by the relationship between Quasha’s oil company, Harken Energy, and George W. Bush. Harken provided a home for Bush in the 1980’s when his own oil businesses failed, offering him handsome compensation and a solid financial base from which to enter politics. Bush was named to the Harken board and received a range of benefits from the company while devoting most of his time to his father’s presidential campaign and then his own outside career efforts.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 3:45 am ET)
          3 2
          "We purge one, you protect 100. got us there, coach" First, I'm not a Republican so there is no "you" here. I am however a fiscal conservative and am against the never-ending growth of government. They ALL fail the fiscal conservatism test. F's across the board. The GOP accounted for 40% of the stimulus earmarks. Puh-thetic!

          In fact, they are even more pathetic because they tout themselves as fiscal conservatives but spend much the same as liberal dems. As for your statement though, each administration protects their own (Richardson is the most recent example I can come up with off the top of my head). No matter which way you slice it, our "representatives" are largely among the most corrupt, self-serving pigs that humanity has to offer.

          You're near last line is perplexing. "P.S. tens of thousands, not millions." I'm guessing you are referring to the Tea Party participants. I was not, but since you bring it up, I will reiterate what I said before. While you and many others here belittle that movement and claim it to be a right-wing thing, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

          There are wing nuts in every crowd (take a look at some of the anti-war protesters from a few years ago), but I believe the majority of the people who attend those things are like me in that they are fed up with how the government wantonly spends our money and ultimately robs our children. The robbery has gone to new levels and the American people (finally) are waking up to it.

          As for how I define the "majority of Americans," I sure hope you don't think the typical MMfA'er represents the majority. This is largely a far left-wing refuge (I know that's not news to you) and it thus represents the fringe. That's fine and dandy. A seat for every you-know-what. But the numbers back me up and not you.

          Nearly 70% of Americans consider themselves fiscally somewhat or very conservative (compared to just over 25% who consider themselves fiscally somewhat or very liberal). That is what makes the predictable response to that movement so infuriating. The media is trying their best to make that look like a fringe movement and MMfA is leading the pack in the attempt at minimizing/discrediting it. My prediction is that more and more people will get involved as they feel, as I do, that their voices are not being heard.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 9:14 am ET)
            3 2
            Nearly 70% of Americans consider themselves fiscally [...] conservative

            And 98% of them have no idea how macroeconomics works. They think that 'fiscally conservative' means they want low taxes and thats it. They have no idea how much their income derrives from the very spedning that they decry. (I'll give you a hint: At least as much as the pay in taxes!) They bach unions and protectionism and then wonder why their are no good-paying manufacturing jobs anymore.

            And opinion informed by ignorance is not made more valid simply becasue more people come believe it. It's only evidence tha the Right has done a good job misinforming them and getting them to happily screw themselves.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------
            My answer to MOST of those 70%? Take an economics class!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 11:52 am ET)
            3 1
            >>While you and many others here belittle that movement and claim it to be a right-wing thing, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

            But you would be wrong. President Obama still has a higher approval rate than disapproval rate, and I can't find any evidence that the tea baggers weren't the fringe. Their only clear message was hate for Obama.

            The US spends on average *double* what the other industrial countries, who have universal health care, spend, and yet ranks 37th in the world in health care. Spending double is not fiscally responsible. Yet, the tea baggers in a large part demonstrated against Obama's health care plan. What do they propose to do about our health care mess? Nothing!

            When interviewed on TV, the leaders (not just the fringe), had no articulate alternative to Obama's plan. One man said it was okay for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions.

            If you look at polls, most people think everyone should have affordable health care, so again, the tea baggers don't represent most Americans.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
            1  
            We have seen your fiscal conservatism - it is called supply-side economics. It has failed miserable time and again. Come back when you open your eyes a little more to understand what has already been tried and failed.

            We had the election. You lost. You are the fringe. Embrace it. It's fine. You're gonna be there for a while. At least quit trying to tell us you are the majority. It makes you look silly.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (September 24, 2009 9:28 pm ET)
            1
          "We purge one, you protect 100. got us there, coach..." snoopy

          What a crock, it took the voters to get rid of Jefferson of La, the party did nothing. Charlie "the crook" Rangel is still in office, the party does nothing. How many years did Kennedy serve? Convictions are like a merit badge in the democratic party.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 25, 2009 1:35 am ET)
               
            Of the three people you mention, just one was convicted of a crime.

            Fail.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 1:25 am ET)
        2  
        Washington is full of crooks and both parties are guilty of taxation without representation


        Not true. This is why they are called "Representatives". The vote is meant to eliminate the "taxation without representation". Unless a tax is enacted by someone who was not elected, it is taxation with representation.

        Did you sleep through your civics class, or was it taught by Glenn Beck?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 3:50 am ET)
          2 3
          What are our choices? A, B, C, and D are clowns so we get a circus. And as usual, it is immediately that I am a Becker although I have never once in my entire life watched his show with the exception of the clips I see here. I wish I could sleep through the nightmare civics lessons being taught today professor.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 10:46 am ET)
            4  
            If we don't like the choices, we still have options - for instance, you could become one of the choices yourself. But, the simple fact is that it is NOT taxation without representation. You will need to find a different way to describe it - "taxation with poor representation" would work.

            We make idiots by repeating idiot claims - and it is idiotic to invoke the "taxation without representation" lie when it does not apply, is it not?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
                 
              "We make idiots by repeating idiot claims - and it is idiotic to invoke the "taxation without representation" lie when it does not apply, is it not?" - Reason

              You are wasting your time, Reason. He does not understand the terms he regurgitates.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by blindmoose (September 24, 2009 11:11 am ET)
               
            Umm, if you think A, B, C and D are clowns that does not mean "taxation without representation." That means "taxation by someone I don't like." There is a big difference, but you're clearly a Glenn Beck Guy without the over-the-top nonsense.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 11:34 am ET)
            2
          Are you really so dense that you cant see that when someone is talking about no representation they are saying that they don’t think our elected official actually represent our interest anymore or even really listen to their constituents.

          I personally believe that senators should still be appointed by the states governors that way they could actually be held responsible for their actions and would be forced to actually represent issues important to their state.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 11:56 am ET)
            2  
            >>Are you really so dense that you cant see that when someone is talking about no representation they are saying that they don't think our elected official actually represent our interest anymore or even really listen to their constituents.

            But they were elected, weren't they? Anyone who doesn't like the policies of the elected officials can make the general, broad claim you do.

            I think it laughable you want to repeal the 17th amendment. Oh yes, let's return to the good old days when senators were absolutely corrupt. You realize that the excessive corruption was the reason that they changed the system so politicians would be popularly elected. The senators are beholden to the interests of the state. There is this thing called an election where the actual people can vote them out. I know, democracy sucks, doesn't it?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
            3  
            Appointing Senators would lead to taxation without representation.

            If we don't like the representatives, we are free to elect new ones. That is the system set up by our founders. If you don't like it, you are free to try to change it, or you are free to seek out a system that more closely suits your needs.

            We tend to pay lip-service to the fundamentals of our system, without really paying attention to what it is. We revere the founding fathers while simultaneously cursing the fruits of the government they put into place. We revere the constitution without acknowledging that it has delivered us to where we are today, that the leaders we have elected are a product of that constitution, the laws enacted are a legal and justifiable affshoot of the constitution - taxes, unjust wars, health care reform - all of these are legal and are products of the constitutional government given to us by our founders. These things remain legal until a court rules otherwise.

            So-called "originalists" deny the truth: what we have is just as our founders intended, a living and evolving form of governance, built to adapt to the changing needs of the citizenry.

            Do we have problems? Yes, undeniably. But the solutions are built into the design - they come in the ballot box and in the three distinct branches of the federal government. We have, perhaps, become over-large and a bit unwieldy, but our fundamental rights are still defended and defensible through the system. The system moves slowly in order to protect those fundamental rights from reactionary movements such as the tea-baggers and 912 Society.

            It is the function of the Fourth Estate to educate, not mold, the public. When it fails in this duty, it is un-American. Fox, by virtue of the appendage "News", has chosen to be a part of that Fourth Estate. They are failing. They are not educating because they, themselves, lack the education to do so. They venerate men and women who are uneducated, who do not understand the function and role of government and who spread their ignorance to a small, vocal minority who fear knowledge and would rather be validated than challenged.

            When someone speaks about "taxation without representation", they are invoking the history of our Republic. Whatever they think they are saying, they are harkening back to King George and the enacting of taxes against the colonies without any input from the colonists. There were no elected representatives from the colonies speaking for the colonists. They had no right of redress, no right to dispute these taxes. They were indentured servants to the crown.

            Are you really so dense that you can't understand these things?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
              1  
              Well said, Reason. Nice of you to take the time to explain it to them. Unforunately, yes they are probably too dense or too set in their ways from the talking points they are fed to understand these things.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
               
            No, hi. You and gali are so dense you think it means you have no representation when the representatives disagree with you. You get to vote. That is your right. When those you voted against still win, live with it like the rest of the adults do in this country. That's the system and it has actually worked pretty well for a very long time. (Much longer than the founders ever thought it would.) When you scream taxation without representation you should move to DC - they actually do not get representation. The rest of us do. And when you decry Obama as a thief and a criminal while crying about no representation - it just makes you a sore loser. Nothing more.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 3:25 am ET)
               
            Thanks highliter for understanding what should have been obvious, but delusional responses are pretty much par for the course here. They see no irony in their own Redcoat defense.

            Before I go on, I do not agree with your stance on the appointment of senators. And so what? That's what intelligent discourse is supposed to be about. We agree, we disagree.

            Appointing senators is especially a sore spot for me at the moment living in Massachusetts. Actually, it is maddening but hilarious. At the behest of late senator Kennedy, Governor Patrick was given the green light to appoint his replacement in the senate. The ridiculous hypocrisy is that the new legislation was needed to repeal the law Kennedy had instigated in 2004 when Naushon Kerry thought he was moving on up (at the time, republican Mitt Romney was governor and had had the appointment power). So pathetically sad and transparent.

            Back to my statement about taxation without representation. It is apparently difficult for some people to understand allegory. Taxation without representation simply implies what you said. Washington does not represent our interests anymore. Plain and simple. King Washington is King George. They claim to represent our interests but never deliver. It is like an attack of the clones or a body snatcher thing. They get to Washington and take off their disguises and cumulatively drive the stake further.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 3:34 am ET)
        4 1
        Galileonardo, think about hiring an editor. Your act has been done before, many times, and it doesn't get any more interesting in reruns, or in 500 word posts.

        Trim it down a little.At least be good for a laugh, and that's way too long for a joke.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (September 24, 2009 4:19 am ET)
          2 5
          Kernel, I would consider hiring an editor if I was like you and had a trust fund, a protruding lower jaw, a no-show job with ACORN, and a refrigerator full of government cheese. But seeing as how I am barely able to make ends meet for my family, I don't have the discretionary income to cover such luxuries.

          You are apparently one of the 5% of Americans who consider themselves fiscally very liberal. Glad you are so compassionate that you feel the need to take more and more of my money to redistribute. Thanks a bunch. Didn't your hero say, "I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." Great philosophy. That has worked so many times throughout history and has lifted so many people from poverty all over the world.

          Maybe, in all of your charity, you can have one of your staff review this post for me and suggest changes. Thanks in advance. You're the best.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Handsome Pete (September 24, 2009 9:54 am ET)
            4 1
            Sorry, I fell asleep. What were you saying?

            You assume quite a lot. Careful with that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 24, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
              4  
              He is pretty boring, eh? I love when the right wing nuts can't decide whether to go with "trust fund" or "government cheese" so they just go ahead with the mind-banding decision to insult me for being simultaneously too rich and too poor.

              He also seems to believe that people who are barely making enough to support their families are in danger of having their money redistributed now.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (September 24, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                1  
                When really, he just like almost every other person in the US, has had their taxes CUT by Obama, they just ignore that stuff.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 3:40 am ET)
                    1
                  Taxes cut? Laughable assertion. Never mind the "death by a thousand cuts" already rolling or in queue (cap and trade, cigarette tax, sugar tax, insurance penalties, etc.), what happens to us all and our children when we finally have to pay the piper? Inflation, interest, and tax rates will "necessarily skyrocket." Our children will bear the brunt of it, but we all already feel its effects. It is a runaway train that has been gathering speed for decades.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 3:31 am ET)
                  1
                I'm glad you picked up on that, though I wasn't implying you were too poor. Simply that you were likely a Naushon Kerry type. He and his muni-queen pay about 10% federal taxes despite their ridiculous wealth. Must be nice to have such fancy accountants on the estate. Government cheese thus works on many levels, all of which were lost on you.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by pilotx (September 24, 2009 10:44 am ET)
            3  
            We all pay taxes and most go to good use. I fly for a living so I'm glad our skies are safe because of government control and oversight. And congrats the new prez gave you a tax cut. Geez, pzy attention people. You paid more in taxes under the great Ronald Reagan but he is a fiscal hero but like most fiscal conservatives they run up huge debts by increasing spending while cuting taxes so when a Dem gets into office they look like the grinch because, like Obama, they have to raise taxes to pay down all of the debt accrued by fiscal conservatives. Let's have a Reagan tea party.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
            3  
            >>You are apparently one of the 5% of Americans who consider themselves fiscally very liberal. Glad you are so compassionate that you feel the need to take more and more of my money to redistribute. Thanks a bunch. Didn't your hero say, "I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." Great philosophy. That has worked so many times throughout history and has lifted so many people from poverty all over the world.

            Nice rant. In point of fact, if you ask people if they think everyone should have a good-paying job (enough to live on) and health care, most people will answer yes. So your 5% means nothing.

            As far as redistribution of wealth goes, we have redistribution right now, from the poor to the rich.

            You might want to look at places like Europe if you think spreading the wealth around doesn't work. Europe has just surpassed the US in overall wealth produced, and provides lots of social services (such as health care) to its citizens.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 3:45 am ET)
                 
              I guess I should have put it differently. You are apparently one of the 5% of Americans who thinks that socialist Europe is the model we should follow and it is working out just swell. Look up unsustainable spending when you get a chance and let me know how the last chapter reads.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
            2  
            "I am barely able to make ends meet for my family" - gali

            "Glad you are so compassionate that you feel the need to take more and more of my money to redistribute" - gali

            You do realize, gali, that both of these things cannot really be true. If you really make very little money - then your taxes have not gone up. In fact, in all likelihood they have gone down and you are taking home more money now. Are you ignorant of this? Or just an idealogue that does not let facts get in the way of a rant?

            Ironically, I make enough that I will eventually pay more in taxes. And, I am fine with that. And, yes my idea of a truly progressive tax has and does work all throughout history. Your idea of supply-side economics does not work and has been disastrous to society as a whole, but particularly to people like you who barely make enough to make ends meet. If you knew anything about history, you would know this.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 4:12 am ET)
                1
              I realize it is hard for trust-funders to understand how my statements mesh. Despite earning what I consider a fair amount of money last year, it wasn't enough, especially since I live in an area that ranks among the highest in cost of living in the country.

              Last year I paid over 10k just in the federal taxes. Add to that thousands more for state tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, etc. Now just live and try to pay down your mortgage and buy groceries and pay utility bills and replace your crappy 10-year-old Subaru that blew a cylinder and on and on.

              What am I left with? Practically nothing, despite having earned a good bit of money (I never said I make "very little money" as you stated). The agenda before us now can only culminate in even higher taxes, and that is nearly across the board when you account for all of the nanny-state policies coming down the line. Take, take, take, until we can bear no more.

              Your Keynesian solutions deliver the opposite of what you strive for, ensuring that more and more will end up impoverished and on the government's withering teat. There is a breaking point. You'd know that if you knew anything about history.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 10:58 am ET)
        2  
        Media Matters is an admitted watchdog of conservative media - one should not expect them to run such a comparison. However, I read and watch a good deal of news reports, and I first saw mention of Mister Namazee at Huffington Post.

        Here is a search page showing the numerous articles they have written about Nemazee: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=nemazee&sa.x=32&sa.y=14#931

        You make the all-too-common mistake of assuming that liberals are just like conservatives. We are not. We don't like the criminals among us any more than we like the criminals on the other side. When liberal politicians are caught misbehaving, we do not tend to circle the wagons, we tend to run them out of office. (Mind you, when the offence is a BJ in office, and not malfeasance or criminal activity, we might not get too outraged.) You should examine the record. We don't have any AWOL governors clinging to office. We don't have congressmen or women who are guilty of soliciting prostitutes, yet remain in office. Our congresspeople are censured (with our consent) and sent packing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
            4
          Last time I check lying in a sworn deposition is a crime. And I cant remember his name but didn’t the Dems have a congressman who refused to step down who was caught with 100,000 in bribe money in his freezer. You did have a murderer in office but he died.
          AWOL governors clinging to office.
          Was there really a crime committed here? Stupid as hell and should step down out of shame but I don’t think its a crime.
          You had Blaggo who hung on to office forever. (Eventually impeached but let his appointment stay in the senate.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
            3  
            Blago was impeached by a Democratic legislature, though. As I said, we clean out our criminals.

            Ted Kennedy, the guy you like to accuse of murder, was, at the very worst, guilty of manslaughter, and fully investigated, but never even indicted.

            Mark Sanford left his state un-governed for 6 days, and he has been shown to have mis-applied state funds for his personal use.

            The perjury that Bill Clinton committed was the lone charge that the Republican witch hunt could raise after incessant investigation and intrusion into the president and his wife - and it is a charge that arose from the investigation, rather than as a result of the investigation. He isn't the first guy whose first instinct when cornered was to deny, nor will he be the last. But it could easily be construed that he did so as much to save his wife and teenaged daughter as to save himself.

            These are apples and oranges.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
                4
              and it is a charge that arose from the investigation


              Wrong the perjury charge did not come for the Lewinski case it camp from the Palau Jones Case. One would think when your being accused of rape you would not lie in your deposition. Fact is he committed perjury and you now need to find ways to excuse it. I am in the military and if I had sexually relations in my office with a subordinate I would be demoted and discharged and possible tried for adultery and sent to prison. I don’t see why the President of the United States also known as The Commander In Chief to our Armed forces should be held to a lower standard than me or anyone else in the military.

              Ted Kennedy, the guy you like to accuse of murder, was, at the very worst, guilty of manslaughter, and fully investigated, but never even indicted.


              Wrong again many people are charged with murder when involved in DWI fatalities epically when one leaves the scene. At the very least he was guilty of manslaughter. I don’t see how anyone can possibly say otherwise.

              But it could easily be construed that he did so as much to save his wife and teenaged daughter as to save himself.


              That has got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

              You also failed to address what you didn’t clean out William Jefferson, or clean out Blaggos Senat appointee. If I had time Im sure I could find more, and Im sure you can find more. My whole point is neither side can claim moral superiority over the other when it comes to corruption. Both sides have corrupt individuals, both side get rid of some and both side have some that hang on for dear life.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
                2  
                Wrong the perjury charge did not come for the Lewinski case it camp from the Palau Jones Case


                I'm sorry, but you will have to show me where I said it came from the Monica Lewinsky case. We all know, though, that the moral outrage came from that case - after years of trying to make a myriad of claims stick.

                and I can say that Senator Kennedy was not guilty because he was never charged and never tried. Certainly, my claim has as much, if not more, merit than the oft-repeated accusation that he is a murderer. It is tired, at best, and complete nonsense at its worst.

                The Blago appointment came AFTER his corruption had been exposed, so it is reasonable to assume that it was not connected to a quid pro quo. However, you must be aware that the gentelmen in question is no longer in the Senate. My point still stands.

                You can continue to argeue that the corruption is the same on both sides, but that is simply not supported by any facts at all. Governor Spitzer is no longer in office. Vitter is. Blago is no longer in office, nor is his appointment. Sanford is still in office. Ensign is still in office. Foley tried very hard to stay in office, as I recall, and there was no outrage from the Republican leadership. And, truth be told, all of these Republicans ran from a self-designated position of moral superiority. We call them "hypocrites" where I come from.

                Show me some evidence of hypocrisy from the left - in the face of overwhelming evidence of hypocrisy from the right. No comparison at all.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
                    4
                  How about Obama claiming he has never been for the single payer system when he clearly stated in a speech in 08 that his is for a single payer system?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Show me where he said he was never for a single payer system. What he said was "I have not said that I was a single payer supporter". This was in reference to the current conversation. He did not use the word "never".

                    You folks on the right have a nasty habit of hearing things that are not said, of saying things you only heard, and of having absolutely no appreciation for nuance in political discourse.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
                        2
                      "I have not said that I was a single payer supporter

                      Are you kidding me This quote clearly says he has not said he was a single payer supporter. When in fact he has said he is a single payer supporter.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
                           
                        If you were to say to me, "You just said you support single payer" - and it was not true that I JUST said it, I would reply, "I have not said thatI was a single payer supporter." In the contextr of the current discussion of health care reform, he has not said that he is a proponent of a single payer system.

                        Furthermore, I prefer a politician who isn't afraid to continually re-evaluate and adapt his position. This is far better than an ideologue who will stick to every failed notion he or his fellow adherents have ever had.

                        See, this is why we are called "progressives" - we believe in progress, moving forward, adapting to changing situations. The alternative is just more idiocy.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by highliter (September 25, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
                             
                          Fact 1: In 2008 Obama said he was a single payer supporter.
                          Fact 2 In 2009 Obama said he was never a single payer supporter.
                          You can try and parse words all you want but what he said in 2009 was a lie.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by highliter (September 25, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
                             
                          Fact 1: In 2008 Obama said he was a single payer supporter.
                          Fact 2 In 2009 Obama said he was never a single payer supporter.
                          You can try and parse words all you want but what he said in 2009 was a lie.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
                        4
                      How about the promise of having all future bills on the internet for 5 days before they are voted on. Then ramming bill after bill down our throat with no were near 5 days to view it.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Too bad that is not what he promised. Nice try, though. You have demonstrated your incomplete listening and comprehension skills.

                        Candidate Obama promised that citizens would have at least 5 days to comment on legislation BEFORE HE SIGNED it.

                        See, he is well aware that he is not able, as the chief execautive, to invite comment on legislation in order to influence the vote. He signs bills. Again, back to your civics class Highboy.

                        If you check, you will find that every bill that the President has signed has had at least five days for taxpayer review, except emergency legislation (which he exempted from that promise when he made it).

                        You really should start studying English before you attempt to use it.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by highliter (September 25, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
                             
                          Wrong again. plese check your fact before you reslut to name calling.


                          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
                2
              and it is a charge that arose from the investigation


              Wrong the perjury charge did not come for the Lewinski case it camp from the Palau Jones Case. One would think when your being accused of rape you would not lie in your deposition. Fact is he committed perjury and you now need to find ways to excuse it. I am in the military and if I had sexually relations in my office with a subordinate I would be demoted and discharged and possible tried for adultery and sent to prison. I don’t see why the President of the United States also known as The Commander In Chief to our Armed forces should be held to a lower standard than me or anyone else in the military.

              Ted Kennedy, the guy you like to accuse of murder, was, at the very worst, guilty of manslaughter, and fully investigated, but never even indicted.


              Wrong again many people are charged with murder when involved in DWI fatalities epically when one leaves the scene. At the very least he was guilty of manslaughter. I don’t see how anyone can possibly say otherwise.

              But it could easily be construed that he did so as much to save his wife and teenaged daughter as to save himself.


              That has got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

              You also failed to address what you didn’t clean out William Jefferson, or clean out Blaggos Senat appointee. If I had time Im sure I could find more, and Im sure you can find more. My whole point is neither side can claim moral superiority over the other when it comes to corruption. Both sides have corrupt individuals, both side get rid of some and both side have some that hang on for dear life.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 24, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
            3  
            >>Last time I check lying in a sworn deposition is a crime.

            Bush illegally invaded a country based on lies, and you really are going to bring up Clinton's oral sex? Really?

            Jefferson and Blago were asked to step down by Dems; both refused.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
            1  
            Stop calling Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush's wife murderers. It makes you sound like a crazy person. Certainly not someone to discuss issues with.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by The New Pilgrims (September 24, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
        2  
        Dude, you lost me at "taxation without representation." One of two things: Either your flux capacitor has taken you back to the 1700s, or you are an absolute imbecile.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The New Pilgrims (September 24, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
          2  
          Clarification: My comment there was in response to galileonardo's 11:30 p.m., Sept. 23 comment.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 4:20 am ET)
               
            Boy oh boy. Another one. Glad you think that Washington represents us. Glad you don't see any disconnect between what is said by our reps and disseminated by the media versus the reality they execute. Glad you have never heard of the word "allegory" (not Al Gore, allegory). Glad you can't connect those neurons and see how the situation facing the colonists directly correlates to the situation facing Americans today.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 24, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
        1  
        I almost feel sorry for you, gali. You have actually convinced yourself that you are in the majority. You have such difficulty dealing with reality that you really cannot accept the results of the most recent election. You lost. Deal with it.

        Your quote from Jefferson is bizarre as most of your ill-informed ramblings are. But, I am curious, what is the point of using that quote? You think America needs an armed rebellion just because voices like yours have been relegated to their rightful lonely and inconsequential place? You lost one election and then lost it? Pathetic.

        "You guys don't seem to get it. Washington is full of crooks and both parties are guilty of taxation without representation" - gali

        That is my personal favorite. The clear fact that you cannot accept the idea that your ideas lost the last election you now think you are being taxed without representation. You are a sore loser and nothing more.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 5:13 am ET)
            1
          You again. Sheesh. My turn. My personal favorite:

          "You have actually convinced yourself that you are in the majority."

          What a hoot. Yet another MMfA groupie who thinks he is mainstream. It is tough to talk reality with those like you living in another universe here at MMfA. This is your safe place, your home away from home. So when someone like me comes in and tries to wake up those who are asleep, or at least those who are still retrievable, I am met with your serious hostility. Most people don't like being stirred awake from a peaceful slumber, especially if, at that moment, they are absorbed in some wonderful Utopian (and to them prophetic) dream.

          Your prayers have been answered in Obama/Pelosi/Reid. Your fundamentalist mission in life appears within reach, to finally have our country participate in the Koh-Bama transnationalist dream world where the evil West finally gets their just desserts through self-flagellation and the abandonment of sovereignty to join in "Our Global Neighborhood." And while you think I am fringe as a fiscal conservative (I am admittedly fringe in some of my beliefs but that's not one of them), you fail to see yourself for what you really are, or at least do not admit to your true nature publicly.

          Europe doesn't seem to have a problem using the word "socialist." Why do you? You use terms like "progressive" but your socialist world view is regressive and oppressive. If Obama were to have been forthright with his socialist transnational ideology he would have never been elected. So many of the pols use this tired technique on both ends of the spectrum, trying to make Americans think they are "moderate." Whatever their party, their ends are largely the same (though many pretend otherwise).

          But folks like you understand what you really have in Washington today and haven't stopped grinning since election day. For the record, I was vocal in my opposition to the last administration, but the straw that broke the camel's back was the bailout last September (you know, before the election?). I wrote to all three reps asking them not to pass the plan. I knew the camel was not only introducing it's nose into my tent, it was vying for my bed. I smelled a huge rat/pig and called it such. And I warned them of what would come soon after once that misguided and utterly-destructive trial balloon was flown. And the rest is history. The debt being accrued in this wave of uncontrolled deficit spending will be extremely difficult to ever recover from. And in my personal view that is intentional. They already pretty much owned us so they might as well make it official, right?

          So I yell at the top of my lungs, "Wake the bleep up!" The use of the Jefferson quote that you call bizarre, I call another of many attempts (and many more to come) to get people to think more freely rather than solely from within their little comfortable spaces or MMfA nooks. And in case you missed it, I said arms would not be necessary. Not arms. Just the back of our hands. You may think your SI side has won and can continue your conga line, but to me the fight for my son's future is just beginning.

          Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but your ideas did not win the last election. They were well shielded from the public and, now that the truth is slowly emerging despite media efforts to suppress it, your ilk react like the fringe cornered rats that they are and call people like me fringe. What a joke.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (September 25, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
            1  
            ssssshhhhhhhhhhh! Your removing all doubt!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
                1
              Sorry Darva. No need to be quiet for the sake of your sensitive ears. You can keep on dreaming the dream.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 25, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
               
            Right, right. We get it. It's the same tired old line we have been hearing from conspiracy theorists forever. One global government. First it was the Illuminati, then the Freemasons, then the communists, now it's the communists/liberals/socialists/fascists/etc. It's so tired you would think people with the ability to think for themselves would have moved on by now. But alas, there are still many who cling to fear rather than admit they were WRONG. Their ideas were WRONG and have been proven so.

            Somehow, you have convinced yourself not only of some grand plan to have one global government, but also of some grand conspiracy to keep it a secret. What ideas are there that you think Obama kept hidden during the campaign? His idea to get rid of supply-side economics and institute a stimulus plan? This was very clear during the campaign. His intent to continue the bailouts - this, as you stated, had already begun before the election. So, you seem unclear and confused about which ideas he kept secret from us during the campagin. Maybe they are so secret we still don't know what they are?

            I know, anything to continue to convince yourself you are mainstream and it was the majority who was tricked. It is tough to talk reality with those like you living in another universe. These conspiracies are your safe place, your home away from home.

            "Europe doesn't seem to have a problem using the word "socialist." Why do you?" - gali

            I have no problem using the word socialist. All I ask is that we use it correctly as intelligent adults. Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. Exactly which industry has Obama taken control over? The post office, the police departments, the department of education? Certainly not the medical industry. No one is proposing that doctors go to work for the goverment.

            Even Medicare is a single-payer system, not, in fact, socialized medicine. I don't expect you to understand the difference, but you should if you are going to use them in some ill-fated attempt to sound smarter than everyone else.

            In reality, there should have been some rational, adult conversations about nationalizing some of the banking entities at least temporarily (as has been done before in this country) and then re-organized and sold off to new investors so that the country could see some profit from this endeavor. We also should have been sure to institute the Teddy Roosevelt style regulations that would keep a company from becoming so powerful that we cannot allow it to fail. What we did instead, was sink money into the system in order to prop up the capitalistic system that had been lacking in regulation. Unfortunately, we could not have that conversation in this country because too many people, like yourself, do not understand socialism or most of the terms you use.

            The truth is you stand for nothing. You stand against everything and believe that makes you look smart. You accuse me of being a trust fund baby, I grew up extremely poor. We had barely enough to get by. The difference between my father and yourself is that even when we were poor, my father always saw himself as willing to help those less fortunate. He never whined about paying taxes. He saw taxes as a necessity for a civilization to have nice things (like interstates, etc.) You blame your lack of success on the poor taking your taxes (as evidenced through your government cheese remark). This is evident by your continual whining about your lack of money and success.

            I feel sorry for you. I can only hope that you continue to take advantage of this country's programs and services that continue to help you while you rail against them. I also hope there are more (such as universal healthcare) which will help you have things like interstate travel and medical care even though you cannot afford to pay for either on your own. It is a great country. Everyone deserves help when they need it the most, even those who pray for the demise of those who help them.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by galileonardo (September 25, 2009 11:27 pm ET)
                 
              Conspiracy theories imply that something is being done in secret. The shift toward global government is no secret. It has elements that are not exactly "promoted" publicly but most of the goals are openly touted. You can say WRONG WRONG all you want but the chipping away of sovereignty continues. And Obama/Pelosi/Reid are the perfect partners to speed it along.

              Obama's S.2433, strengthening of the ICJ, cap and trade, hiring of transnational figures like Koh, and just today, the G-20 impositions. That list is endless and quite public and quite nakedly has socialist "Global Neighborhood" aims. Add to that the straight-up thievery of the bank bailouts, stimulus, private sector intervention, Chrysler pensioners, etc. on the domestic front, and the chips become cracks and the pieces start to fall.

              And it wasn't so much that an informed consumer couldn't figure Obama out. His far-left leanings were no secret. But the packaging as "left-of-center" and the quarantine by the bulk of the media of exposure of his ideology are what got him the job. Did you ever once see him own the "most liberal" badge? And since most voters only had superficial knowledge of his record, they went with him. You may want to remain in denial about it, but there is considerable buyer's regret out there now that the agenda is in full swing.

              The rest of your post can be summed up quickly. You think socialism is the correct route and feel I do not see the benefits of such a system for myself; you feel your ideology represents the mainstream rather than the fringe. Then more attacks on my character and intelligence and the claim that I "stand against everything" and so on.

              You also said, "It is a great country." On that we wholeheartedly agree. And I have to confess. I would rather not be snide and would prefer proper discourse, but you and many others here attack at every opportunity and so I respond in kind. So what if I do not agree with a lot of your politics. My father and I argue all the time about it and we're both better for it. What happens on MMfA too often is the message is lost in the ugly static.

              I genuinely apologize to you if I touched a nerve with the trust fund remark. I grew up poor as well and actually consider myself quite fortunate to have what I do have. So I do not consider myself not to have had "success" in my life. Knowing what my parents did to scratch out a living makes me feel very fortunate indeed. But I also emigrated from a country ruled by a dictator. I was told stories about my grandfather having to listen to certain radio stations only in private because he could be arrested if caught. Freedom isn't just another word to me and so the direction the government has been taking runs counter to what I believe in my core.

              And again, so what? We all have our histories and our biases. I find it quite the irony that progressives and fundamentalists on the other end in general tend to be among the most intolerant bunch out there. The extreme right makes no apology for it. The progressives though claim the moral high ground by asking us to "celebrate diversity" but then attempt to destroy the messages and messengers who believe differently than they do. It is hypocrisy.

              Ironically, there are many social issues that I bet we agree on. Don't be surprised to occasionally see me comment in support of one your posts on such an issue. Until then, ding ding I suppose. Toodles. Going fishing in five hours. Wish me luck.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by mcymatt (September 24, 2009 8:03 am ET)
         
      In this article you have shown that there is a disparity in coverage and shows a bias but it does not discuss the facts.
      Are the accusations they brought up true or not?
      To only show a bias is disingenuous. Fox has done the same thing, showing the bias of the “mainstream” media. What I want to know is the information true or not.
      Where do they have it wrong?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (September 24, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
      1  
      The country is in such bad shape because- for too long, the News and political leaders priorities have been misplaced. Greed, corruption and poor leadership was ignored, overlooked or downplayed by the media and people like Sean Hannity and others did not show much concern [not like these misguided protesters].
      Now you have F--ked News continue this trend by personally investigating a small organization that aids poor people, while a major corruption scandal involving billions of dollars get little coverage. Where is the outrage?
      Conservatives, idiots and nutcases like Sean [Klan]nity, Glen Beck and Bill OReilly are more interested in punishing everyone they believe help Obama become successful than anything else.
      The News was alright till America got a new President, a black President. All of a sudden it has become "irrelevant?" by some. You should be disturbed by a News network using it resources to create stories in order to make a point.
      You should be disturbed with a News agency interjecting them selves into a story, so they can get credit for it. You should be disturbed that they ambush people for interviews.
      You should be disturbed why they are paying more attention to ACORN then Blackwater and Halliburton.
      You should be concern that Fox News, who claims to be "fair and balanced", is promoting protests and marches that attracts lynch mobs of deranged and uninformed people.
      If you are an intelligent man you should not have a problem with Media Matters because, although they have commentators giving their view, you can draw your own conclusions. Media Matters simply let you see what people are saying in their own words
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The New Pilgrims (September 24, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
      1  
      So MMFA documents, with hard data, that Fox News has pretty much ignored the largest GOP-linked corruption scandals of the past eight years, and all we get in response are Trolls talking about the Clenis.

      As Aristotle once proclaimed, "It is well known that facts have a liberal bias."

      And as PT Barnum once said, "There's a Fox News sucker born every minute."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
        3
      Why is this surprising? Perhaps we should figure out how many negative references were made to Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity in comparison to Obama or any other liberal. I can guarantee the percentage is far more disproportionate.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
          3
        I forgot to say "on this site".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by srichardson (September 24, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
             
          Of course there are more negative responses about Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity. They rarely tell the truth. But before you write something nasty back, just provide some examples of truths that any of them have spoken.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
        2  
        Media Matters makes no claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

        Is this a distinction that needs to be pointed out to you every day?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
            2
          Hannity and Beck don't claim that either. You're think of Fox News. They have mentioned many times that they are biased.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The New Pilgrims (September 24, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
               
            Prove it with a link. I watch Hannity and Beck pretty closely and I don't recall them ever mentioning that they are biased. If indeed they've mentioned this "many times" it shouldn't be too difficult for you to prove it with a link, in which case I will happily admit I'm wrong. Thanks.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (September 24, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
                 
              hannity did so the other night, when he had the boeckel brothers on... but i'm not going to waste my time "proving it with a link", a mantra written all too often at this site... i certainly don't DVR the creepy-ass hannity and his sycophanting parroting of talking points, nor will i scroll thru youtube hoping to find a video loaded by one of his minions that might support the fact that he makes no pretense of being impartial... i'll give the new pilgrims the benefit of the doubt, but there does seem to be a lot of confusion among people who don't seem to understand the difference between reporting facts and expressing editorial opinion...



              Report Abuse
          • Author by manofmystique (September 25, 2009 8:42 am ET)
            1  
            I do believe [klan]nity and Beck are both stupid and bias, but it would be contradictory for them to say they are bias when Fox News proclaims to be "fair and balanced". This should be a concern and unacceptable to you if Sean and Glenn come out and say (even though we know) that they are bias.
            Why do people display their ignorance to the world by trying to defend stupidity spoken by liars?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (September 24, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
      2  
      O'Reilly on ACORN sting: No one cares about wiretap laws

      Really? Wow...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mookie von zipper (September 24, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
           
        i saw the broadcast, and o'reilly clearly, repeatedly, asked a simple question of frank... the context of "no one cares" was with regard to o'reilly's question of the spirit of the filmmakers' effort, not with wiretap laws in general...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by manofmystique (September 25, 2009 10:19 am ET)
             
          Regardless, Bill is an idiot. Most of the time he doesn't know what he is talking about and it's obvious he doesn't care about the privacy laws because these undercover filmmakers did not have permission to film ACORN employees. Bill overlooks this major detail because he and his lying co-workers will break the law and disregard the law if the ends justify the means. Those so-called filmmakers should be sued. They are not the law (investigators). They wouldn’t want anyone filming them without their permission.
          Fox News and these dirty bastards want to destroy ACORN to punish them for Obama's success and also link Obama to this discredited organization. Fox News is out to the President at every turn and they are determined to bring this administration down. Fox News is the devil within, which makes them un-patriotic and un-American.
          This is nothing both a diabolical scheme mastermind by evil serpents engineered by Fox News.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by manofmystique (September 25, 2009 10:22 am ET)
               
            corrected copy to mookie:

            Regardless, Bill is an idiot. Most of the time he doesn't know what he is talking about and it's obvious he doesn't care about the privacy laws because these undercover filmmakers did not have permission to film ACORN employees. Bill overlooks this major detail because he and his lying co-workers will break the law and disregard the law if the ends justify the means. Those so-called filmmakers should be sued. They are not the law (investigators). They wouldn’t want anyone filming them without their permission.
            Fox News and these dirty bastards want to destroy ACORN to punish them for Obama's success and also link Obama to this discredited organization. Fox News is out to attack the President at every turn and they are determined to bring this administration down. Fox News is the devil within, which makes them un-patriotic and un-American.
            This is nothing both a diabolical scheme mastermind by evil serpents engineered by Fox News.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (September 25, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
                 
              if this goes to court, which appears likely, i suspect the filmmakers' lawyer will argue that their recordings were not private, they were in public facilities and were obviously heard and seen by others in addition to the acorn workers... nor do i see any public officials, particularly maryland da's, stepping up with criminal indictments... there most definitely will be civil suits...

              as for o'reilly and fox, i wouldn't even begin to attempt to try to persuade you to the contrary, as floating any argument on their behalf would be a lost cause in your case, one that seems caught in the grip of obsessive hate... but that's not unique to this site, so you're in good company...

              Report Abuse
    • Author by planetspinz (September 24, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
         
      Media Matters missed the real story when last year ACORN founder Wade Rathke covered up his brother Dale embellizing millions of federal dollars from ACORN. I worked for ACORN in the early 1980s in Arkansas and New Orleans, and I know first hand that ripping off poor people happened all the time in ACORN. The leaders were never interested in helping low and moderate income people, but only enhancing their own power. Ask Wade why he left New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, knowing that ACORN members and their families were left without transportation out of the city, and would be in the Superdome. Media Matters should not be duped by this so-called progressive organization. They should have been shut down last year when the Rathke brothers ripped off federal money.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 25, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
           
        And the United Way should have been shut down after their embezzlement scandal? Please. That's ridiculous.

        And, you think ACORN should have saved New Orleans from the flood? The federal government didn't save them, but ACORN should have? Pathetic.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ninersfan63 (September 24, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
         
      "March 29, 2006: Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison—the minimum allowed per the plea bargain—and ordered then to pay restitution of more than $21 million.", nothing to talk about after May 8.

      "The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton...", just thought you should know.

      "Founded in 1997 and first funded by the Clinton administration, Blackwater, for better or worse, is a perfect emblem for entrepreneurial America."

      "Army fires Halliburton from Iraq contract
      12 July 2006", posted on halliburtonwatch.org.

      Number of posts on Mediamatters.org (according to google.com)
      Acorn - 118
      Abramoff/Ney - 69
      Blackwater - 38
      Halliburton/KBR - 30

      It seems like the reason May 8th was chosen was because the other scandals were either over or winding down. Also, it sure looks like mediamatters needs to practice what they preach. Stop picking on Acorn mediamatters.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fedupwithlefters (September 25, 2009 12:39 am ET)
         
      I stumbled across this website and i am astonished! you *(&&* idiots dont consider ACORN a major scandal? is it NOT corruption? am i still on planet earth?
      UNBELIEVABLE!
      HOW FORTUNATE FOR LEADERS THAT MEN DO NOT THINK. -Adolf Hitler

      You people are the ones these 'dear leaders' love!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (September 25, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
           
        Fedup, you should read the item just above the comments here. You might learn something. Hitler would have adored you.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by libertas7 (September 25, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
         
      So what, we need to destroy corruption in any form, in any Party.

      What do you think the numbers look like for MSNBC, NYT, CBS? Hell, Charlie Gibson claimed not to even know there was an ACORN scandal a week after it broke. Let's not be the same hypocrites they are.
      Report Abuse

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube Reddit