Wallace hosts Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday for half-hour deluge of misinformation
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace dedicated the first half of his November 1 program to an interview with radio host Rush Limbaugh, during which Wallace allowed and in some cases prompted Limbaugh to advance numerous misleading, baseless, or outrageous claims, as well as engage in inflammatory attacks on President Obama.
Limbaugh repeats false, misleading, and baseless claims without challenge
Limbaugh repeats discredited claim that individual health care mandate is unconstitutional. Limbaugh responded to Wallace's question about whether he thought the "individual mandate is constitutional" by stating, "No. ... I do not think it's constitutional. Chris, this is -- these are dark days for the country. This is deadly serious stuff. This is a total attempt to remake the country as founded and constituted. And it worries me greatly." Several other conservative media outlets including The Washington Times and Fox News have pushed the claim that health care reform proposals under consideration by Congress are unconstitutional.
In fact, legal experts have disputed claim that individual mandate is unconstitutional. In an October 23 Politico piece, University of California, Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky stated, "Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." According to Slate.com's Timothy Noah, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar and Fordham Law School dean William Treanor debunked conservatives' argument that the individual mandate could be considered a "taking" in violation of the Fifth Amendment, noting that such a policy is permissible under the Commerce Clause. George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, who served as Republican Sen. John Cornyn's special counsel for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation proceedings, has responded to a similar claim made by Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano by stating that Naplitano's argument that "President Obama's health care proposals are unconstitutional because they exceed the commerce clause power" was filled with "errors, misstatements, and plainly weak claims."
Limbaugh claimed Obama administration has "destroyed jobs," "lost 3.3 million jobs" since stimulus passed. From the November 1 edition of Fox News Sunday:
LIMBAUGH: I mean, just a couple days ago, they talked about these 650,000 jobs that they've created or saved. There's no such thing as a saved job. Besides that, they've destroyed jobs. They've lost 3.3 million jobs in this country since Obama's stimulus plan, and it's going to get worse.
In fact, the recession that began in 2007, not Obama's policies, continues to drive job losses. Contrary to Limbaugh's assertion that job losses this year resulted from Obama administration policies, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the trend of increasing unemployment resulting from the recession that began in December 2007 took root long before Obama was elected or inaugurated. From BLS labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey:
Unemployment data suggest job losses are slowing. Limbaugh asserted that the Obama administration has "lost 3.3 million jobs in this country since Obama's stimulus plan, and it's going to get worse." In fact, job losses have generally slowed since January. From BLS seasonally adjusted payroll employment data through September:
Rush repeats baseless theory on Obama administration blocking NFL bid. Limbaugh also repeated his baseless claim that the Obama administration played a role killing his bid to purchase a stake in the St. Louis Rams. After asserting that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith "is Obama," Limbaugh claimed that the controversy surrounding the bid was due to upcoming contract negotiations between the league and the players association, saying that Smith "has suggested that the Congress, the White House might get involved to stop a player -- an owner lockout." Limbaugh speculated: "So, I think -- and he got involved in this, too, you know? He was out participating in the spreading of quotes I didn't say, warning Goodell and the owners what might -- I think this was a warning shot across the bow saying to the NFL, 'Look, we're going to be close to running this league, not you. We don't want this guy here.' "
Wallace ignored Limbaugh's history of racially charged comments. Wallace ignored Limbaugh's extensive history of making racially charged remarks about minorities. For instance, Limbaugh stated in 2007: "Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it." Additionally, Limbaugh has referred to Obama's economic policies as "reparations"; said that "[w]e're being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black, because this is the first black president"; and said that "in Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
Limbaugh attacked Obama as a radical "man-child" who is "destroying" the economy
Limbaugh's explained his labeling of Obama as "the man-child president." Wallace said to Limbaugh, "You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama 'the man-child president,' " and asked, "What does that mean?" Rush then explained: "Just -- he's immature. He's a child. I think he's -- he's got a five-minute career. He was in the Senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however number of years. He really has no experience running anything. He's very young. I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego. I think he's very narcissistic. And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature, inexperienced, in over his head." As Media Matters has documented, Limbaugh has repeatedly referred to Obama as a "boy" and a "man-child." [Fox News Sunday, 11/1/09]
Limbaugh compares himself to Paul Revere, warning of the "potential threat[s] to liberty and freedom being launched by" Obama. After predicting that Obama would be a one-term president, Limbaugh said that if Obama were elected to a second term, "it would be painful. It would literally be painful. This is -- every day, you get up and there's a new potential threat to liberty and freedom being launched by this man and his administration. ... I'm in radio, and some days, I feel like I'm in the trenches in a war -- no bullets being fired, but trenches in a war. I mean, it's really intense when -- you know, I love this country. To have this kind of passion, and my -- you know, I want -- Paul Revere. I want as many people to hear what I think the problems are, because I believe the people of this country eventually will make it work and get what they want. I do believe in the democratic process and the vote." [Fox News Sunday, 11/1/09]
Limbaugh said he doesn't "think" that Obama "cares much" about Afghanistan and called Obama's trip to Dover a "photo op." Wallace said to Limbaugh: "You suggest that he [Obama] is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing base on board for health care reform." Limbaugh replied: 'Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it." Wallace later asked, "Do you at least give him credit for going to Dover, Delaware, to honor the remains of soldiers, dead soldiers, who came back from Afghanistan?" In response, Limbaugh dismissed Obama's actions as a "photo op," saying, "It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he's having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. ... And of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern." [Fox News Sunday, 11/1/09]
Limbaugh on what his first question to Obama would be: "[W]hat do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?" Reading a question from a viewer, Wallace asked Limbaugh: "If President Obama would agree to an interview, what would be your first question?" Limbaugh replied: "Why are you doing this? Why? What in -- what do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?" [Fox News Sunday, 11/1/09]
Limbaugh claimed Obama is "destroying" the "private sector," and "I have to think that it may be on purpose." Wallace asked Limbaugh to comment on what Obama has "done for and to the country" since being elected. Limbaugh replied: "I think it's all 'to.' I don't think there's any 'for.' I'm -- Chris, I'm really, really worried. We've never seen this kind of radical leadership at such a high level of power in the country. I believe that the economy is under siege, is being destroyed. Anybody with any economic literacy would not do one thing this administration's done to try to revitalize the private sector. They're destroying it. And I have to think that it may be on purpose, because this is just outrageous, what is happening -- a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom." [Fox News Sunday, 11/1/09]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When it's inconvenient for them, these spineless, unpricipled scum NEVER stand by what they say OR admit they were wrong. They just keep lying and spining.
It's amazing that there's enough oxygen in the world for this gasbag.
Still, it's a delicious irony, because Paul Revere's ride, immortalized by Longfellow's deliberate historical revision, never happened. He got pinched. He didn't warn anyone. The real man doesn't resemble the figment to which Limbaugh compared himself. I think that's really apt, because Rush Limbaugh is literally a fictional character built upon a constant campaign of revisionist history. The real Rush Limbaugh is a feckless loser whose success relies entirely upon the credulity and laziness of his listeners.
I think I'm in love. I've never read a better summation of Limbaugh and his followers. Thanks, 'boburell!'
Keep it coming and up your ratings is all I can say.
They are shooting themselves.
So, here's a simple challenge, Rush:
Name one liberty denied since the 20th of January, 2009.
Name one attack on freedom.
Name one attack on the economy.
Just three little things. Should be really easy, considering how all pervasive, how all powerful, and how unstoppable you are claiming all this nonsense is. These examples ought to take you about 30 seconds. If you're being truthful. Remember that all three examples must be something the Obama administration has done, and I'm not accepting your say-so. Some tangible proof is required.
First, it is true that Chris Wallace did not set out to challenge Rush. But, Rush is not a policy maker, he is an opinion guy. Different kind of interview for a journalist.
Second, VERY VERY FEW "journalists" (or Obama campaign staff) from the main stream media have ever challenged anyone from the Obama administration. It just doesn't happen very often.
For those keeping score: Fox does lean right, and EVERY OTHER MSM leans left.
And, challenging Rush on your 3 questions would not get you the answers you want. He has those answers...listen to his show. He lists specifics all the time. But, they are specifics from HIS point of view. You won't agree.
Personally...the government owning the majority of the auto industry is an attack on the economy. The govt owning the majority of home mortgages is an attack on the economy. The govt owning bank debt is an attack on the economy. There are other attacks on liberty and freedom proposed, like the fairness doctrine, socialized medicine, cap and trade...
But, none of those will satisfy you, so I'm not sure why you asked. :)
If you can find independent thinking on any of the subjects (ie the media "few journalists have ever challenged" the Obama admin. What do you mean by challenged?
Anyway, nice repeating of the same old conservative crapola.
Fox does have more liberal guests than the two you listed. They have Shep Smit & Gretta in prime time (both liberal), they have Juan Williams guesting everywhere, and even subbing for O'Reilly, and that horrible Bob Beckel on Hannity.
Watching FNC, at least I hear both sides. Yes, they explore the conservative POV more. But I know the other point of view, and can explore it on my own.
If you watched MSM...you would have never known about Van Jones. ACORN. SEIU. How Anita loves Mao. Come on...those are pretty important stories. Hell, even the NYT admitted they dropped the ball on VJ and ACORN.
Shep Smith? Not liberal. See, when you put your blinders on, you think anyone who's not conservative is liberal, and that's just not true.
Juan Williams is a syncophant liberal who barely qualifies, and Bob Beckel (who's not anything close to horrible) is someone else that should be mentioned.
But Geraldo is not liberal. He's libertarian like John Stossel, not liberal.
So you've got 3, all of whom get very little attention on FoxNews. And they don't lie or mislead when they're on, so really, you've got nothing. The topic is how Chris Wallace let Rush Limbaugh spread disinformation and misinformation.
You don't hear both sides on FoxNews. That's crazy talk. No one should have "known" about Van Jones or Anita Dunn or SEIU, or really about ACORN - their sins are very miniscule, not systemic as alleged, and not widespread as alleged. None of them are 'important stories'.
Same for Greta. Google it. Just because you want EVERY point challenged does not mean she is any more conservative. Hell, she's was originally labeled the "token" liberal many years ago.
Discounting the others that you don't like is stupid. Why continue posting when all you do is say, "I don't have an answer, so those don't count"? What, you want your ball back so you can go home? Geez.
Of course you don't want anyone to know about communists in the WH. Or ACORN's corruption. They hurt your movement. But it's still newsworthy, and you are intellectually dishonest if you do not see that. ACORN is systemically corrupt. To the core, founders Rathke. Corrupt. SEIU...big labor, pushing its agenda, teaming with the corrupt ACORN.
Your a liar if you think this wouldn't be an issue if it was related to the right. Its only a non-issue here because you agree with the tactics being employed.
Too bad...I fear for our country, and I fear for my liberty.
Communist in the WH., now your just blowing smoke out your arse and as far as ACORN ,poor people and unions are not controlling this government. That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Poor people and minorities and unions are running this country. Yuk,Yuk...thats a good one.
You sound foolish yelling ACORN while Goldman Sachs is robbing you blind. But I also want to hear more about "our" movement? So I'll be waiting for your response to my questions.
1) What makes you call Shepard Smith and Van Susterin a "liberal"?
2)What is "our" movement?
And your history shows you to be well-informed and knowledgeable.... NOT.
You have a lot of nerve trying to claim that you know what you're talking about here. There are no liberals who regularly host any FoxNews shows. None. There are only a few who get any airtime at all.
And I actually watch the network too, and not because it reinforces my preconceived notions, which is clearly why YOU watch it. You are not capable of judging based upon your clear partisan bias that seeps out of every pore of your skin.
"For those keeping score: Fox does lean right, and EVERY OTHER MSM leans left."
Anyone with a brain knows this to be patently false. The rest isn't even worth commenting on because it's just talking points you gathered from a daily "listen to his show."
Why is it so hard to admit that the news media are largely progressive, and have agendas? A 2007 Pew Poll of 585 journalists concluded that 8% are conservative or very conservative, while 32% say they are liberal or very liberal. Hmmm...
Compare that to the latest Gallup poll, showing that 40% of Americans are conservative, 35% moderate, and only 21% liberal.
Gosh, what do you think media would look like if it more closely reflected the makeup of the public? How would the last presidential election gone?
Also, though there is no such thing as a human who remains completely 'objective', most professional journalists and reporters will take time to get a response from 'the other side' in anything controversial. (note: reporters usually simply summarize facts with no commentary, whereas journalists have more latitude in being able to state an opinion, usually in response to a contrary opinion)
My first question would be "What about the other 60% that you don't mention?" Are they dyed in the wool Repubs or did they not answer because they didn't want to leak their right wing affiliation?
As for the "40% of Americans are conservative, 35% moderate, and only 21% liberal" comment. When asked which group they belong to the percenages are close to that but; when you ask specific qustions as to how they feel about certain policies (health care, war, etc) you will find that the vast majority of Americans have LEFT OF CENTER views.
e.g. I can say I am a Republican but; if I always vote Indepentant or Democrat what does that really make me.
Ah, I guess I should have referred to progressive bloggers before publishing Gallup poll results. Thank you for correcting me.
Curious...Have you spoken with the vast majority of Americans to determine this? Or, just your college roommates?
And, saying you are Republican is NOT the same as saying you are conservative. This is not a poll of how many people consider themselves Republican, its conservative...so it is focused ON policies, not parties, which is how we should be.
And every time those are done, a lot of people who profess to be conservative have a lot more liberal stances on issues than they might have admitted to. They may have one or two conservative ideals, but mostly they believe in democratic, liberal methods of governing our nation. The same isnt' true from the other side of the aisle.
And if you don't know this kind of stuff, then you aren't well-enough informed here to be trying to tell us that we don't know what we are talking about!!!
And, no, you are not 'curious'! You're dismissive and rude and dishonest, but you aren't curious.
I specically like how you equate democratic and liberal. And, how do you draw the conclusion that the same isn't true for the "other side"? Conjecture?
So far, I have not posted anything dishonest. I do not agree with any progressive, communist, marxist, maoist, or socialist policies like so MANY on this site (including the president and his staff), but I'm not dishonest.
Gosh, just because you can't win the argument doesn't mean you have to get personal...
That kind of "personal"? It would be you who couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag, and you who ignores reality and abuses the truth, and who violates all kinds of standards when trying to converse with opponents. Like falsely accusing the Obama Administration and us of agreeing with communists or marxists, etc.
It's amazing how traitorous people of your ilk are. You should be ashamed of how unpatriotic you're being. But you won't be.
Only reason I ask is many attack conservatives (rightly) for "there are people who say" or "there was a study once that..." statements. Also, I like to know sources so that I can judge them for myself.
For example, Fox News polling v. DKos polling (and in either case, for the critical questions, I probably want to read the actual question and the ones before and after it).
Thanks, -bcl
Take for example...GE. Jeffery Immult. Owns NBC. Hmmm...Conservative, or crazy leftists?
Idiotic statements like yours discredit the argument. Conservatives have as much, if not more "empathy" as progressives.
For reference, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives. Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
But it seems that your argument is that editors rewrite the journalists work, and "maybe" the editors are conservative. Right...
Please don't feed the troll.
Troll = someone with enough courage to
post an opposing view on a progressive
blog site.
So, what do you call the cowards who only
post empty echos of "me too", and shun
anyone who thinks differently?
Sticking with the fantasy theme, let's call
them...lemmings!
We understand why you attack ACORN(because of the votes they get out)while turning your back to the coruption and billion dollar thievery we call defense contracts. It's no secret that the only way conservatives win is by limiting the vote and ACORN registers poor and minorities who tend to vote Democratic. Commies...SEIU...blahblah Obama's not a citizen,he's going to take your gun away started during the presidential campaign and guess what, we won! Your're not adding anything new so don't expect us to go aggghhh...when it's actually more like peweeEEEEEE we Feel after reading you.
ACORN: so far 30 convictions of fraud, Promotion of tax fraud, sanctioning child prostitution, documented bank subprime loan coercion. Lost funding from Congress. Many remaining indictments.
...and the only thing you can say is "they get out" votes? Are you serious?
And what the hell secret are you talking about? You crazy progressives can't ever be accused of repeating arguments, because you MAKE THEM UP EACH TIME? No wonder you don't stray far from home...
I'm pretty sure that Bill Maher was talking about you when he said the American people were too stupid.
And, don't play games...If ANYONE can prove this so called "thievery" with defense contracts, then send the bastards to jail. Not ONE SINGLE CONSERVATIVE would disagree...Nor have they.
And nice try throwing in the crazy birther and gun stuff. No LEGIT conservative has ever focused on that crap. Conservatives believe that crap as much as you, a progressive, believe 9/11 was an inside job.
You don't, do you?
You know WHY people like me sharpen their skills with progressives like you on what you call debunked, recycled arguments? Because you never answered them.
Stop whining, let's debate. Facts only, no TROLL crap.
Please don't feed the troll.
Please don't make a sudden move, because the lemmings will follow...
:)
This fake outrage from the right, otherwise known as, ACORN, ACORN, ACORN, is really pathetic.
From the everyday whinning of Insanity, Limbo, Glenda and yourself, you'd think ACORN was the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.
But history shows there are far worse corruption scandals which have done severe damage to America and cost taxpayers BILLIONS!
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 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.
24 BILLION AND killing 13 U.S. service members?
Oh, I forgot, ACORN, ACORN, ACORN.
Blackwater contractors and it's founder has been named in a murder investigation of 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007. Iraqi officials accuse Blackwater of murder. Blackwater has received MORE than 1 BILLION in federal contracts since 2001.
1 BILLION and murdering 17 civilians?
Sorry, I forgot, ACORN, ACORN, ACORN.
Republican congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham plead guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion AFTER accepting MILLIONS in bribes, including cars, prostitutes and trips in private jets. Cunningham earned the "gifts" by pressing MORE than 150 MILLION in defense contracts.
I know, ACORN, ACORN, ACORN.
Republican Tom Delay, indicated for laundering federal campaign contributions, took bribes from Jack Abramoff and killed bills to help clients of Abramoff's ALL-Republicans lobbying firm.
ACORN, ACORN, ACORN!
The Bush administration presented "evidence "to the UN that Iraq was seeking material for making nuclear weapons that was later found to be NOT only dubious, but OUTRIGHT FALSE!
Current cost of the Iraq war Cost of Iraq War and counting...
Let's all sing, ACORN, ACORN, ACORN!
An inspector generals report said the U.S. lead administration than ran Iraq until June 2004 CANNOT account for nearly 9 BILLION dollars.
Three cheers for ACORN, ACORN, ACORN!
No one is defending any wrongdoing by ACORN, but your outrage is over the top.
The 2000 through 2008 corruption scandals alone are far worst than anything Acorn's may have done.
Acorn has been convicted of sanctioning child prostitution? Really? Do you have a link?
Acorn has been convicted of fraud OR Acorn employees have been convicted of fraud?
Same question on sub-prime. Was it employees who worked for Acorn or the company?
The truth is, you didn't give a rats a** about Acorn UNTIL Insanity, Glenda and Limbo told you to care about Acorn.
Second, the examples you provided were interesting. At least you provided real info...Thank you.
As for KBR, it's a 100 year old company that is not guilty of corruption, but poor quality. Got it. It's a tradegy that soldiers died. But it sure as hell isn't corruption.
Blackwater...again, not corruption. Bad employees who have been indicted. Send them to prison if they acted inappropriately. Neither you nor I have the details.
Cunningham went to prison...As he should. One example of someone who has an R next to their name is hardly a way to ignore ACORN. Do you want to start listing all the D's that have been convicted? We will have an equally long list of people who made bad choices. Send them all to prison.
As for the lame Bush example...you are lying. There were independent investigations that have PROVEN that the Bush admin did not lie. They used the intel available at the time, and it happened to match England and Australia's. Oh, did they lie as well?
And you CRAZY leftist suggestions that the elections were somehow corrupt shows your background. Was 9/11 an inside job as well?
The real truth is, corruption exists in the federal government. Americans should not care what party its associated with. You obviously do. You only care if its Republican corruption. Good Americans should not care about the party. Remove corruption. ACORN is corruption. It should be investigated, and removed.
Its stupid to respond to your accusation that I only cared because a FNC personality said so. Pitiful.
And no, if you read my statement, it clearly says 30 convictions of fraud, AND promotion of prostitution. Different things...but, you knew that, didn't you?
And that poll? It must have gone out with the talking points at the end of last week, because I've heard or seen it used about 20 times in the last 4 or 5 days. It's not a new poll - it came out a year ago, first off. Secondly, it's been well established that people aren't really conservative like that - they call themselves conservative because liberal has been given a bad name, but if you ask them about specific issues, they're overwhelmingly liberal.
And on political party identification? Latest poll (last week) about 18% identify themselves as Republican, and more than twice that many identify themslves as Democrats!
So, how would elections go if the media owners and publishers more closely mirrored the public? Not the way you hope, fool.
As for the poll...its updated every month on Gallup.com. Not rocket science. I just happen to review it.
Let's test your theory...From www.gallup.com:
Abortion: Legal for anything - 21%, Illegal for anything - 18%, legal only for a few circumstances - 42%, legal for most circumstances - 13%.
Hmmm...Not on that one.
Gay marriage: opposed - 57%, for - 40%.
Hmmm...Not that one either (though, a true conservative would say the fed should get out of marriage all together, and let the states decide...)
Guns: Banning possession of handguns, opposed - 71%, for - 28%.
Dang, another one down.
Expansion of government power: too much - 51%, right amount - 37%, not enough - 10%.
Well...one more try.
The big one...HEALTHCARE: Will you support the final healthcare bill? Oppose - 33%, Support - 25%, Depends - 39%.
There it IS! If you add in "it depends", you may have something.
As for people identifying themselves are Republican, WHO CARES? I have not one time mentioned Democrat or Republican. Parties suck. Values matter...
You guys never get tired of that old chestnut, do you? No, they don't. Liberals watching MSM programming are constantly made unhappy as a result of the liberal position getting short shrift, being misrepresented or completely omitted from coverage. I saw a short story on health care on network news last night in which there were three negative commenters about the proposals, one positive and a very pessimistic tone from the reporter. It didn't greatly frustrate or anger me because it's such a common occurrence.
The government doesn't own the majority of the auto industry. The government doesn't own the majority of home mortgages. Do you feel you have to lie to make your point? Or do you actually believe that nonsense?
Maybe the negative coverage on the healthcare debate is because its a bad bill? Maybe, just maybe, the 1,990 page legislative nightmare introduced to march socialist healthcare into every home is not a good idea?
If the government does not own the majority of the auto industry, how do you explain the 60% ownership in GM by the US government, and 12% by Canada? How about Chrysler? Those don't count? As for mortgages...between the FHA, Fannie and Freddie, the government owns 95% of all home mortgages. How do you explain that?
I like debate. I revel in disagreement, when it's substantive. But you don't have anything to say that hasn't been thoroughly, roundly, totally deconstructed with fact and reason. But you're not acquainted with those two critical elements of debate, are you? No. You're a tool. An incredibly rusty, dull, useless tool. You're the Garden Weasel I consigned to the toolshed purgatory from which it's not emerged for ten years because it wasn't ever very good for anything when I got it. Yeah. Garden Weasel. That's you.
OR...
Maybe, the 15% of the lemmings who believe the MSM is too conservative are communist, atheist heathens.
Name calling is fun, isn't it. Doesn't do a damn thing for the argument, but it seems that progressives always start there.
Actually, I admit to not reading the original version released by Pelosi. But only because the real version was released around noon today. I'm taking part in a group to "divide and conquer", with many of us reading a small portion to make it digestable.
From what I've read on these threads, no one has ever deconstructed anything but the rules of debate.
And for some reason, it always goes back to personal attacks. Is that something you picked up from Saul Alinsky? It's a big part of his method...
The HCR bill(s) have plenty of support in Congress, support from think tanks and health care organizations and support from about half the population who express an opinion. There really isn't a valid reason why the interview comments broadcast should be so sharply unbalanced to the right. There is, however, an invalid reason. Newscasts like controversy and go for contrarian points of view. They want to add spice to their coverage and do so by looking for attack interviews. Sometimes that effort makes the coverage appear slanted to the right and sometimes to the left, but I've never seen anything that suggests a consistent slant either direction. This pursuit of sensationalism is more prevalent than it used to be. The networks for a long time were very straightforward in their coverage when news was seen as a network's responsibility. Now ratings are king and quality takes a back seat, but it isn't geared to forcing a political agenda and never was until Faux Snooze came along.
As for public polls, we all know that large numbers of people can be influenced to take a position regardless of the facts. We saw that with the large percentages who believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. You can find high levels of belief in many other things that lack evidence to support them. People have been hearing "liberal bias" preached at them for decades to the point that a large number accept it as fact without any personal examination. Those polls don't mean much.
It's similar with the mortgage industry. If the government owned 95% of home mortgages as you claim, why would so many banks and other financial institutions be in such a panic over the collapse of the industry? It's because those financial companies have huge amounts of ownership of those mortgages. The government didn't own Fannie or Freddie, though there are some who believe they should have. It probably would have meant more rational handling of their accounts than the private sector provided. The banks are still on the line for much of the equity of those entities, though the government has taken on much simply to prevent a worse collapse than we've seen. However, all it means is that the government has an interest in a large percentage of mortgages, but it's a low degree of interest in many of them. It's false to claim that that interest means ownership of them. It was far from a government initiated takeover.
You're making simplistic (simple minded?) descriptions of very complex situations to further your talking points.
Yup, you sure are right. The government should never get involved in business. From a pure capatilistic state it would be better if the auto industry, the banks, home mortgages, etc were all allowed to fail and collapse so the true capitalist could right the boat and make things good again. Besides, we made it through the great depression once, why not do it again?
I am sure there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about promoting the general welfare of the nation. Since even economists can't agree on what is right or wrong, we sure don't want the government getting in the way.
(sarcasm)
As for challenges, are you really saying that nobody on TV news has challenged President Obama about:
* death panels in the health reform bill?
* rationing under proposed health reform?
* his commitment to Afghanistan?
* what kind of mustard he puts on his cheeseburger?!
* deficit spending for his stimulus package?
* his personal integrity, i.e., charges of racism?
I have heard Mr. Limbaugh's show. He quotes people out of context to make invalid points, skews facts to fit his own personal world view, and the very height of his rhetorical ability tends to be direct personal attack rather than rational thinking or evidence. He is a fear monger, stirring up trouble. He would be wise to be cautious about sowing the wind.
The government does not own a majority of the auto industry. Fiat owns Chrysler and Ford is still independent, which, as a Chevy guy, chaps my backside, but I still give 'em big props for that. And that's only two of the big three. Tesla? Privately owned, as are all the other smaller car companies who still build cars in the U.S.A., not to mention Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc., who all build cars here. The government doesn't own a majority of home mortgages, either, though, for what they GAVE to Wall Street under Bush, the toxic mortgages made by predatory lenders could likely all have simply been paid off.
The fairness doctrine has not been implemented by the FCC, and they have no interest in doing so. The President himself has been publicly opposed to it every time it's come up. Socialized medicine is not what is being proposed! Pay attention. We're talking about how to pay for it, not how to run hospitals and clinics and private practices. Cap and trade is a necessary step towards a greener economy, one that we can sustain ourselves. But, perhaps you prefer sending 700 billion dollars overseas every year, bankrupting our economy?
You're right, you've totally failed to satisfy me, but then, I didn't ask you, did I? I made a public challenge to Mr. Limbaugh, though, just between you and me, I doubt he could do any better.
And the MSM? I wouldn't call them left leaning. I would call them totally inept. We live in a nation where our health care system is a complete mess, yet we are in a struggle to pass even the minimum of health care reform. If the media did their job and actually informed people of the disaster we call our health care system, we would have passed a reform bill back in January.
Also, a left leaning media wouldn't have invented a scandal such as Whitewater like the NY Times did in the 90's. Nor would a left leaning media lied for 18 months about Al Gore during campaign 2000 (eg, I invented the internet, I discoverd Love canal, Love Story, etc). Dan Rather does a story on Bush's National Guard duty (or lack there of) and get's 95% of the facts correct except for one unverified document. As a result people got fired at CBS. Whitewater and campaign 2k? 100% lies. Result? Pats on the back and promotions. For the most part of MSM is just a joke.
Fox News, et al., is SHOW BUSINESS -- and Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and the whole motley crew are show people. They know if they present objective truth their viewers and listeners will grow less interested and seek other, more sensationalist programming. Ratings decline, advertisers reduce spending, and the RightWing-Technicolor-Fantasy-Players' executive compensation is put at risk.
After all, what are trivial things such as truth and civility when compared to the Murdoch/Ailes/Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Coulter, et al. "Tell 'Em Anything They Wanna Hear if it Turns a Buck" media model? I'll bet Sarah Palin's IQ worth of dollars (I can't afford to lose much) that at least some of these people don't even care about politics, or are not nearly as right-wing as they pretend.
Yet, we rarely hear anything from this blowhard but how this country is being ruined. What is he doing to promote a more positive tone?
The true source of this negativity is the fact Obama isn't a white conservative.
In Limbaugh's and the rest of the Conservative world -- unless you fit in a narrow demographic and have an even narrower perspective -- you need not apply to the GOP.
What a slow -- and methodical -- death these idiots are inflicting upon their own party.
Why aren't the moderate Republicans fighting back? Because they are afraid of what happened to DeDe Scozzafava.
Mike Wallace gave him genes, and not much else.
Why do TV networks, ANY TV network, put Limbaugh on their Sunday morning shows, or their shows during the week? The man has unfettered access to millions of people every single week for hours per day, and yet, they still call this guy, and get him on there. Why? It's not as if he doesn't already own a bully pulpit from which to speak and all.
To whom critize the Pres. Obama administration: It's humanly impossible, any President to repair in nine months, what went destroyed in eight years.
Ruzevaldo Lima.
I'd ask you what the hell you think you are talking about, but I get the feeling that you don't have the slight damned clue!
Nothing you typed out in your above post makes any sense, do you not get that? It comes across as rather... 4th gradish
Perhaps if you would be so kind as to retype your post with links to factual stories which, if not proves the separate assertions, at least so it gives us an understanding as to where your coming from?
Unless your only reason for posting here was to blather on about something you have no concept of?
Well, there's not really any substance in this post to debate. Love the capitalization of American Way of Life, by the way. In conjunction with the rest of your post, kind of connotes a public school education. That's socialist, too. Innit? Oh, wait. Private schools still get to churn out future titans of industry, don't they? Hm. How to reconcile....
As for the previous socialist dictators...son, if we had had prior socialist dictatorships, wouldn't they have sterilized the right wing womenfolk? I mean, how'd you even get your ticket for this ride? Don't your kind of crazy run in the family?
The most commonly reported effects include constipation, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, lightheadedness, headache, dry mouth, anxiety, pruritus, euphoria, and diaphoresis.[68] It has also been claimed to cause dimness in vision due to miosis. Some patients have also experienced loss of appetite, nervousness, abdominal pain, diarrhea, ischuria, dyspnea, and hiccups,[16] although these symptoms appear in less than 5% of patients taking oxycodone. Rarely, the drug can cause impotence, enlarged prostate gland, and decreased testosterone secretion.[69]
Why are you such an ignorant corporate whore?
or
Do you actually believe the lies you repeat or are you paid on a per lie basis?
How about.
Was it the drugs that made you stupid and hatfull or were you just born that way?
Maybe
What do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?
Talk about the unanserable question limpman?
Replace this whole rant with "she" and "her" and it could be about Sarah Palin.
In that respect I think Limbaugh makes a valid point. In addition, since jobs are still being lost, things are still getting worse. Furthermore, while the rate of job losses has slowed since January the rate of job losses is virtually identical as it was back in May ie. Obama's policies don't seem to have changed much in the trend in the last 5 months.