CDC: Spine Flu Hits Media
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) today described a new strain of flu which has recently emerged. The CDC says the outbreak seems to have originated in the mainstream media and so far appears to be confined to reporters and journalists, said a CDC spokesperson. Commonly referred to as the "spine flu", this disease appears to weaken the resolve of individuals to ask important questions, do thorough analysis, and make logical conclusions. "We've seen patients with an almost complete lack of objectivity and rational thinking," said a medical staffer who wished to remain anonymous. "Their spines become so dissolved that they simply deteriorate into blathering blobs of gelatinous jelly," he continued.
The contagion was visibly manifest at President Obama's press conference on Wednesday when reporters were barely able to ask a single probing question. Mark Knoller's question about "enhanced interrogation techniques" which included a statement that they "not only protected the nation but saved lives," was about as deep as it got. The question also produced Obama's dumbest answer of the evening when he suggested that we might have "gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques."
Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times on the other hand, seems to have been afflicted the worst when he asked this four-part question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised, enchanted, humbled, and troubled you the most?" Experts said that of all the reporters, Jeff appeared to be closest to the gelatinous state. The fact that there were absolutely no questions about the economy, may be a sign that the disease is entering a dangerous new phase.
Technically speaking, the disease is known as the "R2D2" virus because it produces robotic-like symptoms in its victims who mindlessly follow directions and lose their ability to think rationally. Other symptoms include "fevered rants" against opposing points of view, abnormal "swelling" of the ego, and a "rash" of illogical statements. The CDC says that the spine flu is a "fool-borne" disease, transmitted from fool-to-fool, particularly in closed environments where activities such as "group-think" are liable to occur.
The "spine flu" has been around for awhile. In fact, its effects were blamed for the disastrous election results last November. This particular new strain of spine flu however, seems to have emerged only in the last 100 days. It has long been suspected that President Obama may be a "carrier" of the disease.
The CDC has raised its alert level to "5" on a scale of 6, which means that 5 out of 6 reporters and jounalists are likely to be afflicted with the disease. Occasionally, the disease can be fatal. Several newspapers are experiencing declining readership and are said to be near death. Various TV and cable network news programs are experiencing declining viewership and ratings, which may require them to be pulled off "life support" according to their owners.
There is currently no vaccine for the spine flu. The CDC says to avoid excessive exposure to those who are infected, and recommends frequent use of disinfectants such as news sources that are "fair and balanced".
23 Comments:
"There is currently no vaccine for the spine flu."Yes, it may be an incurable affliction...
Camo,
With God's help and the dedication of hard-working men and women like yourself, we may yet find a cure.
(:D) Best regards...
I'd been noticing some noxious puddles with head attached ,lying around here and there.
Sadly for us, the head of the victim can still be placed in front of a TV camera (and a teleprompter )for the hours of Nuans we are fed every day. Only a few places have a real man or woman who lets us in on the News.
I heard on unnamed Doctor explain that the brain of the victims also melts and leaks away,later in the illness
There must be a cure because conservatives, who have been suffering from the most acute and voracious strain of Spine Flu for the past 8 years, have suddenly come good.
However, beware of disinfectants that claim to be Fair & Balanced™ as they are disease incubators that, unless firmly dealt with, will spread the conservative strain throughout the rural midwest, the entire south and parts Alaska, resulting in episodes of the quivers whenever a certain Moose-shootin' mama makes an appearance.
Cheers
Elroy
There's quivers aplenty whenever the copious number of liberal pols make the news, these days for tax evasion, corrupting influence peddling, being bribed by lobbyists and paying back those bribes, or just simply providing for change one can believe in...
Barb,
Those were funny mental images you created! Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
(:D) Best regards...
Elroy,
Those are quivers of delight, my friend. Moose-hunting is good for you. Y'all [I noticed you were fond of that word] ought to try it some time.
(:D) Cheers...
Beerme,
Yep! Quite a few of them there "blathering blobs of gelatinous jelly", eh?
(:D) Best regards...
Hmm, yeah, we've got some livestock compatibility issues regarding the Moose – I guess I could shoot some 'Roos but, as I believe in liberty for ALL creatures I think I'll leave them alone.
I though 'quivers of joy' were symptoms of Spine Flu – they are certainly present whenever Obama and Palin heave into public view, although Bush now seems to have successfully inoculated the population against the severe outbreak that afflicted them during his rule.
The thing is, Hawkeye, that you really should remember that conservatives are just as susceptible to Spine Flu as liberals, if not more so. The last outbreak started two wars and emptied the treasury, and was remarkable for the lock-step yelling of 'Four More Years!' 'USA!' 'Number One!' and 'Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!' whenever the great man managed to tear himself away from playing cowboys, so you might want to reflect on the fact that y'all are not above a little SP yourselves.
Palin could bring on a dose that would kill your Republic stone dead, but it doesn't look as if she'll be back – unless, of course, more rinos become dinos, in which case she will lead the remnants of your once proud Party into everlasting electoral oblivion. Here's hoping!
Cheers
Elroy
PS We don't use the possessive collective 'Y'all' down here – we have a regional variation of 'Youse'. Feel free to hurl it around with gay abandon.
Elroy.
You forget "you all" is from the Bible.I love Moose too. Right next to the mashed potatoes and corn pone!
Great piece of reporting Hawk
LOL at Barb's remarks.
heh,heh.
angus the scot
aka nicky j.
The only hope for a cure is some fresh new faces in journalism who are out to make their mark. If the current ones were to manage to get a spine it would expose the folly of their own past performances.
'You all' might be biblical but 'Y'all' is Texan and 'Youse' was definitely not said by Yaweh.
But how can you claim 'You all' as biblical? You might as well say 'and' and 'but' are sacred too – after all, they are in the bible as well.
And wasn't the bible written in ancient greek, or hebrew, or sanscrit or some such? How, then, does 'You all' become the sole preserve of the almighty? Is it not possible that one human might have needed to address a group of humans before Jesus came along?
And still no word of the conservative Spine Flu pandemic of the last decade – why am I not surprised?
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
If you really "believe in liberty for ALL creatures" then you're on the wrong side of the fence. You should become a libertarian instead of a fascist socialist.
And since you seem to agree that Bush "emptied the treasury", then you must likewise agree that Obama is doing nothing but massive deficit spending... which can't be good. You can't spend your way into prosperity, or borrow your way out of debt.
(:D) Cheers
Angus,
I didn't know "you all" is from the Bible. Were those the southern Israelites that said that?
(:D) Best regards...
MKK,
Well said.
(:D) Best regards...
Elroy,
And still no word of the conservative Spine Flu pandemic of the last decade...
I guess we're having a hard time trying to figure out what you're talking about. Was it the conservatives in the MSM that blamed Bush for 9/11? Was it the conservatives at the NY Times that revealed classified information? Was it the conservatives that undermined the War on Terror? Was it the conservatives that kept reminding people how many soldiers died in Iraq? Was it the conservatives that fawned over Bush's prescription drug program? Was it the conservatives that continued to paint Bush as an idiot?
Since the focus of my article was "reporters and journalists" youse ought to stay on topic, and the MSM has an overtly liberal tilt.
(:D) Cheers
Hawkeye,
Fine writing worthy of a disciple of the Wizard of Ott! I've passed it on to friends.
Just Ranting
'I guess we're having a hard time trying to figure out what you're talking about.'
Wow! Really? OK, I'll spell it out – I'm talking about 8 years of defending the indefensible, that is George W. Bush, against all criticism.
'Was it the conservatives in the MSM that blamed Bush for 9/11?'
No, it wasn't – conservatives blamed OBL.
'Was it the conservatives at the NY Times that revealed classified information?'
No, that was godless communists that felt it incumbent on themselves to reveal the truth about what the government was up to. However, it was conservatives who revealed the named of a covert CIA operative in order to get back at her husband, a man who dared criticize Bush in public.
'Was it the conservatives that undermined the War on Terror?'
Yes, by going into Iraq, but that's not what you meant. Liberals did not 'undermine' the WAT™, the merely dissented form the intellectual underpinnings of it's basic premise, but conservatives didn't – as they all had Spine Flu they parroted all they were told.
'Was it the conservatives that kept reminding people how many soldiers died in Iraq?'
No, again that was liberals who felt it was important that the world know the true situation.
'Was it the conservatives that fawned over Bush's prescription drug program?'
Yup. "This is a tremendous milestone. It is great news for seniors of our nation," – Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.
"Prescription drugs in the past have been denied to our seniors, but will be there as a result of this legislation" – Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
But the Dems? Not so much.
"I am not proud of this bill" – Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
"The test of every great civilization is how it cares for its elderly...I am absolutely convinced that at the end of the day we will preserve the Medicare system, which is threatened, threatened seriously by this proposal, and we will get the day when we have a real prescription drug program, which our seniors deserve and which this nation owes to those individuals." – Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
'Was it the conservatives that continued to paint Bush as an idiot?'
No, that was definitely us, every day in every way – it wasn't hard – he sure helped – but we had to fight Spine Flu in whatever way we could.
So I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what YOU'RE talking about –you just gave me half a dozen prime examples of conservative Spine Flu where you backed the POTUS no matter what.
'Since the focus of my article was "reporters and journalists" youse ought to stay on topic, and the MSM has an overtly liberal tilt'
And when exactly did Fox or Newsmax or the Daily Post go after Bush in any of the matters you raised? They didn't – but they went after those that did because they had the dreaded SP. As did y'all.
Cheers
Elroy
PS BTW, 'Youse' is only to be used in the collective sense, as in 'Y'all'. Since I, me, Elroy, is the only one being accused of being 'off topic' then the singular 'You' is correct. Still, good try...
Just Ranting,
Thanks! Can always use more "Viewers".
(:D) Best regards...
Elroy,
I'm talking about 8 years of defending the indefensible. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't share yours.
conservatives blamed OBL. And they were correct in their assessment.
No, that was godless communists. I couldn't have said it better myself.
it was conservatives who revealed the named of a covert CIA operative in order to get back at her husband, a man who dared criticize Bush in public. First, she wasn't "covert". Second, they didn't reveal her "name"... Bob Novak had do some research to figure out who it was. Third, it wasn't to "get back at" anybody. Fourth, Valerie Plame had no reason or authority to recommend her husband go to Niger. Fifth, Joe Wilson was over his head and didn't really do any "investigating". Sixth, Saddam was indeed looking to buy "yellowcake". Seventh, the U.S. removed 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" from Iraq.
Liberals did not 'undermine' the WAT™, the merely dissented form the intellectual underpinnings of it's basic premise. Obfuscation. What they did as a result of their "dissent" was to "undermine".
that was liberals who felt it was important that the world know the true situation. Oh, so it's OK for liberals to make sure the world knows the "true situation", but when conservatives do it... that's not OK? And if it was so important to know the "true situation", then why did the MSM stop reporting the news from Iraq when things started going well? I'll tell you why... because it didn't fit their agenda.
As for the prescription drug program, I felt it was a noble concept, but I didn't like the cost. Everything that Ted Kennedy didn't like about the program, was what I liked most... limited government involvement and private companies running the program. Most of the conservatives I know railed against it as another government hand-out program.
No, that was definitely us, every day in every way – it wasn't hard. But it was far from accurate.
you backed the POTUS no matter what. Not true. I disagreed strongly with Bush on the matter of immigration reform. In fact, I wrote him a letter outlining my complaints which I posted HERE.
And when exactly did Fox or Newsmax or the Daily Post go after Bush in any of the matters you raised? I would hardly consider any of the media outlets you mentioned as "Mainstream". Those outlets are like salmon swimming upstream against the raging currents of the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, (in fact most of the newspapers in the U.S.), NPR, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. You know, all the "agenda-driven" outlets.
I thought "youse" liberals were "collectivists"? Now you want to be treated as an individual? Fuggedaboutit.
(:D) Cheers
‘And they were correct in their assessment.’
Not according to the FBI or Dick Cheney, but thanks for proving my point – you went along with what Bush told you and refused to question. Spine Flu.
‘First, she wasn't "covert".’
Yeah, she was.
‘Second, they didn't reveal her "name"... Bob Novak had do some research to figure out who it was.’
See? You believe it all.
‘Third, it wasn't to "get back at" anybody.’
Then why?
‘Fourth, Valerie Plame had no reason or authority to recommend her husband go to Niger.’
Yes she did.
‘Fifth, Joe Wilson was over his head and didn't really do any "investigating".’
Yes, he did.
‘Sixth, Saddam was indeed looking to buy "yellowcake".’
No, he wasn’t, and certainly not from Niger.
‘Seventh, the U.S. removed 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" from Iraq.’
That they always knew was there, waaaay before the invasion started. It was no surprise.
Anyway, we could discuss the Plame/Libby affair all day long, but your willingness to bend, distort and cherry-pick are more indications of Spine Flu.
‘Obfuscation. What they did as a result of their "dissent" was to "undermine".’
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t share yours. I call it ‘dissent’ – you call it ‘treason’. You might, however, notice that now the tables have turned I still call what y’all are doing ‘dissent’.
‘Oh, so it's OK for liberals to make sure the world knows the "true situation", but when conservatives do it... that's not OK?’
Did I say that? I didn’t say that. I don’t say that.
‘And if it was so important to know the "true situation", then why did the MSM stop reporting the news from Iraq when things started going well? I'll tell you why... because it didn't fit their agenda.’
Yes, you are quite correct. Their ‘agenda’ is to make profits, governed by the axiom ‘If it bleeds, it leads’, and so when things got quiet the corporate MSM found it had ‘other priorities’. If the MSM had been honest in the first place the US would not be in its current mess, but there you go – that’s when profit trumps the truth. Still ‘the MSM has a liberal bias’ is more Spine Flu.
‘As for the prescription drug program, I felt it was a noble concept, but I didn't like the cost. Everything that Ted Kennedy didn't like about the program, was what I liked most... limited government involvement and private companies running the program. Most of the conservatives I know railed against it as another government hand-out program.’
No, it only looked like one. The idea, of course, as usual, being that a government solution would look bad, which it did. Actually, the drug companies involved love it as they are cleaning up. That’s your mone paying their profits.
‘But it was far from accurate.’
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t share yours. Bush is a fool, and the fact that you still support him merely vindicates my assertion that you suffer from Spine Flu.
‘Not true. I disagreed strongly with Bush on the matter of immigration reform. In fact, I wrote him a letter outlining my complaints which I posted HERE.’
OK, so you disagreed with him on immigration – good for you. Everything else, though…Spine Flu.
There’s plenty the left disagree with Obama on, too – do we still have Spine Flu?
‘I would hardly consider any of the media outlets you mentioned as "Mainstream". Those outlets are like salmon swimming upstream against the raging currents of the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, (in fact most of the newspapers in the U.S.), NPR, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. You know, all the "agenda-driven" outlets.’
Fox isn’t mainstream, but NPR is? Au contraire! One can count on Fox The NY Post, any of Murdoch’s organs to toe the conservative line, but that’s not the point – the point is that these media outlets suffered from Spine Flu, they printed everything fed to them by the WH as fact and refused to investigate.
But again, we are going to get into the ‘The media has a lib’rul bias’ argument. I say they don’t – if they did and actually told the truth, you’d be even madder – but you disagree. Anyhow, the point remains that the conservative media was just as pliant as what you perceive the ‘lib’rul’ media as now being and the GOP faithful, what Bush 41 referred to as ‘the crazies’ just yelled ‘USA!’ and ‘Four More Years!’
‘I thought "youse" liberals were "collectivists"? Now you want to be treated as an individual? Fuggedaboutit.’
You obviously understand little about the leftist agenda. We are ‘collectivists’ when it is in the common good to be so, otherwise not, just like the Right. We believe greatly in the power of the individual, that’s why we want to free him from the basic grind and allow him to live a more fulfilling and aesthetic existence by sharing the pie and pooling resources to provide the fundamentals of survival to all.
Conservatives seem to have a different view of freedom – to them, Freedom™ is the right to fight powerful vested interests for whatever crumbs fall from the table, where the basic grind is all the individual can look forward to. We want freedom from slavery – you want the freedom to be a slave.
Cheers
Elroy
PS Nice use of ‘Youse’ by the way – try it a couple of more times and you can lose the inverted brackets.
Elroy,
‘And they were correct in their assessment.’... Not according to the FBI or Dick Cheney. So let me get this straight. On the one hand you want me to believe that OBL used the excuse of U.S. troops in Mecca (which they weren't) to justify 9/11 in order to get the troops out of Saudi Arabia, which you claim forced Rumsfeld to pull our troops out. Then, on the other hand, you want me believe that OBL wasn't behind 9/11, even though he admitted to it on several occasions, and which is contrary to your previous assertions. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
Yeah, she was... Yes she did... Yes, he did. Your arguments are getting pretty weak.
the U.S. removed 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" from Iraq’... That they always knew was there, waaaay before the invasion started. It was no surprise. But I thought Bush lied to us about Iraq. I thought he lied to us about Saddam wanting "yellowcake". If he didn't want yellowcake then why did he have a stockpile of 550 metric tons. I thought Saddam declared to the IAEA that he destroyed everything that could be converted into a weapon. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
now the tables have turned I still call what y’all are doing ‘dissent’... Fine. I'm dissenting. I have a right to dissent. I happen to disagree with redistribution of wealth, and socialism, and nationalization of banks and industries, and massive deficit-spending, and over-taxation, and fiscal irresponsibility, and globalism, and weakening our national defenses, and illegal immigration, and abortion, and disregard of our Constitution, and pork, and earmarks, and releasing sensitive classified information, and endangering my family, and big government, and politicians who don't pay their taxes, and all manner of stupidity in general. So sue me.
Did I say that? I didn’t say that. I don’t say that. Well I don't know about you personally, but your liberal buddies want to reintroduce the 'Fairness Doctrine' so they can shut down talk radio. Your liberal buddies in the DHS issued an "Domestic Extremist Lexicon" which considers "alternative media" dangerous. By the way, "alternative media" is defined as "various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets." So, it now appears that if you listen to talk radio, or go to blogs on the internet that espouse ideas that differ from "mass media products and outlets", you are by definition an "extremist". If I disagree with the interpretations of events or issues as presented on CNN, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, that makes me an "extremist"? C'mon. Get real.
Their ‘agenda’ is to make profits... Oh yeah? Well they're not doing a very good job.
Still ‘the MSM has a liberal bias’ is more Spine Flu. No. It's a fact that has been proven in several studies and surveys which I have previously quoted to you. We've been over this before, but I know, I know... you don't want to be confused with "facts".
the drug companies involved love it as they are cleaning up. That’s your mone(y) paying their profits. I have no problems paying money to drug companies that provide a product at a profit to people who need it. I do have a problem with a government-run health care system designed to "cut costs" where the government dictates what drugs I can or can't have, and which services I can or can't get. Why is it not OK for drug companies to make a profit while it is OK for newspapers to make a profit? Can't have it both ways.
Bush is a fool. Name-calling is now considered "reasoned discourse"? Aside from being an ad-hominem attack on Bush (without substantiation I might add), it is nothing more than your biased personal opinion. He is not an eloquent speaker and has made plenty of gaffes for sure, but he far from a "fool". He is not unlike Obama in that respect. Obama has made plenty of gaffes too, and without his teleprompter Obama is not very eloquent either. Try counting the number of "uh"s in an impromptu Obama statement.
There’s plenty the left disagree with Obama on, too – do we still have Spine Flu? If Obama's last press conference was any indication, then... yes.
Fox isn’t mainstream, but NPR is? Well, I guess that depends on how you define the term "mainstream", doesn't it? The commonly accepted definition of "mainstream" is: "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence." Thus, if the prevailing current or direction of news outlets is in one direction (eg., NPR, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, BBC, WaPo, NYT, LAT, TIME, AP, etc.), and FoxNews or the NY Post is going in a different direction, then... I guess they aren't "mainstream" are they? Thus, my analogy of the salmon swimming upstream.
they printed everything fed to them by the WH as fact and refused to investigate. Au contraire!... Fox has made a concerted effort at "balanced" coverage which has attempted to provide equal time for opposing points of view (even if they don't agree with those views). One study showed that by far the "most balanced" news show on TV was FoxNews "Special Report w/ Brit Hume" (now "Special Report w/ Brett Baier"). FoxNews of course is not a "print" medium, but if you want to talk about "print" media then how about this...
WaPo's own ombudsman, Deborah Howell, said that in the year leading up to the presidential election, WaPo's coverage had a clear "tilt" in favor of Obama. In every category, Obama was favored over his rival: number of photos, size of photos, stories for, stories against, overall number of stories, op-ed pieces, etc. She also said that there was a "lack of probing issues coverage" and a "gaping hole in coverage [of] Joe Biden".
Not only that, but Howell said, "Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism." In other words, the majority of news outlets (i.e., the "mainstream" media) similarly favored Obama.
You can't argue with the "facts" my friend, especially when it comes from their own mouths.
(:D) Cheers
‘So let me get this straight. On the one hand you want me to believe that OBL used the excuse of U.S. troops in Mecca (which they weren't) to justify 9/11 in order to get the troops out of Saudi Arabia, which you claim forced Rumsfeld to pull our troops out.’
Then, on the other hand, you want me believe that OBL wasn't behind 9/11, even though he admitted to it on several occasions, and which is contrary to your previous assertions. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.’
I don’t need to have it both ways – I don’t want it both ways. So, here it is – straight.
1. Following the first Gulf War, US troops were stationed in Medina and Mecca, Saudi Arabia. This is pretty hard to deny, because it’s true.
2. OBL and his Al-Queada buddies demanded their removal. It’s on their web site.
3. 9/11 happens. OBL gets blamed.
4. War On Terror™ ensues. Troops are pulled from Medina and Mecca.
However, this doesn’t mean that OBL did it – just that it was assumed he did, but not by the FBI or Dick Cheney.
If I ever asserted that OBL did do it, which I don’t think I did, then I apologize for misleading you but I didn’t want to get into the whole alternative 9/11 theory trip as it tends to be somewhat divisive.
Was OBL the fall guy? We know he was a CIA asset. Was removing the troops from Medina and Mecca the pay-off for taking the rap? I don’t know, but there are many unanswered questions about 9/11.
Did OBL admit it? Not definitively. Not beyond reasonable doubt. When? Where?
Dwell on these quotes, if you will:
‘We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." —Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006.
"9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” —FBI agent Rex Tomb, June 6, 2006
‘I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.” —Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001.
‘Your arguments are getting pretty weak. ’
Do you really want to go deep into Plamegate? Really? I mean, I can if you’d like but I think we both have time pressures that mean we might have to save that one for another day.
‘But I thought Bush lied to us about Iraq. I thought he lied to us about Saddam wanting "yellowcake". If he didn't want yellowcake then why did he have a stockpile of 550 metric tons. I thought Saddam declared to the IAEA that he destroyed everything that could be converted into a weapon. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.’
Au contraire! By your logic, Bush must have lied about Saddam wanting Yellowcake because he already had 550 tons just sitting there – why would he go to Niger if he had all he needed?
And if this yellowcake was evidence of Saddam’s attempts to build a bomb, why didn’t Bushco shout about the discovery from the highest rooftops? After all, this would be proof of WMD and thus justify the war, so why be so secret about it?
Because it had been there since BEFORE Gulf War 1, since 1981, actually, when Israel bombed the nuclear program and since Saddam was an ally of the US. The US had known about that stuff for nigh on 20 years!
‘Fine. I'm dissenting. I have a right to dissent. I happen to disagree with redistribution of wealth, and socialism, and nationalization of banks and industries, and massive deficit-spending, and over-taxation, and fiscal irresponsibility, and globalism, and weakening our national defenses, and illegal immigration, and abortion, and disregard of our Constitution, and pork, and earmarks, and releasing sensitive classified information, and endangering my family, and big government, and politicians who don't pay their taxes, and all manner of stupidity in general. So sue me.’
No, that’s fine – you have a perfect right to believe what you want. I happen to think that a lot of what you have just stated is detrimental to society in general and individual liberty in particular, and so I seek to discuss those differences, but what I want to know right now is this: Do you now admit that the left were not committing ‘treason’ in criticizing Bush but merely ‘dissenting’, like they always said they were?
‘Well I don't know about you personally, but your liberal buddies want to reintroduce the 'Fairness Doctrine' so they can shut down talk radio.’
Aha! This old chestnut! It’s all wrong, naturally, but Beck/Hannity/Rush et al have multi-million dollar incomes to protect so they lie to you, and you believe them.
The Fairness Doctrine is not about shutting those loudmouths down, it’s about not allowing private corporations to monopolize the public airwaves. For the truth about the Fairness Doctrine, go here: http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2185&Itemid=2
‘Your liberal buddies in the DHS issued an "Domestic Extremist Lexicon" which considers "alternative media" dangerous. By the way, "alternative media" is defined as "various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets." So, it now appears that if you listen to talk radio, or go to blogs on the internet that espouse ideas that differ from "mass media products and outlets", you are by definition an "extremist". If I disagree with the interpretations of events or issues as presented on CNN, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, that makes me an "extremist"? C'mon. Get real.’
Yeah, well, it makes me an extremist too. Bushco demonized the left like this for years, and all we got from the Right was silence, if not agreement, so how does it feel? Actually, I agree with you that this latest edict from the DHS is pretty silly, but this is what the DHS is for – ask it’s inventors, Bushco.
‘Well they're not doing a very good job.’
That their results are less than spectacular does not lessen the extent of their intent. The MSM, particularly print, is in trouble for two reasons – the Interwebs and the rampant, uncontrolled capitalism that allowed corporations to engage in the ever-increasing leveraged media buyouts that saddled them with unsustainable debt.
Because of this, the MSM had become ever-more monopolized and concentrated into fewer and fewer hands whose need for profit at whatever cost is greater than ever.
‘No. It's a fact that has been proven in several studies and surveys which I have previously quoted to you. We've been over this before, but I know, I know... you don't want to be confused with "facts".’
It’s not a ‘fact’ – it’s an opinion, as I have ‘studies’ and ‘surveys’ which prove the opposite. We have been over this before, it’s true, but I know, I know… you don't want to be confused with ‘facts’. However, I offer you this from our friends at Wiki:
‘In 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely lying to the media, and describes the contempt he felt for reporters who reported his lies instead of telling the truth, because they were cowed by the fear of an accusation of "liberal bias”.
For more, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
I’ll say it again – however ‘lib’rul’ a reporter might be, the editor who OKs an article has to answer to a proprietor who’s not. Simple.
‘I have no problems paying money to drug companies that provide a product at a profit to people who need it.’
The problem here is that the profits are excessive since the drug companies have monopolies protected by bought and paid for senators and congressmen. They charge whatever they want as the government refuses to negotiate a bulk deal with them, a practise common in, oh, every other country in the OHCD, thanks to the lobbyists.
And what happens to those that need it but can’t afford it? They go broke, or die trying not to. It baffles me that pro-like conservatives are willing to let people die from poverty – WWJD?
‘I do have a problem with a government-run health care system designed to "cut costs" where the government dictates what drugs I can or can't have, and which services I can or can't get.’
Um, you have that system right now – it’s called ‘managed healthcare’ – but it’s actually far worse than government-run healthcare because healthcare is not managed healthcare’s primary concern – profits are.
Americans are constantly denied drugs and services by HMOs because it saves them money, and if the patient dies, all the better – more money saved.
I can assure you, speaking from a country with socialized medicine, that the government does NOT dictate what drugs I can take and which services I can or can’t have – exactly the opposite. We have private hospitals here too, but people with private insurance still go to public hospitals and keep quiet about it because the service is better.
‘Why is it not OK for drug companies to make a profit while it is OK for newspapers to make a profit? Can't have it both ways.’
Because people do not die from the lack of a newspaper or nor do they go broke trying to buy one every day.
‘Name-calling is now considered "reasoned discourse"?’
Apparently. Nice bar-lowering, GOP!
‘Aside from being an ad-hominem attack on Bush (without substantiation I might add),’
Waah! No fair!
‘…it is nothing more than your biased personal opinion.’
No, I can substantiate it. If a ‘fool’ is, as defined by Webster’s, ‘a person lacking in judgment or prudence’, ‘prudence’ being to show due care for future events, then Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was foolish thus, QED, he is a fool.
‘He is not an eloquent speaker and has made plenty of gaffes for sure, but he far from a "fool".’
What intelligent decisions did he make?
‘He is not unlike Obama in that respect. Obama has made plenty of gaffes too, and without his teleprompter Obama is not very eloquent either.’
Oh no! The telepromtper! Too much Hannity for you! All president use a teleprompter, silly – the difference with Bush and Obama is Bush made his gaffes while reading the teleprompter.
‘Try counting the number of "uh"s in an impromptu Obama statement.’
He’s not perfect, but when Obama goes ‘Uh’ it’s generally because he’s thinking of an answer which will be politically and diplomatically sound – after all, he has what’s left of the GOP ready to go ‘Gotcha!’ at every turn. When Bush did it, however, it was because he was trying to remember words – any words – that might form a coherent sentence, a mission that failed more often than not.
I remember Hannity being pulled up once for saing something so singularly dumb that even he was embarrassed, but he said ‘well, ‘y’know, we…we…broadcasters sa a lot of words etc etc…’. So it was OK for him to get it wrong but no one else, although it is the height of irony for Hannity to criticize anyone for being inarticulate.
And you might well bitch about the teleprompter but I distinctly remember Bush wearing a wire with an earpiece for his ‘debate’ with Kerry, a story the NYT saw fit to sit on until AFTER the election. Grr! Stoopid Lib’rul media!
‘If Obama's last press conference was any indication, then... yes.’
Not the corporate media, silly – the LEFT!
‘Well, I guess that depends on how you define the term "mainstream", doesn't it? The commonly accepted definition of "mainstream" is: "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence." Thus, if the prevailing current or direction of news outlets is in one direction (eg., NPR, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, BBC, WaPo, NYT, LAT, TIME, AP, etc.), and FoxNews or the NY Post is going in a different direction, then... I guess they aren't "mainstream" are they? Thus, my analogy of the salmon swimming upstream.’
OK then, fine, Fox and the NY Post et al are right-wing extremists.
‘Au contraire!... Fox has made a concerted effort at "balanced" coverage which has attempted to provide equal time for opposing points of view (even if they don't agree with those views). One study showed that by far the "most balanced" news show on TV was FoxNews "Special Report w/ Brit Hume" (now "Special Report w/ Brett Baier").’
Ho ho ho. This is satire, yes? The only reason FOX has POVs they don’t agree with is to ridicule and abuse them, and if the going gets tough they just pull the plug before completely dismissing them and catapulting their own propaganda. This is not ‘balanced’ reporting.
‘WaPo's own ombudsman, Deborah Howell, said that in the year leading up to the presidential election, WaPo's coverage had a clear "tilt" in favor of Obama. In every category, Obama was favored over his rival: number of photos, size of photos, stories for, stories against, overall number of stories, op-ed pieces, etc. She also said that there was a "lack of probing issues coverage" and a "gaping hole in coverage [of] Joe Biden".’
‘Young black newcomer brought up by grandmother on foodstamps runs for POTUS’ is a bigger story than ‘Old white long-time incumbent brought up by rich establishment parents runs for POTUS.’ Sorry, but there it is. If newspap ers are driven by profit then they must decide what will sell more papers, and that’s what they did. Capitalism at work.
Instead of whining that you were unfairly treated, you might like to consider what it is was you were trying to sell – four more years of disastrous policy – and take some responsibility. You are all for the free market, but when an entity makes a market-based decision over what will increase their profits that is not in your favour you complain.
Strange, isn’t it, that when the MSM were all over Bush in 2000 and 2004 you were fine about it.
Ah, facts – doncha just love ‘em? Or not. Depending.
Cheers
Elroy
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home