So why is Obama doing such a poor job, and getting away with it? Because he can, courtesy of a complicit media and an American populace with a very short attention span. Case in pointing is the recent call by Obama to put recently laid off teachers, and other public sector employees back to work. Well, the reason why they are being laid off in the first place is because the 2009 stimulus money is drying up, which was a temporary fix to begin with, but the administration won’t remind you of that and neither will the media. They both know that many people will fall for another temporary fix and they can get away with demogoging this issue one more time for political gain. Second case in point is the Bush tax rate cuts, which now should be called the Obama tax rate cuts. While the administration and the media continue to blame those rate cuts for the deficits, many people have forgotten that in December of 2010, Obama and a democratically controlled congress chose to extend those rate cuts, but again, they won’t remind you of that.
Maybe the most egregious example of this grand hoodwink the media and the administration are playing on America, is the Administration line that North America only has 2% of the worlds oil reserves. That is an entirely skewed number based only on identified reserves with completed EIS studies that have already been planned for extraction. The fact is, North America has nearly equal the crude reserves that Saudi Arabia has, as is being discovered with the Baaken Fields in North Dakota. There are many other examples of the media laying cover for this president – remember “shovel ready jobs”? By Obama’s own admission, those jobs “weren’t so shovel ready”, but that is of course assuming that Obama knew what he was talking about? It is past the time we demand that not only our elected officials be more competent and honest, but we must also demand that from the media. The lengths to which our media has promoted and provided cover for this president should possibly be investigated, and should certainly serve to inform future generations on how not to conduct themselves as journalists.
More media cover for the Obama administration. The media will gladly give time to Nuns and Priests that support the regimes efforts, but ignore the lawsuits and the protests. ABC, CBS, and NBC stayed true to their liberal slant and ignored the 164 rallies across the United States on Friday against the federal government’s abortifacient/birth control mandate under ObamaCare.
Blogs For Victory 
America and Ubama
great video commentary Bill Whittle
As stated in the post “…is the Bush tax rate cuts, which now should be called the Obama tax rate cuts” is correct; however, all this administration wants to expire is on the upper income earners–if they were even close to honest then let all of them expire and the so called “poor” will have some skin in the game again ~ not much with the EIC and other schemes but some. We are well overdue for the FAIR or FLAT tax. Time to push that when the Republicans take control again.
The alphabet soup networks can ignore all they want. The new media is taking their place more and more. Even small blogs like B4V are playing their part on where people get information from.
Conservative talk radio is more popular than ever. Fox beats out all it’s competitor combined for cable news.
msnbc, cnn are bleeding viewers. To the point of being irrelevant. Let them continue on their way.
“Demogoging” isn’t really a word. Demagoguing or demagoging are both acceptable. The point is that while demos is Greek for people and hence people’s rule is democracy when one is leading the people, people is an object. In that case it will be dema with an ‘a’.
The whole complicit media notion is past its prime and attacking the general electorate is itself a way of assuring/leading the true believers that they are the chosen few with the true knowledge of how the world works. This impassioned form of appeal is almost the definition of demagoguery. Data show instead that a small minority of Americans watch CBS, PBS, CNN and the like. Far more are watching Fox News. Unless by the complicit media in bed with Obama you mean American Idol.
Obama can get away with his nonsense because the GOP has not presented itself as substantially different on the issues critical to the majority of the electorate. Same war policies plus or minus, similar attitudes toward crony capitalism, minuscule differences on states rights which is why both Romney and Obama favor keeping 100,000+ nonviolent marijuana users in prison.
Already the pundits have pronounced that the election will come down to 5-7 toss up states. If I’m not in one of those 7 the parties have said they’ll give it the old college try but don’t count on too much attention. No reason for Romney to even try in California or NY, no reason for Obama to convince people in TX that he should remain president.
Newt is right about 1 thing. If your ideas are better, they are better and you should be able to sell them everywhere. If Romney isn’t trying to win California, he isn’t that different.
dolf, surely you realize that “media” is the plural form of “medium” and therefore means all the various mediums, if you will excuse the use of that word, of mass communication. So the “media” include not just TV networks but newspapers and magazines as well as radio.
So your comment that more people watch Fox than PBS and cable networks is pretty irrelevant, as Fox has nowhere near the national coverage of NBC, ABC, CBS, Time and Newsweek, other magazines such as Vanity Fair, and most of the newspapers in the US.
If you want to argue that these media do not promote Leftist agendas then do so, but to simply declare that they do not have a large enough audience to matter (or whatever it is you are trying to say) is just plain silly.
Your comment on issues is precisely why I encourage people to pay less attention to issues and more to underlying ideology. An issue can be adopted during an election cycle, it can be hijacked by the other party, it can morph into something else, it can be misrepresented and, yes, demagogued, and in general I find “issues” to clutter up the process of electing the best people to run the country.
No reason for Romney to even try in California or NY, no reason for Obama to convince people in TX that he should remain president.
Now why do you think this is stool? I don’t think it is because of the lack of differences between the parties, because unlike you, I do see differences – currently BIG differences.
I think the reason why the voters in CA mainly vote democrat is because of the years, if not decades, of brainwashing on behalf of the democrats and certainly the media. I don’t think most people in CA even care about underlying ideology, as Amazona alluded to, rather they vote for the person that promises them the most, and that would usually be the democrat, who would also be supported by the media.
So do people in red states mainly vote Republican due to years, if not decades, of brainwashing? After all, voting Republican isn’t working out too well for them, so why would they keep doing it, right?
And whining about “agenda media” without even once pointing out that Fox News is the dictionary definition of the term puts you on shaky ground. You might want to think about that the next time you’re tempted to make an emotional outburst public like this.
I do agree with you, though, that listening to Republicans and extending the Bush tax cuts was a bad move on Obama’s part. That’s a compromise he shouldn’t have made.
After all, voting Republican isn’t working out too well for them, so why would they keep doing it, right?
You are not wrong about Republicans, but electing a “conservative” does result in positive changes. Just ask the property owners of WI.
You might want to think about that the next time you’re tempted to make an emotional outburst public like this.
This is an over used childish liberal ploy. You have proven yourself to be a joke Dave.
By the way Fox has more liberals on it than all other media outlets have conservatives combined. And sine Pelosi ran the House in Dec. 2010, Reid ran the Senate in Dec. 2010, and Obama was in the WH, there was NO compromise needed to extend the tax rates, They did all by themselves, they are just to weak to own it.
You’re a simple minded man Dave.
Sorry Dave, but when every one of your posts is based on a hyperemotional knee-jerk loathing of all you foolishly think of as “the Right” you are the last one to lecture others on what you need to redefine as THEIR emotionalism, being unable to counter what was said.
It’s really quite amusing to see you so bumfuddled that you have to revert to the tired and transparent ploy of simply dismissing what someone says as hysterical, over-emotional, or a rant. You seem to think that by rebranding a calm and objective commentary in such terms you can get away with not being able to address it on its merits.
Wrong.
When someone like you tries this what you are really saying is “Amazona, you win—I can’t rebut what you said so all I can do is try to dismiss you as a person.” And we already knew that.
And thanks for the gratuitous Fox slam—it’s always fun to see you guys strut your ignorance, your total lack of understanding of the difference between news and opinion. Fox has opinion people who openly identify themselves as such, and Fox also presents objective news. Just because you guys can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean a thing. What gets you so upset is the presentation of news that you don’t want people to hear, which you automatically redefine as bias.
When have the following admitted that their shows and interviews are not news or objective journalistic reporting but are part of highly biased opinion shows? Diane Sawyer, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Charlie Rose—just to name a small handful of people who somehow never manage to admit that they are presenting what fits into their own opinions and agendas. On the other hand, O’Reilly and Hannity and Beck and Hewitt and the other conservative talk show hosts are quite open and candid about being, not news shows but opinion shows, and coming from a conservative perspective.
Dave, that’s supposed to be “media ARE”. Didn’t you read my post, above, in which I clearly state that the word “media” is the plural of “medium”? Or did you just not understand it?
Yes, some of the media ARE, now, a little harder on Obama than they are on Romney. A little. Finally. Some because they are objective enough to know that last time they backed a loser and put themselves on the line to do so and now want to distance themselves from their lack of journalistic integrity, some because the failures of the Obama administration are just too blatant to keep ignoring, some for other reasons or combinations of all.
BUT….look at the lack of interest in Obama’s history in the Complicit Agenda Media. Stations that eagerly howled after Bush based on undocumented, unsupported, faked data that no document examiner would certify have somehow lacked any curiosity at all about how an admitted stoner, admitted scholastic slacker, managed to get into not one but two prestigious Ivy League colleges, and who paid for his time there. The same Agenda Media that compared Bush’s grades to Kerry’s (until it was learned that Bush’s were better) couldn’t care less about Barry’s grades. Look at the lack of investigative journalism regarding Fast and Furious, the radical Leftist commitments of Obama’s closest advisors, his ongoing relationship with Bill and Bernadine Ayers, even his admitted drug use.
It’s not just about Obama. Any intelligent person can see this.
As you rant on, baying at the moon but never getting beyond insults and sneers, I find it fascinating that you are so willing to play the fool and illustrate your ignorance and your total lack of interest in fact or truth. It paints quite a picture of you.
By the way, Dave, what you preen about as being “stung” was really just a very little prick.
Dave, while you seem to be preening about your self-perceived putdowns and your conviction that you have backed us into corners with your stunning rhetoric, in fact every post of yours does nothing but reinforce the awareness that your reality is quite skewed.
But, rather than continue the bickering that you love so much, let’s get down to facts.
What is your political philosophy and upon what is it based? Maybe you are the one Liberal who can, or will, explain this. So far you have not. And when you are so deeply invested in a political model that you are driven to seek out an opposing blog, such as this one, and spend inordinate amounts of time and energy attacking those who agree with its basic premise, you show a great deal of passion. So tell us, Dave, what you think and why, about how the nation should be governed.
You see, I can do this. I do it all the time. I am not a conservative because it tweaks some emotion on my part. I am a conservative because I have developed, over the years, a solid, objective, unemotional, analytic belief that the Constitution of the United States is the best way to govern this nation. Furthermore, I can support this belief by referencing its historical success, when it has been applied.
If you cannot do the same regarding your Leftist beliefs, then of course I have to assume that those beliefs are not objective, analytical, beliefs but are in fact mere emotion, nothing more than an emotion-based attraction to what you perceive the system offers and an even deeper emotional loathing for its opposition.
Furthermore, your insistence that your presence here stirs some deep emotional response is patently silly and self-serving. Speaking for myself, I can only say that your presence, and your contributions, are so shallow and superficial that my emotional response is no more intense than it is to an annoying mosquito.
The closest I have gotten to an emotional response to anything you have ever said is disgust when you lie. And your rhetoric is so convoluted and strange, attributing your own mentality to others and misstating what is said, it is often hard to tell if you are lying or just plain stupid.
An example: “Now, if you would like to calm down and explain how any news outlet that says something you don’t want to hear is part of some wide-ranging “bias,” feel free to give it a shot.”
First, I have never been anything but calm when talking to you, in spite of your egomaniacal determination that for some reason you stir strong feelings in me.
Second, you are attributing something to me that I never said.
I said that YOU redefine anything YOU don’t like as bias.
Why won’t, or can’t, you answer my question? Here it is again.
When have the following admitted that their shows and interviews are not news or objective journalistic reporting but are part of highly biased opinion shows? Diane Sawyer, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Charlie Rose—just to name a small handful of people who somehow never manage to admit that they are presenting what fits into their own opinions and agendas. On the other hand, O’Reilly and Hannity and Beck and Hewitt and the other conservative talk show hosts are quite open and candid about being, not news shows but opinion shows, and coming from a conservative perspective.
I know you love to play Junior Shrink, coming up with all sorts of pseudo-analysis of people, particularly me, but you seem quite oblivious to the message inherent in your sad, desperate, pathetic need to feel that other people have strong feelings about you, and react strongly to what you post.
“Already the pundits have pronounced that the election will come down to 5-7 toss up states.”
Why do you believe the pundits? Because that is the conventional wisdom? Because it is the polls? I am going to say that just about every state in the union is in a toss up stage right now. Barky keeps bleeding support because of his big mouth . Mitt could stumble and loose support rapidly.
While the marijuana issue is not high on my agenda, I do believe this issue needs to be addressed along with others, and it needs to addressed now. We are spending way too much money at every level of government to keep this up.
It is my opinion Bardolf, that if anything is going to done on this issue it will done on the right side of the isle. Conservatives and libertarians don’t agree on a lot of issues but we can work together. We can compromise.
We need to work to elect politicians at the local and state levels who remember why they were elected in the first place. Those politicians also need to know that if they don’t keep their word, they will be unelected, next time around.
dbschmidt
if they were even close to honest then let all of them expire and the so called “poor” will have some skin in the game again
the whole Bush tax cuts for the rich is absolute BS
FORTY SEVEN PERCENT of americans pay NO federal tax.
how the hell can they be screaming about anything???
OOH thats right MORE….OPM….for THEM!!!!
Neo,
Exactly what I meant–if they want to let the “Bush Tax Cuts” expire then let all of them expire and put that 47% back on the tax paying side of the equation–not just living off OPM.
baldork
Years ago NY decriminalized marijuana possession for one ounce or less. $25. for first offense, $75.00 second and $150.00 there after, just a ticket like a traffic ticket for possession, no crime.
driving under the influence same as alcohol.
I would support that here in Fla, although I never inhaled in NY…ahem.
dbschmidt
absolutely, a flat tax where ALL pay and ALL pay the same rate, or like we have in Fla a sales tax ALL pay and ALL pay the same rate.
NO freeloaders, you buy a $75K car 7%
you bu a $1500.00 clunker $7% both paid but the rich man paid MUCH more.
fair and balanced.
WOW
drudge…….
DEFICIT DOUBLES IN YEAR
OT
The LYNCHING continues
Shellie Zimmerman, wife of
Trayvon Martin killer, George Zimmerman arrested on perjury chargeyet NO charges for al, je$$e on riot incitement
NO charges against the black panthers for murder plots and hits.
and this is with an ALLEGED GOP governor and a supposedly GOP prosecutor.
We are in a DIRE need of a THIRD party and ditch all these POS cretins.
I would agree with the flat tax. As long as EVERYONE pays the same rate regardless of income levels. Also, as long as a flat tax comes with a repeal of the 16 Amendment and a new one put in it’s place that heavily restricts Congress’s ability to raise it at whim.
We have got to go back being a Republic for the people, by the people, and of the people. Instead of a Republic of the government, by the government, for the government
If we don’t we could be facing a doubling of the deficit in a years time.
Oh wait. See #47040
Mittins? are you listening to this man?
We ARE………
So why is Obama doing such a poor job, and getting away with it? Because he can, courtesy of a complicit media and an American populace with a very short attention span.?
and loud mouthed hate mongering henchmen like this asshat howie dean
“When people say that Mitt Romney wants to take us back to the fifties they’re not talking about the 1950s, they’re talking about the 1850s with the Know-Nothing Party,” Dean said in one of the few dry jokes amid a speech littered with attacks. “Does anyone remember the Know-Nothing Party? They hated immigrants, they didn’t like Catholics, they didn’t like Jews — they didn’t like anybody.
“They didn‘t like gay people but they didn’t believe gay people existed,” Dean continued to rant. “You know there was some– I think there was President Ahmadinejad back in those days back in 1850, they’d like maybe that again–I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT but let them go someplace else and stop doing it to us because our country is a great country.”
He also took jabs at the Supreme Court (which he said “sells the United States to the highest bidder”), Mitt Romney, (who Deans says thinks that cutting teachers is a job creating program), as well as “the Tea Party and the hate-wing of the Republican Party.”
An important message to President Obama’s supporters
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر
رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم
خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست
نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيستنور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خير ه ما نقش سايه دگر
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر
رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم
خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست
نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر
رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم
خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست
نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر
رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم
خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست
نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر
رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ن نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم
خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست
نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر
If I hear more, I’ll let you know.
What have you got against Panamainians??
GMB, (bad boy extraordinaire)
did you watch the video?
great video commentary Bill Whittle
Yes, I watched the vid Neo. I hope Mr. West means what he says. It would be welcome news to think that the repubs are “just getting started”
Overall a good statement.
“(bad boy extraordinaire)” Me a bad boy?? LOLzer
I am in good company. 😛
BTW here is the missing (t) for 47049. I hope the letter migration season has not ended. That (t) might get lonely if it is stuck here.
🙂
not west vid although it is great
the second one from the top labeled a great vid….
Can’t disagree with anything that Mr. Whittle said. I got no quibble with Whittle.
I believe that conservatives are going to be coming out of woodwork to get rid of barky. Hell, even here in Illinois I see a chance of Mitt winning this state.
I am generally not worried about the election. I am worried about what happens afterwards. All that compromising stuff don’t ya know.
SSDD
Tommy A. is dat you?