Is media matters still on Taxpayer funding? The site openly says "dedicated to fighting Conservative misinformation" - it openly identifies as having a liberal agenda - how can they qualify as tax exempt?
So what? Michael Savage is a big boy he can take it, and he talks enough sh*t himself so if Savage can't take it back then he's a pussy.
Plus Savage is a whiny f@ggot for the most part, and lots of his fans are retards, the only time Savage is usually funny is when he's not talking politics. Mark Levin's way cooler and more intelligent.
Yeah but Savage bashes every conservative, Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Levin, etc. I was a little harsh on Savage though, I've listened to more of him and he's smarter than he first appeared to be.
How? It's just a leftist propaganda site that "tells you what to think". They just search for any comment by conservatives they can find (90% of which are totally unoffensive, or no worse than anything you'd hear from liberals daily), and try to generate phony outrage. All they do is post clips and claim they're "offensive", it might as well be a fundamentalist website.
@Elvishairdude89 I highly disagree, sir. They post the clips in full context from the folks they are posting, I've never seen anything out of context. As far as phony outrage, that's your boy Mark over here. Crying over "offensive" jokes by....Jon Stewart? Really? Wow, talk about drumming up phony outrage. Now you want to see propaganda? Go check out NewsBusters. They think liberal bias is the institution of salad bars in public schools. Whooooo, so scarryyyyy.
Here's an example of Media Matters dishonesty - awhile back O'Reilly did a segment on union violence - at one point he mentioned Wisconsin protestors by name, but he repeatedly mentioned that his was about union violence *all over the country* - then he showed a segment of some Florida union thugs with palm trees in the background.
MM then lied and claimed Fox had said the Florida footage was from Wisconsin. MM is promoting leftist agenda on our tax dollars.
@Elvishairdude89 Ah, I remember that segment. He was talking about nationwide violence. But on more than one FOX program, the commentators claimed that clip was in Wisconsin. It wasn't until after they were called out tthat they retracted. I happen to remember that story. Mm wasn't the only one who called him out on that.
But they actually didn't claim it happened in Wisconsin - that's where the spin was. The liberal blogs all reported that Fox said it was footage from Wisconsin, but Fox never said that - Fox just made general comments about "union violence in Wisconsin AND other states" and aired the clip.
@Elvishairdude89 See this is where it gets slippery. They particularly showed a violent clip in an unnecessary fashion. They could have just shown people marching, they chose to show conflict to put the protest in a bad light. Secondly, ask yourself this: Why would they have shown that clip if they weren't trying to imply it was Wisconsin? Even with some vague comment about nationwide protests. See, you're not going to sell me on this idea that it wasn't an act of deception for one reason (c0nt)
@Elvishairdude89 This isn't the first time FOX News was busted using protest footage from a separate event to perpetuate a current event. In fact, Sean Hannity had to to admit that it was a "Mistake" (but it's easy to tell he was lying) and apologize after Jon Stewart (of all people) called him on his bullshit. You really can't defend a station that has a history of doing this. And MM is a tax exempt organization, not a tax-subsidized agency. The two are not the same thing man.
@Elvishairdude89 By the way, most partisan websites come off as fundamentalist in some form or another. Whether its MMFA, Huffingtonpost, DailyKos on the left. Or whether it's NewsBusters, FreeRepublic, or BigGovernment on the right. So I'd be careful with that word propaganda sir. Such a term can only be used rightfully, not just because you don't like something. Have a nice night.
@IHateStaleCrackers Uh, they're getting tax breaks for being "unbiased and nonprofit", and they're supporting a side of the political spectrum and line their pockets with exorbitant amounts of money from said bias. That's what's wrong.
Pure demagoguery, anyone who takes this ugly little crackpot seriously is really demented. If Media Matters is a criminal org, then Levin is a mass murderer
Oh, that's right... those were all legal because there were weapons of mass destruction and removing of a dictator, right? Yeah, great excuse they gave for their war crimes, didn't they? Mother fucking genius.
@LibertyInProgress There was WMD... Saddam's son in law was murdered for revealing it. All of it went to Syria and your Botoxed bitch Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to discuss it. She was told point blank... "Attempt to take out a second Ba'athist regime and we will send 1,000's of scuds filled with WMD at Israel."
@avataz The great one? Really? This moron doesn't even know the difference between a subsidy and a tax exemption... what an imbecile!!! He also knows NOTHING about economics... I was listening to him get OWNED by one of his callers about economics and all "the gay one" could do was to further put his ignorance on display, showing everyone that he doesn't even know the difference between the net and the gross. Levin is NOTHING more than Sean Hannity's cabin boy!
@Mattwolf1186 - In fact, Levin owes his time slot at WABC - in fact, his entire show - due to the time in Summer 2003 when Savage left San Francisco station KSFO for rival KNEW - and WABC, in retaliation, dropped "The Savage Nation" (only for that show to be picked up by WOR which runs it to this day).
QueenDingaLing! How's my favorite RepubliCon spammer? Still trying to convince people that Chris Monckton is a scientist? When is your boy John Coleman gonna file his lawsuit against Al Gore? He's been crowing about it for over 2 years. What's the holdup? Just more bullshit from the Teabaggers at Faux News? According to his press secretary, Reagan bowed to lotsa people including Hirohito, King Fahd & Queen Elizabeth. Of course by 1983 Reagan was so senile he didn't know who he was bowing to.
This guy kinda lies a bit, media matters, does not claim to be unbiased, it simply is stated to be a progressive organization committed to correcting conservative lies in the media. They state this on their "about us" page on their webpage. What makes it tax exempt is that it is a "non profit organization", much like "Focus on the Family" or "Freedom Works" or any of the other non profit conservative organizations that exist. Just facts people, nothing to argue about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mark Levin and the other Lee Atwater like Neo-Conservative pundits on WABC radio are the worst example of humans on the face of the planet. The public has just been mugged by an unregulated Wall St, and Marks answer to the problem is less govt. There is no mystery here Mr. Levin has a job to do on the public, and that is to confuse and misinform. His tools are fear, hatred and distorted morality. He gets paid well but his followers, like the rest of us get mugged.
Little Mark Levin is just another whiney Republican titty baby who's still upset that Bungler McCain and Carribou Barbie got thumped by Obama and Biden in the last election. What a pathetic little clown.
Youre still running your mouth huh? hahaha... There are punks in this world who are here to get punked I guess.... Did you ever figure out who Reagan bowed too? And tell me about what Phil Jones said again... HAHAh... "No statistically significant rise in temperature since 1995"? How about when he said he often thinks about killing himself Atlas? TELL me about it old Scrub.
Media matters is a fucking joke that only the sheeple of this country listen to, and are to ill informed to make a decision for themselves. The type of people that if you told them the sky was falling, they would run in the house and hide without even looking up at the sky to see if it was true!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The point is, Mr. Levin is a great American and he works very, very hard to soften his beard and chin hair to make sure Sean Hannity's nuts are as comfortable as possible while they lay there.
Indeed, Levin is a fool. Media Matters is agonizingly scrupulous in providing the context of right-wing comments ... most often boringly so. There is no "left" left in America ... the likes of Levin are so far to the "right" that the true center appears to be the "left." Why do I say this? Because the true left wants government to own and run all businesses. No one says that. In fact our fascist-leaning government now gives $ to banks with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. And these idiots call it socialism.
this guy is a fool. the right believes that chris matthews is liberal. Media matters has a whole list of chris matthews stuff. so, his matthews left or right to you people?
Um...wrong! This guy is just spewing opinion with no fact! It's not "being caught" if there's no "there" there. Media Matters, on the other hand, does nothing but show the ACTUAL clips of the media, IN FULL CONTEXT, showign them telling their lies. So if you have a problem with media matters, then you have a problem with the ACTUAL lies told by the right-wing media.
Media Matters takes what is said by both liberals and conservatives and posts it online, calling both when they lie or become hypocritical. The people who have been caught in their own web start to scream about Media Matters when they're caught.
Can any of the stunning right-wing brains here show a single instance of a Media Matters report that is anything other than a complete and *unedited* transcript?
No?
Conservatives are brilliant. They think that merely *repeating to the world what they say* is "biased reporting".
This question is easy enough to determine. Just show me a single Media Matters post that "cut up" any of the transcriptions it has presented. I've been waiting a long time for such a demonstration...
The piece on Limbaugh/Corsi talking bout Obama's abortion voting record was an excerpt and was accurate. Obama did vote in favor three times of doctors killing fetus's that survived abortions.
DEMOCRATS = KILL THE INNOCENT, FREE THE GUILTY
REPUBLICANS = SAVE THE INNOCENT, PROSECUTE THE GUILTY
Yes, Republicans were hugely concerned about the tens of thousands of innocent lives their war has eliminated in Iraq.
Oh, wait -- I forgot that those people were born and had histories (which makes them somehow more expendable than a fetus) -- and they're not white people, so they must be evil in some way...
er... How did he answer the question, exactly? By changing the subject?
The question was: Can you show me a single Media Matters article that edits or changes conservatives' words? That's the point of Media Matters: They present all quotations in their *entire*, unedited context.
This is why conservatives hate them. Anything that simply reveals the inarguable facts of the matter is "liberal". It's the same reason the Church complains that science is inherently "liberal".
If you can't figure it out, I'm not gonna help you. You need to use that dictionary I told you to get, as well as some critical thinking skills. I will, however, give you more information to answer your question in case even that is too difficult.
Go over to FrontPageMag. com, use their search engine and type in "Media Matters: Hillarys Lap Dogs", and read. Try not to let your liberal bias prevent you from reading it.
Remember, use the dictionary in case you're having trouble ;).
You insist on changing the subject. Ok, no problem. Hillary has given money to Media Matters? Ok then! Great point!
Now, shall we go back to the original question, which you have avoided five or six times now? The simple question is: Can you or anyone else show me a single Media Matters posting that "edits" or "distorts" the conservative speeches and writing that it exhibits?
All they do is post conservative commentary in its full context, with no editing. Please prove otherwise.
Leo: Media Matters is a Left wing hack machine. They provide slanted data and talking points for Talking Heads on the Left.
It doesn't mean everything they put out is incorrect. In fact, most of it is technically correct...but deliberately misleading. Statistics parsed to present a particular point of view, quotes taken out of context, etc. I'm sure there are Right wing entities doing the same thing.
BTW, your comment that people who aren't white are evil is bullshit. And you know it.
JohnR: you clearly have never read Media Matters. They parse "statistics"? What are you talking about? They don't traffic in statistics at all. All they do is re-print right-wing transcripts *in their entirety*. Nobody who has looked at the site would be dumb enough to say they show quotes "out of context." The whole point of the site is that they print the *full* context of everything. Otherwise it would be no different from a blog.
Just look at it once before you make your opinion.
leo: Here's how Media Matters describes themselves:
"Nonprofit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media".
It's all one-way by their own admission. They present a one-sided view that's biased and exaggerated.
BTW, love the "progressive". "Liberal" is such a loathed and discredited label they now use "progressive". lol. Not ONE think progressive about them.
You're not thinking about what you're saying. Nobody is arguing that they don't focus on conservatives. Only you have brought up that subject, because you're trying to avoid the original question:
How can the act of showing the *entirely unedited* transcript of a conservative broadcast constitute a "biased" treatment of that transcript?
If I simply repeat what you say -- entirely, and without editing -- how am I being "unfair" to you?
Leo: 1/3: Ok. Presenting an entirely unedited transcript cannot be biased. If they've done this, I can't dispute it.
What I can dispute is an example I found on MM after browsing for 30 senconds. Check out the article titled Dobbs falsely claimed 40%of workers dont pay taxes.
In an attempt to bolster the legitimacy of Obamas promise to cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, MM is trying to discredit Dobbs. The Reps/Dobbs contention is Obamas plan is a fig leaf for expanded welfare
Leo: 2/3: Giving an income tax refund to people who pay zero income tax cannot be defined as a tax refund. Its actually income redistribution in the form of a check, aka welfare.
MMs position (same as Obamas, surprise, surprise) is that because people paying zero income tax DO pay social security, excise tax, gas tax, etc. that Obamas tax cut is not a form of welfare. BS! An income tax refund, which you get after filing your taxes in April, is a refund of a portion of the income tax
JohnR -- 2/2: It makes no mathematical or economic difference whether you say the tax credit is a "bonus" on top of the zero income tax for those 40%, or whether you say it's a reduction of all the other taxes they pay. Money is just money; the labels you put on a stack of money have no reality. Obama's plan will have the effect of reducing the total taxes people pay -- that's inarguable.
leo: I don't disagree with your analysis, but I find it humerous that for the first time the Dems are drawing attention to the fact that Income Taxes are the least of the myriad taxes we face.
As Chris Matthews said, "let's just admit it; the Dems raise taxes".
And, if the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, where does it stop? The answer is, it doesn't stop until ALL income has been redistributed to the point where the Walmart greeter makes the same as the attorney.
JohnR - Well, what would it matter if Republicans tax less -- when they spend far *more* tax dollars than Dems do? Remember that the biggest spenders in US history were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So the only difference is that Dems *pay* for their gov't spending, whereas Repubs do not -- they just borrow from our children, who will be living in poverty for the Republican spending party.
leo: So the top 20% own 85% of the wealth. What portion of the jobs do they create? I know the top 5% pay 60% of the income taxes too. Your socialistic argument punishes those who produce the most and subsidizes those who contribute the least. A long term recipe for disaster.
But, you're right about Rep spending. Tax cuts don't help GDP growth nearly as much as if we cut govt spending. I say downsize the govt by 1/4 through vertical cuts, entitlement reform, and reduced military spending.
Stop and think: Who's doing the producing, exactly? The laborer who actually creates the product or provides the service should at least be given *half* the credit for the "production" (if not most of it, as I would think).
The wealth the country creates, which allows for new jobs, is created mostly by the labor that actually does the producing. Like all Republicans, you're confusing the act of shifting paper around (e.g., paper mortgage securities) with real products and real services.
JohnR: You say income gets "redistributed" to the poor. I say income gets redistributed to the rich through corporate welfare and all the other kickbacks only available to the country club crew.
We can see who's right just by looking out the window, at reality. The reality is that no industrialized nation has a greater gap between rich and poor than the US. For decades, wealth has been flowing from the middle class to the wealthy. 85% of all U.S. wealth is owned by 20% of the population.
leo: Ahh, the Leftist argument that we're just one big collective and nobody really "earns" anything themselves. A guy starts a business and over 30 yrs grows it and becomes a millionaire, but it doesn't really belong to him because it was the society (the collective) which enabled him to achieve it in the first place.
I utterly reject this line of thinking, as I reject the "income disparity" argument. As long as those at the bottom have the basics I don't care if we have a large income gap.
I'm a big fan too of the guy who started his business and is now a millionaire. But the vast majority of the aristocrats we're talking about inherited their money -- and/or they inherited the money and the legacy that got them into college.
And if you accept the fact of the unprecedented and unparalleled income gap in this country (among developed nations), then you admit there isn't any kind of "income redistribution" in the US, unless you mean the bleeding of the middle class for the wealthy.
leo: If you look at people who are rich (say over $1M in net worth), I'll bet my pension that 98% of them earned it themselves. I don't think inherited wealth is a significant factor...especially when you realize the inheritance tax's top rate was 70% from about 1940-75.
And yes, I understand our income gap is the greatest among industrial nations; what I'm trying to avoid is a Dem regime that uses income redistribution to solve something I don't view as a problem in the first place.
Wrong. Most people in America, rich or poor, have worked for that distinction. Some not as hard as others. Some not as efficiently as others. Everyone has the ability to make of themselves what they want. Thats the beauty of this country. Very few have inherited their wealth. And if they did, SO WHAT!. The one they inherited from obviously worked hard for the money and if he/she wants to pass it down to their family, its their God given American RIGHT!
Like most Republicans, your statistical understanding is demonstrably wrong. The vast majority of wealth in the US is inherited. The rags-to-riches scenario that you think is the norm is quite rare, statistically.
And what is it that these Ivy-league wealthy kids do for a living, after they've inherited their wealth. Most of the "work" they do is in financial services -- that is, inventing the bad-mortgage packages that they pretended were assets -- and which you're now paying for.
And like most liberals, you think you can legislate whether they deserve it or not and how much of it belongs to YOU or the GOVT. Inherited or not, its their money, provided by a relative or friend who has the right to give it to them.
The bad mortgages fiasco was propagated by people like Barny's Frank and Feinstein and company. They chaired those rules committees and as late as 05 were saying how ":stable" those institutions were under Dem leadership. They gave loans to poor ppl. blame them!
Holding Wall Street accountable for their own crimes = legislating their money away?
The problem was not poor people not paying their loans -- the problem was that banks were selling these liabilities as if they were assets.
Home mortgages are only a tiny percentage of the "bad paper" floating out there. This bad paper was created by your heroes, the wealthy trust-fund children who have never done a real day's work in their lives.
a Utopian state, so that people will feel compelled to vote for them. But where has that gotten us? Since The New Deal and The Great Society, entitlements and welfare have only grown every year since its creation. Seems as if the liberal mantra of Dems being what the poor and oppress NEED to escape their conditions were true, (war on poverty)then by now, we shouldnt have a poor class. Or it should definitely be smaller in size. But thats not so. Liberal programs lock people in. Job security.
Its amazing how Democrats are NEVER to blame. Incredible. And equally amazing is how Libs always demonize the wealthy as the source of all our problems. Why is that? Dont Libs know that the wealthy are the primary funding party of our economy? That they produce jobs and stimulate growth? Of course they do. But they know that if taxes are lowered, and people are free to pursue their own happiness and rely on themselves, then they wont NEED govt. And Dems need that perception of govt creating ...
er... If you're so worried about the evils of welfare, why aren't you railing against the #1 recipient of government welfare in this country -- massive corporations? Where would huge agrobusiness be without government welfare? Where would the oil companies be? Where would military weapons contractors be -- and their Pentagon partners who *admitted* to somehow "losing" 1 Trillion dollars of our tax money in an 8-year period? (yes: Trillion. I wonder where that money went...? hmm...)
Leo- you dont think the "big bad oil companies" dont pay a shitload of taxes? You think they make 100% profit? Please! They are not the enemy here. How did you get to work/school/church/store today? Did you burn gas doing it? yes.
Im against corporate welfare too. I dont think anyone rich or poor should be getting handouts. I'm not rich, but i dont expect handouts. I work hard for what i have and I could have done better in life, but I chose not to at times. So I deserve wha tI have now.
Wrong, playmayker88. Things have gone downhill since Reagan. So-called "conservative" policies have given us your desired grand dystopia. They're responsible for every major problem in the U.S. Google "Invisible Hand Drops Ball & Economics 101" to see why.
Why not give me a liberal blog to look at? Give me more 1 sided stuff so I can be a moronic drone like you. Let me ask you a question, did the lobodomy hurt at all?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Tacotruck1166 ... Yes, I'm a liberal, but that's not at all what the lying rightwingers maintain; it's the real center, not the "left". Go ahead, google "Invisible Hand Drops Ball & Economics 101" and give me a substantive response. You can't because you're the moron. Pathetic fool.
leo: 3/3: that was collected from you during the year. Anything other than that is income redistribution. Plain and simple.
Thus, my contention that MM is not an honest broker trying to present the full story. Theyre partisan hacks using twisted logic to rationalize Dems positions.
Again, it doesn't mean everything they say is incorrect or misleading. The best way to lie is to surround the "big" lie with minor truths.
JohnR -- 1/2: Your argument is well-articulated. But you're forgetting the basic fact MM is pointing out: that it is simply false to say that 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. They *do* pay taxes, as you point out yourself. So MM's claim is not false. What Dobbs should have said is that the 40% don't pay *income* taxes. You know and I know that there is a political reason that Dobbs needs us to forget all the other taxes those people pay.
Wow -- this guy has never actually read Media Matters. They don't take "snippets" -- they transcribe pages and pages of text without *ever* cutting anything in between.
Only conservatives believe that merely reporting *what conservatives say*, in its unedited entirety, is "biased reporting"...
Media Matters is defintely not an equal reporter. To suggest otherwise is to deny fact--good try at immunity, though. No more tax dollars for these ideologists.
I don't think even you know what you mean by "an equal reporter" (his feet are the same size..?). You might want to look up immunity as well.
If you mean they don't dwell as much on liberal reporting, you're right. But it's obviously and clearly wrong to say that they take things "out of context", as conservatives universally say. They are one of the few sources of *total* unedited context of what conservative idiots say.
My main point is that I feel we have enough socialist aspects to our government. We can take care of the overpopulation of takers (as opposed to makers) and illegal aliens without more.
An African-American acquaintance (Not that it matters to me, but it may to you) of mine recently told me: "In this country, if you follow the rules and conduct yourself accordingly, you write yourself a blank check."
Almost everything that the government gets its hands on turns to shit. King Midas in reverse.
Well first of all you started this whole issue like so many right-wingers using this new redefinition socialism. I HATE when people willfully misuse terms like socialist, marxist, communist, fascism, racism, etc.... against their political adversaries for the purpose of smearing them even if they don't want to admit thats what they were doing.
If you want to solved the immigration problem go after the companies but whats ironic about that is who is against going after the companies the most? The so called "free traders" thats who. Would you call going after the companies that hire the illegals unnecessary "socialist" regulation?
About your "Almost everything that the government gets its hands on turns to shit." While there certainly is some element of truth to that that is the typical right-wing/libertarian hyperbole designed to get people to distrust anything the government does to justify not funding safety net programs. Here is a quote from P. J. O'Rourke thats very relevant here:"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
as far as if the US has enough "socialist" aspects to it right now. As far as helping out the middles and lower class, I don't think so especially now although in certain areas I am sure a pretty good case could be made. What I believe certainly is MUCH MUCH MUCH of a problem MANY MANY MANY times over is that fact the government is no longer a representative democracy but essentially an oligarchy run by the wealthiest corporate interests.
who create jobs for the lower middle class, and who pay a vast majority of the taxes, and who promote economic growth, you think taking more from the rich and giving it too the lower classes is really going to make america a better place to live? Socialism is only a nice thought on paper, if you want it, move to europe, there's plenty of it there. There's also a lot of lazy workers there, just leave america be. We don't like waiting months to get a phones line installed
we don't want to wait months to get into see a doctor for a check-up, we don't want to give 66% of our income to the government! since when has the government ever spent our money well. come on man there are plenty of 'okay' countries to move to if you want socialism. move to the friggin' UK, but we don't want that stuff here, there are pratically no countries left that have as much free market as we do, why can't you let us have it?
NEWSFLASH!! The rich benefit from taxes in so many ways through the taxes that helped build up the Infrastructure of this country (like highways and so forth) and though massive subsidies. You seem to think "wealth distribution" goes downward but you have no idea how much "wealth distribution" goes upward to the wealthy. David Cay Johnston has written extensively on this.
Then to top it all off you go off on this tangent on waiting to see doctors a long time. Did I say where I stood on health care? No I didn't but if I would have to state where I stand on it am not sure but I am leaning to Universal health care because its probably cheaper overall but I know its debatable. Oh and people in the US can wait an awful long time as well in addition to it being very expensive.
By the way companies generally like universal health care because it make it cheaper for them. Also to typecast universal health care all in one way is just ignorant but then again thats all you have when spout just cliched tiresome arguments. also I take it you call medicare and the free health care to vetereans "socialistic"? If so do realize republicans must be socialist too eh?
Oh spare me your typical cliched right-wing talking points. Its the year 2008. If you have not realized it yet Global companies more and mover are not creating jobs but are getting tax breaking for moving jobs abroad. Who makes the actualy products? Who is getting make many more times the average pay of the actual worker all the while worker productivity increases?
you put some thought into your fanboyism, and there is some truth to some of the things you say, but you're getting frustrated, personal, and just starting to split hairs. I'm not here to convince you of anything, I've been working 16 hour days for the past 2 weeks, I don't need this. You call me ignorant and my beliefs cliche based; look at your fucking screen name. I don't need insults to debate; apparently you do. I'm done
atrumdecretum I call you an idiot for a very good reason. In fact your response once again demonstrated what an idiot you are. Why? You say "I don't need insults to debate; apparently you do. " but then you end with "wow man, your debates lead me to believe you suffer from neurosis". You inability to see how contradicted yourself is a testament to your idiocy. Also 5% of the population pays some % of the taxes but how much of the wealth do the control?
You keep saying "all ready." Do you mean "already?"
You don't seem to understand that when the government taxes a corporation in 50 different ways, while subjecting it to more and more regulation, that it may as well be controlling and producing products and services. This is de facto control and ownership.
At least in France and the UK they're honest about it.
Are you really interested in discussing the real issues or would rather play petty games by trying to change the subject on this "already?" crap? I would rather discuss the issues? OK now back to the issues. Where did I say anything about how much taxes corps should have? The only thing in this regard that I absolutely don't want to see is corps getting tax breaks for OUTSOURCING JOBS. BTW tax cuts generally don't pay for themselves but generally lead to bigger debt.
You see like I said people like you define anything that is not 100% laisez fair capitalism as socialist which is total distortion. You're are redefing socialism away from its classic traditional meaning for I suspect political reasons.
continued with Eisenhowers quote: "There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Criminal enterprise? The crazy one wants to stop any dissent from his pogram!
Not that this insane maniac would ever take anything out of context- which he did about twenty times in this clip. This manic is a master of manipulating any opposing view to his "philosophy". I know what this man's "philosopy" is- he paints everyone who opposes his with a broad brush. Everyone is 'stalinist' who disagree's with his McCarthite beliefs. When you fight imaginary monsters, you become a monster.
mrladew... you think that because Levin hold a J.D. he is somehow immune to intellectual dishonesty? Note: George Bush has a Yale degree and he's a moron.
Levin overlooks one of the biggest fears our Founders had with placing the power to start war in the hands of one man. The Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) short-circuits Congressional approval by replacing the Declaration of War with the AUMF... not too fine a point... Levin supports the AUMF in contradiction to the Founder's intent.
and i agree with him, if we have a conflicted congress, and we need to defend our country for whatever reason, i don't think we should have our hands tied behind our back. and if you don't think there no such thing as a congress that can't act, look at how the liberal politicians are at each other's throats. the repubs are guilty of it too, but god every election the democrats are going at each other
Levin is also full of shit about democrats not wanting to count military votes in the 2000 election. They wanted to discount votes that came after the deadline. Funny how Levin hates hacks but not hacks like himself or David Horwitz.
Levin is full of shit about mediamatters being a criminal enterprise. MediaMatters is not being funded through tax dollars. If mediamatters is a criminal enterprise then so is the media research center, Heritage foundation and on and on. Has MRC ever been critial of Rush or hannity? no
ps, we don't hate obama cause he's black, we hate him because he is a radical marxist who is using a majority of the black community and all of you blind liberals, who think "change" is a wonderful thing. It can be, but if you really knew what was going on inside obama's head, you'd be as politically terrified of him as I am. He's got some bad plans for this country, and you libs won't figure it out until after you've elected him. =(
In other words the rights definition of socialism or marxism seems to be anything that is 100% laissez fair capitalist 1 cent distributed downward, guess what? it must be socialist. Give me fucking break. BTW I hope you realize there is A LOT of wealth distribution that goes upward to the benefit of the wealthy.
Liberals: one marxist spreads lies about anything to further their agenda, and the liberal mindset is to suck it up without a shred of question or critical thinking, and spread those same lies to everyone they encounter. You liberals have such one-tracked mindsets, it honestly scares the hell out of me. Because there are enough of you ignorant minions to destroy this country and everything it was founded on. American liberalism is a clique. please get over it, please!
What could you possible have dawned from that paragraph about my understanding of MARXISM. America was founded off the notion that everyone should be in control their own destiny, and that if they work for it, they can generate wealth. Marxism is all about the working class struggle, while communism, it's derivative, always develops the even smaller pecentage of the inner-party, while the citizens, not just the workers, are left to rot, and make FAR less than they would in a capitalist society.
Marxism believes in collectivization and wealth distribution to the point of FORCING a classless society. While liberals, democrats, conservatives, republicans (thats right, conservatives and republicans) ALL believe in some degree ow wealth distribution (its impossible to have some for of a safety net without it) NONE believe of those believe in wealthe distribution/collectivization to the point of trying to FORCE a classless society. Marxism also believes in abolishing private property
That is what I said, although the collective idea is more communistic while marx and engels like to focus on the "struggle of the working class," not the nation's industy but how the people were treated socially and what they represented politically, but it speaks of something that can't exist(not even you "nice" liberals), in any society 'forced' into classlesness, there is always going to be a splinter of the population reaping the benefits. Tell me I'm wrong seriously.
And that is exactly what many of the supporters of Obama want. You don't think people like William Ayers and Obama's (communist) mentor Frank Marshall Davis aren't Marxists?
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. It is complete ignorance (or maybe propaganda on your part) to think Obama supporters ("many" as you put it) want marxism which advocates the elimination of private property and private enterprise. Those types I guarrantee will have NOTHING to do with ANYONE in the Democratic party. Those types view Democrats as total sellouts. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I already told you, anyone with that sentiment, isn't going come out tomorrow and say, "hey let's abolish free market." come on dude seriously that's not an argument. Their actions support our accusation.
There is NO politician in each of the major two parties that wants to abolish the free market. To such otherwise is to reveal your own irrational nutty paranoia
No US is not socialist. They have capitalist mixes economy. Does the government make cars? Does the government make food? Does the government make computers and on and on and on. No corps do that so stop with your delusion please.
one other question. If in theory if there was a total downward "redistribution of wealth" in America that amounted in TOTAL of 1 cent you would call that socialist and therefore you would be against right?
What you call the "mixed economy" and "social democracy" is just moving us all forward toward less freedom. Time to stop it. The United States is full of freeloaders and ingrates because of these worthless programs.
people like you who talk about "freedom" use that term in the most shallow and superficial sense possible. Your different attitude towards the patriot act and FISA all ready exposed your phony attitude on "freedom". People of your ilk need to justify your immoral and selfish attitude toward the less fortunate by typecasting those as freeloaders and ingrates. SS and medicare are only worthless programs to the far-right fringe types like yourself. Eisenhower was correct about people like you.
As far as this Frank Marshall Davis. No, He was briefly a communist but then later on disparaged the efforts of Communist organizers while living in the South in the 1930s. As far as he being a mentor. There is no solid proof (and no right-wing sources like AIM and townhall are not credible sites). All you right-wing Obama bashers have is guilt by association. Pathetic.
ON and BTW if you right-wingers want to play this guilt by association game we could do that all day to right-wingers. For example we could talk about Sean Hannity's relationship with neo-nazi Hal Turner. Does this mean that Hannity and his fans must be neo-nazis by your illogic? Or neo-fascist Licio gelli who supposedly was a good friend of Ronald Reagan. Does it mean that Reagan and his fans were neo-fascists?
as far as i know sean hannity isn't running for president, nor does he have a majority of our population supporting him. SO THAT DOESN'T SCARE ME. I'm not here to bash liberals, get that through your figgin' head.
Obama will be the beginning of the end for everything that has made our country great. I've come to this conclusion with facts I've gathered from all medias alike. We can sit here and split hairs all you like, but i've come this conclusion through a CRITICAL THINKING process, and you're not going to change my mind about mr. obama.
Marx also belived that every capitalist society, will all eventually fall apart and lead to some form of a socialist society, and if you liberals or Obama have anything to do with, it will. Any questions? What was that like sophmore year? By the way, i'm not religious, nor am I even a registered republican, so don't assume that everyone who doesn't approve of today's liberalism, is a "right-winger" redneck. But so far, today's democrats are far from the lesser of the two evils.
So based on that definition of what Marxism it is the height of ignorance to suggest that Obama, liberals, democrats believe in Marxism. They are not advocating aboloshing private enterpirse nor are they advocating wealth distribution to the point of forcing a classless soceity. To suggest that reveals an unbelievably level of juvenile ignorance or intentional hyperolic and demagoguery.
obama isn't advocating anything, but change; he said that instead of gas prices rising at a cut-throat rate, americans should adjust to it slowly. Do you really think we would have such high gas prices if Clinton didn't veto drilling in north dakota?
so you're saying that any society turned communist, jump right into extreme government control of everything, rather than slowly working it's way towards it's goal? well i guess that does make no sense. it all has to start somewhere, and obama's true intentions wouldn't be made clear by him because that would be to much of a shock even to liberals. that how governments are transformed, by slow reform. one little victory after the other.
yep, that's exactly right. Every communist country in the world happened through civil war. To pretend otherwise, is to ignore history. You don't slowly become communist. I'm not saying a segment of society doesn't grow slowly, but countries just don't gradually turn.
this country is a different case, and that kind of change would have to be made gradually. civil war leading to communism historically happend because of a number of miserable social problems that we just simply don't have.
Is media matters still on Taxpayer funding? The site openly says "dedicated to fighting Conservative misinformation" - it openly identifies as having a liberal agenda - how can they qualify as tax exempt?
Elvishairdude89 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Tim Groseclose's scientific research proves that Media Matters qualifies for the "MIS-informer of the Year" award.
vechorik 6 months ago
.......and Mark Levin is a bastard
pjmgame 6 months ago
@pjmgame hes smart. so if you don't like him, get out of here
americajn768 5 months ago
@americajn768 This idiot attacks Michael Savage
pjmgame 5 months ago
@pjmgame
So what? Michael Savage is a big boy he can take it, and he talks enough sh*t himself so if Savage can't take it back then he's a pussy.
Plus Savage is a whiny f@ggot for the most part, and lots of his fans are retards, the only time Savage is usually funny is when he's not talking politics. Mark Levin's way cooler and more intelligent.
Elvishairdude89 1 month ago
@Elvishairdude89 Levin is a fucking dumbass. The man bashed a fellow conservative. An
pjmgame 4 weeks ago
@pjmgame
Yeah but Savage bashes every conservative, Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Levin, etc. I was a little harsh on Savage though, I've listened to more of him and he's smarter than he first appeared to be.
Elvishairdude89 4 weeks ago
@Elvishairdude89 That's good.
pjmgame 3 weeks ago
Best youtube I've seen all week!
ChuckWao 8 months ago
Media Matters is awesome!
DaHonestAbe 8 months ago
@DaHonestAbe
How? It's just a leftist propaganda site that "tells you what to think". They just search for any comment by conservatives they can find (90% of which are totally unoffensive, or no worse than anything you'd hear from liberals daily), and try to generate phony outrage. All they do is post clips and claim they're "offensive", it might as well be a fundamentalist website.
Elvishairdude89 1 month ago
@Elvishairdude89 I highly disagree, sir. They post the clips in full context from the folks they are posting, I've never seen anything out of context. As far as phony outrage, that's your boy Mark over here. Crying over "offensive" jokes by....Jon Stewart? Really? Wow, talk about drumming up phony outrage. Now you want to see propaganda? Go check out NewsBusters. They think liberal bias is the institution of salad bars in public schools. Whooooo, so scarryyyyy.
DaHonestAbe 1 month ago
@DaHonestAbe
Here's an example of Media Matters dishonesty - awhile back O'Reilly did a segment on union violence - at one point he mentioned Wisconsin protestors by name, but he repeatedly mentioned that his was about union violence *all over the country* - then he showed a segment of some Florida union thugs with palm trees in the background.
MM then lied and claimed Fox had said the Florida footage was from Wisconsin. MM is promoting leftist agenda on our tax dollars.
Elvishairdude89 3 weeks ago
@Elvishairdude89 Ah, I remember that segment. He was talking about nationwide violence. But on more than one FOX program, the commentators claimed that clip was in Wisconsin. It wasn't until after they were called out tthat they retracted. I happen to remember that story. Mm wasn't the only one who called him out on that.
DaHonestAbe 3 weeks ago
@DaHonestAbe
But they actually didn't claim it happened in Wisconsin - that's where the spin was. The liberal blogs all reported that Fox said it was footage from Wisconsin, but Fox never said that - Fox just made general comments about "union violence in Wisconsin AND other states" and aired the clip.
Elvishairdude89 3 weeks ago
@Elvishairdude89 See this is where it gets slippery. They particularly showed a violent clip in an unnecessary fashion. They could have just shown people marching, they chose to show conflict to put the protest in a bad light. Secondly, ask yourself this: Why would they have shown that clip if they weren't trying to imply it was Wisconsin? Even with some vague comment about nationwide protests. See, you're not going to sell me on this idea that it wasn't an act of deception for one reason (c0nt)
DaHonestAbe 3 weeks ago
@Elvishairdude89 This isn't the first time FOX News was busted using protest footage from a separate event to perpetuate a current event. In fact, Sean Hannity had to to admit that it was a "Mistake" (but it's easy to tell he was lying) and apologize after Jon Stewart (of all people) called him on his bullshit. You really can't defend a station that has a history of doing this. And MM is a tax exempt organization, not a tax-subsidized agency. The two are not the same thing man.
DaHonestAbe 3 weeks ago
@Elvishairdude89 By the way, most partisan websites come off as fundamentalist in some form or another. Whether its MMFA, Huffingtonpost, DailyKos on the left. Or whether it's NewsBusters, FreeRepublic, or BigGovernment on the right. So I'd be careful with that word propaganda sir. Such a term can only be used rightfully, not just because you don't like something. Have a nice night.
DaHonestAbe 1 month ago
TELL IT MARK! KEEP TELLING THEM. STUPID SUCKERS THAT THEY ARE, HOW THEY DON'T LISTEN TO THE TRUTH. YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID.
btr2oz 10 months ago
media matters is my god!!!!!
cjm608 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cjm608 What an idiot you are.
rickyt43515 3 months ago
More right wing media shtick, They support the left so the fuck what.
IHateStaleCrackers 1 year ago
@IHateStaleCrackers Uh, they're getting tax breaks for being "unbiased and nonprofit", and they're supporting a side of the political spectrum and line their pockets with exorbitant amounts of money from said bias. That's what's wrong.
MerlinsJester 11 months ago
Pure demagoguery, anyone who takes this ugly little crackpot seriously is really demented. If Media Matters is a criminal org, then Levin is a mass murderer
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
mark is great. theres nothing better than the names he makes up for people he doesnt like at rapid fire like it was toward the end, i love that lol.
gmdude91 1 year ago
Move On gave Clinton a pass for his war crimes.
His impeachment was much more than lying about an affair.
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
@GovernmentSham912 How about George Bush's war crimes?
Oh, that's right... those were all legal because there were weapons of mass destruction and removing of a dictator, right? Yeah, great excuse they gave for their war crimes, didn't they? Mother fucking genius.
LibertyInProgress 1 year ago
@LibertyInProgress
I'm not covering for Bush
I think he should have been impeached too.
Obama could be impeached too for Nixon like crimes. He didn't commit them but he covered them up.
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
@GovernmentSham912 He will be impeached for not being qualified.
Boostnitup 1 year ago
@LibertyInProgress There was WMD... Saddam's son in law was murdered for revealing it. All of it went to Syria and your Botoxed bitch Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to discuss it. She was told point blank... "Attempt to take out a second Ba'athist regime and we will send 1,000's of scuds filled with WMD at Israel."
Boostnitup 1 year ago
"the GAY one" Mark Levin... A.K.A. Sean Hannity's cabin boy!
okplayer420 1 year ago
Mark Levin, truly the great one
avataz 1 year ago
@avataz The great one? Really? This moron doesn't even know the difference between a subsidy and a tax exemption... what an imbecile!!! He also knows NOTHING about economics... I was listening to him get OWNED by one of his callers about economics and all "the gay one" could do was to further put his ignorance on display, showing everyone that he doesn't even know the difference between the net and the gross. Levin is NOTHING more than Sean Hannity's cabin boy!
okplayer420 1 year ago
This guy is so fuckin annoying, Michael Savage wannabe
Mattwolf1186 1 year ago
@Mattwolf1186 - In fact, Levin owes his time slot at WABC - in fact, his entire show - due to the time in Summer 2003 when Savage left San Francisco station KSFO for rival KNEW - and WABC, in retaliation, dropped "The Savage Nation" (only for that show to be picked up by WOR which runs it to this day).
wmbrown6 1 year ago
@Mattwolf1186 Michael Savage is an incoherent fool. He'll start bitching about Obama then start talking about meatballs. What a useless loser
avataz 1 year ago
Wow, Godwined 8 seconds into the video. It's probably for the best, I didn't want to listen to Groucho Marx for 9 minutes anyway.
eunicron 1 year ago
@eunicron - You're not the only one to compare Levin to Groucho; so has Michael Savage. Except this comparison is unfair to Groucho.
wmbrown6 1 year ago
Mark Levin is gay.
HeySharron 1 year ago
@HeySharron "Gay", huh?
llvIeIvll 1 year ago
@llvIeIvll just kidding, he's not actually appealing enough to have any kind of sex life.
HeySharron 1 year ago
Hate Rush
But Levin is right on the mark on this one
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
@GovernmentSham912
what?
thebackbencher666 1 year ago
QueenDingaLing! How's my favorite RepubliCon spammer? Still trying to convince people that Chris Monckton is a scientist? When is your boy John Coleman gonna file his lawsuit against Al Gore? He's been crowing about it for over 2 years. What's the holdup? Just more bullshit from the Teabaggers at Faux News? According to his press secretary, Reagan bowed to lotsa people including Hirohito, King Fahd & Queen Elizabeth. Of course by 1983 Reagan was so senile he didn't know who he was bowing to.
AtlasShruggery 1 year ago
@AtlasShruggery You are literally too stupid insult...............
canadasucksass1 1 year ago
mediamatters is something straight out of the USSR.
reallysecretusername 1 year ago
This guy kinda lies a bit, media matters, does not claim to be unbiased, it simply is stated to be a progressive organization committed to correcting conservative lies in the media. They state this on their "about us" page on their webpage. What makes it tax exempt is that it is a "non profit organization", much like "Focus on the Family" or "Freedom Works" or any of the other non profit conservative organizations that exist. Just facts people, nothing to argue about.
marxphoenix 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mark Levin and the other Lee Atwater like Neo-Conservative pundits on WABC radio are the worst example of humans on the face of the planet. The public has just been mugged by an unregulated Wall St, and Marks answer to the problem is less govt. There is no mystery here Mr. Levin has a job to do on the public, and that is to confuse and misinform. His tools are fear, hatred and distorted morality. He gets paid well but his followers, like the rest of us get mugged.
jasanc100 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mark Levin has no room to call anyone a hack; he's the biggest partisan hack around.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Little Mark Levin is just another whiney Republican titty baby who's still upset that Bungler McCain and Carribou Barbie got thumped by Obama and Biden in the last election. What a pathetic little clown.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 2
@Atlas Scrubbery.
Youre still running your mouth huh? hahaha... There are punks in this world who are here to get punked I guess.... Did you ever figure out who Reagan bowed too? And tell me about what Phil Jones said again... HAHAh... "No statistically significant rise in temperature since 1995"? How about when he said he often thinks about killing himself Atlas? TELL me about it old Scrub.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
what about the "C Street" house...like they operate out in the open
randestuart 2 years ago
Media maters a brain child also of David Axelrod.
kimcliftrn 2 years ago
Media matters is a fucking joke that only the sheeple of this country listen to, and are to ill informed to make a decision for themselves. The type of people that if you told them the sky was falling, they would run in the house and hide without even looking up at the sky to see if it was true!!
newBelGum 2 years ago
There's nothing to stop a conservative-tilting anti-liberal version of "Media Matters' from aquiring the same tax-exempt satus, so what's the point?
ffairlane57 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The point is, Mr. Levin is a great American and he works very, very hard to soften his beard and chin hair to make sure Sean Hannity's nuts are as comfortable as possible while they lay there.
zoetropez 2 years ago
mark levin has a face for radio but not a voice. very annoying. violate the tax code? Levin is a lawyer and this is all he's got? Please.
eqsmooth 2 years ago
Mark Levin RULES!!
kaziqbal 2 years ago
JohnR22926
"I'm trying to avoid is a Dem regime that uses income redistribution to solve something I don't view as a problem in the first place,"
Income redistribution has been going on since reagan. It's the voodoo economics "flow upward" kind.
mizilus 2 years ago
Indeed, Levin is a fool. Media Matters is agonizingly scrupulous in providing the context of right-wing comments ... most often boringly so. There is no "left" left in America ... the likes of Levin are so far to the "right" that the true center appears to be the "left." Why do I say this? Because the true left wants government to own and run all businesses. No one says that. In fact our fascist-leaning government now gives $ to banks with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. And these idiots call it socialism.
scubafox 2 years ago
and deluded fool you are SCUBA Fox
bigboss686 2 years ago
this guy is a fool. the right believes that chris matthews is liberal. Media matters has a whole list of chris matthews stuff. so, his matthews left or right to you people?
mitchstrongjr 2 years ago
Chris Matthews is a liberal.
He wants to sodomize Barack in the worse way.
nuktubian 2 years ago
Some people just hate being caught.
albertrossington 2 years ago
Um...wrong! This guy is just spewing opinion with no fact! It's not "being caught" if there's no "there" there. Media Matters, on the other hand, does nothing but show the ACTUAL clips of the media, IN FULL CONTEXT, showign them telling their lies. So if you have a problem with media matters, then you have a problem with the ACTUAL lies told by the right-wing media.
radtherapy60 2 years ago
Media Matters takes what is said by both liberals and conservatives and posts it online, calling both when they lie or become hypocritical. The people who have been caught in their own web start to scream about Media Matters when they're caught.
albertrossington 2 years ago
Is this man Schizophrenic or what?
JerezJulio 3 years ago
Lol, Levine owns, but he does sound schizo here, although hes right about media matters.
pahtsan 3 years ago
On the editing room floor under all the film of Obama's information that has been there for two years.
ChipsShot 3 years ago
Can any of the stunning right-wing brains here show a single instance of a Media Matters report that is anything other than a complete and *unedited* transcript?
No?
Conservatives are brilliant. They think that merely *repeating to the world what they say* is "biased reporting".
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
They are ALL cut up to fit the context they want. Media Matters is not even credible to mongoloids.
iNsyNR8R 3 years ago
This question is easy enough to determine. Just show me a single Media Matters post that "cut up" any of the transcriptions it has presented. I've been waiting a long time for such a demonstration...
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
The piece on Limbaugh/Corsi talking bout Obama's abortion voting record was an excerpt and was accurate. Obama did vote in favor three times of doctors killing fetus's that survived abortions.
DEMOCRATS = KILL THE INNOCENT, FREE THE GUILTY
REPUBLICANS = SAVE THE INNOCENT, PROSECUTE THE GUILTY
iNsyNR8R 3 years ago 2
Yes, Republicans were hugely concerned about the tens of thousands of innocent lives their war has eliminated in Iraq.
Oh, wait -- I forgot that those people were born and had histories (which makes them somehow more expendable than a fetus) -- and they're not white people, so they must be evil in some way...
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
Typical. NR8R answers your question, and all you can do is try and change the subject. You can't even refute it, can you?
LeotheBoy = FAIL
Balmung32 3 years ago
er... How did he answer the question, exactly? By changing the subject?
The question was: Can you show me a single Media Matters article that edits or changes conservatives' words? That's the point of Media Matters: They present all quotations in their *entire*, unedited context.
This is why conservatives hate them. Anything that simply reveals the inarguable facts of the matter is "liberal". It's the same reason the Church complains that science is inherently "liberal".
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
If you can't figure it out, I'm not gonna help you. You need to use that dictionary I told you to get, as well as some critical thinking skills. I will, however, give you more information to answer your question in case even that is too difficult.
Go over to FrontPageMag. com, use their search engine and type in "Media Matters: Hillarys Lap Dogs", and read. Try not to let your liberal bias prevent you from reading it.
Remember, use the dictionary in case you're having trouble ;).
Balmung32 3 years ago
You insist on changing the subject. Ok, no problem. Hillary has given money to Media Matters? Ok then! Great point!
Now, shall we go back to the original question, which you have avoided five or six times now? The simple question is: Can you or anyone else show me a single Media Matters posting that "edits" or "distorts" the conservative speeches and writing that it exhibits?
All they do is post conservative commentary in its full context, with no editing. Please prove otherwise.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
Leo: Media Matters is a Left wing hack machine. They provide slanted data and talking points for Talking Heads on the Left.
It doesn't mean everything they put out is incorrect. In fact, most of it is technically correct...but deliberately misleading. Statistics parsed to present a particular point of view, quotes taken out of context, etc. I'm sure there are Right wing entities doing the same thing.
BTW, your comment that people who aren't white are evil is bullshit. And you know it.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
JohnR: you clearly have never read Media Matters. They parse "statistics"? What are you talking about? They don't traffic in statistics at all. All they do is re-print right-wing transcripts *in their entirety*. Nobody who has looked at the site would be dumb enough to say they show quotes "out of context." The whole point of the site is that they print the *full* context of everything. Otherwise it would be no different from a blog.
Just look at it once before you make your opinion.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
leo: Here's how Media Matters describes themselves:
"Nonprofit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media".
It's all one-way by their own admission. They present a one-sided view that's biased and exaggerated.
BTW, love the "progressive". "Liberal" is such a loathed and discredited label they now use "progressive". lol. Not ONE think progressive about them.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
You're not thinking about what you're saying. Nobody is arguing that they don't focus on conservatives. Only you have brought up that subject, because you're trying to avoid the original question:
How can the act of showing the *entirely unedited* transcript of a conservative broadcast constitute a "biased" treatment of that transcript?
If I simply repeat what you say -- entirely, and without editing -- how am I being "unfair" to you?
This is what conservatives can never answer.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
Leo: 1/3: Ok. Presenting an entirely unedited transcript cannot be biased. If they've done this, I can't dispute it.
What I can dispute is an example I found on MM after browsing for 30 senconds. Check out the article titled Dobbs falsely claimed 40%of workers dont pay taxes.
In an attempt to bolster the legitimacy of Obamas promise to cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, MM is trying to discredit Dobbs. The Reps/Dobbs contention is Obamas plan is a fig leaf for expanded welfare
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Leo: 2/3: Giving an income tax refund to people who pay zero income tax cannot be defined as a tax refund. Its actually income redistribution in the form of a check, aka welfare.
MMs position (same as Obamas, surprise, surprise) is that because people paying zero income tax DO pay social security, excise tax, gas tax, etc. that Obamas tax cut is not a form of welfare. BS! An income tax refund, which you get after filing your taxes in April, is a refund of a portion of the income tax
JohnR22926 3 years ago
JohnR -- 2/2: It makes no mathematical or economic difference whether you say the tax credit is a "bonus" on top of the zero income tax for those 40%, or whether you say it's a reduction of all the other taxes they pay. Money is just money; the labels you put on a stack of money have no reality. Obama's plan will have the effect of reducing the total taxes people pay -- that's inarguable.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
leo: I don't disagree with your analysis, but I find it humerous that for the first time the Dems are drawing attention to the fact that Income Taxes are the least of the myriad taxes we face.
As Chris Matthews said, "let's just admit it; the Dems raise taxes".
And, if the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, where does it stop? The answer is, it doesn't stop until ALL income has been redistributed to the point where the Walmart greeter makes the same as the attorney.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
JohnR - Well, what would it matter if Republicans tax less -- when they spend far *more* tax dollars than Dems do? Remember that the biggest spenders in US history were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So the only difference is that Dems *pay* for their gov't spending, whereas Repubs do not -- they just borrow from our children, who will be living in poverty for the Republican spending party.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
leo: So the top 20% own 85% of the wealth. What portion of the jobs do they create? I know the top 5% pay 60% of the income taxes too. Your socialistic argument punishes those who produce the most and subsidizes those who contribute the least. A long term recipe for disaster.
But, you're right about Rep spending. Tax cuts don't help GDP growth nearly as much as if we cut govt spending. I say downsize the govt by 1/4 through vertical cuts, entitlement reform, and reduced military spending.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Stop and think: Who's doing the producing, exactly? The laborer who actually creates the product or provides the service should at least be given *half* the credit for the "production" (if not most of it, as I would think).
The wealth the country creates, which allows for new jobs, is created mostly by the labor that actually does the producing. Like all Republicans, you're confusing the act of shifting paper around (e.g., paper mortgage securities) with real products and real services.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
JohnR: You say income gets "redistributed" to the poor. I say income gets redistributed to the rich through corporate welfare and all the other kickbacks only available to the country club crew.
We can see who's right just by looking out the window, at reality. The reality is that no industrialized nation has a greater gap between rich and poor than the US. For decades, wealth has been flowing from the middle class to the wealthy. 85% of all U.S. wealth is owned by 20% of the population.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
leo: Ahh, the Leftist argument that we're just one big collective and nobody really "earns" anything themselves. A guy starts a business and over 30 yrs grows it and becomes a millionaire, but it doesn't really belong to him because it was the society (the collective) which enabled him to achieve it in the first place.
I utterly reject this line of thinking, as I reject the "income disparity" argument. As long as those at the bottom have the basics I don't care if we have a large income gap.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
I'm a big fan too of the guy who started his business and is now a millionaire. But the vast majority of the aristocrats we're talking about inherited their money -- and/or they inherited the money and the legacy that got them into college.
And if you accept the fact of the unprecedented and unparalleled income gap in this country (among developed nations), then you admit there isn't any kind of "income redistribution" in the US, unless you mean the bleeding of the middle class for the wealthy.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
leo: If you look at people who are rich (say over $1M in net worth), I'll bet my pension that 98% of them earned it themselves. I don't think inherited wealth is a significant factor...especially when you realize the inheritance tax's top rate was 70% from about 1940-75.
And yes, I understand our income gap is the greatest among industrial nations; what I'm trying to avoid is a Dem regime that uses income redistribution to solve something I don't view as a problem in the first place.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Wrong. Most people in America, rich or poor, have worked for that distinction. Some not as hard as others. Some not as efficiently as others. Everyone has the ability to make of themselves what they want. Thats the beauty of this country. Very few have inherited their wealth. And if they did, SO WHAT!. The one they inherited from obviously worked hard for the money and if he/she wants to pass it down to their family, its their God given American RIGHT!
playmayker88 2 years ago
Like most Republicans, your statistical understanding is demonstrably wrong. The vast majority of wealth in the US is inherited. The rags-to-riches scenario that you think is the norm is quite rare, statistically.
And what is it that these Ivy-league wealthy kids do for a living, after they've inherited their wealth. Most of the "work" they do is in financial services -- that is, inventing the bad-mortgage packages that they pretended were assets -- and which you're now paying for.
LeoTheBoy 2 years ago
And like most liberals, you think you can legislate whether they deserve it or not and how much of it belongs to YOU or the GOVT. Inherited or not, its their money, provided by a relative or friend who has the right to give it to them.
The bad mortgages fiasco was propagated by people like Barny's Frank and Feinstein and company. They chaired those rules committees and as late as 05 were saying how ":stable" those institutions were under Dem leadership. They gave loans to poor ppl. blame them!
playmayker88 2 years ago
Holding Wall Street accountable for their own crimes = legislating their money away?
The problem was not poor people not paying their loans -- the problem was that banks were selling these liabilities as if they were assets.
Home mortgages are only a tiny percentage of the "bad paper" floating out there. This bad paper was created by your heroes, the wealthy trust-fund children who have never done a real day's work in their lives.
LeoTheBoy 2 years ago
a Utopian state, so that people will feel compelled to vote for them. But where has that gotten us? Since The New Deal and The Great Society, entitlements and welfare have only grown every year since its creation. Seems as if the liberal mantra of Dems being what the poor and oppress NEED to escape their conditions were true, (war on poverty)then by now, we shouldnt have a poor class. Or it should definitely be smaller in size. But thats not so. Liberal programs lock people in. Job security.
playmayker88 2 years ago 2
Its amazing how Democrats are NEVER to blame. Incredible. And equally amazing is how Libs always demonize the wealthy as the source of all our problems. Why is that? Dont Libs know that the wealthy are the primary funding party of our economy? That they produce jobs and stimulate growth? Of course they do. But they know that if taxes are lowered, and people are free to pursue their own happiness and rely on themselves, then they wont NEED govt. And Dems need that perception of govt creating ...
playmayker88 2 years ago
er... If you're so worried about the evils of welfare, why aren't you railing against the #1 recipient of government welfare in this country -- massive corporations? Where would huge agrobusiness be without government welfare? Where would the oil companies be? Where would military weapons contractors be -- and their Pentagon partners who *admitted* to somehow "losing" 1 Trillion dollars of our tax money in an 8-year period? (yes: Trillion. I wonder where that money went...? hmm...)
LeoTheBoy 2 years ago
Leo- you dont think the "big bad oil companies" dont pay a shitload of taxes? You think they make 100% profit? Please! They are not the enemy here. How did you get to work/school/church/store today? Did you burn gas doing it? yes.
Im against corporate welfare too. I dont think anyone rich or poor should be getting handouts. I'm not rich, but i dont expect handouts. I work hard for what i have and I could have done better in life, but I chose not to at times. So I deserve wha tI have now.
playmayker88 2 years ago
Wrong, playmayker88. Things have gone downhill since Reagan. So-called "conservative" policies have given us your desired grand dystopia. They're responsible for every major problem in the U.S. Google "Invisible Hand Drops Ball & Economics 101" to see why.
scubafox 2 years ago
Why not give me a liberal blog to look at? Give me more 1 sided stuff so I can be a moronic drone like you. Let me ask you a question, did the lobodomy hurt at all?
Tacotruck1166 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tacotruck1166 ... Yes, I'm a liberal, but that's not at all what the lying rightwingers maintain; it's the real center, not the "left". Go ahead, google "Invisible Hand Drops Ball & Economics 101" and give me a substantive response. You can't because you're the moron. Pathetic fool.
scubafox 2 years ago
leo: 3/3: that was collected from you during the year. Anything other than that is income redistribution. Plain and simple.
Thus, my contention that MM is not an honest broker trying to present the full story. Theyre partisan hacks using twisted logic to rationalize Dems positions.
Again, it doesn't mean everything they say is incorrect or misleading. The best way to lie is to surround the "big" lie with minor truths.
MM, IMO, is a Left wing hack machine.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
JohnR -- 1/2: Your argument is well-articulated. But you're forgetting the basic fact MM is pointing out: that it is simply false to say that 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. They *do* pay taxes, as you point out yourself. So MM's claim is not false. What Dobbs should have said is that the 40% don't pay *income* taxes. You know and I know that there is a political reason that Dobbs needs us to forget all the other taxes those people pay.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
Wow -- this guy has never actually read Media Matters. They don't take "snippets" -- they transcribe pages and pages of text without *ever* cutting anything in between.
Only conservatives believe that merely reporting *what conservatives say*, in its unedited entirety, is "biased reporting"...
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
Media Matters is defintely not an equal reporter. To suggest otherwise is to deny fact--good try at immunity, though. No more tax dollars for these ideologists.
kndrice 3 years ago
I don't think even you know what you mean by "an equal reporter" (his feet are the same size..?). You might want to look up immunity as well.
If you mean they don't dwell as much on liberal reporting, you're right. But it's obviously and clearly wrong to say that they take things "out of context", as conservatives universally say. They are one of the few sources of *total* unedited context of what conservative idiots say.
LeoTheBoy 3 years ago
This guy is a loon! As if the right doesn't have "phony think-tanks"?? And crime families as well? Get over yourself, Levin, you blowhard.
Whoo69 3 years ago
My main point is that I feel we have enough socialist aspects to our government. We can take care of the overpopulation of takers (as opposed to makers) and illegal aliens without more.
An African-American acquaintance (Not that it matters to me, but it may to you) of mine recently told me: "In this country, if you follow the rules and conduct yourself accordingly, you write yourself a blank check."
Almost everything that the government gets its hands on turns to shit. King Midas in reverse.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
Well first of all you started this whole issue like so many right-wingers using this new redefinition socialism. I HATE when people willfully misuse terms like socialist, marxist, communist, fascism, racism, etc.... against their political adversaries for the purpose of smearing them even if they don't want to admit thats what they were doing.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
p.s. That's exactly what Obama is doing
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
If you want to solved the immigration problem go after the companies but whats ironic about that is who is against going after the companies the most? The so called "free traders" thats who. Would you call going after the companies that hire the illegals unnecessary "socialist" regulation?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Once again, you're mistaking me for a Repube.
KylerDurrdden 3 years ago
About your "Almost everything that the government gets its hands on turns to shit." While there certainly is some element of truth to that that is the typical right-wing/libertarian hyperbole designed to get people to distrust anything the government does to justify not funding safety net programs. Here is a quote from P. J. O'Rourke thats very relevant here:"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
I agree, but I'm not a Repoobican; I'm a conservative.
KylerDurrdden 3 years ago
as far as if the US has enough "socialist" aspects to it right now. As far as helping out the middles and lower class, I don't think so especially now although in certain areas I am sure a pretty good case could be made. What I believe certainly is MUCH MUCH MUCH of a problem MANY MANY MANY times over is that fact the government is no longer a representative democracy but essentially an oligarchy run by the wealthiest corporate interests.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
who create jobs for the lower middle class, and who pay a vast majority of the taxes, and who promote economic growth, you think taking more from the rich and giving it too the lower classes is really going to make america a better place to live? Socialism is only a nice thought on paper, if you want it, move to europe, there's plenty of it there. There's also a lot of lazy workers there, just leave america be. We don't like waiting months to get a phones line installed
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
we don't want to wait months to get into see a doctor for a check-up, we don't want to give 66% of our income to the government! since when has the government ever spent our money well. come on man there are plenty of 'okay' countries to move to if you want socialism. move to the friggin' UK, but we don't want that stuff here, there are pratically no countries left that have as much free market as we do, why can't you let us have it?
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
that is my closing statement, i'm a firefighter, and california is on fire, and i'm too tired for this crap. be well all
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
NEWSFLASH!! The rich benefit from taxes in so many ways through the taxes that helped build up the Infrastructure of this country (like highways and so forth) and though massive subsidies. You seem to think "wealth distribution" goes downward but you have no idea how much "wealth distribution" goes upward to the wealthy. David Cay Johnston has written extensively on this.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
in 2003 5% of the population paid 54% of the total taxes
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
Then to top it all off you go off on this tangent on waiting to see doctors a long time. Did I say where I stood on health care? No I didn't but if I would have to state where I stand on it am not sure but I am leaning to Universal health care because its probably cheaper overall but I know its debatable. Oh and people in the US can wait an awful long time as well in addition to it being very expensive.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
By the way companies generally like universal health care because it make it cheaper for them. Also to typecast universal health care all in one way is just ignorant but then again thats all you have when spout just cliched tiresome arguments. also I take it you call medicare and the free health care to vetereans "socialistic"? If so do realize republicans must be socialist too eh?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Oh spare me your typical cliched right-wing talking points. Its the year 2008. If you have not realized it yet Global companies more and mover are not creating jobs but are getting tax breaking for moving jobs abroad. Who makes the actualy products? Who is getting make many more times the average pay of the actual worker all the while worker productivity increases?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
you put some thought into your fanboyism, and there is some truth to some of the things you say, but you're getting frustrated, personal, and just starting to split hairs. I'm not here to convince you of anything, I've been working 16 hour days for the past 2 weeks, I don't need this. You call me ignorant and my beliefs cliche based; look at your fucking screen name. I don't need insults to debate; apparently you do. I'm done
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
atrumdecretum I call you an idiot for a very good reason. In fact your response once again demonstrated what an idiot you are. Why? You say "I don't need insults to debate; apparently you do. " but then you end with "wow man, your debates lead me to believe you suffer from neurosis". You inability to see how contradicted yourself is a testament to your idiocy. Also 5% of the population pays some % of the taxes but how much of the wealth do the control?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
You keep saying "all ready." Do you mean "already?"
You don't seem to understand that when the government taxes a corporation in 50 different ways, while subjecting it to more and more regulation, that it may as well be controlling and producing products and services. This is de facto control and ownership.
At least in France and the UK they're honest about it.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
Are you really interested in discussing the real issues or would rather play petty games by trying to change the subject on this "already?" crap? I would rather discuss the issues? OK now back to the issues. Where did I say anything about how much taxes corps should have? The only thing in this regard that I absolutely don't want to see is corps getting tax breaks for OUTSOURCING JOBS. BTW tax cuts generally don't pay for themselves but generally lead to bigger debt.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
wow man, your debates lead me to believe you suffer from neurosis. i'm not being cute, that's an honest observation
atrumdecretum 3 years ago 2
Smash the right-
"National Health" "Industrial Welfare"(UK)---Socialist.
Amtrak-Socialist.
New Deal-Socialist.
Massive Taxing and Redistribution of Wealth, Social Security, Central Planning of a Too-Powerful Federal Government---Socialist.
And by the way, I count US corporate welfare as fascism.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
automobile industry made by the government? No
The clothes they purchase from the government? No. Out of all the things people own in the UK how much was produced by the government?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
You see like I said people like you define anything that is not 100% laisez fair capitalism as socialist which is total distortion. You're are redefing socialism away from its classic traditional meaning for I suspect political reasons.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
continued with Eisenhowers quote: "There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Criminal enterprise? The crazy one wants to stop any dissent from his pogram!
Not that this insane maniac would ever take anything out of context- which he did about twenty times in this clip. This manic is a master of manipulating any opposing view to his "philosophy". I know what this man's "philosopy" is- he paints everyone who opposes his with a broad brush. Everyone is 'stalinist' who disagree's with his McCarthite beliefs. When you fight imaginary monsters, you become a monster.
Garret00074 3 years ago
mrladew... you think that because Levin hold a J.D. he is somehow immune to intellectual dishonesty? Note: George Bush has a Yale degree and he's a moron.
Levin overlooks one of the biggest fears our Founders had with placing the power to start war in the hands of one man. The Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) short-circuits Congressional approval by replacing the Declaration of War with the AUMF... not too fine a point... Levin supports the AUMF in contradiction to the Founder's intent.
littlemisspissy 3 years ago
and i agree with him, if we have a conflicted congress, and we need to defend our country for whatever reason, i don't think we should have our hands tied behind our back. and if you don't think there no such thing as a congress that can't act, look at how the liberal politicians are at each other's throats. the repubs are guilty of it too, but god every election the democrats are going at each other
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
Levin is also full of shit about democrats not wanting to count military votes in the 2000 election. They wanted to discount votes that came after the deadline. Funny how Levin hates hacks but not hacks like himself or David Horwitz.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Levin is full of shit about mediamatters being a criminal enterprise. MediaMatters is not being funded through tax dollars. If mediamatters is a criminal enterprise then so is the media research center, Heritage foundation and on and on. Has MRC ever been critial of Rush or hannity? no
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
ps, we don't hate obama cause he's black, we hate him because he is a radical marxist who is using a majority of the black community and all of you blind liberals, who think "change" is a wonderful thing. It can be, but if you really knew what was going on inside obama's head, you'd be as politically terrified of him as I am. He's got some bad plans for this country, and you libs won't figure it out until after you've elected him. =(
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
In other words the rights definition of socialism or marxism seems to be anything that is 100% laissez fair capitalist 1 cent distributed downward, guess what? it must be socialist. Give me fucking break. BTW I hope you realize there is A LOT of wealth distribution that goes upward to the benefit of the wealthy.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Liberals: one marxist spreads lies about anything to further their agenda, and the liberal mindset is to suck it up without a shred of question or critical thinking, and spread those same lies to everyone they encounter. You liberals have such one-tracked mindsets, it honestly scares the hell out of me. Because there are enough of you ignorant minions to destroy this country and everything it was founded on. American liberalism is a clique. please get over it, please!
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
hear we go again another ignorant right-winger who does not have the first clue what marxist means yet you call liberals ignorant.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
What could you possible have dawned from that paragraph about my understanding of MARXISM. America was founded off the notion that everyone should be in control their own destiny, and that if they work for it, they can generate wealth. Marxism is all about the working class struggle, while communism, it's derivative, always develops the even smaller pecentage of the inner-party, while the citizens, not just the workers, are left to rot, and make FAR less than they would in a capitalist society.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
Marxism believes in collectivization and wealth distribution to the point of FORCING a classless society. While liberals, democrats, conservatives, republicans (thats right, conservatives and republicans) ALL believe in some degree ow wealth distribution (its impossible to have some for of a safety net without it) NONE believe of those believe in wealthe distribution/collectivization to the point of trying to FORCE a classless society. Marxism also believes in abolishing private property
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
That is what I said, although the collective idea is more communistic while marx and engels like to focus on the "struggle of the working class," not the nation's industy but how the people were treated socially and what they represented politically, but it speaks of something that can't exist(not even you "nice" liberals), in any society 'forced' into classlesness, there is always going to be a splinter of the population reaping the benefits. Tell me I'm wrong seriously.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
Obama's whole theme revolves around every citizen being a victim.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
it does, and if people think life is bad or even unsatisfactory here, go live in any country of your choice, and then tell how bad we have it here.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
And that is exactly what many of the supporters of Obama want. You don't think people like William Ayers and Obama's (communist) mentor Frank Marshall Davis aren't Marxists?
kmbeckley 3 years ago
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. It is complete ignorance (or maybe propaganda on your part) to think Obama supporters ("many" as you put it) want marxism which advocates the elimination of private property and private enterprise. Those types I guarrantee will have NOTHING to do with ANYONE in the Democratic party. Those types view Democrats as total sellouts. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
I already told you, anyone with that sentiment, isn't going come out tomorrow and say, "hey let's abolish free market." come on dude seriously that's not an argument. Their actions support our accusation.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
There is NO politician in each of the major two parties that wants to abolish the free market. To such otherwise is to reveal your own irrational nutty paranoia
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Did you mean "already abusing it" or "all ready?" Question for you: Is the UK socialist?
kmbeckley 3 years ago
No US is not socialist. They have capitalist mixes economy. Does the government make cars? Does the government make food? Does the government make computers and on and on and on. No corps do that so stop with your delusion please.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
one other question. If in theory if there was a total downward "redistribution of wealth" in America that amounted in TOTAL of 1 cent you would call that socialist and therefore you would be against right?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
What you call the "mixed economy" and "social democracy" is just moving us all forward toward less freedom. Time to stop it. The United States is full of freeloaders and ingrates because of these worthless programs.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
people like you who talk about "freedom" use that term in the most shallow and superficial sense possible. Your different attitude towards the patriot act and FISA all ready exposed your phony attitude on "freedom". People of your ilk need to justify your immoral and selfish attitude toward the less fortunate by typecasting those as freeloaders and ingrates. SS and medicare are only worthless programs to the far-right fringe types like yourself. Eisenhower was correct about people like you.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
Eisenhower started two major losing wars, so his opinion on economics is laughable.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
Ditto for George Bush parts I and II.
kmbeckley 3 years ago
As far as this Frank Marshall Davis. No, He was briefly a communist but then later on disparaged the efforts of Communist organizers while living in the South in the 1930s. As far as he being a mentor. There is no solid proof (and no right-wing sources like AIM and townhall are not credible sites). All you right-wing Obama bashers have is guilt by association. Pathetic.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
ON and BTW if you right-wingers want to play this guilt by association game we could do that all day to right-wingers. For example we could talk about Sean Hannity's relationship with neo-nazi Hal Turner. Does this mean that Hannity and his fans must be neo-nazis by your illogic? Or neo-fascist Licio gelli who supposedly was a good friend of Ronald Reagan. Does it mean that Reagan and his fans were neo-fascists?
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
as far as i know sean hannity isn't running for president, nor does he have a majority of our population supporting him. SO THAT DOESN'T SCARE ME. I'm not here to bash liberals, get that through your figgin' head.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
Obama will be the beginning of the end for everything that has made our country great. I've come to this conclusion with facts I've gathered from all medias alike. We can sit here and split hairs all you like, but i've come this conclusion through a CRITICAL THINKING process, and you're not going to change my mind about mr. obama.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
Marx also belived that every capitalist society, will all eventually fall apart and lead to some form of a socialist society, and if you liberals or Obama have anything to do with, it will. Any questions? What was that like sophmore year? By the way, i'm not religious, nor am I even a registered republican, so don't assume that everyone who doesn't approve of today's liberalism, is a "right-winger" redneck. But so far, today's democrats are far from the lesser of the two evils.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
So based on that definition of what Marxism it is the height of ignorance to suggest that Obama, liberals, democrats believe in Marxism. They are not advocating aboloshing private enterpirse nor are they advocating wealth distribution to the point of forcing a classless soceity. To suggest that reveals an unbelievably level of juvenile ignorance or intentional hyperolic and demagoguery.
SmashTheRight38 3 years ago
obama isn't advocating anything, but change; he said that instead of gas prices rising at a cut-throat rate, americans should adjust to it slowly. Do you really think we would have such high gas prices if Clinton didn't veto drilling in north dakota?
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
so you're saying that any society turned communist, jump right into extreme government control of everything, rather than slowly working it's way towards it's goal? well i guess that does make no sense. it all has to start somewhere, and obama's true intentions wouldn't be made clear by him because that would be to much of a shock even to liberals. that how governments are transformed, by slow reform. one little victory after the other.
atrumdecretum 3 years ago
yep, that's exactly right. Every communist country in the world happened through civil war. To pretend otherwise, is to ignore history. You don't slowly become communist. I'm not saying a segment of society doesn't grow slowly, but countries just don't gradually turn.
johnedwards1968 3 years ago
this country is a different case, and that kind of change would have to be made gradually. civil war leading to communism historically happend because of a number of miserable social problems that we just simply don't have.