The American Right wing

Fazda

Fazda

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
11,414
Reaction score
35
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
This link needs to be watched and digested...

Check out this fantastic piece of reporting by Rachel Maddow on how misinformation is spread by the right-wing echo chamber:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#40018314

She totally nails it by showing how one big lie - that $200 million a day is being spent on President Obama's trip to Asia this week - bounced around from Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck to Sean Hannity to Michelle Bachmann. Complete fabrications are cited as fact, and then are repeated constantly, thus reinforcing the lie. Rachel does the kind of reporting that CBS, NBC and ABC used to do.

This is exactly why so many Americans think the health insurance reform bill was a socialistic takeover of health care - it's a lie that is repeated over and over again. The right wing cares absolutely nothing about the truth, only about gaining and holding power.
 
No, they are the same. I know the BBC is a UK station but it still demonstrates my point - i.e. that you can find a bias anyway...

BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past.

The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.

But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.

He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.

His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.

The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.

That report criticised the BBC for coming late to several important stories including euroscepticism and immigration, which it described as 'off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone'.

Speaking of the time when he joined the BBC, Mr Thompson told the magazine: 'In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979] there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the Left.

'The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

'Now it is a completely different generation.

'There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz14R9jewe7
Click to expand...

And what about CBS caught lying about Dubya?
 
seventhson said:
The right wing and the left wing are the same. They both lie through there teeth like every government
Click to expand...

I agree with you. No difference between the 2 sides. But then again, where has anything that has been said, proved as false? By someone saying it? By reading on the internet that it is false?

This sounds more like a debate for the PD section of MyBB ;)
 
dj_jyno said:
That's the problem right there, Fazda. That man is one nasty piece of work, whichever political party he might belong to.
Click to expand...

Put Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck to Sean Hannity to Michelle Bachmann together and you have a very poisonous cocktail!
 
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC suspended over donations

Keith Olbermann, the leading liberal voice on American television in the age of Obama, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.

The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between objectivity and opinion in television journalism. While Mr. Olbermann is anchor of what is essentially the “Democratic Nightly News,” the decision affirmed that he was being held to the same standards as other employees of MSNBC and its parent, NBC News, both of which answer to NBC Universal. Most journalistic outlets discourage or directly prohibit campaign contributions by employees.

Mr. Olbermann’s contributions came to light in an article by Politico on Friday morning. He said he had donated $2,400 to the campaigns of Representatives Raúl M. Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Attorney General Jack Conway of Kentucky, who lost his Senate race to Rand Paul. He told Politico, “I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level.”

On Friday evening, no one at NBC suggested that Mr. Olbermann would be fired.

Reaction was swift and mixed, with some condemning Mr. Olbermann’s donation and many others saying that they saw nothing wrong with it.

Campaign contributions are a form of activism, said Bob Steele, the director of the Prindle Institute for Ethics at DePauw University. “When a journalist becomes an activist, the principle of independence is not just eroding, it’s corroding from within,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Fazda said:
No 7th...the Right Wing has turned it into an art...watch the video.
Click to expand...

and then you still have people who think that they are stupid, the fact is that the right doesn't need to convince the liberal to vote for him, he needs to convince the average person to do so and that takes a bit of skill.
 
Who really governs the United States???

seventhson said:
The right wing and the left wing are the same. They both lie through their teeth like every government
Click to expand...
Just for now we can overlook the fact that, in modern Western democracies, elected governments are never left or right wing. If you imagine a bell curve, the bulk of the voters always cluster near the centre. In recent decades changes of ruling party in major English speaking nations have resulted in only minor changes in policy, regardless of the rhetoric.
Ralph Nader: ‘Corporate socialism controls American government’
- November 5th, 2010.

Nader believes that Theodore Dreiser put it very well many years ago, when he said that “the corporations are the government”.

“Knowing they [corporations] can’t be out front because people don’t like a lot of these big corporations, they are ripped off by the banks and credit card companies, they camouflage and their camouflage is that they give the Tea Parties certain deceptive information and focus on certain politicians, and therefore they continue their work behind the scenes. We have corporate socialism in this country where profits are kept and losses are socialized on the back of the taxpayer,” Nader said.

“There isn’t a single department agency in the US government whose outside influence overwhelmingly is not corporate,” he added. “They control from the outside, they put their representatives into government positions, funding the members of Congress with their cash [and] 35,000 full-time lobbyists in Washington – they are the government.”
Click to expand...
http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...orate-socialism-controls-american-government/
 
burden said:
Bible thumpng, homophobic, backward bigots the whole of the GOP
Click to expand...
And the same people who put an end to slavery.

You people are being a bit cynical here. The GOP is diverse and does not always share the same values as the people who support them, same thing happens here with the ANC.
 
burden said:
150,000 jobs were added in October, the first monthly increase since May. Thank goodness the American people voted out all the Democrats who had nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

If you are attempting to credit the Democrats for the creation of jobs, then you are wrong. Because if they did create the jobs, it would be state jobs, which are funded by taxes, which means someone could've used that money to buy stuff (Create Jobs) and start a business (Create Jobs), so it is an economic fallacy to assume government can create jobs, out of nothing.

If the jobs were created from the private sector without any assistance from the state (Subsidisation etc.), then the Dem's had nothing to do with it, unless they repealed laws that made the market more free, as this would make it easier for businesses to create jobs.

Dems or Republicans, doesn't matter no government can simply "create" jobs, not without taking money and thus the ability to create jobs away from the private sector, for all you know if this didn't happen and the private sectgor was allowed to keep its money, 200 000 jobs could've been created.

Just would like to point out the fallacy of atributing meaningful job creation to the state.
 
the only democrat to be elected twice in a row in the last 60 years was Bill Clinton. Shows you how much even the Democrats trust their own people.
 
Nothxkbi said:
$200 million a day for an Asian trip. That alone would tell me he was talking nonsense. It's not possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly but we have an entire country of gullible right wing idiots who accept this cr@p without question! :mad:
 
Nothxkbi said:
Sometimes people believe what they want to believe, no matter how fantastical.. 6 day creation is one example.
Click to expand...

True I am busy having an argument with an American preacher on Facebook at the moment. He cannot see that Bush ever did anything wrong but insists that Obama is the devil incarnate! :rolleyes:
 
After the 2008 meltdown, which some have argued was caused as much by high oil prices as unwise wheeling and dealing in residential property, banks in most major Western nations, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, were bailed out by governments at taxpayer expense. That was money paid by ordinary middle-class people, many in government service, towards the maintenance and provision, inter alia, of essential infrastructure such as roads, education, health, and support services for young, old and disadvantaged people.

The fact is, as Nader among others has pointed out, that so-called private enterprise is the first to run crying to the government when it falls victim to the "market forces" it touts as the be all and end all of rational economic policy. For market forces read "Law of the Jungle". Its a dog-eat-dog world, and when the big curs get a good kicking they expect governments to act as umpires, regulators and financiers of last resort. The banks and corporations ride on the taxpayer's back as much as any government and, unlike governments, are not accountable to the electorate.

Market forces are a myth. In the end he who holds the purse strings dictates the terms. Multi-national corporations are wealthier and more powerful than third world nations, and many smaller first-world nations, but even they rely on the only institutions in the world which have an unlimited line of credit, big governments like the United States and Germany. When corporations drop the ball the directors take their profits and run, leaving entire cities - like Detroit - in ruins. Governments have to stay on the playing field. They can't give up and retire to a life of luxury while ordinary folk contend with poverty and unemployment.

Don't knock government. Its all that stands between you and corporate anarchy. Without modern governments, such as they are, we would revert to the Dark Ages, in thrall to the robber barons of Wall Street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X