The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-09-01
In Reply to: I am genuinely shocked. - Liberal
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.
Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Sigh....spin, spin, spin, you are making me dizzy....
deny, deny, deny. I have said over and over and over again...do you people have a cognitive disability? I don't give a rip about who or when or how many times Clinton had sex or who it was with...the man committed felony perjury! He broke the law. Instead of acknowledging that, saying it was wrong, and that any President who committed a felony should be impeached, you just wanna say well no matter what he did, Bush is worse. You are so totally consumed by hatred for George Bush your value system is skewed. Look...is perjury against the law or isn't it? Should a sitting President who breaks the law not be impeached? If George Bush had dinged an intern, lied about it, and then lied before a grand jury, would you be saying you shouldn't impeach George Bush for committing perjury because he lied about sex?? OF COURSE NOT, you would he asking for his head on a pike!!
So, try to focus...either it is wrong or it isn't. It does not matter what the lie is ABOUT. It is a matter of principle...if you care about principle, and I do.
And another thing, if it WERE Bush who did the same thing Clinton did, I would be calling for HIS impeachment. Because I, unlike you obviously, believe that no MAN, including Bill Clinton is above the law.
Where did you get the figure half a million people? Oh nevermind. I am not supposed to ask you for sources, forgot....my bad.
So, even if it WERE a half million people, if you want to impeach Bush you need to fire Congress because it was THEY who voted to send the troops, not George Bush. He can't vote...helllooo.
Denial, denial, denial. It is so patently obvious...you cannot get past the Bush hatred...cannot see the forest for the trees. Amazing....utterly, completely, amazing. And at the same time...appalling.
They cover the news they WANT to cover! Why are
nm
Didn't know she had any positive qualities
Nice to see positive posts about her.
nm
Funny! The only one with a positive net worth is the bum. :) nm
x
what a very positive and involved post!
By the way, how does one "speak" loudly on an internet board?
You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.
There you go. At least counter the argument with something positive about Obama. That is if there is anything. Otherwise its all just blowing smoke.
you're posts aren't positive either
x
I prefer to keep my focus on the positive measures
give the process a chance to unfold. Had enough of the prophets of doom.
intelligent, true patriotism, positive
not talking about the Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Not the one that gets a shiver up his leg for Obama? He is nothing but an Obama, DNC butt-kissing, too far lefty for any hope and I shudder of the thought of him having anything to do with this country's government. All he knows how to do is report one side of any issue and get a shiver up his leg for doing it.
so many attack - no real reason AND no positive info on Obama
The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone. No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan. It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin. Let's see. I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?"). So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion). Let's see...what else. She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc. Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay). Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done. I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty. And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain? He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair. I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds. He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?) But you know what? At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played.
You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.
And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use. He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day. He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name. Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same. His policies and voting record proves differently. You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote. Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress. Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush. Why???? McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done. Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain. If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.
So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false. Stick to issues and no rumors.
Joint Chiefs Chairman "Very Positive" After Meeting with Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
-
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.
There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.
But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.
Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.
"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."
Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.
Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.
Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.
"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."
Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.
But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.
Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.
In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.
In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.
Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.
"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.
But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.
The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.
These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.
Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.
Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.
Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.
A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.
One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.
Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.
"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.
But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Fox did not cover it because the Fox
did not have a news department then.
Yes, I read your message. Did read you mine?
They only cover 2 candidates because
we don't demand that they do otherwise. Power to the people!!!!
Nice cover - but you know what the COS's job is, right?
Obama would not pick as his Chief of Staff a man who wasn't eye-to-eye on the majority of issues. It's basically the president's wing man. No one's going to buy the notion that Obama picked Emanuel as a counterbalance to his own ideas. He picked him because they share common beliefs, which some of us find a little frightening (like mandatory military-style training and/or service).
Ah, but Obama's cover....
...is that things are SO MUCH WORSE than he was lead to believe during the campaign. Much was concealed from him. He inherited such a big mess and he had absolutely no idea how much work there would be. And when his policies fail, as they are destined to do, he will have made a ruin of our entire way of life and can still blame the whole thing on Bush. It's a no-lose situation for Obama.
The Obama campaign became almost a cult experience. People wailing and crying and fainting. The promise of free stuff: *If I help him, he'll help me. I won't have to worry about filling my gas tank and paying my mortgage.* This is exactly what got Obama elected. Smooth, slick, TelePrompTer dependent without appearing to be, well packaged and carefully managed, lots of emotional appeal. Those who voted for him bought sizzle. The sizzle is starting to fizzle, and there will never be a steak.
Cover up the Prez!! Have you guys seen this?
link
I suppose they should cover the mirrors
and rend their clothes in grief instead? They are busting their butts to get things done. I think a little laughter, joy and goodwill is necessary as well as healthy. But, I suspect you would neither understand nor APPROVE of anything you deem "frivolous." The Dow has been up for 4 days running, at least 3 major banks are seeing profits and are stating they no longer require any bailout money.........Bringing in Congress and various insiders for a weekly get-together is a good way to inspire and promote goodwill.....but I guess the WH is something to look at - not live in.
This is inappropriate for a magazine cover
This should go in the National Enquire, Star or something. Sure he's in good physical shape, but whether you think he is nice looking or not is all a matter of opinion. My MIL thought Bill Clinton was "the bees knees" saying "I wouldn't kick him out of my bed, or he can park his shoes under my bed. I felt like throwing up every time I saw him. But, pics of shirtless leaders should should stay in the tabloids. he is supposed to be a leader. This goes to show more and more that he is not. As someone said he's acting like a "Hollywood wannabe". This is not the actions of someone who is supposed to be a stateman, the leader of a country. If you're going to put the pic of a country's leader on the front cover of a magazine they should be properly attired. Could be one of the reasons why most don't refer to him as President Obama, but rather as Mr. Obama.
I don't think he sent the picture to the magazine to be placed on the cover -
My goodness, ya'll would blame him no matter what. He does not decide what picture goes on the cover of a magazine - the Editor of the magazine decides.
And, I do not think that being President of the United States means you cannot go to the beach anymore or have a vacation with your family without covering yourself and if someone wants to take a picture of him in that way, then what can he do?
You want freedom of the press, freedom of speech, no censorship, etc., but then you are wanting to censor this magazine!
Better cover your eyes, if you're so squeamish.
Your pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact...(sm)
that there is no basis for the comment above (that being that Obama is taking rights away) by trying to distract the conversation by attacking me personally does nothing but show the absolute absurdity of the republican party's talking points.
I think the vanity fair cover was not a smart thing for her to do...sm
even though she wore a scar and big glasses.
Correction: The cost to cover Montana kids.
.
McCain should draft Tammy to cover all his bases.
nm
Double standard doesn't cover Obama
@@
You're right. They cover their ears, close their eyes,
what they're taught in Bible School, I suppose.
They must figure that if they bore their opponents with their nonstop jabbering, that when that person finally gets fed up and walks away, they have somehow 'won'. WHAT they think they've 'won' is beyond me.
The booby-prize, perhaps?
Liberal news media won't cover it.... CNN did send a
xx
Shirtless Obama Makes Washingtonian Cover
The May cover of Washingtonian magazine features those paparazzi photos of a shirtless Barack Obama strolling the beach in Hawaii last year. The photo illustrates the magazine's "Reasons We Love Washington," the #2 reason for which is "Our new neighbor is hot."
Honey, your Bush derangement syndrome is showing...cover it up!
//
Spin this one.
Parish President Aaron Broussard breaks down on Meet The Press
The guy who runs this building I’m in, Emergency Management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, “Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?” and he said, “Yeah, Mama, somebody’s coming to get you.” Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night! [Sobbing] Nobody’s coming to get us. Nobody’s coming to get us. The Secretary has promised. Everybody’s promised. They’ve had press conferences. I’m sick of the press conferences. For god’s sakes, just shut up and send us somebody.
________________________
There wasn't anyone to send. By all accounts this is not a unique story. At another nursing home 30 residents perished for lack of any assistance. How many nursing homes in New Orleans? Patients too ill to move laid in the beds on the roof of Charity Hospital awaiting rescue and had to watch healthy non-essential personnel being evacuated from the roof of Tulane (closely tied to government research agencies) across the street. The chopper left and it didn't come back for them. The doctors at Charity were reduced to giving each other saline IVs to hold off dehydration so they could try to continue to protect their patients while armed drug addicts were shooting the locks below trying to get in to get the drugs they thought were there. How many of those patients or doctors are alive now? Seems like everyone coming out of there has a story like these to tell, about horrible things happening not during the hurricane or first flood but two, three, four, five days later. These aren't just unfortunate and unavoidable consequences of natural disaster.
You can spin it however you want....
And, no, I do not think she is decent. I also do not believe she will ever be First Lady. Her own mouth will put an end to that dream....
it the spin
Of course we all know they are just spinning it like they can. If Clinton had gotten Edwards' endorsement then all their talk would be about how it solidifies them as the candidate for the blue collar worker. Obama gets the endorsement, so not it's just not important anyway. It's like the spin on the WV primary. She makes it out to be this crucial swing state the likes of Ohio when it matters little and has trended Republican the last two presidential elections anyway. Well, what else can she do? If that's all you have to work with I guess you blow it out of proportion (or minimize it in the case of Edwards). That's politics for you.
Spin the spin........
I think I will throw up now. Just think, if all animals were gay! And.........truth be told.........billy goats give themselves BJs....................and there are still billy goats!!!! hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
spin, spin, spin. - sm
You stick it - this is a valid news source.
It's out of their own newspaper. What a load of crock that you know the pubs cheat! Check your facts!!!! Oh wait you do know the facts, you just don't want to admit it because your god is in there.
It's the dems who cheat! Plain and simple. You're like a child that doesn't get your way and you decided to throw a temper tantrum.
In the primaries supporters of Hillary had rigged their voting machines so that she received most of the votes, even when people had voted for Barack, they rigged it so it went for Hillary.
Supporters or Hillary who lived in New York and Pennsylvania came to Connecticut and registered there to vote in their state too.
In the 2000 election they found a huge democratic official with a voting machine in his car and he was creating more votes for AL Gore than thee were people. Even the headline in the newspaper read that more people voted for Al Gore that actually lived in the county.
It has always been the democrats who cheat and then they spin it around to make it look like the big bad republicans are doing it.
spin, spin, spin
Change the subject. Nice try. Maybe you missed a very serious case and the pitiful facts surrounding that sex ring in VT a few months ago. Are you sure you really live there? You've got some real doozies for elected officials there. You should be mighty proud to be the #1 most pedophile-friendly state in the union.
Any reason why you try so hard to avoid that story? The perp was supposedly rehabilitated when he was doing all this disgusting stuff. Of course, there's scum in every state.
I'm glad (a) I don't have kids, and (b) I don't live in VT, where you might be someone "supervising" the playground or something. Wow. Where do they find people with such twisted mindsets, anyway?
Pro-war..what a nice little spin
GT I could almost believe you were Cindy Sheehan yourself. Heck, if I were George Soros, Howard Dean, or Michael Moore I'd snatch up as a publicist, a spokesperson in a heart beat. You've sure got the rhetoric down pat. I'm sure you will take this as a compliment but it's not meant that way.
Please do not spin my thoughts on CSK
I stated in my posts that I admire Mrs. very much. You have a very jaded view of Republicans and conservatives, so having a further conversation with you would not be productive and/or would not change your mind. I'm not trying to anyway but just trying to refute some of the gross misstatements in your posts. From your thoughts you think Repubs are the essence of evil. I think putting every Republican in the evil box implies that you are very polarized. I am not. There are some Democrats that I admire greatly as well as there are some Republicans I think should fall off the face of the Earth and vice versa.
I didn't sit and watch the whole funeral (I have to make a living). I heard Sen. Kennedy was there and spoke. I could be wrong on that one. I know there were some very upbeat and positive moments during the funeral. It definitely wasn't a dire depressing event. I'm only making comments about the politicans. You may think that no one was put off by Carter's comments, but please be assured talk radio is abuzz about the inappropriateness of the comments during Mrs. King's funeral and how classless it was. I'm sure the majority of the audience agreed with Carter. Our present Commander in Chief attended the funeral and to insult him nearly directly was definitely inappropriate and classless to say the least, especially at a funeral.
I think you need to get your facts about the Wellstone funeral straight. The Wellstone funeral turned into a Republican bash-fest by Democrats, so I don't see your point in bringing that up as an example of Republicans desecrating a funeral, because Democrats did that all on their own.
Anyway, I think America sees what is going on. I know that many people don't agree with Bush, but most people don't have the deep seated hate for Bush that you and other liberals seem to share.
This is my last post on the subject here...have a nice evening.
The spin stops right here....sm
So they have all had their panties in a wad for a lie. Is there any new news?
If they can find the right spin they will..sm
But they have to be careful how the approach active duty soldiers you know. Especially since they have spent the last 3 years saying liberals were not supporting the troops.
Talk about spin.....
He is giving you a $5000 tax credit to help you buy the insurance you want that fits your family's needs (McCain). And it is not taxed to you. Go read about it other than listen to what Obama's campaign says. I went to Obama's site, that is where I learned about his plan, not from his opponent, from HIM. Tax the middle class my eye. Obama says even the small businesses will not pay more than they paid under reagan. Under reagan the top rate was 28%. Obama's top is 41%. Helloo?? Laugh all the way to the poorhouse, friend. Buy a case of that snake oil. You may need it.
lol.
OMG! No SPIN on this board?
.
What spin - these are my thoughts
There is no spin to ones thoughts and feelings. I'm not sitting here trying to get you to believe one thing or another. I posted about a news story I read and my feelings. That is not spin.
Propaganda - whatever spin they need
We also have socialized K-12 schools and libraries; how is it that big business missed that chance for profit? Never turned me into a Bolshevik. But somehow, if we had free health care, it would corrupt us completely.
Well...talk about spin.
O may be spending a tad more than Bush in total budget, but he is cutting back 1.4 million on missile defense.....which, IMO, is not a very smart thing to do right now. If Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea have missiles and are sending them up and we show up with a tank....it is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
O'Reilly: Twisted spin, again.
A quote:
O'REILLY: Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office, the poverty rate was 13.7%. Halfway through President Bush's tenure the rate is 12.7, a full point lower.
[COMMENT According to statistics obtained from the U. S. Census site, when Bill Clinton began his term as President in 1993, the poverty rate was 15.1%. By the time Clinton left office the poverty rate was 11.7%. By 2002, under George Bush the rate began to rise again to 12.1% in 2002, 12.5% in 2003 and 12.7% in 2004.
According to the Christian Science Monitor this most recent increase was unforeseen by analysts who expected the number to drop along with unemployment and may indicate a disturbing trend. While the poverty level for Asians declined and it remained stable for Hispanics and African-Americans, the only group that saw an increase was non-Hispanic white Americans living in the midwest. In other words there are 1.1 million poorer red state residents this year than there were last year.]
O'REILLY: In 1996 the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2% of the budget. ... However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements - 14.6% of the entire budget - a huge increase over Clinton's spending. Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't. Because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply that America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor. But it's absolute nonsense. Even in the midst of the war on terror [Note: Did he mean the war of choice in Iraq?], this country is spending a massive amount of money tryin' to help the poor. So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others, that's why. Those who oppose the Bush administration don't care about the truth. They only want to advance their own agenda, so once again the No-Spin zone rides to the rescue.
Hard-working Americans are providing the poor with Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income - that's free money - child nutrition programs, welfare payments, child daycare payments, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care, adoption assistance and health insurance for children. But, it will never be enough for the Jesse Jacksons and Howard Deans of the world. Never! If they told you the truth, they'd go out of business.
Now, I fully expect to be attacked by the far-left media for tellin' you all this. I'm sure they'll label me a racist, a shill for Bush, stuff like that. But, I don't care. The dollars don't lie. We are a generous nation. And that is the truth.
COMMENT
Most of the poor in this country WORK, many of them hold down two and three jobs. If you want to read a damning book on this topic, I suggest you get Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickeled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America. Ms. Ehrenreich went underground and worked at minimum wage jobs for a year. She discovered a few unpleasant facts about life on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Self-satisfied, replete, rich men like Bill O'Reilly sit in their posh offices and scare hard-working Americans into believing that their taxes go to indigent scofflaws who sit at home guzzling beer, smoking pot, eating chips and watching TV. Those of us closer to homelessness know this is not the case.
When he mentioned that SSI (social security supplemental income) is free money, he neglected to say that it is money that goes to disabled Americans or that providing health coverage for children reduces trips to the emergency room!
Sometimes I wonder how many poor people Mr. O'Reilly actually knows or has associated with on a long-term basis? For the past 15 years I've been involved in a local program that offers music scholarship to needy families. In that time I've taught 7 different children from 7 different poverty situations and I came to know the families personally. Most of the adults in the family work really hard. Sometimes the kids worked, too, after school. Some had parents trying to break a drug habit (yes, they held down a job) or schizophrenic parents (who were incapable of working) or an abusive parent (who worked, then took it out on the family), but most were blessed with caring parents who were doing the best to provide for their children against almost impossible odds.
So when I hear guys like O'Reilly spout their simplistic tripe implying that the poor are sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working Americans, I see red.
Also, I don't trust O'Reilly's numbers on entitlement programs simply because he never once used the words inflation-adjusted dollars. If he was simply quoting raw numbers, I'd like to remind him that 15 years ago the dollar went farther. Additionally, he did not indicate through graphics or verbally whether or not there was parity between the two budgets, i.e., was he citing figures that included exactly the same programs in both figures?
Given O'Reilly's dubious track record, one cannot accept his statements without independent verification.
Yeah, loving your spin
MT was answering a POLL, not actively saying she was going back to Iraq. Any idiot could see that except people who have spin reality to suit their liking which goes on here all the time.
zero still equals zero no matter how you try to spin it
x
Of course you will. It's called spin. lol...sheesh.
nm
Kissinerger Spin Doctor?
Palin, Kissinger Split on Talks with Ahmadinejad
Email
Share September 25, 2008 7:55 PM
ABC News' Teddy Davis, Arnab Datta, and Rigel Anderson Report: During an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric which aired Thursday evening, Sarah Palin called Barack Obama "beyond naïve" for wanting to talk "without preconditions" to rogue leaders.
"I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with," said Palin, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met."
"Barack Obama is so off base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met," she continued. "That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment."
Asked if she considers former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to be "naïve" for supporting talks without preconditions, Palin said, "I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, 'Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'"
Palin was overlooking that Kissinger (with whom she met earlier this week) has backed negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues -- a point which Couric reconfirmed at the closer of her interview.
"Incidentally," said Couric, "we confirmed Henry Kissinger's position following our interview, he told us he supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, than with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions."
When contacted by ABC News about the split in position with Kissinger, the McCain-Palin campaign had no immediate comment.
Perception and spin are so interesting
The shoe-throwing incident is a perfect example. I saw Bush pretty nimbly dodging the thrown shoe, not ducking or "cowering" as some of the MSM talking heads described it, just whipping his torso to the side briefly, and centering up again with remarkable aplomb.
Wondering what he was supposed to do: Stand still and get smacked? Execute a perfect tai kwon do block? Catch and throw it back? Just askin'.......
|
