Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

They have bought into Bush's propaganda hook-line-and sinker.

Posted By: Democrat on 2005-08-23
In Reply to: Bush doesn't care anything - American Woman

"If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorist." - pres Bush

That's why anytime they hear an adverse opinion to Bush's war in Iraq, they start their spill about liberals being with the terrorists.


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

And you've swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker.
x
Obamabots often line up to refute GOP propaganda.
intellectually handicapped.
They towed Bush's line for 6 long years. Ask any progressive
better still, branch out and listen to opposing media views, including progressive radio and newspapers...those guys have yet to get mainstream coverage. To get any kind of decent international coverage, one is forced to go to media source outside of our own country. You might be REALLY surpised at what you find there. Get real.
We are about to be on the hook for billions...
orchestrated by the Democrats in Congress and ignored by both Biden and Obama...both supposedly savvy politicians who care about the middle class...well guess what...the middle class gets royally screwed over in this just like everyone else...and you want to make fun of Palin. I guess that shows priorities are.
The liar ticker is off the hook on that one. sm

They weren't 'LET OFF THE HOOK"
For starters, Obama did not dismiss these charges, Susan Crawford, described as a TOP LEGAL AUTHORITY for military trials did. Obama orders were to simply FREEZE the court proceedings (hello) PENDING the results of ongoing reviews of Gitmo operations.

Crawford's dedcision seems perfectly appropriate to me since dismissing the charges (ahem) WITHOUT PREJUDICE means he can be charged again once the results of the reviews are in, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that Abd Al-Rahim will remain in custody.

last line of Matthews piece cut off in error. 1 line sm
complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
Good dodge, but it doesn't let you off the hook with regards to the point
x
I say they'll be in the White House by hook or crook

same as W.  Gore wimped out.


I don;'t think McCain/Palin are the ones winning by hook or CROOK,
That would be Obama/Biden
Actually, I answered your posts line by line
about not "allowing" you to have an opinion. Those are your words, not mine. This is a good example of how this discussion has escalated from a simple link to this utter squashed bug nonsense. Why are you not able to simply debate the original issue at hand...the Eric Holder appointment? Too much of an intellectual challenge when somebody presents a THIRD-PARTY alternative viewpoint? You are the one who mentioned losing sleep and I remarked that it was probably unnecessary since you were blowing something out of proportion....something you have been doing all afternoon. You takes things WAY too personally.
Wow. You even bought into the lie of him
saying he invented the internet, huh? So you're not even informed? He NEVER said that. That's something right-wingers spread around. He said he help moved the initiatives forward, and he absolutely did. Look it up for a change rather than taking Rush's word for it. Here's the snopes link:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

And all the scientists in the whole world agree with Gore about global warming. It's a fact and happening. Do you know what's happening with the polar ice caps? Stick your head in the sand. I have no patience or respect for those who refuse to inform themselves & just take the word of people like Rush or O'Reilly, etc.

Here's one of the shelves breaking off already: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/environment&id=6042418
You said you bought it three years ago.
How does that make it a rental? And don't mobile homes depreciate in value instead of appreciate? Still makes no sense.
That's how he bought his house......
With the money paid on his book deals.....yes, frugal by choice and probably habit. If I got that much of an advance on my books, the first thing I'd do is buy a gorgeous house in a nice neighborhood to raise my kids.
Screw them if they bought more than
they could afford or were too stupid to read the paperwork. My mortgage is paid every month (early with extra $$ towards principal). We were approved for a $500,000 loan and bought a house that was $180,000 that suits us just fine. Too bad some people were not better prepared (or shouldn't have been able) to be homeowners; it's not the gov'ts fault.
Yep! America will probably be bought
by another country. I stated that before on this post months ago.

Should look at the link above about "DID YOU KNOW? Scary."

Well, I guess a majority of the country WANTED CHANGE and we are going to get it, even though the ones who voted did not not know what the change would be.
Actually, I bought it during the election last time....
from a local democrat group who was using them regarding Bush. But Bush's name is not on the sign. It is generic, a money saver for them I guess, they can use them any time a Repub president is in the white house. lol.
This election was bought and paid for by

My daught bought a home right off of
Jimmy Carter Blvd so you know about where she lives. Had a problem with crowing rooster 1 morning, said to be expected.
Yeah, right. Guess you bought into the lie
Just send me a check.

Guess you haven't read the real news. There was no surplus.
Maybe that is why China bought Hummer?
x
You bought the bull, horns and all, didn't ya?
First of all, 96,000,000 Americans don't even PAY taxes. That's 44%. Those people are going to be given WELFARE checks, not tax cuts. (Because, duh, you can't pay less than zero!)

So tell me, how can Saint Obama cut taxes for 95% of America when only 56% of America pays taxes in the first place?

Answer:
He's L-Y-I-N-G to you, dipstick.
I never meant where he bought his house specifically, but...
if I could afford a really nice ranch with an amazing barn, you can bet your behind I would be there, as I am sure you all would buy your dream house, as well, regardless of what you are saying here. I don't really buy into the whole "I would continue to live just where I do" frap. At least I am honest. And, no, money can't buy happiness, but I don't bet that it hurts to have a nice house either. What is it that you find so offensive about living in a nice neighborhood?
Granted, there are people who bought more house.....sm
than they could afford, but there are also people who are now unemployed through no fault of their own who would benefit from this measure. Like my dear old friend often says...."There but by the grace of God go I."
Sorry, these aren't bought and paid for crowds!!
xx
Bought a Dell computer straight from sm
the company a year ago and no way would I buy another one that way! I might go to Best Buy where they have the Geek Squad right on the premises. If you call Geek Squad on the phone, you get somebody in India or better yet I got someone over in Japan!!!!!!!!!!! Couldn't understand a thing he was saying. The tech support is rude and nasty. Only if I could go through Best Buy and get my service at GS right in the store, would I buy another Dell Other than that, forget it!!!!!!!!!!
China! Guess who bought Hummer?
I bet China and every other country is really laughing at us.
Question for you all about the dishes bought at the White House

How do you feel about it? I feel its bad timing no matter who the buyer was since the economy is in such a state right now even though the money was donated to the Historical Society to buy them. I know they can do whatever they want with it but it just seems so wrong to me when so many Americans are hurting.


I was reading some on another site and one person made the comment that it would look bad on the US if they had to eat on mismatched plates at their big dinners...and yes she was serious. That comment just doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't it look worse on the US when their are Americans loosing their homes and living on the streets or in cars and not even knowing where their next meal will come from let alone whether or not they even have a plate to eat it on.


There are just some things that just make me want to go huh?


Look, I don't care if Obama's inaugaration party is costing 21 million, but in the light of where our economy is right now, do you think it's a good idea? I mean, can't you have a good party for around 10 million? This is NOT a political question. I'm not attacking Obama, it's more of an economic question.


Tests can be thrown, college admissions bought and sold
Since when can IQ be extrapolated from SAT test scores? I'd appreciate a source citation so I can read up on that, unless you are going on those lame IQ test websites that have assigned W, O and Michelle's IQ all at 125. Fact is, brilliant people have been known to score low on SAT for a variety of reasons so that argument is not terribly convincing.

I'm going strictly on such measures as butchery of his native tongue, i.e., inability to form more than monosyllabic 6-word sentences without a teleprompt or cue cards, how challenged he is to complete a whole thought and his dependence on behind-the-scenes heavyweights to engineer his campaigns and run his presidency, just to name a few.

W was denied admission to St. John's Academy (HS) and UT School of Law. This does not happen for no reason. His distinguishing accomplishment at his Dad's alma mater was joining the secret society of the Skull and Bones brotherhood. I'm a firm believer that strings were pulled on his behalf (as they were on so many other occasions) to get him into the ivy league track, unlike Obama, who did it the old-fashioned way (scholastic achievement) when he transferred to Columbia and was ultimately admitted to Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude.

Bush does have an impressive record of failing at almost everything he every tried to do before (and after) his political career: In abstentia service in the National Guard, bombed election bid for the Texas House of Representatives in 1978, and an oil company that went bust which he left under a cloud of suspicion of insider trading. He did manage to capitalize on his 5-year dalliance with the Texas Rangers baseball team (could't really call what he did there REAL work) just long enough to get good name recognition for his run for gov and make a profitable sale of his shares in the team.

This less than stellar performance was totally eclipsed by the multitude of screw-ups while in office, way too much to get into in the confines of this forum. Bottom line for me is that his behavior and performance is very uninspiring, less than mediocre and not at all suggestive of much in the way of creativity or intellect....in other words, the polar opposite of the O. Hence the statement, IQ is good for the country. The wisdom angle was somebody else's attempt to side-step the issue of W's stupidity.
Nah, propaganda?
They're just on a roll for stupid remarks. Check out the Repug from Iowa's dignified, intelligent line of thinking. What a jerk; obviously King prefers anemic blonde bimbos who spew out the same garbage he does.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726435

Iowa Congressman Apologizes for Rude Helen Thomas Reference

By E&P Staff

Published: June 22, 2006 2:00 AM ET

NEW YORK Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, apologized to Helen Thomas on Wednesday for disparaging comments he made about the veteran White House correspondent.

Last Saturday, Rep. King, while discussing the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at the state Republican convention, said, What occurred to me that morning is something that I imagine a lot of you have thought about and he's probably figured it out by now. There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at and if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas.

The remark drew wide laughter and applause.

A spokeswoman for the two-term congressman said King has apologized to Thomas, 85, now writing a column for Hearst newspapers.

King is running for re-election this fall.

Joyce Schulte, King's Democratic opponent in November, said
Mean-spirited remarks are beneath the dignity of any self respecting congressperson, and remarks about another person's appearance are even lower. I hesitate to even use Helen Thomas' name in the same document with so vile a wretch as al-Zarqawi. But I want her and the world to know that Iowans are not insensitive buffoons who make fun at someone else's expense.




because it is propaganda

due to the upcoming election.


 


Propaganda goes on. n/m
x
That is taken from the PROPAGANDA

link, which I already explained, and when you click on the red "require" link, it takes you directly to OBAMA'S PLAN, which does NOT SAY THAT.  The original link IS A LIE.


It was cleverly worded, intended to promote the propaganda that's attractive to predisposed Obama haters, who apparently are known to NOT click on the "supporting" link which, in this case, DOES NOT support their assertion.  I agree it worked with some, and that's sad.


Watch that propaganda now!
It's simply not true that Cindy Sheehan had "nothing but praise" for Bush and has now done a 360-degree turn. It's Drudge and Limbaugh nonsense with quotes taken out of context and spun to try and seem....what? It's nothing if not illogical. Aren't those intent on smearing her loudly proclaiming that she has been anti-Bush and anti-war since long before her son was killed? Then why would she fall all over herself praising him AFTER her son was killed? It makes no sense at all, but the attackers aren't really big on making sense apparently. They just throw all the garbage at the wall and see what might stick, that's how they operate.

What I really don't get is what the attackers are meaning to say. Even if it were true that Ms. Sheehan "did a 360" - point please? So what? So perhaps she was trying to make the best of a bad bad situation and least be respectful toward the president in consideration of his meeting with her and other family members - but since then, as she says herself, we have had the Downing Street proof, we have learned there were no WMDs at the time we invaded, we have learned all sorts of unbelievably horrible things - why SHOULDN'T anyone let those things change their views?

Now she just wants to know what this "noble" cause is that the President keeps referring to, and she wants to ask him to stop using the dead to justify making more unnecessary dead. But oh no, she must have an AGENDA! - well seems like that's it, isn't it? She wants to know and she wants him to look her in the eye and explain himself. And why shouldn't he? Or more precisely, why can't he seem to be able to do it? If he is sincere in his beliefs and committed to the cause, considering he's such a straight-talking nice guy, what's the problem? What is the big deal? It could all be over with in an hour. Why won't he just do it?
I agree. Probably over-the-top propaganda. sm
The more she hawks that film, the less interest I have in viewing it. I'm guessing it has more creative editing and special effects than a Hollywood movie, with plenty of lies and misinformation thrown in for good measure.

I like to find objective sources of information whenever possible, and that sure ain't gonna come from sam on this topic, IMO.
propaganda when convenient to you.
nm
Why do you say its racist propaganda
I just watched the video and there is nothing racist or of any propaganda. Whoever made the video took actual clips of Obama talking and talked about Obama's ideologies and mentors. Nothing racist involved. Is it your just upset because the truth about Obama is coming out and you dont want anyone to know what he is like?
That's pure propaganda

Right down to the music that is being played in the background.  Anyone can take bits and pieces of articles and flash them on the screen.  Those aren't facts. 


The democrates did not cause the financial crisis. Here are some real facts:


Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration. 


The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country.  It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican adminstration EXCEPT the top 1%. 


While Nixon and Ford were in office interest rates for mortgages had ballooned to 11%-13% and many people in this country could not afford to buy a home.  Carter brought those rates down so that more people in this country could afford to buy homes. 


What caused this mess is not the people who were extended credit.  Here is part of what caused it:  Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time.  Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. First-time home buyers were especially targeted.  A lot of them didn't understand what they were getting into because it was misrepresented to them.  They didn't know, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalities.  Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and they were unable to refinance.  Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford.  As homeowners lost their homes the banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices were no longer able to collect on those loans.  But the banks (and the CEOs) that initated those loans walked away with a great deal of money. 


It was because of greed.  And the deregulation that the republicans passed allowed it to happen. 


 


More Republican propaganda s/m

If you had been alive or old enough to remember, things like this were not that uncommon.  The hippie cult was rampant, especially in California and most of them were drug crazed, LSD I believe was the drug of choice, haven't heard of that in years..  The Viet Nam War was even more controversial than the Iraq War.  Soldiers came home from Viet Nam and were spit on by these kinds of radicals.  It was on the news daily.  Anyone else remember?  These people now have grandsons and granddaughters in Iraq and I can tell you first hand that at least some of them regret what they did and said in the 60s.


Now, considering this was back in the 60s and there is absolutely no proof that Obama was best buds with Ayers in the first place, why not let it go?  Apparently Ayers is a respected professor today.  How many of you who are of a ripe old age like myself would like to be judged on what you did when you were in your 20s?  I wouldn't.


 


Propaganda can be destructive to us ALL


by: Robert Parry, Consortium News


photo
Republican Whip Eric Cantor meets with his staffers. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)




    Today's Republicans are thumbing through Newt Gingrich's worn playbook of 1993 looking for tips on how to blunt President Barack Obama's political momentum and flip it to their advantage. In doing so, they also appear to have dug in to what might be called the secret appendix.

    The official history of what happened during Bill Clinton's difficult first two years - which ended in a sweeping Republican congressional victory in 1994 - focuses on the GOP's united resistance to his economic plan and Hillary Clinton's failed health care reform. But there was a darker side to the political damage inflicted on the early Clinton administration.


    Republicans and their right-wing allies disseminated what - in a covert operation - would be called "black propaganda." Some exaggerated minor scandals, like the Travel Office firings and Clinton's Whitewater real-estate deal, while other key figures on the Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, spread ugly conspiracy rumors linking Clinton to "mysterious deaths" and cocaine smuggling.


    Sometimes, these multiplying "Clinton scandals" built on themselves with the help of their constant repetition in both the right-wing and mainstream news media. For instance, overheated accusations about some personnel changes at the White House Travel Office pushed deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster into a deep depression.


    Then, on July 30, 1993, a distraught Foster went to Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River and shot himself. The Right quickly transformed the tragedy into a new front in the anti-Clinton psychological warfare, with Foster's death giving rise to a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists and a new way to raise doubts about Clinton.


    Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others, popularized the notion that Foster may have been killed elsewhere, with his body then transported to Fort Marcy Park. Repeated official investigations confirmed the obvious facts of Foster's suicide but could not quell the conspiracy rumors. [For the fullest account of the Foster case, see Dan Moldea's A Washington Tragedy.]


    The "mystery" around Foster's death also bolstered the "mysterious deaths" list, which mostly contained names of people who had only tangential connections to Clinton. The effectiveness of the list was the sheer volume of the names, creating the illusion that Clinton must be a murderer even though there was no real evidence implicating Clinton in any of the deaths.


    As the list was blast-faxed far and wide, one of my right-wing sources called me up about the list and said, "even if only a few of these are real, that's one helluva story." I responded that if the President of the United States had murdered just one person that would be "one helluva story," but that there was no evidence that Clinton was behind any of the deaths.


    Other dark Clinton "mysteries" were spread through videos, like "The Clinton Chronicles" that Falwell hawked on his "Old-Time Gospel Hour" television show. Plus, salacious tales about the personal lives of the Clintons were popularized via right-wing magazines, such as The American Spectator, and the rapidly expanding world of right-wing talk radio.


    The Right also generated broader conspiracy theories about "black helicopters" threatening patriotic Americans with a United Nations takeover. The paranoia fed the rise of a "militia movement" of angry white men who dressed up in fatigues and went into the woods for paramilitary training.


    By fall 1994, Clinton's stumbling performance in office and the public doubts created by the black propaganda opened the way for a stunning Republican victory. Recognizing the influence of talk radio in spreading the Clinton smears, House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.


    However, the forces that the anti-Clinton psy-war campaign set in motion had unintended consequences. In the months after the Republicans gained control of Congress, one pro-militia extremist, Timothy McVeigh, took the madness to the next step and blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Clinton Coup d'Etat?"]


    Reprising the Smears


    Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama's presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.


    In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.


    And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents - and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor.


    So far at least, the Republicans are experiencing less success against Barack Obama than they did against Bill Clinton. According to opinion polls, Obama remains widely popular with an American public that favors his more activist agenda for reviving the American economy and confronting systemic problems like energy, health care and education.


    Though Republicans scored points inside the Beltway with their opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill - and their complaints that Obama "failed" in his bipartisan outreach to them - the GOP tactics appear to have backfired with the American people.


    Gauging public opinion one month into Obama's presidency, polls found that most Americans faulted the Republicans for rebuffing Obama's gestures of bipartisanship, and a New York Times/CBS News poll discovered that a majority said Obama "should pursue the priorities he campaigned on … rather than seek middle ground with Republicans." [NYT, Feb. 24, 2009]


    But the Republicans seem incapable of coming up with any other strategy than to seek Obama's destruction, much as they torpedoed Clinton. The three moderate Republican senators who supported the stimulus package - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter - were widely denounced by the right-wing media as "traitors."


    Indeed, the Republican Party arguably has become captive to the angry right-wing media that the GOP conservatives did so much to help create in the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War defeat and Richard Nixon's Watergate debacle.


    This Right-Wing Machine proved useful in protecting Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal; undermining Clinton in the 1990s; dirtying up AL Gore in 2000; and wrapping George W. Bush in the protective garb of a full-scale cult of personality after 9/11.


    But the machine wore down in its defense of Bush's multitude of disasters and ultimately could not generate enough suspicions about Obama to elect John McCain. Still, it remains a potent force in the country and particularly among the Republican "base."


    It is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status.


    In turn, Republican leaders can't disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama's presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh's openly declared desire for Obama to fail.


    Now, the Republicans may see little choice but to bet on the ability of their Right-Wing Machine to continue spreading doubts and hysteria about Obama.


    More books and DVDs can be expected soon, recycling the 2008 campaign's rumor-mongering on Obama - that he wasn't born in the United States, that he's a secret Muslim, that he's in league with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, etc.


    Rumbling Insurrection


    Much like the Clinton-era militia movement's fear of "black helicopters," there already are rumblings about the need for an armed uprising to thwart Obama's alleged "communist" agenda.


    Ironically, right-wingers who defended George W. Bush when he mounted a radical assault on the Constitution - seeking to establish an imperial presidency while eliminating habeas corpus and other key freedoms - are suddenly seeing threats to the Constitution from Obama.


    Fox News, in particular, has been floating the idea of armed rebellion. On Feb. 20 - the one-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration - Glenn Beck hosted a special program called "War Room" that "war-gamed" various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when "bubba" militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.


    The segment featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama's election last November.


    "This is going to be violent," said Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute. "People can't afford it [taxes] anymore. The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They're going to be uncontrollable. You're going to have gangs in control. Motorcycle marauders. You're not going to have enough police or federales - just like Mexico - to control the situation."


    Beck envisioned the uprising - theoretically set in 2014 - starting "because people have been so disenfranchised" leading to a "bubba effect" touched off by federal agents from the ATF or FBI arresting some rancher in Texas or Arizona who has taken the law into his own hands in defending his property.


    "That's totally possible," ex-Sgt. Strong said. "You've got people who are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of the United States, to include their own. … Your second and third orders of effect are going to be your bubbas hunkering down and being anti-government."


    Beck, who was a longtime fixture on CNN's Headline News before moving to Fox, then expanded on the justification for the bubba uprising against a federal government that was "coming in and disenfranchising people over and over and over again - and having the people say please listen to us."


    According to Beck, these oppressed Americans "know the Constitution. They know the writings of the Founders and they feel that the government - or they will in this scenario and I think we're on this road - the government has betrayed the Constitution. So they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution."


    Beck then turned to ex-CIA officer Scheuer and asked, "So how do you defuse this, Michael, or how long even do we have before this becomes a crazy real scenario?"


    "I don't think you'd want to defuse it, Glenn," Scheuer responded. "The Second Amendment is … at base not about hunting or about a militia, but about resisting tyranny. The Founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against a tyrannical government."


    As the discussion edged toward advocacy of violent revolution, Beck sought to reel it back in a bit.


    "Don't get me wrong," the host said. "I am against the government. And I think they've just been horrible. I do think they are betraying the principles of our Founders every day they're in office. But I have to tell you this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is shaking nitroglycerine."


    Beck then got back to the point: "Do the soldiers come in and do they round up people or do they fight with the people for the Constitution? What does the Army, what does the military do?"


    Scheuer answered: "I don't think the military is ever going to shoot on the American people, sir. I think the military - of all people - read the Constitution every year, right through."


    Beck then suggested that Obama's stimulus package might lead to this back-door federal tyranny.


    "We just had in our stimulus package a way for if your governor says no to the money, the legislature can go around the governor and go right to the Feds," Beck said. "It's this kind of thing that would make the federal government say, ‘You know what? We can call up the National Guard. We don't need your governor to do it.'"


    Such insurrectionist musings on Fox News are not likely to be taken seriously by most people. Indeed, many Americans may find it amusing that Fox has developed a heartfelt concern about disenfranchising voters after its enthusiastic embrace of Bush's undemocratic "election" in 2000 or that Fox now feels a sudden reverence for the Constitution after eight years of defendin Bush as he trampled it.


    But this sort of Fox chatter runs the risk of feeding the well-nursed grievances of angry white "bubbas" and possibly inspiring a new Timothy McVeigh.


    More significantly, today's Republican leaders - finding themselves with little new to offer - appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.


    -------


    Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.


»


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.
NOT propaganda - FACT
But I rather doubt people like yourself are interested in distinguishing between the two..

As to independent thought? when is the last time (or the first!) that you ever tried to follow up on a concept that you initially REJECT?

You can't slam the other side if you never consider it's point of view.

Fortunately some of us stopped being robots a long time ago and do our own research...
propaganda - see message

Could those of you who label some posts as having a less than credible news source share your techniques for finding and recognizing purely factual unbiased news and also how you keep from adding your own perspective in order to relay such incredibly unalloyed information to us? 


Well, that's nasty propaganda at work...
...and they use it because it *does* work, unfortunately.

But hey - Jesus and his closest followers were never a majority of anything. They weren't the powerful, or those in control of the Temple, or those who lived in luxury in the lap of Rome. Those who were in control hated them and considered them pesky liberals. So I guess Democratic Christians stand in pretty good historical company.
This video is propaganda. Repeat...
nm
And the others are propaganda machines for libs...
to each his own, as you say.
Propaganda works well on dimwits but not well enough
su
Your Catholic propaganda belongs on the
*
I didn't take this as catholic propaganda
Yes, it's obvious it was created by catholics, but the overall message was vote your conscious (p.s. I'm Athiest so if anyone I would be offended). Yes, I could have done without putting catholic this or catholic that up there, but the message was clear to me - vote your conscious (and they didn't tell me who I should vote for - that's a plus in my book).
Racist Propaganda at its Worst! (nm)
:{
More right-wing propaganda...not buying it! (nm)
:p