myPlanetGanja.com

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Fox leads for trust

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

For Democrats the numbers are a complete opposite- a majority trust all of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC while only 30% have faith in Fox News. Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

NBC is the most popular choice among Democrats at a 62/17 spread. Although 'NBC News' was the entity named in the question it's possible respondents could have been lumping MSNBC in with it given the good numbers on the left. At a 17/69 spread CBS was the least popular with Republicans, perhaps indicating residual unhappiness from the Dan Rather days. CNN finished second among Democrats, Republicans, and independents suggesting that it may be the least polarizing of the major tv news operations.

These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed.

Full results http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... al_126.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fox The Most Trusted News Source

Marabou Stork wrote:The poll may show more about how gullible Americans are, than proving anything about what news sources are reliable.

Nothing ratchets up the perennial debate over media bias like a presidential election. But as Tim Groeling, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, observes, public discussions about media bias are often just “food fights,” with pundits and partisans throwing around anecdotes.

Groeling is hoping to advance scientific (and public) knowledge beyond this mush with research he used to demonstrate selection bias in television networks’ decision to run or withhold the results of presidential approval polls. For an article appearing in Presidential Studies Quarterly this December, Groeling designed a method to deal with a problem that often besets research on the media: people can identify all the news that journalists saw fit to print, but it’s more difficult to determine what they chose to ignore.

To counter the problem of the “unobserved population,” Groeling collected two different data sets: in-house presidential approval polling by ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX News and the networks’ broadcasts of such polls on evening news shows from January 1997 to February 2008. Groeling found that, with varying degrees of statistical significance, CBS, NBC and ABC showed what Groeling calls a pro-Democrat bias. For instance, CBS was 35 percent less likely to report a five-point drop in approval for Bill Clinton than a similar rise in approval and was 33 percent more likely to report a five-point drop than a rise for George W. Bush. Meanwhile FOX News showed a statistically significant pro-Republican bias in the most controlled of the three models Groeling tested: its Special Report program was 67 percent less likely to report a rise in approval for Clinton than a decrease and 36 percent more likely to report the increase rather than the decrease for Bush.

Groeling’s work is one of the few studies to quantify partisan bias in the media, a subject notoriously difficult for social scientists to research and discuss. These scientists work with theories such as the socalled hostile media effect to predict that ardent supporters of a cause will view media as slanted for the other side, and they have conducted hundreds of studies that have revealed imbalances in the ways journalists frame news on topics ranging from AIDS to the war in Iraq. But there is not a cohesive literature on media bias. Maxwell McCombs of the University of Texas at Austin, who pioneered agenda-setting theory, one of the leading paradigms on news media, says that a researcher would need a few years to make sense of existing data and develop an approach to study media bias. Like many scholars, McCombs sees “bias” as a loaded term, preferring to speak of journalists’ “predilections.”

“Scholars hate the word ‘bias’ because they feel like they’re entering the ideological fray,” says S. Robert Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, who prefers the term “tone.” Despite his efforts, Lichter himself got sucked into that fray. His content analysis of the transcripts of TV news broadcasts at the statement level is a respected and widely adopted methodology. This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative. When Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly attacked Lichter’s method during a radio interview, saying it would embolden liberal bias, Lichter responded, “You can take all my studies or none of my studies”—an allusion to past uses of his work to support conservative views.

Mr. French wrote:Fox News Channel has also never had to pull a story that I know of. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC all have had to broadcast retractions after getting the story wrong, or in some cases just outright manufacturing a story.

bubbabush wrote:among those who trust a television news corporation to tell them what's true. A high honor indeed.

~O~

bubbabush wrote:You don't even get the point do you wahabbi? We don't dispute that poxnews is "the most trusted" network news broadcast by the 0.69% of Americans (2.3 million) including yourself, brick, hellboy, and the rest who view it daily. We understand that you swallow their spew. Shit, that's one of the main reasons that we hold your opinions in such contempt.

~O~

Partisanship and Cable News Audiences

October 30, 2009

33% DemocratFoxViewers 10302009.jpg (36.26 KiB) Viewed 696 times

[/size]

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Marabou Stork wrote:Fox was found to be more biased in this study.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FOXNEWS provided the most balanced cable coverage of the presidential election among major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS) and likely the most balanced of all six outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC included), although they oddly didnt release the latter three network's numbers. Keep in mind, while Pew bills itself as Independent, it certainly leans to the left, which is probably why they didnt release all the numbers. God forbid they stated FoxNews was the most fair of any television network, as it's doubtful any network bested the Fox numbers below since the Fox positive/negative are almost a perfect match. Interestingly, while they released the numbers for MSNBC and FOX, they didnt release individual CNN numbers, choosing to say it closely reflected the "Total Coverage" numbers below, putting it somewhere between MSNBC and FOX.

The Best (least biased) and the Worst (most biased) news coverage?

BEST (FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%

WORST (MSNBC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%

TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%

bubbabush wrote:Anyone who trusts poxnews, or even any of the legitimate tv news for that matter, is a born fool. Luckily, poxnewsers,let alone trusting poxnewswers though loud, are actually a rare phenomon http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/cnn_ ... bc_gro.php with only an average 2.3 million of the 23 million news viewers among the 100million plus total primetime viewers within the 310 million member public. http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/nar ... =2&media=6 tuning in. That's a little more than New Mexico and a little less than Houston.

~O~

In all of cable, Fox News finished the quarter as the second-most-watched network in primetime, behind only USA Network. CNN ranked 17th, MSNBC placed 24th and HLN, CNN’s sister news channel, came in 30th. For the total programming day, Fox News was 5th, CNN was 14th and MSNBC was 28th.

Fox News also dominated the list of top news analysis programs, claiming nine of the top 10 spots.

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/cnn_ ... bc_gro.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fox News Finishes Week #1 in All of Primetime Cable

By Kevin Allocca on Jan 26, 2010 10:23 AMFox News was the top cable network in primetime last week, averaging the most total viewers between January 18th-24th. The last time FNC topped USA and came in first was during the week of the 2008 presidential election.

In a week dominated by coverage of the earthquake in Haiti and the U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, FNC drew an average of 3.2 million total viewers in primetime (Mon-Sun).

Fox was ranked 3rd in total day. CNN was 22nd in primetime and 19th in total day, and MSNBC was 25th in primetime and 31st in total day.

Here are the primetime cable rankings for the week of January 18th: [At the link]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc ... 150010.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bubbabush wrote:Pox only really matters because of the fervency and odd daytime availability for teabagging of it's miniscule, primarily rural, obese ignorant viewership.

~O~

January '10 Ratings: Fox News Up Double Digits; Best January Ever

By Kevin Allocca on Feb 02, 2010 03:48 PM

Fox News was the number one cable news network in all categories in January, and posted big numbers during coverage of the Massachusetts Senate election, the State of the Union, and the earthquake in Haiti. This was the best January in the network's history and continued the channel's dominance over its competitors.

FNC was up double digits compared to January of '09, the only network to post any year-to-year gains. Here are the averages:

Total day (Mon-Sun): 1.325M total viewers / 367k A25-54
Prime (Mon-Sun): 2.413M total viewers / 637k A25-54

Year-to-year, FNC's total day is up +16% in total viewers (+28% demo) and its primetime is up +22% in total viewers (51% demo).

For primetime, Fox was the #3 network in basic cable (behind USA and ESPN) and bested CNN, MSNBC, and HLN combined in both total viewers and the demo.

"The O'Reilly Factor" continues as the number one cable news program averaging 3.8 million total viewers and 983k in the demo, which are gains of 23% and 58% year-over-year. Sean Hannity had his best month since going solo on his show.

Some of FNC's highest-rated programs saw large growth, especially in the demo, compared to last January. "Hannity" is up +21% in total viewers (+50% demo), "On the Record" is up +40% (+74%) and "Glenn Beck" is up +90% (+121%) compared to last January. "The FOX Report" and "Special Report" marked 100 consecutive months as the top programs in their time slots. "Your World" had its best month since 2005.

FNC programs again filled the top 13 slots among cable news programs in total viewers, but they also swept the top 13 in the demo, the first time that's happened in five years.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/rat ... 150782.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Red Eye Celebrates Third Year By Topping CNN Prime Time Last Week

by Steve Krakauer | 2:41 pm, February 8th, 2010

MSNBC’s David Shuster became a fan of Fox News’ late-night comedy/news hybrid Red Eye just in time for its three-year anniversary.

And it’s coming at a time when the 3amET show is seeing big ratings in the A25-54 demographic – even topping CNN prime time last week.
Just like when we highlighted the show’s ratings in September 2009 (which the FNC advertising department enjoyed as well, taking out full-page ads in the New York Post and others), the ratings for last week show Red Eye beating CNN again. This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).

For Friday’s third-anniversary show, there was a look back at the past few years, including the second episode – which was…fairly raw. And featured an unkempt, pre-Big-Everything Andrew Breitbart.

“I want to thank our awesomely awesome fans for watching and supporting us over the last three years,” said Gutfeld. “And if you didn’t support us, you’re worse than Media Matters.”

Here’s the Greg-alogue from Friday night, featuring David Gregory’s hair, a lot of cat jokes aimed at Andy Levy and insults aimed at Bill Schulz. And more robots: [Link at the link]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye- ... last-week/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Fox spokesperson rejected the suggestion that the network promoted the tea party movement, and differentiated the network's news coverage from the treatment given the movement by some of the network's opinion commentators, who have actively encouraged participation in protests.

Intrinsic wrote:http://ow.ly/14MFt
From a February 6 Politico article:

A Fox spokesperson rejected the suggestion that the network promoted the tea party movement, and differentiated the network's news coverage from the treatment given the movement by some of the network's opinion commentators, who have actively encouraged participation in protests.

Really?

REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests

Hosting the party: Fox aired at least 20 segments, 73 promos on "tea party" protests -- in just 8 days

Fox News' Hemmer: "Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party.

Fox News "hops" aboard Tea Party Express with rampant promotions, live coverage

Media verdict is in: Fox News driving force behind tea parties

On the house: Fox aired 107 ads for its coverage of tea party protests over 10 days

"I saw it on Fox": Dozens of articles on local tea parties report Fox News had a hand in them

Fox News' tea party coverage makes mockery of claim that network provides "straight ... news" in daytime

Fox host Varney: 'It's now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!'
http://ow.ly/14MFt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [<== link has screen shots.]

Peace Pipe wrote:Glenn Beck used to belong to CNN.
Fox must've offered him a better contract or some shit.

bubbabush wrote:Do they do any skit's on Palin's batwing vagina taking over DC?

~O~

bubbabush wrote:I remember this proddi churchgirl I banged the shit out of when I was 15 who's lab' and clit would sometimes swell all up like they do during childbirth and she'd just shudder like she was having chills the whole time. That's kinda how I've always looked @ proddie girls since, so I just assumed that she's got a meaty man-grabber.

~O~

Hax wrote:Damn Noreen, lookem at what they's saying on the Fox News. That nagger's a mooslim jussa like Jethro said.

Intrinsic wrote:Yeah Peace Pipe, he was on CNN, I remember a year ago(?) he pissed cnn off with continuing racist remarks and wouldn’t apologies for something or other , I forget, and went straight to fox. there was a broo-haha over it at the time.

Fox News Hires Glenn Beck Away From CNN

By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER
Published: October 16, 2008

The Fox News Channel brought in a big name from a rival Thursday when it announced that it had signed Glenn Beck, the host of a widely viewed talk show on Headline News, a sister network of CNN.

Mr. Beck, who has frequently raised hackles in liberal circles with his acerbic conservative commentary, will host a new talk hour on Fox News from 5 to 6 p.m. weeknights. The show will not start until the spring, and a CNN press officer would not say when Mr. Beck would conclude his shows there. His contract ends in February.

Mr. Beck has been increasingly successful at Headline News, as his audience has more than doubled in the last year for the two editions of his hourlong weeknight program.
~snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/busin ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bubbabush wrote:No, she had more than a wishbone or airbrush vag but until you started working it it wasn't all that big and swollen; I'm talking like 5-10x as big or more when she got going with wet slippery lips rubbing ll over you almost out to your hips and her clit trying to poke a hole in your pelvis.

~O~

“I could give a flying crap about the political process. ... We’re an entertainment company,” - Glenn Beck.

bubbabush wrote:We don't dispute that poxnews is "the most trusted" network news broadcast by the 0.69% of Americans (2.3 million) including yourself, brick, hellboy, and the rest who view it daily.~O~

J.D. wrote:

bubbabush wrote:We don't dispute that poxnews is "the most trusted" network news broadcast by the 0.69% of Americans (2.3 million) including yourself, brick, hellboy, and the rest who view it daily.~O~

Is there really a need for you to make things up?

I very seldom watch FOX News or any other new broadcasts anymore. I tend to read numerous publications for news rather than online rather than watch news.

Even when I did watch Fox News often it was just that, FOX News and not the various FOX News Channel entertainment shows, and it is the actual news that is the best outlet for news that someone can pick if they want the most complete reporting.

bubbabush wrote:No response to being shown a fool in your own idoloting thread wahabbi? Why am I not surprised. Never was a hair on your ass was there?


~O~

bubbabush wrote:Here ya go wahabbi, I gocher foxnews hangin boy

“I could give a flying crap about the political process. ... We’re an entertainment company,” - Glenn Beck.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/ ... gechannels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Says all it needs to about you trusting poxnewswers doesn't it you schmuck.

~O~

smokebreaks wrote:I'm more apt to believe that there should be many caveats added to that headline.

Like: Fox News: The Most Trusted News Source, because people are fucking gullible morons and will believe anything you put on their tee vee.

No response to being shown as the fool you are, bubbabushboy? Why am I not surprised. Never was a hair on your ass was there?

bubbabush wrote:wahabbi snickered:

No response to being shown as the fool you are, bubbabushboy? Why am I not surprised. Never was a hair on your ass was there?

Originality = 0/10
Style = 3
Delivery = 4

You know that I don't read bricki's spam. Even a stoner like me doesn't have time to waste like that.

~O~

smokebreaks wrote:I'm more apt to believe that there should be many caveats added to that headline.

Like: Fox News: The Most Trusted News Source, because people are fucking gullible morons and will believe anything you put on their tee vee.

The headline would not need any caveats if some people would not have been on a crusade to make FOX News look biased by pointing at the political entertainment shows that are also on FOX News Channel and claiming they are actual Fox News broadcasts.

Just think about it a second. Whenever someone says that Fox News is biased they almost always mention Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity etc. But they are not FOX News broadcasters/news readers, they have political entertainment shows on FOX News Channel

For more than seven consecutive years, "The O'Reilly Factor" on the FOX News Channel has been the highest rated of any cable news show. No program even comes close.
It is presided over by Bill O'Reilly, the man who smiles when he calls himself, "Your humble correspondent." O'Reilly probably is the most controversial, most frequently discussed TV analyst today.
"The Factor," as most people call it, remains an unequaled blend of news analysis and hard-hitting investigative reporting dropped into what Bill reminds us nightly is "The No Spin Zone."

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

bubbabush wrote:wahabbi snickered:

No response to being shown as the fool you are, bubbabushboy? Why am I not surprised. Never was a hair on your ass was there?

Originality = 0/10
Style = 3
Delivery = 4

You know that I don't read bricki's spam. Even a stoner like me doesn't have time to waste like that.

~O~

How do you respond to his posts without reading them? Taking lessons from Magic Ears?....just make it up?

You think Glenn Beck hosts a news program, scabbybush?



WHAB

How do you respond to his posts without reading them?

You think Glenn Beck hosts a news program?

J.D. wrote:

smokebreaks wrote:I'm more apt to believe that there should be many caveats added to that headline.

Like: Fox News: The Most Trusted News Source, because people are fucking gullible morons and will believe anything you put on their tee vee.

The headline would not need any caveats if some people would not have been on a crusade to make FOX News look biased by pointing at the political entertainment shows that are also on FOX News Channel and claiming they are actual Fox News broadcasts.

Just think about it a second. Whenever someone says that Fox News is biased they almost always mention Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity etc. But they are not FOX News broadcasters/news readers, they have political entertainment shows on FOX News Channel.

In 2001 FAIR wrote an article titled “The Most Biased Name in News.” Then they went on to say how biased Bill O’Reilly’s “The O’Reilly Factor” was and Britt Hume’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” a show with three people discussing politics, similar to any of what I call the Sunday morning arguing shows. They even mentioned Hannity & Colmes. Of course Sean Hannity is right-wing, but Alan Colmes is, and was while part of the show, most definitely left-wing and balanced things out.

They called it biased NEWS but they only wrote about the political entertainment shows and not the actual news broadcasts. They did not chart the types of reporting and what percentage of time was given to liberal stories and to conservative stories and what percentage of that time was negative or positive in nature or how accurate the reporting was for actual news broadcasts. Anyone who is uber-liberal never does that because once they do they find they cannot print the slander sheet they want to print about FOX News, so they have to resort to pointing out the obviously conservative biased political entertainment shows that air on FOX News Channel.

You rate actual news broadcasts by time allotted to each political party and the amount of time that each receives that is positive in nature or negative in nature and on accuracy. But FAIR did not do that, nor do most others. The article should have been titled “The Most Biased Political Entertainment Shows On A News Channel.” That still might not have been accurate, but at least it would have reflected the shows they were actually using to rate FOX News by, and not added fuel to the fire of how liberals always try to claim the political entertainment shows on FOX News Channel are actual FOX News broadcasts.

As liberal as the political entertainment shows are on CNN and PMSNBC anyone who wanted to write an article on them could start with a headline saying the most liberal biased names in news, and then point to the various uber-liberal political entertainment shows on those channels. How fair and balanced was Begala and Carville on CNN? How fair and balanced is Chris Matthews on PMSNBC? Not fair and balanced at all. The same goes with the other political entertainment shows on those news channels.

Begala and Carville are known for getting Bill Clinton elected president in 1992 and also for working with him and other liberals over the years. They are not non-biased people. For four years Chris Matthews worked for President Jimmy Carter as a presidential speechwriter and has always taken a liberal tract in his life and in his political entertainment show. That is not a non-biased person.

In both cases their political entertainment shows on the news channels they work for have been highly liberal biased. They are no different than Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Brit Hume, other than being their polar opposites, being uber-left wing spokespeople.

The same goes for other political entertainment shows on CNN and PMSNBC. Just using the uber-liberal political entertainment shows on CNN and PMSNBC, as FAIR only used Bill O’Reilly, Brit Hume and Shean Hannity, anyone could easily write articles claiming that CNN News and PMSNBC News is extremely biased, as if they would really need them to prove it since those actual news broadcasts are uber-liberal, but they could do the same and stick to hosts of political entertainment shows and their shows on those channels and extremely easily point our a total bias.

Basically what has happened since FOX News began is the most fair and balanced news coverage that can be found is very, very seldom given fair and balanced critiquing.

What else has happened is the uber-liberal sheep, lemmings and morons have believed the propaganda campaign against FOX News and parrot the baseless lies about FOX News.

rSin wrote:dont forget theyre investigators got the story right on bovine growth hormone...
so the network had to bury it...

Jail Time for Insurance Evaders? Yes, Said Fox News
Posted by KATE PICKERT Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Time
A little more than a week ago, Tom Coburn did something fairly courageous by political standards. At a town hall meeting in Oklahoma, the conservative Republican senator referred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a “nice lady” and criticized Fox News. (He was briefly booed for the Pelosi comment.) After an audience member mentioned “the possibility of imprisonment” for those who don't buy health insurance, Coburn told her, “The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on FOX but that isn't the intention.”

(This is true, the reform law expressly prohibits the government from jailing anyone who fails to either obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty.)

Then, last night Fox News's Bill O'Reilly raked Coburn over the coals for his comment about the network. O'Reilly said no one had ever appeared on Fox News and told viewers they would go to jail if they didn't buy health insurance. “We researched on Fox News if anybody had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it.”

Like Coburn, I was pretty sure I'd heard exactly this assertion numerous times on Fox News, so I did a quick search of their transcripts. Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

YOUR WORLD WITH NEIL CAVUTO, November 13, 2009

CAVUTO: So, how much will Senator Harry Reid's health care bill ultimately cost? Come Monday, we should find out, but, the longer the wait, the more the leaks. And here's the latest, a $54 billion addition, a report today saying that the tax threshold on those so-called Cadillac plans is now being raised to $23,000 for couples from $21,000.

That means fewer union members then would potentially get hit. Could that be a payoff for union support and a big Democratic base?

Republican Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington says yes. Congressman, if that is the case, will that $2,000 difference make the difference?

REP. DAVE REICHERT (R), WASHINGTON: Well, you know, what I`m worried about is that we continue on with this -- this whole idea that we're going to pay for this bill by taxing people. So, now we're going to tax their health insurance plans. On the House side, we have already passed a bill that taxes families, taxes small businesses, taxes medical devices for seniors and our special-needs community. And then we are also going to fine people and send them to jail. So, the bill just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. Every day that goes by...

CAVUTO: I understand, Congressman.

GLENN BECK, November 12, 2009

BECK: They justify the $1 dollar health care plan by saving, you know, money through some magical fairy money. I don't know how they're going to do it. They don't play by the rules the rest of us have to play by, because they make them up as they go! But if you don't play by their new rules on health care -- oh, here's a new little twist. Have you heard this? You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail.

HANNITY, November 10, 2009

HANNITY: All right, Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance. Jail time, possibility? Here's President Obama addressing this in an interview.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable, and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand- dollar hidden tax that families all across America are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance. You know, there is nothing wrong with a penalty. Penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.

HANNITY: Jail? Is that...

MUELLER: We are losing freedom. The Berlin Wall anniversary is just the other day. And these are the kind of policies that used to be imposed on people behind that wall. One problem we're going to have, though, Sean, they're going to have, though, Sean, they're going to have to do something about prisons. They're going to put all these people in jail. It cost $50,000 a year to take care of a prisoner. So they're going to have to do prison reform.

HANNITY: That's going to be true.

MUELLER: Democrats don't like to do prisons.

HANNITY: Put people in jail if they don't get their government mandated health? We're going to tax business. We're going to tax individuals. There's going to be fines. There's going to be penalties. There's a millionaire's tax. We're paying for it through the wall. This is what you want?

GLENN BECK, November 10, 2009

JUDGE NAPOLITANO (filling in for Beck): Last Saturday, at 11:00 in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five-vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of everyone in America at a cost of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail.

HANNITY, November 9, 2009

HANNITY: All right. You've got -- the senators are saying no way. OK? Lieberman is saying he'll filibuster. You've got the blue -- you've got in the Senate they're saying no way they're going to get a government option. Then you've got these two internal battles that I just described. How do you see this?

DICK MORRIS: Well, the fight over the public option is the focus at the moment of the Senate debate and the abortion provision as well. I don't personally much care about either one. I think that the bill, even with the abortion amendment and even without the public option, is plenty injurious itself. That would leave the Medicare cuts, the huge payments by the uninsured. One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance. It says that if you don't have health insurance, you have to pay a fine of 2.5 percent of your income to the government. And if you don't, you face $250,000 or five years in prison. Can you imagine your prison yard, what are you in for? Murder. I'm in for rape. I didn't have health insurance.

CAVUTO, November 20, 2009

CHARLES PAYNE (hosting): Stocks slipping a bit today. That makes it three straight days in the red. But that may have nothing to do with one firm's hunch, if it is right. Timothy Geithner's job could be hanging in the balance. The treasury secretary facing major heat on Capitol Hill from Republicans and some Democratic congressman, some even calling for his resignation, both sides, by the way. Is this advice alarmist or practical? Let's ask "FOX Business" all- stars, Matt McCall, Tracy Byrnes, Mark Tatge and Gary B. Smith.

Gary B., practical or alarmist?

GARY B. SMITH, EXEMPLAR CAPITAL: I think it is very practical. Look, Charles, at some of the things we've seen. You don't pay your health insurance taxes, you could go to prison. You are chairman of G.M., we don't like you, you're fired! You know, Wall Street, we gave you money, no Christmas party for you! You know what that sounds like to me? That sounds like Soviet Russia back in the '60s and '70s. We know how well their economy turned out.

All of these statements were made after the Senate Finance Committee passed its version of the health reform legislation, which specifically prohibited imprisoning people for refusing to pay the tax penalty levied on those without insurance. To be fair, the House bill did not specifically prohibit this, but it also did not include this threat. Critics who said failure to obtain insurance would result in jail time were quoting a piece of the internal revenue code, not any version of health reform legislation. Further explanation herehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem ... ed-not-ha/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , herehttp://factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , and herehttp://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

bubbabush wrote:Of course only the 2digit IQ'd, near illiterate, and willfully ignorant bought into the fauxnews hype about "Obamacare" all along, but here's the black and white proof of their historic and ongoing lying about it.

Jail Time for Insurance Evaders? Yes, Said Fox News
Posted by KATE PICKERT Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Time
A little more than a week ago, Tom Coburn did something fairly courageous by political standards. At a town hall meeting in Oklahoma, the conservative Republican senator referred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a “nice lady” and criticized Fox News. (He was briefly booed for the Pelosi comment.) After an audience member mentioned “the possibility of imprisonment” for those who don't buy health insurance, Coburn told her, “The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on FOX but that isn't the intention.”

(This is true, the reform law expressly prohibits the government from jailing anyone who fails to either obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty.)

Then, last night Fox News's Bill O'Reilly raked Coburn over the coals for his comment about the network. O'Reilly said no one had ever appeared on Fox News and told viewers they would go to jail if they didn't buy health insurance. “We researched on Fox News if anybody had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it.”

Like Coburn, I was pretty sure I'd heard exactly this assertion numerous times on Fox News, so I did a quick search of their transcripts. Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

YOUR WORLD WITH NEIL CAVUTO, November 13, 2009

CAVUTO: So, how much will Senator Harry Reid's health care bill ultimately cost? Come Monday, we should find out, but, the longer the wait, the more the leaks. And here's the latest, a $54 billion addition, a report today saying that the tax threshold on those so-called Cadillac plans is now being raised to $23,000 for couples from $21,000.

That means fewer union members then would potentially get hit. Could that be a payoff for union support and a big Democratic base?

Republican Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington says yes. Congressman, if that is the case, will that $2,000 difference make the difference?

REP. DAVE REICHERT (R), WASHINGTON: Well, you know, what I`m worried about is that we continue on with this -- this whole idea that we're going to pay for this bill by taxing people. So, now we're going to tax their health insurance plans. On the House side, we have already passed a bill that taxes families, taxes small businesses, taxes medical devices for seniors and our special-needs community. And then we are also going to fine people and send them to jail. So, the bill just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. Every day that goes by...

CAVUTO: I understand, Congressman.

GLENN BECK, November 12, 2009

BECK: They justify the $1 dollar health care plan by saving, you know, money through some magical fairy money. I don't know how they're going to do it. They don't play by the rules the rest of us have to play by, because they make them up as they go! But if you don't play by their new rules on health care -- oh, here's a new little twist. Have you heard this? You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail.

HANNITY, November 10, 2009

HANNITY: All right, Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance. Jail time, possibility? Here's President Obama addressing this in an interview.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable, and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand- dollar hidden tax that families all across America are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance. You know, there is nothing wrong with a penalty. Penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.

HANNITY: Jail? Is that...

MUELLER: We are losing freedom. The Berlin Wall anniversary is just the other day. And these are the kind of policies that used to be imposed on people behind that wall. One problem we're going to have, though, Sean, they're going to have, though, Sean, they're going to have to do something about prisons. They're going to put all these people in jail. It cost $50,000 a year to take care of a prisoner. So they're going to have to do prison reform.

HANNITY: That's going to be true.

MUELLER: Democrats don't like to do prisons.

HANNITY: Put people in jail if they don't get their government mandated health? We're going to tax business. We're going to tax individuals. There's going to be fines. There's going to be penalties. There's a millionaire's tax. We're paying for it through the wall. This is what you want?

GLENN BECK, November 10, 2009

JUDGE NAPOLITANO (filling in for Beck): Last Saturday, at 11:00 in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five-vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of everyone in America at a cost of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail.

HANNITY, November 9, 2009

HANNITY: All right. You've got -- the senators are saying no way. OK? Lieberman is saying he'll filibuster. You've got the blue -- you've got in the Senate they're saying no way they're going to get a government option. Then you've got these two internal battles that I just described. How do you see this?

DICK MORRIS: Well, the fight over the public option is the focus at the moment of the Senate debate and the abortion provision as well. I don't personally much care about either one. I think that the bill, even with the abortion amendment and even without the public option, is plenty injurious itself. That would leave the Medicare cuts, the huge payments by the uninsured. One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance. It says that if you don't have health insurance, you have to pay a fine of 2.5 percent of your income to the government. And if you don't, you face $250,000 or five years in prison. Can you imagine your prison yard, what are you in for? Murder. I'm in for rape. I didn't have health insurance.

CAVUTO, November 20, 2009

CHARLES PAYNE (hosting): Stocks slipping a bit today. That makes it three straight days in the red. But that may have nothing to do with one firm's hunch, if it is right. Timothy Geithner's job could be hanging in the balance. The treasury secretary facing major heat on Capitol Hill from Republicans and some Democratic congressman, some even calling for his resignation, both sides, by the way. Is this advice alarmist or practical? Let's ask "FOX Business" all- stars, Matt McCall, Tracy Byrnes, Mark Tatge and Gary B. Smith.

Gary B., practical or alarmist?

GARY B. SMITH, EXEMPLAR CAPITAL: I think it is very practical. Look, Charles, at some of the things we've seen. You don't pay your health insurance taxes, you could go to prison. You are chairman of G.M., we don't like you, you're fired! You know, Wall Street, we gave you money, no Christmas party for you! You know what that sounds like to me? That sounds like Soviet Russia back in the '60s and '70s. We know how well their economy turned out.

All of these statements were made after the Senate Finance Committee passed its version of the health reform legislation, which specifically prohibited imprisoning people for refusing to pay the tax penalty levied on those without insurance. To be fair, the House bill did not specifically prohibit this, but it also did not include this threat. Critics who said failure to obtain insurance would result in jail time were quoting a piece of the internal revenue code, not any version of health reform legislation. Further explanation herehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem ... ed-not-ha/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , herehttp://factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , and herehttp://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

Kendo wrote:Faux news is pablum for the New conformist. Stories that fit into a neat little package, opinion and bias all wrapped by Insane sensationalist hosts. Glenn beck, Bill O'rielly, Sean Hannity and of course the newest mental patient Sarah Palin.
I would have questioned the validity of faux news at the tender age of OH, 9 or 10. that is about where the line of differentiation starts. You have to be a mental midget to believe the fables and outright lies Faux news perpetrates on thier viewers.
When speaking with Faux news-O-phites you can see the there is a similar bent to the talking points and opinions they exhibit. It's as though they are unable, or unwilling to have an opinion other than what is fed them by Faux.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Kendo wrote:Faux news is pablum for the New conformist. Stories that fit into a neat little package, opinion and bias all wrapped by Insane sensationalist hosts. Glenn beck, Bill O'rielly, Sean Hannity and of course the newest mental patient Sarah Palin.
I would have questioned the validity of faux news at the tender age of OH, 9 or 10. that is about where the line of differentiation starts. You have to be a mental midget to believe the fables and outright lies Faux news perpetrates on thier viewers.
When speaking with Faux news-O-phites you can see the there is a similar bent to the talking points and opinions they exhibit. It's as though they are unable, or unwilling to have an opinion other than what is fed them by Faux.

You're entitled to be wrong your entire life. That's allowed here in the states.
And you have fallen into the trap all your misinformed brethren fall into...
Glenn beck, Bill O'rielly, Sean Hannity and of course the newest mental patient [member of the Fox News family] Sarah Palin.
None of which are News Hosts....not a one.
Give'r another go?

Take care, Kendo!,
WHAB

Kendo wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Kendo wrote:Faux news is pablum for the New conformist. Stories that fit into a neat little package, opinion and bias all wrapped by Insane sensationalist hosts. Glenn beck, Bill O'rielly, Sean Hannity and of course the newest mental patient Sarah Palin.
I would have questioned the validity of faux news at the tender age of OH, 9 or 10. that is about where the line of differentiation starts. You have to be a mental midget to believe the fables and outright lies Faux news perpetrates on thier viewers.
When speaking with Faux news-O-phites you can see the there is a similar bent to the talking points and opinions they exhibit. It's as though they are unable, or unwilling to have an opinion other than what is fed them by Faux.

You're entitled to be wrong your entire life. That's allowed here in the states.
And you have fallen into the trap all your misinformed brethren fall into...
Glenn beck, Bill O'rielly, Sean Hannity and of course the newest mental patient [member of the Fox News family] Sarah Palin.
None of which are News Hosts....not a one.
Give'r another go?

Take care, Kendo!,
WHAB

Are you kidding me, or yourself. There it is in bold from your own Keyboard. Fox news family.
The irony is obviously lost on you but hardly lost on me.
Misinformed? possibly, but not about this subject. You choose to be duped by the likes of Glenn snakeman Beck or Bill the sexual predator O'Rielly and that is your choice.
I personally disbelieve anything that comes from the mouths of the vast majority of the major networks Faux, Bsnbc, CONN, including Ap wire, Reuters Etc.
Anyone who cannot see the leading, manipulative nature of the slant and talking points presented by them is either double digit ignorant, or a New conformity clone.
You have a nice evening. WHAB
KEndo

Kendo wrote:^^^science has maintained for decades that upward of 66% of the human population are idiots who are perfect candidates for new conformity clones so yes I would maintain that a great deal of Democrats and liberals are Double digit idiots and new conformity clones.
Of course I have watched Faux news and BSNBC and CONN and read Reuters, ap wire etc, stories and news fabrications. I am a voracious seeker of information from all sources. AND yes!!!! Once in a great while I gleen information from these media hacks that passes as factually correct, non-leading, non-yellow journalist bullshit.
My opinions and posts plainly exhibit that I am not a new conformist clone, that I am not a democrat, nor repulican, nor libertarian. They exhibit that I am not afraid to cross the line on issues such as global warming, healthcare, welfare, taxes, the miltary, abortion and aplethora of other issues that the new conformity clones are afraid to cross the party line in regards to.

What about you? the slant with which you present your opinions and rhetoric exhibits a one sided format. You are about as party line centric as I have ever seen Are you a new conformity clone, it;s obvious you are not a double digit idiot. Do you get your information from more than Right wing media. All appearances would lead one to believe that you don't.
Kendo

"?

You make no mention of Independents, either in you explanation or you claim to your own politics.....why is that?

"appearances" are most times deceptive. They are in regards to your perception of me.

Are you a new conformity clone

Not even close, friend. We might even agree on many, many things.

I, too, obtain my information from many, many sources. I read, read and read from many sources. I don't currently own a TV and only have access to one when it is not being used by its actual owners....which when they are here isn't very often. They have odd viewing habits that I don't tend towards. They claim they watch news but I'll be damed if I could peg it at more than 9% of their viewing time There is not a TV in view of where I am typing this....it's not even on the same floor (level).

Take care,
WHAB

You have to be a mental midget to believe the fables and outright lies Faux news perpetrates on thier viewers.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

bubbabush wrote:Of course only the 2digit IQ'd, near illiterate, and willfully ignorant bought into the fauxnews hype about "Obamacare" all along, but here's the black and white proof of their historic and ongoing lying about it.

Jail Time for Insurance Evaders? Yes, Said Fox News
Posted by KATE PICKERT Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Time
A little more than a week ago, Tom Coburn did something fairly courageous by political standards. At a town hall meeting in Oklahoma, the conservative Republican senator referred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a “nice lady” and criticized Fox News. (He was briefly booed for the Pelosi comment.) After an audience member mentioned “the possibility of imprisonment” for those who don't buy health insurance, Coburn told her, “The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on FOX but that isn't the intention.”

(This is true, the reform law expressly prohibits the government from jailing anyone who fails to either obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty.)

Then, last night Fox News's Bill O'Reilly raked Coburn over the coals for his comment about the network. O'Reilly said no one had ever appeared on Fox News and told viewers they would go to jail if they didn't buy health insurance. “We researched on Fox News if anybody had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it.”

Like Coburn, I was pretty sure I'd heard exactly this assertion numerous times on Fox News, so I did a quick search of their transcripts. Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

YOUR WORLD WITH NEIL CAVUTO, November 13, 2009

CAVUTO: So, how much will Senator Harry Reid's health care bill ultimately cost? Come Monday, we should find out, but, the longer the wait, the more the leaks. And here's the latest, a $54 billion addition, a report today saying that the tax threshold on those so-called Cadillac plans is now being raised to $23,000 for couples from $21,000.

That means fewer union members then would potentially get hit. Could that be a payoff for union support and a big Democratic base?

Republican Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington says yes. Congressman, if that is the case, will that $2,000 difference make the difference?

REP. DAVE REICHERT (R), WASHINGTON: Well, you know, what I`m worried about is that we continue on with this -- this whole idea that we're going to pay for this bill by taxing people. So, now we're going to tax their health insurance plans. On the House side, we have already passed a bill that taxes families, taxes small businesses, taxes medical devices for seniors and our special-needs community. And then we are also going to fine people and send them to jail. So, the bill just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. Every day that goes by...

CAVUTO: I understand, Congressman.

GLENN BECK, November 12, 2009

BECK: They justify the $1 dollar health care plan by saving, you know, money through some magical fairy money. I don't know how they're going to do it. They don't play by the rules the rest of us have to play by, because they make them up as they go! But if you don't play by their new rules on health care -- oh, here's a new little twist. Have you heard this? You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail.

HANNITY, November 10, 2009

HANNITY: All right, Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance. Jail time, possibility? Here's President Obama addressing this in an interview.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable, and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand- dollar hidden tax that families all across America are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance. You know, there is nothing wrong with a penalty. Penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.

HANNITY: Jail? Is that...

MUELLER: We are losing freedom. The Berlin Wall anniversary is just the other day. And these are the kind of policies that used to be imposed on people behind that wall. One problem we're going to have, though, Sean, they're going to have, though, Sean, they're going to have to do something about prisons. They're going to put all these people in jail. It cost $50,000 a year to take care of a prisoner. So they're going to have to do prison reform.

HANNITY: That's going to be true.

MUELLER: Democrats don't like to do prisons.

HANNITY: Put people in jail if they don't get their government mandated health? We're going to tax business. We're going to tax individuals. There's going to be fines. There's going to be penalties. There's a millionaire's tax. We're paying for it through the wall. This is what you want?

GLENN BECK, November 10, 2009

JUDGE NAPOLITANO (filling in for Beck): Last Saturday, at 11:00 in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five-vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of everyone in America at a cost of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail.

HANNITY, November 9, 2009

HANNITY: All right. You've got -- the senators are saying no way. OK? Lieberman is saying he'll filibuster. You've got the blue -- you've got in the Senate they're saying no way they're going to get a government option. Then you've got these two internal battles that I just described. How do you see this?

DICK MORRIS: Well, the fight over the public option is the focus at the moment of the Senate debate and the abortion provision as well. I don't personally much care about either one. I think that the bill, even with the abortion amendment and even without the public option, is plenty injurious itself. That would leave the Medicare cuts, the huge payments by the uninsured. One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance. It says that if you don't have health insurance, you have to pay a fine of 2.5 percent of your income to the government. And if you don't, you face $250,000 or five years in prison. Can you imagine your prison yard, what are you in for? Murder. I'm in for rape. I didn't have health insurance.

CAVUTO, November 20, 2009

CHARLES PAYNE (hosting): Stocks slipping a bit today. That makes it three straight days in the red. But that may have nothing to do with one firm's hunch, if it is right. Timothy Geithner's job could be hanging in the balance. The treasury secretary facing major heat on Capitol Hill from Republicans and some Democratic congressman, some even calling for his resignation, both sides, by the way. Is this advice alarmist or practical? Let's ask "FOX Business" all- stars, Matt McCall, Tracy Byrnes, Mark Tatge and Gary B. Smith.

Gary B., practical or alarmist?

GARY B. SMITH, EXEMPLAR CAPITAL: I think it is very practical. Look, Charles, at some of the things we've seen. You don't pay your health insurance taxes, you could go to prison. You are chairman of G.M., we don't like you, you're fired! You know, Wall Street, we gave you money, no Christmas party for you! You know what that sounds like to me? That sounds like Soviet Russia back in the '60s and '70s. We know how well their economy turned out.

All of these statements were made after the Senate Finance Committee passed its version of the health reform legislation, which specifically prohibited imprisoning people for refusing to pay the tax penalty levied on those without insurance. To be fair, the House bill did not specifically prohibit this, but it also did not include this threat. Critics who said failure to obtain insurance would result in jail time were quoting a piece of the internal revenue code, not any version of health reform legislation. Further explanation herehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem ... ed-not-ha/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , herehttp://factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , and herehttp://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

Jail Time for Insurance Evaders? Yes, Said Fox News

So did TOTUS and Nancy-Five Kids Too-Pelosi...





Of course only the 2digit IQ'd, near illiterate, and willfully ignorant bought into the fauxnews hype about "Obamacare" all along of which TOTUS and Nancy-Five Kids Too-Pelosi belong...

The attachment bubbapoopyhead.jpg is no longer available

,
WHAB

bubbabush wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

bubbabush wrote:Of course only the 2digit IQ'd, near illiterate, and willfully ignorant bought into the fauxnews hype about "Obamacare" all along, but here's the black and white proof of their historic and ongoing lying about it.

Jail Time for Insurance Evaders? Yes, Said Fox News

So did TOTUS and Nancy-Five Kids Too-Pelosi...





Of course only the 2digit IQ'd, near illiterate, and willfully ignorant bought into the fauxnews hype about "Obamacare" all along of which TOTUS and Nancy-Five Kids Too-Pelosi belong...

bubbapoopyhead.jpg

,
WHAB

Great try Wahabbi, both are from early Fall, well before the Senatel bill KNOCKED IT OUT. But of course you Tbakkers don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs; so don't let the mere fact that you were wrong get between you and your plastic jesus.

~O~

rSin wrote:even the bus is a gimic with her...

that bitch has a lear standing by at all hours...

Quick Fact: Limbaugh falsely claims Dems' health care bill "puts people in jail" for not having health insurance

In an interview on Fox & Friends, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that the Democrats' health reform plan "puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance." In fact, the penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties.
EMBED
Limbaugh claims health care bill "puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance"

From the February 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

LIMBAUGH: This is not even a health care bill. This is a bill that raises taxes 14 times; puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance mandated by the government to buy. This is an avenue to control every aspect of life.
Fact: Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time

As Media Matters for America has noted, Section 501 of the House health care reform bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependents, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium." The Senate version of the bill provides that "eginning in 2014, most individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002040013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

March 19, 2010 11:28 am ETBil Hemmer perpetuates debunked health care myth: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?"
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003190031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bubbabush wrote:What's up with links lately: here you go whabbit these are both post passage:

Quick Fact: Limbaugh falsely claims Dems' health care bill "puts people in jail" for not having health insurance

In an interview on Fox & Friends, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that the Democrats' health reform plan "puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance." In fact, the penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties.
EMBED
Limbaugh claims health care bill "puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance"

From the February 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

LIMBAUGH: This is not even a health care bill. This is a bill that raises taxes 14 times; puts people in jail, potentially, if they don't have health insurance mandated by the government to buy. This is an avenue to control every aspect of life.
Fact: Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time

As Media Matters for America has noted, Section 501 of the House health care reform bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependents, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium." The Senate version of the bill provides that "eginning in 2014, most individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002040013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

March 19, 2010 11:28 am ETBil Hemmer perpetuates debunked health care myth: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?"
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003190031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

~O~

PS I could find no actual dates on your youtube links from what I could see, just upload dates. How do you know when they were originally broadcast?

PPS Here's your favorite hole.

They were obviously made when the threat of jail WAS STILL IN THE BILL

A Fox News guest and a host that asks a question? That's it? (you did notice that squiggly line there, didn't you?)...

I hope you didn't hurt yourself with that reach...

You failed. Admit it and move on...

bubbabush wrote:That's right wahabbi, pretend you don't tear up along with him. You parrot his every word and pretend you came to it independently. One of you's following the other and he's the one broadcasting to wahckjobs, not you.

~O~

Awww, poopyhead got his little feelings hurt...



Attachment:

bubbapoopyhead.jpg [ 20.8 KiB | Viewed 4 times ]




Lash out with hate..........much?...


,
WHAB

bubbabush wrote:

Awww, poopyhead got his little feelings hurt...



Attachment:

bubbapoopyhead.jpg [ 20.8 KiB | Viewed 4 times ]




Lash out with hate..........much?...


,
WHAB

Yeah, you really got me. And you invested so much thought in it, but that was nothing compared to your devastating delivery. How could I ever hope to respond to such dazzling informed brilliance? I don't know; could any mere mortal?

~O~

Yesterday, NY Post columnist Michael Goodwin suggested that the Obama Administration had a specific agenda in mind when coming up with the logo for the Nuclear Security Summit, claiming the “crescent-like design of the logo (was) not a coincidence, especially at an event where Iran’s nuclear ambition and al Qaeda’s search for a bomb are prime topics.” This meme was picked up by Fox and Friends and right of center website Free Republic.

The first time I saw the swirling logo for the Nuclear Security Summit, it looked familiar. I soon figured out what it reminded me of: a crescent moon.
The kind of crescent moon you see on the flags of Muslim countries (from left: Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia and Pakistan).
Indeed, the crescent, often with a single or multiple stars, is the main symbol of Islam. So now there is something like it at an official presidential event, prominently displayed in photographs being beamed around the world.

No, I am not suggesting President Obama is a secret Muslim.[yet you just did] But I am certain the crescent-like design of the logo is not a coincidence, especially at an event where Iran's nuclear ambition and al Qaeda's search for a bomb are prime topics.
Obama has been open about his aim to improve America's relations with Muslims. His bowing and apologies are nauseating, but they are consistent with his goal.

Intrinsic wrote:By faux’s logic, we are Muslims or strong supports of muslims (as if there is anything wrong with that) Praise be Allah. God is great. Yada yada …

South Park Guys Threatened with Death by Muslim Fanatics

Published April 20, 2010 by:
Mark Whittington

Last week the South Park episode ridiculed self important celebrities, group identity politics and those who practice them, people who threaten to kill other people for depicting the Prophet Mohammed, and people who cower in fear of those other people.

So which group has decided to threaten Trey Parker and Matt Stone with death for the episode, entitled '200?'

Does the gentle reader even have to guess?

First there was the Muslim fanatic Zachary "Abu Talhah al-Amrike" Chesser who twittered, "May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses..."

Then the website Revolutionmuslim.com offered the following opinion about Trey Parker and Matt Stone and the offending South Park episode.

"The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says: 'We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.'

"Theo van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of Van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.

"The entry on Revolutionmuslim.com goes on to advise readers:

"'You can contact them [the makers of South Park], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses ...' before listing Comedy Central's New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane's production company."

Most people who are held up to ridicule on South Park accept it either in sullen silence or else bemused equanimity. But very few are quite as adroit as are the Islamic Fascists at proving Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's point by rising up in wrath and making blood curdling threats of death and mayhem.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... death.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/size]

PBS most trusted name in news, Fox most distrusted
Share1032 27
by Jed Lewison

Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:40:04 PM PST

Remember seeing headlines last year about how PPP's annual survey about the media revealed Fox News Channel was the most trusted name in news? Well, what a difference a year makes. According to PPP's latest survey, Fox is now the most distrusted name in news. And there's a new leader in trustworthiness: PBS, which wasn't in last year's survey.

Here's the toplines from PPP's survey of 632 voters, conducted Jan 14 to 16 with a margin of error of 3.9%:

pbsmosttrustedppp.JPG (22.1 KiB) Viewed 573 times

Fox's trustworthiness rating has fallen by a net margin of sixteen points while NBC has increased by 9. ABC and CBS gained a net of 7 points.

So what's behind the shift? It not survey: although this year's poll had slightly more liberal respondents (18%) than last year's poll (14%), it also had more conservatives (40%) than last year's survey (39%). Those shifts alone cannot explain Fox's fall from grace.

What seems to be going on is that while Fox continues to be trusted by conservatives, moderates and liberals have soured on the channel. Last year, 48% of moderates and 66% of liberals distrusted FNC. This year, 60% of moderates and 82% of liberals distrust the network, so Fox's declining trustworthiness rating reflects shifting attitudes among moderates and liberals.

Given that Fox tailors its programming for conservatives, Fox may not care if nobody other than GOP or tea party types trust them, especially with the 2012 GOP primary on the horizon. But outside of Fox's world, it's good news that other than conservatives, Americans overwhelmingly distrust Fox's programming. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity might rule the right wing noise machine, but this poll is a reminder that the right wing noise machine doesn't rule the rest of America.

bubbabush wrote:Trust? More like blind obedience. It's actually what's saddest about the less than 1% of Americans who watch it; the constant mindless parroting of it's easily disprovable non-facts.

~O~

Marabou Stork wrote:What the poll shows is that a poll can be designed to prove anything they want. A year ago PBS, for some reason, was not part of the poll. Once they were included, the results changed drastically.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Fox leads for trust

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

For Democrats the numbers are a complete opposite- a majority trust all of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC while only 30% have faith in Fox News. Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

NBC is the most popular choice among Democrats at a 62/17 spread. Although 'NBC News' was the entity named in the question it's possible respondents could have been lumping MSNBC in with it given the good numbers on the left. At a 17/69 spread CBS was the least popular with Republicans, perhaps indicating residual unhappiness from the Dan Rather days. CNN finished second among Democrats, Republicans, and independents suggesting that it may be the least polarizing of the major tv news operations.

These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed.

Full results http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... al_126.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fox The Most Trusted News Source

,
WHAB

LabRat wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Fox leads for trust

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

For Democrats the numbers are a complete opposite- a majority trust all of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC while only 30% have faith in Fox News. Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

NBC is the most popular choice among Democrats at a 62/17 spread. Although 'NBC News' was the entity named in the question it's possible respondents could have been lumping MSNBC in with it given the good numbers on the left. At a 17/69 spread CBS was the least popular with Republicans, perhaps indicating residual unhappiness from the Dan Rather days. CNN finished second among Democrats, Republicans, and independents suggesting that it may be the least polarizing of the major tv news operations.

These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed.

Full results http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... al_126.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fox The Most Trusted News Source

,
WHAB

"DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." -New York Times, November 26, 1991

Fox watchers are ignorant roaches.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:...

So, you're calling your friends and family "ignorant roaches"? Interesting ...

Labby!,
WHAB

LabRat wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:...

So, you're calling your friends and family "ignorant roaches"? Interesting ...

Labby!,
WHAB

If they are trusting Fox News for true information, Hell Yeah I 'm callin' 'em ignorant roaches.

Fox watchers are ignorant roaches.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:This is a crazy, mad argument to be having, no??

Little Kate Chaos wrote:This is a crazy, mad argument to be having, no??

Little Kate Chaos wrote: Rupert is riled and not happy!! He is old though. He must be dead soon.

Hax wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:This is a crazy, mad argument to be having, no??

Probably yes, but I'll have to check Faux News first to see what they say.

Che Bleu wrote:"A poll conducted between June and September 2003 asked people whether they thought evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBS quoting Wired article--October 24, 2010 wrote:"An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime - the Bush administration's most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict - and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's pretty disgusting to play devil's advocate on what was found and what was claimed was the WMD threat pre-war.

No sane person can give any credit to the claims of WMD to justify a war which affected millions to what was subsequently found. Only a rabid extremist would think that way. Terrorists justify the killing of 10's of 1000's on such tenuous 'evidence'.

Switch back to clinging on to your 'fact' that the war was justified because of UN Resolutions. Save what little credibility you might have on the subject WHAB.

Furthermore, those that watch CBS are those that STILL believe the fraudulent documents Dan Rather produced just months before the 2004 election in an effort to influence that election (with FORGERIES that caused resignations and terminations within CBS)

ANY WMD's discovered in Iraq WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOUND AT ALL. You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

Little Kate Chaos wrote:When it comes to politics and current affairs I see you as a rabid extremist WHAB, in the Ben or Jihadist mould. The story will always be fitted to you seeing the US as goodies on everything no matter the event every single time. No worries though, despite that you seem a likable guy.

I am not going to play semantics on WMDs and Iraq with you WHAB. The whole world saw it for it what it was post-invasion. Even that clown IQ-lacking of a President of your's stopped playing the 'WMD threat' card pretty soon after invasion.

Stick to your UN card. That organisation you see with contempt until it's mechanisms fits in to justifying your rabid, extremist view of what's right/wrong.

Iraq was a complete disaster from start to when it finishes. Sliding in to sectarian violence and now Iran have more influence in there than the US has.

'We' screwed up. Only the extremists can claim otherwise or somehow justify the death and destruction on what was the actual WMD threat.

Kate wrote:When it comes to politics and current affairs I see you as a rabid extremist WHAB

Kate wrote:The story will always be fitted to you seeing the US as goodies on everything no matter the event every single time.

Kate wrote:I am not going to play semantics on WMDs and Iraq with you WHAB

Intrinsic wrote:

Furthermore, those that watch CBS are those that STILL believe the fraudulent documents Dan Rather produced just months before the 2004 election in an effort to influence that election (with FORGERIES that caused resignations and terminations within CBS)

Since you don’t know(possibly from relying on Fox): those were presented to the white house first to verify their authenticity and asking permission to re-print them. That Administration sent them back refused to state they are forgeries even tho they knew at the time, Thuss the White House gave CBS a green light to publish them. The original leak of those documents came from Cheney and/or Rove.
It was a set up, Rove has a record of doing this cheap trick before. D’OH!

ANY WMD's discovered in Iraq WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOUND AT ALL. You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

Second, Since you, as a fox News Watcher and fan, still believe Iraq/Saddam had huge stockpiles of illegal weapons of mass destruction … Says it all.

CBS News Admits Bush Documents Can’t Be Verified

‘We shouldn't have used them,’ executive states

9/21/2004

NEW YORK — CBS News apologized Monday for a “mistake in judgment” in its story questioning President Bush’s National Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.

The network said it would appoint an independent panel to look at its reporting about the memos. The story has mushroomed into a major media scandal, threatening the reputations of CBS News and chief anchor Dan Rather.

It also has become an issue in the presidential campaign. The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS’s source, retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, and Democrat John Kerry’s campaign.

Rather joined CBS News President Andrew Heyward in issuing an apology Monday.

“We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry,” Rather said. “It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.”

Almost immediately after the story aired Sept. 8, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush’s late squadron leader, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not on the kind of typewriter in use during the 1970s.

Source admits fabrication

CBS strongly defended its story. It wasn’t until a week later — after Killian’s former secretary said she believed the memos were fake — that the news division admitted they were questionable.

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn’t been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even definitely tell whether they’re fakes or not. But the network has given up trying to defend them.

“Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report,” Heyward said. “We should not have used them.”

CBS said it approached Burkett initially about the documents. Rather said Burkett was well known in National Guard circles for several years for trying to discredit Bush’s military record.

Burkett, in an interview with Rather aired on the “CBS Evening News,” said he was pressured by CBS to reveal his source for the documents, and “I simply threw out a name that was basically, I guess, to get a little pressure off for the moment.”

‘I did mislead you ...’

He said he didn’t fake or forge any documents. “I didn’t totally mislead you,” he said. “I did mislead you about one individual.”

Burkett said he also insisted that CBS authenticate the documents on its own. Two document experts consulted by CBS later said they raised red flags that network officials apparently disregarded. Rather acknowledged CBS failed to properly determine whether the documents were genuine.
~snip

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6055248/ns/politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On January 5, 2005, the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service was released. The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:

1.The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;

2.The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;

3.The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;

4.The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;

5.The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files";

6.The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;

7.The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;

8.The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;

9.The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and

10.The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — a clear conflict of interest — that created the appearance of a political bias.

Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:

1.The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;

2.Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;

3.The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;

4.The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;

5.The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and

6.Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

Panel's view of the documents

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert. Tytell had been contacted by 60 Minutes producers prior to the broadcast, and had informed associate producer Yvonne Miller and executive producer Josh Howard on September 10 that he believed the documents were forgeries. The Panel report stated, "The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic...The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."

Int wrote:Second, Since you...still believe Iraq/Saddam had huge stockpiles of illegal weapons of mass destruction … Says it all.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: Bullshit, Int.
...Or, currently under the influence of heavy doses of hallucinogenics...

Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes

Intrinsic wrote:No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:Large caches? No. Massive caches? No. Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

You'd prefer to live in the US over Saddam's Iraq any day, no??

Little Kate Chaos wrote:WHAB, if you're satisfied on the WMD threat claim pre-invasion against any eventual finds of WMDs post-invasion and see it as all worth it, then good for you. I spent months there in 2009 on pop-star wages and the place was still in turmoil. And the UK was getting out from the mess it helped create as fast as it could. Cut and run.

There is no debate on WMDs anymore, the whole planet knows the facts and beyond how it was got so wrong now, as per the Chilcott Inquiry currently bimbling along. Maybe you should dap over to London and put your 2pennysworth in to Chilcott??

Juicey, Saddam was a walking disaster for the Iraqi people. A pointless, lengthy extremely costly war in lives and $ with Iran, alienated his people from the world, attacked Kuwait where his army raped and pillaged Kuwait that caused a backlash that sent his people back 50 years, the slam down of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs and ultimately the whole place imploded on itself because of the nutjob.

You'd prefer to live in the US over Saddam's Iraq any day, no??

Intrinsic wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: Bullshit, Int.
...Or, currently under the influence of heavy doses of hallucinogenics...

Seven, if your counting.

Yes the docs were given to the White House to peruse. And the WH did not verify them to be forgeries. The WH did not verify ‘em to be real, rather the WH refused to make a comment, tho they knew.
I was there and my memory aint that shot.

Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes

Intrinsic wrote:No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

I sure don’t remember the Government giving any compelling evidence whatsoever. Maybe Fox/you stil trust Chalabi too. Lordy knows Powell trashed his reputation with his obvious UN farce. It was then and still is obvious to be a whitewash of the facts. Now I Distinctly remember Fox News claiming there was proof, never actually given it, only “some say” “liberal are always wrong” or such bullshit reporting. But that is Fox for ya.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:Large caches? No. Massive caches? No. Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

See you just said you believe “yet they surely did” exist.

But even if I misread you, it is no better that you, as a fox viewer, still persist on believing there was real evidence of WMDs, ignorant of the cherry picking being reported at the time.
Still says it all. D’OH!

Campaign '04: How Did Dan Rather Get in This Fix?

By Amanda Ripley;Anna Macias Aguayo/Abilene; John F. Dickerson/Washington; Sean Gregory; Nathan Thornburgh/New York; Hilary Hylton/Austin; Cathy Booth Thomas/Dallas
Monday, Sep. 27, 2004

"If the White House had just raised an eyebrow--they didn't have to say they were forgeries--but if there was any hint that there was a question, that would have sent us back," says Howard. The morning the show aired, CBS staff members had shown copies of the memos to Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. In response, according to a transcript of the interview, Bartlett tried to spin parts of the memos in Bush's favor and attributed the whole debate to partisan sniping. He did not, however, challenge the authenticity of the memos.

But the White House did not check the memos for invisible ink either. And why should it have? After all, the documents were allegedly written some 30 years ago by Bush's squadron commander in Texas, who has been dead for 20 years. There was no reason the Administration would have known if the documents were real.

Bartlett says that, having heard rumors about a big exclusive in the works, he had his staff call CBS at 5:45 p.m. the day before the Sept. 8 broadcast. "They said, 'Oh, yes, we were going to call,'" Bartlett says. By 7 p.m., CBS staff members had read Bartlett the memos over the phone. He told them he wouldn't comment on the air until he had physically seen them. The next day, he was given three hours to look them over. He showed them to the President, who said he had no recollection of those specific documents. "There was no way to check the authenticity," Bartlett says.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z1CNokhDXx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Int wrote:I was there and my memory aint that shot.

Wired wrote:WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

By Noah Shachtman
October 23, 2010

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
~snip

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10 ... g-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not qualified to answer that without bias....But he took Iraq from the stone ages and modernised it in a very short amount of time...No one had TV's, phones, refrigerators, AC's or paved roads before he came along, by the end of his time those were all very common things.

Sun wrote:

You'd prefer to live in the US over Saddam's Iraq any day, no??

Not qualified to answer that without bias....But he took Iraq from the stone ages and modernised it in a very short amount of time...No one had TV's, phones, refrigerators, AC's or paved roads before he came along, by the end of his time those were all very common things.

1979-2003

"Iraqi TV" was the primary TV station in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power. Until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, its main coverage was patriotic music, government news and propaganda. It was bombed off the air in the 2003 invasion.

Another TV channel called Youth Channel (Qanaat Al-Shabaab) started broadcasting in 1994 and contained many subtitled movies and Western music before the 2003 invasion. Scenes of mature content were edited out of these movies, as to make them more suitable to the culture, community and age ranges of viewers.

You are joking right Juicey?? By the end of his time literacy and per capita income fell through the floor whilst infant mortality shot up in the 90's over the sanctions imposed after he took his people from one ill-advised war (Iran) straight in to another (the 1990 invasion of Kuwait).

Owning a tv means nothing if you're not free to chose what to view

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

Not qualified to answer that without bias....But he took Iraq from the stone ages and modernised it in a very short amount of time...No one had TV's, phones, refrigerators, AC's or paved roads before he came along, by the end of his time those were all very common things.

You are joking right Juicey?? By the end of his time literacy and per capita income fell through the floor whilst infant mortality shot up in the 90's over the sanctions imposed after he took his people from one ill-advised war (Iran) straight in to another (the 1990 invasion of Kuwait).

Not to mention any political or social dissent was brutally repressed. There were no elections. Look what he did to the Shi'a Arabs in displacing 100's of 1000's to Iran, and the forced resettlement of the Marsh Arabs around Basrah and the Iraqi Kurds.

No sane person would want to live under a Saddam regime. The Iraqi's themselves welcomed the US/UK for the summer of 2003, no??

WHAB, you're taking the pee. Bush hid his intelligence extremely well. He remains a laughing stock around the world. A joke. "Playing most fair"....you're a funny chap. I need to do a quick rib check.

The war was sold to the UK public on the 45 minute claim, then Dr David Kelly and all that followed and then they found rusty out of use old shells. You sound like the police might after raiding your house and telling the world they found a cannabis farm when all they found was some yellow, old MJ leaves from a grow you had going years before in your shed.

Good to see admission that the whole WMD debacle was incompetence taken to new levels though. Fair one.

Kate wrote:Bush hid his intelligence extremely well.

Kate wrote:He remains a laughing stock around the world.

New poll shows George W. Bush Tops President Obama In Job Approval Ratings

By Trish LaMonte
December 08, 2010

According to a new Gallup Poll, more Americans think favorably of the job done by former President George W. Bush now than they did when he was in office.

When he left office in 2009, Bush's job approval rating was around 34 percent. The new poll, which asked people to retrospectively rate his performance, put Bush's approval rating at 47 percent. That's one point higher than current President Barack Obama's job approval rating in a Gallup Poll conducted the same week.

Bush's lowest job rating while in office was 25 percent in 2008.

"Obama’s stumbles and dimming public memories of Bush’s shortcomings appear to be helping fuel the more positive reassessment of him," writes Politico's James Hohmann.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... shs_j.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No sane person would want to live under a Saddam regime. The Iraqi's themselves welcomed the US/UK for the summer of 2003, no??

Sun wrote:

Owning a tv means nothing if you're not free to chose what to view

You ever heard of the FCC.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's all evil and screwed up Juicey. All of it. On the grand scales nothing that has happened to Iraq is good or anything I would want even remotely or a fraction of to happen anywhere I lived. Saddam, the sanctions, the US-led invasion in 2003, the sectarianism since. All of it.

But to say Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqi people is not something many could agree with.

Paraded what WHAB?? Get real. He might appear stupidity personified and be laughed at and mocked all over the planet, but he's not that stupid. I wouldn't trust him to run a bath, let alone run a superpower. If I was a betting girl, which I'm not, I'd bet that he was not running the show anyway.

Poll - 46 Percent Say 'Bring Back Bush!'

Mark Whittington
Apr 14, 2010

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... _bush.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's all evil and screwed up Juicey. All of it. On the grand scales nothing that has happened to Iraq is good or anything I would want even remotely or a fraction of to happen anywhere I lived. Saddam, the sanctions, the US-led invasion in 2003, the sectarianism since. All of it.

But to say Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqi people is not something many could agree with.

Paraded what WHAB?? Get real. He might appear stupidity personified and be laughed at and mocked all over the planet, but he's not that stupid. I wouldn't trust him to run a bath, let alone run a superpower. If I was a betting girl, which I'm not, I'd bet that he was not running the show anyway.

If I was a betting girl, which I'm not, I'd bet that he was not running the show anyway.

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:In light of the facts, your claim is in dispute

There is, indeed, proof. Proof you refuse to see

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

Intrinsic wrote:Fist off WHAB, that wikileaks based article is the author interpretation of what he found in the wikileaks docs, not citing of the actual docs or even links to ‘em for reader verification. Lets exaime the wording:

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

“and uncover weapons of mass destruction”
Nice claim but nowhere in that article did it say WMDS were actually found, Nowhere.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

Notice he said “initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence..” but nowhere did he show or even say that on deeper look it did either. Innuendo.
Remments is not WMDs the Bush admin was referring to.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

How is this tied to Saddam or even large enough quantity to be considered for MASS destruction? It doesn’t. Red herring.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Tampered with post invasion? How is this tied to Saddam WMDs? It doesn’t. Red herring.

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Chem lab, chem cache. What? What chems? What were they used for, to make fiberglass, to make bombs to fight the invaders with, what?
What does what the “insurgents” are doing to fight their perceived invaders have to with Saddam or evidence of alleged WMDs?
Nada.

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

Simply not WMDs or evidence of a WMDs prior to the war. This as the author noted earlier just remnants of what is left from gulf war one.

Goes on such vain ..

But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

His “salient” point is about post war activities. 2006? Iran? Insurgents and extremist that never existed under Saddam’s regime?
What does this have to with Saddam or Iraq having WMD or even evidence of it?
Not a thing and that his ending salient point? Sheesh.

Still waiting for his claim that wikileaks docs showing “U.S. troops continued to … uncover weapons of mass destruction”. Never listed where the docs say that or they even imply it, just vague innuendoes from the author.

Notice he said “initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence"

WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:You, inded, must have been dropped on your head, Int. ALL the links are there--the website is down, not my fault, but the docs are out there, probably on his many mirror sites and IF you really care to know the truth you'll seek them out. Here is one such site...

http://213.251.145.96/search/?sort=date&p=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

46,675 pages of evidence at your fingertips.

IF really DON'T care to know the truth? .

I'm only going to take one instance in your delusional post (fantasy), as I won't be wasting anymore time or effort on you ...you, Intrinsic, quote...

Notice he said “initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence"

While you completely discount, overlook, or don't even realize it's there in front of your eyes (system of being dropped on one's head) ...

The quote in FULL...

WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict

bubbabush wrote:

~O~

Obama Confuses Iraq and Afghanistan Twice in Youtube Interview

Obama Swaps Iraq And Afghanistan

By ABBY PHILLIP
01/28/11

Hit with a tough question about his administration’s policy in Afghanistan and Iraq on Thursday, President Obama made a muddled mess out of his plans for withdrawing troops from the region.

Obama swapped “Iraq” for “Afghanistan” when he answered a question on YouTube about whether he still believes soldiers need to die in the wars there.

“As I said, we will be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year,” Obama said, a fairly significant misstatement of his administration’s Afghanistan policy, which doesn’t call for a troop withdrawal until 2014.
~Snip

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm ... 45073.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kate wrote:Egypt has had enough of being Egypt and has decided to be Iraq for a while??

Hmm, shrewd move by that Mubarek geezer. He'll do anything to cling on it seems. Bet nobody saw that coming...

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Egypt has had enough of being Egypt and has decided to be Iraq for a while??

Hmm, shrewd move by that Mubarek geezer. He'll do anything to cling on it seems. Bet nobody saw that coming...

Schumer: 'We have 3 branches of gov't -- A House, a Senate, a President'!

Maribou Stork wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:22 am

The link uses a ? mark when referring to Fox as the most trusted news source. The poll may show more about how gullible Americans are, than proving anything about what news sources are reliable.

(CNSNews.com) – Fox News is the most-watched network not only for Republicans and Independents, but also for Democrats, according to a poll conducted by Nielsen MRI Fusion.

The network captured 41 percent of Democrat audiences, according to the November 2021 poll sent by Fox News to CNSNews Friday. Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC captured 23 and 36 percent of Democrat audiences, respectively. For Republican viewers, Fox leads at 65 percent, with MSNBC at 22 percent and CNN at 13 percent. Fox captured 59 percent of Independent/unaffiliated viewers to MSNBC's 25 percent and CNN's 17 percent.