I found this on Michelle Malkin's website:
The New York Times/CBS poll shows:
Sixty-nine percent of respondents believe Obama’s plan will hurt the quality of their own healthcare.
Seventy-three percent believe it would limit their access to tests and treatment.
Sixty-two percent believe Democrats’ proposals would require them to change doctors.
Seventy-six believe healthcare reform will lead to them paying higher taxes.
A whopping 77 percent expect their healthcare costs to rise.
That's the New York Slimes! That's the newspaper whose publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, is an extreme Obama worshiping Liberal. Does anyone need proof?
According to Stanley Kurtz:
One day, the elder Sulzberger asked his son what Pinch calls, "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life." If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot? Young Arthur answered, "I would want to see the American get shot. "If a Liberal newspaper conducts a poll of it's readers, and the poll shows an overwhelming opposition to that same newspaper's own ideology, is it then a legitimate poll?
Staunch defenders of the New York Slimes would insist any poll conducted by the "Gray lady" is legitimate. So how do the masses of Obama supporting Liberals who continue to defend this hare-brained scheme explain this apparent dichotomy? And why?
Let's dissect this concept.
Knowing, as we do, that Liberals don't typically watch what they consider to be Conservative biased news channels (read "FOX News").
And, knowing that Liberals don't typically listen to Conservative talk radio, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, etc (with the exception of the unlawful so-called non-profit organizations, such as Media Matters).
And, also, knowing that Liberally biased radio and television stations and newspapers typically bury any stories that are contrary to their own ideology, if they mention them at all, doesn't this poll tell us much more than what's on the surface?
The readers of the New York Slimes, who are not Liberal are probably by now, harder to locate than good Kansas City style Barbeque in North Carolina.
Most Conservatives have long since abandoned the New York Slimes in favor of more unbiased and trustworthy reporting.
So, it isn't a stretch to assume the respondents to the New York Slime's poll are more likely to be Liberals than Conservatives.
And yet, the majority of the New York Slimes' respondents oppose Obama's over ambitious health care plan.
Is there a conclusion that can be logically drawn from this?
22 comments:
"unlawful so-called non-profit organizations, such as Media Matters"
Says who? Prove it.
Yes, the conclusion to be drawn is that the liars and scaremongers are currently winning the public discussion.
Jim, Media Matters was set up as a non-partisan, non-profit, tax exempt organization.
It is illegal for a non-partisan non-profit organization to get involved in politics. But, Media Matters is a blatantly Liberal anti-Conservative political organization which accepts funds paid for by the American taxpayers.
It is illegal for any non-profit political organization to be funded by taxes. Media Matters is clearly in violation of the IRS tax code, the 501 C-3 status that's been conferred on them. Every time they sign a tax return as a non-political tax exempt organization under penalty of perjury, they are committing perjury.
That's why it is unlawful.
"Yes, the conclusion to be drawn is that the liars and scaremongers are currently winning the public discussion"
Jim you missed the point. How can the Liberals know what the "liars" and "scaremongers" are saying about the health care bill, when they don't watch, listen, or read anything by Conservatives? The only news they typically get are from all the Liberally biased organizations, like the New York Slimes.
It seems to me, unlike most Liberals, this time they are using the brains God gave them to figure it out for themselves.
Only the most brainwashed still support and defend this ridiculous plan.
Regarding Media Matters, don't offer your "evidence" without a citation that backs it up. How do we know they are getting tax dollars? Why isn't the Justice Department (current or previous) prosecuting them? Where is evidence. I'm supposed to take your say so?
Regarding what we read or watch: Are you effing kidding me? You can watch any TV from Fox News and O'Reilly and Beck, to ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC. NY Times, Washington Post. All of the media present the scares and lies. I heard the forced end of life consultation stuff first from you, but it's been all over the media since.
It's really disingenuous to think that the entire nation isn't hearing and reading all these lies and scare tactics. You don't think we've watched your Congressmen and women speaking on the floor of Congress outright LIES about health care reform including the above mentioned end of life consultations. IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
Of course we do. So I didn't miss your point; I've proved that it is not true.
"So I didn't miss your point; I've proved that it is not true."
Wait. I'm supposed to provide citation but you can just blithely make an assertion that you proved something isn't true based on your word?
And now, you say ALL the media is lying and scaremongering, but you know better?
You provide citation. have you read and properly interpreted the entire bill? How do you know the things we are reporting are lies? What makes you an expert?
How is it that you are the only person in America that knows the truth, and all news organizations, right, left, and center are lying?
Try looking up 501 C-3 status and compare it to what Media Matters does, and their mission statement, and make up your own mind.
I didn't say the news organizations were lying. I said that they are letting the liars use them to spread their lies. As I said, the media present their lies. Some refute the lies or allow others to refute them. But the word is being spread.
Now, the liars and scaremongers make up crap about what's in the proposals and I'm supposed to read them to prove they're not true. I don't think so. But when proposal sponsors tell me what's in the bill or I'm given text from the bill that refutes the lies, I'll go with that. I've already disproved the mandatory end of life scare.
Most of the lies are simply made up out of what could happen if your imagination runs wild. No proof or text is provided to support the assertions.
An excellent example is your "Except as provided in this paragraph" lie. You use it to suppose that no new private insurance can ever be written without including what exactly IS provided in this paragraph.
It's like I say "Except as provided in this paragraph, you cannot operate a motor vehicle." And then forgetting to include that you can operate a motor vehicle if you are of a certain age, if you have passed a written test, if you have passed a driving test, if you have taken required drivers ed and drivers training, if your license hasn't been suspended.
I am a subscriber to Media Matters and read it every day. Here is their statement from their website:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
This is exactly what they do. Interesting that exposing untruths in the media is somehow politically biased. Media Matters criticizes your own boogie men nearly as much as Fox News, Hannity and O'Reilly.
Today the website criticizes:
Howard Kurtz
George Stephanopoulis
Chris Wallace
The Wall Street Journal
Fox News
CNN
The Washington Post
Chris Matthews of MSNBC
The New York Times
Politico
The Washington Times
NBC
Chuck Todd
George Will
AP
CBS
Pretty good cross-section of media, I would say.
Jim, you brainwashed drone!
Media Maters indicts themselves by this statement:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
By using Tax payer money to do any reporting on any information that is based in political ideology, they are violating the law.
It is illegal for any non-profit political organization to be funded by taxes. Doesn't that make sense?
See? They admit they are Liberal as they don't say they report on all misinformation, only Conservative. Of course, that';s understandable. They probably don't have the man power it would take to report on Liberal misinformation, since there is so much more than Conservative. But I digress.
They also admit they are not-for-profit. Putting the two together, they are a not-for-profit Liberal organization, which makes them an unlawful organization, as I said.
Thanks for proving me right.
Wow! I completely missed the code word for "Liberal" in their statement: Progressive.
That only makes my point that much stronger.
Exposing the lies of conservatives is not supporting any political candidate. I read the regs for 501c3 of the IRS website. Media Matters complies with those regulations. Otherwise the IRS would come after them.
"By using Tax payer money to do any reporting on any information that is based in political ideology, they are violating the law." What tax payer money are they using? And I disagree with this claim. The regs simply say the organization can't participate in any campaign activity for or against a candidate.
Here is a quote from the IRS code:
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
Lots of 501c3 s are ideology based.
Igor, very good satire!
You are welcome to stop by anytime. Just one suggestion, however:
Figure out a way to prevent hiding part of your posts with sidebar.
Apparently the Congressional Budget Office is a bunch of lying liars:
But even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that none of the health plans pending on Capitol Hill would control long-term spending, and that ones with the elements Obama wants would add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.
With already historically astronomically high deficits and debt, people are nervous about plans to increase the red ink on the government balance sheet by passing any of the current health care proposals. That's not fear mongering or lying, that's looking at the facts and making an informed decision.
"Sixty-nine percent of respondents believe Obama’s plan will hurt the quality of their own healthcare.
Seventy-three percent believe it would limit their access to tests and treatment.
Sixty-two percent believe Democrats’ proposals would require them to change doctors.
Seventy-six believe healthcare reform will lead to them paying higher taxes.
A whopping 77 percent expect their healthcare costs to rise.
Hummm
Somethings missing... I can't quite put my finger on it. Oh yea, Where's the part that says that the majority of Americans still love Obama more than any other president ever, in the whole world, real or imagined, from now to eternity, and beyond?
Jim: you write: "..the liars and scaremongers make up crap about what's in the proposals.
But you don't document a single solitary piece of evidence to back this up.
Are you the pot or the kettle?
Cameron, that very same, very same CBO report says that the $1 Trillion will be reduced by increased revenues and cost savings to only $239 Billion increase in the deficit over 10 years.
Boom!
Joe, I've backed up the phony death consultation bit elsewhere. But none of the lies and scaremongering is documented. It's made up. How can I produce evidence against something made up? You make something up, I'm supposed to read thousands of pages in multiple versions of the bill to refute what you make up. I don't think so. You assert something, you produce the evidence.
Did you see the video of Paul Krugman, a huge advocate of Canadian and Obama Healthcare, on a panel asking "How many Canadians are here?"
A man off screen says "...about 7 hands went up, I'd say.."
Krugman asks "and how many Canadians think your plan is TERRIBLE?"
The same off screen man says "....looks like all the hands that went up saying they're Canadians have their hands up again."
Krugman giggles and says "well, I guess I shouldn't have ASKED that!"
Canadians have lived through this; THEY don't want it. WE don't want it.
Jim,
First, President Obama promised no additional deficits. If we take your number, he's adding $240 billion. I realize that's small compared to the trillions he's running up now, but we're still talking about billion with a 'B'. Either way, the president is wrong.
Second, the president just sent out his economic team this week to spread the word that the deficit is too high, is unsustainable, and higher taxes are on the way to pay for it. Yet at the same time his health care proposals are adding to the deficit.
Third, one of the president's major talking points is that the federal budget is unsustainable because of health care costs. That's his stated impetus for running out this plan and getting it done quickly. Unfortunately for all involved, his plan doesn't cut costs. At all. We'll be left with no solution to the current problems, and will have simply piled them higher.
Show me a federal program that works.
Stalin would have loved this batch of American liberals, or "useful idiots," as Lenin called them. Why bother to set up a vast secret police system when there are people who are willing to buy into anything a leftist leader says and defend him to the death? These people don't seem to care that they are losing their freedoms along with everyone else. They don't care that a failed government system will fail them to. They are so blinded by ideology, that they are willing to sacrifice their children on the alter of progressiveness. I'm just flummoxed. Is it insanity? Is it stupidity? Is it a death wish? I dunno.
"Show me a federal program that works."
Social Security, Tricor Veterans Health Care system, Medicare, the Interstate Highway System, Air Traffic Control System, the US Marine Corps, the US Army, the US Air Force, the US Navy, just to name a few.
Post a Comment