Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Monday, December 08, 2008
Obama Admits He IS the Cause for the Rise in Gun Sales
Obama has admitted to being the cause of the rise in gun sales today in the Chicago Suntimes.
Obama states:
Obama states:
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."Now when is he going to admit to being the cause (along with his socialist policies) to the largest stock market crash following a presidential election?
Labels: guns, liberal, media bias
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Timothy Egan: Jealous Lefty
Timothy Egan is a bit upset. He doesn't like the fact Joe the plumber has a book deal. As Timothy states in his NYT opinion piece:
Joe would love for you to fix his leaky toilet, Timothy...if you can. Obviously, Joe has the skills to write a book. Do you have the skills to fix a toilet? We all know how mad you are that someone could just get a book deal simply for being in the public eye. (Have you mentioned Paris Hilton and her music career anywhere in your rants Timothy?) No? Just a little pissed that maybe someone other than a journalist can write a book? It's quite obvious anyone can write an opinion piece for the NYT, or a blog, but getting it read is quite another thing.
But Timothy goes on:
I would like to question YOU. Why do you get to write a guest opinion piece of the NYT? Why should you get to voice your opinion on something personal to you and pretty much no one else? There are millions of other people from whom I would like to hear who never get a chance to voice an opinion. Something similar to your thought here: "...voices in Iran, North Korea or China struggle to get past a censor’s gate." Voices here in America struggle to get heard right here at the New York Times. There are no consevative voices at the Times (David Brooks is NOT a conservative).
So stop your vitriolic whining. With Obama as president, I'm sure the government will crack down on differing opinions with such things as the UnFairness Doctrine (that should pep you up some).
And just because I am fair, here are some books by Timothy Egan. Let's allow the consumer to decide.
The unlicensed pipe fitter known as Joe the Plumber is out with a book this month, just as the last seconds on his 15 minutes are slipping away. I have a question for Joe: Do you want me to fix your leaky toilet?
Joe would love for you to fix his leaky toilet, Timothy...if you can. Obviously, Joe has the skills to write a book. Do you have the skills to fix a toilet? We all know how mad you are that someone could just get a book deal simply for being in the public eye. (Have you mentioned Paris Hilton and her music career anywhere in your rants Timothy?) No? Just a little pissed that maybe someone other than a journalist can write a book? It's quite obvious anyone can write an opinion piece for the NYT, or a blog, but getting it read is quite another thing.
But Timothy goes on:
With a résumé full of failure, he now thinks he can join the profession of Mark Twain, George Orwell and Joan Didion.Actually Timothy, he is joining the ranks of people such as yourself, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and other people thrust into the spotlight by the media.
I would like to question YOU. Why do you get to write a guest opinion piece of the NYT? Why should you get to voice your opinion on something personal to you and pretty much no one else? There are millions of other people from whom I would like to hear who never get a chance to voice an opinion. Something similar to your thought here: "...voices in Iran, North Korea or China struggle to get past a censor’s gate." Voices here in America struggle to get heard right here at the New York Times. There are no consevative voices at the Times (David Brooks is NOT a conservative).
So stop your vitriolic whining. With Obama as president, I'm sure the government will crack down on differing opinions with such things as the UnFairness Doctrine (that should pep you up some).
And just because I am fair, here are some books by Timothy Egan. Let's allow the consumer to decide.
Labels: media bias, Timothy Egan
Tom Brokaw is a Socialist
We know the bias in the media trends toward the left. I have maintained they are socialists. Up until this election, they have been on the quiet side of socialism. This election cycle has seen them come out of the socialist closet. Here is a prime example of Tom Brokaw espousing his actual beliefs. This is what he really thinks of normal, middle-class Americans, and this is what he wants from us...remember, the left claims to be the party of the the people. From NEWSBUSTERS:
So Tom Brokaw does NOT believe in consumer choice. He believes government must enact laws and taxes to alter consumer behavior. This is not only socialism at its finest, but this borders on communism. I guess Tom Brokaw wouldn't mind if consumers had to wait in lines for consumables if it "benefited everybody" and saved the planet.
Thank you comrade Brokaw. The state will reward you for this.
Let's talk for a moment about consumer responsibility when it comes to the auto industries. As soon as gas prices dropped, consumers moved back to the larger cars once again. The SUVs are the big gas consumers. Why not take this opportunity to put a tax on gasoline, bump it back up to $4 a gallon where people were prepared to pay for that, and use that revenue for alternative energy and as a signal to the consumers: "Those days are gone. We're not going to have gasoline that you could just fill up your tank for 20 bucks anymore."
So Tom Brokaw does NOT believe in consumer choice. He believes government must enact laws and taxes to alter consumer behavior. This is not only socialism at its finest, but this borders on communism. I guess Tom Brokaw wouldn't mind if consumers had to wait in lines for consumables if it "benefited everybody" and saved the planet.
Thank you comrade Brokaw. The state will reward you for this.
Labels: media bias, socialism, Tom Brokaw
Monday, December 01, 2008
Timing is Everything
Timing is everything...except for maybe GOOD old-fashioned objective journalism. It seems every time someone wants to praise Obama for something, something else gets in the way...like reality. It reminds me of the global warming meetings. You know, when global warming alarmists get together to discuss the obliteration of mankind unless taxes are levied and the successful are punished. Then, during this meeting, there is a huge snow storm.
It must feel like that for USA Today writer, Adam Shell. His article, "President-elect Obama's actions perk up stock market" in today's edition, updated 8 hours ago as of this writing. In it he praises Obama on "...hasn't even moved into the White House yet. But Wall Street is already showering him with praise for injecting confidence into the battered psyche of investors and working quickly to hatch a plan meant to jolt the economy out of its worst funk in decades."
Simply amazing. Here's some more: "Stocks soared last week after Obama moved aggressively to fill the power vacuum until he's sworn in and demonstrated his commitment to dig the USA out of its economic rut. The Dow has rallied 17% during its current five-session win streak — its best five-session run since 1932. The rallies coincided with Obama-related news and public appearances where he introduced his economic dream team and sent a clear message that he'll do whatever it takes to repair the economy. Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, says the so-called Obama Factor has been "a solid force behind the recent moves in the stock market." Reminder to self: NEVER USE HARRIS PRIVATE BANK!
Wall Street breaks 5-day win streak as stocks plunge; Dow down 680 in 4th-worst decline.
Wow Adam, how could you be SOOOOOO WRONGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!???
The Dow lost 679.95 points to close at about 8,149. There have only been three days in market history with bigger point losses for the Dow -- the Monday after the Sept. 11 attacks, and Sept. 29 and Oct. 15 of this year.
Let's here it for Adam Shell of USA Today! He get's the DOH! Award by Homer Simpson. I bet you feel like a bit of an idiot right about now, don't you, Adam?
It must feel like that for USA Today writer, Adam Shell. His article, "President-elect Obama's actions perk up stock market" in today's edition, updated 8 hours ago as of this writing. In it he praises Obama on "...hasn't even moved into the White House yet. But Wall Street is already showering him with praise for injecting confidence into the battered psyche of investors and working quickly to hatch a plan meant to jolt the economy out of its worst funk in decades."
Simply amazing. Here's some more: "Stocks soared last week after Obama moved aggressively to fill the power vacuum until he's sworn in and demonstrated his commitment to dig the USA out of its economic rut. The Dow has rallied 17% during its current five-session win streak — its best five-session run since 1932. The rallies coincided with Obama-related news and public appearances where he introduced his economic dream team and sent a clear message that he'll do whatever it takes to repair the economy. Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, says the so-called Obama Factor has been "a solid force behind the recent moves in the stock market." Reminder to self: NEVER USE HARRIS PRIVATE BANK!
More from Adam: "So what has Obama done to restore hope to investors? •He's made the economy priority No. 1, •He's chosen a first-rate economic team, and •He's moved quickly to fix things.
REALITY CHECK:
Down we go again: Fourth-worst drop ever for DowBy Sara Lepro and Tim Paradis, AP Business WritersWow Adam, how could you be SOOOOOO WRONGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!???
The Dow lost 679.95 points to close at about 8,149. There have only been three days in market history with bigger point losses for the Dow -- the Monday after the Sept. 11 attacks, and Sept. 29 and Oct. 15 of this year.
Let's here it for Adam Shell of USA Today! He get's the DOH! Award by Homer Simpson. I bet you feel like a bit of an idiot right about now, don't you, Adam?
Labels: media bias
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Jackie Calmes, You have an Uncivil Right to be a Biased Idiot
Jackie Calmes of the New York Times is at it again. Her bias reporting can be seen in the previous post on the Lamestream Media, and she does not disappoint today in Obama Vows Swift Action on Vast Economic Stimulus Plan.
She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?
This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.
It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???
In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.
But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."
When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.
I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.
She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?
This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.
It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???
In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.
But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."
When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.
I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.
Labels: media bias
The Lamestream Media and Why It's Failing
Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, has admitted the bias of the Post's coverage of Obama here. She follows that editorial up, due to the loss of subscribers, with how the Post can remedy the "perceived" bias here.
Her "remedies"???
"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."
Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:
"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."
Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."
Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.
I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.
For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.
Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."
How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.
But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."
Bias?
But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.
This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.
Her "remedies"???
"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."
Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:
"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."
Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."
Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.
I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.
For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.
Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."
How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.
But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."
Bias?
But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.
This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.
Labels: media bias
