More MSNBC attacks on Americans: Dont agree with Obama's plan? You're undermining the country!

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios


Yea I caught my mistake, but wimbly had already posted pretty much what I wanted to say, so I saw no reason to copy him.

Haven't seen if you had any snappy comebacks for wimbly yet. Keeping my fingers crossed that you haven't let me down.

edit to add- yep you let me down. and your post said wrong again. Since you aren't referring to this thread (that was my first post) what are you dragging in from other threads?

edit again to add- Wrong again:Nielsen's May 2009 ratings are in, with Fox News again leading the cable news race by wide margins

That is the first sentance in the article.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by jd140]

[edit on 25-8-2009 by jd140]

reply to post by jd140
Jeez, can a guy go to lunch?? I'll reply when I can I promise. Now that we're actually exchanging ideas as opposed to barbs it's much more enjoyable.

As for the "wrong again," it was not directed at you per se, but was at the overall misrepresentation of the data. But you both (you and Wimbly) caught the mistake, and corrected it. Bravo. Now, I'll correct mine: Sorry for saying "wrong again" as this was your first post in this thread.

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

Jeez, can a guy go to lunch?? I'll reply when I can I promise. Now that we're actually exchanging ideas as opposed to barbs it's much more enjoyable.

The only one in this thread who "exchanged barbs" was you, when you called me out as a political hack. You also called me out to make an argument against NHC, which I did and you completely ignored.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Disagree with Obama? Not only are you undermining the country....you are a Nazi, unAmerican, a hate monger, and most of all....a racist!

"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." Mrs. Bill Clinton

fine!!!!...just don't make up stuff...or lie about what was said. you can disagree all year. i'm sick and tired of republicans making stuff up and lying about what was actually said, or written...you guys lost the election...you don't get to call the shots anymore, of course all the media is making it seem like your still in power, as much airtime they give you.
i wish all that liberal media was easier to find...even MSNBC is bashing obama.

Typical biased cable news broadcasting.

Just like FOX news.

You know, we have three major cable news networks, we know what to expect from MSNBC, conversely we also know we can expect the same from Fox News all from the opposite side of the issues.

Is it too much to ask for an unbiased cable news network that simply reports the news without opinion, spin, sensationalism, distortions, lies and completely agenda driven political rhetoric from a singular blind one-sided perspective?

There are three, can't one step up and simply give us the news without all of the crap?

Is it too much to ask that a neutral network simply report all of the news and let the viewers draw their own conclusions and opinions on the issues and top stories of the day, especially those involving political issues?

Apparently these cable news networks have concluded that the American people have lost the ability to think for themselves, and clearly see that as an opportunity to lead them exactly where they want them, of course that depends on which network you choose to watch... At least you have the illusion of choice.

Truth is relative...

reply to post by Wimbly
Wimbly,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I went to lunch and had clients come in afterwards. Since then I have been attempting to gather all of your claims from this thread and put them together in one post so that I can respond to each of them. Fair enough?

Good, I’ll begin by listing what I see as the claims you have stated thus far. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but these are simply my interpretations and are what I will be attempting to respond to in an organized manner.

1. MSNBC is “attacking Americans” who do not “tow”(sic) Obama’s party line. You are particularly upset by the video of Howard Dean claiming that Republicans are undermining the Country, no?

2. A townhall protester is reported to have introduced himself (possibly satirically) as a “right wing terrorist” and then on Hardball, Chris “Mathews used this as evidence that the town hall protesters are actually terrorists.” Then later in the thread: “Chris Mathews used the guys blatantly sarcastic remark in order to scare viewers in to thinking some Republican is about to leap from the bushes and kill them.”

3. You claim Howard dean continually demonizes those that disagree with him. You use as evidence his campaign slogan from 2004: Taking Back Our America.

4. You doubt that I would have a problem with your post if it were attacking Fox News (implying that I am partisan).

5. “Quote: “So, by getting Americans involved and showing up to town halls, Republicans are actually executing an insidious plot to stop debate? Are you sure you arent just trying to rationalize shutting up debate that you don't like? Its so ironic that after 8 years of some of the most vitriolic dissent I've ever seen, that people on the left side of the isle suddenly have a problem with old people questioning government at town halls. Now its all painted as some racist conspiracy.”

6. You oppose my use of a quote from Skeptic Overlord’s thread.

7. Quote: “Tell me, where was the ATS outrage when Bush was elected and protesters flooded his inauguration? Do you honestly beleive Democrats didn't want to torpedo Bush at every turn?
Welcome to Politics. You cant just dismiss our arguments...”

8. You claim to never have exchanged any barbs my way in this thread, and that I have ignored you post regarding problems with HCR other than the ones I brought up

9. You claim, “Nobody brought Assault Rifles to Town Halls. You're proving the effect MSM propaganda has on people.”


10. You don’t report Fox news’ bias because “I'm just not as interested in pointing out Fox's manipulation, considering the left as so much more influence and power in the media.”

11. (The Biggy) Quote:
“Public Health care(Medicare & Medicaid)
Goal: To provide health care to the poor and elderly
Result: Cost explosion and service are far below what would be considered adequate. Why are there so many "supplamental" insurance programs out there? To date Congress has never been able to rein in spending or accurately forecast costs of this program.”
And then:
“It is socialism. Its more socialism than we've ever had before. Its yet more government interference in to people's lives and a step towards what our founding fathers warned us of.”

So, how’s that for a condensed list? I’ll be responding to these shortly, please update if I misread your problems.
-AAH

reply to post by Wimbly
Replies 1-5
1. Context-Context-Context: The video you supply is of Dr. Howard Dean (former DNC Chair) claiming that there are those in the “shrinking” Republican party who would undermine President Obama at any costs, and further, that doing so at the expense of having “sane conversations,” “undermines the country.”

If we begin from that contextual standpoint then it must be assumed that either you believe that there are no Republicans that are undermining the conversations, or alternatively that taking AR 15 rifles to town hall meetings and chanting slogans about “Death Panels” and carrying pictures of Obama in an SS uniform and Hitler ‘stache is all part of a “sane conversation.”

In response, I submit that there has been undeniable evidence that these things are taking place, so if you believe that they are not really happening, you are either blind or willingly ignorant; and if in the alternative you believe that they are part of a “sane” dialogue you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually impaired. I make no attempt to imply which of those apply to you.

2. You quote the actual dialogue here

MATTHEWS: Next up, here's one from Republican Congressman Wally Herger of California. At his town hall meeting some guy yelled out, bragging that he was quote, "A proud right wing terrorist." To which the Congressman responded, "Amen. God bless ya! Now there's a great American." A great American. A guy who thinks it's okay, in this day and age, to call himself a right wing terrorist. This is the dangerous edge, in which these people, including some elected officials are now dancing. We've been here before. Words lead to actions, words create the national mood, the mood creates a license. People take that license and use it. I'm not spelling it out any further because I don't want to.

This quote conclusively speaks for itself. But, to put a finer point on it, I challenge you to show me where in that dialogue does he say either, ‘the protestors are actually terrorists,” or “some Republican is about to leap for the bushes”? He doesn’t !!! Rather, he simply points out, quite correctly btw, that this type of attitude is akin to dancing on a dangerous precipice. Again are you too blinded by partisan politics to see the truth in that statement?

3. “Taking Back Our America” demonizes people who disagree, huh? What about the “Republican Revolution” (revolution from what? democratic “tyranny”), or "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." Yes, you’re right, Republicans would never use this type of rhetoric to stir the base.

4. I have previously addressed this issue. I am not in favor of the left any more than I am the right, but I AM weary of partisan hit men that do nothing all day but attack attack attack. You just happened to be the one I saw first today. Nothin’ personal.

5. No, I am very very happy that Americans have awoken from their self induced political slumber. However, I do think that the goal was accomplished through lies and manipulation. And the fears most often expressed by the majority of the protesters proves beyond a doubt the effectiveness of such lies and manipulation. You have admitted IN THIS VERY THREAD, that the “use of the phrase "death panels" may have been a bit dramatic,” but then go on to say that a case for rationed care has been implied by the Obama administration. But if rationed care was the problem, why not say “rationed care,” in the first place? Because “Rationed Care” is not hyperbolic enough to scare the masses to action.

So now, elderly Americans are concerned and afraid but not for the real reasons. This is but one example of the far right’s “ends justify the means” tactics and they are UNAMERICAN.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

reply to post by Wimbly
Replies 6-10
6. I have already addressed my use of the S.O. quote. Suffice it to say, that, taken at face value, it only served illustrates my point, and was never the crux of any of my arguments; which I have made from my own opinions, using my own observations, not those supplied to me by ATS, or any news outlet.

7.

“Tell me, where was the ATS outrage when Bush was elected and protesters flooded his inauguration?

I don’t know, I wasn’t on ATS and by your registration date neither were you. When was the site founded anyway? I was in the service at the time and would not have had the time to enjoy these little debates.

Do you honestly beleive Democrats didn't want to torpedo Bush at every turn?

No, as someone who actively campaigned for Bush while in the military during the 2000 election I knew the Dems wanted Bush defeated. But not defeated at all costs. That particular Machiavellian strategy is unfortunately a specialty of my own party.

8. You never threw any barbs huh? Ok, maybe not, but it appeared to me that we began this discussion from very different views, and saying that

Welcome to Politics. You cant just dismiss our arguments...

or that I was part of a group “throwing a temper tantrum because the debate was not going my way,” certainly appeared to be a barbs initially. However, I am glad we are beyond that. As for ignoring you... well that just isn’t the case.

9. Nobody brough assault rifles, huh? The AR 15 rifle is derived from the selective fire M16-series assault rifle, currently in use by the United States military. Here is link to a video of a protestor outside the AZ townhall with Obama www.youtube.com... Nothing else on this point is necessary.

10.

I'm just not as interested in pointing out Fox's manipulation, considering the left as so much more influence and power in the media.”

I’ve already blown this one out of the water. But for good measure, I’ll add: If you think that FOX news is the underdog despite having higher ratings than the other two major cable news networks COMBINED because all the other news networks have a liberal slant to them, then maybe you need to come to the realization that Reality must then have a “liberal” slant.

reply to post by Wimbly
11. Finally, Public Health debate.
I suppose you mention other things like public schools and social security because in your view they are social programs that do not work. However, if you want to complain about the schools, Bush’s No Child Left Behind did far more damage to the public schools than any liberal platform has. Ask a teacher. So, should we scrap the public schools in your opinion? I don’t know, I went to a Private Jesuit University for my BA and a Private College for Law School for my JD. All on the public dime since I was in the service.

But if you really are proposing that we get rid of all social programs and go all Ron Paul on the system, then I’m all for it. I’m a Ron Paul Republican and supported Dr. Paul throughout the campaign. However, it is dishonest to scare the heck out of seniors by espousing claims of “Death Panels” or even “Rationed Care,” if your end goal is the end of Social Security and Medicare. I think the over 65 crowd might be just as afraid of that. But, if that’s really what you want to push for, then start a thread about that and see how that goes over !!!

Next, you imply that people on Medicare/Medicaid are receiving less than adequate care, yet polls routinely show that most seniors are more satisfied with their care as a whole than younger people no eligible for Medicare.

Next you continue to claim that Health Care Reform is all about SOCIALISM. You do reallize that Bush’s and Obama’s bailouts of the banking and auto industry were absolutely socialism, right? Where was you vitriol for Bush when he bailed out his corporate buddies at our expense, or when Obama continued that bullsh*t? I can guarantee you that your outrage over that Socialism was less than it is over healthcare. Yet which one of these so called hand-outs really helps the middle class, the former or the latter? I say, maybe neither, but certainly - under no conditions - does the former do anything but hurt!

Furthermore, the Democrats themselves took Universal Health Care and Single Payer plans off the table from the start. Those are socialized medicine programs. And they are not what we are talking about. Either you get that, or you come into the fray from a misinformed or ignorant vantage point from the start. Thus, the “public option” was the only remaining aspect of the proposal that has anything to do with socialism, and Obama has implied (since you are so fond of using his “implications”) that it is not necessary to the plan and is coming off the table as well. So IT IS NOT SOCIALISM.

Either you know all of this already, and do not care or you're being willingly ignorant of the facts as they are presented. You can shout from the rooftops that this is about socialism v. free markets, but you simply have presented NO EVIDENCE that your allegations and assertions are accurate.

I look forward to your reply.

-AAH



[edit on 25-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

Next you continue to claim that Health Care Reform is all about SOCIALISM. You do reallize that Bush’s and Obama’s bailouts of the banking and auto industry were absolutely socialism, right? Where was you vitriol for Bush when he bailed out his corporate buddies at our expense, or when Obama continued that bullsh*t? I can guarantee you that your outrage over that Socialism was less than it is over healthcare. Yet which one of these so called hand-outs really helps the middle class, the former or the latter? I say, maybe neither, but certainly - under no conditions - does the former do anything but hurt!

I don't have time to hit everything right now, but stop acting like you know me. Over and over you justify actions being taken now, "because bush did it". Why do I care if Bush did it? I'm still against it! I was against the bank bailouts as well. Guess what? So was Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and most every right winger I cant think of. Bush had almost no support for that from his so called "base" and he didn't have it from me. Just because Bush did it too, doesn't mean its not socialist. Bush himself never claimed to be a conservative, but a "compassionate conservative". Whatever the hell that is!

reply to post by Wimbly
Point taken.

70% of Doctors ready to 'just say no'
Majority won't accept new patients under government plan

By Dr. Alfred Bonati | Tuesday, August 25, 2009

www.washingtontimes.com...

along with

John Stossel's Take Every Critic a Racist?

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s supporters promised that his election would allow America to “transcend race." Among the headlines:

The Boston Globe: "Obama shows an ability to transcend race”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “Obama's success suggests we can transcend race”

But of course that hasn’t happened. Jonah Goldberg writes:

It was Obama’s supporters who hinted, teased, promised, and prophesied that Obama would help America “transcend race.” But now, it is they who shrink from their own promised land…

From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.

Goldberg has plenty of examples:

For instance, actress Janeane Garofalo summed up the tea parties thusly: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

In an ABC News story about how racist white militias are somehow connected to town-hall protests, Mark Potok of the dismayingly left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center insists Obama has “triggered fears among fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country.”

Come on. Every president eventually is criticized by the media – even one as “transcendent” as Obama. The President’s supporters should engage his critics with facts, not charges of racism.

blogs.abcnews.com...

In fact, if you look at the stance of some posters here on ATS (RRconsevative and others), you begin to see that a fairly plain statement in that video in the OP makes sense -- it's not about disagreeing with particulars of Obama's proposals, it's about an all-out effort to make him fail, with no consideration to the country.

reply to post by Wimbly


I'm sorry to say for MSNBC that kind of behavior is to be expected.
It's just desperate nonsense from the Left Wing Loons.
It's over. The White House and Congress totally blew it on
ObamaCare and they know it. That's why they are trying to change
the subject to the CIA investigations or whatever they can think of.
I think the ObamaCare Trojan Horse is also dead.
Everybody has their eagle eye on this ObamaCare.
It's getting worse everyday for Obama.

When the Iraq war started I heard plenty of people running around yelling: If you don't support this war, get the hell out of the country.

So the shoe is on the other foot.


Everyone seems to dismiss the MSM. Yet, you guys watch them awfully closely.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by Wimbly

More MSNBC attacks on Americans: Dont agree with Obama's plan? You're undermining the country

And you are "undermining" intelligent discussion on ATS with misrepresenting what people say for the sake of political rhetoric.

"More MSNBC attacks on Americans"...
I am sure you meant Howard Dean who was being interviewed...not MSNBC?

"Don't agree with Obama's plan? You're undermining the country!"
He did not say anyone who disagrees with Obama's plan is "Undermining America"

He said the "Shrinking Republican Party" wants to undermine President Obama....He was pretty specific...he did not say "Americans" who disagree with Obama.

He also made the observation that "in order to undermine Obama" the REPUBLICAN PARTY (not Americans who disagree) "must undermine America".

I don't think it was the greatest choice of words, but I get what he is suggesting.

I would have rather he said that the Republican Party has prioritized undermining Obama over the welfare of the country. That I believe is accurate....see the "Damn the Country, Obama must fail!" thread.

In short he is saying that the Republican opposition to administration initiatives is politically motivated and partisan based and prioritizes a political strategy over what might or might not be best for Americans.

This is evidenced by the manner in which recent GOP attacks on policy are almost exclusively fear based and false claims rather than legitimate debate. It's more important for them to appeal to public emotion than engage in a genuine debate about facts.

Originally posted by darkelf
So the Obama administration is the new Sith Lords? If you are not for us, you're against us. Sounds like the last administration.

Yeah. Bush used that same tactic. Hopefully people will see through this rhetoric.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by Wimbly

More MSNBC attacks on Americans: Dont agree with Obama's plan? You're undermining the country

And you are "undermining" intelligent discussion on ATS with misrepresenting what people say for the sake of political rhetoric.

"More MSNBC attacks on Americans"...
I am sure you meant Howard Dean who was being interviewed...not MSNBC?

"Don't agree with Obama's plan? You're undermining the country!"
He did not say anyone who disagrees with Obama's plan is "Undermining America"

He said the "Shrinking Republican Party" wants to undermine President Obama....He was pretty specific...he did not say "Americans" who disagree with Obama.

He also made the observation that "in order to undermine Obama" the REPUBLICAN PARTY (not Americans who disagree) "must undermine America".

I don't think it was the greatest choice of words, but I get what he is suggesting.

I would have rather he said that the Republican Party has prioritized undermining Obama over the welfare of the country. That I believe is accurate....see the "Damn the Country, Obama must fail!" thread.

In short he is saying that the Republican opposition to administration initiatives is politically motivated and partisan based and prioritizes a political strategy over what might or might not be best for Americans.

This is evidenced by the manner in which recent GOP attacks on policy are almost exclusively fear based and false claims rather than legitimate debate. It's more important for them to appeal to public emotion than engage in a genuine debate about facts.

I agree with the original poster. MSNBC has it out for the Republican party, and that also includes the voters. If this was a Republican voter speaking, they would have been called a radical.

MSNBC wants the Democrats to remain in power so badly that they are willing to sell their souls.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
70% of Doctors ready to 'just say no'
Majority won't accept new patients under government plan

By Dr. Alfred Bonati | Tuesday, August 25, 2009

www.washingtontimes.com...

I laughed when I saw this. I know Bonati...I once almost had him operate on me...no joke. I reviewed his record and talked to patients that he had operated on and quickly passed on him. He is a salesman doing a specific spinal proceedure that rarely works. He makes most patients pay out of pocket up front...because most insurance companies won't re-imburse for what he does....he doesn't tell patients that until afterwards when they are wondering why his "patented" surgery didn't help and their insurance company won't re-imburse them.

He is a loon and a crook and I imagine any honest statistical analysis of success rates would be seriously detrimental to his "institute". I have no doubt he has alterior motives for opposing any reform.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
70% of Doctors ready to 'just say no'
Majority won't accept new patients under government plan

By Dr. Alfred Bonati | Tuesday, August 25, 2009

www.washingtontimes.com...

along with

John Stossel's Take Every Critic a Racist?

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s supporters promised that his election would allow America to “transcend race." Among the headlines:

The Boston Globe: "Obama shows an ability to transcend race”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “Obama's success suggests we can transcend race”

But of course that hasn’t happened. Jonah Goldberg writes:

It was Obama’s supporters who hinted, teased, promised, and prophesied that Obama would help America “transcend race.” But now, it is they who shrink from their own promised land…

From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.

Goldberg has plenty of examples:

For instance, actress Janeane Garofalo summed up the tea parties thusly: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

In an ABC News story about how racist white militias are somehow connected to town-hall protests, Mark Potok of the dismayingly left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center insists Obama has “triggered fears among fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country.”

Come on. Every president eventually is criticized by the media – even one as “transcendent” as Obama. The President’s supporters should engage his critics with facts, not charges of racism.

blogs.abcnews.com...

Why the fringe uses the other fringe to prove that being extreme is extreme is
pretty funny???

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In fact, if you look at the stance of some posters here on ATS (RRconsevative and others), you begin to see that a fairly plain statement in that video in the OP makes sense -- it's not about disagreeing with particulars of Obama's proposals, it's about an all-out effort to make him fail, with no consideration to the country.

Show me a picture of Obama and his family, and I'll say "Looks like a nice guy with a happy family." Show me his accomplishments, friends, associates, and background, and I'll say "I wouldn't want this guy elected as dog catcher, much less the President of the United States of America."

America is going down because of Obama's policies, if he were to announce tax cuts for everyone, cut spending, and quit try to implement his socialist policies I would be for him all the way.