289 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

503 weeks ago @ Breitbart.tv - Four Minutes Of Hate: ... · 0 replies · -2 points

He was suspended by the left-wing owners of MSNBC

504 weeks ago @ Big Government - Explaining Obama's Let... · 12 replies · -23 points

This is another short-term campaign season attack on Obama without any real solutions - drilling in new US sites won't affect pump prices for years and this call for more nukes makes us more vulnerable to disasters and terror attacks.

The answer to America's energy problem has been staring us in the face for over 30 years, we just can't get solar, wind, geothermal and conservation off the ground because big oil bought the government and the media. My house has solar panels which will produce 95% of my electricity needs and it's taking less than 5 years to pay down.

If we'd built solar farms in the 70s, we'd have paid off the investment and been getting free energy by the 90s. Same for other alternatives, but the real joke is that we just don't conserve - every SUV is a waste, every home with 2 inches of insulation in the attic instead of 10 inches of insulation is just wasting money and fuel.

Every office building that leaves the lights on overnight or lights the stairwells that no one ever uses, every school that doesn't fix it's leaks or replace old furnaces and ducts is not only a waste of taxpayer money, but a loss of jobs that pay for themselves. The problem is not Obama, he is powerless up against the fossil fuel companies that have been making record profits every year for almost a decade - they love things just the way they are.

So they pay good money for articles like this that are electioneering tracts disguised as journalism and they hope rhubarbs continue to pay at the pump and vote against renewables.

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - How Obama Uses False M... · 0 replies · -6 points

Dana Loesch take the day off or does she just not read anything here anyway?

Is anyone proofreading the headlines here? It's understandable to make typos here and there, but headlines?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe Obama is trying to advance his Polices, as in his security forces?

I was thinking he meant "policies" but as no one has pointed it out or corrected it, maybe no one cares that nothing makes sense on this site.

504 weeks ago @ Big Government - Big Labor Money Unites... · 0 replies · +3 points

Between labor unions and secret billionaires, it's no contest - unions represent vast thousands of real working people.

ALEC pre-writes the laws for the elected officials that the secret billionaires bankroll, and then the laws favor the billionaires, for example the Bush tax cuts that failed to create jobs or generate economic growth 2001-now. They keep wages down and insulate government officials from your petty opinions.

Unions influence candidates and elections, but it's a democratic process - they pool their time and money to get the candidates to hear their concerns. This is how the system is supposed to work.

What is of concern is that anyone gets special access, but we know this is not news - Bush had regularly conference calls with megachurch pastor Ted Haggard. Bush used Fox and talk radio in a massive propaganda operation used to promote the fear of Iraq's WMDs when there were no WMD and no ties to 9/11. This came straight from top Bush White House insiders. They also coordinated with Armstrong Williams to make fake news reports pimping NCLB and secretly hired Cuban journalists to make fake news reports about Castro.

So if we're being honest about undisclosed ties to media, we need to go back to Clinton and Reagan as well. Reagan used tax dollars to seed pro-war propaganda against Grenada and manipulate book distribution.

Do we really care about government sponsored propaganda, or only when it's done by Democrats? If we care on principle, we'd see articles about both sides, but this propaganda mill exists because Breitbart is taking money from secret multimillionaires to smear the left and keep middle class voters from taking power.

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - John King Twists Audie... · 2 replies · -1 points

It was not an editorial comment to blame the auto bailouts on Bush, it was a plain fact along with a question.

If you are saying that stating the well known fact that the auto bailouts began under Bush is editorializing, it suggests you believe recent US history should be hidden from voters and future generations because it is inconvenient.

Remember, Bush also began the bank bailouts, requesting a $700 billion blank check. This dwarfs the auto industry bailout. I don't know how much independent research you do, but it's just breaking now that two billionaires that wrote $1 million checks to the Romney superPAC extracted billions in taxpayer cash during the bank crisis and the auto bailouts. Their names are Singer and Paulson.

One made a fortune by buying and dismantling Delphi, the main supplier of GM auto parts. This included thousands of layoffs and shipping jobs overseas. It was Romney's donors who benefited when $6 billion in pension payments was shifted to US taxpayers so these vultures could "rescue" the supplier. Though caught in fraud, they quietly paid half a billion in fines to make the criminal charges go away.

These are the guys buying Romney today, pumping money into his superPAC after ripping off taxpayers by the billion during the auto bailouts and the mortgage crisis. They have enough money to buy Romney, Gingrich and Santorum to shut down your voice and opinion and it's happening right in front of your eyes.

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - Progressives and Conse... · 1 reply · 0 points

Sheila, can you explain how OWS goals (income equality, money out of politics, human rights, etc.) are consistent with rape? I have researched the OWS demands and I think that is quite a claim.

Meanwhile, I think you missed some important research on Tea Party-endorsed candidates who voted against an amendment to a bill that protected women who were raped by contractors overseas. Women employed by Halliburton (KBR) who were allegedly gang raped found they had no legal recourse - it turned out the KBR contract granted contractors the right to gang rape them with full indemnity.

So an amendment was proposed that would preserve the rights of sexual abuse victims to bring their rapists to court. It passed, but not before it was opposed by Halliburton and the following Republican Senators:
Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

So does the Tea Party denounce all these Senators for this "legalizing rape" vote?

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - Progressives and Conse... · 2 replies · -4 points

Of course those things got coverage - they were on the front page of Murdoch's NY Post every single day since the beginning of the protests.

Then they were spotlighted in WSJ op-eds, plastered all over Fox News, described every day on talk radio and posted as viral video on YouTube. Someone at this site has been making a list of every violation, down to the smallest public infraction - to try to broadbrush OWS.

This disproves the claim of 'no coverage' without question. Fox is #1, Hannity is #1, the NY Post is #1, all of these are the largest media outlets in their markets. Next issue.

Nobody has addressed Ms. Naffe's perspective - except WarEagle, to say this alleged attempted rape plot does not rise to the level of rape. If it was true they drugged her, isn't that about as bad as rape? What might a jury think their reason for allegedly drugging her and putting her in the barn were?

Do Ms. Naffe's rights and feelings matter to any commenters here? Is anyone here a female? Have a female family member you care about? In a he said/she said allegation, should we ignore the plight of the person who is less famous? Who has less fans? Who doesn't have millionaire DC law firms defending them for free? How about some free publicity for Naffe to pressure Breitbart to make a statement in support of her rights and due process?

Nadia Naffe said in court filings she was sexually harrassed by O'Keefe and his friend. Anybody care about alleged harrassment victims in this bastion of anti-rape journalism? Are you apologizing for O'Keefe by allowing him a pass? Is this Breitbart's level of tolerance for these types of allegations when it's a favored staff member? Anyone holding O'Keefe to a standard of the most basic transparency in a call for his public statement on these serious allegations? Nah, lets cherrypick the alleged victims we care about.

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - Progressives and Conse... · 0 replies · -3 points

I see you never took the time to do even as much independent research as a simple Google search, taking Breitbart agit-prop as gospel - the OWS proclamation defined 23 issues way back on 9/29 and you still don't know what they are. So you believe it's all about rape, pimples and college tuition?

Where do you put mortgage fraud? Pay for play? Way in the back behind rape and pot smoking? Do you realize the rest of the country is debating serious issues while you are rooting for distracting pot shots taken by a paid propagandist? People in the future will note you didn't familiarize yourself with the important issues OWS is fighting for almost five months after they announced it and saw worldwide support and occupations spring up in almost every American city!

If you want to be taken seriously, put the crimes in the right proportions. You want to go on record saying you believe the hundreds of thousands of people supporting OWS condone rape? You were better off trying the anti-Semitic smears after you saw five anti-Semites mix in during the protests.

But these great AHA! moments of extreme partisan article-writing never seem to happen when Breitbart commenters go off on the 'zionists' or threaten physical violence, or misrepresent checkable, provable facts. It's almost as if you know Breitbart's cases are flimsy, but you choose to rally behind them anyway.

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - Progressives and Conse... · 11 replies · -25 points

If conservatives are concerned about rape, why hasn't Breitbart made O'Keefe address what happened on the record when Nadia Naffe visited his parents house and allegedly was drugged and had her panties stolen after O'Keefe urged her to spend the night in his parents barn?

It made headlines when she brought charges - Breitbart felt she was credible before when he used her as a columnist - why has Breitbart protected O'Keefe from her charges? This site must condone a culture of rape!

504 weeks ago @ Big Journalism - Progressives and Conse... · 5 replies · -23 points

If we are taking rapists which characterize less than .1% of the Occupy movement, to characterize that whole movement, it's safe to say that Andrew Breitbart's operation is a rape farm as well, because he fails to report allegations of suspected rape plots made by his employees against his other employees.

Breitbart employee James O'Keefe stands accused by Breitbart columnist Nadia Naffe for being present while she was allegedly drugged, making her lose muscle control and consciousness. Naffe says O'Keefe kept insisting she spend the night in his parents' barn as she became more and more affected by the alleged drug in her drink.

Breitbart has not reported on the incident despite claims by Naffe that her underwear went missing after O'Keefe tried to turn a work-related meeting into a boozefest. Naffe brought charges but they were dismissed on a jurisdictional technicality by a judge who suggested Naffe sue. Naffe also claimed ongoing sexual harrassment, that O'Keefe tried to pay her off, O'Keefe smeared her and that he has been intimidating her.

So, using the same journalistic standards employed in this article, we can all agree Breitbart's operation endorses a culture of rape.

It's obvious this author and editor is trying badly to smear OWS, first claiming rape is condoned, but also misrepresenting the movement's aims as looking for "free stuff". There are over 20 issues in the OWS proclamations, published Sept 29, 2011, so the movement's definitions have never been unclear.

What we see here is an ongoing attempt to divert people from the real issues - to exaggerate the rape angle, to misrepresent the OWS issues and to make it seem like Breitbart gives a lick about the rape problem in the streets, rape in the military, rape in schools, or rape within his own company. Breitbart suddenly cares when he can use it against OWS, which is a worldwide movement fighting for sexual equality.

If you're a woman and you haven't insisted Breitbart make O'Keefe explain what happened on the record, it's a total sham and proves this propaganda mill exists only for Breitbart's secret multimillionaire donors.