IN THE COMMENTS: Madison Man asks what Juan Williams thinks of this. The answer is here:
Williams said yesterday he was "stunned" by NPR's decision. "It makes no sense to me. President Bush has never given an interview in which he focused on race. . . . I was stunned by the decision to turn their backs on him and to turn their backs on me."Jane says:
The comments at the linked site were unbelievably racist and demeaning. Evidently, Juan Williams is not so much a man as he is a black man and African-American. He is not allowed to hold (only a few) different opinions than the hard Left, lest he be an "Uncle Tom," a "House Negro," and I stopped reading the race-based insults after that.The linked website is Crooks and Liars. Let's read the comments Jane won't read:
Williams is the Clarence Thomas of NPR, a sell out who lives for the favors of White Conservatives by legitimizing their positions by uncritically restating their talking points. Even the White House knows he’s a gutless suck up.
Why the hell would it be a surprise to anyone, why Bush insisted on Juan, to interview? It is very clear to black America why he would want a safe negro to speak to him about black issues, especially in today’s climate. Juan is not going to make that segment of white America uncomfortable as 90% of black America of today would not mind doing for them and nor would he want to raise up and slap the hate out of them so I would say that Juan is a safe bet for the Bush bigots of today.
Juan Williams is the newest of Bushit’s Field Negroes.
Posts
283 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 283 of 283Actually you're assuming a bit much. While I personally don't think the President can order NPR to do whatever he wants, the assumption that since he has NOT done something, he can't do it doesn't hold water.
Stating that "if Bush could simply order NPR to assign the interviewer of his choice, he would do so." only is true if you are reading his mind. There could be any number of reasons for him not to do that.
jane said..."For the second time, why don't you splain us what a "butt- boy" is, if it's not a gay derogation?"
Duh.
Wince and Nod,
Blow me.
Sincerely.
LOS
The hurricane season is not what the climate scientists predicted.
Hurricane season runs through November.
NPR is not part of the executive branch, or part of the government at all for that matter. It is basically a private-sector entity that is almost totally dependent on government money (both directly and from fees paid by its government-supported subscriber stations).
But jeff is correct that George Bush's failure to boss NPR around proves nothing. George Bush had the authority to fire Fitzgerald and give everyone in his administration a full pardon for all past crimes, but he didn't do THAT either. Public perceptions matter.
Revenant said...Yes, burning down a house is the textbook example of arson."
REV, You're a fucking genius.
Burn house = ARSON
Burn house = Vandalism???????
van·dal·ism
noun
willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property
Would BURNING be considered "malicious," "destructive," or "defacement" of "public or private" property??
DUH.
REV says: "George Bush had the authority to fire Fitzgerald and give everyone in his administration a full pardon for all past crimes, but he didn't do THAT either. Public perceptions matter."
C'mon, now...are you, jane and trooper in a skin pile...doing a huge stash of meds...right now???
Be honest...
*And do you have any for sale?
"Would BURNING be considered "malicious," "destructive," or "defacement" of "public or private" property??"
As a legal term which is apparently what the FBI was tracking? No, it would be considered arson.
jeff,
It's been fun, but...I've come to the conclusion that you're a moron.
Sorry, but I have a feeling you already knew that.
Usually the last resort of those who are losing the argument. Too bad. You actually had made some good points and while they were not convincing, they demonstrated why some might have the opinion you did. I personally would have gone with a "agree to disagree" and disengage with some respect on both sides, but hey. To each their own.
Palladian said..."LuckyOldSon is an anti-gay bigot. I have absolute moral authority with which to make this claim, therefore it cannot be challenged."
Well, if there's anybody who nows more about "bigotry," "insanity," and downright "stupidity"...it would be that little boy you call...you.
Oh, and you can...blow...Rev.
Jeff,
Buzz off.
I'm not wasting any more time on you.
As a legal term which is apparently what the FBI was tracking? No, it would be considered arson.
Maybe they were considered both arson AND vandalism. The relevant point is that we can know for certain that 7605 of the 7649 hate crimes did NOT involve burning anyone's house down, because if they had they would have been listed either as arsons, or as both arson and vandalism.
Rev,
Give it up.
"Jeff,
Buzz off.
I'm not wasting any more time on you."
Ok with me. However my posting isnt dependent on gaining your permission to do so.
The whole point of debate isn't to convince the other side, especially one with your track record. It was to present my case for those who are reading both sides. Which I did. I have no problems with you withdrawing. Anyone with the interest can follow this godawful long string and make up their own minds.
Rev- that's what made me suspicious of that at the beginning. Which is more likely to gain sympathy? A little over one hate crime per hour, or a handful of serious crimes over the period of a year. Numbers with out context are usually a red flag. I would be interested in knowing what sort of sentence those responsible for that handful of hate crimes received. I am willing to bet the proponents of the bill do not know either. It seems like this is just a feel good bill that will not do anything other than make a few people feel like their making a difference, damn it! I really don't understand why the same people that complain and complain about the executive power will cheerfully deed even more power to the legislative branch. The law of unintended consequences always rises up to bite you in the ass.
Lucky.
per your 5:11.
My point is that, given Juan's knowledge and experience with this particular subject matter, they should want him to do the interview. Not wanting him to do the interview smacks of a reasoning that is not in the best interest of their audience. God only knows what it is but I can't identify anyone on their staff that is more qualified than Juan on that subject. The phrase, cutting off the nose to spite the face, comes to mind.
lee david,
I've read that NPR "didn't want" Juan to do the interview.
Only that they held the power to decide WHO would do it.
Do you know if and who they selected instead of Juan?
Let me know...
lee david,
Sorry, typo:
I've NEVER read that NPR "didn't want" Juan to do the interview.
Interestingly, subtracting the posts by LOS results in no net deficit of interesting or useful information from this thread.
Try it!
I too would like LOS to explain how "butt boy" wasn't denigrating to gays. How about it Lucky?
Beth - To be fair, I see conservative commenters here bemoaning that cedarford hasn't been banned.
Nothing is more authoritarian than a Lefty. The Left-Wing blogs like Kos, Moveon.org, DU delight in banning posters for the slightest apostasy on issues like Joe Lieberman.
Someone like Garage Mahal just spools through demands to ban anyone who is not liberal and regular occasions when he defines "racist" as someone who has different political views on multiculti. Orthodox, predictable neo-Marxist/Marcusian...
Beth, however, doesn't have that "I was just being a good little Stalinist in the Thought Police" excuse.
Beth is simply stupid and hates regularly being exposed as an uninformed idiot.
Anyways, the big ongoing problem is that NPR remains totally unlike the public it's Federal funding was meant to serve. It is Leftist, elitest, and heavily Northeast Jewish in it's management. It's "stable" of minority reporters and commentators were hardcore Democratic, reliable grievance peddlers until Williams went "Uncle Tom" on them - and actually blaming blacks for some of their own problems and diminishing the purity of their victimhood at Whitey's hands.
Deeply anti-South, anti-Flyover country.
Juan Williams did not get the interview because the boss, Ellen Weiss, believed him a tainted Negro outside accepted NPR orthodoxy.
Here's the thing. Lucky is virulently anti-gay for some reason but very occasionally has something decent to say. Cedarford very occasionally has something very racist to say, usually about Jewish people.
I think the difference is that Cedarford confines his posts to one, long post. If you want to skip through it, it's easy. In this way, Cedarford is mannerly.
Lucky spews his invective in a constant flow of short, annoying clutter.
Moreover, many people have come here and sort of risen to the intellectual level of the community here. Lucky has not.
heavily Northeast Jewish in it's management.
This is Cedar-speak for "has a couple of Jews on its management team".
Beth seemed kind of surprised that the local conservatives and libertarians routinely condemn Cedarford, but it isn't surprising. Cedarford's a Pat Buchanan conservative -- overtly hostile to Jews, educated people, and business, and obsessed with alleged attempts to destroy the American way of life. Those fruit loops haven't been welcome in conservative circles for a while now.
eh, fear of perception? the white house flunkies dictated juan williams or nobody...i think they already failed the perception test
anyhow, i'm right. bush cannot "order" around any entity he wants just becuase it receives public funds. if you seriously think otherwise and are over the age of 20, wow.
surprised pogo hasn't asked his normal question -- does the stance of NPR signal the arrival of sharialeftofascism???
Lucky,
From the Wa Po article.
Williams called his bosses, who expressed concern that the only interview Bush has granted NPR during his tenure was also with Williams, in January.
Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news, said she "felt strongly" that "the White House shouldn't be selecting the person." She said NPR told Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino, that "we're grateful for the opportunity to talk to the president but we wanted to determine who did the interview." When the White House said the offer could not be transferred to one of NPR's program hosts, Weiss took a pass.
-----------------------------------
I have no idea who NPR wanted to do the interview or if they really had anyone in mind. Per the above statement, they wanted to determine who did the interview. I am not going to speculate on why they wouldn't want their most qualified person, on the subject to be discussed, to do this interview. The conclusion that cannot be escaped is that they did not want Juan to do it, otherwise they would have had it.
from the Wa Po:
While it is not unusual for the White House to offer a presidential sitdown to a particular anchor or correspondent, Weiss noted that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox have all had their anchors interview Bush and that NPR has been requesting such a session for seven years.
-----------------------------------
This will blow over as all things do but right now I think that NPR made an error that makes them look foolish to say the least.
hi Jeff. Yes. Joseph Goebbels was chief propaganda minister as you well know. He had a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about him...down is up, left is right, black is white, etc. Indeed, his "observations" were so silly on face and distorted in practice as to make him an icon of folly.
Now what do you need for a further explanation?
lee david said: "The conclusion that cannot be escaped is that they did not want Juan to do it, otherwise they would have had it."
I assume you are not a lawyer. The objection stated by NPR was that they wanted to pick the interviewer and not have it dictated to them or a condition of the offer to do the interview. It wasn't "Juan" per se as the flash point but the white house dictate that they objected to (see quote).
1. "does the stance of NPR signal the arrival of sharialeftofascism???"
Geez, I hadn't thought of that! Does it?
Kidding. Do note, however, that PBS has come under fire of late for rejecting a taxpayer-funded film called "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center."
2. Exalted, I am quite well aware of the fact that Bush cannot "order" NPR to do anything at all. However, they are not strictly a private entity, and no business is that depends for a large part of their revenue on government funds.
NPR is leftist, but they exist at the whim of the state. NPR's slant has been under attack for years from conservatives. Nevertheless, the House recently renewed the $420 million subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For what? A Democrat TV station.
Even though the CPB states on its web site: From its advent almost four decades ago, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a legal mandate to ensure "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."
That is, all PBS funding agreements are conditioned upon the network following "objectivity and balance" requirements for each of its programs. They are violating that mandate by refusing to show anything other than the Democratic party line. Their refusal to let Juan Williams, who was an advisor to Jesse Jackson during his presidential campaign, interview Bush, tells us how far left PBS has become.
Defund them, and they can interview Bush with whoever they want. On my dime, however, I demand a say.
"Oh, and you can...blow...Rev"
This has got to be the most vile, witless, and pointless comment yet by Luckyoldson, out of a vast assortment of same. Attempting to engage with him only encourages production of more offensive drivel.
Pogo said...
"that depends for a large part of their revenue on government funds."
The CPB gets a large amount from the federal government but then again it was an enacted entity by the federal government.
NPR, which is at issue here, is primarly privately sponsored by donation by "listeners". The federal budget allocation from CPB isn't insignificant but not at all large considering that the second and third most listened to radio programs come from NPR (all things considered and morning edition)
honest to God you need to read a little bit before you post such gibberish.
house
The federal budget allocation from CPB isn't insignificant but not at all large
NPR has less concern about funding since it received $200 million bequest by the late Joan Kroc in 2003 (she was a frequent Democratic Party donor).
*"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, created in 1967, receives approximately 15% of its annual funding from federal appropriations. In turn, the CPB, acting as an umbrella agency, is required to spend 89 percent of the appropriations in grants to members of Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), Public Radio International (PRI), and other affiliated public television and radio broadcasters."
Public broadcasting is mandated to serve as a public service.
Instead, they are an arm of the Democratic party, and provide free propaganda for the liberal left in America.
*"Not only is PBS unable to garner more than a sliver of overall market share, but the audience it nets is not representative of a broad swath of the American public. Surveys of pubic television and radio consumers consistently reveal an audience that is more affluent and educated than audiences for
commercial media. For example,a comprehensive 2003 survey of National Public Radio listeners by Medimark Research revealed that 73 percent have a household income over $50,000 and 49 percent have a household income of $75,000. The mean household income for NPR listeners is $85,675. In addition, 58 percent have a college degree and 28 percent have attended graduate school. These numbers are all much higher than national averages. The survey also reported that NPR listeners “are much more likely than the general public to travel to foreign nations, to attend concerts and arts events, and.. spend more on products and services.” PBS surveys produce similar results with audience demographics being well above national averages."
So why are we subsidizing TV and radio for the rich? Say no to welfare for the rich; defund public broadcasting.
pogo....i'm underwhelmed. Certainly you can't be that transparent and that dumb.
Sure I can, house.
Explain it to me like I'm a third-grader. Use small words so I understand.
Even if NPR only gets 2-5% of its funding from federal scources, why provide any of it all if they are primarily a broadcasting source for the wealthy?
If they are, as is widely known, a left-of-center agency, why provide funds when that violates their mandate to provide "strict adherence to objectivity and balance"?
Why are we subsidizing radio and TV for rich Democrats at all?
Seven Machos,
I agree completely on Cederford and LOS.
Most Cederford posts are intelligent & civil. You can skip his 1 or 2 posts if you're so inclined.
However, "LOSer" posts are tiresome left-wing spam and are sprinkled through out most threads making them difficult to ignore.
I wish the comments section had a sort function.
Doesn't anybody ever vacuum in here?
*slams down casserole*
*leaves*
Pogo...sorry, but I've had it completely with your pompous stupidity.
Does your incredibly nitwitted brain think that ALL the money NPR gets from CPB goes to political programs "leftist" as you call them - god can you morons possible get less original in your labels - and not to a huge stream of quality programming...? no you can't can you.
That all things considered and morning edition are the 2 most widely heard COMMERCIAL FREE programs on radio? that 65% plus BELIEVE and TRUST NPR news above ANY other outlet?
Sorry Pogo, but its Friday and I'm so tired of fucking morons like you by the end of the week, who just spout rhetoric bullshit like a gyser from hell and you expect everyone to just buy into your crap because you are the great POGO. Well my little head-up-your-ass buddy, YOU probably don't contribute to your local NPR station because you are either cheap, lazy or stupid (and I'll bet on all three) and you don't care a rats ass about quality, you just care about some non-existent bias that you see, somehow and somewhere. Well dumbfuck, it isn't there. It isn't a tool of the democratic party and it isn't a tool of Mr. Bush. It tells the truth.
You, Mr. Bullshit, wouldn't know if if you saw it. Fuck off.
eh, fear of perception? the white house flunkies dictated juan williams or nobody...i think they already failed the perception test
Could you explain that in a way that actually makes sense? How does picking Juan Williams to do the interview create a bad impression with the public? He's a respected reporter. It isn't like they picked some right-wing NPR intern (should such a creature exist, which I doubt) to do the interview.
As for the notion that NPR had no problem with Williams but just objected to the White House saying "it has to be Williams"... well, I suppose that might be true. But if it IS true, it demonstrates a surprising degree of childishness on NPR's part.
HDHouse,
I challenge you to go re-read what you've just written above and defend your vile, ad hominem, profanity-laced tirade.
Take some time off, little man.
rcocean said...
I wish the comments section had a sort function.
It makes me nostalgic for USENET. Just drop LOS into the killfile and you'll never hear from him again.
Seven nachos said..."Here's the thing. Lucky is virulently anti-gay..."
That's a lie.
I am anti-dumbfucks like you, though.
lee david,
I agree.
Seven Machos said..."Lucky spews his invective in a constant flow of short, annoying clutter."
I respond to idiotic comments like these...from idiots like you...or...post comments relating to the topic at hand.
Quit posting slams directed at ME...or moronic comments that make little sense...and I won't respond...to YOU.
Hold that thought...
rcocean said..."I wish the comments section had a sort function."
There is: It's called a brain, dipstick.
Give it a shot.
tjl,
You, too.
"I wish the comments section had a sort function."
It makes me nostalgic for USENET. Just drop LOS into the killfile and you'll never hear from him again.
It would be easy to create a Firefox extension that does that for Blogger comments. Each of our comments is contained in its own "dd" tag. Clipping out any tags that contained an undesirable blogger ID would be simple. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody had already done it.
Unlike Usenet, though, the morons here are pretty easy to manually ignore. There aren't too many of them.
Revenant,
And here you are again...whining about ME.
I've never seen so many crybabies in my entire life.
Most of you think you're some kind of intellectual fountain of important insights, when you're really just another group of wingnuts, bitching about the Clintons or NPR or MSM or anybody who doesn't agree with your slant on the world.
REV: I-don't-care-what-YOU-think.
Does that compute???
" It tells the truth.
You, Mr. Bullshit, wouldn't know if if you saw it. Fuck off."
Wow, house.
That was uncalled for. My questions were meant in earnest.
I hope you're feeling better soon.
I'm feeling fine. Great even. You, however, remain a infantile boor.
I'm not going to cut you an inch of slack until you start thinking...anything will do....but don't post up that weakass bullshit anymore. It is irksum
paul a'barge said...
:Take some time off, little man."
another pissant heard from.
let's see.
I post data demonstrating that PBS and NPR users are largely among the wealthy, and ask why we support subsidies for the rich,
...and House says "Fuck off" and states I am among "fucking morons ...who just spout rhetoric bullshit like a gyser from hell"
...and you're not going to cut me an inch of slack?
What absolute nonsense. Or in your usual parlance, 'that's the best cheeze you got'?
Pogo...
selective exerpts will not get you off the hook. You rile about Joan Krok donating $200 million and then snark that she is a "democratic donor".
Then you spew "Public broadcasting is mandated to serve as a public service. Instead, they are an arm of the Democratic party, and provide free propaganda for the liberal left in America."
That is just Rush Limbaugh jibberish. It is unsupported. It is make believe.
Then you cite a survey saying that public radio has listeners who are financially better off, highly educated and probably not insane. SO? You cut and pasted that from somewhere. So WHERE? And what is your point? That they get NPR for free?
That is the stupidist thing among many that you say. The amount per station is minor. It goes to a lot of diverse programming, not the bullshit rightwing assholes you must listen to...Sean, Rush, Michael, etc...ring a bell? But no. You, in your infinite stupidity, lump any anti-FauxNoise as wellfare for the rich intelligent elite?
How can you be so stupid. How?
Dear Juan,
Welcome to our world.
Signed,
Clarence Thomas
Miguel Estrada
Condoleeza Rice
Ward Connerly
npr might not come close to the "viewpoints" of fox news, but it certainly is not anything resembling "leftist propaganda."
for that matter, neither is the new york times, aka, the world's most respected newspaper. (or second if you want to elevate the WSJ).
no matter how times you bleat utterances like this, it does not make it so. it only makes you look...rather dumb.
as to revenant, i think the WH comes off looking pretty dumb when they make it clear that the president is only capable of handling an interview by his desired flunky, similar to how cheney's nonsense only holds up when issued to russert or the luminaries among the fox news allstars.
why does NPR not want Juan Williams to do the interview? its possible they dont want to set the precedent of eviscerating their internal control, but it is just as likely that, editorially, they want some questions answered that Mr. Williams is incapable (or unwilling) of asking.
Re: "You cut and pasted that from somewhere. So WHERE?"
See the asterisks before the quote for the links.
"And what is your point? That they get NPR for free?"
Exactly. Why not use this money for the poor? Why spend it on TV and radio at all, when the rich can clearly afford it without subsidy?
"The amount per station is minor."
Then they won't miss it once it's removed. So what's the beef about defunding?
"It goes to a lot of diverse programming"
Like Bill Moyers, and TOTN, and All things Considered. All very tilted to the left. Even Juan Williams is too right-wing for NPR.
"not the bullshit rightwing assholes you must listen to...Sean, Rush, Michael,..."
Sorry, I don't listen to them.
NPR and PBS are in fact just welfare for the rich intelligent elite, and the NPR programs are largely left-leaning, if not outright leftist.
And yes, I contribute to them ...in taxes. I never donate because I never listen to them anymore.
OHHH now its PBS too? Sesame Street have you in a snit? Nova? Jacques Pepin?...oh god, duck and cover.
http://www.npr.org/programs/ go here and look at the ALL LEFT ALL THE TIME PROGRAMS.
I don't have any real issues with the pathetic. I have issues with those who choose to be pathetic.
and WGBH and others tried to buy NPR from the government which refused. And the last time MyPetGoatGEORGE tried to cut funding congress got the email message.
I repeat, you just have to be an addled moron to take the position you are trying to defend. Just a fool.
" you just have to be an addled moron"
I don't doubt these are enormously popular, especially among Democrats who are used to taking from others and giving to themselves.
Hell, everyone likes free ice cream. You just haven't delineated any reason why the ice cream should be free other than that you enjoy it.
Hardly a traditional or classical liberal response. Very modern, though, and unprincipled as a result. Coupled with the swear words and cries of "you moron", I suppose you think you've covered the ncessary bases.
Seriously though, I find it odd that you defend a subsidy that takes tax money from the poor and middle class and redistributes it to the wealthy. That doesn't sound very Democratic at all.
Daughter mentioned over the phone the other day that she was listening to NPR, in NYC no less, at which point she must have sensed my eyes rolling and quickly followed up with, that of course, for the music.
The only thing NPR and PBS have going for them is that they're not BBC and direct, fully license-fee fed as official beasts of Progressive politics and taxation. Those really irritiating viewer donation campaigns still have to happen, with Birkenstock and sensible shoed Americans ponying up, unaware of the really big Dem-political money that makes their sacrifices chump change. Still, don't we all love a good tele-cause?
Travel the world and turn on the BCC in your hotel room, though, and as an American, you'll want to kill yourself in the marble luxury bath or shoebox foreign toilet as a scourge Yankee vermin on Gaia and Marx's good Earth.
"Tilted to the left"- heh. How about thrown hard in a counter-clockwise spin and turned upside down from all common sense and commonly understood history?
Bill Moyers. 'Nough said.
And yes, House, shows like Frontline are hopelessly biased. Buckley provided balance once upon a time, but even Juan Willims can't get his foot in the door of CPB these days.
Even their science shows are affected. In 2006, NOVA the programs `Dimming The Sun' and 'Journey To Planet Earth: Saving the Animals' were full of Androgenic Global Warming, straight from Father Al Gore.
And Sesame Street? Please. What a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. They could easily support themselves on cable. Not leftist, just wasteful, which is leftist. Heh.
as to revenant, i think the WH comes off looking pretty dumb when they make it clear that the president is only capable of handling an interview by his desired flunky
If Williams is nothing more than a White House flunky, the fact that NPR keeps him around makes NPR look bad. If he isn't a White House flunky -- and outside of the Kossite echo chambers nobody would dream of thinking he was -- then NPR's rejection of him as a qualified reporter makes NPR look bad. Either wait, NPR looks bad.
As for the notion that Bush "can't handle" an interview with a different person, that's just silly. When a President grants an interview, he is doing the interviewer a favor -- not vice-versa. Why should he tolerate demands from a news organization?
Seriously though, I find it odd that you defend a subsidy that takes tax money from the poor and middle class and redistributes it to the wealthy. That doesn't sound very Democratic at all.
Pogo, while I've got nothing against needling HDHouse, the income ranges you've cited -- household incomes in the $50,000 - $90,000 range -- are not "rich" or "wealthy". They are "middle class". A married couple with college degrees easily falls into that range.
Furthermore, lower-income people pay virtually none of the federal tax burden, so it isn't their money being redistributed anyway. Public broadcasting redistributes money from the rich to the college-educated liberal middle class. Since this is the class that most of our leftie commentators belong to I'm guessing they aren't going to have a problem with it.
You are correct as usual, Revenant.
Well put.
There is some transfer of wealth from low and middle income non-NPR listeners to upper-middle-class and even the rich who do partake of the CPB self-stimulation effort, I would argue.
I just don't understand the rigorous defense of trhis sort of junk. Especially because it is small potatoes.
you people are so weird
the president is not a smart guy, he is incapable of speaking intelligently extemporaneously or, on his own, adequately explaining or defending his own policies.
do you recall he refused to be interviewed by the 911 commission separately from cheney? do you ever stop to think about how revealing that is?
of course he is incapable of dealing with an interview with someone he doesn't handpick..
Revenant said...
It would be easy to create a Firefox extension that does that for Blogger comments.
Interesting. I'll have to look for the extension.
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how one would go about learning how to write their own extensions? I'd also be interested in trying to filter out comments based on content. Like skipping any comment that includes the terms "wingnut", "winger", or "Blow me".
I foresee myself wasting a lot of time in the near future.
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how one would go about learning how to write their own extensions?
Check here.
the president is not a smart guy, he is incapable of speaking intelligently extemporaneously or, on his own, adequately explaining or defending his own policies.
Exalted, see that little URL at the top of your browser? It doesn't say "DailyKos" anywhere in it, does it?
The old "Bush is an idiot, he won't dare talk to people" line doesn't work here in the reality-based community. He's a lousy public speaker, but only an ignoramus would think he's incapable of conversationally defending his policies in a one-on-one discussion.
Lotsa bozos in this bus tonight.
Thanks Rev.
Pogo said...
"I just don't understand the rigorous defense of trhis sort of junk. Especially because it is small potatoes."
Because Pogo you are nothing here on this issue other than an ignorant shill, wailing about things you obviously know nothing about. If for a second you offered anything other than the usual bullshit talking points about CPB and NPR I would think, hmmm what did I miss..should I look? But no. Your arguments are fanciful at best and weakkneed bullshit on face.
What I find troubling and amazing about your position is that you neglect or can't distinguish between the hours of daily "non controversial programming"...the kids programs, cooking, nature, travel, crafts, etc. plus a continual series of artistic events that feed your mind (well, not your mind - that is obvious).
did it ever occur to you that some of the factual shows and yes NOVA is a factual show may actually tell the truth? That, unlike the drivil that must muck up your pea brain, real people have real life ethics and tell the truth? Of course it didn't occur to you because based on your comments you are nothing less than a side show freak who lies about the "one thin dime".
What is specially telling is that you morphed from NPR and Juan to somehow include PBS to include "income distribution". At each point you got it wrong...poor people don't pay taxes???? you asshole, yes they do....and it hurts them plenty....but you extrapolate that urban myth into some type of free ride for the poor and taxing the rich yet again...
On this particular issue you are so full of shit on so many fronts that I have no idea where to begin...Shame on you. Shame on your shallow mind. Shame on your responsibility to approach the truth let alone tell it.
House
1. Revenant was correct in that the poor generally do not pay much, if any, federal income taxes (primarily the working poor), and I understood his comment to be about that. According to the NYTimes, "The C.B.O.’s most recent calculations of federal tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent". Indeed, IRS data shows that from 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004.
But I should have been more clear on that. The working poor do pay alot for Medicare and Social Security . But you and your fellow Democrats can blame yourself for those huge bills. They're socialist New Deal income redistribution programs that strangely seem to hurt the poor. Ask a fellow Democrat to explain that one to you.
2. I agree with you that there are hours of "non controversial programming" on PBS and NPR. So what? That fails to answer why US citizens, rich and middle income and poor alike, are taxed to fund radio and TV primarily used by people in the upper half of income? Why do liberals consider that fair?
3. I agree with you that Nova and other science shows do tell the truth. That's the problem inherent in a supposedly impartial TV or radio station skewing its other programs to contain lefty propaganda. Once NPR/PBS or any other news provider lies or shades the truth or chooses one side in a political question, all of your other opinions become suspect, and your information is no longer trustworthy. (I know that's how you feel about Fox, and not unjustifiably.)
It turns into a task like reading Pravda. Who has time to fisk all those NPR/PBS shows to winnow out the lefty BS (and, despite your claim, there is plenty of political BS in science shows; read Michael Crichton on the issue if you remain unconvinced)? And why should taxes fund this especially when its controversial aspects invariably support only one party (amazingly, always the Democrats)?
4. You are indeed passionate about this topic, but other than calling me names, you haven't really offered much in defense of your position.
I'm a little tired of this "the poor do not pay taxes" argument.
Having been working poor myself. This simply isn't true. If you're working legally, the government takes money out of your pay.
Yes, you get it back, at the government's convenience,but all that means is that, instead of getting robbed outright, the government is compelling you to make an interest-free loan.
Do the working poor get tax refunds? Yes, mostly... but ask them if they couldn't better use that 20 or 30 or 50 bucks a week when they earn it? Proportionately, it's much bigger bite of of their earnings.
Richard, the best way to fix that is to reduce the total tax bill for all.
Pogo...
Tell ya what. If what you wrote makes sense to you and you can't see how it is full of talking point/spun holes then frankly I have no further use for you.
taxes seem to play a lot into your specious arguments and a recitation of how little the ultra-poor pay as opposed to the ultra rich of course skips the alternative minimum tax and medicare and social security. Then you make some dumb and dumber remark socialist democrats to "blame" for that as if 1. it were true (not) and 2. if it were germane to the discussion...again not.
they your agile mind springs to the tax that all pay for but only the rich seem to use. I can't even begin to unhinge you from your ignorance of the audience for NPR and PBS. I also can't even begin to fathom the household tax contribution to CPB of under $2.00 a year. That is some hot potatos income redistribution..
Then we come to the " Once NPR/PBS or any other news provider lies or shades the truth or chooses one side in a political question, all of your other opinions become suspect, and your information is no longer trustworthy."
I'm going to not trust Sesame Street because you think McNeil Lehrer "lies"? I am going to think Jacques Pepin "makes up recipes that are wrong" or "Prarie Home Companion" is a commie plot?
I was willing to cut you a little slack on the tax bullshit because you are just a schill for god knows who. I would forgive your ignorance of audience demongraphics and how CPG impacts virtually every demographic and socio-economic group with its variety of programming, education, etc., ... assuming of course that you notice the annenberg/CPB project or how many kids learned basic skills as a result of big bird et al.
But then you tread in water way over your head with some Michael Crichton (now there is a scientific source!), Pravda, lying science and all favors democrats.
Go change your diaper. You are truly the product of the industrial revolution...someone made you with an interchangeable ass and brain.
ps...i'll stop calling you stupid and all kinds of funny names when you stop saying stupid things that aren't funny
House,
You have become nearly incoherent. Unable to refute with actual argument, you rely on invectives and name-calling. Typical.
yo pogo...don't pull that neo-con bullcrap on me. i went through your points one at a time and showed you why you were wrong. in reply you do your typical...well you sound as dumb as sloanasaurus.
don't waste my time.....pathetic.
revenant,
have you ever read the transcript of any unscripted talk from our president?
i mean, honestly.
House,
You refuted nothing, much less point-by-point. The first three paragraphs were indecipherable.
I'm a little tired of this "the poor do not pay taxes" argument.
What I said was "lower-income people pay virtually none of the federal tax burden". That happens to be an empirical fact, so I really don't care if you're "a little tired" of it. I'm a little tired of the fact that it gets hot in August, but it keeps on happening. The average member of the bottom income quintile -- i.e., the poor and working poor -- has a negative income tax rate after deductions. I.e., at tax time they get back more than they ever paid in.
revenant -- The point is, the government takes their money and uses it for one to eleven months. If the government then deigns to offer them some of your money after the fact, that is none of the working poor's doing. Trust me, the money ain't so good that folks are staying poor for that sweet, sweet refund.
Although, frankly, the Feds might show better fiscal responsibility if they just paid market-rate interest on the money taxed and refunded from/to the working poor rather than the pricey credits they offer now...
Richard,
I didn't say that the poor were taking advantage of me, nor did I suggest that they were staying poor for the pure wicked glee of spending my money. I just said that they bear essentially none of the tax burden. I didn't say that they should, or that the world would be a better place if they did -- just that they don't.
Between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.
Post a Comment