White House Drive by Shooting

Again, your argument has a serious flaw in it. I watch CNN... and when they know they've errored they admit it the moment they learn that the information is wrong. This is different than what I see being done at FOX, where the commentors are not chastised by the news segment as often... until it becomes impossible to ignore. Mind you, I believe the news segment on FOX to be far more reputable than the commentary sections (which is true for all the networks), but find they allow or ignore far more misinformation by those commentors far longer than they should. I would love to see them as fair and balanced, but they have to earn it by fact-checking their commentors and stop them from airing obvious propanganda... just saying they are doesn't make it so. BTW, I have heard FOX news chastising their commentors on occasion too, and when they do I respect them more.

 

On a quickie check;
Have they apologized for Miss Barkin's comments?
Have they apologized for Miss Behar's comments?

 

One: Not specific enough to address.
Two: Go fish yourself.

 

He asked some valid questions and that's your response? "Go fish yourself" - whatever that means...

 

Just listend to the vid and they DID ask for the silence to be in solidarity with the guy who shot at the white house, One also called for them to occupy the Police Dept
I am totally in opposition to both these sugestions and for the life of me can not understand why they would give support to this guy who could have killed someone

 

Look past the trees and you might see or in this case hear the forest. This occupier voiced his solidarity (you might want to look that one up for clarification) to the shooter.

DeOrc, thanks for seeing this as it really is and pointing out the idiot woman screaming occupy the police department.

 

Because he's one of them!

 

I think it is because the vocal anti-government folks aren't just on the right these days. And there is a lot of Us vs Them going on in the OWS which can certainly lead to violent confrontations and acts.

The OWS movement has been kind of a blank slate that people have used to project their own desires for change onto while dismissing other aspects that are just as plentiful in the movement. You hear some of that here from various people. "Yes, there are some people protesting that but what they are really about is this..." or "Not every single person in the OWS is violent so you can't say it is turning into a violent movement..." And so on. Brilliant strategy, really.

 

Except I don't think it's a "strategy" in the sense that it was planned that way. I think that's just the way it's working and is I think entirely consistent with the way true mass grassroots movements operate. The national and certainly the global movement will never be unified under one leadership One way I can see it going is that smaller more organized groups will eventually coalesce around certain issues or become more centered on locality and local politics. It's very interesting to watch.

 

He's a bit more on that. Not only is Ortega-Hernandez on a mission from God, he is himself Jesus Christ or some sort of incarnation thereof. Obama, of course, is The Antichrist. These are hardly new ideas. People do get them. Glenn Beck comes to mind in some respects. But when you put a gun behind them they kind of take on a whole new power.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...oscar-ramiro-ortega-hernandez-says-hes-jesus/

 

I disagree. He gave me two names. I need more information than that. But here's the kicker: if either of the people he mentioned did something wrong, and information can be found that proves they did wrong, I'd immediately call them out for that. Now if they've worked at CNN and CNN failed to correct either of these two's comments, to say they were wrong and apologize, then I'd also immediately call out CNN for that... but would rlm do the same for FOX or any right-wing commentor who was wrong? I'm putting all of my money on "Hell no!" since I believe rlm is more likely to ignore any wrong FOX or right-wing commentors make than to call them out on it.

"Go fish" means hunting for info to prove your point. IMO, rlm likes to make people "fish" for info... and he also likes to post bs as facts, with no proof of course... but he's all about the bs, which is why his credibility is junk with reasonable people.

But you know that. But you still defend his question as being valid. So, go fish yourself.

 

We might have to disagree a bit on that. Even the movement slogan of 'We Are The 99%', I think, is a brilliant marketing strategy meant to be all things to all people. I mean, who isn't part of the 99%? Just 'them', those people, the other guys.

 

My point was 2 fold. First, because they did not apologize absolutely does not mean they did not make errors but only that they didn't admit that they make mistakes. Secondly, you do not realize just when mistakes are made or when they are not.

As an aside, the biggest differences are not necessarily even technically errors. Not covering pertinent stories (Reverend Wright, for instance) is a major problem. Slanting stories also counts. i.e. "Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by two females. Both females have filed sexual harassment complaints against others." or; "Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by two females and there are several other women also rumored to have complained of harassment by Herman Cain." Regardless of your feeling or the veracity of each story line, both could be true, but the listener gets two completely different impressions of Mr. Cain.

 

I'd agree. I'd also ask you to remember how the Tea Party was in the begining phases. At least half of what the Tea Party was about back then I agreed with... but as they organized, far-right elements took control of the message and the direction they were going in, and I agreed less and less with the Party as time went on. And there was violence during many Tea Party events too, not as much as with the Occupiers, who are less organized and are more likely to ignore civil orders, but there was violence. The Tea Party morphed into a political movement, electing representatives under their banner. The Occupiers may yet form something similar, but I doubt it, they appear to be more interested in protesting than becoming a political power. Actually, I'd welcome them into the political arena... as a political party... and hope they morph into one. The Two-Party sytem is insufficient IMO, and I'd like to see new Parties, even the Tea Party, emerge as the new system. Time will tell.

That said, the Occupiers who held a moment of silence (in San Diego?) for the White House shooter were wrong... if they knew the guy shot at the White House and believed support was necessary since he may have been an Occupier (another lie from the right-wing?...is anyone going to hold them accountable for lying so damn much?). I can't say for certain what they knew at the time, and I'm betting most feel like the fools they are, for showing solidarity with a fellow Occupier who may have shot at the White House... and for believing bs right-wing propaganda in the first place.

 

And my point is you ignore that commentors on FOX are more likely to intentionally misinform the public in an attempt to breed hatred and fear than the commentors on CNN. 'Intent' is an important aspect of our differences of opinion. I intend to find the truth of an issue, whether it hurts my position or not, whereas you intend to spread propaganda and never admit when that propaganda is wrong... and that's why you lack credibility with me.

Now, CNN has had, and currently has, commentors I don't like. Glenn Beck used to be on CNN, and he was a nut, not as nuts as on FOX, but he definitely had opinions I didn't agree with. Lou Dobbs lost my respect when he began using every moment he could to complain about 'illegal immigrants'... I have a differing opinion on the issue and found his constant hatred unbearable. Nancy Grace's shrill squawking sets me on edge, and Jane Velez-Mitchell is her equal... I refuse to watch or listen to their whining. And there are others.

But I respect most of CNN's news reporters/hosts and commentors. Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Ali Velshi, & Don Lemon, as well as Christine Romans, Fredricka Whitfield, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Erin Burnett, & Suzanne Malveaux do their best to admit when they are wrong. I'm not a big fan of Soledad O'Brien or John King... King annoys me with how he frames questions and leads answers, though he's not as bad as he used to be... and Soledad just gets on my nerves.

 

While I agree that the Tea Party has been co-opted over time (by the religious right, imo), I believe they started from the beginning as fiscal conservative republicans. The first protests were all about Obama and the Stimulus. From there it went to protesting Obama and Obama's Healthcare Plan. And so on with pretty much anything Obama.

If you are talking about the Ron Paul stuff prior to those early 2009 beginnings, I personally think that had nothing in common with the actual Tea Party movement.

 

If you're not making the point that he was "right wing" (whatever that is), then what validity does your argument have that he was listening to/watching "right wing" media? What you're not acknowledging is that when you are that crazy, there is no such thing as "right wing" or "left wing." All there exists is the psych wing . . .

 

I'm not linking him directly to right-wing bs propaganda so much as changing the subject to how that right-wing bs propaganda can influence the mentally ill... and the general public. I'm saying that propangada is wrong, whether it comes from the right-wing or left, and IMO...I believe the right-wing propaganda machine intentionally attempts to instill panic, fear, and hate among it's listeners far more than the left-wing bs propaganda machines does to it's listeners.

 

As a poor person, I have no choice but to believe in fiscal conservatism, it's only practical. So I agree with those principals... that the government should not borrow unless it's absolutely necessary, and should have a balanced budget. The differences in our opinions may be in how America's finances became so unbalanced, why we borrow so much, and what to do about it.

IMO, the war between Democrats... who are a taxing and spending machine, and Republicans ...who want less taxes and spending, has led to both sides getting some of what they want (still spend like a Dem but tax like a Rep)... and increased borrowing. That has to stop, it's destroying the government and, like it or not, we need the government.

 

OMG! I don't believe that came from you. However, I must disagree slightly. The Republicans of late (at least until the Tea Party) had absolutely no qualms about spending as much as the Democrat next to them.