Had to change channels from Thom Hartmann for a few minutes

[rocktivity]

Not because of Hartmann, but because of his conserva-jerk guest who claimed that the "polls" showed that the "majority of Amercians" favored Bush's Social Security plan! Maybe he thought his "peacenik" host would be too "soft on defense" to contradict him, but thankfully Thom mused that if the majority of Americans had approved of Bush's plan, "it would be happening." A commerical break or two later, he read an article stating that Bush's SS plan had a 35% approval rate.

Thom isn't about making fools of those who bring opposing viewpoints to his show. But while I appreciate his efforts at fairness and balance, he shouldn't be allowing people to peddle pure poison over his airwaves, either--heaven knows they have enough airwaves of their own. In the face such blatant ignorance, arrogance, or incompetence, think Thom should ban him from his show permanently.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Democrats_win]

1. There is nothing con jobs want more than to destroy social security.

Atlantic Monthly's criticism of Rove, "the Rove Presidency" even gushes over Reagan's work in making social security more regressive. They hate it that Rove was such a jerk to congress that they refused to pass it. Of course maybe congress realized that anyone who messes with social security will be run out of office.

[Ian David]

2. I don't suggest tuning in to the idiotic asshole covering for Ed Schultz.

I may have had disagreements with Big Eddie, but at least Eddie never showed a reckless disregard for the truth the way the guy covering for him is doing.

He's been playing part of a clip of Obama's wife, and claiming she was attacking Hillary. Then, when a caller phoned-in and told him about the 50 words she said BEFORE and AFTER the clip, the Bill Press didn't even CARE. "Well, that's the clip I was given, so that's the clip I was talking about."

Press was given the rest of the story, and didn't CARE to change his tune one single bit.

Was she attacking Hillary? Maybe, maybe not.

But I do know this-- listening to the eight seconds of audio before the beginning of the clip, and the ten seconds after the clip, that the media has been playing, changes the context a lot, and makes it sound a lot less like an attack on Hillary.

Ed Schultz may be a lot of things, but at least he is not a LIAR.

Is Bill Press either dishonest or lazy or both?


See also:
Media attacks Obama
Aug. 21: Lately what the media has been reporting on Sen. Barack Obama and his family has not been flattering or accurate. NBC's Chuck Todd discusses.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=cfe2e5e7-7fa0-4355-ac8b-bddadee640f0&f=00&fg=email



I started this in a new thread:

The guy covering for Ed Schultz today-- is Bill Press a liar, or just a lazy asshole?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1639838&mesg_id=1639838