Michelle Malkin » Notorious Obamedia moments of 2008

Notorious Obamedia moments of 2008

By Michelle Malkin • October 29, 2008 05:05 AM

In the tank.

My syndicated column today takes you on a brief tour of some of the most shameful Obamedia moments of 2008. Topping the list: The Los Angeles Times’ suppression of the Obama/Khalidi/Ayers-Dohrn videotape. The blogosphere has been pounding the story, with Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft leading the way. The Times claims it promised a source it wouldn’t show the tape. Can you imagine them abiding by similar conditions if they had a damning McCain/Palin video in hand? Now, reward offers for the missing video are pouring in: see Newt Gingrich; Ace; Dirty Harry; and JWR.

And another reward offer: $150,000.

I repeat: Bleeding newspapers really shouldn’t be pissing off readers. Same goes for the rest of the flailing old media.

No matter. They will cling bitterly to their drool cups until pried from their cold, dead hands.

***

Notorious Obamedia Moments of 2008
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

To paraphrase Queen Elizabeth II, 2008 is not a year on which honest journalists shall look back with undiluted pleasure. This has turned out to be even more of an annus horribilis than 2004, when Dan Rather’s fake Bush/National Guard memo fiasco redefined the “BS” in CBS News. There were so many mainstream journalists swimming in the Democrat tank this year, the nation’s newsrooms looked more like overcrowded aquariums at Petsmart.

In less than a week, the campaign season will be over. But the Obamedia’s most shameful biases and notorious blunders shall not be forgotten. Here’s my top five list, by no means comprehensive and in no particular order:

1. The Los Angeles Times and the suppressed Obama/Jew-bash videotape. In April, L.A. Times reporter Peter Wallsten reported on a 2003 farewell party for radical Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman/adviser-turned-Ivy League professor Rashid Khalidi. The gala was sponsored by the virulently anti-Israel Arab American Action Network. In attendance: good neighbors Barack Obama and Weather Underground terrorist duo Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Wallsten reported that the “event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.” But the news organization refuses to let readers watch the video of Barack and his left-wing terrorist friends for themselves and will not release the tape. It’s “old news” now.

The paper had no problem, however, embedding a clip of Sarah Palin’s 1984 swimsuit pageant video on its gossip blog and deeming it newsworthy.

2.Ogling Obama. In May, CNN posted “breaking news video” of female journalists on Obama’s press plane moaning and fawning over the Democratic presidential candidate as he talked on his cell phone. The caption listed on the network’s website: “Obama in jeans: Sen. Barack Obama surprises the press corps by wearing jeans.”

In the clip, several members of the press corps yell at a Secret Service agent to “sit down” because she’s obstructing their view of their beloved Obama. You can hear the journalists giggle and sigh as Obama straddles across a row of seats and they furiously click away on their cameras. “You’re killing us,” one of them truckles breathlessly.

No, you’re killing yourselves.

Runners-up for Most Drool-Covered groupies: The journalist who squealed “He touched me!” at the UNITY minority journalists’ convention in July; the MSNBC producer who broke down and shed tears of joy upon learning that The One had clinched the Democrat presidential nomination; MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who proclaimed that he “felt a thrill up his leg” after an Obama speech in February; Oprah Winfrey, who confessed she did a “happy dance” for Obama; and the writer for the German publication, BILD, who worked out with Obama at the Ritz Carlton in Berlin and reported: “I put my arm around his hip – wow, he didn’t even sweat! WHAT A MAN!’”

3.The Atlantic Monthly’s deranged photographer. Publisher David Bradley’s once-esteemed magazine hired celebrity lenswoman Jill Greenberg to snap portraits of John McCain. Greenberg, an outspoken left-winger who goaded children into crying on film and captioned the images with anti-Bush slogans, sabotaged the photo shoot and gloated about it on a photo industry website. After tricking McCain into standing over a strobe light to create ugly shadows on his face, she then posted vandalized versions of the McCain imagery on her personal website with crude, vulgar labels and Photoshopping. One featured McCain with fangs and blood dripping down his mouth – with the Greenberg-added words, “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer (sic).”

Another piece of her “art” showed an ape (a favorite Greenberg subject) defecating on McCain’s head. The highly respected editors at the highly respected Atlantic professed shock, despite Greenberg’s notoriety. The name of her blog: “Manipulator.”

4.The quote doctors and the math manglers at CNN. In a botched attack on Sarah Palin, CNN reporter Drew Griffin cited National Review writer Byron York allegedly questioning her abilities and character: “The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above?” York, however, was characterizing the press coverage of Palin, not speaking for himself.

In a botched tally, CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien proclaimed an audience poll showed “overwhelming” preference for Joe Biden after the vice presidential debate. A freeze frame of the show of hands, however, showed the audience split. The mathematically-challenged O’Brien also claimed that Palin slashed Alaska’s special needs budget by 62 percent (which she recycled from the liberal Daily Kos blog), despite the fact that the governor increased special needs funding by 12 percent. Facts, schmacts.

5. Us Magazine and publisher Jann Wenner’s Obama apparatchiks. The gossip mag’s September partisan slime job on Sarah Palin and her family (“Babies, lies, and scandal”) – which opened the floodgates of Palin-bashing across the mainstream media — was a nadir of the year. Prominent Obama backer Wenner, who ran countless hagiographies of Obama in sister publication Rolling Stone and featured the Obamas with the slavering headline “Why Barack Loves Her” on Us magazine’s June cover, had his media flack e-mail the anti-Palin hit piece to all media in St. Paul for the Republican National Convention:

“Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out,” the flack wrote.

Indeed, the side-by-side covers of the Palin smears and the Obamas’ deification illustrate the year in Obamedia perfectly.

Posted in: Barack Obama, Media Bias

Printer Friendly

comments (353)

trackbacks (36)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

Newer Comments »

#520036

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

As for terminology,

It’s more than just “Obamedia”… it’s more than just Obama.

It’s the Commiemedia. It’s American Pravda. It’s American TASS.

It’s the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
#520037

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am, fluffy said:

Bush’s Tax Cuts

President Bush’s tax relief plan reflects this basic trust in the American people and confidence in the American ideal by increasing tax fairness and enhancing the performance of the economy. It includes:

* Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule);

Click the link, scroll down to ‘Appendix’.

When these cuts expire, my wife and I will pay 6% more of our income in Federal taxes. Put another way, we will give the IRS a 24% raise!!

I’m failing to see how this benefits me.
#520038

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am, watershed said:

#181

Are you refrring to me? You’re cute.

I am just having a ball with y’all. My guy is winning the presidency, and EVERYTHING I am explaining to you all will come to pass. Its gonna be a good year.
#520041

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am, Flyoverman said:

DBNinKY, Wanna see my chunk fo the Berlin Wall?

Seriously, the average person will never appreciate how much Reagan reduced the danger of a nuclear war in his first term.

Peace through Strength was more than a punch line.
#520043

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am, fulldroolcup said:

Then we disagree. No uprisings, no violent takeovers. Just a political disagreement. It’s been happening that way for centuries here in the US, and will continue as such.

You see? Isnt that easy?

Nossir. this time it’s different. YOUR candidate has openly expressed his disdain for the Constitution, seeing it as fatally flawed. Thus he cannot take the Presidential Oath to preserve, protect and defend it. If he does, he’s lying under oath from the instant he says “I so solemnly swear”.

YOUR candidate, the product of corrupt Chicago machine politics he never tried to reform, consorts with known domestic terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn)), foreign terrorists, (Khalidi), communists (Klonsky) and criminals (Rezko, Giannoulias) from whom he received corrupt money and benefits.. He is a radical, a liar, and a fraud.

The SECOND he tries take away our Constitutional freedoms, override the Bill of Rights, or to burden us with oppressive taxation to pay for unconstitutional purposes, he WILL have an uprising on his hands.

You can count on it.
#520051

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am, watershed said:

#193

he WILL have an uprising on his hands.

Fulldroolcup, is an apparently unrepentant future terrorist explaining why he will use violence against the President.

Amazing! William Ayers would be proud.

And there is NO difference between you two. You both think YOUR CAUSE justifies violence.
#520053

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

And the Commiemedia is lying to you about the polls.

In an honest election, McCain/Palin will win in an electoral college landslide.

When was the last time a Democrat got over 50% of the popular vote?

1976, when Jimmah Carter got 50.1%.

When was the last time before that when a Democrat got over 50% of the popular vote?

1964, LBJ, when the country was still recovering from the murder of JFK and voted for stability.

We don’t have to defeat Obama’s politics. We have to defeat the MASSIVE FRAUD which is being carried out on Obama’s behalf.

Christians, please pray.
#520055

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am, sambo said:

watershed said:
Then we disagree. No uprisings, no violent takeovers. Just a political disagreement. It’s been happening that way for centuries here in the US, and will continue as such.

Excuse me but if the government tries to take away our (the peoples) constitutional rights, al la (or allah) Chavez…then it is our duty as Americans(which might leave you out)!
#520058

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am, watershed said:

#188

Hang on, give me a minute…I’m copy and pasting your post for my superiors at Soros camp.

OOPS! Did I say that out loud? Abort! Abort!
#520060

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am, DBNinKY said:

An OBSCENE unjustifiable salary?

The perception is that quality costs; that’s why a Maybach sells for half a million. So if a board is ridiculous enough to offer a potential CEO an outrageou$ contract, I’m not about to blame that individual for accepting it.
#520061

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am, John Deaux said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am, watershed said:
#169

OK. Ask me a DIRECT (gasp) question. It’s not like I’m hiding from anyone, guy.

Please explain how redistributing income through refundable tax credits, along with guaranteeing health care as a right, are not socialist.
#520062

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am, watershed said:

#196

And another. None of you guys see the unbelieveable IRONY here of calling for a violent uprising against an American adminstration?

This place is truly hilarious. Best of all is that you’re serious! Pathetic and sad, but serious.
#520064

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am, FamilyMan said:

old_texan said: Some estaminets indicate that 2 trillion dollars would return to US investments if we remove the corporate tax completely. That would stimulate the economy to 8 trillion within four years.
#520071

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

You Say You Want A Revolution?
#520072

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am, jsr said:

Don’t feed the troll. It is just following The Ones instructions to Get in their faces. It’s hermetically sealed mind is impervious to logic and facts and will not be swayed. It may not even believe it’s own talking points and is only here to distract and inflame, which it is doing quite successfully.
#520073

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am, watershed said:

#199

Strawman.

The tax burden will be SHIFTED to the wealthy from the middle class. SOCIALISM is your word.

Health care should be a right for every American. Choosing an ideology over the well being of your fellow Americans is in my view, sociopathic and at the very least, unpatriotic. But this place stalked and hounded a sick 12 year old boy and his family for months, so I should probably know who I am talking to!
#520082

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am, fluffy said:

watershed still seems to think I am trolling. I pointed out that when my household loses our Bush tax cut, we will pay an additional 6% of our income to the IRS. Even if my wife and I both lost our good middle class jobs and started over at WalMart, we would still pay higher federal taxes. Maybe sausage can explain how that loss of income will benefit me.

Night, folks. Remember to vote.
#520092

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am, sambo said:

watershed said:
#196

And another. None of you guys see the unbelieveable IRONY here of calling for a violent uprising against an American adminstration?

This place is truly hilarious. Best of all is that you’re serious! Pathetic and sad, but serious.

You must not have read my post you little obnoxious Obamian!
#520093

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am, FamilyMan said:

KABOOMMM.
That wasn’t too messy. But fun
#520097

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am, Misscheryl said:

Thanks, Misscheryl. I’ll be around.
#520098

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am, fulldroolcup said:

“And there is NO difference between you two. You both think YOUR CAUSE justifies violence.”

sorry, but I conditioned my comments on what Obama might do. IOW “If”.

And if you had any clue you would understand why we have 2nd amendment in the first place. You might try reading the Federalist Papers. The Founders feared the rise of an oppressive federal government and wanted to leave citizens the means to counter it.

Finally, I would like to know what constitutional rights Ayers thought he was being deprived of, that justified him blowing up government buildings and killing people.

You really ARE a witless troll.
#520103

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am, fulldroolcup said:

Health care should be a right for every American.

Horse hockey. to believe that you have to believe that the government is the source of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Yours is a profoundly un-American position.

It’s one your Manchurian candidate shares.

Move to Canada or the UK. You’ll be happy there, waiting for years for your “health care”.
#520109

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am, watershed said:

#207

Are you talking about me? Or is KAABOOM what you wanna do to the future Obama adminstration, like some of the other Hitler youth here?

Either way, you amuse me. Thanks!

(JK, You’re cool. Incredibly paranoid and misinformed, but cool.)
#520114

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am, sambo said:

Health care should be a right for every American.

Beer should be a right for every American.
#520115

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am, right4life said:

The tax burden will be SHIFTED to the wealthy from the middle class. SOCIALISM is your word.

the rich already pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country. how much should they pay? 100%? you’re an idiot.

Health care should be a right for every American. Choosing an ideology over the well being of your fellow Americans is in my view, sociopathic and at the very least, unpatriotic.

this is more idiotic left-wing drivel. there is no such thing as a ‘right’ that costs someone else. and your ‘free’ healthcare will end up causing a great deal more suffering and death. but you’ll feel good about it and thats all that counts to soulless little left-wing stooges like you.
#520116

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Obama’s Affinity to Cold-Blooded Killers
#520121

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am, watershed said:

#209

Your almost sexual fetish for violence against some armed socialist uprising isnt uncommon here. You’re paranoid, and have a blood lust. It’s kind of scary combo. All because a DEM is gonna be President! GASP!

But trust me, get in your bunker and NO ONE will miss you.
#520123

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am, John Deaux said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am, watershed said:
#199

Strawman.

I asked you a question. How is that a strawman? You might want to check the meaning of that word.

The tax burden will be SHIFTED to the wealthy from the middle class. SOCIALISM is your word.

People that didn’t pay a penny in taxes receiving a check is socialism. Redistribution of income is socialism. That’s not my word, it’s Engel’s.

Health care should be a right for every American.

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee you anything tangible, it only guarantees you the right to pursue things unfettered by government. Try using logic instead of emotion.

Choosing an ideology over the well being of your fellow Americans is in my view, sociopathic and at the very least, unpatriotic.

That would be why Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. We do consider the well being of others, the Dems just want more for themselves under the guise of helping others. Do you think Jeremiah Wright could buy a less expensive house and provide scholarships for his parishioners? Could Obama have sent his brother a $100 bill and made him a rich man in Kenya?

But this place stalked and hounded a sick 12 year old boy and his family for months, so I should probably know who I am talking to!

A sick boy who was being used by the Dems to justify fleecing the public. Are you saying we should pass every piece of legislation that has poster boy? Nice way to change the subject and attack us at the same time.

Please answer the question. Simply saying “that’s my word” is not sufficient.
#520132

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am, watershed said:

The tax burden will be SHIFTED to the wealthy from the middle class. SOCIALISM is your word.

This statement fails to account for the morality of the size of the tax burden, or what that tax burden is paying for. It is merely propaganda.

Health care should be a right for every American. Choosing an ideology over the well being of your fellow Americans is in my view, sociopathic and at the very least, unpatriotic. But this place stalked and hounded a sick 12 year old boy and his family for months, so I should probably know who I am talking to!

Health care is provided by human beings to human beings. Health care is a service.

By declaring that it is a right, you are in essence declaring that the time – no, the very lives – of those who practice medicine belong to the State.

Yes, you are saying that they are slaves and must work for the State as it deems fit.

Whether that slavery is enforced through ugly means (whip and chain) or through soft means (government bureaucrats armed with the full force of the federal government) is immaterial. They accomplish the same thing: slavery.

Whether that slavery is practiced for a good cause (alleviate suffering) or a bad cause (growing cotton) is also immaterial.

It is a certain fact that southern plantation owners sent their slaves to serve at fundraisers.

It is a probability that Pharoah used some of his slaves to do good public works of some sort – whatever the ancient equivalent of “community organizing” was at the time.

But no matter. Slavery is never justified no matter what its form or severity.

I suffer from a few ailments that could one day explode into serious conditions. But I would never resort to enslaving anyone to cure or care for me.

The very thought is sociopathic and disgusting.
#520137

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am, Flyoverman said:

If you Google the topic you will find the FIRST EVER tax cut proposed by Barrack Obama was in September 2007.

Prior to that date, before he was a candidate for President, you will not find any mention of Obama proposing a tax cut of any kind. He did, however, in his first two years in the U.S. Senate vote for tax increases 42 times.

Based on his own written words, speeches, interviews, and his voting record prior to September 2007, why would anyone logically assume any Obama tax cut proposal would be implemented.
#520141

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am, hawkeye54 said:

the rich already pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country. how much should they pay? 100%? you’re an idiot.

Even if they DID pay 100%, they don’t produce enough income for ALL the programs Obummer, Pelousy and Dingy Harry want to saddle the taxpayer with. If Obummer wins, just watch the wealty hide as much of their income as possible offshore, in tax free munies, reduce their productivity to stay out of higher tax brackets, etc. They are already making preparations for it.

AND if the DEMS actually taxed WEALTH in addition to income, it might cover spending for a year or two and then they will have to look to other resources for the spending of our tax money they have in mind.

That tax cut Obummer is prommising the middle class? He’ll pull a Clinton and proclaim the nation can’t afford it and we all will have to make a sacrafice to contribute. That “tax cut” will just be a “cut” of a smaller tax increase.
#520147

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, watershed said:

Film Ladd you still havent explained how your version of violence against the President differs from William Ayers. Get on that!
#520151

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, watershed said:

Film Ladd you still havent explained how your version of violence against the President differs from William Ayers. Get on that!

I already did in a comment. You missed it and I do not repeat myself.

Now get on to your sociopathic belief that mankind exists to serve the State.
#520156

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm, old_texan said:

The income tax is unconstitutional anyway, but that doesn’t seem to bother anyone. The class envy demonstrated by the leftist could be helped immensely if we just repealed the income tax and had a flat tax to make things equitable.
#520166

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, granite said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am, John Deaux said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am, FilmLadd said:

Good posts.

The troll’s own words:

Your almost sexual fetish for violence against some armed socialist uprising isnt uncommon here. You’re paranoid, and have a blood lust. It’s kind of scary combo.

Projection, much?

Also, notice the terms of address used in that individual’s posts: cupcake…sweetie…guy.

Are you not reminded just a little of the kids in high school who would go out of their way, who would make an effort, to be annoying…for no other reason than to annoy?
#520170

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm, Misscheryl said:

Term Limits and Flat Taxes!
#520177

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, watershed said:

Public school teachers are not slaves, and postal workers are not slaves, and DMV employess are not slaves and your idea of health care is slavery is just absurd. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK, PEOPLE. use a better argument than SLAVERY.

Because I am cool, I will give you a health care gimme, so you can use it against me.

If its inefficiency you wanna argue, maybe that holds water. But my response is… I already see inefficiency the way it is currently. Why not pay less/nothing for it?
#520179

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm, sambo said:

granite said:
Are you not reminded just a little of the kids in high school who would go out of their way, who would make an effort, to be annoying…for no other reason than to annoy?

and always with a teacher or administrator in sight!
#520185

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, watershed said:

Film Ladd believes that violence against a sitting president is OK, as long as HE’S doing the violence! Anyone else, see, thats terrorism. He’s a genius. And… kinda violent!
#520187

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, hawkeye54 said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm, Misscheryl said:
Term Limits and Flat Taxes!

ABSOLUTELY! And THAT is just a start!!
#520189

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, granite said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am, hawkeye54 said:

the rich already pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country. how much should they pay? 100%? you’re an idiot.
Even if they DID pay 100%, they don’t produce enough income for ALL the programs Obummer, Pelousy and Dingy Harry want to saddle the taxpayer with.

Correct.

Exactly the same debate took place a couple of decades ago.
There are just not enough “rich” to fund all of the socialists’ expenditures.
The point was made back then that the middle class would have to be bled, if only because it so greatly outnumbered (as it outnumbers now) the “rich”.
#520194

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm, right4life said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, watershed said:

whats absurd is your mouthing of talking points, and your inability to deal with any of the issues you raise. you cannot respond intelligently to any of the points raised, you just continue onto your next talking point.

but then liberals are not known for independent thinking…
#520196

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm, sambo said:

Also note that when the tax was lowered across the board, the rich were paying a larger share of the taxes.
#520198

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, right4life said:

Public school teachers are not slaves, and postal workers are not slaves, and DMV employess are not slaves and your idea of health care is slavery is just absurd. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK, PEOPLE. use a better argument than SLAVERY.

oh and you miss his point that you want health care to be a right…education and mail are not a right…

again, your inability to deal with the points raised.
#520207

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, old_texan said:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.
#520220

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, flmom said:

Waterspout has successfully hijacked this thread, which I believe was a very good analysis of the media bias for Obama. I think waterspout needs to get his own blog and he can blather all he wants, about whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He won’t though, because nobody but he would read all the drivel he spouts. {hence my affectionate use of the name waterspout}.
Michelle, great article as usual, it surprises me that this race is so close, being that the media is so in the tank. They obviously realize that they need to carry Obama over the finish line, he would never be this close otherwise.
#520223

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, right4life said:

where’d you go waterboy? its gotten quiet…if healthcare is a right, then yes someone would be required to provide that healthcare…

but I bet you didn’t think healthcare was a right for Terri Schiavo..
#520232

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm, granite said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 10:50 am, Misscheryl said:

granite – Absolutely agree 100% with your post.

Honestly, I could care less about one’s race or politics, but these people are viscious haters and I include everyone of them who post here. They seem to compete with each other as to who can be the biggest smart ass to others. I’ve seen them pat each other on the back for hurting someone and then cry that someone is being a racists if you don’t like their behavior. I, personally, have never been called a racists in my life until I came here. A soul isn’t black or white, young or old. A soul isn’t male or female. A soul is either kind or ugly, cultivates mercy and grace or cultivates hatefulness..it is the being, the essence of a person.

Thank you.

Excellent post of your own.

The two world views (see Thomas Sowell’s excellent “A Conflict of Visions”) have no overlap.
They are different not in degree, but in kind.

There is no compromise with the statist, soulless, existentialist worldview; there is only struggle.

Trying to argue intelligently and reach compromise with statists would be like trying to argue intelligently and reach compromise with a water leak…unless definitivley and permanently stopped by an external force, they will never – never – stop on their own; but rather, sensing “compromise” as weakness, they will always continue advancing, will always continue demanding more and more and more….
#520236

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, b-cat said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm,

right4life said:
where’d you go waterboy? its gotten quiet…if healthcare is a right, then yes someone would be required to provide that healthcare…

but I bet you didn’t think healthcare was a right for Terri Schiavo..

…or the unborn…
#520239

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, jsr said:

All this talk about taxes is making me nervous. If Obama wins and Dems still control congress after 2010 I’m thinking of bailing out and going back to South America with my wife where we already have some land. At least the socialists there are straight up about their goals, say what they think and don’t try to hide behind cowardly language like the Dems and try to pretend they are something other than socialists. It makes planning somewhat easier. With these Dems the story changes daily and your never sure which leftist faction is going to prevail or what they really mean, or if they even know themselves. If they still have control of congress after 2010 it will show they have brainwashed enough Americans into believing 2+2=5, slavery is freedom and their economic misery is really prosperity because the former rich are no longer rich.
#520242

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, watershed said:

#234

http://yeswecanholdbabies.wordpress.com/

Just look at this website and think nice sweet mom thoughts till the elction, Flmom. It’s gonna be OK!
#520244

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, wighttrasch said:

Why not pay less/nothing for it?

Ok,blockhead–yer kidding, right?
How the hell do you think it will be paid for?

Deze kerel moet worden onderwezen!
#520256

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm, watershed said:

#238

I’m thinking of bailing out and going back to South America with my wife

Funny, didnt the demon ALEC BALDWIN say if Bush got elected he would leave the country?

The world is going topsy-turvy when patriots like jsr become “blame america first”ers and split. But I guess it’s all perspective, eh?
#520258

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, Blaise said:

From Ace:

Pretty pathetic that we have to try to bribe “newsmen” to release newsworthy tapes.

Maybe it would be easier if they thought of it as whistleblowing or, even better, as a “leak”.
#520261

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm, sonofdy said:

I see michelle is still allowing watershed to run her main threads.
#520264

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, watershed said:

Public school teachers are not slaves, and postal workers are not slaves, and DMV employess are not slaves and your idea of health care is slavery is just absurd. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK, PEOPLE. use a better argument than SLAVERY.

To be more precise: the people who are forced to pay their salaries are slaves for as long as it takes to meet that portion of the tax burden.

Therefore the people who will be forced to pay for “free health care” will be slaves for as long as they are working to meet that tax burden.

If its inefficiency you wanna argue, maybe that holds water. But my response is… I already see inefficiency the way it is currently. Why not pay less/nothing for it?

This is prima facie a patently stupid argument. There are so many issues with what you have written, it would take an eternity to answer.

But here is one: if you do not pay for it in cash up front, you end up paying for it through a damaged economy wrecked by the destruction of freedom.

Higher costs and lower standards of living are the results of collectivism. If you wish to have a discussion about how freedom benefits mankind from a macroeconomic viewpoint, I’ll be happy to engage you there.

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, watershed said:

Film Ladd believes that violence against a sitting president is OK, as long as HE’S doing the violence! Anyone else, see, thats terrorism. He’s a genius. And… kinda violent!

That’s not what I wrote.

I wonder if you have some sort of mental deficiency or are on some sort of medication that makes it difficult for you to process information?

I would prefer not to compete in the Special Olympics anymore than I would care to trade barbs with a legally incompetent individual.

Part of the reason I come here is to test my logic, which means of course having discussions with the opposite side.

But the effort is wasted if the opponent is incapable of addressing subjects in a lucid manner, and jumps from topic to topic like a frightened rabbit.
#520271

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, flmom said:

For me personally, this election affects me positively whichever way it goes. If Obama wins, I’m going to retire and close my business, looking forward to all those cruises I’ll be taking. If McCain wins, my taxes will not be raised and my business continues to grow, thereby enriching the nation in my own little way.
I sleep well at nights, thank you waterspout.
#520273

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, Misscheryl said:

but rather, sensing “compromise” as weakness, they will always continue advancing, will always continue demanding more and more and more

Which is evidence by what has been going on for the past 30 – 40 years.
#520274

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm, sonofdy said:

I see michelle is still allowing watershed to run her main threads.

God help me, I do love to engage the trolls on occasion
#520275

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, granite said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, jsr said:

…and their economic misery is really prosperity because the former rich are no longer rich.

Good post.

Sort of reminds me of the story (paraphrased to the best of my memory) that gave a glimpse into the thought processes of so many of the citizens in the former (statist, after all) Soviet Union:

There has been a slight relaxation of control, and citizens are allowed to keep a bit of the extra money they earn if they work harder.

One farmer, Ivan, makes enough that he is able to buy his own cow!

A Western reporter is covering this story.
She asks Ivan’s neighbor, the farmer Boris, who doesn’t work quite as hard as Ivan, whether he wouldn’t also want to work to save an extra bit of money, and buy his own cow, as his neighbor Ivan has done.

Boris’s answer:
“No, I want Ivan’s cow to die!”

There’s socialism/statism in a nutshell for you, folks.
#520276

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, FamilyMan said:

I’m gone for one hour. I drained the waterlines for winter and made an extra $150 in my business.
But watershed is still here.
Hey watershed. I thought you had a very successful music school. Your not one of those evil business owners that uses the poor trodden masses to do your work are you? How else to you explain all this time on this blog.
Me thinks there’s something fishy in your story.
#520283

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, watershed said:

#244

And I thought you guys said OBAMA is the king of saying nothing really well. That was like 12 paragraphs of “YOU’RE STOOOPIT”. Really. It was!

Please Film ladd, if you dont run away, tell me how YOUR version of violence against a sitting president is valid, and Ayers’ is not. How it doesnt make you both jut terrorists.
#520288

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, sonofdy said:

God help me, I do love to engage the trolls on occasion

Believe me, watershed is not worth it. He is an Obama attack dog. He is here to disrupt not discuss.
#520297

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, watershed said:

3249

We’re cool familyman. We’re cool. But feel free to ask me more questions about my patriotism/business/personal beliefs. Anything to get that blessed GOTCHA you crave so.

I am just talking politics on the internet, aftr all. Doesn’t it deserve the third degree?
#520299

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, Flyoverman said:

I find the whole discussion regarding Obama’s tax cuts fascinating in the abstract, when logic indicates they will never occur. Refer to post#218.

Odds of an Obama tax cut of any kind are lower than a meteor striking my cat.
#520303

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, watershed said:

And I thought you guys said OBAMA is the king of saying nothing really well. That was like 12 paragraphs of “YOU’RE STOOOPIT”. Really. It was!

Please Film ladd, if you dont run away, tell me how YOUR version of violence against a sitting president is valid, and Ayers’ is not. How it doesnt make you both jut terrorists.

I’ll be happy to address that point (again) as soon as you address what I’ve already written re: health care. A topic which you raised, I might add.

Demonstrate that you can think through what I have written and actually challenge my argument as written, as opposed to merely mouthing bromides and dim barbs.
#520306

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm, FamilyMan said:

watershed said; Doesn’t it deserve the third degree? Sure it does.
#520310

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, watershed said:

God help me, I do love to engage the trolls on occasion

You kidding? I am singlehandedly bringing Malkin’s precious pageviews up by engaging all of YOU. An echo chamber dowwnt really excite the re-reads. When I am gone, someone in the ad revenue dept is gonna miss me bad!
#520313

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, Misscheryl said:

one only has to look at these trolls to see the nature of the man Obama!
#520318

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, watershed said:

#251

Sonofdy believes quote the only way to take Obama out is through militancy. So yes, by all means, ignore ME! I am the cuckoo.
#520322

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, watershed said:

Cuckoo for coco puffs.
#520325

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, watershed said:

#254

Actually our discussion on violence against a sitting presidency is quite older, and still unresolved. But run away. Run away. Dont explain how you killing Obama isnt just like William Ayers. its cool!
#520330

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, sonofdy said:

Whatever watershed, whatever…
#520333

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, watershed said:

You kidding? I am singlehandedly bringing Malkin’s precious pageviews up by engaging all of YOU. An echo chamber dowwnt really excite the re-reads. When I am gone, someone in the ad revenue dept is gonna miss me bad!

I was being quite serious, I do indeed love it.

Would it be okay if we were to make you be here everyday from say, 9am to 5pm, through force of the State?

I believe it is important for a collectivist to post his comments on this website on a regular basis for us to sharpen our wits.

In fact, it is your duty – you should be ashamed if you do not, and therefore should have no objection if the State passes a law that forces you to be here from 9 to 5.

We’ll work up some kind of radio tracking device to make sure you are at your computer, trying out your collectivist concepts here. Maybe two weeks off for vacation but no more – we’re not France, after all.

If you have a problem with that, please take it up with your congressman, if you can get him on the phone.

Thank you, and have a nice day.
#520335

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, watershed said:

Actually our discussion on violence against a sitting presidency is quite older, and still unresolved. But run away. Run away. Dont explain how you killing Obama isnt just like William Ayers. its cool!

Never said that, so there is nothing to explain. Engage me fairly or not – I still find you amusing.
#520338

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, jsr said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, FamilyMan said:

I thought you had a very successful music school.

FamilyMan: I think what the troll meant was teaching my friends a few 3-bar chords heavy metal songs while smoking dope in my mothers basement
#520342

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, right4life said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, watershed

can’t deal with the issues can ya now waterboy?

you’re a typical left-wing stooge…unable to think for yourself…all you can do is parrot talking points!!

you lib wackos are SO predictable..and lame!
#520343

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, granite said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, FilmLadd said:

God help me, I do love to engage the trolls on occasion

LOL!

Keep on keeping on, FL.

You are correct, of course.

There is, of course, no equivalence – none – between:

terrorists/anarchists employing violence in an attempt to destroy our nation/society/culture;

and:

law-abiding citizens defending our nation/society/culture against a takeover by allies (statists/socialists) of these terrorists/anarchists;
a takeover of our nation/society/culture that has been weakened by 40+ years’ worth of incremental, difficult-to-recognize-at-the-time burrowing and bleeding by enemy parasites and leeches.

And, sometimes, in defense, defenders have to use the same means as, or even stronger means than, their assailants.

To paraphrase the saying, what good would a speech be at a fight where the enemy is swinging baseball bats?
#520350

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, sambo said:

watershed said:
You kidding? I am singlehandedly bringing Malkin’s precious pageviews up by engaging all of YOU.

Oh your so great waterhead…and so cool like you said a thousand times.

Now be a good little hoe and go hang yourself up in the toolshed where you belong!
#520352

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, granite said:
On October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, FilmLadd said:

God help me, I do love to engage the trolls on occasion
LOL!

Keep on keeping on, FL.

Ditto!
#520354

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm, sonofdy said:

Never said that, so there is nothing to explain. Engage me fairly or not – I still find you amusing.

He was talking to me. He is misquoting me, like he does to several people here. Trust me, he is not worth it. I further explained my views to him 3 times, but he never even bothered to to honestly admit I even did that. His is nothing but an Obama attack dog. Have fun with the guy if you want.
#520366

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, FilmLadd said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm, sonofdy said:

He was talking to me. He is misquoting me, like he does to several people here. Trust me, he is not worth it. I further explained my views to him 3 times, but he never even bothered to to honestly admit I even did that. His is nothing but an Obama attack dog. Have fun with the guy if you want.

Do you happen to know which thread all of that was in? I remember answering the subject but now can’t find my comment on it.

Whether or not he is a paid Obamabot, it is important to know how the enemies of freedom think – or not, as the case may be.
#520371

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, wighttrasch said:

so true, sonofdy, but I think calling him an attack dog is flattering.

Dogs have a purpose, whether it is for protection or law enforcement or pet/friend.

This thing thinks with and speaks from its’ anus.
#520374

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm, sonofdy said:

Whether or not he is a paid Obamabot, it is important to know how the enemies of freedom think – or not, as the case may be.

I already learned all I can from him. It was the front page one from yesterday. Apparantly he can see no senerio when any president will ever be needed to be removed by force no matter what they do.
#520378

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm, sonofdy said:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/28/obama-cultists-cry-wolf-n-word-yelled-at-palin-rally-not/#comments
#520400

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm, John Deaux said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am, John Deaux said:
On October 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am, watershed said:
#169

OK. Ask me a DIRECT (gasp) question. It’s not like I’m hiding from anyone, guy.

Please explain how redistributing income through refundable tax credits, along with guaranteeing health care as a right, are not socialist.

On October 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am, John Deaux said:
Please answer the question. Simply saying “that’s my word” is not sufficient.

And your answer would be?
#520410

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm, FilmLadd said:

Thanks so much sonofdy!

Watershed, here was my response to the violence thing: #359.

So let’s get back to why you think mankind should be a slave to the causes (health care, war on poverty, etc.) of the State.
#520412

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm, watershed said:

In terms of American history, the 60’s radicals thought that they were revolutionaries, and that violently taking out what they saw as an oppressive regime that was taking the country down was the only answer.

And fascinatingly enough, here, at this fringe outpost website, we have discussion of revolution, of violence being the only way of taking out an oppressive regime that would destroy the country.

The parallels are striking, and in my opinion, hilarious.

60’s radical revolutionaries uaing violence, bad.

Anti-Obama revolutionaries using violence, good!

The best part? You haven’t even the insight to see the historical import of the comparison! I will get a “you’re a moron” mostly, or at best a “its OK because…it just IS” kind of post, but NO-ONE here sees the comparison!

Fringe freakiness. It’s wild to watch.
#520421

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, FilmLadd said:

Watershed, you may have missed it while you were typing out #276, but here was my response to the violence thing: #359.

So let’s get back to why you think mankind should be a slave to the causes (health care, war on poverty, etc.) of the State, as you raised the subject here.
#520424

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm, fulldroolcup said:

Watershed, I’ve never CALLED for an armed uprising. I’ve merely PREDICTED one, with “conditions precedent” that might set the stage for one, and the constitutional basis for having one..

There are many actions citizens can take short of an armed uprising, such as massive civil disobedience. Remember the 60’s? Think we on the right aren’t capable of that?

Apparently your HERO ayers didn’t believe in the civil disobenience, because he, your HERO, actually engaged in violence, but of the sneaky, traitorious, anonymous kind.

There’s YOUR role model, right there…
#520428

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm, FamilyMan said:

John Deaux. Here is what watershed earlier
“The second bill of rights as a concept is hardly new. And it doesnt involve changing the constitution”
GET THE PICTURE
#520430

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm, flmom said:

So a certain wet person here would equate the Boston Tea Party to the deeds of the Weathermen. All righty then.
#520434

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm, fulldroolcup said:

Watershed is the ur-troll. He’s program to send, not to receive, and certainly not to think or communicate.
#520435

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm, FamilyMan said:

FilmLadd when watershed ignores your post, he is flattering you because he can’t answer it.
#520436

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pm, John Deaux said:

On October 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm, FamilyMan said:
John Deaux. Here is what watershed earlier
“The second bill of rights as a concept is hardly new. And it doesnt involve changing the constitution”
GET THE PICTURE

Watercarrier wanted a DIRECT question and I gave one, but I’m still waiting for an answer. I know he’s all for socialism, but doesn’t want to call it that. I guess he’s hiding.