The Media’s Disdain For The Right

It is no secret that the Lame Stream Media are uber leftists who despise the right. With the exception of Fox News, the balance are so far left they hold up the walls. The liberal media are far from objective and when Obama became the front runner they abandoned all pretense of impartiality and went to bat for the man. They ignored stories, helped him push his lies and they spun any story that needed spinning. Rush Limbaugh calls them stenographers for the Obama administration.

The LSM are great supporters of the right to protest so long as the protest is a leftist group and funded by George Soros. Then it is a worthy cause and must get attention. The gay marriage issue in California received all kinds of media attention when the gays threw sissy fits and held protests because they did not get their way. The LSM could not wait to tell us how unfair it all was. In fact, any time a gay issue results in a protest the LSM is there.

Let pro abortion advocates protest about some worry about losing the right to murder unborn children and the LSM slobbers all over themselves covering the issue. Let some murderer come close to his execution time and liberals protest to keep from frying the guy. Those protests get plenty of news coverage and the LSM is all on the side of the murderer.

Let the right wing organize a grass roots effort to protest something and the LSM either ignores it or insults it. The LSM this week have had a great time bashing the tea parties that took place around the country as hundreds of thousands of people protested government spending and tax increases. The LSM kept using the term tea bagging and had fun with all the sexual innuendo. For those who do not know, tea bagging is a vulgar sexual term. Keith Olberdouche had fun with it as did others. One in particular was the homosexual Anderson Cooper who exclaimed it was hard to talk when you are tea bagging. He should know considering that he plays tea cup to Obama’s Mr. Lipton. However, Cooper seems to be able to speak while servicing the Resident.

The most childish report came from David Shuster who gave an account more fitting for Saturday Night Live than MSNBC though it might be close since one is a comedy and the other a joke. Here is what Shuster passed off as news (it would be helpful if you know the definition of tea bagging before you read this):

DAVID SHUSTER, HOST: For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It‘s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.

They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending-spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama‘s tax rates-which will be lower for most of them-and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That‘s teabagging in a nut shell.

Taking its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party when colonists tossed British tea into the sea because the tax in it had not been voted on by their own duly-elected representatives-that‘s exactly the opposite, of course, of today‘s taxes, known in some quarters as taxation with representation.

But as “New York Times” columnist, Paul Krugman, points out today, this time, the tea bagging is not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right-wing financiers and lobbyists. As well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter, who has issued statements in support of teabagging but is publicly tight-lipped.

Then there was the media, specifically the FOX News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves at events this Wednesday. But most amusing of all is Neil Cavuto, a member of the network‘s executive committee. Neil‘s online bio says he joined the network in July of 1996, three months before the FOX News Channel went on the air.

Cavuto, defending his network‘s proportion of teabagging said, quote, “We are going to be right in middle of these teabaggers, because at FOX, we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests. We were there for the Million Man March.

Can we roll that footage, the FOX News coverage of the Million Man March backing in October of ‘95?

Of course, the Million Man March occurred, as NewsHounds.org points out, almost a year before FOX News was on the air.

We can only speculate why widespread teabagging made Cavuto think of the Million Man March, unless he got them confused with Dick Armey. And in Cavuto‘s defense, if you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you‘re going to need a Dick Armey. News Busters

This is the contempt that the LSM has for the right in America. They insult us and they are disparaging toward us. They have lost any hint of objectivity. Can you imagine them treating anti war protesters like this? Imagine how they would have reacted if Cindy Sheehan and her band of rag tag morons had been treated this way by Fox.

Do you suppose you would ever hear the LSM treat Code Pink this way?

Of course not. They only have a dislike for the right and they will attack us any chance they get.

However, the good news is that MSNBC has a small audience. Nearly every show on Fox beats EVERY show at MSNBC in the ratings department and often single Fox shows beat all the MSNBC shows COMBINED. There is a reason that people do not watch morons like Olberdouche and Shuster and that is beacuse they are pathetic pukes who should be beaten with a bat. As a disclaimer, I am not inciting anyone to actually do that. I am only stating that they should be beaten, not that anyone actually do it. God knows we don’t want the LSM crying about hate speech.

But, if anyone beat them with bats I would not cry about it and I would certainly understand why.

It isn’t bad enough that Shuster has all the sexual references but he also lies. He claims that the people now protesting Obama did not say anything when Bush spent all that money.

First of all Bush did not spend the money and neither did Obama. The Constitution only allows Congress to spend it. Second of all, we did complain about the out of control spending during the time the Republicans were in charge. I will also point out that the tea parties (I have not heard the word tea bagging used by anyone but the media and a few morons who comment here) were not aimed at Obama. They were largely a right wing effort but there were a number of Democrats involved. These were aimed at government, both parties. These were a sign that we have had enough of all the spending and that the idea of our grandchildren paying the debt is appalling to us. And I will add that no matter what the tax rates were in the past raising taxes during a recession is stupid and will result in worse financial problems.

But, if Shuster wants to get picky, Obama has created a deficit that is many times larger than the one Bush left after 8 years and Obama has done that in 3 months. Obama is sending more than any president in history.

We have had enough and we are not going to take much more of this and we will continue to resist and to protest. As for the LSM, no one expects them to be objective. However, they might think twice about what they will say before venturing out into the crowds where they will have no protection. Though I know the people on the right are well behaved when they protest, you might have to watch for the right wing extremists. You never have to worry about left wing extremist groups at these protests. They prefer to fly planes into buildings.

We never have to worry about Olberdouche and Shuster because they are a couple of limp wristed bed wetters who would never go out where it might be dangerous. They are a couple of cowards. As for Anderson Cooper, he is a puss as well. The only place you will see him is covering protests against doing away with glory holes is San Francisco.

I am rather surprised that the likes of Shuster and the others knew what tea bagging was. They are liberals and liberals are like a batter with an 0-3 count.

No balls.

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Hillary is Pimping the Pimping Out Remark

A great deal has been made about the comment that was made by David Shuster of PMS NBC when he said that it appeared as if the Clinton campaign was sort of pimping out Chelsea. This caused a firestorm among the liberals who are uninformed about the newer meaning of those words. They insist that Shuster was calling Chelsea a whore. I can see how they would make that mistake since the Clintons have been whoring themselves out since they started in public life. Everyone knows that the Clintons are available to the highest bidder. Regardless of what the Clinton whoring class thinks, the reality remains that Shuster meant she [Chelsea] was being used.

The interesting thing is that the Clinton folks say they did not know what the phrase “pimping out” meant which I find interesting because that is all they do. Case in point, Hillary is pimping the attention to this to make PMS NBC look like a bunch of sexist pigs so she can score big with the women, especially the feminists who are always itching for a reason to bash a man. Unfortunately, it was probably a man who had to explain what pimping out meant.

Hillary is certainly pimping out the who issue (using it for those who still don’t know) by sending a letter to PMS NBC. Ti Hillary, it was not enough for her to have received an apology and for Shuster to get suspended. The letter does not exactly make it clear what she wants but it makes very clear that Hillary is pimping this for all it is worth. She states that she found the remarks offensive (even though none of them knew what they meant) and she wants everyone to know she was a mother first. She stated that she is in public life and can take the heat but that it is unfair to attack her daughter who is only helping with a campaign.

For the record, Shuster did not attack the fragile flower known as Chelsea. His statement was about Hillary. He asked if Chelsea was being pimped out [by her mother] in some weird sort of way. That is not an attack on Chelsea, it is a statement about the campaign and what it looks like to him. But the Clintons were never ones to let the facts get in the way of anything.

If I ran PMS NBC I would not have suspended Shuster or made him apologize (same with Chris Matthews for that matter). However, that is a decision made by the company and it is within their rights though it is certain that the decision was not made based upon right or wrong, only on how the company might lose money if “thick skinned” Hillary decided not to participate in debates.

What I would do if I ran the network is tell Hillary Clinton she is free to participate if she wants or to not participate if she does not want to but that the debate will go on with or without her. I would let her know that the network is in charge of how it is run and not a political candidate. Then, if she did not show I would give Barack Obama the debate time to answer questions and allow him as much time as he wanted to attack Clinton. All those attacks would go unanswered and then Hillary would see what hardball really is.

I cannot stand these people. They are such hypocrites. Hillary talks about the appropriateness of words used when she drops F bombs all the time. She and her husband have floated inappropriate word choices throughout this campaign and apologize if they receive backlash. They are using a comment about using someone to their advantage. In other words, she is pimping the pimping out remark.

Educated people who pay attention to our culture know what this phrase meant. I would say however, that the campaign had a legitimate argument if the comment was made about Bill Clinton because when you talk pimp in reference to him it is about sex.

Source:
The Politico
Related:
Political Punch

Big Dog