A summary of the Healthcare Meeting

I'm no hypocrite, Maggie. But I do know the difference between ideological bias and dishonest propaganda bought and paid for.

You apparently don't.

Do have a nice day though.

So find me some non-blog proof that George Soros funds Media Matters, or that Huffington Post isn't first a news page that, yes, leans left in its opinions (so?) but "spews dishonest propaganda bought and paid for (by whom?).
 
I'm no hypocrite, Maggie. But I do know the difference between ideological bias and dishonest propaganda bought and paid for.

You apparently don't.

Do have a nice day though.

So find me some non-blog proof that George Soros funds Media Matters, or that Huffington Post isn't first a news page that, yes, leans left in its opinions (so?) but "spews dishonest propaganda bought and paid for (by whom?).

Do you even read before you type? If so, could you please refer me to anything that even suggested that Huffington Post 'spews dishonest propaganda. . . ." I thought I was damned reasonable re Huffington Post, but then you would have to be able to actually read and understand what somebody actually said in order to understand that I guess.

As for Media Matters, let's see. So many sources to go to. I guess CRC is a sufficiently non partisan, and credible source:
Capital Research Center:

And this group cites CNS who did some exhaustive research into that a few years ago when MediaMatters denied George Soros connections:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

And Sourcewatch reluctantly connecting MediaMatters to Democracy Alliance
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Matters_for_America

And the Washington Post connecting Democracy Alliance to Soros:
A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding
 
Last edited:
I'm no hypocrite, Maggie. But I do know the difference between ideological bias and dishonest propaganda bought and paid for.

You apparently don't.

Do have a nice day though.

So find me some non-blog proof that George Soros funds Media Matters, or that Huffington Post isn't first a news page that, yes, leans left in its opinions (so?) but "spews dishonest propaganda bought and paid for (by whom?).

Do you even read before you type? If so, could you please refer me to anything that even suggested that Huffington Post 'spews dishonest propaganda. . . ." I thought I was damned reasonable re Huffington Post, but then you would have to be able to actually read and understand what somebody actually said in order to understand that I guess.

As for Media Matters, let's see. So many sources to go to. I guess CRC is a sufficiently non partisan, and credible source:
Capital Research Center:

And this group cites CNS who did some exhaustive research into that a few years ago when MediaMatters denied George Soros connections:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

George Soros invests in Democracy Alliance, Media Matters, and lots of other media that support liberal causes. So? Even if he OWNED Media Matters, why would it matter? Soros happens to be a liberal with a lot of money to invest wherever he wants. Last I looked, it still IS a "free country" ma'am. The irony in even having this discussion over which "media" is more biased is that the RW media has do demonized Soros that THAT is why it's necessary for you to even mention his name. So please don't try to pretend you're not influenced by your own sources for propaganda. And that, frankly, is my only point here. I couldn't care less what you "read," only that you don't try to bluff me into thinking your sources are pure truth and mine are pure propaganda.
 
So find me some non-blog proof that George Soros funds Media Matters, or that Huffington Post isn't first a news page that, yes, leans left in its opinions (so?) but "spews dishonest propaganda bought and paid for (by whom?).

Do you even read before you type? If so, could you please refer me to anything that even suggested that Huffington Post 'spews dishonest propaganda. . . ." I thought I was damned reasonable re Huffington Post, but then you would have to be able to actually read and understand what somebody actually said in order to understand that I guess.

As for Media Matters, let's see. So many sources to go to. I guess CRC is a sufficiently non partisan, and credible source:
Capital Research Center:

And this group cites CNS who did some exhaustive research into that a few years ago when MediaMatters denied George Soros connections:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

George Soros invests in Democracy Alliance, Media Matters, and lots of other media that support liberal causes. So? Even if he OWNED Media Matters, why would it matter? Soros happens to be a liberal with a lot of money to invest wherever he wants. Last I looked, it still IS a "free country" ma'am. The irony in even having this discussion over which "media" is more biased is that the RW media has do demonized Soros that THAT is why it's necessary for you to even mention his name. So please don't try to pretend you're not influenced by your own sources for propaganda. And that, frankly, is my only point here. I couldn't care less what you "read," only that you don't try to bluff me into thinking your sources are pure truth and mine are pure propaganda.

Baloney.

It seems apparent, at least to me, that your interest here is to discredit and, if possible, demean anybody who doesn't share your ultra leftwing ideology, love of big, intrusive government, and absolute adoration for a President who has been less than adorable to many of us.

You won't even apologize for misrepresenting what I said about Huffington Post.

And while it is always smart to follow the money, what ultimately matters is what Media Matters promotes. The whole purpose of the people who support Media Matters is to elect Democrats and trash Republicans. And if you weren't so enamored and hellbent on promoting the radical left and discrediting anything conservative, you wouldn't have to spend much time on Media Matters to see that they are not the least bit interested in anything other than that. Maybe that's why you admire them so much?

There are rightwing sources that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole as a reliable source because they are too ignorant or too poorly researched to be believable or because I have caught them being intentionally dishonest. There are others that I have checked out sufficiently to know that they have done their homework and they aren't going to print it if they don't have good reason to believe it's true. And they don't doctor the facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad.

You cannot say that about Media Matters. And you have yet to show ANYTHING that discredits one of my sources other than you choose to blow them off because they support a point of view that you despise.
 
Goodbye, Foxfyre. How 'bout you take a break and leave me alone. I'll start by unsubscribing to this thread and that way I won't be lured back into a similar discussion with you which results in a half hour of spinning my wheels.
 
Goodbye, Foxfyre. How 'bout you take a break and leave me alone. I'll start by unsubscribing to this thread and that way I won't be lured back into a similar discussion with you which results in a half hour of spinning my wheels.

I didn't realize that I wasn't leaving you alone. I've never been accused of stalking anybody, but if you think that is the case, I earnestly apologize. I figured folks posting on a thread do so in order to participate in a discussion. And when you direct a comment at me, I will usually respond. I am not interested in a fight or being contentious with anybody, but I do have my opinions and point of view, and I figure they aren't worth having if I can't defend them. So I do.

And if I answer mean spiritedness with the same, then that is my bad. I try to avoid that but am not always successful. So again, if I came across that way, or when I am guilty of that, I apologize.

Do have a good day Maggie. I will take this as your request that you do not wish me to respond to your posts unless you direct them to me. And that should take care of it.
 
Goodbye, Foxfyre. How 'bout you take a break and leave me alone. I'll start by unsubscribing to this thread and that way I won't be lured back into a similar discussion with you which results in a half hour of spinning my wheels.
Yes, so typical. Someone exposes your bullshit and you whine that you are some victime of 'stalking'. What a bitter, pathetic seagull you are. You fly into a thread (usually on a broomstick), shit all over it, then fly away.
 
Goodbye, Foxfyre. How 'bout you take a break and leave me alone. I'll start by unsubscribing to this thread and that way I won't be lured back into a similar discussion with you which results in a half hour of spinning my wheels.
Yes, so typical. Someone exposes your bullshit and you whine that you are some victime of 'stalking'. What a bitter, pathetic seagull you are. You fly into a thread (usually on a broomstick), shit all over it, then fly away.


Did I say "stalking"?? Did I even imply it? No, I simply said that in this particular case (thread), FoxFyre and I keep going round and round on the same ideological bent.

Take your insulting remarks, not addressed to YOU at all, somewhere else where you're so deeply admired for your fishwife antics. Or take a fucking happy pill.
 
Proof positive you don't have a clue about the process for writing bills. They are first and foremost LAW,.....

Proof positive you didn't pass Civics 101.....They are NOT laws until they are voted on and then signed INTO LAW by the President.

:clap2: You're getting there...what do you think he would be signing? A document which will become law. His "signature" is simply the formality.

:lol: Keep living in fantasy land.....and thanks for putting the blame for the Iraq war SQUARELY on the shoulders of CONGRESS!!!....WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!!
 
So find me some non-blog proof that George Soros funds Media Matters, or that Huffington Post isn't first a news page that, yes, leans left in its opinions (so?) but "spews dishonest propaganda bought and paid for (by whom?).

Do you even read before you type? If so, could you please refer me to anything that even suggested that Huffington Post 'spews dishonest propaganda. . . ." I thought I was damned reasonable re Huffington Post, but then you would have to be able to actually read and understand what somebody actually said in order to understand that I guess.

As for Media Matters, let's see. So many sources to go to. I guess CRC is a sufficiently non partisan, and credible source:
Capital Research Center:

And this group cites CNS who did some exhaustive research into that a few years ago when MediaMatters denied George Soros connections:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

George Soros invests in Democracy Alliance, Media Matters, and lots of other media that support liberal causes. So? Even if he OWNED Media Matters, why would it matter? Soros happens to be a liberal with a lot of money to invest wherever he wants. Last I looked, it still IS a "free country" ma'am. The irony in even having this discussion over which "media" is more biased is that the RW media has do demonized Soros that THAT is why it's necessary for you to even mention his name. So please don't try to pretend you're not influenced by your own sources for propaganda. And that, frankly, is my only point here. I couldn't care less what you "read," only that you don't try to bluff me into thinking your sources are pure truth and mine are pure propaganda.

Good...then you have ZERO problems with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Channel....glad to hear that....thank you for clarifying your position on political influences in the MSM.
 
Do you even read before you type? If so, could you please refer me to anything that even suggested that Huffington Post 'spews dishonest propaganda. . . ." I thought I was damned reasonable re Huffington Post, but then you would have to be able to actually read and understand what somebody actually said in order to understand that I guess.

As for Media Matters, let's see. So many sources to go to. I guess CRC is a sufficiently non partisan, and credible source:
Capital Research Center:

And this group cites CNS who did some exhaustive research into that a few years ago when MediaMatters denied George Soros connections:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

George Soros invests in Democracy Alliance, Media Matters, and lots of other media that support liberal causes. So? Even if he OWNED Media Matters, why would it matter? Soros happens to be a liberal with a lot of money to invest wherever he wants. Last I looked, it still IS a "free country" ma'am. The irony in even having this discussion over which "media" is more biased is that the RW media has do demonized Soros that THAT is why it's necessary for you to even mention his name. So please don't try to pretend you're not influenced by your own sources for propaganda. And that, frankly, is my only point here. I couldn't care less what you "read," only that you don't try to bluff me into thinking your sources are pure truth and mine are pure propaganda.

Good...then you have ZERO problems with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Channel....glad to hear that....thank you for clarifying your position on political influences in the MSM.

I don't have a problem with Murdoch at all. Everyone knows where he's coming from; everyone knows where Soros is coming from too. But you guys looooooooove to make that a great big deal. It isn't.
 
Ten days ago, Obama confronted health insurance CEOs during a White House meeting with a letter from a woman whose premiums went up 40 percent.

It had the makings of a signature moment in the health care fight – the president standing up for average Americans — yet just before Obama arrived, reporters were escorted out of the room. So there was no footage of the exchange and no record of the insurance executives’ reaction.

The White House simply released a photograph of the president reading the letter, and press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, “I'll let the insurance executives speak for themselves.”

Obama's reluctant populism irks left

I wonder will he read my letter.
 
Ame®icano;2093409 said:
Ten days ago, Obama confronted health insurance CEOs during a White House meeting with a letter from a woman whose premiums went up 40 percent.

It had the makings of a signature moment in the health care fight – the president standing up for average Americans — yet just before Obama arrived, reporters were escorted out of the room. So there was no footage of the exchange and no record of the insurance executives’ reaction.

The White House simply released a photograph of the president reading the letter, and press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, “I'll let the insurance executives speak for themselves.”

Obama's reluctant populism irks left

I wonder will he read my letter.

He didn't read mine. :)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top