danger zone

Atlanta, GA

#10176 May 10, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way...
Do people still by that Right Wing Wacko crap about the "Media" being "Liberal".
Ever look at who owns the "Media":
Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.
These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are:
- Time Warner,
- Walt Disney,
- Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.,
CBS Corporation, and
NBC Universal.
Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States.
In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal.…[I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine.…[I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three.…[I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever.…[In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].
--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition,(Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi
Does anyone actually think these multinational, multibillion and trillion dollar corporations are "Liberal" ?
Please - thats not on true on Planet Earth.
Considering there has been not ONE word on the House of Horrors story from MMS, I'd vote YES, they are most liberal.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#10177 May 10, 2013
Oh my wrote:
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
By Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...
Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.
Actually, by those I mean Republicans, and by the Obama administration I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clintons record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.
...The hearing convened Wednesday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) produced a riveting narrative of the chaotic events in Libya last September. But what was the supposedly unforgivable crime?
Did Clintons State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy small government is always better has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?
...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees.
...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet.
The problem is that there were, in fact, tumultuous anti-American demonstrations taking place in cities throughout the Muslim world because of the video. President Obama labeled the Benghazi assault an act of terror almost immediately as Mitt Romney learned in the second presidential debate but it was hard to imagine that the attack was completely unrelated to what was happening in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and Jakarta.
...Maybe thats it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clintons failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said well, Ill just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.
Some cover-up.
Was Hicks demoted for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job with the same pay and rank until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday.

Useless, really useless.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#10178 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
A history lesson,
Nixon was ALMOST impeached, he resigned, then pardoned by Gerald Ford.
Good points.

They almost always take care of each other.

Ford kept Nixon out of jail for all the felonies Nixon committed.

Clinton kept Ray-Gun out of jail for all the felonies he and his Right Ring Wacko band of traitors committed.

They Right Wing Wackos, when not hiding from their wives to bang their mistresses - tried to impeach Clinton for getting a BJ.

(Republicans know this ain't a game and play hardball).

Obama protected Bush for kidnapping, torture, and murder, and numerous war crimes - so he could continue doing it on his own.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#10179 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I reread your post and I see what you'e saying. You think I have a closed mind when it comes to queers. Don't you? If I did I'd be saying they need to lock their sick a$$es up. I think they are sick, but not criminals. That's about as open minded as I can get on that subject. If you want your children to be queers that's fine too. Oh yeah and I do like Rick Santorum. If you had been posting for sometime you'd know that I already stated that months ago.

The neanderthal's light bulb is dim, but occasionally works.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10180 May 10, 2013
What is MMS??? Just asking.
guest

United States

#10181 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not following you.
The implication from your post is that homosexuality/same sex marriage is somehow a threat to your children's souls. Otherwise why the "concern"? I can only conclude, based on your other posts of a rather progressive nature, that there may be some sarcasm involved. Even if you don't condone homosexuality, an open mind would be amenable to a live and let live attitude rather than the former. So sarcasm would be my first guess. However your use of homophobic epithets certainly gives one pause. So maybe the other statement fits. Concern for your children's "soul" because of homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is exactly the kind of thinking that ricky santorum espouses. There is no threat to a child's "soul" from gays or same sex marriage.
danger zone

Atlanta, GA

#10182 May 10, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing is how these Right Wing Wackos never catch on to how they are being used by their corporate masters using fear, envy and hatred.
The truly powerful have their eye on the ball - power and money.
The RWWs are easily distracted looking at shiny objects - never even wondering why the guys behind the curtain are pulling their strings.
While the money is traveling into the hands of the very few, RWWs are co-opted as tools helping the überrich get richer.
Here's more boring facts:
.... While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.
Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.
Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.
The Brookings Institution said in 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.
A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007.
Yep ... The Middle Class is being destroyed to make the überrich even richer.
But don't worry about your kids living and dying as serfs to their feudal lords.
Noooooo.
Let's all fight about how many rounds a rifle magazine should hold, whether or not Elizabeth should marry Karen, and whether Obama should have played golf with Chambliss.
Ever wonder if the Average American will catch on before 100% of America is owned by the top .5%?
Let's see, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, almost 8 years of Obama. We're running in place, don't you think?
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10183 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The implication from your post is that homosexuality/same sex marriage is somehow a threat to your children's souls. Otherwise why the "concern"? I can only conclude, based on your other posts of a rather progressive nature, that there may be some sarcasm involved. Even if you don't condone homosexuality, an open mind would be amenable to a live and let live attitude rather than the former. So sarcasm would be my first guess. However your use of homophobic epithets certainly gives one pause. So maybe the other statement fits. Concern for your children's "soul" because of homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is exactly the kind of thinking that ricky santorum espouses. There is no threat to a child's "soul" from gays or same sex marriage.
Keep reading. It took you to long to type that. I've already responded to that ages ago.
danger zone

Atlanta, GA

#10184 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
What is MMS??? Just asking.
MSM, innocent error. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a coffee drinker.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10185 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
<quoted text> MSM, innocent error. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a coffee drinker.
I know I was just messing with you little buddy.
danger zone

Atlanta, GA

#10186 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I know I was just messing with you little buddy.
See, even we can be friends. & thankful for it.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10187 May 10, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way...
Do people still by that Right Wing Wacko crap about the "Media" being "Liberal".
In a word: YES.

Here are just two quick examples:

In 2006, CNN's Susan Roesgen had NO PROBLEM with a protestor at a rally wearing a George Bush mask that had been altered to also look like Hitler with horns - merely commenting that a "look alike" showed up at the rally.
However, in 2009, when a protestor showed up with a poster depicting Obama at Hitler she is visably incensed when she demands "what does this mean" and when the man says it means he's a fascist, she says "wait, what do you mean he's a fascist he's the President of the United States, do you realize how offensive that is"


Another prime example of MSNBC fraudulently reporting the news by selective editing and cropping (just ask George Zimmerman about truth in broadcasting) is from a health care reform rally where the MSNBC main concern was the protestors at the rally legally carrying firearms and MSNBC desperately trying to make a link between protesting , racism and anti-Obama sentiment and trying to create the idea that "wow, we could have an assassination attempt any moment". The only problem was that the man they showed as an example of this was cropped so that all you saw was his body and the firearms - no visible sign of his head - and why is this important ?- the man was BLACK - that certainly did not fit their narrative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The following link includes video from CNN that shows the above link again and then shows the man from another angle showing the man in full.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caugh...

These are just two examples among MANY that could be used.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10188 May 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
In a word: YES.
Here are just two quick examples:
In 2006, CNN's Susan Roesgen had NO PROBLEM with a protestor at a rally wearing a George Bush mask that had been altered to also look like Hitler with horns - merely commenting that a "look alike" showed up at the rally.
However, in 2009, when a protestor showed up with a poster depicting Obama at Hitler she is visably incensed when she demands "what does this mean" and when the man says it means he's a fascist, she says "wait, what do you mean he's a fascist he's the President of the United States, do you realize how offensive that is"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2WQbNaXJ8PwXX
Another prime example of MSNBC fraudulently reporting the news by selective editing and cropping (just ask George Zimmerman about truth in broadcasting) is from a health care reform rally where the MSNBC main concern was the protestors at the rally legally carrying firearms and MSNBC desperately trying to make a link between protesting , racism and anti-Obama sentiment and trying to create the idea that "wow, we could have an assassination attempt any moment". The only problem was that the man they showed as an example of this was cropped so that all you saw was his body and the firearms - no visible sign of his head - and why is this important ?- the man was BLACK - that certainly did not fit their narrative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The following link includes video from CNN that shows the above link again and then shows the man from another angle showing the man in full.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caugh...
These are just two examples among MANY that could be used.
When Bush was in office it was pro Republican. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks for even uttering a negative comment about Bush. Some of the most beautiful and talented artists to ever grace country music career was all but ended by the media. I concede to the fact that the media is pro liberal nowadays. But like one of your supporters said "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". Wouldn't you have to agree?
guest

Anniston, AL

#10189 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Keep reading. It took you to long to type that. I've already responded to that ages ago.
Too long? LOL Forgive me of I don't sit at the computer eagerly awaiting the next response. Also I haven't read anything you've written "a long time ago". I read what you wrote yesterday.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#10190 May 10, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
Useless, really useless.
How so? What do you disagree with in that article?

Specifically, I'm NOT asking how the article makes you FEEL, or if it does or doesn't fit in with your pre-programmed views. I'm asking what failures, logically, are there in what was written?
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10191 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Too long? LOL Forgive me of I don't sit at the computer eagerly awaiting the next response. Also I haven't read anything you've written "a long time ago". I read what you wrote yesterday.
I don't either. I have a alert on my cell phone that goes off if someone responds to one of my posts. What's the problem dude? I liked your coping and pasting bit.
guest

Anniston, AL

#10192 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I don't either. I have a alert on my cell phone that goes off if someone responds to one of my posts. What's the problem dude? I liked your coping and pasting bit.
The problem is unjustified animosity towards homosexuals and all of the incumbent implications towards denying them a life void of prejudice and hate which has caused more than a few instances of abuse, over the centuries, both physical and emotional. I thought that by 2013 most progressively thinking folks would have realized the damage to them and their loved ones and tried to mitigate it by not perpetuating the negative attitudes, not too much to expect I don't think.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10193 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is unjustified animosity towards homosexuals and all of the incumbent implications towards denying them a life void of prejudice and hate which has caused more than a few instances of abuse, over the centuries, both physical and emotional. I thought that by 2013 most progressively thinking folks would have realized the damage to them and their loved ones and tried to mitigate it by not perpetuating the negative attitudes, not too much to expect I don't think.
I'm sorry. We disagree. I think they can suck all the peter they want and munch on as many carpets as they so see fit. I don't care one way or the other, But and this is a big but. Marriage is a union between Man and Woman under God. Not to be perversed by any man or queer. It's simple really when a man and woman become one they create life. When a man and man try and become one they created AIDS. To believe otherwise in my opinion is to turn your back to God. You will not live forever and although we are not to judge. Doesn't mean there will not be a judgement day. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in God and this conversation is pointless. I hope you do believe in God as I would like to have this conversation with you in Heaven.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10194 May 10, 2013
Well, surprise, surprise - according to the Associated Press, the IRS is apologizing for "inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status."

The head of the unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner,
admitted "organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10195 May 10, 2013
Oh my wrote:
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
By Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...

Did Clintons State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy small government is always better has consequences.
This is a twisted interpretation, Charlene Lamb -Deputy Asst Sec for Int'l Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security stated in Oct 2012 that budget cuts were not a factor in either the refusal to increase security or the decision to lessen security. Eugene Robinson should have done his homework.
----------

Eugene Robinson:
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?

...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees."

That is the main question, WHO made these decisions? And it is irrelevant that the Pentagon has concluded the team could not arrive in time to help. First, there was more than one team available. Second, at the time the decisions were made to tell various teams to stand down, NO ONE could possibly know how long the attacks would continue.

----------

Eugene Robinson:
"...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet."

At least he got that right.

----------

"...Maybe thats it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clintons failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said well, Ill just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.
Some cover-up.

And according to Mr Hicks lawyer, the interviews were not videotaped, nor were stenographers used - testimony was written down by "note takers". Mr Hicks was also NOT ALLOWED to review what the note takers took down to ensure he was not misquoted. And surprise, now his detractors are saying that what he testified to this week is not what he said during the earlier interviews.

----------

"Was Hicks demoted for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job with the same pay and rank until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday."

Mr Hick went from being praised by both Obama and Clinton for his actions in a volatile and dangerous situation to being harshly criticized for his "management style" after he talked to Congressional investigators after being told not to by his bosses and received a direct call from Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills berating him for giving the interview.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kingsland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Big goverment Era comes to Kingsland 5 min cheesehead 5
First Poll Results fro Camden County are in! 13 min Jay Moreno 15
Moreno a closet buzzard? 37 min Jay Moreno 4
Quarantinable Communicable Diseases 7 hr Be Aware 8
Kingland County city council over spending thei... 10 hr Thuggie 6
Mitt Romney - he's running - Republican savior? 10 hr Iceman 2
School bus hit by truck with naked passenger 11 hr Jorge 3

Kingsland Jobs

Kingsland People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Kingsland News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Kingsland

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]