Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
gianmarco

"A Serial Liar"

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, gianmarco said:

It all started with Sarah Palin

New documentary that traces why Trump may be so successful avoiding the truth.

I feel like this is looking at the first time a tree bore fruit as the start of the story.

But Rush, Beck, Jones and Hannity planted the seed and watered that tree for DECADES before Palin came along.  There's a vast right-wing bull#### machine that made Palin and Trump possible.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I feel like this is looking at the first time a tree bore fruit as the start of the story.

But Rush, Beck, Jones and Hannity planted the seed and watered that tree for DECADES before Palin came along.  There's a vast right-wing bull#### machine that made Palin and Trump possible.

It's deeper than that, my friend, yet i truly don't know what it is.

I honestly don't get why people so lucky as to be living in the world's most prosperous area during the world's most prosperous era can be so blasted miserable. I have had tremendous good luck and tremendous bad luck in my life but have managed to maintain a relatively even keel, even though diagnosed as substantially bi-polar, simply by power of my gratitude to be who i am on this day. I've never felt compelled to prove myself anymore than to get enough value out of what i offer to carve out my own corner. I've never felt an obligation to be anything more than ready for what next comes along. I've never converted my circumstances or perverted my tastes into an engine of putting myself forward or getting myself off. My victories do not require foes or ruination or trophies, even celebration, for that matter. Clearly, I'm an alien.

We seethe, we primp, we conspire, we covet and, more than anything, we hold everything against everyone. We take life personally, a hopelessly ridiculous thing for a lucky person to do. I understand why we do this more than any 1000 people combined because i've made doing so my avocation, yet i am ever amazed how oblivious we are to what we've become.

Somehow, i knew after the presidential campaign of 2008 that something powerful was happening, because i told everyone that i knew - even before Obama went so quickly to pot - that Palin '12 was coming. There was an irreality in the air which told me that all the personal fascisms of the selfish hordes around me were about to go public in grand fashion. I was wrong about Palin '12 because i had no idea a public figure could be as lazy about their legacy as the Alaska gov, but the snowball just rolled down the hill for four years til it collected a topping of orange hay and became Trump '16. It's the payoff of liberty for all - that it, and the collapse of corrupt regulating codes which kept the general peace, created cupidity & rapacity & subversity & perversity where equanimity & community should have gone and resulted in us putting forth not a paragon of virtue but an "id"agon of greed. The most selfish person won America's crown, and his enemies are possibly happier for the chance to fume & spew against him than they would be to support a hero of their own. There is much, much, much more ugliness to come on this path we've trampled thru progress. 

  • Like 11
  • Love 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

It's deeper than that, my friend, yet i truly don't know what it is.

Agree with this too.  Maybe someday, just before I kick it, I'll post my manifesto.  IMO all of politics is ultimately about the tension between fairness or the "good" and security (physical, material and psychological), and how power is used to resolve that tension in a particular time and place.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

It's deeper than that, my friend, yet i truly don't know what it is.

I honestly don't get why people so lucky as to be living in the world's most prosperous area during the world's most prosperous era can be so blasted miserable. I have had tremendous good luck and tremendous bad luck in my life but have managed to maintain a relatively even keel, even though diagnosed as substantially bi-polar, simply by power of my gratitude to be who i am on this day. I've never felt compelled to prove myself anymore than to get enough value out of what i offer to carve out my own corner. I've never felt an obligation to be anything more than ready for what next comes along. I've never converted my circumstances or perverted my tastes into an engine of putting myself forward or getting myself off. My victories do not require foes or ruination or trophies, even celebration, for that matter. Clearly, I'm an alien.

We seethe, we primp, we conspire, we covet and, more than anything, we hold everything against everyone. We take life personally, a hopelessly ridiculous thing for a lucky person to do. I understand why we do this more than any 1000 people combined because i've made doing so my avocation, yet i am ever amazed how oblivious we are to what we've become.

Somehow, i knew after the presidential campaign of 2008 that something powerful was happening, because i told everyone that i knew - even before Obama went so quickly to pot - that Palin '12 was coming. There was an irreality in the air which told me that all the personal fascisms of the selfish hordes around me were about to go public in grand fashion. I was wrong about Palin '12 because i had no idea a public figure could be as lazy about their legacy as the Alaska gov, but the snowball just rolled down the hill for four years til it collected a topping of orange hay and became Trump '16. It's the payoff of liberty for all - that it, and the collapse of corrupt regulating codes which kept the general peace, created cupidity & rapacity & subversity & perversity where equanimity & community should have gone and resulted in us putting forth not a paragon of virtue but an "id"agon of greed. The most selfish person won America's crown, and his enemies are possibly happier for the chance to fume & spew against him than they would be to support a hero of their own. There is much, much, much more ugliness to come on this path we've trampled thru progress. 

You truly have a gift with language.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other factor that was/is required was a large part of the electorate had to either be gullible enough to believe the misinformation or accept the misinformation because they loved the agenda.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I feel like this is looking at the first time a tree bore fruit as the start of the story.

But Rush...

Absolutely.  I can remember when I first heard his show. My older brothers were drawn to him like a moth to a flame. It baffled me because he spouted mostly pure BS, anecdotal “evidence”, urban legends, and flat out lies.  But people bought it.  This was probably 1992-ish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, wow.  This is a self-serving thread. 

So lying only started with Sara Palin?  Got it.  If people only listened to Democrats then they wouldn't be lied to at all.  Good Grief.  Do you guys even hear yourselves?  :doh:

Does anyone remember the Clintons?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Oh, wow.  This is a self-serving thread. 

So lying only started with Sara Palin?  Got it.  If people only listened to Democrats then they wouldn't be lied to at all.  Good Grief.  Do you guys even hear yourselves?  :doh:

Does anyone remember the Clintons?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Pretty ridiculous.  These type of 'stories' are a type of misinformation that is eaten up by leftists.  Just say 'death panels' and you got a boatload of them hook, line and sinker.   Controlling the media a d what information is reported and the spin around it has been going on for centuries.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that Trump is the first politician to lie. They all at one time stretch the truth, exaggerate etc. I think its the scope and amount of misinformation that greatly separates this Presidents from others. Polls have shown that 60-65% think the President is dishonest. Seeing how his approval rating has been around 40-45% that means 5-10% approve of his job despite that dishonesty. I just cant phantom that. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432698-poll-65-percent-americans-say-trump-is-not-honest

Edited by lazyike
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most ironic thing about this story is the idea the "Palin's 'death panel' rhetoric is a lie", is itself a lie.  Sure is it horrible spin loaded with hyperbole, but there was truth to it.  There is a Board of Trustees in Obamacare which is triggered by healthcare spending ceilings which make recommendations on healthcare and prescription coverage which could in fact be life-saving coverage for some patients.  Certainly Trump says many things which are factually indefensible, but Palin's death panels are not in that category.  Our mainstream media has been pushing left-leaning false narratives for decades, which IMHO is why Trump's rhetoric is effective.  

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Oh, wow.  This is a self-serving thread. 

So lying only started with Sara Palin?  Got it.  If people only listened to Democrats then they wouldn't be lied to at all.  Good Grief.  Do you guys even hear yourselves?  :doh:

Does anyone remember the Clintons?  Anyone?  Bueller?

The documentary linked in the OP does not posit lying started with Sarah Palin.  

There were six replies to the OP before yours.  Four of them suggested timelines pre-Palin.  Of the two that didn't, one was a compliment to another poster that offered no specific commentary to the Palin doc, and the other discussed what other elements needed to exist to allow post-truth to happen.  

So the entire premise of your post is a lie.  You are making accusations about other users here that directly contradict what is actually being said in the thread.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

The documentary linked in the OP does not posit lying started with Sarah Palin.  

There were six replies to the OP before yours.  Four of them suggested timelines pre-Palin.  Of the two that didn't, one was a compliment to another poster that offered no specific commentary to the Palin doc, and the other discussed what other elements needed to exist to allow post-truth to happen.  

So the entire premise of your post is a lie.  You are making accusations about other users here that directly contradict what is actually being said in the thread.  

So typically self-serving of you to actually consider the truth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Absolutely.  I can remember when I first heard his show. My older brothers were drawn to him like a moth to a flame. It baffled me because he spouted mostly pure BS, anecdotal “evidence”, urban legends, and flat out lies.  But people bought it.  This was probably 1992-ish.

Yes. It was incredible. The entire heartland of America would listen to AM radio all day while they worked. Rush's impact was huge and planted the seeds for so many things.

I like to contrast it with Will Rogers who had similar appeal much earlier, but his message of hope and decency was the polar opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Sure is it horrible spin loaded with hyperbole

“Horrible spin loaded with hyperbole” is so close to a lie that I’m not sure there’s a practical difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Absolutely.  I can remember when I first heard his show. My older brothers were drawn to him like a moth to a flame. It baffled me because he spouted mostly pure BS, anecdotal “evidence”, urban legends, and flat out lies.  But people bought it.  This was probably 1992-ish.

Mirrors my experience as well.  Timestamp seems right, too.  “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot” by Al Franken was early 1996 and Rush was a well-established brand by then.

ETA:  Rush had a TV show for a while in the early days of his stardom, too.  It was a great teaching tool for spotting propaganda. 
Nick Bakay had a great impression of it on some sketch show circa 1994.  "I've never let lack of knowledge of a subject keep me from having an opinion on it!"    

Edited by Bruce Dickinson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

“Horrible spin loaded with hyperbole” is so close to a lie that I’m not sure there’s a practical difference.

Because there is truth to it.  It is like if you called GW Bush a war criminal.  Technically you could make the case, but it is a bit ridiculous.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Oh, wow.  This is a self-serving thread. 

So lying only started with Sara Palin?  Got it.  If people only listened to Democrats then they wouldn't be lied to at all.  Good Grief.  Do you guys even hear yourselves?  :doh:

Does anyone remember the Clintons?  Anyone?  Bueller?

You haven’t even watched the show.   Not a single minute.  But you are able to make this determination?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

“Horrible spin loaded with hyperbole” is so close to a lie that I’m not sure there’s a practical difference.

Perhaps "obliviously furied polemics" is closer to your liking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

“Horrible spin loaded with hyperbole” 

Is called alternative facts these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While conservatives are convinced that the radical left controls the mainstream media as a conservative who once listened to some of Rush L and later on Fox News opinion shows the propaganda attempts of Fox for Trump eventually fell far short of anything credible. I haven't seen the same unbelievable propaganda attempts made by even the liberal left biased CNNs and MSNBCs. While the bias is there I don't see the lame excuses and coverup attempts that occur with Fox and Trump's most obnoxious Republican Congressmen

  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, lazyike said:

While conservatives are convinced that the radical left controls the mainstream media as a conservative who once listened to some of Rush L and later on Fox News opinion shows the propaganda attempts of Fox for Trump eventually fell far short of anything credible. I haven't seen the same unbelievable propaganda attempts made by even the liberal left biased CNNs and MSNBCs. While the bias is there I don't see the lame excuses and coverup attempts that occur with Fox and Trump's most obnoxious Republican Congressmen

Then I would suggest you haven't been watching.  Or you have been watching and buying into it all so it's not propaganda because you believe it.  For those of us on the right, it's as plain as day.

Those who have been served and served well by the liberal bias/propoganda for the last 30 or 40 years or more are going to OF COURSE deny that it exists at all and it's "That durned FOX NEWS and Sarah Palin!".

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, lazyike said:

While conservatives are convinced that the radical left controls the mainstream media as a conservative who once listened to some of Rush L and later on Fox News opinion shows the propaganda attempts of Fox for Trump eventually fell far short of anything credible. I haven't seen the same unbelievable propaganda attempts made by even the liberal left biased CNNs and MSNBCs. While the bias is there I don't see the lame excuses and coverup attempts that occur with Fox and Trump's most obnoxious Republican Congressmen

The mainstrea media is dominated by establishment liberalism and it has been since the late 60's.  MSNBC is at least as bad as Fox News.  CNN is trying to catch up.   If you fail to see MSNBC as a completely biased one-sided source which they even advertise as, I am not sure what to tell you.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

The documentary linked in the OP does not posit lying started with Sarah Palin.  

There were six replies to the OP before yours.  Four of them suggested timelines pre-Palin.  Of the two that didn't, one was a compliment to another poster that offered no specific commentary to the Palin doc, and the other discussed what other elements needed to exist to allow post-truth to happen.  

So the entire premise of your post is a lie.  You are making accusations about other users here that directly contradict what is actually being said in the thread.  

Yeah, I think not.  I appreciate your response, though!

The suggestions "pre-palin" are from other posters that agree with you, so of course you're going to posit them as being factual and truthful.  I disagree vehemently with how that was portrayed.  Rush came about because of the inundation of the liberal bias/propaganda and one half of the country was not being served with the truth, but only liberal agendas.  Bias and propaganda that (based on your post) has served your side oh so well. 

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Then I would suggest you haven't been watching.  Or you have been watching and buying into it all so it's not propaganda because you believe it.  For those of us on the right, it's as plain as day.

Those who have been served and served well by the liberal bias for the last 30 or 40 years or more are going to OF COURSE deny that it exists at all and it's "That durned FOX NEWS and Sarah Palin!".

Actually, I have been watching and too much of it. The whataboutism from those House Republicans with all the Biden talk and demands to hear from the whistleblower who had no information different from what witnesses testified to was so lame, I mean really, really, lame.

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lazyike said:

Actually, I have been watching and too much of it. The whataboutism from those House Republicans with all the Biden talk and demands to hear from the whistleblower who had no information different from what witnesses testified to was so lame, I mean really, really, lame.

Right.  Like everyone else, he heard from someone who heard from someone who heard it from someone else who assumed this is what it must be.

I don't want to rehash it here in this thread so I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Right.  Like everyone else, he heard from someone who heard from someone who heard it from someone else who assumed this is what it must be.

I don't want to rehash it here in this thread so I'll leave it at that.

Ah yes yet another lie that the testimony was second and third hand that became another lame talking point.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lazyike said:

Ah yes yet another lie that the testimony was second and third hand that became another lame talking point.

I'm not going to call you a liar.  Maybe a bit misinformed.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, I think not.  I appreciate your response, though!

The suggestions "pre-palin" are from other posters that agree with you, so of course you're going to posit them as being factual and truthful.  I disagree vehemently with how that was portrayed.  Rush came about because of the inundation of the liberal bias/propaganda and one half of the country was not being served with the truth, but only liberal agendas.  Bias and propaganda that (based on your post) has served your side oh so well. 

So you know your first post in this thread is dishonest and you knew it was when you typed it up.  The rest is just noise.

——

Looking forward to Frontline this week.  If it’s any good, looking forward to discussing it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad got a "I don't believe the liberal media" bumper stick in the mid 90s.  The radio stations comprised of country, sports, and conservative talk shows.  Republicans were, and still are, years ahead of democrats in grass root efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first time I really paid attention to whether the media was biased was when O’Reilly had the “No Spin Zone”.  I’m not even saying he was biased (or that he wasn’t) - it just struck me that if a news program has to tell me they aren’t spinning things then there’s a good chance they and others are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 4:03 AM, BladeRunner said:

Oh, wow.  This is a self-serving thread. 

So lying only started with Sara Palin?  Got it.  If people only listened to Democrats then they wouldn't be lied to at all.  Good Grief.  Do you guys even hear yourselves?  :doh:

Does anyone remember the Clintons?  Anyone?  Bueller?

One of the biggest faults of whataboutism is that it fails to take into account two things: numbers & severity.

Some people lie an order of magnitude more than other people. And their lies are much more damaging than other people's lies.

Nobody here wants to ignore lies by the left - anyone and everyone should be held accountable. But let's not pretend bOtH SiDEz is appropriate here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The mainstrea media is dominated by establishment liberalism and it has been since the late 60's.  MSNBC is at least as bad as Fox News.  CNN is trying to catch up.   If you fail to see MSNBC as a completely biased one-sided source which they even advertise as, I am not sure what to tell you.  

Glad that you admit Fox News is bad.  Which sources do you see as “good” or “unbiased”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

I think the first time I really paid attention to whether the media was biased was when O’Reilly had the “No Spin Zone”.  I’m not even saying he was biased (or that he wasn’t) - it just struck me that if a news program has to tell me they aren’t spinning things then there’s a good chance they and others are.

Around Junior High and High School when I determined the severity of bias in reporting.  I could see Reagan was a very well informed extremely articulate man who genuinely cared for people and was very much in charge.  Meanwhile when I listened to reporters and the Sunday talk shows, I would constantly hear what a war-mongering manic he was, how he was some B-rate actor who was just a puppet, and how he wanted retirees to eat dog food.  They pretended much better to be unbiased back then, but it was always crystal clear.  

Anyone who suggests these false narratives are not pervasive and as much part of problem as talk radio and Fox News, really can't see past their own bias.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Glad that you admit Fox News is bad.  Which sources do you see as “good” or “unbiased”?

I don't trust any one sourse as unbiased.  When I see a story which appears too one-sided, I seek other sources to verify those facts and fill in the blanks.  I can count on with near certainty, when a story is seems one-sided there are always mitigating facts which are being hidden.  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

 Anyone who suggests these false narratives are not pervasive and as much part of problem as talk radio and Fox News, really can't see past their own bias.  

Actually it's been proven time and time again that Fox News' viewers are by far the least informed.

They are not like the others. They are straight-up propaganda at this point.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All politicians are occasionally going to embellish or downplay certain facts to make themselves look better and/or make opponents looks bad.  That is politics and it's always been that way.

Trump has taken lying to a new level that we've never seen from an American president.  Don't believe me?  Look at political fact-checking sites which show the President telling lies at a more than 70% clip, and that doesn't even include half-truths.  No other politician comes close although he is doing better than Facebook posts which are spreading falsehoods at nearly 90%.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do conservatives think the "liberal agenda" is? The one that the left leaning mainstream media is always pushing.

It would be interesting to find out if they've correctly identified it and think it's bad policy or whether they're just mistaken in what they think we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Actually it's been proven time and time again that Fox News' viewers are by far the least informed.

They are not like the others. They are straight-up propaganda at this point.

 

Fox News viewers tend to be less educated and more rural.  They tend not to know things like what the capital of Canada is, nor do they care.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

What do conservatives think the "liberal agenda" is? The one that the left leaning mainstream media is always pushing.

It would be interesting to find out if they've correctly identified it and think it's bad policy or whether they're just mistaken in what they think we want.

Pretty easy.  Here is a quick start.  

1.  The media wants aggressive action on global warming.

2.  The media wants to protect abortion rights.

3.  The media wants a highly progressive tax structure.

4.  The media tends to endorse big government solutions to issues such as health care and environment. 

5.  The media endorses an aggressive politically correct agenda where minority victims are always right and are to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The most ironic thing about this story is the idea the "Palin's 'death panel' rhetoric is a lie", is itself a lie.  Sure is it horrible spin loaded with hyperbole, but there was truth to it.  There is a Board of Trustees in Obamacare which is triggered by healthcare spending ceilings which make recommendations on healthcare and prescription coverage which could in fact be life-saving coverage for some patients.  Certainly Trump says many things which are factually indefensible, but Palin's death panels are not in that category.  Our mainstream media has been pushing left-leaning false narratives for decades, which IMHO is why Trump's rhetoric is effective.  

Didn't she claim the government would base their decisions on the level of productivity in society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

What do conservatives think the "liberal agenda" is? The one that the left leaning mainstream media is always pushing.

It would be interesting to find out if they've correctly identified it and think it's bad policy or whether they're just mistaken in what they think we want.

Right-wingers (very few of whom are conservative anymore) neither know or care what the liberal agenda (if there is one) is. They know what they like, the rules of their club, the sentiments which ring their bells, and anything that ain't that is the "liberal agenda". Dont matter how many shades of that (so many even we dont know) there are - there's heaven & there's hell, there's shooters and there's targets, you're in the club or trying to pound down the door to rape the cows & steal the women. nufced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Pretty easy.  Here is a quick start.  

1.  The media wants aggressive action on global warming.

2.  The media wants to protect abortion rights.

3.  The media wants a highly progressive tax structure.

4.  The media tends to endorse big government solutions to issues such as health care and environment. 

5.  The media endorses an aggressive politically correct agenda where minority victims are always right and are to be believed.

No. 5 is a little overboard but overall this isn't a bad start.

Obviously, to me, the mainstream media is mostly on the right side of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roadkill1292 said:

No. 5 is a little overboard but overall this isn't a bad start.

Obviously, to me, the mainstream media is mostly on the right side of policy.

That is fine, and most people who agree with those points can't see the media bias.  But if you are on the other side on any of those watching the mainstream news can be frustrating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The General said:

Didn't she claim the government would base their decisions on the level of productivity in society?

Palin's "Death Panels" was a reference to a section of the bill in which Medicare would pay physicians to talk to their patients on Medicare about end-of-life care options, living wills, advance directives, etc. And yes, she suggested decisions would be based on productivity. It was outright lying.

Here is where it all started, on Facebook natch: https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/statement-on-the-current-health-care-debate/113851103434/

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

Edited by Lutherman2112
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

3.  The media wants a highly progressive tax structure.

4.  The media tends to endorse big government solutions to issues such as health care and environment.

Any Bernie Bro will tell you they don't support either of these things.

They're the ones who help paint both as "radical" ideas even though every other 1st world country has them but us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I don't trust any one sourse as unbiased.  When I see a story which appears too one-sided, I seek other sources to verify those facts and fill in the blanks.  I can count on with near certainty, when a story is seems one-sided there are always mitigating facts which are being hidden.  

Sure.  But which sources do you see as being less biased than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.