[Zipperfish]

ridenrain ridenrain:

So now your totally ignorant of all US political issues, even though you comment on all of them. I guess that's a side efect of the Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Not at all. I've been following US foreign policy in several areas--especially where it concerns Canada or me.

I don't see how this Van Jones business was a top story for Canadians in 2009.

If you look at the list, it's just a list of issues that American right-wingers felt they should have got more traction out of. That's all it is.

Climategate--I read about climate gate at least two dozen times in that pinko rag, The Globe and Mail. "Obama's Lack of Success"? What the hell is that. It's not even an event. The Tea Party Movement--again, I saw plenty about that in my the newspaper. There was plenty on here too.

Virtually every story relates to internal politics in the US. How are they top stories for Canadians in 2009? They're not. They're just top stories for wannabe-American, self-loathing Canadians.

[N_Fiddledog]

But back, to the subject of why Van Jones matters.

Actually I'm not sure he does. Myself, I think BigGovernment.com made a mistake by listing the Jones and the Jennings stories as separate tales.

I think the larger, and more important story underreported by the MSM was the radicalism of Obama's czars in general. It wasn't just Jones and Jennings.

These are dangerous people. We don't even know how much power they wield, or how much money they spend where, or not even always on what. They were never properly vetted, and they're all radicals. Yes Van Jones was an admitted Communist, and 9-11 truther. Jennings has been caught proselytizing kids for his gay sex agenda, but there's others.

Holdren has been all around this eugenics population control issue on the "seemingly for it" side. He's been shown to be pretty pathetic as a prophet, but gigantic economic measures are being called for based on prophesies he supports.

Carol Browner is a sneaky socialist. I say sneaky, because she had her name wiped off socialist sites she was administrating before she took the czar job. Also the one thing she's famous for is at the end of the Clinton administration she wiped the records clean of anything she did there. She's a deleter. She should try to get a job at CRU. When she took over as czar the first thing she did was order her staff to put nothing in writing.

Then there's that guy who's a convicted shop-lifter, and Mark Lloyd, the diversity czar, who has a continuing bitch against free speech, and speaks in fawning language of how Hugo Chavez dealt with his free speech problems when he took power.

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But back, to the subject of why Van Jones matters.

Actually I'm not sure he does. Myself, I think BigGovernment.com made a mistake by listing the Jones and the Jennings stories as separate tales.

I think the larger, and more important story underreported by the MSM was the radicalism of Obama's czars in general. It wasn't just Jones and Jennings.

These are dangerous people. We don't even know how much power they wield, or how much money they spend where, or not even always on what. They were never properly vetted, and they're all radicals. Yes Van Jones was an admitted Communist, and 9-11 truther. Jennings has been caught proselytizing kids for his gay sex agenda, but there's others.

Holdren has been all around this eugenics population control issue on the "seemingly for it" side. He's been shown to be pretty pathetic as a prophet, but gigantic economic measures are being called for based on prophesies he supports.

Carol Browner is a sneaky socialist. I say sneaky, because she had her name wiped off socialist sites she was administrating before she took the czar job. Also the one thing she's famous for is at the end of the Clinton administration she wiped the records clean of anything she did there. She's a deleter. She should try to get a job at CRU. When she took over as czar the first thing she did was order her staff to put nothing in writing.

Then there's that guy who's a convicted shop-lifter, and Mark Lloyd, the diversity czar, who has a continuing bitch against free speech, and speaks in fawning language of how Hugo Chavez dealt with his free speech problems.

Any thought on blackwater, haliburton, and the whole awful lying murdering Iraq thingy?

Let me know when the Dems murder a few hundred thousand Iraqis. Until then I'm not sure a few Obama admins trying to make life better for everybody is all that bad.

[ridenrain]

I agree. All these Czars are advisors to the president but none have been looked at by the senate and the MSM has all but ignored them. They wield huge influence yet, as Van Jones shows, they have questionable history and even more radical ideas.

All these advisors should have been investigated by the media but the only ones who did that was FOX.

[DerbyX]

Unlike Reagans czars eh?

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Any thought on blackwater, haliburton, and the whole awful lying murdering Iraq thingy?

Yeah, I've got a few. Neo-cons suck (too damned liberal for me), but veering back on topic, there was never any problem getting those stories covered. The MSM did not see themselves as gatekeepers on those stories letting bits out, covering up others, and applying judicious spin when something uncomfortable leaked.

Blame Bush doesn't fly here. Bush sucked. So what? What does it have to do with the Mainstream media underreporting what should have been major stories in 2009?

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Any thought on blackwater, haliburton, and the whole awful lying murdering Iraq thingy?

Yeah, I've got a few. Neo-cons suck, but there was never any problem getting those stories covered. The MSM did not see themselves as gatekeepers on those stories letting bits out, covering up others, and applying judicious spin when something uncomfortable leaked.

Blame Bush doesn't fly here. Bush sucked. So what? What does it have to do with the Mainstream media underreporting what should have been major stories in 2009?

Under-reporting? That's the crux isn't it. Is this like the crying the right wing Canadians spout about how awful the media is and how they hate Harper? Of course that was all BS just as this is.

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Is this like the crying the right wing Canadians spout about how awful the media is and how they hate Harper? Of course that was all BS just as this is.

No, it's like exactly what it's claimed it's about. What should have been major news stories in the American media in 2009 were underreported.

Try to spin it to your favorite pet peeves all night. It won't work. I'll keep bringing it back on topic. Do yourself a favor with that one. Give it up.

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Is this like the crying the right wing Canadians spout about how awful the media is and how they hate Harper? Of course that was all BS just as this is.

No, it's like exactly what it's claimed it's about. What should have been major news stories in the American media in 2009 were underreported.

Try to spin it to your favorite pet peeves all night. It won't work. I'll keep bringing it back on topic. Do yourself a favor with that one. Give it up.

Major stories? Hell it was publicly deemed sedition to even question bush's illegal invasion but then Fox news wasn't reporting that were they?

Now you can claim that main stream media ignored (and you are wrong) your pet peeve stories but what really happened was that unless the media openly promoted a right wing agenda they were deemed biased. Not so fair don't you think?

Lets not forget you believe the unsubstantiated comments by a few climate commentators vs the over whelming opinion of the worlds collective experts so you can see where your credibility lacks right?

I don't look to creationist for credible opinions on various dating methods much like you cannot depend on right wing outlets for truthful reporting.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But back, to the subject of why Van Jones matters.

Actually I'm not sure he does. Myself, I think BigGovernment.com made a mistake by listing the Jones and the Jennings stories as separate tales.

I think the larger, and more important story underreported by the MSM was the radicalism of Obama's czars in general. It wasn't just Jones and Jennings.

These are dangerous people. We don't even know how much power they wield, or how much money they spend where, or not even always on what. They were never properly vetted, and they're all radicals. Yes Van Jones was an admitted Communist, and 9-11 truther. Jennings has been caught proselytizing kids for his gay sex agenda, but there's others.

Holdren has been all around this eugenics population control issue on the "seemingly for it" side. He's been shown to be pretty pathetic as a prophet, but gigantic economic measures are being called for based on prophesies he supports.

Carol Browner is a sneaky socialist. I say sneaky, because she had her name wiped off socialist sites she was administrating before she took the czar job. Also the one thing she's famous for is at the end of the Clinton administration she wiped the records clean of anything she did there. She's a deleter. She should try to get a job at CRU. When she took over as czar the first thing she did was order her staff to put nothing in writing.

Then there's that guy who's a convicted shop-lifter, and Mark Lloyd, the diversity czar, who has a continuing bitch against free speech, and speaks in fawning language of how Hugo Chavez dealt with his free speech problems when he took power.

Yes they are all very powerful people. And when they get close to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld body count, we can talk about how dangerous they are. Until then, I'm not going to put, say, Abu Ghraib in the same class as a convicted shoplifter.

[ridenrain]

What do you care any way? Your a "good Canadian" who dosen't follow US politics.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

What do you care any way? Your a "good Canadian" who dosen't follow US politics.

Judging by your anti-Obama rhetoric why should you care about Canadian politics since you are a southern bible belt style republican?

For that matter why should you care about China or Venezuela or anywhere else? Worry about the itchy red blotches on your nether regions first.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No--because I looked up Van Jones. He was some minor political figure in the states that had some connection to being a foiler and a Marxist. Even on the off-chance that these accusations were true and not just another Conservative smear campaign---Newsflash: I'm Canadian--so why on Earth would I care?

Maybe because you're posting in the US Politics subsection of CKA?

Board index » Politics » International Politics » US Politics

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be posting here, now would you?

$1:

Sure I "marginalize" them because, from our point of view, they are full of right-wing demagogues.

I've got some evidence to back that assertion as well. But I also accept that, in the free market, there's going to be news from different points of view.

And I'm sure right wingers can post evidence that there are many left wing demogagues on what they consider the "MSM". What's your point here? You're just feeding the cycle. If you just accepted it with as a media source, like all other media sources with their own biases, there wouldn't be such a shitstorm whenever Fox News is mentioned on CKA, or used as some scary label against conservatives and their beliefs.

$1:

I don't go around making the ridiculous claim that the "MSM" is radically left when the most "mainstream" news TV and radio shows are right-leaning.

The MSM myth is just another propaganda tool fed to you by your right wing demagogues.

Right. Did I ever make this claim? Did I ever say the "MSM" was radically left wing? No, I didn't.

Who's "our"? You mean the left wing? Shall I point out plenty of leftists think it's all corporate media feeding us scary information to buy shit?

[Zipperfish]

ridenrain ridenrain:

What do you care any way? Your a "good Canadian" who dosen't follow US politics.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Of course truth and conservativism are antonyms but then that would mean they need to admit their "wrongness" (opposite of truthiness).

Happy new year bud!

That's right, getting your information from the Comedy Channel/Network REALLY helps your case here.