New Contributor Column: Media Research Center Head Brent Bozell on “SHAMELESS BIAS BY OMISSION”

User Profile: thx1138v2

Member Since: October 25, 2010

CommentsDisplaying thx1138v2's 10 most recent comments.

  • Wasn’t it Ted Nugent that said once you get to know mother nature you realise what a stone cold b1tch she is?

    I’m with you LKetchum. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about. No one in this country have even endured any really severe hardship since the 1930′s much less societal breakdown. They need to go live in Somalia and let is know how wonderful it is.

    I’m really glad these nitwits in the Occupy and other anarchist groups are showing us their stuff on the internet. Computers never forget.

  • Although the majority of posts here go off on tangents, the real questions in this article is about “journalistic ethics”. Journalism is a balancing act between telling the whole truth to fulfill the need for public enlightenment, which is the foundation of justice in a democratic society, and the need to limit the harm such reporting does to those involved. It is a delima not easily resolved and is subject to the specifics of every case so broad statements are essentially useless. The journalist has a responsibility to report as much information as is necessary to enlighten the public on the topic without doing excess harm to the subjects of the reporting. It has little to do with legality. What is legal is not necessarily ethical. The absolutely best movie I’ve ever seen on the topic is “Absense of Malice” with Paul Newman. The journalist has a responsibility to report the entire story and at the same time do as little harm as possible to the people involved, allowing the consumer to make their own judgements. How the consumer interprets the journalist‘s ability to balance those conflicting interests is a reflection on the journalist and his organization’s reputation and credibility and you have to make that decision as suits your own personal needs for enlightenment and restricting harm to the subjects. That, in a nutshell, is why the MSM is losing market share hand over fist. Out of room so I’ll end it. It’s too big a topic for the small message size here. My vot

  • I think most Americasn misunderstand what the Progressives mean by “the rich”. Rich and poor are relative terms. They mean nothing without a reference. Rich as compared to what? That is exactly what the Progressives leave out of the equation when they say “tax the rich.” It that way they dupe people into thinking the rich are somebody else because, for most people, they think that is someone else with more money than themselves and they can give you names, i.e. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc.

    But that is not the reference the Progressives have in mind. Progressives are globalists. On a global scale the poorest of the poor in America are “rich.“ So if you live in America they are talking about YOU when they say ”the rich.” Imagine trying to survive in America on $365 a YEAR. Many people in the world do and many survive on less than that.

    So when you hear “tax the rich” uttered by Progressives they are really saying tax YOU, not somebody else. When you hear them say “not paying their fare share” they are talking about YOU, not someone else.

    Just look at the new tax proposed by the United Nations to levy a tax on the “wealthy” nations’ financial transactions to support human rights in the “poor” nations. Who do you think will pay this tax? The wealthy of course and that is YOU no matter how little you have.

  • I can find no words to express myself: http://current.com/1oi0d4c

  • This sounds about right for Progressives. They could care less about what is good for the country but get really, really miffed when they detect some personal slight.

    Keep in mind that Romney was governor of Massachusetts when Ted Kennedy was alive and you can bet your bippy Romney didn‘t become governor of Massachusetts without Ted Kennedy’s political machine’s approval. Remember Ted Kennedy’s push for national health care “reform”? And Hillary’s? But Romney got it done for one state, at least. That is NOT a good thing.

  • I’m of two minds about the U.N. On one hand, we should stay in the U.N. and keep them on our soil in the same vane as keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. On the other hand, the organization’s only successful activity is to encourage and enhance corruption on a global scale by undermining the sovereignty of nations.

    So far, the U.N. hasn’t even settled the Korean conflict which was their first assigned task although they have reaped billions of dollars for funding that task. Also keep in mind that the U.N. runs the Jenin “refugee camp” from which the Palestinians launch terrorist attacks on Israel on a regular basis.

    RE The Black Hills and the Mount Rushmore. I would suggest that instead of giving the Black Hills back to the native Americans that we keep the Black Hills and give them the part of Manhatten Island on which the United Nations complex resides. I don’t believe there is a treaty between the U.N. and the native Americans so they could charge the U.N. any amount of rent they desired. Maybe the U.N. would voluntarily choose to relocate.

  • All part of The Plan. The same as FDR’s plan: The Plan, The Whole Plan, and Nothing But The Plan

    Please share this link

  • And so? Someone tell me please, what percentage of the voting population is homosexual AND wants to get married. Seems like just another distraction tactic to me.

  • @DEEBERJ – Your statement is only true if you consider living by the tenets of Christianity outside of the pursuit of one’s own happiness. Otherwise, there is no conflict. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact the statement means that if living by the tenets of Christianity is necessary for your happiness then you have a moral obligation to pursue your life in that manner.

  • Nope. No thank you. I’ll support myself with the absolute minimum of work I can do which is about 6 hours per week. No handouts needed. It lowers my overall tax rate from 42% to 0% so lessens the amount the Obama regime takes from me. I no longer buy anything but the absolute necessities so it reduces the sales tax I pay. My choice. When things were booming I saved. The rainy days are here now. I’d rather spend my savings now (which also reduces my taxes since it’s not earning money) than have them confiscated later to pay for the mess Obama and Congress are creating.

    Get Obama out of office and I may go back to work but I will not support this insanity. Nor will I support any future Progressive agenda if that is the route Romney takes.

    When the leaders of this country act in a manner that the government deserves a share of the results of my labor I will once again contribute. I’ll not labor to support anything the executive and legislative braches are doing. We’ll shortly see about the judiciary.

    Want a piece of my wealth, such as it is? Earn it.