Fox has 24/7 programming
including reporting (hard news) and opinion. The editorial is the hard
news, I think. I don’t remember they telling as news any lie. When
it comes to opinion, that is different, but those are just opinions, not
necessarily descriptions of things that happened, and the onus is on whomever
says them. Mind you that Fox pays for many people there who are open
liberals, like Homs, Juan Williams, the fat guy at The 5, the daughter of Jesse
Jackson and many more… for sure they say things that may not be true,
just like the conservative pundits do. But I don’t think we can say that
Fox lies because one or more of their contributors lies…
I would hold the hard news (Bret
Baier, Fox and Friends, Shephard Smith, etc) speak for Fox. If they tell
a lie, it is Fox responsibility and credibility. Makes sense?
I did not go over the claims of
John Stewart because… he is a comedian. I can’t take him seriously, it would
not make sense. He can say anything and if proven wrong, he can always
explain “what do you want, I am a comedian!”, so is probably not worth the time
to analyze if a comedian is being truthfull.
As for the deficit, no, I can’t
blame the 6 Trillion on Obama, but much of it yes (the money he gave the unions
with different excuses like ‘saving’ 2 of the 3 US car makers –Ford took none-,
‘education’ –teachers’ bloated pensions plans-, ‘police and firefighters’
–their ridiculous pensions and retirement plans that are bankrupting cities
across America-, solar energy companies like Solyndra that not only he have 500
million against the opinion of his own people, but he subordinated the
government loan to that of the owners of Solyndra, who happened to be big
bundlers on his political campaign. This he did without any valid
justification whatsoever, so his friends did not lose anything, but we
did. Things like that paint a character, in my opinion, and once they
lose credibility, there is no reason to believe anything else they say.
This like when Clinton pardoned through Holder a common criminal and a
fugitive without even the attempt for a justification: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22lardner.html?pagewanted=all
Marc Rich who happened to make a huge donation to the Clinton Library…
For me, this is a culture of corruption and I can’t just
ignore those issues because of ideology or any other pretext. They call
this Chicago Style politics, and there are examples all around that are hard to
ignore. The lawsuit to make it impossible for states to validate voters,
when a voter ID card is free: why? The exception to the Warn act, so
defense contractors do not need to give pink slips right before the election (a
law that was sponsored by Obama). The prohibition for Boeing to open
their plant in South Carolina (a right to work state) unless Boeing accepted (as
they did) to keep employees on Union states, effectively negating the right of
a company to work wherever they want (they could have taken the jobs to China,
and I am surprised they didn’t). Sure, Boeing and the NLRB came to an
“agreement”, when Boeing finally capitulated under the gun and agreed to
provide jobs in Washington State, after holding off staffing their SC plant for
months. (Although the liberals at Factchek forget to mention how Boeing
was forced into that agreement http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romney-hits-turbulence-with-boeing-case/
).
For sure Obama received a very bad economy, I agree with you
on that. I saw those PBS episodes on the crisis, twice! The problem
is that those episodes do not say a word about the cause… yes. The cause
was the mortgages, as derivatives were based on chunks of them as
packaged by the banks. If the mortgages were paid… the derivatives would have
worked and the default swaps would not have been triggered. Why the
mortgage crisis? Because the liberals in Congress forced banks to lend to
those who could not afford them:
“To
deal with the savings & loan fallout of the 1980s, Congress enacted the
Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. In a move with
ominous portent, FIRREA mandated public release of lender evaluations and
performance ratings, resulting in added pressure on the banking industry. Such
public oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups like
ACORN to further influence bank lending practices
With
the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing
directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in
the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked
closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation
tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" --
activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated
at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority
communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and
government officials.” More of this at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html
Also, Mayor Bloomberg, who was a Democrat till 2001 when he
switched to Republican to run for office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
), tells us about the same: “ Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning that if there is anyone to
blame for the mortgage crisis that led the collapse of the financial industry,
it's not the "big banks," but Congress” http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-bank/
Mind you that the House and Senate was in the hands of the
Dems since 2006, when the crazy mortgages with zero down for people who did not
have to qualify, show income, etc. happened. When they could not pay the
debt on their mortgages, all else fell.
As for laws that Obama passed that are Socialist, he did a
lot more through regulation, legally or not. Obamacare for sure is
Socialist. Every time you read ‘free’ for anyone old enough to earn it,
you are talking Socialism. For everything a person gets free, another
person who earned it, is paying for it. There is no spontaneous or
government creation of wealth, only people do. What one person gets for
free, another person is paying for it. Medical care is expensive and
those earning the money will pay for those who do not. That penalty for
those who refuse to buy health insurance does not cover the cost. Other
people are covering the cost.
The successive stimulus packages are all socialists.
That money went to friends, political cronies (Solyndra and others) and
unions. Sure, those are not laws, but he did it.
For a President having absolute control of the majority in
both chambers of Congress, he actually got very little done. Of course
all the rush to provide compassion for the immigrants comes right before the
elections… His job is to get re-elected, because what else good did he
accomplish?
How about the WH leaks on security? Fast and
Furious? Humongous loans to companies that his own advisors told
him are not credit worth, and subordinating the Government to their debt… How
can anyone get away with that?
His stacking of the National Labor Relations Board (the one
that stopped Boeing from opening a finished plant in South Carolina) was
stacked by Obama with a majority of pro-union members. Mind you this
board is supposed to be impartial arbiter of disputes between a corporation and
labor. The board almost immediately authorized the unionization of
employees with as little as 10 days’ notice to the company, so they can’t
campaign against it. Mind you as well that if the Union and the
Company do not agree during negotiations (bargaining), the Board is the sole
arbiter and has the last word… Why would companies want to
hire? Why would anyone want to open or keep a company on a Union state?
BTW “President Bill Clinton made 139 recess
appointments in his two terms. President George W. Bush made 171 over eight
years. Mr. Obama has now made 32 in just under three years in
office.” Means Clinton made 2.3 recess appointments per year, Bush
did 2.1. Obama made 10.6 per year, although he had full control of Congress
for 24 months…
Many prefer to call Obama a Crony Capitalist,
because of all the money he gave to his bundlers, his friends that are so rich,
(the big banks, from where he got everyone of his business advisors and
appointees in Economy) who overwhelmingly support the Dems (3 to 1) and who are
doing now better than ever. His tale is of a Socialist for ‘social
justice’, but his game is more of a crony capitalist, I think. ABC News
appears to agree with that: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-white-house-warned-solyndra-bad-reelection/story?id=14534542#.UC2DJ91lSgQ
Obama was warned NOT to give that money to Solyndra, but he did it anyway. But
his bundler got his money http://www.iwatchnews.org/environment/energy/solyndra
Well, that is part of what I think, and I fully
respect other points of view and opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment