What's good for the goose is good for the goosed!
I know some of y'all march lockstep with these bastions of journalistic integrity, but steeple will be sheeple, and for any number of reasons, Americans are just gullible to buy this shit every day.
Dipshits even post this shit here...
Is it exaggerated? Possible, but when you look at the sources and some of the other horseshit they feed you fine Americans, well...
Enjoy. It is the story of the RWWtard's nationwide propaganda meltdown! Perhaps YOU'VE melted down over these ridiculous smear campaigns...
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...bsites/201958/
Right-wing media websites continued to undermine their credibility in 2014 by peddling a number of false, ridiculous, and bigoted smears. Here are the top smears from conservative websites The Daily Caller, Breitbart.com, and The Washington Free Beacon.
The Daily Caller
1. Daily Caller Columnist Blamed Gay Service Members For Rise In Military Rape. A Daily Caller columnist claimed that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which allowed LGBT soldiers to serve openly, was responsible for an "uptick in same-sex rape" in the military. [Media Matters, 8/28/14]
2. Daily Caller Article Mocked Transgender Students. The Daily Caller ridiculed transgender students in an article on a court ruling in Maine that allowed transgender students to use school bathrooms that match their gender identity. [Media Matters, 2/3/14]
3. The Daily Caller Suggested Obama's Condolences To Parents Of Michael Brown Were Timed To Increase African-American Turnout In Midterm Elections. The Daily Caller suggested that Obama's statement expressing his condolences to the parents of Michael Brown was calculated to boost black turnout in the upcoming midterm elections. [Media Matters, 8/12/14]
Breitbart.com
1. Breitbart's Attack On Obama's Attorney General Nominee Goes After The Wrong Loretta Lynch. In November 2014, Breitbart.com criticized the media for not mentioning that President Obama's nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch, "was one of the Clintons' Whitewater defense attorneys." But Breitbart.com targeted the wrong Loretta Lynch - the woman they named, a defense attorney for the Clintons, is a California based attorney who has worked on several prominent political campaigns, and is white. The nominee Loretta Lynch became a federal prosecutor in 1990, two years before the other Lynch participated in the Whitewater investigation, was appointed by President Clinton as a U.S. Attorney in 1999, and is black. [Media Matters, 11/9/14]
2. Breitbart London Asked If Transgender Activist Chelsea Manning Had "Cut It Off Yet." Breitbart London columnist Milo Yiannopoulos quiped that convicted transgender former Army Private Chelsea Manning was "suffering from a lamentable psychiatric disorder" and asked, "have they cut it off yet? The penis attached to traitorous transsexual Chelsea Manning, I mean." [Media Matters, 9/17/14]
3. Breitbart.com: "Voting by Non-Citizens Tips Balance for Democrats." On October 26, a Breitbart.com headline claimed, "Study: Voting by Non-Citizens Tips Balance for Democrats." The article questioned whether control of the Senate in 2014 could "be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens." [Media Matters, 10/28/14]
Washington Free Beacon
1. Free Beacon Distorted Comments Made By Hillary Clinton To Falsely Claim She Endorsed Hamas. The Washington Free Beacon distorted comments made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she renewed her support for a cease-fire to the Israeli/Hamas conflict. The Free Beacon published an article about Clinton's comments titled, ""Hillary: Hamas Uses Human Shields Because 'Gaza is Pretty Small.'" [Washington Free Beacon, 7/29/14]
2. Free Beacon Attempted To Smear Hillary Clinton By Releasing Audio Tape About Her Work As A Court-Appointed Lawyer. The Free Beacon tried to smear Hillary Clinton for work she did as a court-appointed attorney for a defendant alleged to have raped a 12-year-old girl. Clinton was required by law to provide the strongest defense she could for her client and legal groups roundly denounce attacks on lawyers for defending alleged criminals. [Media Matters, 6/23/14; 6/23/14]
3. Free Beacon Smeared DOJ Attempt To Make Guns Safer As Government "Gun Tracking" Effort. In 2014, after Attorney General Eric Holder said he advocated gun safety technology to reduce crimes like school shootings, the Free Beacon falsely claimed Holder wanted the Department Of Justice (DOJ) to pursue "gun tracking bracelets," a smear that was picked up by other conservative media. [Washington Free Beacon, 4/7/14; Media Matters, 4/9/14]
- Yssup Rider
- 01-03-2015, 11:56 AM
- gnadfly
- 01-03-2015, 01:48 PM
Those are the worst alleged smears?
How many unneeded riots, wasted hours of TV coverage, and dead cops and civilians came from them?
Laughable. Try to have a happy New Year dipshit.
How many unneeded riots, wasted hours of TV coverage, and dead cops and civilians came from them?
Laughable. Try to have a happy New Year dipshit.
- CuteOldGuy
- 01-03-2015, 02:05 PM
From the fair and balanced Media Matters. Give it up, AssupLiar. You've already won DOTY. Both right and left wings pour out tons of BS every year.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-03-2015, 02:10 PM
Tit for a tat, Whiny.
I spend my days reading links to hysterical, shrieking RWW websites, dripping with spin, disinformation and orchestrated lies.
Did you read the OP? I wonder how an objective person like you feels about these ridiculous smears. Do you question whether these smears took place? Do you support Breitbart.com's fuck ups?
Do you defend these websites?
I spend my days reading links to hysterical, shrieking RWW websites, dripping with spin, disinformation and orchestrated lies.
Did you read the OP? I wonder how an objective person like you feels about these ridiculous smears. Do you question whether these smears took place? Do you support Breitbart.com's fuck ups?
Do you defend these websites?
- rioseco
- 01-04-2015, 02:59 PM
SMFYR
- Yssup Rider
- 01-04-2015, 03:14 PM
Juvenile bullshit, rio.
You might be the rising star of ECCIE. If I was IIFFYYY, I'd be looking over my shoulder on the short bus!
You might be the rising star of ECCIE. If I was IIFFYYY, I'd be looking over my shoulder on the short bus!
- rioseco
- 01-05-2015, 08:31 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 01-05-2015, 10:05 AM
Trash. Plain and simple. Thank God (and Obama) for manual labor!
- IIFFOFRDB
- 01-05-2015, 06:50 PM
I'm trying to help you out... Hissy Fit
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ates-are-blue/
Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue
One of the great conundrums of the American political scene is why the poorer states, colloquially known as “red” states, tend to vote Republican or conservative, while the richer states, the “blue” ones (and let it be said that this is very confusing for this European, for over here the colours tend to work the other way around, red is Labour, or left wing) tend to vote Democrat. We would think that it should be the other way around, the poor people voting for more from that Great Big Pinata which is government. But it seems that there’s a simple solution to this: the red states aren’t actually poorer in terms of the way people live.
If we measure by consumption patterns then it’s the blue states that are poor, the red states that are rich:
"Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.
Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).
That particular piece then goes on to chunter away about how appalling it is that people aren’t willing to vote for more blue state type of policies and how this will be the end of America. However, the really interesting part of it is that part quoted above. For it speaks to something that economists just keep trying to point out to people. Yes, sure, income inequality might be important in a way, wealth inequality should have a place in our thoughts. But what really matters to people about how life is lived is consumption. Levels of consumption and also consumption inequality. That last is important in a political sense currently because consumption inequality just hasn’t widened out as much as income and wealth inequality have. And levels of consumption: well, that’s really what income or wealth is, the ability to purchase consumption. And if you’re in a place where prices are lower, leading to greater consumption (whether of food, or square feet of housing, or leisure, or whatever), well, then you’re richer, aren’t you?
And thus is our conundrum solved. The red states aren’t in fact poorer than the blue states. They’re richer: that’s why they vote more conservative and more right wing.
We could, of course, take yet another point from this essay:
"For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership — or even an affordable rental apartment — is increasingly out of reach. Adding insult to injury, rapid gentrification in these larger knowledge hubs brings the constant threat of displacement of creative workers. For even the much better paid techies, engineers, financiers and managers who are displacing them, the metropolitan version of the American dream is a cramped condo or a small house and a long commute. Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.
That rather shows that the way that the blue states are run isn’t conducive to good living standards for the poorer half of the population, doesn’t it? Or, as we might put it, blue, liberal, policies don’t actually do what they say on the tin, aren’t in fact pro-poor. All of which is something that ties in nicely with something we noted from Joe Stiglitz yesterday. Restrictive zoning is very much more common in those blue states than it is in the red. And housing is still a family’s largest single expense. Meaning that by artificially pushing up the cost of housing those blue states are indeed making life worse for the poor. The adoption of build anything anywhere (almost, we’re not quite ready for a steel plant in Manhattan) policies would thus improve the lives and fortunes of the poor substantially.
To determine the richest and poorest states in the U.S., personal finance site WalletHub evaluated the 50 states and the District of Columbia according to income, GDP per capita, and tax dollars per capita, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Income was weighted doubly, with five income brackets receiving scores ranging from -1 to 2.5, while GDP and taxes received half-weights. Several states earned identical rankings and tied for one place.
But that is to become perilously close to snark about all of this. That basic and first observation still stands though. That puzzle of why people in places with lower incomes tend to vote right wing is solved. Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption standards higher. There is therefore no conundrum. The richer people, by the only standard that actually matters, that consumption, are voting right wing, the poorer are voting left.
What we now need to go on and explain is why those nominally left policies, those blue ones, are so to the disadvantage of the poor they’re supposedly helping….
My latest book is “23 Things We Are Telling You About Capitalism” At Amazon or Amazon UK. A critical (highly critical) re-appraisal of Ha Joon Chang’s “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism”.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ates-are-blue/
Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue
One of the great conundrums of the American political scene is why the poorer states, colloquially known as “red” states, tend to vote Republican or conservative, while the richer states, the “blue” ones (and let it be said that this is very confusing for this European, for over here the colours tend to work the other way around, red is Labour, or left wing) tend to vote Democrat. We would think that it should be the other way around, the poor people voting for more from that Great Big Pinata which is government. But it seems that there’s a simple solution to this: the red states aren’t actually poorer in terms of the way people live.
If we measure by consumption patterns then it’s the blue states that are poor, the red states that are rich:
"Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.
Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).
That particular piece then goes on to chunter away about how appalling it is that people aren’t willing to vote for more blue state type of policies and how this will be the end of America. However, the really interesting part of it is that part quoted above. For it speaks to something that economists just keep trying to point out to people. Yes, sure, income inequality might be important in a way, wealth inequality should have a place in our thoughts. But what really matters to people about how life is lived is consumption. Levels of consumption and also consumption inequality. That last is important in a political sense currently because consumption inequality just hasn’t widened out as much as income and wealth inequality have. And levels of consumption: well, that’s really what income or wealth is, the ability to purchase consumption. And if you’re in a place where prices are lower, leading to greater consumption (whether of food, or square feet of housing, or leisure, or whatever), well, then you’re richer, aren’t you?
And thus is our conundrum solved. The red states aren’t in fact poorer than the blue states. They’re richer: that’s why they vote more conservative and more right wing.
We could, of course, take yet another point from this essay:
"For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership — or even an affordable rental apartment — is increasingly out of reach. Adding insult to injury, rapid gentrification in these larger knowledge hubs brings the constant threat of displacement of creative workers. For even the much better paid techies, engineers, financiers and managers who are displacing them, the metropolitan version of the American dream is a cramped condo or a small house and a long commute. Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.
That rather shows that the way that the blue states are run isn’t conducive to good living standards for the poorer half of the population, doesn’t it? Or, as we might put it, blue, liberal, policies don’t actually do what they say on the tin, aren’t in fact pro-poor. All of which is something that ties in nicely with something we noted from Joe Stiglitz yesterday. Restrictive zoning is very much more common in those blue states than it is in the red. And housing is still a family’s largest single expense. Meaning that by artificially pushing up the cost of housing those blue states are indeed making life worse for the poor. The adoption of build anything anywhere (almost, we’re not quite ready for a steel plant in Manhattan) policies would thus improve the lives and fortunes of the poor substantially.
To determine the richest and poorest states in the U.S., personal finance site WalletHub evaluated the 50 states and the District of Columbia according to income, GDP per capita, and tax dollars per capita, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Income was weighted doubly, with five income brackets receiving scores ranging from -1 to 2.5, while GDP and taxes received half-weights. Several states earned identical rankings and tied for one place.
But that is to become perilously close to snark about all of this. That basic and first observation still stands though. That puzzle of why people in places with lower incomes tend to vote right wing is solved. Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption standards higher. There is therefore no conundrum. The richer people, by the only standard that actually matters, that consumption, are voting right wing, the poorer are voting left.
What we now need to go on and explain is why those nominally left policies, those blue ones, are so to the disadvantage of the poor they’re supposedly helping….
My latest book is “23 Things We Are Telling You About Capitalism” At Amazon or Amazon UK. A critical (highly critical) re-appraisal of Ha Joon Chang’s “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism”.
- Old-T
- 01-05-2015, 07:29 PM
Kind of depends how much you value your double wide vs being able to go to Lincoln Center I guess.
That is one of the most subjective, riddled-with-logic-holes pieces I have seen in a long time. Yes, I could live in Shreveport or Biloxi for a fraction of the cost of other cities, but the climate, the music, the food, and the lack of a lot of things I enjoy would certainly not make up the difference for me or most people I know. That was a conclusion in search of supporting arguments.
That is one of the most subjective, riddled-with-logic-holes pieces I have seen in a long time. Yes, I could live in Shreveport or Biloxi for a fraction of the cost of other cities, but the climate, the music, the food, and the lack of a lot of things I enjoy would certainly not make up the difference for me or most people I know. That was a conclusion in search of supporting arguments.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-05-2015, 08:17 PM
Don't expect SLOBBRIN to read the links he posts. He just Googles, cuts and pastes.