Liberal reporting exposed...Part IV "Obamacare Infomercial"

On Feb 10, 2008, the White House was handed over to FOX news, in an unprecedented attempt to push through their neoconservative agenda to support McCain in the upcoming election. It was obviously a partisan event in which the Bush regime used government resources in an effort to support the GOP.

Thankfully, Obama’s promises will obviously be kept and that means we will no longer need to worry about our White House being used in such a deplorable manner.

As for health care, Obama is correct on getting this done quickly. There is no need to delay any further. The public needs to be informed and understand that the cost savings far outweigh any of the minor issues. After all, health insurance is purely parasitic and offers nothing positive.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh and the FOX channel don’t help. Rush recently opined on one of his daily radio advertisements that he believes that the problem with health care is that too many people are exercising and playing sports. He misinforms his listeners on a daily basis, stating that injuries during physical activities are the problem.

Anyway, with FOX news getting such remarkable access to the White House, shouldn’t the American people be compensated for the resources that have been spent? After all, it’s not like FOX was broadcasting news.

The real irony of the story is that it was made to look like news. Questions were drawn up in advance to put the neocons in a advantageous position. All requests by the unbiased press were ignored. Even the commercials were slanted.

Some think that this episode was outrageous and that Obama should now reciprocate. However, Obama is going to be as fair and balanced as possible. His plans to inform the citizens by going on public television by explaining without the bias of the FOX channel. It’s an exceptionally smart idea. That way, the American people are informed and can decide for themselves.

Obama has said that "Fox News is an entire network out to get me, so that should even everything out" concerning ABC (All Barack Channel) promoting his socialized medicine efforts.
Obama being "as fair and balanced as possible" is a joke. This President, from day one, has had an ultra-liberal agenda, which went against many of the promises he campaigned on. Once he got in to office, his true colors are shining through. America - you elected a socialist. He wants the government to control your lives. Unfortunately, there are many people willing to sit back, do nothing, and let the government take care of their every need. Hopefully, the majority of Americans, who have pride, a sense of responsibility, strong work ethics, and a love of America will not allow Obama to destroy America. To make Americans totally dependent on government. Hopefully, common sense and the very foundation this country was built upon will fight against the will of Obama.

"He wants the government to control your lives."

A government that tells us who we can and cannot marry is a government that control our lives.

A government that tells us what women can and cannot do with their bodies is a government that controls our lives.

A government that regulates business, is not controlling our lives. It is assuring us we have a society in which to live our lives.

The conservatives like to say that Obama wants to control our lives but this is an unsubstantiated claim that only serves as an attempt to spread fear.

Lake country prolife...your argument needs merit and facts. let me help. FOX News is not a free choice to watch. It must be paid for. ABC is one of only three free news broadcasts and is our eyes and ears to the world and our politics. To be as bias and as untruthful as they are is why our country is so divided and is the main reason why you don't have much in the way of facts or truth. It's no secret why the liberal MSM is dying a slow death. This recent event with ABC slobbering all over Obama only lets America know just how bias and untruthful they are. This is actually good since this will only help keep their ratings down and they too may soon be bankrupt.

You need to understand why FOX destroys the cable news completion month after month combined. It comes from FOX being chosen as the most honest and balanced news we have.

This is a fact (If you would read, you'd see that. Once again, you're shown do be wrong):

" Rush recently opined on one of his daily radio advertisements that he believes that the problem with health care is that too many people are exercising and playing sports. He misinforms his listeners on a daily basis, stating that injuries during physical activities are the problem."

You're mistaken again. Try hard to read and you will find the facts.

The fact that you must pay to see it only shows that how much worse it is that the criminal Bush regime sold the White House to FOX noise and advertisement station.

lake country progressive...is all this meant for a different blog post? I see no reference to Amy's point at all or any facts to your comment.

Jim, I see lake country progressive continues with his unsubstantiated garbage and twisted facts--do you read your own posts, LCP--pure non-sense!

Try ONCE sticking to the topic and stop making ridiculous arguments to alter the direction of the blog--it's infantile and shows a weak mind--though I'm not surprised you resort to this.

I like how none of these librerals will ever identify themselves either (victor being the exception)--all the rest use fancy screen names to hide their traitor faces.

Maybe my next step should be to log onto all the liberal posts and begin just typing on-liner after one-liner of stupid, random, cr-p and see how they like it.

ajohnson911...if you do that you will stoop to their level of nonsense. I was once a liberal who was brainwashed into hating anyone who didn't agree to our warped ideology. The dogma was to either attack the messenger or try pattern interruption so the topic is avoided. That's why I don't let these liberals get away with that on my blog post. Just keep bringing back the facts and the truth. That's the only way to get the truth out to the public. Our MSM obviously won't do that for us.

I see nothing has changed in the liberal handbook over the past 20 years.

"I see no reference to Amy's point at all or any facts to your comment."

That's because your programming doesn't allow you to understand the concept of a counterpoint.

"I was once a liberal"

You give no indication that you are capable of open-mindedness, free of biases, tolerant, pro-freedom, or any other concept associated with liberalism. So we find your statement difficult to believe.

@ajohnson911: I use a "fancy screen name" for a reason. My screen name reflects what I do for fun. I officiate High School and Division 3 College sports, both here and in AZ. I'm sure that you wouldn't be one of those small minded individuals that continuously berate the official when he/she is doing their job but there sure are a lot of them out there. We value our privacy greatly and protect it every way possible. I know officials that have received threatening phone calls at home and I personally have been followed home from a basketball game that my partner and I had to have a police escort to get out of the gym. So you won't be seeing my name here any time soon. By the way, I would like an apology for the "traitor faces" remark. This face spent four years in the military during Vietnam. I actually earned my right to criticize. Have you?

Liberalism is not open-minded, unless one agrees with a liberal point of view. Just wait for the "Fairness Doctrine" to kick in - so libs can shut down conservative talk radio - one of the few outlets remaining with a conservative point of view. And the libs cannot stand that.

Otherwise, the American public is constantly bombarded with leftie garbage from most cable networks, the major news channels, and publications like TIME, Newsweek, and of course, our own Milwaukee Urinal/Sentinel.
Libs don't want to hear or allow a conservative point of view - and President Barack Obama demonstrates this on a daily basis.

"Liberalism is not open-minded, unless one agrees with a liberal point of view."

You need to check the definition of liberal. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact, regardless of how much rush limbaugh blames on the concept.

Too funny, lake country progressive! Liberals are the most closed-minded people when it comes to anyone who disagrees with their positions, no matter how a dictionary defines "liberal"! If people (usually conservatives) disagree with liberal views, they are targeted, smeared, called names, and made to look like they are the worst people on the face of the earth. Witness what just happened to Miss California - Carrie Prejean, simply for saying she thought marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. Many people feel the same way - actually, the majority of Americans agree with Ms. Prejean. Yet, look at the outrage from the liberal crowd! Look at how those on the left/media trashed her. And all she was doing was expressing her viewpoint. That kind of stuff happens to conservatives all the time. We are used to it. The hypocrisy of the left is glaring.
Witness Paula Jones saying she was raped by Bill Clinton. The media went after her with a rage never seen before. Her reputation was trashed. She was called "trailor trash" by the news media. Because she spoke out against the President of the United States - who was a Democrat. Need I mention Linda Tripp? Vilified by the left, too, for speaking out against Bill Clinton. Words liberals didn't want to hear and refused to believe. How about the Swift Boat Veterans? The media went out of their way to discount them, never mind that their claims that John Kerry was no war hero (as Kerry professed to be) were valid.
Open-minded? Yeah, right. Only when it comes to liberal views. And the Fairness Doctrine says it all - libs want to silence conservative talk. That's all that is about.

lake country progressive...you have no understanding of what it's like to not be a liberal. I do because I was once a bleeding-heart liberal, and as as bad as you when it comes to brainwashing.

But now I am, in your words, "capable of open-mindedness, free of biases, tolerant, pro-freedom, or any other concept associated with liberalism" thanks to my dropping liberalism like a bad habit or a democrat in Washington. Had I not listened to talk radio and read political books 20 years ago, I don't know when I would have left the sheep.

You have lost all credibility.

Your still wrong, regardless of how bad your programming has messed up your head. The meaning of words don't change just because they're different in your fantasy land.

"If people (usually conservatives) disagree with liberal views, they are targeted, smeared, called names, and made to look like they are the worst people on the face of the earth."

On this we agree, necons always target people that disagree with them.

Witness all of your posts in their entirety.

Looks like you are opening your blog up to people who are villified.

If you are open minded, you are liberal.

If you tend to oppose change you are conservative.

Those are very well established and widely accepted definitions. The fact that you disagree with them is your problem, not Websters.

So if you prefer open mindedness over a tendency to resist change, then you are liberal, regardless of how much you argue. If you want to change the meaning of words, fight it out with Websters and Oxford. I'm just the messenger.

Hello lake country progressive, or as you say, "just the messenger."

If liberalism was open minded, they would have not allowed ACORN to receive our tax payer money after the corruption and scandals ACORN has been found guilty of. And all their corruption was to help "liberals" get elected. If liberals were "open minded," they would have never allowed any Senator to lose his seat over a court trial that was run by liberals who lied during the trial all to make sure they got more seats in the Senate. Or a Miss America to be defamed the way she was over her views of marriage. That's called Closed Minded LCP!

"Open mindedness" is not dropping the waterboarding issue only because your ringleader was the main politician who condoned and approved this technique.

LCP, you need a lesson in "open mindedness."

lake country progressive...wrong again.

Merriam Webster: Liberal (14th Century). Nothing in the dictionary supports your comment. However:

Liberalism (noun 1819) a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity. Doesn't sound like you.

You went after my 18th century definition of anti-American. But at least I gave the actual definition from Webster’s.

"If liberalism was open minded, they would have not allowed ACORN to receive our tax payer money after the corruption and scandals ACORN has been found guilty of."

First, liberalism can't be associated with a "they". It's a concept meaning, open minded, unbiased, etc like I pointed out before.

Second ACORN is a get-out-the-vote organizations. Organizations are not found guilty.

Third, the definition of liberal hasn't changed. Get over it.

I see the perpetually wrong one has found that Websters agrees with my statement.

Why would an intelligent person look up "liberalism" when we are discussing the word "liberal".

Answer: An intelligent person wouldn't.

Please return to the topic of the blog - Obama's Infomerical from the White House.
Blatant bias and no liberals can comment on it, except to talk about the definition of "liberal." Hmmmm.. sounds like a distraction method to me...

If liberalism emphasizes "intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity", then Christians are liberals.

Jesus was a liberal.

When you use terms like "an ultra-liberal agenda", you invite discussion as to what that really means.

Here's a quick definition for "ultra-liberal" agenda: politically-correct term for "socialism."
What's to discuss?

"ABCNews.com will also be working with Digg.com to select popular questions voted on by online users." Cast your vote, Amy.

Health care is an important issue. The more media attention, the better. Remember, by Webster's definition you're a liberal now, keep an open mind.

It's too bad we were unable to have a forum such as this prior to the Iraq war. I'm sure Bush would have been delighted to answer questions from the public...not!

"He wouldn't want the public to know: 1) his plan won't work"
Obama is such an evil genius.

' Here's a quick definition for "ultra-liberal" agenda: politically-correct term for "socialism." '

That's not correct. It's not even "politically-correct" since liberal thinking isn't neccessarily socialist thinking. For instance, understanding and intelligently speaking about evolution could be said to be liberal. It's certainly not associated with socialism.

"Ultra-liberal" means way, way to the left. So far gone to the left you cannot even see the center. Akin to how Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi view the world. And by being way, way to the left, where anything that resembles conservatism is thought to be cold, evil, uncaring, hate-filled, ultra-lefties have an agenda that is identical to socialism. Everything must be "fair." Equal. A sort of utopia that, in reality, can never be achieved.
Mankind will never be "fair" and "equal" unless all people are cardboard cut-outs of one another. Socialism doesn't work. The concept of everything being equal, being fair, doesn't work either. Witness socialism in other countries. Is the government equal to the people? Fair to it's people? No. It's a power struggle, plain and simple. And right now, Obama & Co. have a goal - socialism for the United States, with Obama & Co. dictating how we live our lives. Wishing to control every aspect of our lives. And pushing a socialist agenda on us all, whether we voted for it or not.
And some Obama voters didn't see this coming, either. They were "bamboozled."

lib⋅er⋅al
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform

ultra liberal

1. really, really favorable to progress or reform

I can't believe I'm witnessing this; a self proclaimed conservative Christian demonizing the virtue of fairness. What would the "fair and balanced" folks at FOX think?

While Jim is making an argument for fairness and honesty being the hallmark for the improved Washington Post, you're trashing fairness! Very entertaining.

I can't wait to hear the definition of conservatism.

Here is a defintion for you all...NEOCON = facist

OH - MY - GOD

You feel it is so unfair, don't you?

If this world is so unfair and there's nothing to be done about it, why all the crybabying about what network will carry Obama's fair and balance discussion?

I am not demonizing the values of "fairness."
I am saying that, in a real world, life is not "fair." Obama & Co. and other libs who seem to believe that is should be, because some people may have more than others and that is somehow wrong and "unfair", they need to take away from the "haves" and give to those who have less. That, in my opinion, is an "unfair" way to achieve "fairness."
In addition, many people may have more material goods, larger salaries, etc. due to their own hard work, smarts, and efforts. For socialism to work, those qualities don't count. Everyone is the same - remember, let's "spread the wealth."
There will never be a perfect utopia unless everyone in the world thinks exactly the same and has the same IQ level. And don't forget, in socialist countries, the government always seems to live a very cushy life compared to the masses.

So we should accept the fact that the people we elect to serve us get the best in health care, free of charge, while millions go without? Why should our handsomely paid politicians get a free ride at the taxpayers expense? Do you think maybe Senator Kohl could afford to pay his own health insurance premiums? Why should the many who have so little feather the nests of those who have so much more?

The government was not intended to be the exclusive domain of the rich and powerful. It was intended for "we the people". There's nothing socialistic about wanting to take it back.

The topic of this post was really about ABC News selling itself out as little more than an Obama health care promotion tool.

Life is not fair. However, journalism - reporting the news - should be fair. It should present the who, what, why, where, and when. Not the reporters own biases, which is so evident today I wonder why most reporters don't wear "Obama" pins on their lapels...
In this day and age, we are seeing unabashed adoration for a President. Reporting by the mainstream media has become little more than fan club tributes to Obama and his policies.
And this ABC promo is wrong. There is no honest way to defend it. Sure, Obama will be asked a tough "planted" question or two - with prepared responses to pretend some integrity is involved. But many of us realize what is going on. And ABC and Obama will NOT be allowing a Republican response - doesn't that speak volumes?

So you strongly believe journalism should be fair, but if you're sick, that's just too bad?

". And don't forget, in socialist countries, the government always seems to live a very cushy life compared to the masses."

Considering every Federal poltician in Washington is a millionare and has free government healthcare as I write this; I don't find this statement to be very effective in backing up your case.

As far as the media is concerned, Obama's approval numbers are starting to go down.

In fact my approval of him has gone down as well, considering his defense of DOMA.

See we liberals will critisize even each other, becuase party/ideological discipline is/was/and never will be a strong point, in fact I think it only lasted for 1 week after Obama was elected.

Just look at the conservadems with the healthcare plan? A plan will pass and it's going to be a fight, but the Republicans are a moot point since they continue to wonder off into the wilderness.

We all know they are goign to vote no, so why hould democrats give them any hearsay anyway.

The spoils go to the victor.