|

Alan Grayson excoriates Fox News and GOP

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgoOTwgUGs&feature=player_embedded#[/youtube]

Share:

13 Comments

  1. I’ve lost all respect for media matters

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Media_Matters_coordinates_campaign_against_lethal_Fox.html?showall

    “Baier falsely suggested that Obama has cited Canada’s medical system as a “possible model” even though Obama has explicitly rejected a Canadian-style health care system.”

    LIARS!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

  2. DingDong

    Not much discussion about the czars backgrounds here either. How about the the Muslim czar? She seems to like to subjugated to a second class citizen. Don’t find this in the U.S. press.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

  3. Snuss: You offered this same comment in the thread on an earlier post this morning. Once is enough.

    Now, turn off your computer and ask the attendants there at the home to turn on Fox News so you can get more talking points for your brilliant political arguments.

  4. DingDong: Do you honestly suspect or fear that Obama will try to impose Sharia law on America? If not, then why are you so excited about a Muslim woman defending the peculiar rules of her religion? Christian women do that all the time, no matter that some of them belong to religions that bar women from the clergy or teach that wives should be submissive to husbands.

  5. richard – That was very low and immature….which really says something coming from me.

  6. Wesley Pruden NAILS IT!

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/23/obamas-third-world-get-the-press-rant/?feat=home_headlines

    “The remarkable White House attempt to define which news organization is legitimate and which is not began in August, as Mr. Obama’s poll numbers began a dramatic slide. Suddenly the man who yearns to be the permanent president of the Student Body, loved by all and adored by the co-eds and their mamas, is rendered human after all. Anita Dunn, the director of White House communications, says that when the administration began planning for autumn (with important gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia), the president “needed to be more aggressive in defining what the choices are, and in protecting and pushing forward our agenda.”

    Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Fox News are big enough to take care of themselves, but the implications of what the Obamanauts are trying to do are scary, indeed. Brisk and even brutal opposition is something every president must endure; it’s a pity that Mr. Obama skipped school the day the class studied American history. The candidate insists that the critics who scoff that he isn’t really the messiah, but another Chicago politician, are just being cynical. This week Ms. Dunn insisted that the Obama image is intact. “He’s who he has always been.” So we are learning, to widespread sorrow.”

  7. richard: Two things:

    1) You know almost nothing about my personal life, and I’ll thank you not to pretend that you do. Check that, I will WARN you not to pretend that you do. I almost banned you from this blog once, and it wouldn’t take much for me to pull the proverbial trigger.

    2) As I’ve told you before, I know far, far more about religion than you do. And I also know that you’re a sanctimonious religious bigot. What makes your self-righteousness especially galling is that you’re not very bright. I have lots of acquaintances with whom I can discuss or debate religious matters on a reasonably intelligent level. These are people who know their stuff fairly well. They’re familiar with many of the fine points of theology and scriptural interpretation. With you, such conversations would be utterly impossible. Your grasp of religion, as you’ve made clear in your many comments here, doesn’t even rise to the level of revival-tent hooey.

  8. realfoxnews

    Pat how do you know more about Religion than any body else? Is your Bible newer or bigger or better than Richard? Is your God a special person?

  9. realfoxnews: When did I say that I “know more about religion than anybody else.” I only said I know more than Richard?

  10. mike and richard seem strangely sure of my position on abortion, though I’ve never spelled it out in any detail on this blog.

    I mentioned in passing once that I’m pro-choice, but my thoughts on the matter are somewhat nuanced. Pro-choice is a political position, not a moral position. I don’t favor laws against everything I consider immoral. And, in fact, I do have moral misgivings about abortion in certain circumstances.

    But I also reject the position taken by the Catholic church, among others, that birth-control pills are immoral tools of abortion. Nor do I think that embryonic stem-cell research is tantamount to killing a baby.

    However, it might surprise mike and richard to learn that I think it’s morally inconsistent for so-called pro-lifers to allow for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. If abortion is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who impregnated the woman or how he did it.

    In May of last year, I wrote the following (which I’ll set off with lines at the top and bottom to distinguish it from the rest ofthis comment):

    —————————————————————————————-

    John McCain is one of the millions of Americans who are generally opposed to abortion but want its legality maintained in cases of rape or incest.

    Accordingly, McCain has advocated on several occasions that the Republican Party platform be changed from its current opposition to all abortions to a position allowing for certain exceptions.

    But now that he’s the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Straight Talk is under big pressure from the party’s hard-core anti-abortion wing to drop his plan to change the platform.

    The squeeze in which McCain finds himself involves a few angles that might not occur to the casual observer. As I’ve said before in this forum and others, the stricter position against abortion is more logically consistent than the one that allows for exceptions. (My own pro-choice view involves numerous other factors and is not at issue here.)

    The only good reason for a person to oppose abortion in general requires one to believe that it’s the taking of an innocent life. If it’s not the taking of an innocent life, it’s no different in an ethical sense than having your appendix removed.

    (Granted, the decision on whether to bring a fetus to full term can involve complex emotions and considerations, but absent the homicide question, the ethics are not very problematical, and the government has no legitimate interest in the matter.)

    So, the basic premise advanced by the so-called pro-life movement is that abortion is wrong because it’s tantamount to murder. If you don’t buy that argument, you have no valid reason to want abortion outlawed.

    That makes it hypocritical to say you’re against abortion except in cases of rape or incest or the life of the mother.

    How can a fetus in a case of rape or incest be less innocent than one produced in more acceptable circumstances? How can John McCain and those who agree with him deny that they’re logically and morally inconsistent on this score?

    Indeed, one has to wonder if McCain has actually thought this matter through, or whether his opposition to abortion is an insincere political convenience for purposes of advancement in the Republican Party.

    But there are lots of other hypocrites on this issue. Most pro-lifers shudder at the thought of a woman having to bring a fetus to full term in a case of rape or incest. And most politicians are loathe to buck majority sentiment in that regard. So much for the sincerity of their pro-life positions.

    There’s another political question that arises here: If a fetus is a person, and abortion is the unwarranted killing of that innocent person, why don’t any of the pro-life politicians favor a law under which the mother would be charged with murder?

    The answer, of course, is that taking such a position likely would be political suicide. Most Americans don’t want women who get abortions to be prosecuted as murderers.

    Nor is there any consistency of logic in making an exception for an abortion to save the life of the mother. In his book “Papal Sin,” author Garry Wills argues: “If the fetus and the mother have equal status as persons, the natural and not the inflicted death should be preferred,” if you’re going to be morally and logically consistent about it.

    Then, too, politicians should be required to square their anti-abortion positions with the belief among some folks — orthodox Catholics, for example — that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient. Are any of these pols willing to call for a ban on morning-after pills? Are they willing to call for murder charges against women who take such pills? If not, why not?

    The politicians should be required to explain in detail their opinions on just when life starts and when, if ever, it’s permissible to end such life and what penalties should be imposed for violations of any limits that are enacted into law.

    Questions like that would prompt the Republican pols, I’m sure, to squirm and dance and tie themselves into ideological knots.

    —————————————————————————————-

    As I said in the second paragraph of this comment, my position on abortion is somewhat nuanced. But alas, mike and richard probably don’t go much for nuance. To them, as to all simpletons, everything is black or white.

  11. Pat I am curiuos too (you being a journalist) to hear your feelings on the White House trying to cut out Fox news.

    I hate MSNBC but it would be unfair to do the same thing to them.

  12. shawnnews

    In the classic conservative tradition of projection, mike has called Pat a race-baiter on the “ideological purists are hurting the GOP” post.
    In fact, the one usually baiting anyone here is mike.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiter

  13. mike: In your comment No. 13 (above), you refer to my “past demeaning comment about Bishop Doran.” When was that? When did I make a demeaning comment about Doran?

    This past April, I had a post in which I quoted from a column Doran wrote a few years ago, and I provided a link to statements he made about President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame. I also pointed out Doran’s apparent failure to speak out on certain other matters regarding the Vatican’s teachings on faith and morals. But I offered no “demeaning” comments about him.

    So what the hell are you talking about? Did I misquote the bishop? No. Did I misrepresent anything he said? No.

    I’m guessing that you and certain other admirers of Doran simply didn’t want to see some of his political statements trotted out here in a secular medium where the audience is broader and more diverse than the readership of the diocesesan paper in which they first appeared.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>