Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under leftwing...

A New Trend says...

Tea Party protesters trying to tout the size of their march on Washington last weekend have been passing around a photo of a packed National Mall. But the picture is years old.

Politifact asked Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, if the rally was big enough to fill that space. Piringer said no -- and moreover, the picture can't be from 2009.

"It was an impressive crowd," he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol the crowd "only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street," he said.


Yet the photo showed the crowd sprawling far beyond that to the Washington Monument, which is bordered by 15th and and 17th Streets.

There's another big problem with the photograph: it doesn't include the National Museum of the American Indian, a building located at the corner of Fourth St. and Independence Ave. that opened on Sept. 14, 2004. (Looking at the photograph, the building should be in the upper right hand corner of the National Mall, next to the Air and Space Museum.) That means the picture was taken before the museum opened exactly five years ago. So clearly the photo doesn't show the "tea party" crowd from the Sept. 12 protest.

"I've seen bigger crowds at Montreal Expos games, but I still wouldn't fake a photo just to justify your predictions of millions descending on Washington," said one gleeful Democratic media strategist. "This is grade-A stupid and just plays into the argument that these were astroturf protests to begin with. They've always brought the noise, but the question that was supposed to be answered this weekend was, could they bring the numbers? In that respect this was an unmitigated disaster."

A number of conservative blogs have since taken the photo down. Some have corrected their posts. Others say the circulation of the picture was a left-wing conspiracy to discredit the event. However, many of them are still claiming that at least a million people attended the march. Nate Silver estimates about 70,000 protesters showed up.

It isn't the first failed attempt by the protesters to inflate the size of the event. On Saturday, organizer Matt Kibbe announced on stage that ABC News had estimated a crowd of 1 to 1.5 million. ABC News had reported no such thing.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Filed under: abc news, americans, Capitol Hill, conspiracy, fox news, glen beck, ignorance, left-wing, matt kibbe, nate silver, Pete Piringer, right-wing, tea party, white americans

Terr says...

Jame's Notebook

The longer the health care debate rages the more it becomes clear that this debate is a clear extension of the 2008 Presidential Election campaign. The debate has devolved from disagreement on policy to disagreement on philosophy, to name-calling and over the top rhetoric. What we are seeing, essentially, is the reincarnated frustration of a group of Americans who lost the election of 2008.

Adults holding signs of Obama made to look like Hitler. Men carrying a loaded assault rifles to town hall meetings. These are signs of rage, of confusion and most of all fear. I don’t use the word racism often. I don’t know that what we’re even seeing here can be called racism. I think what we are witnessing is a group of Americans who until recently were the majority. They believed they spoke for “real” America, and they usually got their way. They’re watching America change, demographically, politically and culturally, and they feel lost. That’s why Sarah Palin remains popular. It’s why the idea that there could even be a “death panel” in a health care bill has held traction.

Americans were allowed to believe throughout the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II eras that the debts they accumulated didn’t matter, that as long as they’re kids were headed to college and they had a big house with 2 cars everything was OK. A generation of citizens is clinging to what Ronald Reagan convinced them of, though he never proved. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will create wealth for all Americans (they didn’t) that the market should be the guiding force in society (housing bubble) and that large powerful national defense would protect us from all enemies (September 11th).

And so we are flung into an age where that which we thought we understood about the world has been proven false and the last leader of that age has been swept out of office a disreputable laughing stock. His supporters are left clinging to the promises of the Reagan revolution no matter how false. These see the change that has been swept into the White House and they are frightened. So the same rage, the same fear we saw at campaign rallies where they called Obama a Muslim (which, by the way, shouldn’t matter in this country), questioned his pledging allegiance to the flag, said that he used the Koran at his swearing in ceremony, and countless other falsehoods are back out there. Cynically, the MSM is watching all this rather than reporting the truth about prospective health plans. Controversy draws eyeballs, not facts apparently. So just as during the campaign, we are left the determine for ourselves which side we want to believe.

The trouble is it’s not a campaign any more. This legislation will effect 1/6th of our economy and the way of life for all Americans. We should have a news media that can actually inform people on the facts of this legislation, not terrify them of the President, or wink when the pretty ex-govenor mentions a ‘death panel.’ Media pundits say that the White House has lost the message war. Well guess who’s the referee…

Filed under: 2008, Democrats, Healthcare, Heathreform, Left Wing, Obama, Presidential Race, Racism, Reform, Republicans, Right Wing

A New Trend says...

When I was younger, I used to watch a lot of TV, hell come to think of it now, I still watch a lot damn TV however now I primarily watch a lot of film and cable sitcoms. I remember I  was so into Bruce Lee and Kung Fu movies, I would make believe I could do all those tricks and believed I could fly like those Shaolin monks would do. I believed in James Bond and all those tricks he would do. I was so fascinated with Kung Fu movies and shows I couldn't wait to get home from church to watch the U.S.A channel. The distortion between fiction and reality was never challenged and just straight up accepted, granted I was just a little young nip back then. I remember I had a crush on this asian girl my age.  She lived in the same apartment complex as me and we went to the same elementary school. One day her family had a barbecue in the courtyard. It was just her, her dad, mom and I believe 2 other siblings. I wanted her to notice me and maybe her dad would some how find me to be *cool*. So what did I do? I started shadow boxing with a tree, pulling out all the fake as kung fu moves I knew. I mean I went at it with this tree for a good 5 minutes, karate kicking and chopping making a complete ass of my self. When i was done and exhausted, I looked over, not one of them even looked over at this silly young negro acting a gOTTDAMn fool.  I walked home gave up on that crush, I think I woke up the next day and decided my new crush would be Maggie Berrios.

Years later, I watch the debate on healthcare and see all this rumblings and feisty out of control nutjobs at these townhalls. I know why they're there. I know where they got their information from. But what abou YOU, you looking at it on television, you letting yourself being diswayed by the voice of the few. A loud voice, yes, but seriously, when the massess go silent, you'll here the pin drop sound of the agitator. It's all they know to do, is yell and scream, cause chaos and cofusion.

My television lied to me when i was a kid, I can let it keep lying to me, but seriously the consequences are so much worse now than a fleeting embarrassing moment.

Filed under: healthcare, healthcare bill, left wing, loud, middle class, obnoxious people, politics, poor, rich, right wing, townhall meetings, tv

EpSil0n-// says...

The Consequences are Tragic
 
There is no monopoly on extremism. The wing-nuts are both left and the
right. Many of us have been saying for years (I've been saying it for over
40 years) that differences between parties and the wing-nuts on both the
left and the right are so miniscule to be barely noticeable.
 
Politics and Political campaigns are a scam. Voting is invariably
a vote AGAINST someone, for a personality or an amorphous idea, i.e.
"change and hope."
 
Politics is public relations and benefits accrue to the over-lords; the
wealthy and the privileged class. It is a con game and apparently it
works.
 
Hank Roth
 
----------------
 
The Bloodthirsty Left, Extreme Rhetoric, and Murder
 
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | June 15, 2009
 
The Wright comments undercut the left-wing campaign to depict Von Brunn as
a right-winger and blame conservatives for inspiring him.
 
James Von Brunn, who believed that "Obama does what his Jew owners tell
him to do," attacked the Holocaust Museum and killed a guard on the same
day it was being reported on a national basis that Obama's former pastor
Jeremiah Wright had said that "Them Jews ain't going to let him [Obama]
talk to me." It sounded as if they were reading from the same tract.
 
The Wright comments undercut the left-wing campaign to depict Von Brunn as
a right-winger and blame conservatives for inspiring him. It seems like
Von Brunn's anti-Semitic views are shared by some on the political left,
even those backing and very close to Obama himself.
 
Wright had actually made the statement one day earlier, on June 10, to
David Squires of the Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia. Wright also
said the "Jewish vote" and the "AIPAC vote," referring to the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, are "controlling" him, and that Obama was
in danger of becoming a "puppet."
 
If Von Brunn's anti-Semitism is shared by Jeremiah Wright, a left-winger
who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, then anti-Semitism is not a
right-wing phenomenon. That is why the attempts by various "progressives"
to blame the Holocaust Museum murder on the right-wing are political
nonsense and flat-out dishonest.
 
As veteran investigator Herbert Romerstein points out, anti-Semitism is a
condition that affects the left as well. In fact, he points out that "Some
Weather Underground activists were born into Jewish families, but they
were as anti-Semitic as their gentile born colleagues." Their
anti-Semitism seems to have been an outgrowth of their anti-Americanism.
They despise Israel because it is an ally of the United States.
 
This is critical because Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn were also political associates and backers of Barack
Obama. The wall outside Ayers' university office depicts Israel as an
imperialist lackey of the U.S., as an "American-made missile" falls on
"Palestinian youth."
 
However, Joan Walsh of the far-left Salon.com has reportedly been on MSNBC
trying to blame "extreme right-wing rhetoric" for the murder at the
Holocaust Museum. She decries this "ugly rhetoric." This claim reminded me
of something that one of her staffers had written personally to me several
weeks ago.
 
I had asked Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about his acceptance of an "Izzy"
award named after communist and Soviet agent-of-influence I.F. Stone, and
what he would say of the article in Commentary magazine about new evidence
linking Stone to Soviet intelligence.
 
Part of Greenwald's response was an attack on Commentary. He said, "The
fact that Stone is being smeared by the likes of the consummately
chicken-hawk, nepotistic, bloodthirsty Podhoretz family and the truly
deranged, sex-obsessed, conspiracy-monger Cliff Kincaid will make me place
my Izzy Award on an even more prominent shelf in my office."
 
The term "sex-obsessed" was apparently a reference to my opposition to
giving special rights to practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle. It
turns out that Greenwald is gay and has a "lover" in Brazil but I didn't
know that at the time. I hadn't thought about commenting on the
"bloodthirsty" comment until the attack on the Holocaust Museum and the
controversy over whether anti-Semitism is a right- or left-wing
phenomenon, and whether right-wingers are too "extreme."
 
Norman Podhoretz is the editor-at-large of Commentary and the author of
the book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. He was not
one of the authors of the piece on I.F. Stone in Commentary, and his
family had nothing to do with writing it. The authors were John Earl
Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev. Haynes and Klehr are
historians and Vassiliev is a Russian journalist who worked for the Soviet
KGB.
 
Members of AIM who had received our AIM Report on this matter have
been encouraged to contact Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief of Salon.com,
with postcards that read:
 
  Dear Ms. Walsh:
 
  One of your bloggers, Glenn Greenwald, reacted with vile
  insults when questioned about his acceptance of an award named after
  Soviet agent I.F. Stone. Why would a staffer for Salon.com accept
  such an award? If there is any doubt in your mind about Stone's
  service to the old Soviet Union, we suggest you consult the new book,
  Spies, by Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev. The section on Stone begins
  on page 126, in the chapter titled "The Journalist Spies." Does
  Greenwald also believe that Soviet spy Alger Hiss was innocent of the
  charges against him? Would he accept an Alger Hiss award? What would
  be your opinion on that?
 
  Note that Greenwald's natural impulse, in response to an article in
  Commentary attacking his icon, was to smear Podhoretz as
  "bloodthirsty." This speaks volumes about the "rhetoric" of the left.
 
  What makes this even more interesting is where the Greenwald comments
  ended up first. Before I even had a chance to comment, they surfaced
  on the blog of someone named Jane Hamsher, who advertises herself as
  "the author of the best-selling book Killer Instinct" and the producer
  of such films as "Natural Born Killers."
 
  Directed by Oliver Stone, "Natural Born Killers" is about two
  psychopathic killers who thrive on media attention. The two characters
  "travel across Route 666 conducting psychedelic mass-slaughters not
  for money, not for revenge, just for kicks," noted one review.
 
  I'll never forget Jeff Cohen, the founder of Fairness and Accuracy in
  Reporting (FAIR) -and the one who would subsequently give Greenwald
  his "Izzy"-once telling me that he rejected Stone's idea of holding a
  fundraiser for FAIR by showing the film "Natural Born Killers" because
  he found it too gruesome.
 
  Hamsher's Killer Instinct book is said to be the story of how she came
  to be involved in "Natural Born Killers." Defenders of the film said
  it was a commentary on media violence. But it inspired real life acts
  of violence. Indeed, a study, The Influence of Technology, Media, and
  Popular Culture on Criminal Behavior, found that the 1994 movie was
  linked to a dozen murders and the 1999 Columbine school massacre (the
  killers who killed 12 students and wounded another 24 were reportedly
  fans of the film). The academic study was by Jacqueline Helfgott, an
  associate professor at Seattle University who specializes in "the
  criminogenic effects of pop culture."
 
  A lawsuit was filed, Byers v. Edmondson, alleging that Sarah Edmondson
  and her boyfriend, Benjamin Darrus, went on a crime spree after
  watching the film. The suit claimed that the film producers were
  liable to the victims for distributing a film "which they knew or
  should have known would cause and inspire people" to acts of violence
  by "glorifying" such violence and "treating individuals who commit
  such violence as celebrities and heroes."
 
  The suit was filed on behalf of Patsy Byers, who was shot during an
  armed robbery of a convenience store where she worked in Ponchatoula,
  Louisiana. As a result of the shooting, Patsy Byers was rendered a
  paraplegic. Another victim was William Savage, who was murdered. The
  suit was dismissed when a court ruled that there was no evidence that
  the producers of the film had knowingly intended to incite violence.
 
  But in an affidavit, Edmondson admitted that "During the two weeks
  prior to the robbery and shooting of Mr. Savage on March 7, 1995 and
  the robbery and shooting of Mrs. Byers on March 8, 1995, Benjamin
  Darrus [and] I watched Natural Born Killers several time[s] in
  Oklahoma. We also ingested a quantity of LSD, a hallucinogen, during
  this time. Had we not seen the movie repeatedly we would not have
  taken a gun. It wouldn't have occurred to me. As well, had we not been
  under the influence of LSD; we never would have left Oklahoma. The
  movie did have a numbing influence concerning the effects of violence
  and a desire to experience it. The shooting did not take place as much
  from a need for money as from a desire to experience the power of
  violence."
 
  Despite her proud role in producing "Natural Born Killers," Hamsher
  wants us to believe she is against real-life violence and thinks that
  the right-wing should be blamed for the attack on the Holocaust
  Museum. She is recommending as a TV guest somebody named David Neiwert
  who has written a book on How Hate Talk Radicalized the Radical Right.
 
  "If any media folks need contact info for David, drop me a line," she
  said. BINGO. Just like that, he was on Anderson Cooper's CNN show on
  June 12.
 
  Neiwert runs his own website called "Crooks and Liars." This seems
  somehow appropriate.

Filed under: AIPAC, anti-Semitism, antisemitic, Bernardine Dorhn, change, conservatives, economy, Holocaust, hope, I.F. Stone, Israel, James Von Brunn, Jeremiah Wright, Jewish, Jews, left-wing, Obama, politics, right-winger, scam, William Ayers, wing-nuts