SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sinclap who wrote (166476)3/31/2014 10:54:59 AM
From: longnshort4 Recommendations

Recommended By
dave rose
FJB
locogringo
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224728
 
I 've never heard of Faux news.

I see you avoid my question 'have you even listen to Fox News.

NPR has been caught many times for lying



To: sinclap who wrote (166476)3/31/2014 10:58:18 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224728
 
LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND NPR STATISTICS

Scott Horsley of National Public Radio is a big fan of President Barack Obama--and is cheerleading for Obama's attempt to get Republicans to agree to new tax hikes on the rich. His latest effort involves misusing exit poll data to convince NPR's elite liberal listeners that an electorate that just re-elected the anti-tax Republicans to lead the House of Representatives wants those same Republicans to cave on the issue that has defined their caucus.Horsley said today on NPR's Morning Edition (emphasis added):

Indeed, exit polls found 60 percent of voters believe income taxes should go up —either for the wealthiest Americans or for everyone. That includes 40 percent of the people who voted for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Note the sleight of hand there. Horsley arrives at his conclusion that a majority of voters favor Obama's position by lumping in those who want taxes to increase for everyone with those who want taxes on the rich alone.

In fact, Obama's position is only favored by a minority of the electorate, according to exit polls from last week's election--which are shared among news outlets. The Washington Post reported the results (emphasis added):

— Taxes don’t top the list of people’s financial troubles. The biggies are unemployment and rising prices. Only 14 percent of voters ranked taxes as the biggest economic problem for people like them.

— When the two go head to head, taxes trump the deficit. Sixty-three percent rejected the idea of raising taxes to help cut the nation’s budget deficits, even though they’ve been hitting about $1 trillion per year....

Nearly half, 47 percent of voters surveyed, said go ahead and raise taxes on incomes of $250,000 and up, as Obama proposes. Only 35 percent wanted no tax increases for anyone. A lonely 13 percent called for higher taxes all around.

Note how Horsley arrives at his misleading figure of 60 percent: he adds the 47 percent who prefer Obama's proposal to the 13 percent who want to raise taxes on everyone. Presto--60 percent for Obama's side. One can manipulate the numbers to cast other conclusions: adding the 35 percent who want no taxes to the 13 percent who want tax hikes for all reveals that 48 percent oppose Obama's plan. But that would not suit Horsley's aim.

Horsley also tries to create the impression that Republicans are caving on taxes already:

Since the election, Republican House Speaker John Boehner has shown some willingness to collect more tax revenue from the wealthy, so long as it can be done without raising tax rates. Obama says he's encouraged by Boehner's newfound flexibility, but he's not just waiting passively for congressional Republicans to come around to where a majority of voters are.

Boehner's proposal to raise revenues is exactly the same suggestion he made in July 2011, when Obama destroyed a deal by demanding higher tax rates. Those are the facts, ably documented in Bob Woodward's The Price of Politics. One can argue that Obama has more leverage after being re-elected, and that Boehner may have implicitly signaled a willingness to compromise by opening negotiations with the Republicans' final offer from the last round. But Horsley incorrectly implies that Boehner has adopted a new position--and, again, falsely suggests that "a majority of voters" agree with Obama.

Perhaps de-funding NPR should be part of the deal?



To: sinclap who wrote (166476)3/31/2014 10:59:47 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224728
 
NPR LIES ABOUT CENSORING PROLIFE VIEWS
On July 18th, NPR’s Michel Martin invited Reverend Carlton Veazey and me to debate the issue of abortion in the black community on “Tell Me More”. I’m beginning to believe a name revision is in order: “Tell Me More Lies.”

NPR has now officially, and dishonestly, disputed the charges of censorship and liberal bias by posting an article full of…liberal bias. They could’ve posted the unedited audio of the interview, but such raw honesty is apparently too much for NPR to handle. The charade of fairness, no matter whom they need to defame, is a far loftier virtue for them than truth. A producer originally told me the interview, for the show, would be a duration of 15 minutes. That changed after the interview.

It would be laughable if my tax dollars didn’t fund this one-sided journalism. Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR’s Ombudsman, described by NPR as the “public’s representative to NPR, serving as an independentsource regarding NPR’s programming” defended the network’s lack of integrity. He conducted his own research (an “independent” source whose salary is paid by NPR), and what do you know? He found that NPR wasn’t biased.

According to Schumacher-Matos, the executive producer of “Tell Me More”, Teshima Walker, wrote to The Radiance Foundation responding to our charges of deliberate bias. Quoting Ms. Walker, Schumacher-Matos determined: “I went back and listened to the story again, and have to conclude that she is right and Bomberger is wrong.”

Reading Ms. Walker’s quote in his article was the first time I’ve ever seen her name. Teshima Walker never contacted me, in writing, on the phone, or by any other means. The dishonesty of her assertion that their edits “allowed the substance of both arguments to remain intact while preserving the standard of fairness, clarity and civility” makes me wonder what universe NPR lives in.

I was civil throughout the conversation, never raising my voice and never interrupting. I was, apparently, way too polite. Perhaps I shouldn’t make that mistake again.

NPR’s ombudsman reinforces the myth that the show’s edits were to give both Rev. Veazey and I equal time. Granted, we each had nearly 3 minutes and 40 seconds to share our views (after editing), but mine were continually cut off by either the host or Reverend Veazey. I spoke 9 different times and was interrupted during 6 of those instances, 3 of which were interruptions from Veazey. He, however, spoke 3 times, uninterrupted and was never once challenged by the host during his lengthy monologues. It’s kind of like ‘separate but equal’. Ironic, considering the eugenic subject matter.

This is fairness in NPR’s world. Over a minute of closing thoughts in a pro-abortion tirade is equivalent to severely edited 15 seconds of provable prolife remarks. Schumacher-Matos claims those 15 seconds were my central argument, although I hadn’t spoken of the “financial gain” aspect of abortion anywhere else in the interview.

In NPR’s world, it’s a personal and irrelevant attack to address a nonprofit officer’s $183K salary for 5 hours a week of work, filed and signed with his signature. But a minute-long baseless rant about prolifers virtually aborting children after they’re born, ignoring every social need, isn’t personal (or fundamentally dishonest) at all.

The ombudsman didn’t even address the selective censoring of two words, “Title” and “X” (ten) that I had spoken. They removed those two words (and most of the subsequent Title X discussion) because it doesn’t fit a liberal narrative to have someone regarded as ‘conservative’ acknowledge and promote the existence of over 1700 Title-X funded clinics. My point, also cut out, was that “Planned Parenthood is not the savior of the community.”

Only in NPR’s inverted reality can a not-so-independent Ombudsman defend liberal bias with more liberal bias. We invite them to provide all the clarity possible: post the unedited audio and let the public decide.

This isn’t the first time NPR has censored The Radiance Foundation. During our first TooManyAborted.comcampaign, I was interviewed for over 30 minutes, offline, by NPR about our “Endangered Species” billboard campaign—one that I created and continue to direct. Imagine my surprise when the nearly 4 minute radio broadcast report by NPR’s Morning Edition never mentioned me, The Radiance Foundation, our adoption theme behind the campaign or even the website prominently featured on the billboard, TooManyAborted.com. Granted, they did post an image of the billboard in their online print edition, crediting it to TheRadianceFoundation.org per my requestafter the story had aired. Typical of NPR’s approach to “fairness” they included one prolife activist’s perspective versus three pro-abortion activists’ views.

This concern of censorship goes beyond that of the prolife movement. This is not about me, but about how the facts are so easily discarded by a public broadcasting network. NPR’s treatment of this issue applies to any social issue, obscuring the truth, to the detriment of those most in need of real solutions, for the elevation of liberal ideology.

American taxpayers should demand their own hard-earned money isn’t turned against them in daily attacks by a publicly funded news source with little regard for the truth.



To: sinclap who wrote (166476)3/31/2014 11:02:01 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224728
 
NPR LIES AGAIN ABOUT ZIMMERMAN

Earlier this week, NPR lied to its listeners, telling them that "[George] Zimmerman pursued Martin after police, responding to Zimmerman's 911 call, told him not to." Today, it repeated the lie at the top of its hourly news broadcast.The lie is especially ironic, given that special prosecutor Angela Corey announced yesterday that she is charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder--not first-degree murder, which would require the kind of pursuit or premeditation that NPR's distortion implies.

In a segment that followed on Morning Edition, NPR presented the Martin case in the light most unfavorable to the defendant, stating simply that Zimmerman had seen Martin, called police, pursued him and shot him, leaving out the apparent fight that led Zimmerman to claim he acted in self-defense.

While avoiding the inflammatory and unfounded charge that Zimmerman shot Martin because of racist motives, NPR is strongly suggesting to its listeners that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime other than the one for which he is now being charged and prosecuted.



To: sinclap who wrote (166476)3/31/2014 11:03:43 AM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224728
 
need more NPR lies ? I've got plenty, I should say they have got plenty.

NPR nation propaganda radio and you fell for it lololol you don't have to be stupid to be a liberal but boy does it help



To: sinclap who wrote (166476)4/5/2014 12:16:58 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224728
 
Trey Gowdy: The idea that Congress is underpaid is laughable 8 scoop