Jun 7, 2010

BP oil gusher being felt in Michigan


People in the Gulf Coast are experiencing the legacy of the having two oilmen in the White House the last eight years as the massive BP oil gusher off the coast of Louisiana approaches the beaches in the area as people make decisions on where they plan to spend their summer vacations.

BP gave Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida money to help pay for clean up and off set the negative effects of the Gulf oil spill., and Mississippi is using $4 million of its money on TV commercials to attracts tourists to their beaches.

Michigan would be a great place for those tourists to come and visit and spend their money. Tourism in Michigan has been a bright spot in the current recovering economy. In fact, last September the Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association released a survey of its members showing 72.9 percent had seen an increase in out-of-state visitors coming to their facilities over the summer compared to the summer of 2008.

Those award-winning Pure Michigan ads featuring Tim Allen and Jeff Daniels would be money well spent right now. There is just one problem with that scenario; Senate Republicans voted to end that successful ad campaign. The governor proposed funding the ads with a $2.50 tax on rental cars near airports, a tax paid mostly by out-of-state travelers. But Senate Republicans refused to take up House Bill 5017.

The good news is that a similar oil spill it will never happen in Michigan, but the debate over drilling in the Great Lakes may have an effect in the race for Michigan Attorney General.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer is calling out Republican AG candidate Bill Schuette on his flip-flop on oil drilling in the Great Lakes.
Apparently, Schuette was in favor of it before he was against it.

“Not only did Bill Schuette sponsor and vote for legislation that allowed oil drilling, but then he says he flip-flopped on the issue for political gain,” Brewer said. “The voters in Michigan deserve better. Voters can’t trust a candidate who flip-flops on oil drilling.”

As a State Senator, Schuette sponsored Senate Bill 214 on Feb. 14, 2001 that would allow slant oil drilling under the Great Lakes. However, he voted for House Bill 5081 almost a year later on Feb. 13 that would ban slant oil drilling. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 28-5 and the House by a vote of 98-8. It became law in April of that year after then Gov. John Engler declined to sign it or veto it.

“We need an attorney general who will work to solve problems on behalf of Michigan residents, not work for special interests like Big Oil,” Brewer said. “Bill Schuette has been a politician for 25 years in both Lansing and Washington and his record speaks for itself – he supported oil drilling in the Great Lakes.”

51 comments:

Grung_e_Gene said...

And here progressives thought the tarred legacy of the Torturer and his His Apprentice couldn't get any worse!

And yet Dick and W and their Regime of Evil are still visiting Death and DEstruction upon the American People.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Oh and BP has a history of polluting Lake Michigan as well. The BP Whiting Indiana blatantly violated EPA regulations from 2003-2007 processing 95 tons of Benzene during those years, 16 times the upper EPA Limit.

And in 2007 BP pressured State Government of Indiana to poison people by continuing to dump Mercury directly into Lake Michigan.

Communications guru said...

Thanks for the info. I also like your blog.

jrfoleyjr said...

EEEEEEeeeeeeeeek..... Bush did it...Bush did it... Bush did it...

Not Anonymous said...

I wondered where you've been. It's been 51 days. It sure took you long enough to blame Bush for the oil leak.

It took 8 days for anyone from the administration to get down there, and it took 12 days for Obama to get down there. Obama has still not been to Nashville, which had only the worst flooding in 500 years. That damn Bush. How dare he cause the flooding in Nashville. You'd think Bush would have better things to do than to be partying with Paul McCartney...oh wait, that was Obama. Well, it's Bush's fault for not giving the award to McCartney thus preventing Obama from being in the gulf because he had to clean up Bush's mess.

You socialist liberal Democrats are so predictable. I just can't figure out why it took you 51 days to blame Bush.

Communications guru said...

No one said shrub did it, but it’s clear what happens when you strip away regulations and give corporations a free hand. So, is that all you got? Nothing about what is written? You can’t dispute the facts? I guess we can expect the false personal smears very soon.

Communications guru said...

Like I said to your buddy/alter ego, no one said shrub did it, but it’s clear what happens when you strip away regulations and give corporations a free hand. I just wonder whose fault it is? Just think if they would have had the proper safety equipment or even a plan if a leak occurred. But I’ll tell you what I’ll do, anonymous, I’ll delete the reference to the two oilmen in the White House if you will actually address the issues in the post.

Despite your attempt to make this into Obama’s Katrina, the fact remains the Administration is doing everything it can, and it was there on day 1.

Obama has not been to Nashville? Are there people stranded on roofs? Are people dying? You are really stretching, anonymous. The President yawns and you find something to criticize him for. So if Obama was in the Gulf 24/7, what would that accomplish, anonymous? Is he supposed to swim down and plug the leak? You really do think he’s the Messiah.

You fascist Republicans are so predictable. You got it half right, there are liberal Democrats in this country, but there are no socialist Democrats in the country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point. If you want to see socialist check out Sen. Bernie Sanders, and he is a stand up guy.

Not Anonymous said...

I don't care if you delete the reference or not. You've already said it, you own it, regardless of how ridiculous your comments are.

I've never said this is Obama's Katrina, and you're wrong. He's said he's been on it since day one, so you do have the talking points down, but even socialist Democrats are complaining about the way he's handled/not handled the situation.

So we need people stranded on the roof to get Obama to care what happens to a major American city. Ok. Glad to know the perameters we're working with. Thank you. It's good to know that bodies, cars, houses and warehouses floating through the towns are not enough to warrant this preidents attention.

I never expected Obama to be in the gulf 24/7. In fact, his presence there really only interferes because of all of the security necessary for him.

We don't know yet what caused the leak in the gulf. We don't know if it was human error on the part of the workers on the site at the time of the explosion. We don't know if maybe someone lit a cigarette in the wrong spot at the wrong time. We don't know if the equipment was faulty or the design was faulty or the the maintenance not kept up.

We don't know if it was sabotage, terrorism, or incompetence. Or maybe it was just a combination of some or all things.

You're very quick to pass judgement on regulations or the lack thereof from the past. Yet what we do know is that permits were issued with some regulations waived. Not only in the past, but also in the recent present. We know that MMS was spending time looking at porn rather than doing their job. We know that some from the government weer literally sleeping with the company. We know that BP was scheduled to get a safety award from this administration the day following the explosion.

You're rushing to a judgement on things that have not been proven yet. The only thing Obama has done is to stand up and say that BP will be held accountable. That BP will pay for this mess. Salazar has said they will hold their boot to the neck of BP if they aren't doing the job. Napalotano has blamed BP.

Everyone is quick to blame with no facts.

Obama has not been on the job since day one. That's a talking point that has made the rounds through the news media and through Obama and his minions as well.

What we do know is that Bobby Jindahl sent a memo requesting permits to build sand islands to protect the coast. It took twelve days for the administration to come back and say he could have half as many as he asked for. But by then, the oil was washing up in the marshes and estuaries. Even James Carville complained on national television that they needed the administration to do something, anything to help. "People are dying down here!!!"

I'll wait for the facts to come out before assigning blame for the incident itself. But I blame Obama for the lack of work done on protecting the shoreline. That's solely in his hands. He should have assigned someone to it and told them, "do what needs to be done".

The American people can be forgiving of a mistake made, they are not forgiving of a guy sitting there diddling himself while five gulf coast states are staring at the gulf wondering if that water is looking a little darker.

The day before Obama went down the second time, there were no boats. No skimmers. No nothing on the gulf. Reported by James Carville and Mary Matalin. They were out there and complained that they had seen NOBODY.

Not Anonymous said...

It took two days for Bush to get to the gulf. He did a flyover the day after the hurricane but was down there on the ground two days later.

He declared an emergency three days before the hurricane hit. He was on the phone begging the governor (Blanco) to get people out of New Orleans. Nagin couldn't be found. Later it was discovered he'd been relocating his family to Dallas.

The Tuesday after the hurricane, Bush met with Blanco and made an offer to for Federal assistance, which was not permitted until asked for by the State. She took 24 hours to "consider the offer".

Obama's Katrina? They aren't my words. But I'll bet that everyone will be wishing this was just Obama's Katrina.

Get facts before you start the blame game. But then, Obama has another problem. Today is election day and he's about to lose another race he was backing. Blanche Lincoln, the one that Obama has been backing is about to go down in defeat. Va., NJ, MA, Pa and now AR. Please send Obama to Michigan. We have many socialist Democrats that could use his help in getting booted out of office.

Communications guru said...

There you go again. Can you ever stay on topic? fine, this is the legacy of two oilmen in the White House, as well having oil companies set the national energy policy for the country.

The President has been on the oil disaster from day 1. Once again, anonymous, there is no
such thing as a “socialist Democrat” in this country, and that is just a false fascist,
Republican talking point, as you know. I’m sure there are Democrats complaining about how he handled it. Unlike Republicans, we don’t march in lockstep. The guy in charge will always hear some complaints.

The only person complaining about the floods in Nashville is you. No is dying because of the lack of response, let alone some 1,500 people. We don’t know what caused the disaster in the Gulf, but we know if they had the proper equipment or even a plan to address such a disaster it would not be as bad.

Again President Obama has been on the job since day one. “People are dying?” Who? Other than the 11 killed in the initial explosion, I know of no one who has been killed
because of the oil spill.

As for your claim about Jindal, according to the AP on June 2, “Gov. Bobby Jindal said
the White House has approved plans to build five sand berms to protect the Louisiana coast from oil encroaching from the Gulf oil spill.” Considering how slowly the wheels of government move and the permits required from the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Coast Guard, the Administration has moved quickly, especially something as complex as
this plan.
http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/Jindal-Sand-barrier-plan-approved/R8h_MJEaL kWBlt0XuucdFA.cspx

As for your claim that there were “No skimmers. No nothing on the gulf” what do you consider the U.S. Coast Guard? No one is better equipped to clean up oil spills that the Coast Guard.

Not Anonymous said...

Obuttheads 2% solution. Which is about the amount of attention he's paid to the Gulf, but 200% more attention than he paid to Nashville.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama_s-2-percent-solution-for-the-Louisiana-oil-spill-crisis-95266834.html

Johnny C said...

It seems what Not Anonymous and his sidekick Jr are not getting is that if you allow corporations to do whatever they want(deregulation or self regulation). You cannot be surprised to see what you get i.e the gulf oil spill.

Jr who continues the hypocritical right wing whine of "still blaming Bush" let me remind them, it's the cons that still try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11.

And on top of that it was Bush and his allies in the GOP controlled house and senate that got the ball rolling by deregulating industries that cause both the housing and economic collapse, allowing corporation to ship jobs overseas for cheap labor and now the oil spill.

And only God knows what Dick Cheney and the oil companies talked about in those meetings.

Again the Michigan Republicans have shown anything good for Michigan is bad for them politically.. Much like their national counterparts they rather to see the country fail so they can succeed.

Not Anonymous the Washington Examiner is a right wing rag.

Not Anonymous said...

Little Johnny your tired old rants about this rag or that rag are boring. Your 'socialist Democrats are good, Republicans are bad' is boring.

If you can prove the examiner wrong, do it. Otherwise, you're just whining with nothing to refute other than your poor grasp of reality....not to mention the English language.

Johnny C said...

Not Anonymous again with that lame ass attack you do realize you belong to a movement that has trouble spelling? But then again being a hypocrite is your thing.

Again since we're giving out advice here how about I help with this one.. Opinions are not facts but than again in that mind of yours Not conservative opinions are facts and things that challenge your way of thinking is liberal propaganda that can't be trusted.

As for the Republicans bad thing, again you had Jim DeMint saying they wanted to make health care an issue to break the president. And what's the point killing an popular ad campaign to bring people to Michigan? And if the Republicans think the stimulus sucks so bad why are they admitting to their local media that it is working while passing out big prize checks out in their districts of instead giving President Obama credit?

And if the Washington Examiner is such a down the middle paper explain this

Wash. Examiner's ridiculous headline: "Obama disses white guys"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004270040

The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Examiner

Communications guru said...

It took Bush four days to arrive in the area. Not only that, hurricanes take a long time to make landfall, and that gave FEMA lots of time to plan. There was no warning with the oil explosion; at least any that reached beyond the doomed oil rig. Bush was only flying from the Texas White House in Crawford for a vacation in Washington on the second day. But it doesn’t matter how soon he was there, he didn’t bring any help to the people stranded and dying.

Wrong, the emergency was requested by Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. I’m not buying “Bush was on the phone begging the governor (Blanco) to get people out of New Orleans. Nagin couldn't be found. Later it was discovered he'd been relocating his family to Dallas.” You must have gotten that from the Washington Times.

The fact is New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered “a mandatory evacuation of the city” a day prior to the hurricane hitting. The only thing he can be faulted for is not doing it sooner.
http://www.factcheck.org/article348.html

Bush hardly even addressed Katrina on Tuesday after the hurricane, let alone “made an offer to for Federal assistance, which was not permitted until asked for by the State. She took 24 hours to "consider the offer". “

As for the election, it showed people want real Democrats, like Admiral Joe Sestak. I have no problem seeing Blanche Lincoln lose. Like I have said many, many times before, the party in the White House always loses seats in the mid-term, but the people will keep control of the House and the Senate. I just hope more extremists like Rand Paul win in the GOP primaries.

Once again, anonymous, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, let alone in Michigan.

Communications guru said...

The Washington Times? The Washington Times? Give me a break anonymous, and give me a real source.

Not Anonymous said...

Little Johnny,

Congratulations. You proved that the Washington Examiner has conservative reporters and columnists. I'm not sure why you tried to prove that. I only gave you the link to the report. I didn't say it was middle of the road nor right nor left. I gave it as reference. You still have not proven the facts wrong.


Saying it's conservative isn't proof that it's wrong. Saying it's a socialist Democrat wing doesn't make it right. You didn't refute any of the facts.

It's interesting that you use media matters to quote the Washington Examiner. I wonder why you didn't use the Washington Examiner for the source. Oops. You can't. That would discredit your denial of the Washington Examiner as a source. Must be tough for you to live inside a spinning washing machine.

Not Anonymous said...

Oh good. Another that can't refute the facts of the source. Just attack the source but give no facts to refute it. You guys are one and the same.

Maybe I should just call you two Cybil. Or Cybil and Little Cybil.

Communications guru said...

Again, show me some facts, and I’ll refute them, anonymous. I made a mistake, it’s not the Washington Times, it’s the Washington Examiner, who ever that is. But Johnny did a good job of nailing them. But, It’s on the editorial page for a reason.

By the way, anonymous, I already refuted it, and you ignored it. Bobby Jindal got his berms. By the way anonymous, is this the same teabaggers Bobby Jindal and David “Hooker” Vitter who want less government now wanting more government? Gee, a Republicans criticizing Obama. Stop the presses, that’s news.

By the way, Hugh Hewitt is a rightwing radio host.

Not Anonymous said...

Gee, Hugh Hewitt is a right wing radio host. Oh my. Refute the 2% figure.

Bobby Jindal (sic) did not get his berms. Again, 2%.

Again, you were shown the facts. 2%. You have not refuted them. Keep trying. Maybe if you tell me Rush Limbaugh is a right wing radio host that will convince me you've refuted the 2% figure.

Oh hey, if that doesn't work, maybe you can tell me that Laura Ingraham is a conservative. That might do it. But then, alas, that doesn't refute the 2% figure.

Johnny C said...

Again Not Anonymous opinions are not facts and linking an opinion piece(oped) by right wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt further erodes your link creditability.

As for media matters, media matters does what conservatives types site don't they fully and accurately provide the full context of the story they're debunking..And it highlights the slanted reporting that goes on over at the Washington Examiner.

As for the other link again I just highlighted who are the people over at the Washington Examiner and it's a whose who list of right wing media types.

To Guru: When Not used the Washington Examiner as a source I knew I heard about that "news" source from somewhere and when I look it up that's what the source site gave me. But the Wikipedia page for The Washington Examiner says this:

Political views

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico.com, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner added more conservative writers and columnists, including Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News) David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).[9]

The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 Presidential election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Johnny C said...

Opinions and citing Republican officials are not facts.. Not

Johnny C said...

Examiner columnist tries to refute fact with opinion polls

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005030042

Byron York forwards GOP's "politically motivated," "highly speculative" decade-old smear against Kagan

http://mediamatters.org/research/201005130040

No, the Kagan and McDonnell theses are not comparable


Washington Examiner's Charlie Spierling today takes issue with our statements that Elena Kagan "is not and was not a radical or socialist; her thesis explored historical questions about socialism." He does so by cherry-picking two paragraphs from the thesis that do not indicate she was a socialist or radical. In one, she writes that her brother's "involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas"; in the other she discusses how sectionalist has often led to the failure of American radicalism.

That's only a taste of the dishonesty that goes on over at the Washington Examiner.

Not Anonymous said...

Same old same old. Your argument against the facts presented is that they came from conservatives. Yet you can't and haven't proven the facts wrong. I get it that you guys don't like conservatives. I guess if I was wrong all of the time I wouldn't like them either. But the facts are the facts regardless of who puts them out and both Little Cybil and Cybil can't refute the facts. You can only talk about the information having come from conservatives.

Nice to know that even you agree with the Conservatives facts.

I'm off to bed. You can try to figure out how to gather more information about conservatives and dance around the facts all night if you like.

It must be tough to be you... under any name you choose to use.

Johnny C said...

Again Not Anonymous Hugh Hewitt opinions are not facts, and citing a Republican senator isn't exactly objective source either. You can whine all you want the fact remains your source is garbage.

Again here you go: Fox's attack on Obama's oil spill response rests on falsehoods
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005280029

Earth to Fox: Obama visited the Gulf on May 2
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005280006
One more example of how the Washington Examiner makes stuff up

Washington Examiner falsely claims Obama health care bill "includes a sweetheart deal to protect unions' expensive health care plans from taxation"
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002230011

While it doesn't go after the lie Hugh Hewitt told it does go after the general talking point he uses..Hopefully while you sleep the truth fairy comes along and tells there's a huge difference between a OPINION and a FACT.

Johnny C said...

Now not because you have multiple screen names doesn't mean everyone else has..

Communications guru said...

I already refuted Republican Senator David “Hooker” Vitter’s “2% figure.” Better yet, make Hooker Vitter prove it. That opinion piece by a rightwing radio host – and we know how much they lie – contains very few facts and lots and lots of opinion based on his bias. But here is one fact: Bobby Jindal got his berms, as I said before and provided a link to a reliable news source.

What’s wrong with the spelling of Jindal, anonymous?

Not Anonymous said...

Media matters? Are you kidding me? Media matters? Give me a break. That's a socialist Democrat unit. Begun by Hillary the Enabler Clinton and friends. Yep. You guys really know how to point out bias.

On May 11, 2010 Governor Jindahl sent in permits to build over 30 berms. On June 3, 2010 (23 days later) the Socialist Democrat Obutthead administration finally decided they could have SIX.

This administration waits until AFTER the oil reaches the shore and then says "go ahead with six of the berms you're requesting."

The Governor of Louisiana should give three words to this useless Socialist Democrat Administration. A giant "Kiss my ass" would be appropriate.

These fake emotions that the Socialist Democrat President is putting out don't get the job done.

The most significant this incompetent Socialist Democrat President has done is send lawyers down to the gulf to threaten lawsuits and then after he "Lawyers up" he has the audacity to accuse BP of lawyering up in response.

Congratulations you airheads that voted this incompetent, inexperienced moron to run this country. You actually found someone othat can make Jimmy Carter look like a genius.

Not Anonymous said...

Here's a good source for you to use. The pride and joy of the Socialist Democrat left.

Helen Thomas!!

Communications guru said...

Yes. Media Matters. See, here’s what Media Matters does and why Bill O’reily and other right-wingers hate them so much: they provide actual video of the lies they spread. Media Matters was not “begun by Hillary the Enabler Clinton and friends” it was founded by once rightwing hit writer David Brock, whose guilt overcame the big money he was paid from the likes of people like Richard Mellon Scaife. Besides, I never used MM as a source, I used the AP.

By the way, anonymous, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is just a false, Fascist Republican talking point.

You never answered my question, is this the same Bobby Jindahl (sic) who hates government and government spending and is now screaming for government spending? I’m going to trust the U.S. Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers over bobby anytime. Like I said before, considering how slowly the wheels of government move and the permits required from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, the Administration has moved quickly, especially something as complex as this plan.

What the hell is “Obutthead,” anonymous?

The Administration has been out there since day one, and there are quite a few ships under Coast Guard command setting controlled fires to burn off the oil and miles of oil booms.

Good, I hope Bobby tells the Administration to kiss his ass, like he has in the past. Like I said, this is the legacy of having two oilmen in the White House the last eight years.

Communications guru said...

Again, anonymous, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is just a false, Fascist Republican talking point.

Helen Thomas is a great reporter. She asks the tough questions of Presidents, no matter what party they belong to. Right-wingers like you hate her because she questioned the useless Iraq invasion. You hate her even more because she was right in 2003.

She made a mistake and apologized. Here is a very good read on Thomas and her brilliant career.

http://jackshow.blogs.com/jack/2010/06/essay-helen-thomass-gaffe-6710.html

Not Anonymous said...

Media matters was used by your alter ego, Little Cybil. So apparently, I wasn't talking to you as Cybil.

As for Helen Thomas, she hasn't been a reporter in years. She was a columnist until a few days ago.

I have no interest in reading about an Anti-Semite's career and I certainly have no interest in reading it from a blogger.


Interesting that they call it a gaffe in the URL.

Her apology means nothing. When Trent Lott's apology means nothing, an anti-semite like Helen Thomas isn't getting any credit for apologizing.

It's nice of you to show your double standard when it comes to socialist Democrats apologizing for their "gaffes" but not for Republicans. Double standard, hypocritical. Yep. Those terms fit you.

Communications guru said...

Since I don’t know who the hell “Little Cybil” or “Cybil” is I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, anonymous. I use my real name on this blog because I’m not afraid to take ownership of what I write instead of hiding like you, anonymous.

Helen Thomas has been an excellent reporter for many years, and she is somebody journalists can look up to.

I know you hate her for calling out Shrub for his senseless invasion of Iraq invasion based on trumped up charges, but she is not anti-Semitic. I guess you only want to read propaganda from rightwing sites like Drudge. Jack Lessenberry is not just a blogger, he’s a journalist and a professor.

That is correct, a gaffe. Of course her apology means nothing to a closes mind like yours. There is a huge difference between Trent Lott’s wishing a segregationist was President and Helen Thomas commenting on the situation in Gaza. There are many people who think what the Israelis are doing in Gaza is wrong. Disagreeing with the Israelis on an issue does not make you anti-Semitic.

There is no double standard, anonymous, because Helen Thomas is not a Democrat.

I’m really not sure how we got on Helen Thomas, other than when you lose on the facts you either change the subject or stoop to the false, personal smears. That must be next.

Johnny C said...

Part 1 of 2.

I do enjoy breaking right wingers to the point they start changing the subject and accusing people of things they're doing.

You proved my point on so many levels not Anony. one you proved my point regarding debate right wingers with links they disregard the liberals' links but damn it to hell I better accept your links or I hate the truth. And two you're accusing me and Guru of being the same person.

Here's the difference our links say what you will about media matters not one right wing has been able to refute one thing on that site and if they make a mistake they're back to correct it.

Here's the problem with your link
1. It's a opinion piece.

2.It's a opinion piece written by a right wing talk show host.

3.It's a opinion piece written by a right wing talk show host in a right wing newspaper.

4.Really the author cited David Vitter and Bobby Jindal?

David Vitter has no credibility and Bobby Jindal if he can score cheap political points with the base, he's going to score them. And he's the same guy who bashed the stimulus in front of the national media but locally he's handing out big stimulus checks to the various communities in Louisiana.

As for media matters from the source I look up on Media Matters I'm in elite company who use media matters as a source Paul Krugman and the late great Molly Ivins.

Another point to prove you have no credibility what so ever not anonymous

you said " Media matters? Are you kidding me? Media matters? Give me a break. That's a socialist Democrat unit. Begun by Hillary the Enabler Clinton and friends. Yep. You guys really know how to point out bias."

But here's the truth

Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."[1] Eric Burns is the president of the organization.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

And yes well to do Liberals and Democratic groups help with funding just like the well to do right wingers and Republican groups funding the various right wing media outlets. And Media Matters admit what it is unlike your right wing media.
end of part 1

Johnny C said...

Part 2 of 2
Now to accusing people of doing things you're currently doing..

I find it funny you're trying to accuse guru and me being the same person. All you had to do is click on my name and it will lead you to my blog "Motor City Liberal"(plug) and on my blog there's a Facebook badge with my name and email address.

And if you go to Facebook.com and type my name you see there I am, birth date, my marital status and friends you see guru there listed.

And since we're throwing around Helen Thomas Not Anonymous will you demand for Pat Buchanan to be let go?

http://motorcityliberal.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-helen-thomas-then-why-not-pat.html


To wrap things up thanks for proving you're a hypocrite (once again) a liar and all round nasty human being. Instead of not anonymous you call yourself no credibility.

Not Anonymous said...

The 7th post down, while you were writing as Guru " Like I said to your buddy/alter ego, no one said shrub did it..."

So, if you really want to get into this petty bullshit, it was the one using the name Guru that started the two identity claim.

In the 12th post, you said while posting as Little Johnny "Not Anonymous the Washington Examiner is a right wing rag."

So you start off the crap that this source or that source is not acceptable to you.

15th post this time by the name of Guru "The Washington Times? The Washington Times? Give me a break anonymous, and give me a real source."

27th post, by me. "Media matters? Are you kidding me? Media matters? Give me a break."

Gee, I wonder where I got that line from. It's funny that it bugs you that I'd say "give me a break" to your sources, which is the same thing you said to the source I provided.

Regarding Hillary being one of the ones that started media matters, here are two sources for you. Notice, one is audio. Now, if you want to claim it's not true, that's fine by me because we know the penchant that socialist Democrats have for embellishing the truth, like the Attorney General of Connecticut.

Here's the two sources.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299056,00.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/02/audio-hillary-clinton-brags-about-starting-media-matters/

Regarding Little Johnny's (Little Cybil)blog, you have to be nuts. You really think that I'm going to go and read the same BS that you spew here? Half of it is not understandable. You can't or won't speak English. I have no idea if it's Ebonics or a completely other language, but it's nothing that I'm familar with.

So let's review. I didn't accuse you of being both Guru and Little Johnny until after one or both of you accused Jr and I of being one and the same.

Second, I didn't refuse to accept your sources (some of which you use yourself (yourselves) until after you'd refused to accept mine as biased.

Third, you now have Hillary in her own words saying she started Media Matters along with David Brock and they used George Soros money (I thought you guys hated rich people).

And fourth and finally, I don't give a rats tiny ass who either of you are. I don't care if you're the same person, different people, siamese twins, gay lovers and I certainly have no interest in seeing any information about the woman or women that would choose to co-habitate with you the two of you.

It is not me that is interested in knowing everyone's true identity. My name bugs Guru completely. You can look back at months and months of his posts and it drives him nuts that he doesn't know my name, address, phone number, kids names, wife's name or the name of my pets.

I'd say that it could drive him crazy if he likes, but I think Guru/Little Johnny or Cybil/Little Cybil has long since past crazy and joined the short bus brigade.

Communications guru said...

“While you were writing as Guru?” What the hell are you talking about, anonymous? I am posting as me and me alone, and I am so willing to take ownership of what I write, that I attached my real name and photo to it. I’m not hiding behind an anonymous screen name like you. If you think I’m posting as someone else, you really have gone off the deep end. I want people to know my name.

Again, anonymous, David Brock started Media Matters, and Secretary Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with it.

Who is “Little Johnny” and “Little Cybil? “

Here’s the big, big difference between me and Johnny and you; when you click on our profile that’s what you get. When I click on yours I get nothing.

Your name doesn’t bug me. First, you don’t have one, and second you have proven time after time you are just an anonymous coward who stoops to personal smears when you get your sorry ass kicked in debate. See, I will not write something I would not say to someone’s face, You are just a cowardly pussy. I don’t give a dam who you are, and you can go away for all I care. You do not bring anything to the debate but false, cowardly smears.

I don’t give a dam what your name is or anything else about you, anonymous coward. I challenge you to “look back at months and months of his posts” and show one where it supposedly drives me crazy. But I guess that’s what you get with the internet, cowardly pussies like you who can say anything knowing they will never have to take ownership of it. You’re probably some little guy who got picked on as a kid and adult and you can act brave on the internet and throws anonymous personal attacks around.

If just one time you actually offend some real facts and sane debate I would fall over. Crawl back under your rock.

Not Anonymous said...

You get proven wrong with my timeline and you start spouting off like some little brat having a temper tantrum.

You get proven wrong by the audio of Hillary and can't even face the facts, yet you claim you kicked someone's ass. You really think you're that self important?

Perhaps you should take an anger management class or two.

It is nice that you realize that Hillary is a liar, or that you realize you've been lying. One of you is. Wonder if you'll dive under the bus or throw Hillary under the bus. Tough choice....for you.

Don't you just hate it when you're caught in a lie and it bites you in the ass?

Johnny C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Johnny C said...

Part 1 of 2

LOL,
You're starting to lose it Not creditable, I'm guessing your son is bringing home one too many "Big Macs" that passed their expiration date for you to munch on while you surf the right wing blog sphere.

If you feel that accusing me of things you're currently doing is your best way to avoid the fact that you belong to a extremely racist group that have trouble spelling. On top of being linked to a group of racist ass hats that can't spell you depend on slanted, bull shit information and you get easily pissed when people discount it for the shit that it is.

As for Media Matters/Hillary Clinton stroy from the links you provided one is a opinion piece from FoxNews.com and the other is from Michelle Malkin, who has a wee nasty habit of taking things out of context just to fit her political views.

But I decided to look around the internet to see who else was reporting on this story and guess what I found Not creditable? When I Google Hillary Clinton/Media Matters the only places that were saying Hillary Clinton help started Media Matters were all right wing conservative websites or blogs.

I was like how can this be after all I'm sure that not Creditable couldn't be wrong? So I look up Hillary Clinton's Bio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

http://www.biography.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-9251306?part=1

And guess what there's nothing about Media Matters.. Even on the media matters source page it doesn't mention Hillary Clinton on either the founding part nor the funding sources.

Again

Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."[1] Eric Burns is the president of the organization.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

end of part 1

Johnny C said...

Part 2 of 2

Furthermore on the Hillary Clinton audio, I wonder is it the whole thing or did right wingers pick the parts that fit their argument? Again right wingers still aren't able to refute anything on that site.

Again Not you guys shouldn't be talking who runs what, because former Richard Nixon flunkie and GOP hitman Roger Ailes runs Fox News, Richard Mellon Scaife is the sugar daddy to most right wing pundits, the Koch brothers is also a high roller to various right wing groups.

Another thing which is funny you actually think me or guru take you seriously.. If you get off with that one attack you got about me being guru or the other way around go for it cupcake..

Fact remains is that you're a sad, racist, going bald, fat right wing guy who needs people to tell him what to think while eating stale hamburgers your son brings back after a night of cleaning out deep fryers.

You lie so much Not you don't know what reality is.

Communications guru said...

Unbelievable. How can I be “proven wrong with my timeline” when your basic premise that I’m posting as two different people is completely wrong?

Seriously, an opinion piece from Faux “news” by John Gibson is your proof? Gibson was even too rightwing for Faux; that’s really out there. She said “like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…” not I started Media Matters and the Center for American Progress. I would sure like to see the full quote that they took out of context. When you see the three dots, that means something is missing.

I would hate it if got caught in a lie, but that’s never going to happen. I’m still waiting for you to prove I have lied, and I stand by my previous assessment of you.

Not Anonymous said...

Gee, never thought I'd say this, but Little Johnny may have gotten something right. I have added 10 pounds on since last fall and it's not coming off as easy as it has in the past. So the "fat" part could actually be considered correct.

As for the rest. All I can do is laugh at what I understand of what you say and scratch my head full of hair at what some of the rest even says. What is "stroy"? By the way, you might want to learn when to use "a" and when to use "an". A mistake is forgiveable, but when it's always wrong it shows ignorance. Let me guess, you were edukated in publick skools.

As for my son. He's a teenager, working his way through college. He's paying a car payment, insurance and health insurance and still manages to keep a little money to date his girlfriend working at McDonalds. You might want to remember that the next time you pull into McDonalds and order Extra Mayo on your Big Mac. Is it really Mayo or is it a teenager leaving a deposit on your bun? After all, you know kids these days.

I'm very proud of my son. He's working and taking care of his responsibilities. He's doing it at one job that he works at 40 hours a week. McDonald's is not a career. But then he's just 19 years old and studying to get that career.

Then we have Guru (or you?) who claims to work three jobs, but seems to always be playing on the computer and not working, and can't provide health care for his wife. He admitted it in a previous thing he wrote. It's not me saying it. He said it. He wore his lack of coverage on his wife as a badge of honor. He says he's taken care of through the VA, but his wife is left hanging out there with no health care.

So let's prioritize for a second. Assume he has no children at home. His responsibilities are food, shelter, utilities and care for his wife.

Food, shelter and utilities are probably well taken care of by his mom upstairs. So he only need to make enough money to pay for his wife's health care. He can't do that with three jobs? There are 168 hours in a seven day week. If he was to sleep 8 hours a night, that would leave him 112 hours he could be working.

Minimum wage is what? $7.50? That would be $840 per week. That would be $43,680 per year. That would put him into a 28% tax bracket, I believe. So he'd pay $12,230 in taxes, subtract off deductions for he and his wife and he'd pay about $8,000. That still leaves $35,680 per year. Health insurance would run approximately $500 per month. That's $6,000 per year making his income $29,680 per year after taxes and health insurance. Add a $1,000 house payment and he's still bringing home $17,680 per month. Add in utilities you deduct another $3,600 and he's down to $14,080. Add in food for two people, if they are really big eaters, it might take another $3,000, so now you're down to $11,080. Even if I'm off by $6,000 and you're only able to save $5,000 for the future, you're still saving more than 10% of your gross income after having paid for health care.

Not Anonymous said...

A 19 year old boy pays for school, car, insurance and health insurance working at McDonald's and a grown man with a wife works three jobs and can't insure just his wife? Sorry, the truth is there is no truth in his words. He's a liar that will say anything to fit the points he wants to make.

By the way, you said that I could look at your profiles and know anything I wanted about the two of you. You expect me to look at a profile created by you, about you, using words that you describe yourself with and you expect another to believe it? Not going to happen. Secondly, I don't care to know anything about you. If you're military or if you're a former cub scout. It doesn't matter to me because I'm not going to believe what you've written in a profile and I don't care what is or what isn't in your profile.

I come here to see how the idiots think and I'm never disappointed at how idiotic you socialist Democrats are. The only question I have is one that neither of you, if you're two people, can answer. The question is how can someone that claims to be in his 50's not be a grown up and learned by now that government is not going to take care of your every need and sustain itself. Most learn it in their 20's. But Socialist Democrats seem to never learn it and actually try to think up ways to involve themselves in other peoples lives and activities.

You may now continue with your constant barrage of personal attacks, but I thought you ought to be praised for catching that I did gain some weight over the winter that I haven't lost yet. When you get something right, even one thing, you should be rewarded. You'll have to work on the other things before you come close to getting them right.

Communications guru said...

First, anonymous coward, there is no one who posts here as “Little Johnny.”

As for your alleged tale about your son, the bottom line is you are an anonymous coward that can make up anything.

Again, anonymous coward, I use my real name, my photo, my email and my hometown on my profile and blog. I am who I say I am. Ah, the personal smears. You are again out of facts.

One fact I discovered, I’m not covered by the VA because I managed to stay healthy in my 20 year Navy career and do not have a service-connected injury or disability. I’m one of the more than 50 million working Americans with no coverage.

Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just another false, Fascist Republican talking point.

Will you ever have something to offer besides false, anonymous personal smears? I doubt it too.

Not Anonymous said...

There's no one here who posts as anonymous coward. Guess you've been caught in your own little childish word games.

I don't care if you use your real name, photo, E-mail or anything else. I don't believe you. I don't believe anything you say about yourself and I really don't care. You can be anyone or anything you want to be. I don't look. I don't read about you other than what you put in your stories that I can't avoid reading. YOu're just not important.

I read what you say and see your opinions and comment on them. You chose to make it personal way back when I first started commenting on here, so you've gotten what you've given.

I don't care about your health care, until you start collecting without having contributed. NOBODY owes you health care. Go out and earn it.

You're going to have to get your story straight on the number of uninsured. That number has bounced from numbers as high as 50 million and as low as 33 million and that's just from the socialist Democrats.

By the way, illegal aliens aren't counted as uninsured Americans because they aren't. They are criminals and they aren't United States citizens.

As long as you keep complaining about my characterization of liberals being socialist Democrats, you're of course welcome to keep using your line. After all, it's your blog. But you're not changing my mind, nor are you changing the facts.

When you take from one to give to another that hasn't earned it, you've got socialism. Yes, that was a very brief description, but that's the way it is. Democrats aren't just liberal any longer. There are no moderate Democrats. They are now all socialist Democrats. So you keep whining about how there's no such thing, but America knows different. We see them on the news every day. The good news is that there will be alot less socialist Democrats come November.

Say you don't lie all you like. I'm not responsible for a guy that can't face the truth. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about being a guy. So if you choose to keep lying and then lying to yourself when you've been caught and constantly denying it, you then have yet another reason why reading your profile or believing anything you say becomes a useless endeavor. So I don't waste my time looking at profiles that I don't give a rip about.

Communications guru said...

That’s you anonymous coward. You are the one hiding behind an anonymous name so you can throw around false smears. I have the courage to take ownership and responsibility of what I write, unlike you.

You’re wasting a lot of time and words on somebody who is not important. Granted, not a lot of effort and zero research because it’s all just false, personal attacks and an occasional rightwing talking point, but still a lot of words. Good, does that mean I won’t hear from you again?

Seriously, “I chose to make it personal?” That is one of the biggest lies you have ever told, anonymous coward. You made it personal with false, anonymous personal attacks.

Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is just a false, Fascist Republican talking point. The number was more than 50 million, but since health insurance reform, it’s begining to fall. Illegal aliens are not includes in that number.

There are plenty of moderate Democrats, as well as conservative Democrats. The racist teabaggers like you are ensuring there are no moderate Republicans.

I will keep complaining about your characterization of liberals being socialist Democrats, because its one more of your lies. I don’t lie, and you have never found one and never will, anonymous coward. I have made mistakes, and as soon as they were pointed out, they were corrected. As for my profile, I placed my job in jeopardy by using my real name, but I thought it was more important to take ownership and responsibility of what I write, unlike you. Maybe it was the way I was raised, but I can’t imagine the kind person who can say those kinds of things who do and then hide behind a false name. I was raised to believe if you can’t say it to their face, you shouldn’t say it.

Good bye, anonymous coward.

Johnny C said...

It seems I hit a nerve, your son is probably a lying sack of shit like his father. It seems you're fit the typical right wing profile can throw a lot of crap but once crap is thrown back at you, you get defensive.

Again if Hillary Clinton was part of Media Matters that story would be feature on more places other then right wing news sources. Another factor I discount your link from Hot Air is Michelle Malkin for the simple reason Michelle Malkin got the James O'Keefe virus of selective editing. I'm willingly to wager that when they play the entire speech you get the full context of what she said.

IF Hillary Clinton did had something to do with the start up of Media Matters, Conservatives are still unable to refute anything that goes on that site.

Now if you want to play who funds who game the list would read like an all star of right wing liars and their sugar daddies. But the question I would purpose to the right wingers say so what if Hillary Clinton or the Freddy Kruger of the right George Soros did fund groups like Media Matters?

I mean why is it ok only for right wing billionaire activists to have think tanks, media outlets, brought and paid for pundits and have two 20 something scumbag right wingers who make edited videos to get a group that help low income and minority people to sign up to vote in trouble?

But after reading your past post and realize you told another lie you claimed you don't read the right wing blogs or their "news" sites but the past couple of days you put up links from them.

Not Anonymous you have no creditability just go back surfing those right wing news sites while eating 3 day old Big Macs dear ole son brings home.

Not Anonymous said...

You think you hit a nerve? You two really have an overinflated opinion of yourselves.

Johnny C said...

You did spent two post ranting about Captain burger flip and the things the good Captain do.

Communications guru said...

I thought you were done with this blog, anonymous coward? I have never used the words, “hit a nerve” in this thread, anonymous coward.