"In the 1990s, as conservative talk radio spread across America, liberals felt victimized. But, in retrospect, the rise of talk radio, Fox News Channel and right-wing Web sites may have done greatest harm to conservatives themselves. The right-wing echo chamber breeds extremism, intimidates Republican moderates and misleads people into thinking that their worldview is broadly shared. That’s the information bubble that tugs the entire Republican Party to the right and that transforms people like Cruz into crusading Don Quixotes."
Fox News host ‘tired’ of atheists’ demands for freedom from religion: ‘They don’t have to live here’Fox News host Dana Perino this week suggested that atheists should leave the country instead of trying to maintain the separation of church and state.
In a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, atheist lawyer David Niose argued that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the state’s constitution.
“I’m tired of them,” Perino complained on Wedneday. “I remember working at the Justice Department years ago when I first started right after 9/11 and a lawsuit like this came through, and before the day had finished, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping ‘under God’ in the pledge.”
“If these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here,” she added.
“Yeah, that’s a good point,” co-host Bob Beckel agreed.
“If you don’t believe then why do you care?” Perino wondered. “It’s just like some guy’s name.”
The irony, of course, comes from the fact that those words were not even in the original pledge of allegiance so it is the atheists who are trying to stay true to founding principles, and the Christians who are trampling the constitution with this pious charade.
Then it gets extra silly when they say “it’s just like some guys name.” Oh yeah? Then why all the butthurt??
"Gallup has done a survey of how most Americans learn about what’s going on in the world around them. The results are profoundly depressing. Most of us get our news from television, and most of the people who get their news from television get it from Fox News."
Back in 2006 during the Bush administration, when the same type of surveillance was under the apparent cyclical scrutiny, Sean Hannity became the biggest supporter of the policy. In fact on his show he excoriated those who opposed it many times. The Mediamatters mash up below is a classic that shows the hypocrisy. While this may be funny to some and upsetting to others, the reason this type of hypocrisy must be explored is because of the corrosive effect it has on the body politic.
Pre-Obama:The intent here is not to solely point out the hypocrisy that is being engendered by this recycled debate. It is to show how the American people are being hoodwinked by the media. One can make an argument on either side of this debate that is both plausible and constitutional. This debate however must be intellectually honest. To date it has not been on either side.
We know that you are against the NSA data mining. We know that you are against the NSA surveillance program. So the question is, where does the Democratic Party, what will you do if you are elected to power to make our country safe from the war on terror. Specifically what would your party support.
You have Pat Leahy saying that he doesn’t want an NSA surveillance program. Nancy Polosi, the woman who’d love to be Speaker, she is against the NSA surveillance……
Is it right to say that issues regarding national security be it the NSA surveillance program, the data mining program, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay that Democrats are weak on issues involving national security.
Our techniques are working. We’ve got the NSA program here, we have the Patriot Act program here. In light of this how close this was,it’s staggering to me that we are even debating the use of these techniques in this country even at this time.
Big Brother is monitoring your every move whether it be online or on the telephone. Let’s talk about why this story, why is it important to you.
Number one, this is America and as law bided American citizens you have a right to privacy. Number two, these actions by the Obama administration are clear, very clear violations of the fourth amendment, which prohibits unlimited search and seizure. Number three, the Constitution, it is our rule of law. If we do not respect and honor the Constitution, then anarchy and tyranny will then follow.
The problem is the inconsistency of those engaged in the debate, the lack of pragmatic logic on some, and the complicity of the media in misleading Americans. It is true that Sean Hannity is nothing more than an ideologue with a dedicated following for which he is the puppeteer. It is also true that most Americans do not take him seriously.
The ‘respected’ media however is not very far behind Sean Hannity in either being manipulated by stories or being a party to the manipulation of stories. The NSA story has been out since 2006. The surprise and outrage being articulated by the mainstream media is at best fabricated for ratings.
Using and manipulating these stories have consequences. They take all the oxygen away from more important stories. Why is there no continuous story of a job recovery comprised mostly of substandard jobs? Why is there no continuous coverage of the real effects sequester is having on the poor and the middle class?
Allowing the same parties to take different sides of the same issue for political gain simply allow the metastasis of misinformation. Who can forget the media not stressing that the Healthcare Mandate was a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea that under Obama Republicans ran from. Who can forget that the carbon tax was a capitalist/Conservative/Republican approach, trading carbon, that Sarah Palin and others then labeled cap and tax.
(Raw Story) - Fox Business personalities had a collective freak out on Wednesday night after learning that mothers were now the primary source of income in 40 percent of U.S. households.
Fox Business host Lou Dobbs asserted women earning more than their husbands was an indication of the dissolution of American society. Fox News political analyst Juan Williams agreed, describing it as a sign of the disintegration of marriage that would have negative consequences for generations to come.
Fox News contributor Erick Erickson went one step further, saying nature itself commanded that women be subservient to men.
“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science,” Erickson explained. “But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.”
“We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it is tearing us apart,” he continued, adding that “reality showed” it was harmful for women to be the primary source of income in a family.
Fox News contributor Doug Schoen concluded the freak out by claiming all these so-called breadwinner moms “could undermine our social order.”
This is the kind shit Fox News feeds it’s viewers.
For one thing, these people need to look at more examples in nature if they want to play the “nature and science” game. Last time I checked there were plenty of examples of animals where the female of the species does a good deal of the work and the male of the species are there primarily to provide genetics for offspring (lions immediately come to mind).
But aside from that, there is no good reason a woman can’t do the same job as a man, or be the primary breadwinner for a family.
All these excuses they make come down to pride and control.
Women being able to support themselves or be the primary breadwinner means they have more freedom, more independence.
What it all comes down to is these knuckle draggers are afraid of that.
1. The female hyena is larger than the male and, unlike most female animals, female hyena selects her mating partners.
2. The Bonobos are female-dominated animals. Because bonobos exist only in forested areas, it allows the females to forage independently, rather than depending on males for resources. As the bonobos comprise a female dominated society, it is evident that mothers play a vital role in the group’s social stability. Males are permanent members, maintaining close bonds to their mothers for a lifetime. Females are quite different, as they begin to distance their maternal bonds at the onset of puberty. The relationships shared between females, in the bonobo society, create their distinct sexual community. The most common sexual activity for bonobos is a female stimulating another female.
3. Red ruffed lemurs very rarely descend to the ground. They spend almost all of their time in the treetops. They live in female-dominated family groups averaging in size from 2 to 16 animals.
4. Mouse lemurs are forest dwellers that live in female-dominated groups of up to 15 animals. They spend most of their time in trees, and can move nimbly from branch to branch and tree to tree. Mouse lemurs sleep aloft during the day and forage at night for insects, fruit, flowers, and other plants.
5. Elephants are strict vegetarians, and live in female-dominated family herds. They are very intelligent, peaceful unless provoked, and unlike other animals, will take care of a sick or wounded family member.
6. A guenon monkey with several colour variations over its range. Females stay with their mothers, forming territorial female-dominated groups with only a single male.
Several insect species also have females dominating over the males like ants, bees, wasps, termites, spiders and the ever lovely praying mantis… etc.
Conservatives are so funny when they try to use “science”…