Oh, a survey of opinions?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2755281]Tooms, Your wish is my command! Here is reason and evidence.
Network News:
ABC News, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias[/URL]
CBS News, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cbs-news-media-bias[/URL]
NBC News, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias[/URL]
Cable News with Significant Viewership:
CNN, Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias[/URL]
MSNBC, Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/msnbc[/URL]
Fox News, Right: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/fox-news-media-bias[/URL]
Large Circulation National Newspapers:
New York Times, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times[/URL]
Washington Post, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-post-media-bias[/URL]
Wall Street Journal, Center: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-bias[/URL]
Xpartan's theory that a company owning Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MyNetworkTV, and CW outlets is engaged in a conspiracy to sway Americans to vote for evil Republicans:[/QUOTE]Accurately reporting that the Unemployment Rate is 3. 5% or that Biden has already created more jobs than all 3 of the previous Repubs combined does not make a news outlet "left leaning" no matter how much the reportable facts rankles FUX News viewers.
And what would be in it for MSM to help Dems get elected so they can produce their typical positive but boring Headlines rather than helping Repubs get elected so they can produce their typical horrifying but exciting Headlines?
The Kramdens, not the Cunninghams
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2755201]Still crowing daily with the same ole false dichotomy from your budget retirement haven (Thailand) I see. The 50's was a golden age for the working man and expansion of middle America, in spite of a few mild recessions, much of which related to the end of the Korean War. It was also an era of very high presidential approval ratings, balanced budgets, and new civil rights legislation. And you've never provided any satisfactory rebuttals to the historical facts and analysis from this historian.
[URL]https://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/domestic-affairs[/URL][/QUOTE]From your favorite "Jobs? Who cares about jobs creation in the economy"? Historian's link:
[QUOTE]Still, many Americans did not share in the prosperity of the 1950s. About one in every five Americans lived in poverty by the end of the decade. The poverty rate declined during Eisenhower's presidency, but 40 million Americans were poor when Eisenhower left office. The South had almost half of the country's poor families. Yet during the 1950s, poverty increased in northern cities, partly because of the migration of African Americans who left the South for cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland because new farm machines had taken away job opportunities. Often these new African American urban residents had to settle for low-paying employment because of job discrimination. Children and the elderly were much more likely to experience poverty than adults from ages 18 through 65.
Even though poverty was widespread, poor people got little attention during the 1950s. It was easier to celebrate the abundance of a booming consumer economy. People who had lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s emphasized the economic security of the 1950s. It was not until the 1960s that affluent Americans rediscovered the poverty amid the prosperity.[/QUOTE]LOL. Perfect. Shades of the surgically isolated Coolidge-Hoover "Roaring 20's".
As long as typically pro Repub MSM was there to ignore the unemployed and impoverished farmers and minorities and only focus on the Cunninghams of the future revisionist historian "Happy Days" and not the Kramdens and the Nortons of the contemporaneous real world "Honeymooners", hey, those were your revisionist historian's "boom times"!
I can't wait to read Tiny12's explain to you that the only reason a certain select demographic felt better in the 1950's was because they had experienced The Great Repub Depression in their youth. You know, that "gee I feel great to lose 50 of the 100 pounds of excess weight I packed on last year" bit.
More Millercenter Pach Revisionist History Hilarity! LOL
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2755201]Still crowing daily with the same ole false dichotomy from your budget retirement haven (Thailand) I see. The 50's was a golden age for the working man and expansion of middle America, in spite of a few mild recessions, much of which related to the end of the Korean War. It was also an era of very high presidential approval ratings, balanced budgets, and new civil rights legislation. And you've never provided any satisfactory rebuttals to the historical facts and analysis from this historian.
[URL]https://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/domestic-affairs[/URL][/QUOTE]From your favorite Revisionist Historian's site:
[QUOTE] Although mild recessions slowed growth in 1953-1954, 1957-1958, and again in 1960, the economy expanded robustly during most of the 1950s. Unemployment was generally low, and inflation usually was 2 percent or less. [/QUOTE]First of all, one wonders if Pach even realizes that he just admitted to FIVE of Eisenhower's eight years in office being in a state of Recession! And it's not like he inherited it that way. He didn't. Far from it.
Second, isn't it amazing how easy it is to float along in a world of 2% or less inflation when 63% of your two term presidency is in Recession and producing one of the worst jobs creation records of all time! We know all about why Recession Is Normal Repubs love their record of low inflation and demonize higher inflation when Dems finally recover us from those Repub Recessions. LOL.
That is some astonishing pro crap Repub economic results spin! Did Pach ever work for MSNBC or CNN? He could have. They'd love him over there.
And on Eisenhower's "generally low" Unemployment; compared to whom? Certainly not compared to the Dems on either side of his presidency. Certainly not compared to most Dems post-WWII, especially when you factor in where it was and trending when he took office vs where it was and trending when he left office as well as that same factor for Dems.
Compared to Reagan, Bush2 and Trump? Sure.
[B]Please set the BLS Historical Unemployment Rate Table below as far back as it goes, to 1948, and review:[/B]
[URL]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL]
Eisenhower took office with the Unemployment Rate at 2. 9% and trending down over the next 2-3 months to 2. 5%. I suppose those were a big contribution to that "generally low" spin.
By the following year the Unemployment Rate had MORE THAN DOUBLED. By his 6th year in office it had TRIPLED. And at his typically crap Repub-to-Dem hand-off in January 1961 it was still MORE THAN DOUBLE what he inherited and ON THE RISE toward another TRIPLE!
And, yep, that was not the way it was for the Dems on either side of Eisenhower's presidency or for most if not all Dems ever since.
Yeah, I get it. Eisenhower was a lucky General, a WWII victory icon and a likeable, Do Nothing Repub POTUS. Hence, his high approval ratings. But the actual data and record of results shows he was a crap POTUS on the economy no matter how distracted from that reality some Americans were while enjoying all those free "I Love Lucy" episodes on their first television set.
But that reality was obviously not lost on the membership of virtually every Labor Union in the country whose rank and file easily chose Kennedy over Eisenhower's VP.
This is a quintessential echo chamber LOL
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2755430]This thread is getting rather repetitive. It's like people are trying to gaslight themselves. I'm hard pressed to post without repeating what I've already said. And I feel like I've stepped into a Mormon Temple and foolishly started arguing religion. That's not a bright thing to do.
I'll check back in after the mid terms to gloat. Presumably the Republicans will win the House. For a Neoliberal / Republican / Libertarian / Bothsider like me, that's a good outcome. It may be too much to hope for, but if Biden will ditch his Progressive handlers and McCarthy will ditch Trump, and they work with each other, maybe they'll usher in a new golden age, like what we experienced under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in the late 1990's. And if not at least the b*stards in Washington won't be able to f*ck us around as much with split government.
You may carry on with your Democratic Party lovefest gentlemen.[/QUOTE]But what took so long to come to this blatantly obvious realization? LOL.
45 billion pounds in tax cuts
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2755273]As I understand it, loss to revenues from cutting the maximum tax rate from 45% to 40% would have been about 2 billion pounds, out of a total 100 billion per year for the total program of tax cuts and energy subsidies. That had nothing to do with the markets' reaction. And the energy subsidies are not Libertarian by any means. They could just as well be straight out of the Progressive's playbook. Your gloating is misplaced.[/QUOTE]It is reported as 45 billion pounds in tax cuts, hardly the 2 billion you quote. Her hair-brained "trickle-down" tax cuts for the rich, had everything to do with sending the pound to historic lows and sparked market turmoil. When she "ditched" the tax plan and after she "cut-bait" and quit, markets corrected to the news.
[b]UK PM Liz Truss admits mistakes on controversial tax cuts plan...[/b]
[URL]https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/02/uk/uk-pm-liz-truss-tax-cuts-intl-gbr/index.html[/URL]
BTW, just the facts, no gloating necessary, in this case.
Again. Of course your links prove it.
[QUOTE=Xpartan;2755501]My theory? It's not a theory, it's a fact.
[URL]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sinclair-broadcast-group[/URL]
[URL]https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/11/sinclair-targeting-politifact-you-need-know-facts[/URL]
Of course, the FCC fine quashed their insatiable appetites somewhat, but they're still teaching 40% of USA households the virtues of Trumpism.
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/sinclair-fine-fcc.html[/URL]
First, I have no idea why you were inclined to link Orange Fruitcake's statements in this rebuttal.
So why?
Second, I linked the article that clearly states that out of 15 radio shows in this country 12 are conservative. Surely (insert your Airplane joke here), you won't insist that they're broadcasting into the vacuum. So whatever you think or I think or anyone else thinks is anecdotal at best. It's all about the numbers.[/QUOTE]Mainstream Media will unavoidably appear to be "left leaning" for much of the time simply because they are forced by legal and ethical circumstances to accurately report Dem achievements and positive results and Repub nothingness or crap results.
However, as I apparently must repeat in order to hope a tiny trickle seeps in to some winger heads someday, come election time it is a MSM Pro Repub Spin Fest!
They LOVE those Here's Another Repub Disaster Result headlines and see very little market or financial value in featuring boring, positive Dem results headlines.
At the very least MSM is hell bent to make the horse race as neck in neck close and exciting as any Dem-denigrating and Repub-elevating Bothsiderism spin can make it. Which, also as I have pointed out previously, in a world where MSM produces election outcomes on a knife's edge margin, all too often the crap results Repubs will win even if only by accident.
Either way, that is MSM helping Repubs win elections even if their initial intention was only to tighten the horse race for the sake of attention grabbing excitement.
Seriously, folks. There is no way a Repub should ever have won the White House again after Reagan's first term, a Repub should have ever been Speaker of the House again after double government closure, total obstructionist and only Clinton dick-sniffing failure Gingrich or a Repub Senate Leader again after what we have all witnessed in Moscow Mitch.
Yet, since those Repub disasters first plopped in our laps we have seen even loonier and worse Repub stewardship and results while at the same time the horse races got tighter!
That could never have happened without Herculean pro Repub spinning efforts by MSM to make it so come every election time.
Online Coverage Only & Mr. Hartmann
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2755281]Tooms, Your wish is my command! Here is reason and evidence.
Network News:
ABC News, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias[/URL]
CBS News, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cbs-news-media-bias[/URL]
NBC News, Lean Left: [URL]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias[/URL]
.... [/QUOTE]Nice try buckeroo! Tiny 12, try reading the fine print on the Allsides website. ONLY online coverage applies.
[QUOTE]AllSides Media Bias RatingsTM are based on multi-partisan, scientific analysis. Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers [u]only to online[/u] news coverage, [b][u]not[/u] TV, print[/b], or [b]radio content.[/b]
ABC News, Lean Left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias
et al. allsides.com references [/QUOTE]You, always fail to address the 1,500+ right-wing radio stations and the 200+ right-wing Spanish radio stations.
[u]According to Mr. Hartmann that you listen to:[/u]
[b]Why Is Talk Radio So Right-Wing? (And How Can The Left Compete?)[/b]
[URL]https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/10/why-is-talk-radio-so-right-wing-and-how-can-the-left-compete/[/URL]
1 photos
The Speed of (Vaccine) Science. . . A Scandal Beyond Your Worst Nightmare
February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a "vaccine. " In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don't prevent infection or spread. In reality, they're experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1.
"The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were 'a medical fraud' and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots 'alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. ' Its assertions were easily disprovable.".
Pfizer Moved 'at the Speed of Science'.
Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer's president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.
As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:
"No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market. And we had to do everything at risk. "2.
This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal. Rob Roos, MEP.
In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph. The. , reviews this growing scandal. He points out that you. K. Government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we're told that was not the case after all.
The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they "had to move at the speed of science. " But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are "just words without meaning. " It's complete nonsense.
Moreover, what does it mean to "do everything at risk"? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don't either, but were I to venture a guess, I'the guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.
So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you'll save the lives of others if you take it. . .
As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don't. Hence, they've also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.
As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and / or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN'T follow the science.
Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they're in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Viral Diseases team. . .
In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi's paper:13.
"Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1. 43.
The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients.".
Full article: [URL]https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/joseph-mercola/speed-of-science-a-scandal-beyond-your-wildest-nightmare/[/URL].
[QUOTE=JustTK;2755539]"The science was on our side, You must get vaxd to prevent transmission, you do it not for yourself but for others, we will impose a vaccine to stop transmission.".
All lies! It was always so fuckn obvious. Pfizer never even tested their vax on preventing transmission prior to its launch. But yet this was the foundation to the vax mandates and the global campaign against anti-vaxxers.
Now, how can you EVER, EVER, trust these people again? JD is so correct they are criminal liars, supported by our leaders and sychophantic media. "The 'Ruling Class' in every country are the enemy of the human race".
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyHfwCshPk[/URL][/QUOTE]
