At Last! The Leftist Media Get One Right!


It was Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. I was assisting a colleague at her workstation, when she opened her browser. Her default page is one of the usual assortment of wacky pop culture-obsessed — and very brainlessly left-wing, of course — web sites. I forget which one.

These web sites parade a bunch of “headlines” before you in rotating order, in order to get you to click on one that interests you, luring you in to their content. The headline on the very first one in the rotation was: “No Intelligence About Plot Against U.S.” The picture next to it was of Obama, at his desk, staring vacantly into the distance, as he so often does.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the image. The words “No Intelligence” were right next to the vacant-eyed Obama as he contemplated, well, who knows what — probably his next round of golf.

Most comically, the intent of the picture and its headline was to be reassuring; to indicate that there was no credible evidence of any looming ISIS-style terrorist attacks before the Thanksgiving holiday. Instead it showed a picture of our fumbling, bumbling President, and the words “No Intelligence About Plot Against U.S.

What the headline seemed to be saying was that there actually was an attack planned against the U.S., but that it would be met with “No Intelligence” from the one tasked with responding to it, well, intelligently.

I realize that I shouldn’t have laughed at the image and the headline; the topic was deadly serious. However, in contemplating the steaming mess that Obama has made of this country and its foreign policy, one is obliged to find one’s mirth where one can.

The owners of the web site seemed to realize their error — surely someone at the White House alerted them, since the media are largely in the White House’s pocket — and minutes after I noticed it, changed the headline to read: “Obama: No Evidence of Attacks During Holiday.”

Oh, well… for one brief, shining moment, the media got it right about Obama!

— xPraetorius

 

 

 

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “At Last! The Leftist Media Get One Right!

    1. Why? Are you implying that there are only two alternatives — Obama or George W. Bush?

      Seriously? That’s kind of a dumb conclusion. So’s the post, Ark. 🙂

      With that said, Bush was a ten times better President than Obama. And, frankly, Bush was a not-so-good President.

      Yikes!

      Best,

      — x

      1. Not in the least. But there are only ( basically) two parties i the states and right wing conservatives have a filthy habit of using the term ‘leftist’ in a pejorative sense ad nauseum.

        Bush started a war. He was a [Deleted: profanity] idiot.

        1. “Leftist” is a pejorative term. In America it should be right there with “child molester.”

          Shame that it isn’t, but since all of America’s cultural institutions are overrun with leftists, the American-English language has become significantly degraded and corrupted. Cf, eg.: “Political Correctness”

          Bush started and won a war. I’m okay with arguing about whether or not that was the right thing to do, but the current President is fully responsible for the lost war that did not need to happen, and whose aftermath threatens the entire civilized world.

          Obama did the logical equivalent of taking over the American armed forces when they had driven to the border of Germany in 1945, and then saying, okay… we’re out of here.

          Talk about a moron! That’s our current President.

          Best,

          — x

          1. Lol! You really do think that there are only two options: the left and (what you view as) evil? And you call me “past the pale?”

            A few brief things here:
            (1) You do not want to argue geopolitical or political things with me. You will lose. You will not even get your plane off the ground.

            (2) Your “FOX News” remark is pregnant with meaning. I encounter it all the time, generally from the indoctrinated drones of the American and European left.

            (3) The brief “FOX News” mention proves my point. Presumably you don’t watch FOX News? And you call me indoctrinated? You just unintentionally exposed the notion that you allow yourself to watch only sources of “information” that agree with you! You’re worse than indoctrinated, you’re self-brainwashed. 🙂

            (4) You’ve unintentionally exposed the reasons you are so limited in perspective and insight: you limit your inputs to those that already agree with you!

            Well.

            You indicated you’re not a serious interlocutor when you confessed to not even reading the arguments of others. Now, you indicate that you don’t even bother to expose yourself to differing points-of-view. I suspected as much, but didn’t want to make any assumptions without letting you say so first.

            Ark: you just got demoted to the Junior Varsity. I have a ratings system, and I keep track of where people are, and of how much effort to devote to them with it. I’d given you a lot of time and effort before, but not any longer.

            Best,

            — x

          2. This reply is meaningless and addresses not a single point I raised.
            But you get a star for the big word interlocutor.
            I do read the comments of others.Most, in fact, and very thoroughly. I tend to draw the line at laborious rambling tomes that never quite get to the point and so often avoid the point – somewhat like so many of your comments, in fact.

            On occasion I will do you the favour and read them all but I do have to pinch myself occasionally to stop nodding off.

            But you are not alone, so dont feel bad,you are typical of the average apologist found here on WordPress, I’m afraid to say: a limited amount of genuine critical thinking’.

            So let me see if I have this right?
            1.You consider ”leftists” should be regarded in the same light as child molesters.
            2. You consider George W a better president than Obama, yet cite no reasons and his track record was abysmal. And he started a war.

            You are a christian, likely Creationist ( possible Young Earth).

            And you accuse me of self- indoctrination.
            Tell me, do you get up in the morning and put your underpants on your head?

          3. Thanks for this, Ark! Zande couldn’t prevent himself from being wrong in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph!

            Here is is:

            We all know the story of President George. W. Bush implementing measures in 2001 which essentially ended U.S. Stem Cell research and put American medical science a decade behind the rest of the world for no other reason than his religion got in the way of the public good [Editing reason(s): #9, 11, 12]. Alone this is a standout example of why this thing called New Atheism (a vocal, rational rebuttal to unjustified religious interference in secular societies) exists, but there is a better, much lesser known Bush story which paints an even clearer picture, and to get there we must first go through this unlikely chap:

            Well.

            The basic premise of the post is wrong on the face of it! (Editing Reason #9) Wow! Are we then supposed to grant any credibility to the rest of the post?

            Bush, of course, did nothing of the sort, but only stopped taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

            There was no change whatsoever in any other privately- or corporately-funded stem cell research anywhere in the U.S. Nor was there a change in federal funding for adult stem cell research.

            Embryonic stem cell research is controversial here in the States, and Bush’s very reasonable point was simply that taxpayers who believe in the sanctity of human life shouldn’t be forced to pay for programs that they find objectionable.

            The federal government exercises this discretion all the time with items that offend people of the left, for example. The rationale is that they don’t want to fund — and thereby put the massive federal thumb on the scale of the debate over — something whose moral standing has not yet been determined in the country-at-large. Pretty reasonable state-of-mind.

            Wow! Zande’s assertion was so far out in left field, so completely wrong, that there truly is no reason to grant to the rest of the post any credibility.

            Seriously? You are gullible, aren’t you?!?

            Saaaaaaayyyy… I’ll bet you don’t listen to FOX News! Well, no wonder…

            Best,

            — x

          4. Lol! Good one, Josey! Flirting with a gratuitous insult, but who knows … Ark might consider it a compliment instead of the insult that it ought to be.

            Best,

            — x

          1. Lol! He sure does seem of a type! Right down the line.

            I suspect I could point to an issue and tell you with 100% certainty how he thinks about it. But I could be wrong.

            Shame, really.

            Best,

            — x

    1. I allow opinion that insults a public figure. I don’t allow opinion that insults one of my readers, or myself. Now, mind you, I don’t mind it when people insult me — the skin is off their back. But I don’t expect everyone to have my lack of temper.

      I would endeavor to protect you from gratuitous insults and profanity too. However, you seem to be the only one who can’t control his vocabulary.

      As to your point, anyone who is religious says that God is guiding him. This is nothing unusual.

      Best,

      — x

      1. Yes, but you are aware of the whole Gog, Magog thing he was involved with, prior to him going in search of his WMD, yes?
        C’mon, really. The man was a [Deleted: profanity]. war-mongering lying [Deleted: profanity].

        Obama is too of course, but at least he doesn’t come across as such a dumb [Deleted: profanity].

        Americans are some of the most insular narrow minded individuals on the planet.

        I mean they called a game of Gridiron World Series for years and they were the only ones playing it, for the gods sake.

        Tell me honestly, without googling, are you aware just how many damn wars your country has instigated/ been involved in since the Mayflower landed?

        1. Let’s see, JV — Paragraph by paragraph:
          (1) – I’m aware of the rumors. They turned out to be unsubstantiated.
          (2) – There’s no indication that Bush ever lied as President.
          (3) – Third paragraph is true. Obama doesn’t come across as dumb as Bush. That is correct: He’s a whole lot dumber.
          (4) – Pure opinion. No one, for example, can top a European leftist for narrow-minded, blinkered provincialism.
          (5) – Okay, so the only country in the world that plays American-style football (Gridiron is an American-style football term) is America. Now, the championship game for that sport is called “The Super Bowl.” They would, however, be quite justified in calling it “The World Championship” For obvious reasons. The “World Series” is the championship series of baseball, that is played all over the world. You might have a case that they should call it something else, but until someone from another country challenges the name, I don’t see why not. For example, there are Canadian teams in the Major Leagues of Baseball. Yet, still no one objects to calling it “The World Series.
          (6) Yes. And I’ll bet you’re happy that you haven’t had to pay a few hundred milliards in tax pounds for freeloading off our nuclear umbrella all these many decades. 🙂

          Best,

          — x

          1. (2) – There’s no indication that Bush ever lied as President.

            So there were WMD? What did I miss?

            Yes. And I’ll bet you’re happy that you haven’t had to pay a few hundred milliards in tax pounds for freeloading off our nuclear umbrella all these many decades.

            Really? And who do you think would be Nuking me? I don’t dont actually pay my tax in milliards of pounds. Or even millions, as I don’t live in England
            Once again, do you know how many wars/conflicts the US has been involved/directly instigated?

          2. Yep. I sure do. Too bad it’s not relevant to anything.

            Let’s see… the nuclear arsenal to your east was the one threatening to do the nuking.

            However, we kept it away, and every country in Europe saved billions and billions of [fill in currency here] by not having to worry about the Soviet nuclear threat.

            Ironically, it allowed Europeans to put in place massive, unsustainable social programs that are coming home to bite all of Europe — cf, eg.: Greece, Spain, England, Portugal, Italy, etc. – now.

            It probably would have been better for you if you had had to fend for yourselves defense-wise.

            You say you’re not in England, but you were, so I’m referring to that time period. If you’re here now, then you understand the economic opportunity that is here, that is no longer in Merry Olde England. (though, you’ll deny it, of course. 🙂 )

            Best,

            — x

        1. There are very few people who actually consider LBJ to have been a good President. Most people focus on his muck-up in Vietnam, while the truth is that he was a disaster in both domestic and foreign policy.

          Due to the policies and processes that LBJ managed to launch:

          • A misguided “War on Poverty” stopped the decline of poverty rates, and we have the same rate of poverty in the U.S. as we had when he launched it
          • His feckless foreign policy left millions to die at the hands of (atheist, socialist) savages who took over most of SouthEast Asia
          • He was even more corrupt than Obama – It was said of him: “He never won an election that he didn’t buy.”

          Just a start.

          Best,

          — x

          1. Hey, he was one of yours. Don’t shoot the messenger. I could really not [Deleted: profanity].
            Perhaps you could find some online evidence that supports your view?
            By the way, how’s your studying getting on? Found anything yet? 🙂

        2. LBJ is usually found outside the top 10 presidential administrations. He’s usually in the 2nd tier due to civil rights bill. He is criticized over his handling of Vietnam. It also depends on the source of the poll. Wsj puts him at 17 and the times is around 10. However, even recent polls have the imperalists Polk in the top 10 so what do polls really mean in the grand scheme of things?

          1. I think I’ve seen those polls, Josey… I believe your assessment of their conclusions is correct.

            I think that as time goes on, LBJ will sink further in “the polls” as history evaluates the massive changes he made to the fundamental relationship between the people and the central government.

            Like Obama, Johnson presided over a massive increase in the size, scope, reach and power of the central government. For good or ill (my opinion: serious ill). He put the fork into the idea of the states as the “laboratories of democracy.”

            All subsequent Presidents, with the possible exception of Reagan, then tap-danced on that noble idea’s grave.

            Most people feel that people like Buchanan, Carter, Nixon, Harding belong in the bottom tier, while Bush (the first and second), Cleveland, Arthur, Taft, Fillmore, et al., are in the middle tier, and people like TR, FDR, Reagan, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson belong in the top tier.

            The serious ( 🙂 ) debate focuses on that top tier.

            Best,

            — x

          2. Hiw would I know? I merely typed a google request and followed a link about top rated modern day Presidents and he was listed #2. And the same poll listed George ‘God guides me’ Nu’klar W second from bottom.
            I would of expected LBJ would have been slated for Vietnam and he was, but he seemed t have come off pretty good regards domestic policy – civil rights, environment, economy, unemployment etc.
            But you guys do love your wars, do you not?
            Almost a national past-time.

          3. Love War? Perhaps, I won’t disagree.I’ve also heard its one of the critiques of a democratic state. It’s easy to keep your democracy united by an outside enemy.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s