Forum:Decoding CNN's Spin

{| style="background:#d6cb7e; background:-moz-linear-gradient(46% 0% 254deg,#E6DDBC, #C9C793, #EDD698 100%,#D9C14A 46%); border:5px outset #d6cb7e; width:100%; font-size:120%; font-family:Calibri;"
 * class="ts3td" | September 13th, 2011
 * class="ts3td" | September 13th, 2011

September 9th, 2012 was the Republican Tea Party Express Debate held on CNN, and it generated a lot of debate very quickly from all around the country. Understandably so.

The candidates that Fox News was backing, Perry and Romney, revealed just how weak they could be and how uncommitted they could be. Meanwhile, Bachmann went out of her way to strike down hard on anything and everything wrong with the Obama presidency and with her rival candidates; and would not take prisoners or back down. Herman Cain got in his share of good jabs too; often times hounding the moderators for asking the wrong questions to begin with.

It was AFTER the debate, however, that CNN let its true colors shine forward.

Some of my friends didn't bother to watch the debate, and may be wondering what all the fuss is about. So I thought I'd spell it out.

Here's a sample of what I noticed with CNN's spin machine at work:

1. Michelle Bachmann claims that Obamacare hurt Medicare severely
CNN claims it actually helped Medicare out. Who's right?

Michelle pointed out that Obama stole $500B+ from Medicare to fund Obamacare. True.

But one female reporter for CNN argued that 8 years of solvency was granted to Medicare as a condition of Obamacare.


 * However: CNN 'refused to mention that if Obama hadn't stolen the $500B+, then Medicare would have had 12 years of solvency!

On May 25th of 2011, Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz made a claim that Obamacare would grant solvency (government pays for everything) to Medicare.[1]

That was before $500B+ 'suddenly went missing. After the money went missing, and Obamacare suddenly had $500B+ more money in its pocket, the promise of 12 years of solvency for Medicare was broken.

Instead, solvency was demoted to only 8 years. Only 2/3 of what was promised was delivered.

Yet, leave it to CNN to say:

"'That's okay, everything's still hunky-dory. Don't believe this Bachmann woman.'"

Yet, the evidence does not support CNN's cause. Just more spin because they don't like Bachmann.

2. Does Ron Paul really care if you live or die?
CNN also spun Ron Paul.

Ron said:

"'It's the job of family members to help their own when their own cannot help themselves. It is the job of churches also to help their own. It is not and will never rightfully be the job of the federal government.'"

BUT....according to CNN, Ron said: "let him die."

That's NOT what Ron said.

"Lower taxes on his family so that his family and/or church take care of him" is a FAR cry different from saying: "Sorry, but he's just gonna have to die."

Also, CNN outright ignored Ron's disclaimer:

"'No hospital in my day ever turned someone away for lack of ability to pay!'"

However, Obama's rations are really just death panels. And Obamacare-run hospitals have turned away individuals. Including a woman who could have had a simple application of pills to save her life being told:

"'It's too expensive. Instead, we'll give you THESE pills, which will make it easier for you to die.'"

One of my grandparents has suffered that Right-to-Death mindset treatment in Wisconsin. With a slow-progressing cancer in his arm, Wisconsin's socialized medicine would prefer that he die than that they save him, since he's "too old to be worth it."

CNN wouldn't touch that. They wouldn't even mention that. Instead, they wanted to force-feed viewers the myth that Ron Paul is "pushing grandma off a cliff."

3. CNN does not refute Ron Paul's "Blame America First" rhetoric.
Voters booed Ron Paul for blaming America for 9/11. About time somebody did. Ron thinks that the Statist interventionism that has infiltrated common thought ever since the Eisenhower administration is the sole reason that Islamofascist terrorists want all Americans dead.

While he's right that the US has overstepped its bounds quite often, to make the claim he's made that it's "all our fault" is to completely ignore the true nature of our enemy.

Regardless whatever is or isn't in the Koran, one Islamic scholar who visited Fox News made a very good point: That al-Queada and other Middle Eastern groups of its same nature draw just as much inspiration from their cultural traditions and politics as they do from anything else. And half of them hardly even read the Koran. Or they pick and choose verses from it to fit their own dogma.

This isn't too impossible to understand. Even the ELCA has deviated FAR into territory that a lot of other Lutheran synods would consider outright heresy.

It has, on one occasion, actually went so far as to seriously consider implementing gay priests. By picking and choosing which parts of the Bible it would and would not accept as valid when determining its criteria.

When one congregation decided to move forward with the measure in spite all criticism, a tornado hit that town and knocked the cross clean off that church; without disturbing too much else of the church's structure.

Sending a clear message from God to that congregation: "You want gay priests? Fine.  But don't claim to be preaching in MY name if you're gonna do so.  You never bothered to get MY consent with how I am being represented here!"

Hence, we have militant Muslims that want to kill us. But do they cite our interventionism in world affairs as their top excuse to attack? Often times, no. They cite the Crusades. That's right. The freakin' CRUSADES! They're punishing America...for the sins of King Richard, committed over 500 YEARS AGO!

Over 500 years ago! Wait for it...



There's no way that can be right. But it's exactly what the enemy does. They hold over 5,000-year-old grudges. And would easily blow past Vegeta's limit if they'd been around that long.

Arab culture holds the following ideas to be true, just because human nature likes the idea of it:


 * 1) Anyone who's not you or of your bloodline/clan/tribe, automatically sucks and is better off dead. (Tribalism)
 * 2) Anyone who doesn't like your understanding of how to worship God is automatically scum of the Earth and is better off dead.
 * 3) Better to repress the sexuality of a woman than for a man to learn how to control himself (and guard his own damned heart.)
 * 4) Anyone who likes pork sucks and needs to die.
 * 5) The only way to honor your ancestors is to acquire more land for their name.  And if you can't buy it; take it by force or violence.  Peace is not an option; because you cannot honor your ancestors by letting someone else own the land.  The more land you take by force/violence, the more honor you win.
 * 6) Holding a grudge for centuries on end is awesome.  If nobody from the current generation has any memory whatsoever of the wrongs their ancestors committed against yours; so what?  Punish them anyway!  It'll be FUN to visit revenge-by-proxy on clueless innocents!

Add a climate where everything is politicized and where corruption runs amok into the above-listed belief system, a demonic system which actually predates Islam and beckons back to Saudi Arabia's pagan history, and you have yourself a toxic brew that is nearly impossible to coexist with unless you're born into it. Because if you're literally anyone else, even a penguin, you don't fit and you should die.

It is for this reason that I refer to the terrorists' version of Muhammad as "Muhummy al-Dracula" in When Bikes Argue, and their version of God (which they derived from a pagan moon deity) as "The Bloodthirsty Pirate Moon god." <

Proof:



This also references Martin Luther's take on the Turks invading southeastern Europe, when he said they were:

"Nothing but a bunch of bloodthirsty pirates. Dressing in the robes of followers of God or of a god; but revealing only their own penchant for cruelty."

With an enemy like that at America's door, 9/11 was destined to happen. Followers of Muhammy al-Dracula are destined to use tribalism to justify their hate of Americans, and their love of multi-centenarian grudges as an excuse to punish us for the Crusades acted out by Europeans half a millennium ago.

One cannot possibly assume that they would've been the slightest bit deterred in this goal, even if America had taken the teachings of its founders seriously; and not embraced the international interventionism that socialists like FDR wanted.

Yes, we tolerate a Hollywood that has been largely hijacked by the porn industry. Yes, we have gay priests running amok. Yes, we have "educators" handing condoms to five year olds.

The bad guys want us dead for the tribalist reasons I gave above. The other "great sins of the Great Satan" are just cheap excuses to justify their tribalist agenda.

But it was not CNN that called Ron Paul out on his folly. It was the audience. And not even CNN could understand why. CNN cannot comprehend evil.

4. It's a "lifestyle" drug; let it go.
Rush Limbaugh was even more guilty of this than was CNN. But Bachmann had every right to question the general public's mass acceptance of Gardasil. After all, the vaccine was intended for 19-year-old COLLEGE GIRLS! NOT 12-year-old junior high students!

Let's boil down the logic of why Perry grabbed the idiot ball


 * 1) The girls were 12.  TWELVE!  If the school is encouraging 12-year-olds to have sex, it's encouraging statutory rape.  Other than the most impoverished and dysfunctional families, there should be no excuse whatsoever to have a sexually-active 12-year-old.
 * 2) * I knew a girl once that the neighborhood kids accused of being sexually active even when she was as young as nine. But it was also rumored that her mother was a former prostitute.  Outside extremes like that, it's hard to believe that many 12-year-old girls are sexually active.
 * 3) Lifestyle drugs issued to individuals younger than the target age all-too-often backfire.  Kids end up GETTING THE DISEASE, rather than being shielded against it.  And that's not counting other side effects that may be encountered.  Children don't know about it or understand it until it's too late.
 * 4) School officials have been known to BULLY parents into consenting to the program, even when the parents have already legally opted out.  Having an elaborate system with elaborate deadlines that one must meet before qualifying to legally opt out doesn't help matters.
 * 5) But where the excuse of "but...there is an opt-out clause" really falls flat is in this: Parents who opt out are treated with contempt by schools.  The kids are treated with even more contempt; and may even suffer irreversible damage to their reputations for not conforming.  There is no excuse for government to be encouraging this.
 * 6) Bachmann pointed out a friend of hers whose daughter has suffered mental damage.  Doctors suspect it to be a result of the drug.  While not as good or conclusive as a confirming government study (or FDA ban,) it is unfair of Limbaugh to say that there "is no evidence whatsoever" that lifestyle (or for that matter, death style) drugs like Gardasil can cause mental illness.  Instead of dismissal, an investigation into the evidence would be a better approach.
 * 7) * The mindset of dismissal by Limbaugh and CNN is symptomatic of why several contraceptives that have resulted in death and been banned in France are still on the shelves in America today: because there are lobbies that would start throwing Molotov cocktails if a pro-sexual perversion drug were ever removed from the market. No matter who dies from using it; "lifestyle" drugs have become sacred cows.  Bachmann isn't fooled.  Sex drugs are not, and never should be, a sacred right.  They should be measured under every bit as much scrutiny as any other drug.  And banned if they result in death/mental injury.
 * 8) Perry issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER to push a "lifestyle" drug on children, making it illegal for parents to deny the drug without an elaborate opt-out system that would only lead to public scorn.  The executive order should never be used to pass legislation, let alone to push sexuality issues on 12 year olds.  By doing this, even Perry admits he was acting more like Obama than like a worthy politician.

But while many in the Establishment were quick to say: "give him another chance," Bachmann was spot on by asking:

"'Should the 12-year-old girls whom you messed up for life give you a second chance? Can you undo what you did to them? Is it not permanently a part of them now?'"

In so doing, she likened Perry's misuse of the executive order to an act of child molestation. At least one commentary on the LA Times website seems to indicate to me that Californians are going to go even harder on Perry than I am. One commenter went as far as to call him "a sick dick."

What's next? Child Protection Services taking the kids away for the parents "not keeping them safe" when all the parents did was comply with the government's mandates? Where do we draw the lines on this kind of Statist madness?

Perry had every right to apologize for his actions in Texas. But Bachmann was also right to say:

"'Sorry isn't good enough. When you're president, and you're poisoning children, you don't get a mulligan.'"

5. CNN can't tell actual economy-stimulating jobs from DNC phallic-ego-stroking jobs.
And they used half-truths to attack Romney. They said that Romney's claims were "patently false" when Romney claimed that the Obama stimulus "created zero jobs."

Yes, one-point-something million jobs were created. BUT...


 * Those jobs were NOT full time jobs. (At least not most of them.)
 * Those jobs did NOT result in routine production of GOODS. (Services are meaningless without goods.)
 * Those jobs were NOT permanent jobs.

Summer temp jobs, government paper-pushing jobs, added jobs in regulatory commissions, and jobs at McDonald's do NOT stimulate the economy.

The only things being "stimulated" by these jobs are politicians' phallic-shaped egos. It allows Statists a chance to masturbate to the rhythms of their own echo chamber, while patting themselves on the back with their not-as-busy hands and assuring themselves of their self-righteousness.

All while unemployment skyrockets around them and the only answer they can think of to their woes is to print money and borrow money from the Chi-Coms.

But CNN doesn't care about those details. It only cares about whether or not a "job" of any sort was created. And on that, they nailed it: Romney would be wrong to say "absolute zero." But he didn't say "absolute zero."

To be fair, they didn't bother to correct his math. Half of zero is still zero.

And a president that scares more and more goods producers into the stranglehold clutches of China cuts off the means for America to produce plus-sum economic prosperity.

Thereby, Obama creates a zero-sum equation ruled by the federal government. Which is what Statists want, because Karl Marx himself believed that everything in the universe was zero-sum.

And when you put a zero-sum like Obama in charge along with the likes of Barney Frank and all the "economy czars," you get a total of less than nothing.