Posts Tagged ‘lie-beral media’

Presidential Double Standards: Bush and Obama Given Different Treatment on Same Issues

November 26, 09

Hypocrisy Meter from theblogprof.

When Bush golfed while two wars were ongoing and the deficit was dropping, the media excoriated him for his apparent carefree attitude – including Michael Moore, who did a trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11 based on it. (Bush responded by quitting the game for the remainder of his time in office.)

When Obama golfs ten times more frequently (update: now 60 times, equaling two whole months on the green), while two wars, a recession, trillion dollar debt and terrorist attacks are ongoing, the media praise him for his ‘strategy’ and analyse how it takes times away from his basketball – and even try and claim he’s taken more flak than Bush did for vacationing during a major terror attempt. Why, they even praise him for his vacations!

When hawkish anti-terror policies were under Bush’s watch, they were loudly protested and condemned by Michael Moore, Code Pink and so on. When the same are continued under Obama’s watch? Silence.

When Bush’s deficit was high, CNN focused on the record breaking spending. When Obama’s deficit is many times higher, CNN focuses on how it boosts jobs.

When Bush the elder had 6.9% GDP growth rate, it was not considered a recovery. When Obama has 20% real unemployment, it’s a turnaround!

When Bush had 2.7% GDP growth, NYT called it a ‘gross national letdown’. With Obama’s 2.0% GDP growth, NYT calls it ‘steady improvement’.

When Katrina happened, the media went wild with baseless claims of sniper attacks, cannibalism and how George Bush failed to act – including Kanye West ranting that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”.

When five states suffered intense freezing cold, Obama enjoyed a turned up thermostat and wagyu beef. Nary a peep from the media.

When liberals portrayed Bush and Condoleeza Rice (a black woman) as apes, it was lauded as creative freedom of speech. When Obama is portrayed similarly, it is racist hate and must be banned.

The same goes for witch doctors and the Joker.

And apparently, Bush is the only one who can be compared to Hitler or Nazis. If you carry protest signs denouncing Nazi-like Dem policies, you are slandered as Nazi-supporting.

When people repeatedly called for Bush’s death, the media covered it ‘objectively’. When one sign saying ‘Bury Obamacare with Kennedy’ was spotted, the media went crazy over this ‘death threat’ against Obama.

Above from here.

When Bush exercised, the media called it ‘creepy’ and say it wastes time better spent leading. When Obama does it, they swoon and gush how it helps him do his job.

The same scavengers who savaged Bush over his vacations and golfing now suck up like remoras at Obama’s many more vacations and golf outings during the worst ‘recovery’ ever!

When the Bushs held a big dinner during a mild recession, they were lambasted for their ‘extravagance’. When the Obamas do it during 10.2% unemployment and 1.75 trillion debt, the media gush with teenage infatuation and avoid mention of the recession while praising the festivities – all 28 parties in December alone.

When Bush had a relatively low key inauguration in 2004 during a mild downturn, the media criticized his spending. When Obama had his massively grand inauguration during the ‘worst recession sinc the Great Depression’ which he was elected to reverse… Well, take a wild guess.

With Bush, the media’s job is to bash the President. With Obama, they think “above the world, he’s sort of God.”

With Bush, it’s okay to hurl serious and unfounded allegations at him. With Obama, ‘it is unfair and, frankly, political to take pot shots at the president‘.

When Rush Limbaugh recently said he hopes Obama’s policies fail, he is attacked – by the same man who hoped Bush would fail just minutes before 9/11.

When Rush Limbaugh calls Obama’s administration a ‘regime’, it is deemed unacceptable. When the liberal media did it 6000+ times to the Bush administration, it apparently goes unnoticed.

When Bush enters, the media remain seated. When Obama enters, they stand for him and then timidly sit down quietly while he speaks.

When Bush holds an Inaugaral Ceremony, he is lambasted in the media. When Obama does the same, the same media praises him.

When Bush led a broad coalition to invade Iraq to oust a mass murdering, UN-flaunting, rape and tprture using, chemical weapons flinging Saddam, the media excoriated him as a warmonger. When Obama attacked Gadaffi – who merely sent his army to fight with armed rebels – with a coalition half the size (update: one QUARTER the size!), he’s acting in the interest of peace. Where are the protests? See here for protests against the previous administration by contrast.

Ecen ESPN covers for Obama by editing out his gross misspelling of a team name as if nothing happened.

No wonder we call them the Obamedia.

And what about the Dem supermajority Congress?

When hard-working, high-achieving black man Clarence Thomas and Latino Miguel Estrada were nominated by Bush, the Democrats dragged them through every hurdle and racial insult possible. When ‘wise Latina’ Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Obama, suddenly she was the ‘first’ Latin American nominee and her opponents must be racists.

When Joe Wilson interrupted Obama’s speech shouting “You lie!”, he was criticized by the Dems. But guess who interrupted Bush back in 2006?

When people criticize Obama while the conflict in Afghanistan is ongoing, it ‘only serve the goals of al-Qaeda’. Tell that to Obama during Bush’s time of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now that Afghanistan is on Obama’s watch – crickets.

When Bush liberated Iraq with 40 nations backing him, he was a war criminal waging illegal invasions. When Obama wants to go to Syria with one… ONE ally…

When Bush had Gitmo, liberals screamed daily. When Obama has places far worse than Gitmo, crickets.

Plenty of Bush-bashing books have gotten favourable reviews in the media. But when someone submits a book detailing Obama’s ties to radicals, the media go rabid on him.

Compare joblessness headlines in the media for the two. Bush’s 5.7% unemployment:

The President’s Jobless Recovery
Frustrated Job Seekers Cause Jobless Rate To Drop
Economy Adds Few New Jobs
Low Jobless Rate Reflects Lost Hope
US Jobless Rate Drops But For Wrong Reasons

vs Obama’s much worse 8.6% unemployment:

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% Raising Hopes
Jobless Rate Drop Could Boost Obama
Obama Gets Economic Indicator He Can Crow About
Good News On Job Front For Obama
Jobless Rate Lowest In 2.5 Years

And again here.

When Bush broke election spending records and opted out of publicly-financed campaign spending, the media excoriated him. Guess how much noise was made when Obama did the same, only moreso?

And guess who criticized Bush’s deficit, saying: ‘Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.… And now has himself achieved a 1.75 trillion deficit?

When there is a massive oil leak, you can bet Bush’s oil connections would be all over the news… Not a peep about Obama’s.

When Bush struggled through 9/11, Katrina, two wars and financial collapse, the media didn’t sympathize with him – in fact, they piled on him all the more. Guess what their attitude to vacationing golfer Obama is, when he has played twice as much golf in 2 years as Bush did in 8?

When Bush couldn’t think of any mistakes he had made, the media ripped into him. Guess what the response is when Obama can’t think of any?

When Bush spoke in his usual style the media often did not ‘clean up’ his words or grammar to make it correct. When Obama does the same and the media doesn’t ‘clean up’ his words, they must be racist.

When oil prices skyrocket, the media loudly complains about it under Bush but ignores it entirely under Obama. Barely 1% of reports about the high prices even mention Obama’s drilling moratorium.

When Bush enacts some surveillance, he’s a despot. When Obama enacts far, unprecedentedly more… It’s more complex.

Via Moonbattery:

When Bush calmly spent 7 minutes finishing his reading of The Pet Goat to schoolkids after being told about 9/11, the media constantly mocked him. When Obama was told of Osama bin Laden’s confirmed location, he postponed his decision by SIXTEEN HOURS and the media spins it as decisive action.

Apparently it’s forbidden to question Obama’s grades and acceptance into tertiary education, but not Bush’s.

And imagine if Bush had spent millions blocking the release of his birth cert, would the media scold him or the seekers – as it targets the latter in Obama’s case?

The gist of the above with some specific examples in this excellent, tongue-in-cheek article at NRO, via Moonbattery.

And Laura Bush dares to point out the double standards.

See also this piece comparing and contrasting Obama and Bush and explaining why America – and even liberals! – miss Bush. Contains several references to the double standard criticisms leveled at them.

BONUS: see how the media reported on Reagan vs Obama during a recession:

No one blinked when reporters heckled Reagan and both Bushes… But when a reporter interrupts Obama briefly? RACIST!

Via Liberal Logic 101:

When Bush invoked ‘executive privilege’, Obama and his cronies blasted Bush. When Obama does it to defend Eric Holder whose acts cause the loss of hundreds of lives? Cronies defend it – even though that means Obama is the one behind the murderous operation! Including taking the contempt charge to the grand jury.

When Obama adds 200,000 fewer jobs than Bush, he’s doing a great job not like that failure!

The Federalist:

Anywhere, anywhere, but a discussion of Obama’s handling of national security as it relates to Islamist terrorists. Can you even imagine such journalistic avoidance under the Bush administration? Particularly, seven long years into the Bush administration?

From Washington Examiner:

Where Bush was asked every day if he regretted invading Iraq, Obama is never asked if he thinks leaving Iraq had something to do with the chaos engulfing the region, or the vulnerability of citizens here and in Europe to Islamic State-inspired attacks.

And while Bush was held responsible for every last casualty that occurred anywhere while he held office, Obama is absolved from responsibility for the massacres, rapes and enslavement of innocents that have followed his numerous foreign policy blunders — given a pass as the victim of forces he did not enable and disasters he didn’t create.

Pajamas Media:

A few hours before delivering that State of the Union, President Obama met with rapper Kendrick Lamar. Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. The song comes from the album To Pimp a Butterfly; the album cover shows a crowd of young African-American men massed in front of the White House. In celebratory fashion, all are gripping champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills; in front of them lies the corpse of a white judge, with two Xs drawn over his closed eyes. So why wouldn’t the president’s advisors at least have advised him that such a gratuitous White House sanction might be incongruous with a visual message of racial hatred? Was Obama seeking cultural authenticity, of the sort he seeks by wearing a T-shirt, with his baseball cap on backwards and thumb up?

To play the old “what if” game that is necessary in the bewildering age of Obama: what if President George W. Bush had invited to the White House a controversial country Western singer, known for using the f- and n- words liberally in his music and celebrating attacks on Bureau of Land Management officers? What if Bush had also declared that the singer’s hit song—perhaps a celebration of the Cliven Bundy protest—was the president’s favorite in 2008, from an album whose grotesque cover had a crowd of NASCAR-looking, white redneck youth bunched up with an African-American official dead at their feet? And what if the next day, Bush told the nation that he regretted not being able to bring the country together? Would there have been media calls for Bush’s impeachment?

————————-

Also this tipped by kesava:

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who’s side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed, would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced YOUR retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and
given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, the media blamed Bush. When Hurricane Sandy hit, the media praises Obama for doing basically nothing (even though a Dem Governor calls it worse than Katrina). What a blatant and disgusting difference.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George Bush would have taken a vacation involving 40 planes and 3000 people to the Taj Mahal in India, costing almost a Billion Dollars, would you have approved?

So, tell me again: what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can’t think of anything?

Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 15 months — so you’ll now have two years to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama, a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

Brian De Palma’s Redacted Rejected by Audiences

November 29, 07

UPDATE: Great work De Palma, you’ve achieved your goal: Arid Uka shoots and kills two American servicemen at Frankfurt Airport after mistaking the film’s rape scene for reality.

RedactedRejectedPoster

Brian De Palma’s Redacted is touted as the ‘true face of the US armed forces in Iraq’, and focuses on the horrific Mahmudiyah killings where five US soldiers raped a 14-year old Iraqi girl and killed her and her family.

Director De Palma makes no secret about the reason he made such a movie: “The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people. The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war.”

Unfortunately for him and producer Mark Cuban, hardly anyone went to see the smearfest that passes for a Hollywood documentary drama – let alone any members of Congress.

The New York Post reports that the vomit-inducing snuff porn film took in a pathetic USD 25,628 in its opening weekend in the only 15 theaters insane enough to carry it.

That’s an average of USD 1708 per theatre. That also means that roughly only 3,000 people were tricked into seeing it in the entire country.

Or to put it another way, it earned 1,000 times less than Beowulf did. De Palma chickened out of buying the rights to the film back from Mark Cuban.

The proof to me that De Palma made the film solely as an anti-military piece, and NOT an accurate docu-drama, is that he didn’t even include the usual ‘epilogue text’ that tells what happened to the characters after the film plot finishes.

By the time De Palma made Redacted, all five of the soldiers involved in the case had already been arrested and charged.

Three have been tried and sentenced to 90, 100 and 110 years in prison. The alleged ringleader, is being tried in a federal court and is reportedly facing the death penalty.

But instead of portraying the American military’s zero tolerance policy and harsh punishment of war crimes, the director intentionally leaves the plot unresolved.

He chooses instead to show photos of Iraqis who died – likely due to terrorist attacks – to further stir up terrorist sentiment.

Rather than focus on the newly restored of hope and peace in Iraq, or the stunning defeats of the terrorists, or even common Iraqis turning against the forces of chaos

Mark Cuban and Brian De Palma choose to focus on one ugly incident out of the four years of exemplary peacebringing efforts.

On five depraved beasts-in-men’s-guises out of the more than 400,000 troops who have protected Iraqi civilians from Al-Qaeda thugs.

And they call it a ‘realistic portrayal of U.S. troops’. Utter bullcrap. It is not even a complete account of five petty rapists and murderers, let alone the overwhelmingly positive presence of the U.S. troops in now-stabilized Iraq.

As Bill O’Reilly says, Cuban and De Palma don’t give a damn whether such a biased and narrow-viewed portrayal of the situation in Iraq will be used to rile up more terrorist sentiment against the West.

As Debbie Schlussel says, there ain’t no stretch of the truth that can makes Redacted a ‘patriotic’ movie the way Mark Cuban LSD-trips it is.

As Michael Fumento says, Hollywood routinely replaces reality with politically-skewed hallucinations which serve to dull audiences to the truth of who the real villians and evil men are.

As JD Johannes says, anti-warm films are a pathetic attempt by cowardly men to convince the rest of the populace to be just as cowardly – assuaging the fragile self-worth of the Hollywood invertebrates.

But terrorist-sympathetic directors and producers like them will be forced to give a damn sooner or later, because anti-war, anti-American films produced by Americans are being rejected wholesale by American audiences.

The Kingdom? Money-loser. Lions For Lambs? Flop. In the Valley of Elah? Flop. No End in Sight? Flop. Rendition? 400% flop. Flop flop flop.

And of course… Redacted???

MEGA FLOP.

After all, do anti-war directors really expect American audiences to throw hard-earned money into some rich hypocrite’s pocket so they can be told how evil and horrible Americans are for two hours?

Update 6 May 2008: Compare with Iron Man, a superhero film about Americans killing terrorists, takes in 100 million in one weekend.

From Red Planet Cartoons:

RedactedRalliesTheTroops

Also covered by Moonbattery, Hot Air, Wordl Net daily, Flopping Aces, Telegraph UK, and of course Boycott Redacted


%d bloggers like this: