ashleelisbeth

inothernews:

Suggestions for lines of questioning by the White House press corps.

In re: this.

stfuconservatives:

team-joebama:

filthypickle:

team-joebama:

it’s pretty funny that some conservatives are so quick to jump to the stereotype of “black welfare recipient” complete with a made-up limerick about loving welfare and implying they’re too lazy to work

meanwhile the individual behind her is carrying a sign stating “Good Jobs Now” indicating that this woman is part of a march or demonstration for proper and decent employment

Hey, Democrat, you might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself next time. This photo is a screen shot from an actual video of a woman yelling into the camera about how we should all vote for Obama because she was a recipient of Obama’s free cellphone giveaway. I don’t really give a shit what her race is. Had this been a white woman, or a latino woman, the issue would be the same. Black people do, in fact, make up the largest group receiving welfare and entitlements in America. This is not a stereotype. Blacks only make up 13% of the total US population, and more than half of them are on the government tit. Facts, not stereotype. 

Oh you mean this:

Today, 38 states, one of which is Ohio, participate in the Lifeline program. If you live in one of those locales and your income is at or below 135 percent of the poverty line, or if you qualify for certain benefit programs like Medicaid and TANF, you can apply for a free cell phone that offers you 250 minutes of talk time per month. The people who are getting these phones aren’t getting iPhones or other smartphones; they’re often people in urban or rural areas who are being supplied with basic cell phones so they can call the hospital when they’re sick, or receive calls if there’s a problem with their child at school.

If you’re upset that Obama is giving “freeloaders” gratis cell phones paid for with your tax money, don’t be. Firstly, Obama had nothing to do with the Lifeline program: the “Obama phone” narrative is a myth that both liberals and conservatives have fallen for since 2009. Secondly, Lifeline isn’t paid for with tax revenues. Rather, Lifeline is funded with a pool of money, called the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for with revenue donations from telecommunications providers. Some of those providers—like Verizon, for instance—pass off that cost to their customers with a Universal Service fee, but the government doesn’t mandate that the money come from citizens, meaning it’s technically not a tax.

It is sort of sad that the woman in Drudge’s “Obama phone” video has no idea that her free cell phone has nothing to do with Obama. But conservatives who would try and hold her up as an example of a liberal president gone wild with handouts are just as sad and ignorant, and more cruel by a large margin.

so to recap

• the phones are not an “Obama giveaway”
• they are not even a government giveaway because they’re not paid for with tax revenue
• they aren’t extravagant or in any way a luxury, they are 250 minute plans for limited or emergency use

Maybe you should take your own advice and check the facts before talking.

Aaaand the majority of welfare recipients are white, so, you know, facts.

And lololol forever at “It wouldn’t matter what her race is” followed by “and Black people are statistically leeches on the government and my precious tax dollars.” Well done, filthypickle. Well done.

inothernews:

So how does the Fox “News” Channel try to aid and abet Mitt Romney’s campaign, already mired in controversy over 49 minutes worth of candid, damn-the-47-percent, I-wish-I-was-Latino talk?

By ginning up “controversy” over a “1998 audio clip that purports to feature Obama saying he believes in wealth ‘redistribution.’”

Really.

“Fair and balanced” in action.

If this doesn’t convince some one that FOX is just an arm of the GOP then nothing will.

kateoplis:

“There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:

The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.

Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.

More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for subsidies — finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he’s completely ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.

We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?”

Paul Krugman: Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition | NYT

shortformblog:

inothernews:

Two journalists are among the latest casualties of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s murderous bombing of Homs: Marie Colvin, left, an American reporter working for The Sunday Times of London, and Rémi Ochlik, a French photographer.  Three other journalists were wounded when an explosion tore through a building being used as a makeshift media center in the central Syrian city.  (Photos via the Sunday Times [Colvin] and EPA; caption via the New York Times)

Between this and Anthony Shadid, it’s been a tough week for foreign journalists. In case you’re wondering about the eye patch, Colvin was kind of a die-hard as foreign correspondents go: “According to his Web site, Mr. Ochlik, in his late twenties, had covered wars and upheaval in Haiti, Congo and the Middle East. Ms. Colvin, 55, was a veteran of many conflicts from the Middle East to Chechnya and from the Balkans to Iraq and Sri Lanka, where she lost an eye covering a civil war. She wore a distinctive black eyepatch. Both had won awards for their work.”

(via shortformblog)

inothernews:

This is easily the most suggestive photo / headline juxtaposition on the Times’s website ever.

Good job, NYTimes.com editor.