And, to think that there are a lot of people that believe the crap they hear because it was on TV and repeated over and over.

But, it's all good, I guess, if it insures Obama won't be re-elected.

85% might even be cutting some slack.

"Misleading" is putting it mildly.

What I hear so much is how Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck are liars. Can someone here prove that? We already know NBC (MSNBC?) lies. But, is there a truly unbiased website out there that proves these lies?

What I do is my own search and read I watch MSNBC and sometime CNN I love the Daily Show but since you do not have cable these are things you can watch segments and read online.

What I can say from my research there is no one place that you can go to that is going to be the 100% tell me what to think place to go.

It takes personal responsibility to find your answer.

Beck Complains That "Nobody" Is Looking To Recover The Fed's Profits. During a January interview with Sarah Palin, Beck discussed the Federal Reserve's 2009 profits, and claimed, "Exxon had their record profit a couple of years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. No one's having hearings on the Fed. Nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed. We can't even open the Fed's books." [Fox News, Glenn Beck,1/13/10, via Nexis]

REALITY: The Fed "Returns Its Profits To The Treasury." The Washington Post reported that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009 ... the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms." [The Washington Post, 1/12/10]

No. 14 Tax Dollars Funded An Art Exhibit Actually Paid For By Private Donors

BECK: "And Then You Have The Tax Dollars Funding This Wonderful Art Display. It's Christmas At The Smithsonian." Beck said of an exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":

Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that.

And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.

What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]
REALITY: Smithsonian "Receives Public Funds" But "Does Not Use That Money For Exhibitions." The Washington Post reported:

The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.

[...]

As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]

No. 10 "Every Single American Who Invests" Earns More Than $250,000 Per Year

BECK: President Obama Proposed To Increase The Capital Gains Tax On "Every Single American Who Invests." Beck falsely said that Obama "sought to raise the capital gains tax, which affects every single American who invests, which -- I know that sounds like the big Wall Street fat cats, but if you have a 401(k), that would be you." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/7/10]

REALITY: Obama Proposed Capital Gains Increase Only On "Upper-Income" Earners. The White House budget for fiscal year 2011 called for reinstating the 20 percent capital gains tax rate only on families with income greater than $250,000 and on individuals with income greater than $200,000. [Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011]

This is my favorite misrepresentation makes me want to smack the excrement head.

Soros Was Responsible For "Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager"

BECK: "Soros Was Asked If He Felt Guilt At All About Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager. He Responded, No." From Glenn Beck:

BECK: There's a lot of meat here that I need you to do your own homework on and learn the truth yourself. But we want to find out a little bit more about him and who he is and where did he come from.

His childhood is shocking, traumatic. He grew up in Nazi Europe. Fourteen years old, he had to help the government confiscate the lands of his fellow Jewish friends and neighbors. He didn't grow up in a Jewish household. His mother was a strong anti-Semite -- George Soros' words, not mine.

But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can't imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, no. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/9/10]
REALITY: Soros Said He "Had No Role In Taking Away That Property." In an interview with Kroft, Soros explained that he felt no guilt because he "had no role in taking away that property":

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. [CBS, 60 Minutes,12/20/98, via Nexis]
REALITY: Biographer Reported Soros "Collaborated With No One." In Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire -- a book cited by Beck during the program -- Michael T. Kaufman detailed Soros' reaction during the interview, as well as Soros' actions in Nazi-occupied Hungary:

While he was living with Baumbach as Sandor Kiss, an event occurred that more than a half a century later would become the basis of charges that George Soros, the international financier and billionaire, had somehow collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of his homeland and had exploited his fellow Jews. The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewer, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George's father had "bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson," and added that this survival strategy "carried a heavy price tag." For, he continued, "as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft's point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint.

This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his "godson" behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld's staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee. [Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Page 37]

Limbaugh often just misrepresents or tries to get you to imagine if you will.
He tried to get us to imagine that Deepwater Oil spill may have been explosives set by eco terrorist environmentalists that was a good one.
That The Sierra Club & groups like it forced deep water drilling.

A quote from The blubbering loon.

""If you [donate to the Hatian Relief Fund], you’ll probably just end up on an Obama campaign mailing list ��" and a big chunk of your donation will get siphoned off by government bureaucrats."

Regarding 911

Radio host Rush Limbaugh lied about a recently released report by the 9-11 Commission: He falsely claimed that the report confirms Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta may have met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. Limbaugh directly contradicted the report while purporting to summarize it.

From the June 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The [9-11 Commission] report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001. We've known this for a long time.
From the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement 16":

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred.

These were never little oopps sorry retraction pieces like you see on other stations they are grand ho ho ho hee hee he haw haw so the eff what blubbers when caught.

Limbaugh wrong on minimum wage -- again
August 13, 2004 5:05 pm ET
0 Comments

On the August 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh overstated and once again misrepresented the current federal minimum wage. He claimed that "It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour," adding that "[t]he minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything."

In reality, the current federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, where it has stood for the past seven years. That's the second-longest span of time that the minimum wage has gone unchanged since its implementation in 1938, according to an article by the Economic Policy Institute.

From the August 12 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything. ... It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour, an hour, going to be there soon. ... I don't want some well intentioned do-gooder that doesn't even know me, who's only interested in making himself feel better, because he thinks he's done something, come along and give me a mediocre, modest, you know, chump change raise, called the minimum wage, and have him feel good about himself, while I'm sitting here still in the midst of a struggle. ... No, thank you. I don't want to be imprisoned by minimum wage. ... Here, take the minimum wage. Vote for us, we'll raise it in a couple years, as long as the rascally Republicans don't stand in our way. They hate you. But we love you. Now go ahead, eat your rice.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the value of the $5.15 minimum wage in real dollars was lower in 2003 than in all but three years since 1960; because the minimum wage remains unchanged in 2004, it is now worth even less relative to its value in other years. At the current federal minimum wage, a full-time worker earns approximately $10,712 a year.

On April 29, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, Limbaugh claimed that "75 percent of the people earning minimum wage" are teenagers; in reality, only 32 percent are.

I have no idea about hannity I never have watched or listened to him.

I have never know Beck to make a retraction I've listened to a number of retractions on other news stations.
I'm sure someone else will post something like this in another year & I won't mind then doing the work they could have done themselves by just looking it up on various google sites.

I have no problem doing research myself, but most of us have limited time and if someone has already researched something, is it that much of a problem to share?

houseful, I said do your own research because what my research or anyone else is the same as a misleading ad. You come to conclusion on what you find. Not what someone say is true.

I have seen topics you have started it is what you found because it is what draws you to your ideas.

Are you the one that home school? I do not remember.

Feigning naivete is very unbecoming and so transparent.

from the Romney side, several out beating to death the 'the private sector is doing fine" excerpted-out-of-context line

from the Obama side, several out with Romney/governor/Massachusetts being near the bottom in job creation, higher taxes, state debt, and so on.

We're talking dueling ads every commercial break.

An inane topic for discussion.

I'm not going to post links. This is just my observation.
I am saddened and nearly sick that we have no avenue for fair and balanced coverage anywhere on TV.

The only anchor I found that came close to being neutral was Brian Williams. His contributors, not so much.

Rachael Maddow and Bill Maher spew vile hatred toward Republicans as do all their guest.
I wasn't just uncomfortable as a Republican, I was uncomfortable as a human being that there is so much ugliness directed at others, regardless of politics on those two shows.

Fox News....I was exhausted after an hour of Health & Comtempt.
I think Fox does bring forth information sometimes that we shouldn't sweep under the rug but there is no such thing as fair and balanced.
Fox is biased.
They are all biased.
There is nothing we can do about the media obviously because human nature tells us if the info sides with our belief then it gets a pass but there is something we can do as human beings about the ugliness towards others because of their belief.

Listen to the language....to the contempt and to the laughter. If you are comfortable with it then thats who you are.

I am still reeling from Bill Maher's show which I had never watched before.
I felt dirty and I didn't give him an inch for being a comedian.
I am a Republican but in my own country I should be protected from the hate and the spewing vile I heard .
Turn it off is everyone's option but I was trying to figure out the difference of why it is ok for the prejudice against a political belief but it would not be ok if the prejudice was against color.

My political view is my color. That is who I am. I am a conservative in principals and in my life style.
Does anyone have the right to bad mouth me because of these views.
After I came away from the TV media I felt like it wouldn't be too much longer until Conservative people like me will have to hide to keep from being stoned( a little ov th top).

Sometimes HT posters can get ugly but we forget....behind that Democrat or Ind or Rep is a real person....at home, ..believing they are right in their belief and just wanting a better America.

It's just too frustrating.

Your last paragraph is a nice sentiment, especially because I believe you are being sincere. :-)