In other news, the sun rose.

Let’s just go over the actual facts very briefly:

  1. Obamacare was the Democrats’ baby. It was passed in 2009 when the House AND the Senate AND the White House were all dominated by Democrats. That’s why everybody calls it “Obama”care. [duh]
  2. The Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, has been responsible for implementing it … all of it. Including Sebelius is an Obama appointee and a member of his Cabinet. Obama is a Democrat. Sebelius is a Democrat.

Got all that? Apparently, MSNBC does not.

2013_10 18 MSNBC blames Ocare site fail on GOP

But then … MSNBC is unashamed of its Progressive bias, which it proclaims in its motto “Lean Forward” … a slogan Obama uses.

It would be more accurate if their motto was “MSDNC: Lies For Obama.”


Added by PP:
This just came out


Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Media Bias, Obamacare, Republicans

11 responses to “MSNBC LIES AGAIN

  1. The Wall Street Journal reports that even those who managed to navigate the glitchy, error-ridden end up with errors in their enrollments, including duplicate enrollments, spouses reported as children, missing data fields, and suspect eligibility determinations. In one case, a customer successfully signed up on for three plans at one company.

    HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters told the WSJ, “We know that people are enrolling in coverage and the system works. As individual problems are raised by insurers, we work aggressively to address them.” Oh. I’m so reassured by this. NOT.


  2. Can we stop using the word Progressive to explain these people? Please start using their correct name: Marxist.

    This needs to be repeated over and over. We have to stop allowing this scum to keep using words that mean the opposite to what they are saying and doing.

    Progressive is out, Regressive is in. Marxist is the correct term. They are not Liberals. It is debateable as to whether they are in fact small l liberals. Marxist is the best fit.


    • I googled Marxism and read some gobbledygook at Wikipedia, then watched a video “Marxism for Dummies” that also made no sense. Maybe I should use “Statist” … at least I understand it means Big Government (in whatever form that may take).


      • Marxism = the ism started by Karl Marx

        Marxism is the root of all Socialism. It is not just Communism. It is also Fascism.

        Communism is the brand of Marxism perpetrated upon the Russian people by Stalin. It is better known as Stalinism but it is Marxism with Stalin’s changes.

        Fascism and Nazism are the Italian and German brands of Marxism.

        What they all have in common is the role of the State. So yes, Statism is a better name but it is not accurate.

        Forget Wikpedia. It is only as good as the people who post entries to it, and that means there is a lot of revisionism involved. It also means that they can disguise the real meaning of Marxism.

        Karl Marx and Friederich Engles wrote “The Communist Manifesto”

        Earlier versions of the same thing include Uptopianism.


    • “Marxist” works. I also like “Regressive,” but both of those names are far too civilized to use for those retards.


      • Marxist is the strongest word. Regressive points out that their policies are the opposite of what they proclaim so neither is all that civilized.

        I prefer even stronger words such as Communism, Fascism and Nazism. Those words describe far better the ends and the means by which they all operate.

        These people are Marxists. They do not hide the fact. Socialism is not quite the same thing as Marxism, being more benign in intent. Marxists make use of Socialism to reach their own goals.


        • I was confused about the placement of Comm and Soc on “Left” and Fasc and Naz on “Right” … it leads to Conservative Christian Right Wingnuts such as myself being called the latter, when we are for SMALL government, while recognizing that the only legitimate role of the Feds is the military.

          Then I read something about where those Left and Right things originated. Acc’ding to this source, it was Brit Parliament (maybe?), but the important factoid I took away was that the Comm-Socs were SEATED on the far left of the gallery while the Fasc-Nazis were SEATED on the far right … TO KEEP THEM APART because they hated each other.

          I made my own political graph that made more sense to me. I’ll see if I can find it in my old files. I think I published it at HillBuzz eons ago.


          • You need to understand that calling Christians the right is nothing more than a construct.

            Christians can be leftist and the remainder can be middle of the road but there is a group that is also extreme in the fundamentalist sense.

            Think of it along the lines of the “left” and “right” being the false construct.

            In the 1930s Spain had a Civil War. Both sides were socialists. One side (the winning side I might add) was considered to be right wing, and the other side, the Communists were the Left wing.

            There was very little difference between their ideology.

            Yes, the Left and Right thing started in the British Parliament. I would have to see what I can find in the way of a true historical account as to why it was left and right but I think it has to do with being Whig and Tory. The Tories are of the right. Nothing annoys me more than being called a Tory because I vote for the Liberal Party!!

            Once I know the exact history in the British Parliament I will write it up on my own blog. That will be later today, maybe.

            Another point is that even the English Defence League are not Nazis but they are called such and they are referred to as right wing. I have not heard them state that they are pro-government in charge of everything.

            On the other hand Marine Le Pen in France is far-right but you have to look on the left side of the line to find Marine Le Pen, because in France what is considered conservative remains over on the left side.

            If they have Socialist in their name, then they are left-wing. However, they could be purely socialist from the pov that they want to ensure that people are not left without any shelter etc so give them the minimum to survive (I would fit in that category to some extent) or they can be Socialist as in believing that the government should provide everything. This kind of Socialist is in fact Marxist.

            I get grumpy because the Liberal Party here in Australia is in fact the Conservative Party but there are people in the party who tend towards the Left.


  3. PP, thanks for the Hitler clip! I was just thinking the other day it had been ages since I’d seen one of these.