Home » Posts tagged with » msnbc (Page 19)

The Transportation Scurity Admionistration has been taking a lot of flak lately, but at least they busted a Baltimore man who tried to get through airport security with 12 switchblades and a butterfly knife in his carry-on bag, MSNBC reports. The passenger, an Egyptian citizen who has been in the…

Continue reading …

Troubled Actress Lindsay Lohan discussed her sobriety while drinking wine, then complained bitterly that she deserved the starring role in Black Swan , reports a Miami journalist. Lohan pointed out that she “took ballet until she was 19 and was indignant that she was not considered for Black Swan ,” writes reporter…

Continue reading …
Kate Hudson Picks A Name

raycer64 says: Who Gives a Shit News: Kate Hudson picks a name for her new son, Bingham ‘Bing’ Hawn Bellamy , you can now go back to your lives

Continue reading …

A

Continue reading …
Martin Bashir on NBC’s ‘Today’: Rupert Murdoch ‘A Combination of Jack Abramoff and James ‘Whitey’ Bulger’

Appearing on Thursday's NBC Today, MSNBC host Martin Bashir shared his thoughts on the tabloid phone hacking scandal in Britain and proclaimed that News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch was “…a combination of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist, and someone like James 'Whitey' Bulger, the mobster.” [ Audio available here ] Despite Bashir's outrageous comparison – Abramoff was convicted on corruption charges and Bulger is accused of 19 murders during his time as the head of the Irish mob in Boston – co-host Matt Lauer offered no objection to the claim. View video after the jump In fact, Lauer began the discussion by praising Bashir's insight into news stories: “Sometimes when I have you, I like to just ask the simplest question first because I like your take.” Lauer then asked: “So as you've watched this story unfold over the last month or so, what jumps out at you?” In addition to describing Murdoch as a crime boss, Bashir declared: “It's the power of Rupert Murdoch. It's hard to imagine the power that he exerted on politicians….And what he had was the power to reward and to punish….Coercion by humiliation.” Lauer followed up by attacking the close relationship between many British politicians and Murdoch: “Look at what's happened over the last week or so. These politicians who used to have a very close, some would say incestuous relationship with Murdoch are now running from him as fast as they can run from him. Which, by the way, is typical of politics, but how much of a problem is it for Rupert Murdoch?” Bashir replied: “It's a massive problem.” Here is a full transcript of the July 14 discussion: 7:13AM ET MATT LAUER: Martin Bashir is the host of the Martin Bashir Show on MSNBC. Martin, it's good to have you here. BASHIR: Thank you, Matt. LAUER: Sometimes when I have you, I like to just ask the simplest question first because I like your take, you spent a lot of time as a journalist in the UK and here in the United States. MARTIN BASHIR: I worked for the Sunday Times between 1984 and 1985. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Murdoch Under Fire; How Will Phone Hacking Scandal Impact Media Empire?] LAUER: Exactly. So as you've watched this story unfold over the last month or so, what jumps out at you? BASHIR: It's the power of Rupert Murdoch. It's hard to imagine the power that he exerted on politicians. Imagine a combination of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist, and someone like James 'Whitey' Bulger, the mobster. And what he had was the power to reward and to punish. So for example, in 2004, when an MP stood up and said she thought having semi-naked women on page three of The Sun newspaper was now something we shouldn't do anymore, they sent 20 semi-naked people to her constituency office and called her 'fat, frumpy and dumpy.' Coercion by humiliation. LAUER: So – but look at what's happened over the last week or so. These politicians who used to have a very close, some would say incestuous relationship with Murdoch… BASHIR: Absolutely. Indeed. LAUER: …are now running from him as fast as they can run from him. Which, by the way, is typical of politics, but how much of a problem is it for Rupert Murdoch? BASHIR: It's a massive problem. Remember, The Sun and the News of the World were the only two newspapers that made him any money. The Times loses money in London. But the thing he desperately wanted BSkyB Broadcasting, because it's the television arm that makes the billions of pounds and now he's had to withdraw because he knows the politicians were not going to support that. LAUER: Well, but also, not only the politicians wouldn't support it, but does he also – do you think that deal is now dead because the people in Murdoch's organization understand that there is probably more damaging evidence about to come out? BASHIR: When they did the inquiry in 2007, they said there was one rogue reporter and about eight people had been hacked. Yesterday I spoke to a senior officer at the Metropolitan Police who said 4,800 people's phones had been hacked and they haven't even started to get to the bottom of the things that have been done. LAUER: This has pulled back a curtain, if you will, and exposed a very dark side of tabloid journalism. I guess the question a lot of people here in the States want to know, and let's face it, you could almost hear this story being pulled across the Atlantic… BASHIR: No doubt. LAUER: …yesterday, with these Senators writing letters to Eric Holder and a congressman writing to Mr. Mueller at the FBI. How much further does this go? Do you think this is a standard practice for tabloid newspaper and scandal magazines here in the U.S.? BASHIR: It's hard to know, but imagine, they said one reporter, but now it was clearly widespread in the News of the World news room. Are you telling me that people who work in that organization in this country have never ever used the same tactics? They may not have, but at the end of the day, the pressure to deliver the kind of stories, the kind of access – remember, we're talk about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's disabled son's medical records. He stands up in the House of Commons yesterday and he says the Sunday Times newspaper paid a criminal to procure those records. Now, we can't confirm whether that's true. But that's the level of interest that people had. And when stories kept appearing in tabloid papers, you had to ask yourself, 'How did they get that story?' After I interviewed Princess Diana in 1995, we had our third child in '96, Eliza, and she was incubated after birth because she was – she had problems with her lungs. Within two day, two journalists attempted to get into the ward, both of them working for The Sun newspaper. How did they know, when nobody else knew, that our daughter, who was just two days old, was unwell? LAUER: Clearly someone had access they shouldn't have had. BASHIR: Somebody had access. LAUER: Martin Bashir. Martin, always good to have you here. BASHIR: Great to be here. LAUER: Thanks very much. 17 after the hour. You can catch Martin's show weekdays at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time on MSNBC.

Continue reading …
Socialist Senator: Obama’s Wrong – Social Security Checks Will Go Out If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised

America's only admittedly socialist member of Congress said Wednesday that he disagreed with President Obama's comments concerning Social Security checks possibly not going out on August 3rd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he felt checks to seniors and disabled vets would be issued no matter what, the host of MSNBC's “The Ed Show” responded, “So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: And Senator, what was your response to the President when he told a, an anchor in an interview he couldn’t guarantee that the checks would be there on April 3rd [sic], that he couldn’t guarantee that the Social Security checks would, would hit people’s bank accounts if we don’t take action? What’s your response to that? True or false? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VERMONT): Well, there are differences of opinion about that. There are some who would argue, and I tend to agree, that given the fact that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus, then you can figure out a way you must make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks. SCHULTZ: So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence? SANDERS: What he is saying is, look, there’s not enough money here to pay our debts. That’s true. I think, in fact, we can pay Social Security. Interesting when possibly the most liberal member of Congress goes on national television contradicting a Democrat president. That'll teach Schultz never to ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Of course, on this rare occasion, Sanders was correct. The Bipartisan Policy Center published some very compelling numbers about this matter that jive nicely with what NewsBusters has been sharing for over a week. As reported by the Weekly Standard Friday: The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion). That leaves about $39 billion to fund other things. As such, whether or not the President specifically said Social Security checks are in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the mere suggestion is indeed fear-mongering, and the American people deserve a more factual representation of what would happen in a few weeks if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on this issue. As it's become crystal clear that's not going to come from the White House or their media minions, it sure was surprising to see a grain of truth on MSNBC, especially coming from Sanders.

Continue reading …

Medal Of Honor

No Comment
Medal Of Honor

Dirtyy Kitty Black Ops No Scope & Quick Scope Montage Sit!.. Good Boy! Definiti And Beyond Trailer TeamObama says: Remarks by the President in Presenting the Medal of Honor to Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry http://1.usa.gov/qlfjGd

Continue reading …
Major Garrett Tells Chris Matthews Why GOP Can’t Vote For Tax Hikes

As much as liberal media members pushing for tax hikes don't understand the fiscal and economic reasons for not doing so, they've been deceitfully ignoring the political ramifications for Republicans caving on this issue. On Monday's “Hardball,” National Journal's Major Garrett explained to Chris Matthews that if the President didn't raise taxes high enough for his liking when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress for two years, it's absurd to expect the GOP to do it for him now (video follows with transcript and commentary): MAJOR GARRETT, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Boehner and McConnell don't want to default, okay. They’ve said so publicly. They're in negotiations to avoid a default… CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Right. GARRETT: … and they’re going to try to drive the hardest bargain. What they're telling the President is, “Look at the political realities: you didn't raise taxes in a lame duck session when you had 59 Democrats in the Senate and almost 260 in the House. Don't expect Republicans to raise taxes we own the House of Representatives and have six more it Senate seats. MATTHEWS: Yeah. GARRETT: Operationally, as a matter of politics, that doesn't work. Exactly. Obama had two years of complete legislative control of this country – including months of a filibuster-proof Senate – to get whatever tax increases he wanted on the books. Now that the Republicans control the House, and have a stronger position in the Senate, it's politically untenable for them to go along with any tax hikes no matter how small, especially coming so soon after their victory in the midterms and with another major election less than seventeen months away. Doing so would be political suicide, and could result in a repeat of the shellacking Republicans took after President George H.W. Bush went back on his “Read My Lips – No New Taxes” pledge. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Monday said this is likely Obama's strategy: John Boehner is Obama's lifeline to reelection. That's all Boehner is to Obama, nothing else. He not a golf buddy. He's nothing other than that. If he can get Boehner to ultimately cave, Obama's reelected. That's what he knows…He sees, “If I can force this guy to cave, I don't care what the House vote is. I don't care if I lose the vote. If I can get this guy to cave and put my tax increase for a vote, even if it loses, I win. And I get reelected.” That's what Obama thinks, because if Boehner caves, it's bye-bye GOP. That's the thing that everybody must understand. If Boehner caves, it's bye-bye GOP and nothing to do with the policy changes that might happen. If Boehner caves and takes a tax increase, folks, to the House and it loses, Obama still wins because the Republican base is so ticked off at that. Exactly. What Obama and his media minions are trying to do is create a repeat of 1990 when the Democrats and their press surrogates hammered Bush 41 until he finally agreed to raise taxes against his campaign pledge. Despite the media supporting this move at the time, they were all over him once the 1992 presidential campaign began, and assisted in fomenting conservative as well as moderate anger that led so many to vote for Ross Perot it gave Bill Clinton the victory with far less than 50 percent of the votes. Those that have been paying attention know that the press have been ridiculing Bush for this disastrous flip-flop ever since. Now, almost 20 years later, the Democrats and the press are trying to do the exact same thing claiming that the world is going to end if taxes aren't raised hoping to force Boehner and Company to cave. Once that happens, after initially congratulating the GOP for being willing to compromise for the sake of the nation, they'll attack every Republican during next year's campaign season – including Boehner – for their flip-flop hoping that they will not only get their beloved Obama re-elected but also give the House back to the Democrats. With this in mind, Garrett and Limbaugh are 100 percent right: if the Republicans want to be successful at the polls next November, they can't cave on this tax issue no matter what pressure they get from media members to do so. Intelligent people are supposed to learn from history not repeat it.

Continue reading …
Martin Bashir Falsely Accuses Palin of Calling Obama a ‘Sugar Daddy’

Martin Bashir Monday falsely accused former Alaska governor Sarah Palin of calling President Obama a sugar daddy. Not only did the MSNBC host badly misinterpret Palin's words, he clearly doesn't understand what a sugar daddy is (video follows with transcript and commentary): MARTIN BASHIR, HOST: Another GOP favorite in the headlines this week, Sarah Palin, she’s been interviewed in Newsweek magazine, or there’s a big feature about her. She thinks that she can win the election. She’s also got a new pasting, posting on her Facebook where she refers to the President as a sugar daddy. GOLDIE TAYLOR, THE GRIO: She does, indeed. You know, I’ve got to wonder about Sarah Palin. I, I wonder about… BASHIR: Do you understand a sugar daddy to be a pimp? TAYLOR: That’s exactly what a sugar daddy is. Actually, I've always considered a sugar daddy to be more of a John than a pimp. A pimp is a prostitute's business manager so to speak oftentimes helping her find clients and taking a slice of the pie. By contrast, a sugar daddy is typically a well-off man that sets up a woman in an apartment and buys her things in return for sexual service and companionship. This is certainly how the Urban Dictionary sees it as well as Wikipedia. But that was just the beginning of Bashir's stupidity, for in ” The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders ,” Palin wasn't referring to Obama at all: Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world. The same “experts” who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to “increase revenue,” but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to “increase revenue” by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it. That deserves repeating: “Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.” As such, Palin was calling “hard working taxpayers” that have been footing the bill for others the sugar daddy – NOT Obama. It appears the British native not only has difficulty with American slang, he's also got quite a problem with reading comprehension. You can see why he fits in so well at MSNBC. (H/T Tommy Christopher )

Continue reading …

MSNBC's Martin Bashir on Monday wondered if Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum support ” a return to the days of slavery ” after the two GOP hopefuls signed a pledge on upholding traditional marriage. Teasing a segment on the topic, the cable anchor mused, ” Next, the problem with promises. Did two Republican hopefuls really sign a pledge suggesting a return to the days of slavery? ” Bashir covered the language in a “marriage vow” put together by the Family Leader, a conservative social group in Iowa. In their pledge, the organization suggested, “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.” Now, regardless of the historical inaccuracies in the pledge (most slave families weren't allowed to stay together), it's disingenuous at best to suggest Bachmann and Santorum would sit down and sign a pledge advocating for slavery to return.

Continue reading …