Media ignores CatPlant employees against the stealfromus bill.

[Andy]

We heard about how Jim Owens, the owner of the Caterpillar plant supported the stealfromus bill. Of course he later admitted the bill would do nothing. Nevertheless, the favorable Obama-bot media ignored that, and proclaimed the wondrous greatness of how the stealfromus would save jobs!

Now, new information has surfaced. It appears the employees of the Cat Plant, were not as happy about the stealfromus bill.

Aaron Schock, R-Ill., who represents the 18th Congressional District of Illinois, had this to say:

"I got no pressure. In fact, we had thousands of phone calls, letters, emails," Schock said. "I had 1,400 constituents that self-identified themselves on calling, in their letter or in their e-mail that said, ‘I am a Caterpillar employee,' and then went on to ask me to vote against the stimulus. So, I didn't have a single person at that Cat plant ask me to vote for it and I had 1,400 Caterpillar employees urging me to vote against it."

Where's the mass media on this? That's a big story to me. If Joe the Plumber had turned out to be a life long democrat, and supported Obama's tax plan, wouldn't that be all over the news? So why is a mass outcry against the stealformus package, from the people touted as supporting it, being reported with the same fervor?

Well of course the answer is the Media is overwhelmingly Obama-socialist-bots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-p...nt-employees-overwhelmingly-opposed-stimulus-

http://www.zimbio.com/Colleen+Callahan/articles/2/Republican+Congressman+Aaron+Schock+constituents

 

[PLC1]

Where, indeed, is the mass media on the Caterpillar story? It's a good thing we have good, conservative, reporting in right wing papers and blogs like this one.

Why does the stimulus plan have such widespread support? How can the American people believe that going further and further into debt is going to magically lift the world out of economic depression? Blame the "liberal media" if you want, but negative stories are being reported in even the most liberal of newspapers.

I think the people are afraid for the future, and wanting the government to do something, anything to try to make it better. The truth is, we have been spending at record levels for years without helping the economy. Not only that, but the depression is worldwide, not just a local phenomenon of the USA.

What to do, what to do? When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. Or, equally effective, expect the government to solve the problem.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why does the stimulus plan have such widespread support? How can the American people believe that going further and further into debt is going to magically lift the world out of economic depression? Blame the "liberal media" if you want, but negative stories are being reported in even the most liberal of newspapers.

I think the people are afraid for the future, and wanting the government to do something, anything to try to make it better. The truth is, we have been spending at record levels for years without helping the economy. Not only that, but the depression is worldwide, not just a local phenomenon of the USA.

What to do, what to do? When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. Or, equally effective, expect the government to solve the problem.

In 1918 a worldwide pandemic killed 20,000,000 people. People were desperate to do anything:

"The mother of one young girl who contracted the deadly illness dosed her with onion syrup and buried her from head-to-toe for three days in glistening raw onions. Those with an aversion to onions swore by a shoveful of hot coals sprinkled with sulfur or brown sugar, which enveloped every room in a noxious blue-green smoke. While evidence that any of these measures had any positive effect was anecdotal, they were in keeping with the belief that doing anything to fend off influenza was better than sitting idly by, waiting to become a statistic."

Should they have picked a cure based on what they had an aversion to? Or should they have looked to see what worked in the only two cities in the U.S. that survived the pandemic unscathed?

Meanwhile, the commonsense approach to the pandemic crisis was to avoid being near sick people and the commonsense approach to the economic crisis today is to stop going into debt.

But our president has chosen a solution based on what he has an aversion to and what he likes - which is socialistic spending. he would have done it with or without the crisis but there is no sense in letting a good crisis go to waste.

 

[PLC1]

In 1918 a worldwide pandemic killed 20,000,000 people. People were desperate to do anything:

"The mother of one young girl who contracted the deadly illness dosed her with onion syrup and buried her from head-to-toe for three days in glistening raw onions. Those with an aversion to onions swore by a shoveful of hot coals sprinkled with sulfur or brown sugar, which enveloped every room in a noxious blue-green smoke. While evidence that any of these measures had any positive effect was anecdotal, they were in keeping with the belief that doing anything to fend off influenza was better than sitting idly by, waiting to become a statistic."

Should they have picked a cure based on what they had an aversion to? Or should they have looked to see what worked in the only two cities in the U.S. that survived the pandemic unscathed?

Meanwhile, the commonsense approach to the pandemic crisis was to avoid being near sick people and the commonsense approach to the economic crisis today is to stop going into debt.

But our president has chosen a solution based on what he has an aversion to and what he likes - which is socialistic spending. he would have done it with or without the crisis but there is no sense in letting a good crisis go to waste.

Good analogy.