It’s so easy to detect hypocrisy nowadays. Not that it will stop the culprit, but if it diminishes their power to further mislead, it’s a good thing.
With President Obama and congressional liberals facing loud protests over their big government health care plan, journalists are casting the anti-ObamaCare forces as “ugly,” “unruly,” “nasty” mobs, with reporters presenting the most odious images (like pictures of Obama drawn as Hitler) as somehow representative. But when President George W. Bush faced left-wing protests, the media scrubbed their stories of radical voices and depicted demonstrators as mainstream, and even “prescient.”
If progressive ideas were all that, there’d be no need to mislead or hide details… again.
Why wasn’t it “odious” to equate Bush with Hitler? Why is it suddenly “odious” [for, more than likely, a "false flag" operation] to portray alleged-President Obama as in some way like Hitler?
And, after all, Obama — a socialist — has far more in common with Hitler — a socialist — than Bush could hope to have.
I find it mindboggling that the ‘mainstream’ media can get away with their hypocracy…O’Reilly covered this last night on “The Factor when he confronted two ‘journalists’
I have even experienced this bias even on MySpace when I had pictures of Obama as Hitler censored from my pictures (as they were being uploaded!) but there are pictures of George W. Bush as Hitler all over MySpace!