Boycott ABC Advertisers: Propaganda Arm of the Obama White House
June 16, 2009 / 12:08 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierWell, ABC is one of the propaganda arms, anyway. When it comes to Health Care, ABC’s Charlie (look down-my-nose-at-Sarah-Palin) Gibbs and Diane Sawyer will be asking “tough questions” of President Obama, in the White House about the President’s health care plan. Every once in a while I pine for the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe then, the MSM would find some balance. Never mind. It would be worse. At least there’s alternative media.
Here’s a solution for the ABC interview: boycott the products being advertised on ABC and let ABC know about it.
Thoughts?
13 Responses to “Boycott ABC Advertisers: Propaganda Arm of the Obama White House”
June 16 2009 / 1:14 pm
Reply
Yes there are thoughts. This is very troubling. The television and also the radio should not be showing the image or transmitting the words of the President of the United States. Americans can not be allowed to hear and see the president. He is liable to explain what he wants the government to do.
Just because he was elected by the American people to be the head of the executive branch of the government doesn’t give him the right to advocate policies or to try to explain his positions to the people who elected him.
June 16 2009 / 2:56 pm
Reply
I’d withhold judgment until the piece airs before you start your calls for boycott, seems a little premature to me.
June 16 2009 / 3:17 pm
Reply
I don’t know how well boycotts work generally, but it might be worth a try in this case. ABC is getting MUCH to cozy with The Man.
June 16 2009 / 11:38 pm
Reply
Normalization. We deal with that a lot up here in Canada every time the government comes out with a brilliant nanny-state idea. The only way to counter is to DE-normalize the bureaucracy in question. In this case, socialized medicine.
My heart breaks to see this happening in the USA. I always thought better of you than I did of us.
RG
June 16 2009 / 11:57 pm
Reply
Look at the bright side,Rightgirl.If you live in Canada and your heart breaks, you can have it repaired without becoming bankrupt
June 17 2009 / 5:56 am
Reply
Yeah riiiight fuster , thats why the hospitals on the U.S. side of the border are filled with Canadians getting life saving operations and paying for it out of thier pockets. Yeah a wonderous goverment run rationed health system. The political hack who is in charge of it CAME HERE to have surgery. You think it’s wonderous? Ask Liam Nieson how great it is.
June 17 2009 / 11:16 am
Reply
Fischer, you’re quite right that we have the ability to provide the finest of health care and that the rich have traditionally come here when it’s on the fan.
Most of us aren’t rich and when presented with the bill for major surgery and the ensuing hospital stay, we’re going to have a hard time coming up with half a million bucks to pay for it.
June 18 2009 / 10:51 am
Reply
BUT YOU GOT THE LIFE SAVING SURGERY! IN England and Canada,it’s a supposed lotto system. If your a working class stiff or any of many average income the chances you won’t get it . You see a Goverment hack decides if you as a subject are a finacially viable product. What that means is CAN this person pay enough in taxes to pay back the expense of the operation. So salary,AGE,future productivity ect all are taken into account. YOU are not even a number to this gov. run system, to them you are a irratent.If you for instance are diagnosed with cancer(I know this for a fact)The average wait time for a person up to 40 yrs old is 6 months before the first run of chemo is administered. 41 to 55,(depending on your income)1 yr. Older than 55? GO HOME ! Most of these economicly non viables don’t even get morphine or othe top line pain killers to ease their suffering while they waste away, you see it’s too expensive.You mad at this callous treatment? Well lets sue the doctor or hospital right? WRONG ! They are Goverment employees! You try and sue the goverment and see what happens.
June 18 2009 / 11:40 am
Reply
Sorry, Fischer. If you can’t pay here, you maybe didn’t get the lifesaving surgery. Or maybe you got sent to a public hospital where almost that kind of surgery was performed. Or maybe the surgery was performed by an inexperienced surgeon. Or maybe you were told that medication was indicated instead of the invasive procedure and six months on the medication might do the trick.
June 18 2009 / 2:49 pm
Reply
sorry back to you Fuster, the inexpierienced sugeon in the U.S. is one who at a minimum has 4yrs premed,4yrs med school,2yrs rez,2yrs working with an expierienced surgeon before soloing. Many Doctors in Can and England come from countries where once graduating High School go straight into Medschool then 1 yr rez. Again This is fact. And about a public hospital,what do you think the hospitals in socialized medicine countries are. Giving Meds here instead of Surg? Only if not life threatening circumstaces.Plus they get the meds here whether they can pay or not.How do I know this? SISTER,Doctor(teaches at a top Med school.)2uncles,doctors one surgeon,one orthepedics.Two cousins, Doctors, one cancer specialist,one General practice. Three cousins, nurses,one pedeiatrics,one surgical nurse,one anestetics. How do I know about the Britain and Canadian system? Wife from Bristol England,Inlaws same,Canada Their cousins from Ontario and British Columbia. And me ….well I’m just a long haul driver so big whoop! (think mom dropped me on my head too much when a baby)
June 18 2009 / 4:36 pm
Reply
When people get their meds whether they can pay for it or not, I have trouble distinguishing that from socialized medicine. Those meds get paid for from a government-run fund.
All the examples that you keep giving show the worst of all possible faces of socialized medicine. There’s absolutely no reason to think that our standards here would change to resemble them. I don’t think that you know enough about the financial side of the present health care system in this country or you would understand that the levels of care here are generally very good, but with large variance.
I don’t want to give you the liberal hearts-and-flowers speech about that disparity. I only want to impress upon you that the current system is in need of reform. There are funds in the system, at present, to produce a higher level of care and a more balanced level of care.
I also have many relatives practicing medicine and in management for one of the giant pharmaceutical companies.
I’m neither, just someone who put in a decade or so as in hospital management.
June 19 2009 / 7:51 am
Reply
The difference is that patients with insurance pay extra to cover those expences such as $25 dollars for a asprin . Does it need an overhaul? YES. But I don’t want a Goverment hack ordering me to go to a certain Doctor,hospital ,when and if I can any kind of surgery , whar meds I can have ect..ect.. If you want to see Goverment run health care lool at the Veterens hospitals,Medicare,Medicade,now imagine whe over 300 million Americans are put on those rolls what the system will be like!Imagine being extremely ill and having to stand in line at the DMV,then deal with that hack.
June 19 2009 / 3:03 pm
Reply
Fischer, you persist in pointing out how bad things might become. Worst-case outcomes must sorely be considered, but why do you insist on positing them as the only alternative?
Look at the levels of funding that go into the Canadian and British health-care systems and compare it to the funds going into ours. We have better funding and will be able to produce a better outcome without the severe rationing or access.
Unless you wish to add the stipulation that we are less smart or less honest than the English and Canadians, you should rethink a bit.