National Healthcare: Breeding Ground For Terror?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Health Care, Media, Partisan Hacks, Religion, Terrorism, Video

As you can see below, the title of this post was an actual caption on Fox News.

So their argument is basically, “Because Universal Health Care brings about more diversity, it’s more likely to attract terrorists because Muslims will fit in and not be noticed. Best to have private practices where white, Christian doctors make up the majority. That way they’ll spot the Muslims who are likely to be reading jihadist web pages at work.”

Fox News: Breeding Ground For Morons?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 and is filed under Health Care, Media, Partisan Hacks, Religion, Terrorism, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

24 Responses to “National Healthcare: Breeding Ground For Terror?”

  1. Tully Says:

    Tasty tin-foil-hat paranoia. Kinda like Olbermann, but without the flying spittle, dilated pupils, and bulgy forehead veins. Hey Cavuto, have you noticed yet how many of our doctors NOW are first-gen or original immigrants who have fled the Lands of Allah? Better check ‘em all out.

    “Next up, is Al Qaeda planting accounting operatives in state revenue offices and at the IRS to make us suffer even more?”

  2. the Word Says:

    Sorry but unless you can point out anything remotely like this by Olbermann it seems like a lame attempt to make everything equal when it is not even remotely so to someone without blinders.

  3. Tully Says:

    Something such as Olbermann’s calling Bush a fascist and accusing him of war crimes? His allegations that results in Florida in 2004 were rigged? Or comparing Bush to both Hitler and Chamberlin in a single rant? Or his allegations that the JFK terror plot was a cleverly-timed political ploy by the Bush administration? His labelling of the TV series “24″ as an hour-long political commercial for Republicans?

    Hey, nobody does paranoia and derangement syndrome quite like Olbermann. But Bill O’Reilly, now THERE’S a worthy contender for the Aluminum Helmet Award! Cavuto’s a rank amateur by comparison to either of the Nemesis Twins.

  4. ExiledIndependent Says:

    Wow, slow news day or something. Stretch-o-rama. I mean, seriously, I harp about unintended consequences all the time, but this is a head scratcher even for me.

  5. the Word Says:

    Having not seen anything in context, you’ll have to understand that I doubt it –you being the source. Justin provided video so it is a bit easier to judge.

    I did look at the video supposedly linking Hitler and Chamberlain. What I saw was a linking of Chamberlain and his statement of “Peace in Our Time” (only mention of Hitler was that it was the agreement he signed with Hitler) to the ridiculous Mission Accomplished banner. Both were seen by most as examples of political puffery and deception. But throwing the H word out does get people to think you had a point. I found it disingenuous unless you have a different video.

    I do think Bush is a war criminal. I think that’s what sanctioning torture makes you unless you use the two standard method of judgment.

  6. the Word Says:

    So you buy the “We’re facing abnormally high call volume” excuse too? :-) It can’t always be slow news day.

  7. Chicago Voter Says:

    How old is that clip? TPM hasn’t been with Veracifier in quite some time, leading me to believe that the footage is old.

  8. Agnostick Says:

    I Googled “cavuto healthcare terror”… unless Faux News was airing a rerun… that clip appears to be from early July of 2007.

    Click the lower corner of the vid above, choose “Watch it on YouTube”…

  9. the Word Says:

    I’m sorry then obviously this “news organization” must have retracted this story and apologized and fired this Cavuto person and his Editor. I’m sure it’s all been cleared up since then.

  10. Tully Says:

    Just like MSNBC has fired Olbermann and his editor, tWord? Not holding my breath either way awaiting those to happen. The talking heads are there to draw ratings and thus concentrate on their target demographics. If you expect anything else, you don’t understand the cable news biz. Their respective networks could care less about much else.

    Yep, Olbermann’s a nut who outshines Cavuto as being a nut in consistency, tone, and sheer volume of bile. But since you apparently agree with him, you don’t see him as one.

    Head scratcher for me too, EI. Musta been a slow news day. But then, most are when you have to fill the waves 24/7.

  11. the Word Says:

    I don’t agree with everything Olbermann says but what you said earlier was a hell of alot more of a stretch about what he said than what he actually said. (You must have had your Fox mouthpiece on) I get that they are there for ratings. I don’t mind opinion as long as they don’t just make stuff up. Like the threat of terrorism with burning cars in the background for healthcare reform. And no, I have never seen anything like that on Olbermann, ever, When he speaks, he is stating his opinion. Cavuto trotted out his tripe like it was a valid news story. Suggesting National Health Care could mean more terrorists is pretty crazy even for your side. And they are quite nutty.

  12. the Word Says:

    btw, it does say a lot about Fox’s target demographic.

  13. Tully Says:

    I don’t agree with everything Olbermann says but what you said earlier was a hell of alot more of a stretch about what he said than what he actually said

    Bull. Olbermann is a constant source of such wingnuttery. But you’re free to live in your own little world…and will.

    MY side? You’re saying I support Cavuto because I called him a moron? Heh. You must have a reading comprehension issue. MY side would be the non-wingnut side, so I take it as a compliment. We’re not particular about which brand of wingnut we mock.

  14. Tully Says:

    btw, it does say a lot about Fox’s target demographic.

    Yep. Just as Olbermann’s bloviations say a lot about MSNBC’s target demographic.

  15. Chris Says:

    Being a little defensive Tully?

  16. the Word Says:

    There is no comparison Tully. NONE. That you fail to admit it means you are blinded by your party affiliation. You implied Olbermann compared Bush to Hitler and Chamberlain. It was a gross over exaggeration on your part and much worse than what you accused him of. My issue is that you equate a man’s opinion which IMO was accurate and appropriate with an attempt to scare stupid people. I think there is a huge difference. Your claim to fairness only works if they are equivalent and I completely and totally reject that. I already said that Malloy and Rhodes often make me uncomfortable but they are the closest to O’Reilly and company you are ever going to get. You have a terminal case of what you accused me of.

  17. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Fox News: Nationalized Healthcare Helps Terrorists Says:

    [...] H/T: Donklephant [...]

  18. kranky kritter Says:

    I wholeheartedly share Tully’s policy, which is anti-CPD. CPD stands for comparative political demonology. Partisans love to play this, and the way it works is this:

    Any instance of a totally off-the-beam, moonbat, lunatic comment by Team A is taken by Team B as further supporting evidence of their ongoing thesis. The ongoing thesis is that Team A is nuts, whacko, evil, etc etc, in comparison to Team B, which is sane, reasonable, fair-minded, unbiased, and virtuous.

    Both Tully and I love to cite chapter and verse on the very many total idiots and whackjobs on each partisan side. Because we know that the vast majority of loyalists from both Team A and Team B are overzealous, highly biased ideologues.

    Olberman is IMO one of these, one member on a very long list. He’s just as bad as Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Janine Garafolo,etc etc. Same schtick, different content. They’re all sophists.( Look it up.)

    If you don’t get this, you’re part of the problem.

  19. the Word Says:

    I get that we all think the other side is wrong. In point of fact, sometimes they are. Saying the other side is just as bad without citing an actual example is just dishonest and wrong. It might be said that you’d look more honest if you actually condemned things you find objectionable in your own party because you think the GOP is better than that. You might find we agree on some things but this whole blanket condemnation because it makes you feel less slimy is just weak.

    Cite chapter and verse and point out what you disagree with, but if you don’t get that there is a difference, you are the problem. Moral equivalence is only valid if they are actually equivalent-not just someone from the other side. You accept your own sides despicable behavior by rationalizing that we all do it.

    Tully totally misled on the Hitler Chamberlain story for instance which was worse than the offense he accused Olbermann of. It was dishonest and he should know that (and admit it). If you want to point out what someone does that was wrong fine, but don’t say everyone is just as bad because you think just saying it proves your point. You think that just gives you free rein and we have to tolerate the behavior and many of us, check the last election, are sick of it.

    Olbermann got an audience because many people were sick to death of the approach that the GOP used to divide the country and they wanted the view expressed that at least someone else was outraged. Outraged by being lied into war, lied to by your government repeatedly for years and taking a country that we thought was principled down the path of torturing people. There was a time when you would have gotten your ass kicked for saying the US would torture people. So his anger, I get it. I don’t get that many Americans don’t and the fact that Republicans were clueless as to how many people were sick of them led to their defeat in the last election.

    Olbermann being outraged isn’t saying widows are enjoying their husbands deaths. In fact I can’t think of anyone who has ever said anything that despicable other than Ann Coulter. She is not only still talking but listened to, called as an expert voice??? and respected and invited to speak to your party. You should shower just from being associated with her. So I don’t see a comparison.

    Garofalo does go over the top sometimes and reminds me of the unhinged like Hannity when she does. If you said “this thing she said was outrageous” you’d have all kinds of agreement. ”That I think would be a fair comparison.

    I’ve personally never seen anything like the Fox News segment (that started this) on MSNBC. You could spend the rest of your life watching the outrageous segments from Fox on You Tube. Their crawl lines could be taught in journalism classes as outrageous propaganda. It’s beyond point of view differences. It is willful deceit and deception. It should make honest people cringe.

    Tully started this whole thread with the wimpy “yah but” approach to condemnation. A real man would just condemn it. A bit like the standard Republican non-apology “If anyone was offended”. I’m offended and I am not alone.

    Oh and Kranky, how is starting an admittance of bad behavior by one person who deserved it and then deflecting it to another not CPD? To say Olbermann is just as bad as Ann Coulter is insulting. She brings nothing to the political debate. She plies in hate and division and has IMO no redeeming values, There are those who say she is not really like that and is just playing the role to make money and notoriety. I think that makes her an evil person.

    Justin recently stated he didn’t like what Terry McAuliffe brought to the table because he thought he was a party flack. He didn’t say, but at least he isn’t Karl Rove.

  20. rob Says:

    Their are not degrees of wingnuttery, either you make the grade or you don’t. Olbermann’s got his tassel.

  21. rob Says:


  22. Agnostick Says:

    You know, guys, this whole “Your-fringe-crackpot-is-crazier-than-my-fringe-crackpot” tiddlywinks game is entertaining and all, but I’m a bit more interested in something else:

    Why was a two-year-old piece of video posted here and presented as something that happened within the past few days? That’s the sort of stuff I expect from Faux News and Drudge–but not The Donk.

    [email protected]

  23. kranky kritter Says:

    Tully started this whole thread with the wimpy “yah but” approach to condemnation. A real man would just condemn it.

    If you were paying attention, you’d notice that this thread started with a post. Justin, who “started” this, has a long history of posts here that take the form of “look, another conservative douchebag.” He consistently tells one side of the story. That’s his bad. but he has been utterly unapologetic when repeatedly called on it.

    A bit like the standard Republican non-apology “If anyone was offended”. I’m offended and I am not alone.

    I totally missed the part where Republicans cornered the market on the lameass non-apology apology that unapologetic folks have been using since forever. The one where you don’t admit you did anything wrong but say you are sorry that some people misunderstood you or whatever? So unless you have some data to support the notion of some sort of GOP monopoly, then this is just a gratuitous insult. Your bias is showing.

    To say Olbermann is just as bad as Ann Coulter is insulting. She brings nothing to the political debate. She plies in hate and division and has IMO no redeeming values, There are those who say she is not really like that and is just playing the role to make money and notoriety. I think that makes her an evil person.

    Like Rob says, Olberman has his tassle. I didn’t make a direct comparison between Coulter and Olberman. The point is that they are in the same class of cheerleading ideologues who are part of the problem.

    Coulter is without a doubt a reprehensible bile-spewing opportunist. I don’t take her seriously. She is a peculiar class of modern infotainer who feeds her audience with cathartic anger. To what good end other than her profit, I have no idea. When I bring a discussion to this point, it’s common to stumble across the question of whether folks like Coulter are sincere, or performing a schtick.

    Which immediately leads to the question of which is worse. I don’t have a good answer. Suppose Olberman is passionate and sincere and unaware of the extent of his bias. Suppose Coulter is just an anger salesman. Arguably, Olberman is capable of doing more damage from his perch. I think Coulter’s appeal is self-limiting, because if you have half a brain, you don’t let yourself get sucked in after the first time or two.

    The sincere media folks who are uber-deologues usually blow up at some point, damage their careers, and then follow a downward spiral of bitterness. If Olberman follows Bill Maher, I’ll shed no tears.

  24. cliffyworld Says:

    For more on Obamacare and the bureaucrats that control it, read the article titled “Are you willing to die for your government?” posted at

Leave a Reply


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.

Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.

One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.

Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.

Related Posts: