If you're not terrified and outraged enough by The War on Xmas, the gay takeover of Xmas carols, how about the Muppet conspiracy to brainwash your kids to hate capitalism? It's the latest moronic winger fake outrage from Fox News’s craziest host, Eric Bolling.
This is proof positive that America is in the final stages of decline.....these entertainment talking heads from the comedy network fox actually think the Muppets are real. What next? Ole' newt is a leader with high morales and Christian values. We are screwed!
Posted by: westwa | December 05, 2011 at 09:37 PM
It's time to start ignoring them. They spew this stuff because they think it'll piss off liberals. Their sole motivation is pissing off liberals - nothing more nothing less. They're just a bunch of sad little trolls who get their jollies from producing a rise in certain people. FOXNEWS and it's audience are brainless clowns. They're irrelevent. History will record them as the 21st century's know-nothings. End o' story.
Posted by: Mike D | December 05, 2011 at 11:18 PM
What is the difference between a FOX News host and a Muppet?
The Muppett doesn't have a hand up its ass controlling everything it says 24/7.
Posted by: JDB | December 06, 2011 at 10:53 AM
There's another take on this, the communist muppet conspiracy may have been manufactured by the left for red meat against right wingers.
Left up to the discretion of the reader ;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2011/12/06/conan-repeats-false-huffpo-claim-fox-business-s-bolling-called-muppets
Posted by: KS | December 06, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Hmmm...the whole plot of the movie revolves around muppet character "Tex Richman," an evil, greedy oil executive. Hollywood has had a blatantly liberal agenda for years, so we shouldn't be surprised that it's showing up in children's movies. Oh, and if you don't think kids are influenced by what they watch, cereal marketers will be happy to enlighten you.
Posted by: RQ | December 06, 2011 at 05:59 PM
TruthorFiction.com is a useful website for a credibility check of other stories like this, especially when they are sourced from Media Matters as this post was.
Posted by: KS | December 06, 2011 at 06:32 PM
From the "greed is good" contingent...
All movies have a point of view. Ask the producers of "24." That is the Hollywood you mean - right?
Posted by: Mary | December 06, 2011 at 07:12 PM
Yes, 24 was one of the very few conservative voices in the original land of excessive greed. Of course, it wasn't targeting a preschool audience. Ironic that the liberal entertainment world had the market on wealth long before Wall Street. I didn't, and still don't, hear anyone complaining about that.
Posted by: RQ | December 06, 2011 at 08:05 PM
A conservative value: greed.
Posted by: Mary | December 07, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Wonder why this isn't being reported ?? (Michael Moore being interviewed by Piers Morgan)
MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, "The Washington post" three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all -- than all eight Republicans combined. I don't want to say that, because if that's the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we've got a much bigger problem.
But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?
MORGAN: It's fascinating to find out why they're doing it. I'll ask him.
MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here's what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash."
"Why hasn't that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don't steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it's going to be."
Posted by: KS | December 07, 2011 at 09:11 PM
A liberal value: hypocrisy.
Posted by: RQ | December 08, 2011 at 05:50 AM
Obama also has more Individual Contributions than all other opponents combined. He also has almost 3 times the Contributions as his next challenger. You can go to Opensecrets and see for yourself.
Posted by: Transit | December 08, 2011 at 07:13 AM
Yeah, he is the incumbent with no challengers in his own party so it stands to reason his contributions would seem as high as the other 8 repugs.
Posted by: Johnny Sombrerro | December 08, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Curious, I get the "greed" connection but not the "hypocrisy" connection. As for Obama's contributions: so what? Who doesn't take money where they can get it?
Posted by: Truthseeker | December 08, 2011 at 05:15 PM
You don't see the hypocrisy in Obama's condemnation of Wall Street but taking their money to get re-elected? Really?
Posted by: RQ | December 08, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Obama has hypocrite written all over him, but he creates the strawman by blaming Wall Street while taking their donations and all of the crony capitalism (playing favorites with GE). Wall Street has blood on its hands, don't get me wrong.
I don't expect low information voters to get this connection though, although Michael Moore's reaction might cause a little consternation among leftwingers.
Posted by: KS | December 08, 2011 at 06:53 PM
The problem isn’t the reported contributions, given that we can catch a glimpse of the handouts; therefore hold the politicos to their word (A la Mr. Moore). The real problem is the undisclosed contributions, by moneyed donors, and free propaganda campaigns waged by Fuaxxx Noos… critical of the MUPPETS!!!111
Posted by: Transit | December 08, 2011 at 07:48 PM
Couldn't let this pass given the unsupported accusation above about liberals:
Republicans have a far greater talent for hypocrisy than easily cowed Democrats do — and no doubt appreciate that in a leader.
Old news for sure. But Dowd has a way with words.
Posted by: Mary | December 10, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Dowd has an affinity for sarcasm. She is salivating at the possibility of Newt being the GOP candidate. Hypocrisy is a not difficult to show - virtually all of us can be shown to be hypocrites in one way or another, as Maureen Dowd often shows in her op-eds.
Posted by: KS | December 11, 2011 at 09:05 AM
The real problem is the undisclosed contributions, by moneyed donors, and free propaganda campaigns waged by Fuaxxx Noos… critical of the MUPPETS!!!111
Posted by: Transit | December 08, 2011 at 07:48 PM
You have created a straw man that is unprovable. You are willfully being ignorant of the remainder of the print media as they are doing significantly more of that for the Democratic Party which you speak than Fox News, theoretically critical of muppets than that sound byte. Try an honest argument for a change.
Posted by: KS | December 11, 2011 at 09:10 AM
Uh could you translate what you just said? I see three periods in that mass o' words and after reading it three times I still dont get it!
Posted by: Jovita | December 11, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Take a deep breath, relax and think - I know you can do it.
While your'e at it, can you point out any significant differences in the political ideology of Pres. Obama and Pres. Hugo Chavez ? (If Chavez were running for POTUS, he would be running on a very similar if not the same platform as Obama is now).
Of course, to see this you will have to remove the smoke and mirrors that he blatantly displayed every time he has opened his mouth since the 2012 campaign started. You'll have to take off your partisan blinders to accomplish that though.
Posted by: KS | December 11, 2011 at 12:40 PM
What's Chavez got to do with anything?
On hypocrisy - this from theSeattle Times:
Thus, after having consistently opposed expanding Washington's role in health care, the Journal now demands that the government spend $90,000 a year on a useless drug regimen because a patient says she wants it. (Yes, these are the same guys who rail against "high taxes.")
Someone should start an on-line list of Republican hypocrisy.
Posted by: Marv | December 11, 2011 at 02:09 PM
What's Chavez got to do with anything?
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Why don't you accept the challenge and point out the differences ?
Your article from the Times is a crock. They don't even state correctly what the GOP has proposed, so it is garbage on its face and a propaganda piece for the Democratics.
Someone should start an on-line list of Republican hypocrisy.
Posted by: Marv | December 11, 2011 at 02:09 PM
As long as they allow a list of Democrat hypocrisy.
Posted by: KS | December 11, 2011 at 03:46 PM
Why dont you tell us? I have already admitted i have no idea what you mean. Enlighten me
Posted by: Jovita | December 11, 2011 at 05:12 PM
'tis the season of giving: here's your list: http://www.alternet.org/news/146237/exposing_the_deep_swamp_of_republican_hypocrisy_--_how_a_party_alienated_the_nation
Careful, KS. It is a little embarrassing for you folks.
Posted by: Truthseeker | December 11, 2011 at 06:07 PM
I noticed those a holes at fox will not let the liberal talk. They just interrupt. Is her mic. turned down and the righties turned up? Sure sounds like it. The guy talking about how oil heats the home has got some good points. The corporations have got it rigged where a small business cannot make it through hard work. I work very hard at my job and it does not always pay.
Posted by: Ed Bennett | December 11, 2011 at 07:28 PM