” Truth cannot be insult ” . No wonder Rahm’s leaving . Has there ever been a bigger baby in the White House ? Nope !

I guess Obama didn’t learn his lesson last time he waged war against Fox. He’s a slow learner.

Fox news is engaging in the same Willie Horten type strategy that Roger Ailes used during previous political campaigns. While they won their elections with that scheme, they set race relations back 40 years during the process.

It’s happening all over again.

Fox News is bad for America.

Spoken like a true Marxist. Can this little punk get any lower?

And a note to any liberal media types who’re cheering him on: Don’t fool yourself for a second. You’re next. And you’d have to be blind to not see where he would like to go with this.

One positive… Obama’s enemies are more likely to be armed than his allies.

I see Obama has found his spine. Now he should help his fellow democrats to locate their spine.

Thinnest skin ever. This dude has more issues than national geographic. I’m starting to pity him.

If this is Obama ‘fighting back’ it’s hard not to conclude Fox News is the opponent and not the GOP or any specific candidate therein.

Yeah, it’s got nothing to do with you or your policies, Barack. The real problem in America is that damned Fox News.

A sitting president negatively critiques one of the nations highest rated news organizations and he wonders why his poll numbers are in the tank. He is completely tone deaf and out of step with mainstream America. His preoccupation with Fox is arrogant and thin skinned… his dismissive attitude of mainstream America will ultimately end his charade of a presidency.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
I see Obama has found his spine.

That’s not his spine, it’s his wee wee. He’s all wee wee’d up.

“It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country…” Pres Obama

That’s funny, coming from a dumbass socialist whose policies are destructive for the long-term growth of the country. It’s outrageous that a President, sworn to uphold the Constitution, either personally or thru his surrogates, continues to attempt to censor a news organization simply because he doesn’t like its point of view. Obama is a gangster, and a threat to freedom in America.

I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Spoken like a true Marxist. Can this little punk get any lower?

How is the above statement a ‘Marxist’ statement? It sounds to me to be pretty capitalistic. To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

possibly said:
Fox news is engaging in the same Willie Horten type strategy

Do you know who brought Willie Horton into the campaign? You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

Obama’s statement does not seem like a ‘battle cry’ to me at all. I think that, given Fox News’s ideological agenda, it would only make sense that the president would feel that way.

Pablo said:
He’s all wee wee’d up.

I think the only people who are getting ‘wee-wee’d’ up are the people blowing this out of proportion.

Mr. Murdoch’s objective is to make money and he is doing a great job compared to the other networks. GE used MSNBC to make Obama happy and garner contracts for the parent company which makes them money and keeps the stockholders happy. McDonalds’ objective is to make money, not hamburgers. Obama does not understand business, he would make a better College Professor.

It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful.

Anyone else see the irony there?

Stephen Hogan said:
How is the above statement a ‘Marxist’ statement?

You’d have to be a fool to not see where he’s trying to go with that. Since he’s been president, the democrat congress has been toying with the idea of bailing out news media, and for what purpose do you suppose? When government bails out an industry, they then “own” that industry, they’re the ones pulling the strings. The dems would love nothing better than to control the news media. Don’t be naive.

What an emotional infant. The President does look good on the cover of the Rolling Stone, though, doesn’t he? Very comfortable, right where he belongs.

I’ll take the President’s word on it. He is an expert on policies and behaviors that are destructive to the long term prospects of America, since he and his proxies have authored so many of them.

Wow… an interview AND the cover!

Is Jann Wenner after Gibb’s job?…

Rolling Stone speaking “truth” FOR power…

Mr.Papshmer said:
You’d have to be a fool to not see where he’s trying to go with that. Since he’s been president, the democrat congress has been toying with the idea of bailing out news media, and for what purpose do you suppose? When government bails out an industry, they then “own” that industry, they’re the ones pulling the strings. The dems would love nothing better than to control the news media. Don’t be naive.

I’m not talking about ‘bailing out the news media’. That’s not the topic, but nice red herring attempt. I’m addressing this article. You stated that the featured excerpt in the article was ‘spoken like a true Marxist’. It’s not. Obama highlights the success of Fox News. Sure, he thinks they are destructive (as most people find misinformation), but he used that as a qualifier while talking about Fox News’s success as an enterprise. That’s the furthest thing from what a Marxist would say. Sounds pretty damned capitalistic to me.

Barack Obama said:
It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.

This should be Obama’s answer to a question about the first 20 monthsof his administration.

soccermom said:
I guess Obama didn’t learn his lesson last time he waged war against Fox. He’s a slow learner.

I realize you think all African-Americans are slow learners, Michelle-in-Utah, but President Obama is a very bright man, and I imagine he didn’t take kindly to FOX biting the hand he extended to it. But, it doesn’t matter. With the stream of actual news people leaving FOX, the pretense of it being a news station is too thin for most any reasonable person.

Why the different name, by the way?

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution–”

When is he going to start?

As a very wise person from the North said recently , ” Buck up or stay in the truck “.

What about the whacko left media outlets like Daily Kos and some of the characters on MSNBC?
His thin skin is showing up again.
If he can’t take the heat he should go back to the clipboard and the bullhorn and hang around with his sycophants in the community.

BOOM!!!!! That is what I have been waiting for!! Fire up the base!! That is my Commander in Chief.

Stephen Hogan said:
How is the above statement a ‘Marxist’ statement? It sounds to me to be pretty capitalistic. To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

FUNNY

now, you killed my Father
Prepare To Die!

Royal Race-Baiter/Religious Bigot says:

I realize you think all African-Americans are slow learners

Statements like this are why people don’t take you seriously.

possibly said:
Fox news is engaging in the same Willie Horten type strategy that Roger Ailes used during previous political campaigns. While they won their elections with that scheme, they set race relations back 40 years during the process. It’s happening all over again. Fox News is bad for America.

Absolutely correct. FOX is a weird mix of Der Stürmer and Правда. But, FOX’s real threat is the morons who believe it is actually news. fortunately, it has so few viewers that is not a tremendous problem.

Azarkhan said:
attempt to censor

Where was that?

soccermom said:
Royal Race-Baiter/Religious Bigot says: I realize you think all African-Americans are slow learners Statements like this are why people don’t take you seriously.

Yes, whatever, but why did you change your name, Michelle-in-Utah? Did you change your religion, too?

Oh Dear Jesus!!! He is such a baby. Just grow a pair already

The Real Royal King said:
President Obama is a very bright man

Dumbfucks like you can’t identify “bright” people

Obama went on a mission to demonize John Boehner, since that did not work, he has decoded to demonize Fox News. This is going to be great for their ratings.

The next platter that matters is dedicated to Barry from Shelly here on radio WGN : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQp4SA6CR_4

The Real Royal King said:
fortunately, it has so few viewers that is not a tremendous problem.

And yet it’s the subject of your deranged and obsessive hatred. Weird, ain’t it?

The Real Royal King said:
Absolutely correct. FOX is a weird mix of Der Stürmer and Правда. But, FOX’s real threat is the morons who believe it is actually news. fortunately, it has so few viewers that is not a tremendous problem.

King, “so few viewers” is a blanket assessment that has no real meaning. “So few viewers” compared to what? As I said on another thread –

FOX destroys it’s cable news/commentary competition. That fact cannot be debated or argued.

Further, The O’Reilly Factor (and the other evening news commentary programs he competes against/destroys) is on at 8pm EST. His show also competes in prime time against the old Big Three broadcast networks prime time shows, reality TV programs, sitcoms, etc. that many Americans live their evenings glued to. Despite that fact, rough averages of nightly viewers of his show (combining the 8pm and 11pm shows) compared to the Big Three evening news shows that viewers have been sitting down to dinner with for years are – Brian Williams 8.5 million, Diane Sawyer 7 million, Katie Couric 5 million, O’Reilly close to 5 million.

That as many people watch his show as watch CBS Evening News is actually quite amazing. It’s no wonder all of these people piss their pants on a daily basis fretting over FOX. Now even Obama is whining about it. It’s quite laughable, really.

Moderate said:
Obama went on a mission to demonize John Boehner, since that did not work, he has decoded to demonize Fox News. This is going to be great for their ratings.

Who knows? FOX might actually draw in 9/10ths of 1% of Americans, for a few moments.

This is probably a good strategy. FOX’s Caderie of Coots is never going to vote for anyone but the looniest of Tea Partiers, and such a huge, huge percentage of Americans hold FOX is abject contempt that President Obama may well be effectively framing a picture of the enemy for reasonable Americans.

Stephen Hogan said:
I’m not talking about ‘bailing out the news media’. That’s not the topic, but nice red herring attempt.

It’s all part of the series of trial balloons being floated. The dems are unhappy that they don’t control Fox News, and several times have tried to marginalize them. Why? Why do they seem interested in funding other news outlets? Big picture, man.

Obama is “fighting back” and the platform he chooses to do this with is Rolling Stone? Listen Mr. President you are going to have to come to the realization that not everybody believes in you like the hype machine in 2008 led you to believe. You are a seriously flawed President and also thin skinned about it. Bush for all of his many flaws took the criticism like a man and didnt whine about it.

What an f-ing cry baby! I cannot recall Bush whining about the media ever!

The Real Royal King said:
President Obama is a very bright man, and I imagine he didn’t take kindly to FOX biting the hand he extended to it.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT! Progressive politicians _expect_ news media to fawn over them, and most do. It doesn’t matter one speck if Barry “extended” a hand to Fox News, does he honestly expect favorable coverage simply because he extended a hand?? That is so ridiculous that it isn’t even funny!

soccermom said:
I guess Obama didn’t learn his lesson last time he waged war against Fox. He’s a slow learner.

As opposed to conservatives who don’t learn at all.

Mr.Papshmer said:
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT! Progressive politicians _expect_ news media to fawn over them, and most do. It doesn’t matter one speck if Barry “extended” a hand to Fox News, does he honestly expect favorable coverage simply because he extended a hand?? That is so ridiculous that it isn’t even funny!

What’s ridiculous is the hypocrisy and lies perpetrated by Fox. “You don’t criticize a president during war time!” “These protesters are un-american!” give me a f*cking break. Take your head out of O’Reilly’s @$$!

crazywater said:
What an f-ing cry baby! I cannot recall Bush whining about the media ever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8w7Yz1Htz4

And of course, I’m certain Obama complained in that same interview about the destructiveness of far left media outlets like MSNBC or Newsweek. That can’t be good for our country either. Right, Mr. President?

And I thought I had heard it all…….

Stephen Hogan said:
I’m not talking about ‘bailing out the news media’. That’s not the topic, but nice red herring attempt

Holy mackeral, Stephen! The Democrats did float the idea of subsidizing the mainstream media. Why? Because the MSM supports a leftist/Democratic Party point of view. They also want to censor conservative sites on the internet with their bogus “net neutrality” scheme. Below is quote from one of the biggest assholes in Congress, who btw, won his election thru fraud:

Senator Al Franken, at the Netroots Nation conference in late July, talked about a dystopian future without Net neutrality: “How long do you think it will take before the Fox News website loads five times faster than Daily Kos?”

Censorship IS the issue, and the Left/Democratic Party is promoting it. So don’t try censor comments here, OK?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013832,00.html#ixzz10pvciXhI

right-is-wrong said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8w7Yz1Htz4

Sorry to break this to you but an off the cuff remark made with no intent to have it publicized is not in the same league as conducting official interviews with media outlets while whining. I dont care if Obama motherfucks Fox News in his own personal time, its just pathetic to whine about one news organization in an official capacity.

I can only hope that Obama’s Rolling Stone interview has the same result as McChrystal’s RS interview. FIRED!

Stephen Hogan said:
I’m not talking about ‘bailing out the news media’. That’s not the topic, but nice red herring attempt. I’m addressing this article. You stated that the featured excerpt in the article was ’spoken like a true Marxist’. It’s not. Obama highlights the success of Fox News. Sure, he thinks they are destructive (as most people find misinformation), but he used that as a qualifier while talking about Fox News’s success as an enterprise. That’s the furthest thing from what a Marxist would say. Sounds pretty damned capitalistic to me.

You are correct in saying that nothing in Obama’s comments convey Marxism. Perhaps what the poster you responded to was referring to was the current administration’s Speaker of the House attempting to revive the Marxist “Fairness Doctrine” in 2008, with the intent of shutting down conservative talk radio. What the doctrine boils down to is the Federal Government telling private business (talk radio) what they can and cannot say to the American people. Government ability to regulate media content = Marxism. Obama has publicly said that he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but since his House Speaker supported and attempted to push such legislation through the House, you have contradicting viewpoints, as Pelosi has publicly said that she supports the Marxist doctrine.

If by POV he meant a conservative slant , I disagree. If by POV he meant that profit matters much more than the facts and living up to your motto, I completely agree.

I also think as President he should have not gone there. He could have made the point without singling out Fox. , but then, I haven’t read the whole article yet.

“The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history”

Just when was that?

CosmosDan said:
If by POV he meant a conservative slant , I disagree. If by POV he meant that profit matters much more than the facts and living up to your motto, I completely agree.

I also think as President he should have not gone there. He could have made the point without singling out Fox. , but then, I haven’t read the whole article yet.

Unless he also points his finger at MSNBC for similar criticisms he is making on Fox thanhe is being a complete hypocrite. He has every other news channel in his back pocket, why does he care if one doesnt? Oh yeah because the one that isnt in his pocket is the one that people watch, why would that be?

The administration had floated John Boehner as succeeding Limbaugh as the next villain.

I suppose Boehner isn’t exciting enough a satan to Dem. constituencies.

It is quite amazing to hear a politician equate opposition to HIMSELF (from Beck, Hannity, etc) as being essentially destructive to the entire country.

THAT takes cajones…

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
What’s ridiculous is the hypocrisy and lies perpetrated by Fox. “You don’t criticize a president during war time!” “These protesters are un-american!” give me a f*cking break. Take your head out of O’Reilly’s @$$!

A bunch of out-of-context drivel. Grow up, man, Jon Stewart (where you got your talking points from) is a “comedian” on “The Comedy Channel”. And you talk about taking ones head out. Yer a funny guy. :)

The Real Royal King said:
President Obama may well be effectively framing a picture of the enemy for reasonable Americans.

Comb your mullet and dust off your Obama hat, Pats, you owe a video apology to the president…

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is…” Forcing private citizens to buy goods and services from private companies o suffer penalties and possibly jail time should they fail to comply?

Oh, We don’t care so much about the Constitution then; why should we care now?

“It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.”

Right, what we need is a more restrictive and regulated business environment, higher energy and transportation costs, higher employee costs, higher taxes, and a couple trillion dollars more in debt; then we’ll be a vibrant economy again… wait, what?

Haimerej said:
“The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history”

Just when was that?

Before Fox, when _all_ media wore pom-poms and cheered for the dems.

“The Real Royal King said:
President Obama is a very bright man, and I imagine he didn’t take kindly to FOX biting the hand he extended to it.”

Hey, I’m extending my hand to you right now… I think it indicates you’re “#1″ as I have one finger raised as well. Oh, wait that’s usually a different finger.

Well I’m still extending my hand, in much the same way Obama has to Conservatives. Unless “I won” is now a starting point in compromise and open discussion?

Cecelia said:
The administration had floated John Boehner as succeeding Limbaugh as the next villain.

That was both funny and pathetic. Most Americans were like: Who is John Boehner?

Azarkhan said:
Holy mackeral, Stephen! The Democrats did float the idea of subsidizing the mainstream media. Why? Because the MSM supports a leftist/Democratic Party point of view. They also want to censor conservative sites on the internet with their bogus “net neutrality” scheme. Below is quote from one of the biggest assholes in Congress, who btw, won his election thru fraud:

Holy mackeral Azarkhan, what a partisan obtuse view with seeing what you are arguing.
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites
This shows the top 15 news websites, Daily KOS doesn’t come close.
If Senator Franken had argued that we need to get rid of net neutrality because MSNBC.com has nearly twice as many views as FOX.com so we should have access twice as quickly, we all know you would be here arguing that was Censoring right wing media.

Net Neutrality is just that – Neutral. Equal access no matter what you want to look at.
If you want to vote for someone who will allow quicker access to MSNBC over FOX, have at it.

Andy Lamb said:
Obama has publicly said that he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but since his House Speaker supported and attempted to push such legislation through the House, you have contradicting viewpoints, as Pelosi has publicly said that she supports the Marxist doctrine.

Mr Lamb gets it
That is censorship

BOO hoo hoo!. Fox refused to kiss my ass last night Michelle!

My God!! Will 2012 ever get here??????

right-is-wrong said:
Holy mackeral Azarkhan, what a partisan obtuse view with seeing what you are arguing.
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites
This shows the top 15 news websites, Daily KOS doesn’t come close.
If Senator Franken had argued that we need to get rid of net neutrality because MSNBC.com has nearly twice as many views as FOX.com so we should have access twice as quickly, we all know you would be here arguing that was Censoring right wing media.

Net Neutrality is just that – Neutral. Equal access no matter what you want to look at.
If you want to vote for someone who will allow quicker access to MSNBC over FOX, have at it.

Mr Lamb gets it
That is censorship

The internet is a business, not everybody is equal. The cream rises to the top, kind of like how this country used to operate.

If you ever had any doubt, this proves it — the Far Left doesn’t want to debate those who criticize its agenda. It wants to silence them. Only one news network in America has dared to point out all the failed policies, backroom dealings and incompetency of the Obama administration. And the response of the President (and his cheerleaders in the media) is not to defend his agenda — which, we now see, they are unable to do — but to oppose the very existence of the sole honest voice in a sea of bias and spin.

Of course, this is what always happens to the whistleblower in a corrupt system….

You want to know what is really destructive to this country? Borrowing trillions of dollars from the Chinese — that we will never be able to repay — to prop up broken entitlements structured by the Democrats to run like Ponzi schemes.

Bernie Madoff did this and went to jail. The Democrats do this and get on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

At least President Obama laughs when he talks about “defending the Constitution.” I know that part of his oath has always been a joke to him. Also, What, exactly is the “point of view” of Fox News that he disagrees with? I wish the interviewer followed up with that question.

felixw said:
If you ever had any doubt, this proves it — the Far Left doesn’t want to debate those who criticize its agenda. It wants to silence them. Only one news network in America has dared to point out all the failed policies, backroom dealings and incompetency of the Obama administration. And the response of the President (and his cheerleaders in the media) is not to defend his agenda — which, we now see, they are unable to do — but to oppose the very existence of the sole honest voice in a sea of bias and spin. Of course, this is what always happens to the whistleblower in a corrupt system….

Case in point….

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/coates-exposes-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-msm-obama-admin-defenders/?singlepage=true

right-is-wrong said:
Net Neutrality is just that – Neutral. Equal access no matter what you want to look at.
If you want to vote for someone who will allow quicker access to MSNBC over FOX, have at it.

So, Net Neutrality makes everyone’s servers respond to varying loads of requests at the same speed? And if it doesn’t, it isn’t fair? Bzzzzzzt.

Obama is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country. He needs to be blocked every step he takes. He is a menace.
Fox is doing a good job of blocking the MSM and their lies.
Ruppert needs to buy one of the broadcast networks to complete the job. With that one network the Progressives and their media will be done forever.

My latest video about libs………….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt9qIYXegMg

Barry, you need to put a sticker on your forehead saying” This man is dangerous to your country and your health.”

By destructive, Obama means Fox doesn’t kiss his ass like the other networks. And once again, our 1%er weighs in. The History Channel’s Gangland show featured some other 1%ers just the other night. None of them look quite as scroungy as Robert, though.

If the leader of the free world can’t take criticism, perhaps he needs to resign. All presidents before Obama, had their own issues with the media, however, they were advised to stay above the fray, and to allow others to be the ‘attack dogs’, so to speak. The level of immaturity is unbelievable. When Obama perceives the American people and the American media, as his archenemies, what purpose does he serve? This is getting more ridiculous by the day, to witness.

Pablo said:
Anyone else see the irony there?

Actually, I see something else.

Focus on “…in the World”.

And he may be right there. But the point isn’t to be competitive “in the world”, it’s to be competitive “in the USA”.

Obama needs to take care of our own house before he keeps trying to step foot in everyone else’s.

Haimerej said:
“The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history” Just when was that?

Still waiting for an answer on this. C’mon, supporters. If there was a golden age of objectivitiy, when exactly was that?

Next week , Obama complains about ” having no time off ” in the October issue of Tiger Beat . Newsstands everywhere .

Hey, Barry remember when you sent out your snakes to tell people and ther networks not to watch FOX.

Well, no one listened to your fear mongering then or now:

“More people are getting their news about the upcoming election from cable television than any other source, and from Fox News more than any other cable channel, according to a POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released Monday.

Among cable news channels, Fox was the clear winner, with 42 percent of respondents saying it is their main source, compared with 30 percent who cited CNN and 12 percent who rely on MSNBC. ”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42738.html#ixzz10muk51Vv

possibly said:
Fox news is engaging in the same Willie Horten type strategy that Roger Ailes used during previous political campaigns. While they won their elections with that scheme, they set race relations back 40 years during the process. It’s happening all over again. Fox News is bad for America.

How so? The Obama Administration and the Left Wing Progressives continually bring up race over and over and over again. Somehow that is Fox’s fault. Right.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
I see Obama has found his spine.

You mean he found his scales.

Andy Lamb said:
You are correct in saying that nothing in Obama’s comments convey Marxism. Perhaps what the poster you responded to was referring to was the current administration’s Speaker of the House attempting to revive the Marxist “Fairness Doctrine” in 2008, with the intent of shutting down conservative talk radio. What the doctrine boils down to is the Federal Government telling private business (talk radio) what they can and cannot say to the American people. Government ability to regulate media content = Marxism. Obama has publicly said that he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but since his House Speaker supported and attempted to push such legislation through the House, you have contradicting viewpoints, as Pelosi has publicly said that she supports the Marxist doctrine.

right-is-wrong said:
Mr Lamb gets it
That is censorship

Gracias. If you oppose the Marxist “Fairness Doctrine” (with a name like Right-is wrong I have to assume you generally support the left) kudos to you for opposing it. Unlike Pelosi and many Dem House members, Obama has stated he does not support the doctrine, but in my opinion that is more due to political expediency than anything else. Publicly stating support would be political suicide for him. That said, I believe that Mr. Obama would shut FOX News down tomorrow if he could get away with it.

Corvax said:
Unless he also points his finger at MSNBC for similar criticisms he is making on Fox thanhe is being a complete hypocrite. He has every other news channel in his back pocket, why does he care if one doesnt? Oh yeah because the one that isnt in his pocket is the one that people watch, why would that be?

I agree the media in general is doing a bad job of really informing people, and offering objective information. That’s why I think he should made a more general point rather than singling out Fox. As a citizen he has a right to an opinion , but as president it’s a bad idea.

It’s one thing to give a liberal or conservative slant to things. I expect that. Fox seems to have the habit of intentionally distorting issues with speculation and things that are decidedly unfair and unbalanced. They have some good news shows and a few people who are more neutral than others but the line between opinion and factual news are constantly blurred and there’s far to much bs speculation based on incredibly flimsy evidence. That’s not informing the public.
I’ve seen some good shows on Sunday morning with Chris Wallace and on Meet The Press and I’d like to see more of that kind of thing, or exploration of issues in which both sides are presented in a more neutral way.

The last time Obama went after Fox News, even the liberal-leaning media came to FNC’s defense. Why whine about this issue again? It’s so beneath a US president.

Poor Barry! He believes he has ONE whole media outlet that criticizes him.

Every other politician would kill to have just one media outlet that criticizes him.

Haimerej said:
Still waiting for an answer on this. C’mon, supporters. If there was a golden age of objectivitiy, when exactly was that?

Do you expect Obama to sign on? It was his statement. My guess is he means people like Edward R Murrow, Cronkite and Brinkley and such, when the press tried to present a larger picture of relevant facts on issues with real investigative journalism.

RRK says “Obama is a bright man”. LOL Where is the proof?

A bright man doesn’t appoint a card carrying Commie to his administration.
A bright man doesn’t pass a health care bill the majority of voters don’t want.
A bright man doesn’t select Biden as Vice President.
A bright man doesn’t shut down all the oil rigs in the gulf.
A bright man doesn’t try to close Gitmo.
A bright man doesn’t try to make excuses for the Ground Zero Mosque.
A bright man doesn’t raise taxes in a recession.
A bright man doesn’t put a date on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
A bright man is not named Robert C. Stephenson.

One right-leaning network in a sea of liberal propagandists and it’s TOO MUCH for this punk. Ellis Henican, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill and Judy Miller are just a few of the REGULARS who appear on Fox News. Obowma has a lot of nerve lecturing about “a very clear, undeniable point of view” with all those WH talking-point regurgitating blatantly-biased kool-aid drinking cheerleaders in the LSM doing their very best to turn chicken-shit into chicken-salad on his behalf.

Seriously…. A LOTTA FUCKEN NERVE!

Hey BO….. how ’bout let’s talk about the cost curve of the HC BIll? Care to revise your previous promises? Have you made up your mind yet whether the insurance mandate is a TAX or not? Some of us would like to know.

What a joke. A sad, pathetic, punk-ass joke.

Robert’s bitterness is understandable. He wasn’t just touched with the ugly stick. He was beaten to death with it.

CosmosDan said:
Cronkite

Cronkite?

LOL

Cronkite turned the nation against the Vietnam war after the TET offensive; an offensive that devestated the Vietnamese but old Walter spun it into an American defeat which not even the North Vietnamese bought.

“The keys to the failure of Tet are not difficult to discern. Hanoi had underestimated the strategic mobility of the allied forces, which allowed them to redeploy at will to threatened areas; their battle plan was too complex and difficult to coordinate, which was amply demonstrated by the 30 January attacks; their violation of the principle of mass, attacking everywhere instead of concentrating their forces on a few specific targets, allowed their forces to be defeated piecemeal; the launching of massed attacks headlong into the teeth of vastly superior firepower; and last, but not least, the incorrect assumptions upon which the entire campaign was based.[151] According to General Tran Van Tra: “We did not correctly evaluate the specific balance of forces between ourselves and the enemy, did not fully realize that the enemy still had considerable capabilities, and that our capabilities were limited, and set requirements that were beyond our actual strength.”

“The horrendous losses inflicted on Viet Cong units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. MACV estimated that 181,149 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops had been killed during 1968. From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong’s ranks with North Vietnamese regulars.”

America

Gordon says:

RRK says “Obama is a bright man”. LOL Where is the proof?

Consider the source.

Mr.Papshmer said:
A bunch of out-of-context drivel. Grow up, man, Jon Stewart (where you got your talking points from) is a “comedian” on “The Comedy Channel”. And you talk about taking ones head out. Yer a funny guy. :)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m an independent thinker unlike you Fox heads. And yes, it is hypocrisy, now protestors are patriots, before they weren’t. Now it’s okay to completely disrespect a president in an interview but before you weren’t supposed to criticize him at all. Wake up, man! How can a man who claims to be such a history buff know nothing about the importance of August 28th? How can that same man who rails against social justice and socialism then praise a man whose views were of both? How can that same man say churches should not talk about social justice. Are you honestly this blind?

CosmosDan said:
Do you expect Obama to sign on? It was his statement. My guess is he means people like Edward R Murrow, Cronkite and Brinkley and such, when the press tried to present a larger picture of relevant facts on issues with real investigative journalism.

Wasn’t that around the time that they were all covering for JFK and his “foibles”?

C’mon, you know that objectivity is merely a buzz word in the press.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m an independent thinker

LOL

It would helpful if the President could be more specific. If he could point to an error of fact or logic that FoxNews has made without correction, we could perhaps agree with him.

I do think that Fox reports some facts that other news orgs. ignore. I agree that over the last year or so a lot of those extra facts reflected negatively on the President, his policies, and his administration. Is that what the Pres. is talking about?

I think government expansion is part of the tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniably anti-American point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that had a vibrant middle class and was competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, government expansion’s been wildly successful in its disastrous outcome. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Obama what his number-one concern is, it’s that his golf game was off yesterday.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
How can a man who claims to be such a history buff know nothing about the importance of August 28th?

Tell me the following without looking them up:

Tell me the importance of August 6.

Tell me the importance of July 2.

Tell me the importance of July 20..

Tell me the significance of April 9.

Azarkhan said:
Holy mackeral, Stephen! The Democrats did float the idea of subsidizing the mainstream media. Why? Because the MSM supports a leftist/Democratic Party point of view. They also want to censor conservative sites on the internet with their bogus “net neutrality” scheme. Below is quote from one of the biggest assholes in Congress, who btw, won his election thru fraud:

Senator Al Franken, at the Netroots Nation conference in late July, talked about a dystopian future without Net neutrality: “How long do you think it will take before the Fox News website loads five times faster than Daily Kos?”

Net Neutrality as I understand it is not censorship but an effort to keep diverse information available to all people. The goal is to not let the media giants control what information we get using bandwidth. How is that censorship?
During the Bush Admin, Gen Powell’s son, head of the FCC relaxed the rules so media giants could buy up many more media outlets. To protect and encourage free speech we need to have more people have easy access to diverse information.
It’s funny you mention Franken. read the articles of the supposed fraud. Didn’t seem like there was any serious evidence to back it up. Whether you agree with his views or not Franken seems to be concerned about getting honest information into the issues and to the public. He hasn’t been there long enough to becme jaded or bought off. We need more of that on both sides of the isle.

Censorship IS the issue, and the Left/Democratic Party is promoting it. So don’t try censor comments here, OK?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013832,00.html#ixzz10pvciXhI
That’s your link for censorship? Where’s the censorship? I think he makes some interesting points about bandwidth but I’d have to know more about the technology. Speed of access and how many hits you get is partially determined by having better connections with better servers which money allows you to get. There’s also the issue of search engines. Money will also buy you a better ranking in the search engines which steers more people to your site, so there’s an advantage already available.

“Christopher Coates, former Department of Justice voting rights section chief, has caused a furor after testifying in Congress on Friday that the Department of Justice is ignoring civil rights cases that involve white victims”

It is news like this that has Obama pissed, Fox News reported it and many in the mainstream media chose to ignore it.

I wanna know the importance of February 30.

Perhaps if the President had spent less time watching cable and more time focusing on the economy, his approval ratings would be a bit better. (But that’s not as fun.)

Waaah! like a Baby crying! Blame Fox now for his failures!!!
Was anyone surprised that this man cant take one bit or responsibility
What a wusss!

MacNicol must be all pumped up after reading the pep-talk from the Dear Leader

notsofast said:
Tell me the following without looking them up: Tell me the importance of August 6. Tell me the importance of July 2. Tell me the importance of July 20.. Tell me the significance of April 9.

Just a guess- Is April 9 the OKC bombing?

Haimerej said:
Just a guess- Is April 9 the OKC bombing?

Nope!

The President is wrong about Fox.

Fox is not “ultimately destructive” to the country as a whole….it is only destructive to its viewers/cheerleaders.

No great loss.

Maybe Obama was referring to Fox’s leftwing guests like Bob Beckel:

Did Bob Beckel Threaten Blogger Pamela Gellar During Live FBN Appearance?

Here‘s something you don’t hear very often from a Fox News Contributor “You’re a woman, you better be careful about saying who I carry water for,” but that was the threat Bob Beckel made to my friend, Pamela Geller editor of Atlas Shrugs during a heated exchange on Eric Bolling’s Fox Business News show Money Rocks last night.

Geller says the off-air conversation wasn’t much better:

When we cut to break, Beckel chided Bolling for not bringing “Jewish slumlords” on the show (referring to Bolling‘s segment on Imam Rauf’s status as a New Jersey slumlord, so named in a lawsuit against Rauf by Union City). When I heard Beckel’s Jew-hating belch, I said, “and you’re an anti-semite.” He told me to “kiss his ass,” to which I responded that he would never get anyone anywhere in the world to get with that.

Our lesson in media manners comes from Newsbusters:

Beckel’s appearances on FNC have been infuriating at times, but mostly for ideological reasons. He is, after all, a liberal. But he clearly crossed a line tonight with his uncharacteristically aggressive attacks on Geller. Even Arlen Specter knows that you don’t start any argumentative statement with the words ‘you’re a woman.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-bob-beckel-threaten-blogger-pamela-gellar-during-live-fbn-appearance/

Hugo Daun said:
Fox is not “ultimately destructive” to the country as a whole….it is only destructive to its viewers/cheerleaders.

LOL

Which is MOST of those looking for election news:

“More people are getting their news about the upcoming election from cable television than any other source, and from Fox News more than any other cable channel, according to a POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released Monday.

Among cable news channels, Fox was the clear winner, with 42 percent of respondents saying it is their main source, compared with 30 percent who cited CNN and 12 percent who rely on MSNBC. ”

notsofast said:
Nope!

I’m obviously a horrible person. OKC bombing was April 19.

Haimerej said:
Wasn’t that around the time that they were all covering for JFK and his “foibles”?

C’mon, you know that objectivity is merely a buzz word in the press.

It may be now. The truth is that the freedom of the press and the role of the press in informing the public has always been very important, since the country first started. Look at the significance of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. People can seek out both sides of an issue if they want to but it would be nice to have more major media outlets offering both sides.
In the UK there are guidelines to keep media outlets from from going to far in distorting the truth. They can be challenged and fined. I’d like tom see more media outlets where a balanced presentation mattered, and deliberate distortions were not the norm.

CosmosDan said:
It may be now. The truth is that the freedom of the press and the role of the press in informing the public has always been very important, since the country first started. Look at the significance of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. People can seek out both sides of an issue if they want to but it would be nice to have more major media outlets offering both sides.In the UK there are guidelines to keep media outlets from from going to far in distorting the truth. They can be challenged and fined. I’d like tom see more media outlets where a balanced presentation mattered, and deliberate distortions were not the norm.

I think it always has been. It’s human nature. You can go to any point in history and see that the press chooses sides. It’s up to us as individuals to seek out opposing viewpoints and then judge them on the merits of their arguments.

The problem I see is that it seems most people think Fox is the only press operation with a political bent to it. If Obama truly cared about objective journalism, he’d be calling out MSNBC just as often instead of meeting with their opinion show lineup.

Moderate said:
“Christopher Coates, former Department of Justice voting rights section chief, has caused a furor after testifying in Congress on Friday that the Department of Justice is ignoring civil rights cases that involve white victims”

It is news like this that has Obama pissed, Fox News reported it and many in the mainstream media chose to ignore it.

He must be pissed at C Span too since they broadcast the testimony. That is a relevant issue that needs to be addressed. If you watch his testimony you’ll see the problem existed before Obama was president, but the complaint was that some of Obama’s appointments made it worse rather than better. It’s an issue that deserves attention but it’s a problem that can be fixed. Compared to the amount of racism that went on in this country for many years it’s pretty minor.

If someone only goes to one news outlet, they are doing themselves a disservice.

I have my obvious political leanings, but in reality I watch MSNBC more than Fox. It’s not by choice, mind you, but it’s reality. Yes, half the time I’m yelling at the TV or my brother who watches it, but I’m still exposing myself to the opposing side. In fact, watching MSNBC makes me more inclined to move to the right.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
How can a man who claims to be such a history buff know nothing about the importance of August 28th?

notsofast said:
Tell me the following without looking them up:

Tell me the importance of August 6.

Tell me the importance of July 2.

Tell me the importance of July 20..

Tell me the significance of April 9.

Well, I gave the “Unreasonable Lib” plenty of time to answer the above and he can’t. I guess these dates were not important enough for him to remember- but August 28- everyone should know, right?

April 9- The day that Lee surrendered to Grant ending the Civil War, the bloodiest war in USA history- its date is unimportant to the “Unreasonable Lib.”

July 2- The day that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed -its date is unimportant to the “Unreasonable Lib.”

July 20- The date the USA landed on the moon- its date is unimportant to the “Unreasonable Lib.”

August 6- The date the first nuclear bomb was dropped on an enemy of the USA- its date is unimportant to the “Unreasonable Lib.”

So it’s OK for FOX to thrash the President and call him every name from Marxist to Darth Vader, and then when he responds, it’s because he has a thin skin?

I’m sorry but the logic behind that is to say the least flawed. MSNBC was for years being called ‘Un-American’ for going after Fmr President Bush. All you need to do is use google, and there’s tons of reports where you had key members of the Bush White House calling it ‘un-American’ to say a bad word about the president. It was considered tough to push back against over the top critics then, and I agree some of it was over the top.

But now, it’s a sign of weakness to push-back when you have people going on FOX to say the PRESIDENT is un-American, a secret Muslim, hates America, a Racist, doesn’t have a backbone, Marxist, Fatalist, etc.

I have listed just a few of the names the Pres Obama has being called on FOX. Sean Hannity spends part of his show basically calling for holy judgement on Obama!

MSNBC, especially Olbermann, devoted almost every show to calling Bush every name in the book. Didn’t see Bush obsessing over it, though.

Mr.Papshmer said:
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT! Progressive politicians _expect_ news media to fawn over them, and most do. It doesn’t matter one speck if Barry “extended” a hand to Fox News, does he honestly expect favorable coverage simply because he extended a hand?? That is so ridiculous that it isn’t even funny!

Absolutely, for all the faults Bush had, and it was plenty, did he repeatedly call out a channel? Who the hell is advising him to spew this crap. Get your head out of where a pill doesn’t reach, stop whining and blaming others and lead. It’s about jobs, who gives a shit about Fox. Geez, what a friggin child.

writer said:
MSNBC, especially Olbermann, devoted almost every show to calling Bush every name in the book. Didn’t see Bush obsessing over it, though.

Bush was out of office for how long and olberdork kept up with the mission accomplished BS, what a piece of human debris.

Haimerej said:
I think it always has been. It’s human nature. You can go to any point in history and see that the press chooses sides. It’s up to us as individuals to seek out opposing viewpoints and then judge them on the merits of their arguments.

The problem I see is that it seems most people think Fox is the only press operation with a political bent to it. If Obama truly cared about objective journalism, he’d be calling out MSNBC just as often instead of meeting with their opinion show lineup.

The problem isn’t just a political slant. We expect pundits to be slanted in what stories they decide to cover and what side of an issue they come down on. We should also expect a relatively fair and complete presentation of relevant facts. If you’re doing a story about an issue then invite someone credible from the opposition to voice their side.
What disturbs me is an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t. I object to pulling comments out of context and then having talking heads speculate on the comment in negative ways rather than asking that person for a statement about a certain criticism.
Fox has some good news shows and I’m not sure why that same attitude toward balance can’t also carry into Fox and Friends and some of their other shows. Shows that are pundits, like Beck, Hannity and ORielly, say what you want but even there I expect a certain level of honesty about facts.

Obama is the biggest crybaby in the history of POTUS’s since Jimmy Carter, who is still whining about the Joooo’s and how they destroyed his worthless presidency. If the Jooo’s did that, thank you, and thank Teddy Kennedy for running against such a cream puff back in ’80, a weakling so completely impotent that he convinced the USSR it’d be okay to invade Afghanistan, so weak that he thought a “Rose Garden Strategy” would beat Reagan. Obviously, I expatiate on Carter because this doofus with the jug ears and equally clueless VEEP is shedding his close advisors even faster than James Earl Peanut-Brain, the self-professed ‘greatest’ post-POTUS performer ever, a bigger joke that the four years this clown cavorted in the Oval Office, staining it with his self-righteous pomposity.

Writer is right about Bush, who is every inch a man compared with the man-child in the Oval Office now. And now that Steve Burke’s arrived, Olbermann’s days are numbered….. no more obscene commentary from a pompous libturd.

CosmosDan said:
The problem isn’t just a political slant. We expect pundits to be slanted in what stories they decide to cover and what side of an issue they come down on. We should also expect a relatively fair and complete presentation of relevant facts. If you’re doing a story about an issue then invite someone credible from the opposition to voice their side.What disturbs me is an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t. I object to pulling comments out of context and then having talking heads speculate on the comment in negative ways rather than asking that person for a statement about a certain criticism.Fox has some good news shows and I’m not sure why that same attitude toward balance can’t also carry into Fox and Friends and some of their other shows. Shows that are pundits, like Beck, Hannity and ORielly, say what you want but even there I expect a certain level of honesty about facts.

I think a big reason you’re seeing less and less of “opposing viewpoints” is because things are just so fractured that you CAN’T have two people with opposing viewpoints on the same show without it devolving to sniping, name calling, and righteous indignation. And both sides ACTIVELY trying to bait the other side into it, to boot.

writer said:
MSNBC, especially Olbermann, devoted almost every show to calling Bush every name in the book. Didn’t see Bush obsessing over it, though.

I agree. Talk about the issues and how to get things done. If you want to address false memes flying around do it in a general way, or have folks a little lower down do it.
I think the problem with most politicians is that they can’t resort honest criticism about what’s wrong with DC because to many of their own party are doing it too. It’s become a situation of trying to actually accomplish something while maintaining the bullshit. Not a great scenario

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m an independent thinker unlike you Fox heads.

… And then go on to recite more Jon Stewart. Sorry, son, but the burn marks in your carpet in front of the sofa says it all. :)

Kitsune said:
I think a big reason you’re seeing less and less of “opposing viewpoints” is because things are just so fractured that you CAN’T have two people with opposing viewpoints on the same show without it devolving to sniping, name calling, and righteous indignation. And both sides ACTIVELY trying to bait the other side into it, to boot.

I don’t agree. I think networks too often encourage that kind of thing for ratings by choosing who they invite. I think their are people out there able to hold a compelling conversation about serious issues but if that’s not the best scenario for ratings, it won’t happen. At some point the public has to reject National Enquirer style media and let their networks know they will watch more serious balanced shows.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
August 28

I’m not really sure what you are talking about but your mention of August 28 tells me its Glen Beck. Now, I am not someone who watches Glen Beck, I have never seen more than 5 or 10 minutes of one of his shows, but all the hubbub about his having a rally on August 28th gets me when, it seems, the same people who objected to that support building a Mosque at Ground Zero. Why is this not hypocracy? Doesn’t Beck have the Constitutional Right to have had this rally on that date? Is holding a rally on the anniversary of a speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King disrespectful of his memory while building a Mosque at Ground Zero is not disrespectful to the memory of those who died at Ground Zero due to an attack perpertrated by Moslems and cheered by Moslem crowds throughout the world?

Now, I call it a Mosque because I was told, while I was in Saudi Arabia, that if a building contained a Mosque then that building is considered to be a Mosque and should be treated as such regardless of what else it contained. I call the location Ground Zero because a piece of one of the airplanes struct that building causing the Burlington Coat Factory to close down.

Haimerej said:
If someone only goes to one news outlet, they are doing themselves a disservice.

I have my obvious political leanings, but in reality I watch MSNBC more than Fox. It’s not by choice, mind you, but it’s reality. Yes, half the time I’m yelling at the TV or my brother who watches it, but I’m still exposing myself to the opposing side. In fact, watching MSNBC makes me more inclined to move to the right.

I think we have to explore several sources to get a better picture of the issues and relevant facts. Good for you.

Azarkhan said:
“It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country…” Pres Obama

That’s funny, coming from a dumbass socialist whose policies are destructive for the long-term growth of the country. It’s outrageous that a President, sworn to uphold the Constitution, either personally or thru his surrogates, continues to attempt to censor a news organization simply because he doesn’t like its point of view. Obama is a gangster, and a threat to freedom in America.

What attempts to censor are you talking about. Specifically?

CosmosDan said:
The problem isn’t just a political slant. We expect pundits to be slanted in what stories they decide to cover and what side of an issue they come down on. We should also expect a relatively fair and complete presentation of relevant facts. If you’re doing a story about an issue then invite someone credible from the opposition to voice their side.

O’Reilly constantly has opposing viewpoints represented. Matthews does as well. Now, are they represented by people with a good grasp of the issue? Not always for either guy.

Paul Westlake said:
What disturbs me is an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t. I object to pulling comments out of context and then having talking heads speculate on the comment in negative ways rather than asking that person for a statement about a certain criticism.

Unless it’s Alan Grayson apparently. I have to say I was disappointed in your response on that thread.

Fox has some good news shows and I’m not sure why that same attitude toward balance can’t also carry into Fox and Friends and some of their other shows. Shows that are pundits, like Beck, Hannity and ORielly, say what you want but even there I expect a certain level of honesty about facts.

Please give an example of a factual distortion in which the men mentioned above didn’t correct the record. I can give examples of MSNBC hosts doing that. But again, you’re singling out Fox as if they’re the only ones who only report facts that fit their narrative. This call for objectivity in journalism seems to always follow Fox bashing. I think that’s what bothers most people about the liberal media. It’s not that the media has a liberal slant, it’s that they try to act like they’re objective and the only ones who aren’t are Fox.

Man, I completely mangled the quotes in my last post. Sorry ’bout that.

I still think it’s completely disingenuous for Obama and his team to bitch about Fox when they have meetings with people like Olbermann and Maddow.

RichS said:
Is holding a rally on the anniversary of a speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King disrespectful of his memory

If a racist group, opposed to King’s ideals did it, yes, it would be disrespectful, but how the hell you can call a “restoring honor to America” rally disrespectful of King? That’s ludicrous.

CosmosDan says:

What attempts to censor are you talking about. Specifically?

Dan,
This Whitehouse is directly linked to 3 or 4 organizations that started boycotts against Glenn Beck. You don’t have to think that’s censorship, but it sure isn’t presidental.

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press.”

What he really means is he tried to get rid of Fox news in the begining but the WH press pool wouldn’t cooperate. He did manage to get other networks not to follow Fox Stories but now more people just watch Fox. So it hasn’t worked out for him and its all thanks to that darn constitution. In other news 12% name MSNBC the most trusted cable news network so he still has that. *wink*

FOX News will be what Obambi blames for his failing administration for the next 2 years of his term since he finally figured out he looks stupid blaming it on Bush. Mommy, Mommy, FOX News is being mean to me! Make them stop, please Mommy, make them stop. Waaaaahhh…

CosmosDan said:
The problem isn’t just a political slant. We expect pundits to be slanted in what stories they decide to cover and what side of an issue they come down on. We should also expect a relatively fair and complete presentation of relevant facts. If you’re doing a story about an issue then invite someone credible from the opposition to voice their side.What disturbs me is an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t. I object to pulling comments out of context and then having talking heads speculate on the comment in negative ways rather than asking that person for a statement about a certain criticism.Fox has some good news shows and I’m not sure why that same attitude toward balance can’t also carry into Fox and Friends and some of their other shows. Shows that are pundits, like Beck, Hannity and ORielly, say what you want but even there I expect a certain level of honesty about facts.

Where is the dishonesty? They ran with the Acorn story when you couldn’t find any other network or newspaper in the country that appeared concerned. Nothing dishonest about that. Just because the stories don’t show Obama in a good light doesn’t make them dishonest. The Acorn story is an important story and it would not have even gotten a mention if not for Fox News. I see today where Andy Stern is under investigation for corruption by the FBI. I looked on 3 “regular” new sites and of course, nothing. He was the person who visited Obama the most times last year, so I guess that should be a story either.

soccermom said:
This Whitehouse is directly linked to 3 or 4 organizations that started boycotts against Glenn Beck. You don’t have to think that’s censorship, but it sure isn’t presidental.

Barry has never acted presidential. He was so used to talking down to adoring dolts in the slums of Chicago who idolized him because he could put two sentences together without hitting a crack pipe. He continues to talk down to people, but out here in real America, it doesn’t go over too well. He’s a charlatan and a punk, and the sooner he’s sent packing, the better.

Haimerej said:
In fact, watching MSNBC makes me more inclined to move to the right.

Bull’s Eye!!! But don’t say that too much, we don’t want ‘em to figure it out.

It doesn’t even need to be said anymore how badly Fox News has poisoned the politics of this country

If it doesn’t need to be said, why are you saying it?

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
It doesn’t even need to be said anymore how badly Fox News has poisoned the politics of this country

My post was directed at Mediaite Staff telling them we don’t need to be reminded anymore about how sleazy Fox News is. Of course if the president is asked a question, I have no problem with him giving an honest assessment.

Or of pouting if the questions aren’t the ones he wants to hear.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
It doesn’t even need to be said anymore how badly Fox News has poisoned the politics of this country

Then shut up.

Why hasn’t Michele_F from the kingdom of Utah explained why she has changed her name?

If tossing gasoline on a fire is useful, then so is Fox.

They are divisive, intolerant, lack real patriotic spirit and create a supercharged atmosphere of exaggerated fear.

It’s all show biz. How can anyone ignore this?

Mr.Papshmer said:
Spoken like a true Marxist. Can this little punk get any lower?

And a note to any liberal media types who’re cheering him on: Don’t fool yourself for a second. You’re next. And you’d have to be blind to not see where he would like to go with this.

One positive… Obama’s enemies are more likely to be armed than his allies.

So when do we start rounding up and killing [insert minority group here]?

Finally someone said it .

“It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country”

They have done nothing but support the obstructionist Republican party during a time of when America needs not to be divided. The propagate lies, twist facts, editorialize all news items, all under the cover of a legit news organization and worst of all people fall for it.

They are run by corporations for corporations (like the Republicans) and anyone that gets in their way is relentlessly raked over the coals.

Yes, Obama will take a beating for his comment, I can see Glenn Beck making some of his stupid faces as he comments on it showing us how this is the downfall of life as we know it. At least its a start to removing the cancer.

No BO, YOUR point of view is “ultimately destructive for the country” and maybe the world!

I didn’t vote for Bush, but did he whine about CNN & MSNBC all the time?

pigfacedouchebag said:
So when do we start rounding up and killing [insert minority group here]?

[pigfacedouchebags] go first!

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Why hasn’t Michele_F from the kingdom of Utah explained why she has changed her name?

I keep asking. Usually when she changes her name, she is a member of some different Fundamentalist sect in a different state and with different children. The only constant is she is effectively bringing up the young ‘uns herself.

<

pigfacedouchebag said:
So when do we start rounding up and killing [insert minority group here]?

Actually one the reasons I hope Sharon Angle loses to Harry Reid–besides the fact it would be bad for the country– is because i want to call these little punks out on their threat to use 2nd amendment solutions.

Talisman said:
Finally someone said it .

“It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country”

They have done nothing but support the obstructionist Republican party during a time of when America needs not to be divided. The propagate lies, twist facts, editorialize all news items, all under the cover of a legit news organization and worst of all people fall for it.

They are run by corporations for corporations (like the Republicans) and anyone that gets in their way is relentlessly raked over the coals.

Yes, Obama will take a beating for his comment, I can see Glenn Beck making some of his stupid faces as he comments on it showing us how this is the downfall of life as we know it. At least its a start to removing the cancer.

AMEN. Good to hear some common sense. Restore the Sanity!

notsofast said:
[pigfacedouchebags] go first!

I have guns too. Bring it.

Reading the reactionary/conservative comments on here supporting the political operation that is Fox Republican/Tea Party Propaganda only confirms what the President said. Fox personalities lie and they are dividing the country almost as badly as it was just before the Civil War.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html

pigfacedouchebag said:
I have guns too. Bring it.

Wow, internet tough guy. Never have seen that before. You must be totally awesome.

But MSNBC’s propaganda going the other way, we’ll just not mention that. Let’s keep this focused on Fox. They’re biased!

pigfacedouchebag said:
I have guns too. Bring it.

You have heinous flatulence- leave it!

Haimerej said:
O’Reilly constantly has opposing viewpoints represented. Matthews does as well. Now, are they represented by people with a good grasp of the issue? Not always for either guy.

Yes he does. Not always the best people and often a complicated issue is limited to a ten minute discussion. He’s on for an hour. Give important issues a little more than that.

Unless it’s Alan Grayson apparently. I have to say I was disappointed in your response on that thread.

Who are you talking to? It seems you’ve attributed my words to Paul. I appreciate Grayson’s willingness to duke it out but I don’t appreciate his unnecessary and unhelpful hyperbole. The thing I notice is that when Democrat’s are willing to fight as dirty as the GOP has for some time, all the partisans start condemning the style as dishonest and ugly. Sheesh! Try to apply the same standard. If people don’t want Grayson mentioning the Taliban in an ad , which was admittedly over the top, then be prepared to criticize your own party for the same style. Don’t defend the wackiness of Michelle Bachman and blow off criticism of her dishonesty as a left wing smear and then vilify the opposition for a similar style. It’s bullshit. We need to respect and appreciate honesty even form people who’s views we disagree with. That’s how the process is supposed to work. Each party has to police their own to raise the standards of discussion.

Please give an example of a factual distortion in which the men mentioned above didn’t correct the record. I can give examples of MSNBC hosts doing that. But again, you’re singling out Fox as if they’re the only ones who only report facts that fit their narrative. This call for objectivity in journalism seems to always follow Fox bashing. I think that’s what bothers most people about the liberal media. It’s not that the media has a liberal slant, it’s that they try to act like they’re objective and the only ones who aren’t are Fox.

I honestly believe Fox tends to distort the facts more often than the other networks. Someone just mentioned the Acorn story. That was fabricated BS and Fox pushed it hard. It was the Shirley Sherrod of it’s time. A liar with edited video tapes that were cut to put ACORN in the worst possible light. All the investigations and interviews that followed showed it was fabricated.
The “Ground Zero Mosque” is a good example of selective facts and purposeful negative speculation. The most obvious example is when they implied that some Saudi with shady connections is the source of funds, without mentioning that that same man is a major Fox investor. They went through Imam’s Rauf’s speeches and public appearances and carefully selected quotes in order to give them a negative spin. When Rauf, suggests that anti Muslim sentiment will only encourage the radical element of Islam , something any reasonable American might suggest, they call it a threat. When he suggests that our history in Middle East has something to do with 9/11 , something many people including Glenn Beck have talked about, he painted as “blaming America” It’s designed not to inform but inflame for the sake of ratings , and IMO a great disservice to a p[public in crisis and in need of decent accurate information.

Andy Lamb said:
You are correct in saying that nothing in Obama’s comments convey Marxism. Perhaps what the poster you responded to was referring to was the current administration’s Speaker of the House attempting to revive the Marxist “Fairness Doctrine” in 2008, with the intent of shutting down conservative talk radio. What the doctrine boils down to is the Federal Government telling private business (talk radio) what they can and cannot say to the American people. Government ability to regulate media content = Marxism. Obama has publicly said that he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but since his House Speaker supported and attempted to push such legislation through the House, you have contradicting viewpoints, as Pelosi has publicly said that she supports the Marxist doctrine.

Maybe, but the Fairness Doctrine was not even mentioned in the article and Mr. Pap directed his comments to the president. Hence, red herring. I have issues with people slinging around words in which they are only familiar with the incorrect colloquial definition. You cannot call a statement ‘Marxist’ when the statement presents ideas that are not Marxist.

GlennBeckReview said:
Reading the reactionary/conservative comments on here supporting the political operation that is Fox Republican/Tea Party Propaganda only confirms what the President said. Fox personalities lie and they are dividing the country almost as badly as it was just before the Civil War. http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html

I am pleased to see you use the term “reactionary”. I think it is the most appropriate term for the Beckerheads and Tea Partiers. I am not conservative, but we are blessed with many true, fine conservatives, and conservatism has enriched our nation. I hate to see the terms sullied by the likes of Obtuse Angle, Beckerhead, Randi the Witch, the Drop Out Governor, Ayn Rand Paul and the like. “Reactionary”. Yes, I like it.

Obama riled up the neocons. You go after their leader Faux News you get all the neocons freaking out. Faux is just fake propaganda news that has to show fake clips, puts a (D) next to every Republican that gets in trouble and skew the news to fit their own agenda. A real new organization is suppose to report the news not make it up.

It’s about time Obama and I hope the rest of the Dems get a backbone and go after right wing propaganda machine too.

I think that’s what bothers most people about the liberal media. It’s not that the media has a liberal slant, it’s that they try to act like they’re objective and the only ones who aren’t are Fox.

I meant to address this. Could you give me some examples.

I’d agree that the left leaning media sometimes misses a troy it ought to cover, the the recent hearings with Coates. That’s another reason I dislike the hyped up stories that are a mountain of controversy and conflict built on a mole hill. Stories that are much more relevant about issues aren’t covered or not given depth.

notsofast said:
You have heinous flatulence- leave it!

Yet another example that conservatives lack wit. In what universe was that funny?

pigfacedouchebag said:
Yet another example that conservatives lack wit. In what universe was that funny?

ALL!

I am not conservative….

The devil you say!

Azarkhan said:
Holy mackeral, Stephen! The Democrats did float the idea of subsidizing the mainstream media. Why? Because the MSM supports a leftist/Democratic Party point of view. They also want to censor conservative sites on the internet with their bogus “net neutrality” scheme. Below is quote from one of the biggest assholes in Congress, who btw, won his election thru fraud:

Senator Al Franken, at the Netroots Nation conference in late July, talked about a dystopian future without Net neutrality: “How long do you think it will take before the Fox News website loads five times faster than Daily Kos?”

Censorship IS the issue, and the Left/Democratic Party is promoting it. So don’t try censor comments here, OK?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013832,00.html#ixzz10pvciXhI

Am I censoring comments? I don’t think that I am at all. Once again, I am not addressing the subsidization of media. I was addressing Mr. Pap’s mischaracterization of Obama’s comment as Marxist.

And there is no censorship in Net Neutrality. In fact, the concept of Net Neutrality argues explicitly argues against censorship. Without Net Neutrality, the internet will be sliced and diced into payment packages by telecom companies. They will be the ones doing the censoring. Telecoms will choose which sites will load up faster than others, which ones that will be given more bandwidth. Most likely, it will be the websites that pay a fee to the telecom, just like it is for channels on cable. That will make it more difficult for smaller internet start-ups from getting off the ground.

So, you are free to bash Net Neutrality, but just know that by doing so, you will be siding against small businesses, entrepreneurs, and the freedom of expression.

pigfacedouchebag said:
Yet another example that conservatives lack wit. In what universe was that funny?

notsofast said:
ALL!

You are as corny as Fox’s Half Hour Comedy Hour, a failed attempt to mimic the success of Stewart and Colbert. Successful comedy has to be smart, which is why conservatives fail dismally at it.

Come, buddy. Try to impress me. I believe in you.

libra blue said:
No BO, YOUR point of view is “ultimately destructive for the country” and maybe the world! I didn’t vote for Bush, but did he whine about CNN & MSNBC all the time?

I would argue that MSNBC/CNN are much less vitriolic than FNC regarding the President. Whether 42% of Americans watch FNC is irrelevant to what is in the content of what 42% is digesting.

FNC allows questions of BHO’s legitimacy as our President and Commander in Chief. It posited a question regarding a “terrorist fist jab” between Obama and his wife. It has as contributers many potential 2012 presidential candidates.

It notoriously does NOT cover certain topics and over-inflates other topics while soft-balling the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, etc. They don’t ask hard questions and one of their biggest names literally acts like a coked-up clown.

Just as crap as the NYT can be (major POV outside the US for what the US is like), so goes FNC.

CosmosDan said:
It was the Shirley Sherrod of it’s time.

How can anyone think that Shirley Sherrod is not a racist anymore? Her husband is.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-must-stop-the-white-man-and-his-uncle-toms-.html

Of course, we know that race still matters to her because of what she said.

“And not so much about white — *it is about white and black*, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes. Because I took him to one of his own.”

“One of his own” indeed.

It’s also important to remember that the audience reaction is what Breitbart what originally focusing on. The audience was clearly alright with the story before they heard the end. They seemed like they enjoyed the part were she didn’t help the farmer.

pigfacedouchebag said:
Come, buddy. Try to impress me

Impress you? Shit, you DEPRESS me!

Some people turn heads, you turn stomachs.

A true liberal. Whining , bitching, moaning , pointing fingers. I tell you what , I THANK GOD I got out of the Marine Corps when I did, can’t imagine having to serve under him as Commander in Chief.

pigfacedouchebag said:
Come, buddy. Try to impress me.

Outside of a sticky plant with red hairs coming out of it, I think that would be impossible.

I would argue that MSNBC/CNN are much less vitriolic than FNC regarding the President.

Guess you weren’t watching during the Bush administration.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Outside of a sticky plant with red hairs coming out of it, I think that would be impossible.

Another unfunny idiot.

murf said:
A true liberal. Whining , bitching, moaning , pointing fingers. I tell you what , I THANK GOD I got out of the Marine Corps when I did, can’t imagine having to serve under him as Commander in Chief.

Dude. I see your posts. You can whine with the best of them.

gordonbloyershow said:
Obama is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country. He needs to be blocked every step he takes. He is a menace.
Fox is doing a good job of blocking the MSM and their lies.
Ruppert needs to buy one of the broadcast networks to complete the job. With that one network the Progressives and their media will be done forever.

My latest video about libs………….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt9qIYXegMg

Boyer, It’s just like you to only want one news source. Big Brother also wants you to be able to hear from one news source, so the sheep can be easily lead by fear and hate. Winston Smith would be so proud. Fox has got you hooked, line a sinker. Fox and Rush could tell you the grass is pink and you believe them.

pigfacedouchebag said:
Another unfunny idiot.

Don’t care, son, you’re a spaz, and the last thing that concerns me is it you think I’m funny. Grow up.

pigfacedouchebag said:
Dude. I see your posts. You can whine with the best of them.

Ha! But you are the one who will die from rectal poisoning with your head that far up Barry’s ass!

Mr.Papshmer said:
Don’t care, son, you’re a spaz, and the last thing that concerns me is it you think I’m funny. Grow up.

Obviously you do. You felt the need to comment on my post. Stop sweatin’ me and go on with your life then, clown.

notsofast said:
ALL!

All universe? Doesn’t the prefix “uni” mean one?

notsofast said:
Ha! But you are the one who will die from rectal poisoning with your head that far up Barry’s ass!

Who do you think he is? He as much as admitted in his comment to Murf that he’s a new incarnation of an old prog.

I agree with Mr. Obama and not because I’m a DEM or partisan or whatever, I happen to believe that FOX and those like FOX (ultra-right/conservative/TEA-leaning TV/cable/Talk Radio) are destructive to our system and yes, even to free speech – why?

They seldom if ever tell the truth. They seldom if ever tell the other side of any story. They seldom are objective (except about their own objective) … and that objective mostly is always ratings, money, viewers, and contant “whipping the flames of hate, discontent, bias, worry, fear, and anger.”

~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Yes, Robert. It’s like the unibrow in your video.

Eyepublius said:
They seldom if ever tell the truth.

OK, list all the lies they have told.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Who do you think he is? He as much as admitted in his comment to Murf that he’s a new incarnation of an old prog.

Mr.Papshmer <—-Stll sweatin' me.

notsofast said:
notsofast

notsofast <—-Stll a corny douche.

Eyepublius said:
They seldom if ever tell the truth.

Lies like this:

Gitmo closed in one year?

Unemployment won’t exceed 8%?

The HCR bill will drive down costs?

Lies like Barry told?

pigfacedouchebag said:
Mr.Papshmer <—-Stll sweatin’ me.

notsofast <—-Stll a corny douche.

lOL

You got Zero- nothing -nada!

Shut up. You will never be the man your mother is.

One last comment for the “free speech” advocates (those who defend FOX and ultra rightwing outlets).

If they are so interested in “free speech and all the rights that go with that premise,” then how come a guest on their shows, or on Talk Radio, seldom get a word in edgewise without being drowned out or having to go to break? (cite Limbaugh and Hannity and others who are famous for that stunt) …

Free speech – yes, or maybe, but not always. It’s like “Freedom of the Press,” it belongs to those who own most of the ink and presses.

~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

CosmosDan said:
What disturbs me is an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t.

Kinda like posting about ‘pundits’ but only mentioning O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity after you say these things….

CosmosDan said:
We expect pundits to be slanted

CosmosDan said:
We should also expect a relatively fair and complete presentation of relevant facts

CosmosDan said:
If you’re doing a story about an issue then invite someone credible from the opposition to voice their side.

CosmosDan said:
I object to pulling comments out of context and then having talking heads speculate on the comment in negative ways rather than asking that person for a statement about a certain criticism.

_______________

As for this one….

CosmosDan said:
Shows that are pundits, like Beck, Hannity and ORielly, say what you want but even there I expect a certain level of honesty about facts.

Anyone who was trying to be EVEN THE LEAST BIT FAIR would have also mentioned Schultz and Olberman and Maddow in that sentence addressing ‘a certain level of honesty about facts’.

hmmm… kinda sounds like “an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t”…. doesn’t it?

CD… I know you pride yourself on trying to be a voice of reason on this crazy leftwing website but… when Haimerej said this….

Haimerej said:
The problem I see is that it seems most people think Fox is the only press operation with a political bent to it. If Obama truly cared about objective journalism, he’d be calling out MSNBC just as often instead of meeting with their opinion show lineup.

and then you respond the way you did…. you’re talking the talk and not walking the walk. A valid point was made and you totally deflected it to one side. IMO, FOX gives a MUCH fairer shake to liberal views than MSNBC does to conservative ones but…. even if you disgree with that…. you can’t POSSIBLY ignore the FACT that MSNBC’s ‘pundits’ are just as (if not more) ‘slanted’ as FOX’s.

Hell, O’Reilly has liberals on EVERY DAMNED SHOW. Half the time I think he’s a (D). He bent over BACKWARDS to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I’m no fan of O’Reilly but when it comes to FAIRNESS he’s head and shoulders above Olberman and Maddow.

Schultz is just a joke but he certainly deserved a mention in your post about ‘intentional and ongoing distiortions’, right?

By the way… take a look at your quotes that I separated in the top half of this post. You would agree that each one of them applies at least as much to MSNBC as to FOX, right CD?
_________________

For clarity….

CosmosDan said:
What disturbs me is an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t.

It ‘disturbs’ me too, CD. By ignoring Schultz and Maddow and Olberman (not to mention the multitude of other liberal pundits in the broader LSM) in your otherwise thoughtful post you partook of the same behavior.

JMO of course.

seldom get a word in edgewise without being drowned out….

Olbermann found a way around that. Don’t have on any guests who disagree with you.

Yoda002 said:
Bloyer, It’s just like you to only want one news source.

That’s all his tiny little mind can handle, dude.

The Real Royal King said:
I keep asking. Usually when she changes her name, she is a member of some different Fundamentalist sect in a different state and with different children. The only constant is she is effectively bringing up the young ‘uns herself.

I guess a generic blogging name would be more appropriate if your real-life name changes from one sect to the next.

List “their lies.”

How much time do we have? But you can start here and stay at that site and do the research, or go to Fact Check, too. Both level-headed sites.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009280020

So, put away your narrow view and read the signs . . . they’re all over the place. Careful, though, you could get lost in laa-laa land by sticking to one set of signs and avoiding the rational ones… Just my hunch.

~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Eyepublius said:
One last comment for the “free speech” advocates (those who defend FOX and ultra rightwing outlets).

If they are so interested in “free speech and all the rights that go with that premise,” then how come a guest on their shows, or on Talk Radio, seldom get a word in edgewise without being drowned out or having to go to break? (cite Limbaugh and Hannity and others who are famous for that stunt) …

Free speech – yes, or maybe, but not always. It’s like “Freedom of the Press,” it belongs to those who own most of the ink and presses.

~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Thats the best you have? You mean that radio hosts dominate the conversation and sometimes dont let guests talk, wow wait until the other thousands of hosts figure this one out…

notsofast said:
lOL

You got Zero- nothing -nada!

Shut up. You will never be the man your mother is.

Are you really insulting my mother? That’s a good sign that YOU got nothing. I don’t even think that pissed my off when I was a kid.

CosmosDan said:
Yes he does. Not always the best people and often a complicated issue is limited to a ten minute discussion. He’s on for an hour. Give important issues a little more than that.

In this world of punditry as journalism, you have to give both props for at least trying.

CosmosDan said: Who are you talking to? It seems you’ve attributed my words to Paul.

I had responded to him in another thread and pasted before copying your blockquote. I mentioned how I mangled that and apologized above.

CosmosDan said:
I appreciate Grayson’s willingness to duke it out but I don’t appreciate his unnecessary and unhelpful hyperbole. The thing I notice is that when Democrat’s are willing to fight as dirty as the GOP has for some time, all the partisans start condemning the style as dishonest and ugly.

If you object to an “intentional… distortion of the issue” and “pulling comments out of context” you should object to it, period. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” isn’t a moral position. Appealing to partisans to justify your own stance makes you want you apparently despise- a partisan.

CosmosDan said:
Sheesh! Try to apply the same standard.

Take your own advice.

CosmosDan said:
If people don’t want Grayson mentioning the Taliban in an ad , which was admittedly over the top, then be prepared to criticize your own party for the same style. Don’t defend the wackiness of Michelle Bachman and blow off criticism of her dishonesty as a left wing smear and then vilify the opposition for a similar style. It’s bullshit. We need to respect and appreciate honesty even form people who’s views we disagree with. That’s how the process is supposed to work. Each party has to police their own to raise the standards of discussion.

Mentioning the Taliban isn’t what most people took issue with in his ad. They take issue with him taking a quote-”Find a verse. I have a verse for my wife. I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say she should submit to me. That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do — so instead you would love your wife even as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband.” and chopping it up to say that he’s wanting to impose fundamentalism on people and he’s obsessed with his wife submitting to him.

CosmosDan said:
I honestly believe Fox tends to distort the facts more often than the other networks.

Then you don’t visit enough watchdog sites for the other networks. Every channel does it on almost a daily basis.

CosmosDan said:
Someone just mentioned the Acorn story. That was fabricated BS and Fox pushed it hard. It was the Shirley Sherrod of it’s time. A liar with edited video tapes that were cut to put ACORN in the worst possible light. All the investigations and interviews that followed showed it was fabricated.

Which story? The Breitbart tapes were only part of it and not all of them were out of context and the context of some reporting to authorities while playing along is something you couldn’t know until the tapes were released. What about one of their founders who embezzled all that money?

CosmosDan said:
The “Ground Zero Mosque” is a good example of selective facts and purposeful negative speculation. The most obvious example is when they implied that some Saudi with shady connections is the source of funds, without mentioning that that same man is a major Fox investor. They went through Imam’s Rauf’s speeches and public appearances and carefully selected quotes in order to give them a negative spin. When Rauf, suggests that anti Muslim sentiment will only encourage the radical element of Islam , something any reasonable American might suggest, they call it a threat. When he suggests that our history in Middle East has something to do with 9/11 , something many people including Glenn Beck have talked about, he painted as “blaming America” It’s designed not to inform but inflame for the sake of ratings , and IMO a great disservice to a p[public in crisis and in need of decent accurate information.

What about MSNBC and how they covered the Tea Party? Contessa Brewer purposefully not showing the part of the tape that shows a black man with a gun so she can make the point that racism is driving it? Flat out ignoring the SEIU thugs that beat a man outside a rally? Using Lyndon LaRouche signs as representative of the Tea Party when he was doing Bush as Hitler too and is a devout leftist?

You see? We could do this all day long. I think I’ve mentioned before how hard it is to have to first confront all the stereotypes before actual conversation can get started and MSNBC is a major contributor to the leftist stereotypes of Republicans. Ed Schultz’s show is based upon strawmen and stereotypes. He’s worse than Olbermann and I thought I’d never see anyone worse than that.

Basically, my point is that for you to say that Fox distorts “more often” than the rest just shows your bias.

Hugo Daun said:
.

Is that a real life picture of Blower for your avatar?

FearMonger said:
Case in point….

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/coates-exposes-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-msm-obama-admin-defenders/?singlepage=true

Perfect example….thanks for sharing.

Eyepublius said:
If they are so interested in “free speech and all the rights that go with that premise,” then how come a guest on their shows, or on Talk Radio, seldom get a word in edgewise without being drowned out or having to go to break? (cite Limbaugh and Hannity and others who are famous for that stunt) …

The premise of free speech has zero to do with how anyone treats guest on their shows. Free speech has to do with how government treats speech. Limbaugh talking over someone in no way restricts that person from his right to free speech.

Eyepublius said:
List “their lies.” How much time do we have? But you can start here and stay at that site and do the research, or go to Fact Check, too. Both level-headed sites. http://mediamatters.org/research/201009280020 So, put away your narrow view and read the signs . . . they’re all over the place. Careful, though, you could get lost in laa-laa land by sticking to one set of signs and avoiding the rational ones… Just my hunch. ~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Wow. MM is ‘level-headed’. Great place to get your ‘research’ on!

Keep up the good work!!!

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Is that a real life picture of Blower for your avatar?

As a matter of fact, it is.

Hugo Daun said:
As a matter of fact, it is.

It looks like a mug shot.

Wow. MM is ‘level-headed’. Great place to get your ‘research’ on!

Daily Kos is also a good source.

The only thing destructive to the country is having that clown in The White House until 2012. Fortunately, Conservatives are going to rain on his parade come November.

Stephen Hogan said:
Maybe, but the Fairness Doctrine was not even mentioned in the article and Mr. Pap directed his comments to the president. Hence, red herring. I have issues with people slinging around words in which they are only familiar with the incorrect colloquial definition. You cannot call a statement ‘Marxist’ when the statement presents ideas that are not Marxist.

No, it wasn’t, and neither was Marxism. That’s why I agreed with you in my post. I was making an educated assumption based on other posts by Mr. Pap. And yes, Mr. Obama has stated opposition to the Marxist “Fairness Doctrine.” However, as I pointed out, his House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has stated support for the Marxist doctrine and attempted to push such legislation through the House. Many House Dems support it. Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein has also expressed support for the same Marxist doctrine. As I said, government ability to regulate media content = Marxism. I think you probably agree with this. Frankly, Obama has stated he does not support the doctrine, but in my opinion that is more due to political expediency than anything else. Publicly stating support would be political suicide for him. That said, I believe that Mr. Obama would shut FOX News down tomorrow if he could get away with it. And that would be a Marxist move.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
It looks like a mug shot.

LOL….well, it IS decidedly different than the 20-year old photo that he uses here to misrepresent himself, that’s for sure.

Eyepublius said:
I agree with Mr. Obama and not because I’m a DEM or partisan or whatever, I happen to believe that FOX and those like FOX (ultra-right/conservative/TEA-leaning TV/cable/Talk Radio) are destructive to our system and yes, even to free speech – why? They seldom if ever tell the truth. They seldom if ever tell the other side of any story. They seldom are objective (except about their own objective) … and that objective mostly is always ratings, money, viewers, and contant “whipping the flames of hate, discontent, bias, worry, fear, and anger.” ~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

“They seldom if ever tell the truth. They seldom if ever tell the other side of any story. They seldom are objective (except about their own objective) … and that objective mostly is always ratings, money, viewers, and contant”

First of all, THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF ‘FREE SPEECH’…. it doesn’t mean ‘fair speech’ or ‘agreeable speech’. It means “I disagree with everything you say and would defend to the death your right to say it.” Got it?

Good grief…. do you have ANY idea how hypocritical it is for you to lecture about bias without even mentioning the alphabet networks? And then you post a link to MediaMatters and call it ‘rational’ ….. LMFAO!!

Perhaps THE WORST liberal hack talking point outlet (and THAT”S saying something!). I would suggest you go to NEWSBUSTERS and get some more of your ‘research’ on…. since you seem genuinely loathe to ‘narrow views”.

Let me know what you find out.

writer said:
Wow. MM is ‘level-headed’. Great place to get your ‘research’ on! Daily Kos is also a good source.

Oh yeah… don’t forget about HuffPo, the Democratic Underground and… last but not least…. The White House.

And if I can find anything farther left, I’ll try that for my sources.

Eyepublius said:
List “their lies.” How much time do we have? But you can start here and stay at that site and do the research, or go to Fact Check, too. Both level-headed sites. http://mediamatters.org/research/201009280020 So, put away your narrow view and read the signs . . . they’re all over the place. Careful, though, you could get lost in laa-laa land by sticking to one set of signs and avoiding the rational ones… Just my hunch. ~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Good God, sir, you chide a cable station for bias, and then send people to Media Matters for a “level-headed” viewpoint?

felixw said:
Perfect example….thanks for sharing.

Chris Jones said:
The only thing destructive to the country is having that clown in The White House until 2012. Fortunately, Conservatives are going to rain on his parade come November.

writer said:

Baaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaa!
Wow. MM is ‘level-headed’. Great place to get your ‘research’ on!

Daily Kos is also a good source.

Andy Lamb said:
Good God, sir, you chide a cable station for bias, and then send people to Media Matters for a “level-headed” viewpoint?

writer said:
And if I can find anything farther left, I’ll try that for my sources.

Hey writer, you posted a YouTube link somewhere of a video of someone calling themself Dem06 or something like that. Was that the RRK? Surprising, because the guy in the video seemed unsure, scripted, stiff, weak, almost scared. The King comes off as so grandiose on here, it was a bit disappointing. Can you post the link again? I had to laugh earlier, one of his comments above had a 2 thumbs up, 46 thumbs down earlier. I don’t usually look at those, but the numbers were so glaring it was hard to miss.

Already over 200 comments!
Remember another thread where Joe Biden tells Democrats to “quit whining”. Well, isn’t this just our inglourious President “whining away”?

Fox but picks at the skeletal remains of what little remains after the rape & destruction of the BushDrunk years. Fox is deeply involved with the Great Unwashed.

Yes, Andy. It’s RRK. Sure you want to look? It ain’t pretty.

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEg_qLi0vaU&feature=youtube_gdata

Andy Lamb said:
I think you probably agree with this.

You’re right. I do agree. I was not aware that Pelosi explicitly supported the Fairness Doctrine. If she did, then I disagree with her vehemently.

Thanks for the chat. I like finding reasonable people, such as yourself, here. There’s not many of us here, but I think that if we remain vocal we could help change the tone of this comment section from one of juvenile dirt-slinging to meaningful and constructive discussion.

Andy Lamb said:
I had to laugh earlier, one of his comments above had a 2 thumbs up, 46 thumbs down earlier. I don’t usually look at those, but the numbers were so glaring it was hard to miss.

It’s amazing that there seems to only be 6 people to thumbs up the liberal commenters here. I guess even RRK can’t count on four of them.

Usually, the King even offends the left wing posters. Only the very most extreme ever vote for him.

It’s easy to criticize the messenger, and disregard the message. We all do it at these forums all the time

But the point, if there can ever be a point, is to do the research yourself . . . then pick and choose sides, keeping mind that those on the right will mostly stay with the “right” and those on the left will always stay with the “left” – – re: media outlets and guests, hosts, and stories, etc. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Keep in mind “nothing takes the place of facts” no matter how hard either side spins them.

That was my point all along.

~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Cult leader Jim Jones and President Obama have a few things in common can you tell me what they are?
They have both lead their followers into premature death’s yes but there’s something else they share. That is their followers are both gullible and LACKING MORAL JUDGEMENT just like they are!! In other words Obama’s followers seem totally lacking for what Glenn Beck calls SELF REGULATION. Personal aggrandizement and self indulgence are common traits among liberal champions and Obama is no exception. Liberals, according to Beck, want Marxist style Government. They have rejected the founders idea of liberty for reasons they have yet to properly account for. The irony here is that Fox news, the station being painted by Obama as public enemy #1 for its so called agenda driven reporting, will almost certainly be the lone network openly reporting on the Presidents fall from grace in November. This while the real news channels like CNN, NBC, CBS and MSMBC, will have deliberately avoided the story of the decade if not severely twisted it to fit their PC narrative. That story, if its honest, will be on how one ideologically driven and narrow minded Black President single handedly set back decades of work that liberals had thought might finally be realized with a liberal President and Congress. To the contrary I believe that this sort of top down social engineering we have come to expect with liberal elites is at long last entering its last days and liberals have President Obama to thank for that!! Obama is now the poster boy for the sort of stubborn liberal policies that the American people rejected (no we haven’t forgotten the health care and stimulus packages that few Congressman would even read until Fox had the audacity published them). The more Obama takes aim at Fox News, the more his antics remind Americans how utterly bankrupt this godless belief system is. Attacking America’s founding religion Christianity, which Fox seems to serve as vanguard for, will prove to be your undoing as well. I urge liberals to stop this divisiveness but I have no illusions about this. You are fooling yourself to think you can “fundamentally transform America.” America’s civic and religious traditions are not bad things at all, in fact they represent freedom for so many who come here for safe haven. So if by some miracle you get all illegal immigrants to help you win re-election your agenda will still fail because standing in your way will be the natural children of this great country who’s firm reliance on Gods providence will protect them once again. It’s a despicable and foolish thing you liberals are attempting here with this attack on Fox news. November cometh quickly!!!

The one time I would hope that Glynnis would take a position she didn’t. His remarks are a bridge too far and anyone/everyone in the media should tell hehimself to GROW THE HELL UP. As the President, he has lowered the stature of the office to depths we have never seen. This is what happens when the media don’t vet the candidates, campaign for them, and then excuse his behavior by saying “them’s fighting words”.

BS – he is a MANCHILD (Rush was right again)! and Glynnis and everymediaite staff should be supporting the rights of the pundits to express any/all opinions and they should stand up and tell hehimself that his attacks on FNC are unwarranted, unprofessional, and clearly unpresidential.

What a baby – wha, wha, wha.

Noa Napoleon said:
Cult leader Jim Jones and President Obama have a few things in common can you tell me what they are?
They have both lead their followers into premature death’s yes but there’s something else they share. That is their followers are both gullible and LACKING MORAL JUDGEMENT just like they are!! In other words Obama’s followers seem totally lacking for what Glenn Beck calls SELF REGULATION. Personal aggrandizement and self indulgence are common traits among liberal champions and Obama is no exception. Liberals, according to Beck, want Marxist style Government. They have rejected the founders idea of liberty for reasons they have yet to properly account for. The irony here is that Fox news, the station being painted by Obama as public enemy #1 for its so called agenda driven reporting, will almost certainly be the lone network openly reporting on the Presidents fall from grace in November. This while the real news channels like CNN, NBC, CBS and MSMBC, will have deliberately avoided the story of the decade if not severely twisted it to fit their PC narrative. That story, if its honest, will be on how one ideologically driven and narrow minded Black President single handedly set back decades of work that liberals had thought might finally be realized with a liberal President and Congress. To the contrary I believe that this sort of top down social engineering we have come to expect with liberal elites is at long last entering its last days and liberals have President Obama to thank for that!! Obama is now the poster boy for the sort of stubborn liberal policies that the American people rejected (no we haven’t forgotten the health care and stimulus packages that few Congressman would even read until Fox had the audacity published them). The more Obama takes aim at Fox News, the more his antics remind Americans how utterly bankrupt this godless belief system is. Attacking America’s founding religion Christianity, which Fox seems to serve as vanguard for, will prove to be your undoing as well. I urge liberals to stop this divisiveness but I have no illusions about this. You are fooling yourself to think you can “fundamentally transform America.” America’s civic and religious traditions are not bad things at all, in fact they represent freedom for so many who come here for safe haven. So if by some miracle you get all illegal immigrants to help you win re-election your agenda will still fail because standing in your way will be the natural children of this great country who’s firm reliance on Gods providence will protect them once again. It’s a despicable and foolish thing you liberals are attempting here with this attack on Fox news. November cometh quickly!!!

Kudos to those brave enough to tread through the biggest block of written word I have seen in a while.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
I see Obama has found his spine. Now he should help his fellow democrats to locate their spine.

Now if he could only find a brain.

PRESIDENT OBAMA hit Fox and they cry about it. The level of hypocrisy here is unbelievable. THey spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week bashing this president at a level I have never seen. He takes a swipe back and all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby. Geeez… I love it that a new poll released says that 64% of Americans like President Obama. For all of you douche bags out there that don’t know what that means… I’ll help you. It means he has a really really really good shot at winning again in 2012. Suck on that…

writer said:
Yes, Andy. It’s RRK. Sure you want to look? It ain’t pretty.

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEg_qLi0vaU&feature=youtube_gdata

That looks like any of a number of ridiculous kids that come in looking for applications. We have two stacks of completed apps. They’re not labeled. But his would definitely go on stack # 2. :)

Dave Noland said:
PRESIDENT OBAMA hit Fox and they cry about it. The level of hypocrisy here is unbelievable. THey spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week bashing this president at a level I have never seen. He takes a swipe back and all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby. Geeez… I love it that a new poll released says that 64% of Americans like President Obama. For all of you douche bags out there that don’t know what that means… I’ll help you. It means he has a really really really good shot at winning again in 2012. Suck on that…

do you cradle his nuts when you blow him?

Dave Noland said:
He takes a swipe back and all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby

Nice try, son, mostly what I see here is a bunch of weirdo lefty apologists.

BR said:
Now if he could only find a brain.

It’s so amusing that most of the asshats on this strand voted for a retard of a president twice, yet you attack a former head of the HArvard law review and a constitutional professor. NOt to mention this man took on the entire GOP house in a debate where he schooled them. It was embarresing. So you attack him for being dumb we all know you know he’s brilliant and his IQ is above every right wingers on the starnd combined. Below is a link to the ass kicking the GOP took last winter.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-takes-questions-gop-house-issues-conference

Dave Noland said:
PRESIDENT OBAMA hit Fox and they cry about it. The level of hypocrisy here is unbelievable. THey spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week bashing this president at a level I have never seen. He takes a swipe back and all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby. Geeez… I love it that a new poll released says that 64% of Americans like President Obama. For all of you douche bags out there that don’t know what that means… I’ll help you. It means he has a really really really good shot at winning again in 2012. Suck on that…

If you are going to give us poll numbers at least cite them or at least give us more data than “the newest poll” and people “like Obama”. Like what? His personality, the job he is doing, how cool he is? Talk about generic. Bashing the President on a level that you have never seen? Did you go into hibernation during the Bush years?

Here is a poll from 2 days ago saying the 49% disapprove of Obama while 45% approve of the job he is doing.

This is called a source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

Mr.Papshmer said:
Nice try, son, mostly what I see here is a bunch of weirdo lefty apologists.

Really and what are you and the rest of the Right Wing Nut Jobs on this page?

Dave Noland said:
Below is a link to the ass kicking the GOP took last winter.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-takes-questions-gop-house-issues-conference

You do realize that Democrats are going to receive an ass kicking this November right? Also if the Republican party was smart they will not put up a polarizing figure like Palin against Obama but somebody that is solid and represents themselves well, Obama wouldnt stand a chance, but deep down you already know that, you just put on this clownish like demeanor to fool yourself into believing he has a chance.

Dave Noland said:
Really and what are you and the rest of the Right Wing Nut Jobs on this page?

this is coming from a fucking ginger?

Dave Noland said:
Really and what are you and the rest of the Right Wing Nut Jobs on this page?

Maybe if you spoke in a coherent manner, I could answer your question. I saw that mocking others’ IQ’s gives you a thrill, but you sure don’t show me much in the way of your own.

Dave Noland said:
PRESIDENT OBAMA hit Fox and they cry about it. The level of hypocrisy here is unbelievable. THey spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week bashing this president at a level I have never seen. He takes a swipe back and all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby. Geeez… I love it that a new poll released says that 64% of Americans like President Obama. For all of you douche bags out there that don’t know what that means… I’ll help you. It means he has a really really really good shot at winning again in 2012. Suck on that…

See picture . …BIGFOOT LOCATED ! …Or maybe Bluto .

I have to break out of here for awhile – new Jenn-Air range measurements being taken today – it’s the Mrs. 30th anniversary present . . . back later, maybe. I have enjoyed the chit-chat.

~ dmf

Big Eddie said:
See picture . …BIGFOOT LOCATED ! …Or maybe Bluto .

bigfoot is not a ginger, bigfoot has a soul!

He was almost right; Øbama has a point of view that is ultimately destructive for the country.

Corvax said:
If you are going to give us poll numbers at least cite them or at least give us more data than “the newest poll” and people “like Obama”. Like what? His personality, the job he is doing, how cool he is? Talk about generic. Bashing the President on a level that you have never seen? Did you go into hibernation during the Bush years?

Here is a poll from 2 days ago saying the 49% disapprove of Obama while 45% approve of the job he is doing.

This is called a source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

I believe the poll I was talking about is a CNN opinion Research poll and it’s his likability rating not his job approval. 64% say they LIKE him which gives him time to win people back.

Latest Rassmussen poll which is a conservative leaning poll has his approval rating at 50% approval and 49% disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

mndasher said:
He was almost right; Øbama has a point of view that is ultimately destructive for the country.

Blah Blah hate blah blah destructive Blah Blah socialist Blah Blah hitler Blah Blah…

Dave Noland said:
So you attack him for being dumb we all know you know he’s brilliant

Yeah… he’s a real GENIUS all right… probably a lot like Dave….

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm

Besides all the bowing and the infamous ‘corpse-man’ stupidity….this one’s my favorite….

“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009″
_____________

BRILLIANT!!

LibsFailAtLife said:
bigfoot is not a ginger, bigfoot has a soul!

Nice you don’t have any points so you personally attack me. I guess I was right on about the lack of IQ on this page

FearMonger said:
Yeah… he’s a real GENIUS all right… probably a lot like Dave….

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm

Besides all the bowing and the infamous ‘corpse-man’ stupidity….this one’s my favorite….

“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009″
_____________

BRILLIANT!!

I love being attacked personally by idiots who don’t have the balls to show their face and don’t have an argument in their brain.

Dave Noland said:
I believe the poll I was talking about is a CNN opinion Research poll and it’s his likability rating not his job approval. 64% say they LIKE him which gives him time to win people back.

Latest Rassmussen poll which is a conservative leaning poll has his approval rating at 50% approval and 49% disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Well not for nothing but who in their right mind votes for somebody because they “like” them. I have plenty of friends that dont see eye to eye with me politically, but then again Im not voting for them. You vote for the person who has the same values that you want to be expressed on a national level, not because you think the guy is “cool”.

Frankly I think that Obama from the get go has been more enamored with the celebrity status he has gotten from the Presidency than actually trying to govern this country properly. Luckily there are more voters like me than you moving forward.

Big Eddie said:
corpse-man’ stupidity….this one’s my favorite….

So we resort to personal attacks when we have NOTHING to say. Douche bag says what?

Dave Noland said:
PRESIDENT OBAMA hit Fox and they cry about it. The level of hypocrisy here is unbelievable. THey spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week bashing this president at a level I have never seen. He takes a swipe back and all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby. Geeez… I love it that a new poll released says that 64% of Americans like President Obama. For all of you douche bags out there that don’t know what that means… I’ll help you. It means he has a really really really good shot at winning again in 2012. Suck on that…

David, it is ridiculous of you to compare things said on cable news commentary programs and compare them to a whining response from the President of the U.S. Surely you must realize that, no? GW Bush, WJ Clinton, GHW Bush, RW Reagan had their detractors, all Presidents do. They did not engage in childish tit for tat with the media as Obama has chosen to do more than once. He behaves like an infant.

I have no idea what poll you refer to, but if the poll asked about personal likability, I might even be in there. I’d be happy to hang out with Obama, despite the fact that his 20 months of leadership have been abysmal. He seems like a good man. However, he is also an ideologue that lets his “social justice” agenda cloud every single decision he makes. That said, I’d much rather hang out with him than a vapid, repulsive, hypocrite like Nancy Pelosi. So, in a way, this “poll” you refer to makes sense.

Achtung! The NEW POLITICAL ORDER IS HERE!

Anyone who criticizes TheOne, our beloved Messiah, OR ANY OF HIS ACTIONS, DECREES, POLICIES OR PALS will be condemned. They will be ostracized from society, they will be labeled a threat to national security, they will be called “unpatriotic”, “un-American”, “a terrorist” and “a racist”, they will have to actually pay taxes (unlike lunatic-left socialist tax-cheats rangel, geithner, caroline “you know” kennedy, olbermann, daschle, killifer, solis, kirk, sebelius and millions of others) and they will be vilified until they succumb to the ONLY ACCEPTABLE POLITICAL VIEW – that of the lunatic-left socialists.

All hail TheOne! Resistance is futile.

Man, this President you have down there is a real child huh? One Term?

Hell this guy may just take his ball and follow Rahm back to Chicago this Friday.

Foxnews is bad,,,boofuckinhoo…. Grow a pair and accept that the whole world is not on bended knee.

What a pussy! Good Call on this clown.

PS, this is a first, was he challeling Chavez here? I believe those were his exact words just before the government pulled the licences and the storm troopers hit the street. He really is putting his foot in it down there. They should fix this guy with a teleprompter Halo. Quick!

Dave Noland said:
Douche bag says what?

you say a lot of things

Dave Noland said:
HArvard law review and a constitutional professor. NOt to mention this man took on the entire GOP house in a debate where he schooled them. It was embarresing. So you attack him for being dumb we all know you know he’s brilliant and his IQ is above every right wingers on the starnd combined.

Don’t forget Obama’s biggest achievement — spending borrowed money faster than any man in history.

Andy Lamb said:
David, it is ridiculous of you to compare things said on cable news commentary programs and compare them to a whining response from the President of the U.S. Surely you must realize that, no? GW Bush, WJ Clinton, GHW Bush, RW Reagan had their detractors, all Presidents do. They did not engage in childish tit for tat with the media as Obama has chosen to do more than once. He behaves like an infant.

I have no idea what poll you refer to, but if the poll asked about personal likability, I might even be in there. I’d be happy to hang out with Obama, despite the fact that his 20 months of leadership have been abysmal. He seems like a good man. However, he is also an ideologue that lets his “social justice” agenda cloud every single decision he makes. That said, I’d much rather hang out with him than a vapid, repulsive, hypocrite like Nancy Pelosi. So, in a way, this “poll” you refer to makes sense.

Oh really? Bush was constantly at war with MSNBC and wouldn’t do interviews with them Nixon actually declared war on the media. This is the problem with the GOP, you have a revisionist history. You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Plus has there ever been a 24/7 hate machine like Fox News. NO! I think you are desensitized to it because it probably runs all day in our house. Secondly what other news source has 4 presidential candidates on their payroll? Fox is constantly shilling for the GOP and Tea Party. They are the communications and fund raising arm of the GOP. Ridiculous

Cancon1 said:
PS, this is a first, was he challeling Chavez here? I believe those were his exact words just before the government pulled the licences and the storm troopers hit the street. He really is putting his foot in it down there. They should fix this guy with a teleprompter Halo. Quick!

YOu hate Chez but you vote for the biggest war criminal of or time. GWB should be in jail for the 1 million iraqis killed.

Dave Noland said:
Oh really? Bush was constantly at war with MSNBC and wouldn’t do interviews with them Nixon actually declared war on the media. This is the problem with the GOP, you have a revisionist history. You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Plus has there ever been a 24/7 hate machine like Fox News. NO! I think you are desensitized to it because it probably runs all day in our house. Secondly what other news source has 4 presidential candidates on their payroll? Fox is constantly shilling for the GOP and Tea Party. They are the communications and fund raising arm of the GOP. Ridiculous

The point about his likability number is important because it shows he has a huge reservoir of good will with the American people despite the 24/7 hate machine. You guys are pussies and you need to quit crying

Cancon1 said:
Man, this President you have down there is a real child huh? One Term?

Hell this guy may just take his ball and follow Rahm back to Chicago this Friday.

Foxnews is bad,,,boofuckinhoo…. Grow a pair and accept that the whole world is not on bended knee.

What a pussy! Good Call on this clown.

One term? You wish. I cannot wait to hit this site November 3rd 2012. It will be glorious to watch you hate mongers have to swallow 4 more years. He will win. If not you tell me who can beat him?

TeaPartyPatriot said:
Achtung! The NEW POLITICAL ORDER IS HERE!

Anyone who criticizes TheOne, our beloved Messiah, OR ANY OF HIS ACTIONS, DECREES, POLICIES OR PALS will be condemned. They will be ostracized from society, they will be labeled a threat to national security, they will be called “unpatriotic”, “un-American”, “a terrorist” and “a racist”, they will have to actually pay taxes (unlike lunatic-left socialist tax-cheats rangel, geithner, caroline “you know” kennedy, olbermann, daschle, killifer, solis, kirk, sebelius and millions of others) and they will be vilified until they succumb to the ONLY ACCEPTABLE POLITICAL VIEW – that of the lunatic-left socialists.

All hail TheOne! Resistance is futile.

Fuck you with your Messiah bullshit. Bush is the one who thought he could change the world. YOu just hate it that he is a fucking bad ass and you know he will win again in 2012. That’s why the righties are soooo obsessed

Corvax said:
Well not for nothing but who in their right mind votes for somebody because they “like” them. I have plenty of friends that dont see eye to eye with me politically, but then again Im not voting for them. You vote for the person who has the same values that you want to be expressed on a national level, not because you think the guy is “cool”.

Frankly I think that Obama from the get go has been more enamored with the celebrity status he has gotten from the Presidency than actually trying to govern this country properly. Luckily there are more voters like me than you moving forward.

GOD you people are idiots. I’m saying he has a reservoir of good will. If 64% of people like him it probably means when the economy turns around in 2011 he will win back most of his voters.

Dave Noland said:
It’s so amusing that most of the asshats on this strand voted for a retard of a president twice, yet you attack a former head of the HArvard law review and a constitutional professor. NOt to mention this man took on the entire GOP house in a debate where he schooled them. It was embarresing. So you attack him for being dumb we all know you know he’s brilliant and his IQ is above every right wingers on the starnd combined. Below is a link to the ass kicking the GOP took last winter. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-takes-questions-gop-house-issues-conference

Dave, I have not seen a comment on this thread that called President Obama dumb. He is hardly dumb. He just happens to be a very poor leader and President. Admittedly, the options in the last 3 elections have not been very good, and were downright terrible in 2008. The choices were clearly as bad as the country has seen at least since 1976 with Carter (thank God we somehow made it through those 4 years) and Ford. In my opinion, you have to go back to 1852 with Franklin Pierce and Winfield Scott to find candidates even arguably as poor, and oddly enough, the better man (Scott) lost in that one too. The horrific thumping the Democratic party is going to take in November is 100% a reflection on Obama’s 20 months in office.

Then you aren’t reading sir… because the first 25 comments are about how stupid and dumb he is. He is the best president since FDR and rich white men or just white men hate him. We know this…

The democrats are pounding back and the So called wave isn’t like what the pundits are saying. Delaware, Washington, California and Nevada have shifted to the dems… every prez loses seats in the mid term after his election. it is not a sign of anything in November. Acept that the dems WILL hold both houses.

LibsFailAtLife said:
Thinnest skin ever. This dude has more issues than national geographic. I’m starting to pity him.

He doesn’t need your pitty. You over look this guy at your own peril. I hope all of you overlook him. Perfect!

Andy Lamb said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-takes-questions-gop-house-issues-conference

Tell me if Bush could have done this? Or any 2012 candidate. The answer is no because it had never been done before.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-takes-questions-gop-house-issues-conference

Dave Noland said:
YOu hate Chez but you vote for the biggest war criminal of or time. GWB should be in jail for the 1 million iraqis killed.

Back in 1999, the Clinton administration claimed that the Serbs were engaged in ethnic cleansing and announced that Milosevic had murdered more than 100,000 innocent people. In reality, less than 3,000 bodies have been recovered since 1999. Around 500 of those are believed to be KLA fighters, and many of the rest were more than likely killed in the daily U.S. led bombing raids ordered by Clinton. President Clinton actually placed our military side-by-side with terrorists. The Kosovo Liberation Army was made up of mercenaries and foreign nationals mostly from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

A panel of 16 judges from 11 countries at a people’s tribunal meeting in New York June 10, 2000 before 500 people found U.S. and NATO political and military leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24-June 10, 1999 assault on that country, Clinton included [ http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm ]

Do you think that Clinton and Bush should share a cell together?

felixw said:
Don’t forget Obama’s biggest achievement — spending borrowed money faster than any man in history.

NO that was BUsh and Reagan who left Deficits. Clinton is the last pres in 30 years to balance the budget. Obama wanted a debt commission but the GOP said no after they had already said they wanted one. Then obama says yes and then they left the table. It’s all politics

Andy Lamb said:
been recovered since 1999. Around 500 of those are believed to be KLA fighters, and many of the rest were more than likely killed in the daily U.S. led bombing raids ordered by Clinton. President Clinton actually placed our military side-by-side with terrorists. The Kosovo Liberation Army was made up of mercenaries and foreign nationals mostly from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

A panel of 16 judges from 11 countries at a people’s tribunal meeting in New York June 10, 2000 before 500 people found U.S. and NATO political and milit

I think Clinton is one of the top 10 greatest POTUS ever. His record speaks for himself

Andy Lamb said:
Back in 1999, the Clinton administration claimed that the Serbs were engaged in ethnic cleansing and announced that Milosevic had murdered more than 100,000 innocent people. In reality, less than 3,000 bodies have been recovered since 1999. Around 500 of those are believed to be KLA fighters, and many of the rest were more than likely killed in the daily U.S. led bombing raids ordered by Clinton. President Clinton actually placed our military side-by-side with terrorists. The Kosovo Liberation Army was made up of mercenaries and foreign nationals mostly from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

A panel of 16 judges from 11 countries at a people’s tribunal meeting in New York June 10, 2000 before 500 people found U.S. and NATO political and military leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24-June 10, 1999 assault on that country, Clinton included [ http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm ]

Do you think that Clinton and Bush should share a cell together?

Oh back in 1999 when Clinton was fighting for his political life because he got his rod polished? I’m sure that year was a blur. No telling what happened. The fucking GOP isn’t getting their rod slobbed so they get jealous and try to ruin his presidency. GOP are THE worst sore losers EVER!

Dan Abrams, Why is your website overrun by GOP nut jobs? I find it quite disturbing…

Dave Noland said:
NO that was BUsh and Reagan who left Deficits. Clinton is the last pres in 30 years to balance the budget. Obama wanted a debt commission but the GOP said no after they had already said they wanted one. Then obama says yes and then they left the table. It’s all politics

Dave, they have all left defecits. The national debt has increased every year for the last half century. I can make my own budget, defecit spend on credit, and then say that my budget is balanced because I didn’t exceed the spending numbers I set for myself. The defecit increased every year during Clinton’s presidency, as it did during Bush’s 8 years. However, the current POTUS is truly the king of spending, as he’s added $3,000,000,000,000 to the defecit in 20 short months.

Dave Noland said:
Dan Abrams, Why is your website overrun by GOP nut jobs? I find it quite disturbing…

OK, Dave, sorry to blur fantasy land with facts. I’m off to enjoy some chicken and baked potatoes. Have a good evening.

Dave Noland said:
Dan Abrams, Why is your website overrun by GOP nut jobs? I find it quite disturbing…

Somebody get this guy his food bowl , he’s about to turn his cage over .

Dave Noland said:
NO that was BUsh and Reagan who left Deficits. Clinton is the last pres in 30 years to balance the budget. Obama wanted a debt commission but the GOP said no after they had already said they wanted one. Then obama says yes and then they left the table. It’s all politics

Clinton didn’t balance the budget, the Republican Congress did. Get it right!

Dave Noland said:
Dan Abrams, Why is your website overrun by GOP nut jobs? I find it quite disturbing…

Good!

Dave Noland said:
He is the best president since FDR and rich white men or just white men hate him. We know this…

You are damaging the political discourse in this country with divisive racial politics. STFU & GTFO

Dave Noland said:
Obama wanted a debt commission but the GOP said no after they had already said they wanted one. Then obama says yes and then they left the table. It’s all politics

Is that why there is a debt commission holding meetings? You’ve exposed the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Please, stay. Keep posting. It really helps your side.

Love it when this Man-child turns into a cry-baby Mama’s Boy and sycophantic suck-up Jenner doesn’t call him on it. Wouldn’t want to cause any cognitive dissonance among the zoned-out freak-show readers of this long-ago bypassed rag. I can remember when Rolling Stone was relevant-=–that’s how OLD I am!

Now that CNN is starting to rag him too, I wonder if this thin-skinned whiner is gonna start weepin’ about all them mean honkies pickin’ on lil ol’ Step ‘n Fetchit!

Okay, now that the munitions have been going off on all sides for a while now, let me ask this: where would the president be without Fox News? With just a few, well-placed words, he’s gotten the general public to launch into another debate over the biased media instead of paying attention to what’s really going on in the Beltway right now. While we’re going off on whether or not Obama’s being crucified, all sorts of unpleasant changes are being slipped right past us!

Dave Noland said:
GOD you people are idiots. I’m saying he has a reservoir of good will. If 64% of people like him it probably means when the economy turns around in 2011 he will win back most of his voters.

Its sad and pathetic how you blindly follow this guy. You are probably the person that lacks the most objectivity on this site, take a minute to think about how bad that must be on this message board. Fortunately you can only cancel out one voter each election.

Dave Noland said:
NO that was BUsh and Reagan who left Deficits. Clinton is the last pres in 30 years to balance the budget. Obama wanted a debt commission but the GOP said no after they had already said they wanted one. Then obama says yes and then they left the table. It’s all politics

Dave, you are operating above your pay grade. Obama has spent more money in two years than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. Next time you do the math, don’t drop so many zeroes.

felixw said:
Dave, you are operating above your pay grade. Obama has spent more money in two years than all the Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. Next time you do the math, don’t drop so many zeroes.

There are no facts that you could put in front of him that would change his mind. He is the classic example of falling hook line and sinker to the “Messiah.”

Calvin said:
How can anyone think that Shirley Sherrod is not a racist anymore?
r.

Let’s stay on subject shall we. The point isn’t whether she does or does not harbor racist feelings. I feel pretty certain lots of people do to varying degrees.Right now the Tea Party is supporting a candidate who forwards racist emails so if racism really disgusts you keep that in mind.
The point of the original story , same with ACORN, was how tapes were edited to purposely create a false impression. Nothing her husband said changes that fact.

Dave Noland said:
Dan Abrams, Why is your website overrun by GOP nut jobs? I find it quite disturbing

Not to worry, Dave, Colby is working on banning every last one of them so it can return to the liberal haven of moronic thought that you are more comfortable with.

felixw said:
If you ever had any doubt, this proves it — the Far Left doesn’t want to debate those who criticize its agenda. It wants to silence them. Only one news network in America has dared to point out all the failed policies, backroom dealings and incompetency of the Obama administration. And the response of the President (and his cheerleaders in the media) is not to defend his agenda — which, we now see, they are unable to do — but to oppose the very existence of the sole honest voice in a sea of bias and spin.

Of course, this is what always happens to the whistleblower in a corrupt system….

Holy Shit! talk about blind partisanship. Nobody is talking about silencing anyone. No party or presidency would get away with that even if they wanted to. Even people that support Obama would not support silencing a free press.
The sole honest voice? It’s a for profit network, not Joan of Arc.

<fb:name class=" FB_name FB_ElementReady" linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1085325013">Andy Lamb</fb:name> said:
Gracias. If you oppose the Marxist “Fairness Doctrine” (with a name like Right-is wrong I have to assume you generally support the left) kudos to you for opposing it. Unlike Pelosi and many Dem House members, Obama has stated he does not support the doctrine, but in my opinion that is more due to political expediency than anything else. Publicly stating support would be political suicide for him. That said, I believe that Mr. Obama would shut FOX News down tomorrow if he could get away with it.

Can you tell me just what is so awful about the fairness doctrine or some other kind of regulation? What is the rational argument agasibnt it and why is it painted as such a horrible thing? We had it for a long time and democracy didn’t crumble. Now we see people on both sides complaining of the bias of the main stream media. What’s wrong with the idea that networks present alternative views on important issues?

The Real Royal King said:
All universe? Doesn’t the prefix “uni” mean one?

No- it means “whole”

FearMonger said:
Kinda like posting about ‘pundits’ but only mentioning O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity after you say these things….

_______________

As for this one….

Anyone who was trying to be EVEN THE LEAST BIT FAIR would have also mentioned Schultz and Olberman and Maddow in that sentence addressing ‘a certain level of honesty about facts’.

hmmm… kinda sounds like “an intentional and ongoing distortion of the issue by presenting only the facts that fit your narrative and ignoring the ones that don’t”…. doesn’t it?

No, I am in no way imp[lying that I think everyone else is perfectly fair and Fox isn’t. It’s my opinion that Fox crosses the line more often than others.do and that’s what I was talking about. If someone can show me examples to indicate I’m incorrect I’ll be glad to reconsider. I’d describe slant as doing stories that favor a certain viewpoint but still presents accurate facts. I don’t fault anyone for doing that. Omitting important relevant facts , editing video and quotes to create a false impression, and needless irrational negative speculation on flimsy evidence, crosses the line from acceptable slant to dishonesty and irresponsible reporting. I don’t want to see that from any network,. My honest opinion at the moment is that Fox does that sort of thing a lot more than the other networks. I’ll real evidence and examples anyone wants to show me but what I usually see are the same old talking points with no evidence.

CD… I know you pride yourself on trying to be a voice of reason on this crazy leftwing website but… when Haimerej said this….

and then you respond the way you did…. you’re talking the talk and not walking the walk. A valid point was made and you totally deflected it to one side. IMO, FOX gives a MUCH fairer shake to liberal views than MSNBC does to conservative ones but…. even if you disgree with that…. you can’t POSSIBLY ignore the FACT that MSNBC’s ‘pundits’ are just as (if not more) ’slanted’ as FOX’s.

If I didn’t address the point I apologize. Sometimes I get going train of thought.
Can you tell me specifically why you think MSNBC or CNN do not give conservative views a fair shake.
I’ve already noted that Foxes “news” like Shep Smith and Wallace are good.

Hell, O’Reilly has liberals on EVERY DAMNED SHOW. Half the time I think he’s a (D). He bent over BACKWARDS to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I’m no fan of O’Reilly but when it comes to FAIRNESS he’s head and shoulders above Olberman and Maddow.

Schultz is just a joke but he certainly deserved a mention in your post about ‘intentional and ongoing distiortions’, right?

I can’t comment on Schultz because I never watch his show and know almost nothing about his style. That’s why I didn’t mention him. I’ve posted before that I don’t like Olberman. I tend to think Maddow is a pundit who researches her stories and brings reports facts although she obviously has her pet issues. If anybody has specifics on what she’s doing that is dishonest I’m all ears. I used to watch BillO on a fairly regular basis and thought he was alright.
I actually don’t watch any on the pundits on a regular basis. I prefer getting my news on the web where I can easily do the research and get contrasting views.

By the way… take a look at your quotes that I separated in the top half of this post. You would agree that each one of them applies at least as much to MSNBC as to FOX, right CD?

100% correct. I’ve said several times I think our major TV news outlets are doing a poor job of informing the public because they are more into sensationalism and opinion rather than investigative journalism.
Did you see the 60 minutes clip about the “GZ Mosque” why didn’t we hear that stuff a couple of months ago?
_________________

For clarity….

It ‘disturbs’ me too, CD. By ignoring Schultz and Maddow and Olberman (not to mention the multitude of other liberal pundits in the broader LSM) in your otherwise thoughtful post you partook of the same behavior.

JMO of course.

I get your point. Let me point something out to clarify, without accusing you in any way.
I see a lot of posts where someone , a poster, a politicians, a media personality, is accused of bias or dishonesty because they were talking about A but neglected to mention B. I see posts where if A is criticized and someone reading the criticism they then assume B is being defended. That’s flawed logic.
If I’m talking about Fox and criticizing Fox I’m not automatically defending or excusing MSNBC. That’s a separate issue and another discussion which I’m willing to have. .

to explain , I didn’t use “news” for Shep and Chris as in fake. I meant their specific news shows rather than the more general network also refereed to as Fox News.

Obama: Fox News Has A Point Of View That Is ‘Ultimately Destructive’ For The Country

Yeah, it’s called fair & balanced, in support of capitalism and the free market, and telling people the truth. All of those things are “destructive” for the country.

COME ON 2012!!!!!

And REMEMBER in NOVEMBER.

@CosmosDan—–I can tell you what so awful about the fairnes doctrine.

As defined by proponets of the doctrine,”fairness”apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly,FCCregulators would arbitrarily determine what “fair acces”is,and who is entitled to it ,through selective enforcement. This,of course,puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition..Telecommunications scholar Thomas W.Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration,’License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became aregular item on the agenda at the White House policy meetings.”(Thomas W. Hazlett,”The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment,”The Public interest, Summer 1989,p.105.)as one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder,has said “We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challeng and harass the right-wing broadcasters,and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to contine”(Tony Snow, “Return of the Fairness Demon,”The Washington Times,sep 5, 1993,p,b3.)

OCT ,29 ,1993 . Adam Thierer

Haimerej said:

If you object to an “intentional… distortion of the issue” and “pulling comments out of context” you should object to it, period. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” isn’t a moral position. Appealing to partisans to justify your own stance makes you want you apparently despise- a partisan.

I wouldn’t claim to be unbiased. I know I am and try to take that into account. Being a partisan in the sense of holding certain views and supporting those who hold similar views is not something I see as a negative, just human. Being a blind partisan who refuses to try and judge with the same standards and abandons rational thinking to defend anything your party of choice does, and criticize everything the opposition does isn’t even in line with reality.

Take your own advice.

I try. I try to remain open to new information and evidence in judging issues and people. I try not to assume the worst and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Mentioning the Taliban isn’t what most people took issue with in his ad. They take issue with him taking a quote-”Find a verse. I have a verse for my wife. I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say she should submit to me. That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do — so instead you would love your wife even as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband.” and chopping it up to say that he’s wanting to impose fundamentalism on people and he’s obsessed with his wife submitting to him.

I didn’t know that. Yeah, that’s a pretty scummy distortion. Personally I’d be glad to call that kind of crap crossing the line and making someone lose my vote unless they were willing to withdraw and apologize. I’m not all that happy about the sheer volume of dishonesty we have to accept in politics. The problem is the general public doesn’t seem to have a consistent standard.

Then you don’t visit enough watchdog sites for the other networks. Every channel does it on almost a daily basis.

I used to frequent a web site that checked the facts of political ads and interviews on a fairly neutral basis. They no longer exist. What sites would you suggest?

Which story? The Breitbart tapes were only part of it and not all of them were out of context and the context of some reporting to authorities while playing along is something you couldn’t know until the tapes were released. What about one of their founders who embezzled all that money?

The story of the supposed pimp secretly recording them as they advised him about his business, totally bogus. You don’t just start showing tapes over and over and accusing people of things without any research. Especially when you know video can be so easily edited.
The story of ACORN voter fraud? Fabricated hype to serve a political end.
Yes one guy embezzled money. That discredit’s one person.

What about MSNBC and how they covered the Tea Party? Contessa Brewer purposefully not showing the part of the tape that shows a black man with a gun so she can make the point that racism is driving it?

That’s right. That was major.

Flat out ignoring the SEIU thugs that beat a man outside a rally?

What rally? When?

Using Lyndon LaRouche signs as representative of the Tea Party when he was doing Bush as Hitler too and is a devout leftist?

I’ll check that out. I agree we can get swept up in the crap the media spits out. I admit I made the mistake of rushing to judge the Tea Party because the media was highlighting the worst of it, and the worst signs. I applaud them for working to correct that.

You see? We could do this all day long. I think I’ve mentioned before how hard it is to have to first confront all the stereotypes before actual conversation can get started and MSNBC is a major contributor to the leftist stereotypes of Republicans. Ed Schultz’s show is based upon strawmen and stereotypes. He’s worse than Olbermann and I thought I’d never see anyone worse than that.

I agree the stereotypes and sweeping generalities do not help at all. I think we have to discourage that kind of language. I mentioned that I don’t watch Schultz. My question would be this. Aside from comparing content and claiming all fall short of total honesty, How many liberals quote Schultz as a truth teller? Or Olberman as their guiding beacon? I don’t see a lot of liberals on line defending liberal pundits as leaders.

Basically, my point is that for you to say that Fox distorts “more often” than the rest just shows your bias.

Man, this Obama is weak. He’s like a baby.

I guess he has never had to really face criticism as he has been used to people just bowing to him.

Whatever it is, this guy is probably the worst President ever.

CosmosDan said:
Can you tell me just what is so awful about the fairness doctrine or some other kind of regulation? What is the rational argument agasibnt it and why is it painted as such a horrible thing? We had it for a long time and democracy didn’t crumble. Now we see people on both sides complaining of the bias of the main stream media. What’s wrong with the idea that networks present alternative views on important issues?

Well, actually things did crumble. FDR was able to pass a lot of legislation because people were so uninformed.

It became more obvious in the 60′s as the media became infested with Modern Liberals/Progressives.

Free Speech is important. There are so many outlets for information now that any form of a Fairness Doctrine is simply control over people as certain types of speech will be targeted.

That’s why the liberals only want to target their opponents. It’s not like the liberals are very genuine.

CosmosDan said:
Holy Shit! talk about blind partisanship. Nobody is talking about silencing anyone. No party or presidency would get away with that even if they wanted to. Even people that support Obama would not support silencing a free press.
The sole honest voice? It’s a for profit network, not Joan of Arc.

Then why did you ask in another post (AFTER THIS ONE) about what’s so bad about the Fairness Doctrine?

I haven’t read all your posts, but you seem mighty inconsistent.

Focus on the Constitution, not liberalism.

<fb:name class=" FB_name" linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1343446359">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
One term? You wish. I cannot wait to hit this site November 3rd 2012.

You go ahead and be here on November 3rd, Dave. But the real fun is going to be on November 6, 2012. Maybe you could work on not being a lunatic until then.

CosmosDan said:
Let’s stay on subject shall we. The point isn’t whether she does or does not harbor racist feelings.

Yeah, everybody said she was some saint who made a complete turnaround and stopped being racist, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, she’s not a racist when she has a racist husband (would you have a racist wife?) and still believes “it is about black and white”, which is why she “took him to one of his own”. Yeah there’s no racist undertone in her story at all. And that audience? They were totally not enjoying the part where she sticks it to the white man.

CosmosDan said:
I feel pretty certain lots of people do to varying degrees.Right now the Tea Party is supporting a candidate who forwards racist emails so if racism really disgusts you keep that in mind.

Speak for yourself. I don’t give a flying crap about what skin color somebody is even though I’m told I do every time I disagree with Obama. I think we’ve largely gotten past racism, don’t you? Obama got elected, didn’t he?
Yeah, that bothers me, if it happened. It’d be nice if you gave a link. Racism doesn’t only occur in specific groups. Every group has racists. Like the NAACP (the Sherrod audience)

CosmosDan said:
The point of the original story , same with ACORN, was how tapes were edited to purposely create a false impression. Nothing her husband said changes that fact.</blockquote

Breitbart didn't edit that tape. It was sent that way to him. He used it to show the audience reaction and show that there are racists in the NAACP.

Of course, I said most of this in the post that you failed to quote in it's entirety.

Try again.

Poor Obamma. The guy is so lost and it shows each and every time he gets in front of a camera. Thank goodness he’ll go back to organizing his Chicago community. I’m quite sure he was fairly good at that. But starting this November we Americans will be taking America back from these Socialists in Washington DC.

Here Glynnis,

I fixed your headline for you.

“Obama Has A Point Of View That Is ‘Ultimately Destructive’ For The Country”

Hugo, people that misrepresent themselves hide behind phony names and don’t have photos on the internet. People like YOU. Where did you put that trophy from the LIARS CLUB?

Alz said:
Well, actually things did crumble. FDR was able to pass a lot of legislation because people were so uninformed. It became more obvious in the 60’s as the media became infested with Modern Liberals/Progressives. Free Speech is important. There are so many outlets for information now that any form of a Fairness Doctrine is simply control over people as certain types of speech will be targeted. That’s why the liberals only want to target their opponents. It’s not like the liberals are very genuine.

I’d agree with this more if you used the term Progressive exclusively. “Liberal” lets the “perpetual power at any cost” Progressives off the hook. Unfortunately, I think more and more Liberals (who could have been conversed with) are becoming full-on Van Jones/Cass Sunstein Progressives (who just want to smack you in the face with a metal baseball bat and call you an evil racist) due to the current political climate.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Spoken like a true Marxist. Can this little punk get any lower?

And a note to any liberal media types who’re cheering him on: Don’t fool yourself for a second. You’re next. And you’d have to be blind to not see where he would like to go with this.

One positive… Obama’s enemies are more likely to be armed than his allies.

i love it! i am sure you weren’t happy when the idiots on the left were calling GWB an idiot. so why not “respect the office” and not call the President (like it or not) “a punk”

Bobomatic said:
A sitting president negatively critiques one of the nations highest rated news organizations and he wonders why his poll numbers are in the tank. He is completely tone deaf and out of step with mainstream America. His preoccupation with Fox is arrogant and thin skinned… his dismissive attitude of mainstream America will ultimately end his charade of a presidency.

what does ratings have to do with anything? If ratings were the be all end all then American Idol would be he most important show on television

however, i will agree with you that Obama can’t win against FOX

<fb:name linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1085325013" class=" FB_name">Andy Lamb</fb:name> said:
King, “so few viewers” is a blanket assessment that has no real meaning. “So few viewers” compared to what? As I said on another thread –

FOX destroys it’s cable news/commentary competition. That fact cannot be debated or argued.

Further, The O’Reilly Factor (and the other evening news commentary programs he competes against/destroys) is on at 8pm EST. His show also competes in prime time against the old Big Three broadcast networks prime time shows, reality TV programs, sitcoms, etc. that many Americans live their evenings glued to. Despite that fact, rough averages of nightly viewers of his show (combining the 8pm and 11pm shows) compared to the Big Three evening news shows that viewers have been sitting down to dinner with for years are – Brian Williams 8.5 million, Diane Sawyer 7 million, Katie Couric 5 million, O’Reilly close to 5 million.

That as many people watch his show as watch CBS Evening News is actually quite amazing. It’s no wonder all of these people piss their pants on a daily basis fretting over FOX. Now even Obama is whining about it. It’s quite laughable, really.

when does O’Reilly EVER beat any of the big 3 networks primetime shows?

crazywater said:
What an f-ing cry baby! I cannot recall Bush whining about the media ever!

no that’s what Dana Perrino was for

writer said:
MSNBC, especially Olbermann, devoted almost every show to calling Bush every name in the book. Didn’t see Bush obsessing over it, though.

but i thought no one watches MSNBC?

CosmosDan said:
No, I am in no way imp[lying that I think everyone else is perfectly fair and Fox isn’t. It’s my opinion that Fox crosses the line more often than others.do and that’s what I was talking about. If someone can show me examples to indicate I’m incorrect I’ll be glad to reconsider.

First, many thanks for being diplomatic. I myself am trying mighty hard to ignore one particular a-hole but methinks my snarky side is fixin’ to point out some hypocrisy. Anyway…. I have enjoyed this thread other than a couple of dipshits (as per usual). I wish I didn’t have to leave when I did yesterday as i had a bit to offer but maybe it’s not dead yet.

I’m no expert on Olberman but I have seen his ‘Worst List’ a number of times and I have NEVER seen a (D) on it. Matthews, Maddow, Olby, Schultz are all First Degree Partisans and they would be the first to admit it. I put Hannity in the same category of partisanship but….. and this is THE BIG BUT…..

Beck and O’Reilly both attack (R) all the time.

IMO that’s all that needs to be said about which network is MORE biased. Which means The Prez is a HUGE hypocrite for attacking FOX for being biased when MSNBC is AT LEAST as biased as FOX. Like I said, (R) don’t get a free pass on FOX like (D)’s do on MSNBC plus…. FOX has liberals on ALL DAY… INCLUDING Hannity’s show.

I know you begged off of commenting on Schultz and I don’t blame you but…. there is NO parallel between that dirty MF and anybody on FOX. He is nasty and hateful and obnoxious and crosses the line daily. I’m not posting any examples cuz I already took a shower. Check his BS out for yourself if you wish and then let me know if anybody on FOX falls in the same category as that dirty birdy.

Funny to me tho…. I’ve never heard anyone complain about Major Garret or Wendell Goler or Mike Emanuel or Brett Baier or Shep Smith or many many other reporters and commenters on FOX and yet they claim that FOX is 24/7 attacking this Prez. In fact, the majority of the coverage I have seen of Obowma is when he is standing LIVE in front of a microphone.

In other words, they spend mucho time covering him when HE wants to be covered and broadcasting HIS words to their audience. Of course they discuss POTUS and his policies but… the times when they ARE discussing him… there is usually AT LEAST one liberal involved in the discussion.

Here’s the thing CD… and I really don’t give a shit if you agree or disagree cuz it’s so friggin’ obvious that no concensus is needed to confirm the hypocrisy and shilling for this Prez and his administration. I posted a link earlier in this thread about Coates and Adams and their testimony about selective enforcement of voting rights law in the “DOJ”….(lmao…. ‘justice’…. ).

Two whistleblowers… lots of perjury… witnesses who don’t qualify as ‘intimidated voters’ SIMPY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TI BE INTIMIDATED. One of the witnesses a liberal civil rights attorney who marched with King. NOBODY making the slightest attempt to ask the voters in that precinct if they were indeed intimidated by two armed thugs in military uniform standing by the front door shouting racial slurs.

hmmmm. Think there is a ‘story’ there? Who is covering it? If this was the KKK on the video and McCain was the Prez and his administration had dismissed the case that they had already won, then two whistleblowers had come out and testified under oath that the DOJ policies were NOT race-neutral…. do ya’ think the alphabet networks would ‘report’ on it (or stick with their ‘reporting’ on Stephen Colbert’s faux COTUS ‘testimony’)?

The answer is obvious…. but HERE’S the real question as it relates to bias…. DO YOU THINK FOX WOULD IGNORE IT?

Nuff said.

<fb:name linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1384303476" class=" FB_name">Chris Jones</fb:name> said:
The only thing destructive to the country is having that clown in The White House until 2012. Fortunately, Conservatives are going to rain on his parade come November.

I thought i heard Conservatives complaining during GWB that you should respect the office.

I guess that only counts if a Republican is living at the WH

pyrope said:
Obama: Fox News Has A Point Of View That Is ‘Ultimately Destructive’ For The Country

Yeah, it’s called fair & balanced, in support of capitalism and the free market, and telling people the truth. All of those things are “destructive” for the country.

COME ON 2012!!!!!

And REMEMBER in NOVEMBER.

FearMonger said:
First, many thanks for being diplomatic. I myself am trying mighty hard to ignore one particular a-hole but methinks my snarky side is fixin’ to point out some hypocrisy. Anyway…. I have enjoyed this thread other than a couple of dipshits (as per usual). I wish I didn’t have to leave when I did yesterday as i had a bit to offer but maybe it’s not dead yet.

I’m no expert on Olberman but I have seen his ‘Worst List’ a number of times and I have NEVER seen a (D) on it. Matthews, Maddow, Olby, Schultz are all First Degree Partisans and they would be the first to admit it. I put Hannity in the same category of partisanship but….. and this is THE BIG BUT…..

Beck and O’Reilly both attack (R) all the time.

IMO that’s all that needs to be said about which network is MORE biased. Which means The Prez is a HUGE hypocrite for attacking FOX for being biased when MSNBC is AT LEAST as biased as FOX. Like I said, (R) don’t get a free pass on FOX like (D)’s do on MSNBC plus…. FOX has liberals on ALL DAY… INCLUDING Hannity’s show.

I know you begged off of commenting on Schultz and I don’t blame you but…. there is NO parallel between that dirty MF and anybody on FOX. He is nasty and hateful and obnoxious and crosses the line daily. I’m not posting any examples cuz I already took a shower. Check his BS out for yourself if you wish and then let me know if anybody on FOX falls in the same category as that dirty birdy.

Funny to me tho…. I’ve never heard anyone complain about Major Garret or Wendell Goler or Mike Emanuel or Brett Baier or Shep Smith or many many other reporters and commenters on FOX and yet they claim that FOX is 24/7 attacking this Prez. In fact, the majority of the coverage I have seen of Obowma is when he is standing LIVE in front of a microphone.

In other words, they spend mucho time covering him when HE wants to be covered and broadcasting HIS words to their audience. Of course they discuss POTUS and his policies but… the times when they ARE discussing him… there is usually AT LEAST one liberal involved in the discussion.

Here’s the thing CD… and I really don’t give a shit if you agree or disagree cuz it’s so friggin’ obvious that no concensus is needed to confirm the hypocrisy and shilling for this Prez and his administration. I posted a link earlier in this thread about Coates and Adams and their testimony about selective enforcement of voting rights law in the “DOJ”….(lmao…. ‘justice’…. ).

Two whistleblowers… lots of perjury… witnesses who don’t qualify as ‘intimidated voters’ SIMPY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TI BE INTIMIDATED. One of the witnesses a liberal civil rights attorney who marched with King. NOBODY making the slightest attempt to ask the voters in that precinct if they were indeed intimidated by two armed thugs in military uniform standing by the front door shouting racial slurs.

hmmmm. Think there is a ’story’ there? Who is covering it? If this was the KKK on the video and McCain was the Prez and his administration had dismissed the case that they had already won, then two whistleblowers had come out and testified under oath that the DOJ policies were NOT race-neutral…. do ya’ think the alphabet networks would ‘report’ on it (or stick with their ‘reporting’ on Stephen Colbert’s faux COTUS ‘testimony’)?

The answer is obvious…. but HERE’S the real question as it relates to bias…. DO YOU THINK FOX WOULD IGNORE IT?

Nuff said.

FearMonger said:
First, many thanks for being diplomatic. I myself am trying mighty hard to ignore one particular a-hole but methinks my snarky side is fixin’ to point out some hypocrisy. Anyway…. I have enjoyed this thread other than a couple of dipshits (as per usual). I wish I didn’t have to leave when I did yesterday as i had a bit to offer but maybe it’s not dead yet.

I’m no expert on Olberman but I have seen his ‘Worst List’ a number of times and I have NEVER seen a (D) on it. Matthews, Maddow, Olby, Schultz are all First Degree Partisans and they would be the first to admit it. I put Hannity in the same category of partisanship but….. and this is THE BIG BUT…..

Beck and O’Reilly both attack (R) all the time.

IMO that’s all that needs to be said about which network is MORE biased. Which means The Prez is a HUGE hypocrite for attacking FOX for being biased when MSNBC is AT LEAST as biased as FOX. Like I said, (R) don’t get a free pass on FOX like (D)’s do on MSNBC plus…. FOX has liberals on ALL DAY… INCLUDING Hannity’s show.

I know you begged off of commenting on Schultz and I don’t blame you but…. there is NO parallel between that dirty MF and anybody on FOX. He is nasty and hateful and obnoxious and crosses the line daily. I’m not posting any examples cuz I already took a shower. Check his BS out for yourself if you wish and then let me know if anybody on FOX falls in the same category as that dirty birdy.

Funny to me tho…. I’ve never heard anyone complain about Major Garret or Wendell Goler or Mike Emanuel or Brett Baier or Shep Smith or many many other reporters and commenters on FOX and yet they claim that FOX is 24/7 attacking this Prez. In fact, the majority of the coverage I have seen of Obowma is when he is standing LIVE in front of a microphone.

In other words, they spend mucho time covering him when HE wants to be covered and broadcasting HIS words to their audience. Of course they discuss POTUS and his policies but… the times when they ARE discussing him… there is usually AT LEAST one liberal involved in the discussion.

Here’s the thing CD… and I really don’t give a shit if you agree or disagree cuz it’s so friggin’ obvious that no concensus is needed to confirm the hypocrisy and shilling for this Prez and his administration. I posted a link earlier in this thread about Coates and Adams and their testimony about selective enforcement of voting rights law in the “DOJ”….(lmao…. ‘justice’…. ).

Two whistleblowers… lots of perjury… witnesses who don’t qualify as ‘intimidated voters’ SIMPY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TI BE INTIMIDATED. One of the witnesses a liberal civil rights attorney who marched with King. NOBODY making the slightest attempt to ask the voters in that precinct if they were indeed intimidated by two armed thugs in military uniform standing by the front door shouting racial slurs.

hmmmm. Think there is a ’story’ there? Who is covering it? If this was the KKK on the video and McCain was the Prez and his administration had dismissed the case that they had already won, then two whistleblowers had come out and testified under oath that the DOJ policies were NOT race-neutral…. do ya’ think the alphabet networks would ‘report’ on it (or stick with their ‘reporting’ on Stephen Colbert’s faux COTUS ‘testimony’)?

The answer is obvious…. but HERE’S the real question as it relates to bias…. DO YOU THINK FOX WOULD IGNORE IT?

Nuff said.

i’d say Hannity comes close to Schultz

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
Nice you don’t have any points so you personally attack me. I guess I was right on about the lack of IQ on this page

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
I love being attacked personally by idiots who don’t have the balls to show their face and don’t have an argument in their brain.

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
So we resort to personal attacks when we have NOTHING to say. Douche bag says what?

_______________________________________________

Hmmm…. pissing and moaning about ‘personal attacks’. Fitting for this thread.

Now let’s see if good ol’ Dave is a hypocrite just like the POTUS he voted for….

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
all of you pussies start balling like a crack baby

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
For all of you douche bags out there that don’t know what that means

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
It’s so amusing that most of the asshats on this strand voted for a retard of a president twice

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
his IQ is above every right wingers on the starnd combined.

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
what are you and the rest of the Right Wing Nut Jobs on this page?

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
You guys are pussies and you need to quit crying

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
Fuck you with your Messiah bullshit. Bush is the one who thought he could change the world. YOu just hate it that he is a fucking bad ass and you know he will win again in 2012. That’s why the righties are soooo obsessed

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
GOD you people are idiots.</blockquote

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb ns = "http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" /><fb:name class=" FB_name" uid="1343446359" useyou="false" linked="false">Dave Noland</fb:name> said:
Dan Abrams, Why is your website overrun by GOP nut jobs? I find it quite disturbing

_______________________________________________

‘nutjobs’ indeed…..

bigbrainbrad said:
i’d say Hannity comes close to Schultz

I laid out the case and that’s all you had to say?

Sad sad sad

bigbrainbrad said:
when does O’Reilly EVER beat any of the big 3 networks primetime shows?

Truly a stupid question.

Eyepublius said:
I agree with Mr. Obama and not because I’m a DEM or partisan or whatever, I happen to believe that FOX and those like FOX (ultra-right/conservative/TEA-leaning TV/cable/Talk Radio) are destructive to our system and yes, even to free speech – why? They seldom if ever tell the truth. They seldom if ever tell the other side of any story. They seldom are objective (except about their own objective) … and that objective mostly is always ratings, money, viewers, and contant “whipping the flames of hate, discontent, bias, worry, fear, and anger.” ~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

Care to actually have some proof with that whine?

Hugo Daun said:
LOL….well, it IS decidedly different than the 20-year old photo that he uses here to misrepresent himself, that’s for sure.

I liked your other avatar better–the image was easier on the eyes.

The Real Royal King says: “I am pleased to see you use the term “reactionary”. I think it is the most appropriate term for the Beckerheads and Tea Partiers.”

It absolution is the right term. Conservatives want to support the status quo. Reactionaries like Glenn Beck want to take us back to some earlier phase in history. In Beck’s case, the 19th Century for political-economy and the Dark Ages for faith.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/what-is-glenn-beck-politically.html

Type, absolutely the right term.

Calvin said:
Yeah, everybody said she was some saint who made a complete turnaround and stopped being racist, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, she’s not a racist when she has a racist husband (would you have a racist wife?) and still believes “it is about black and white”, which is why she “took him to one of his own”. Yeah there’s no racist undertone in her story at all. And that audience? They were totally not enjoying the part where she sticks it to the white man.

Again, not the point. The video was edited in a way to make her look bad, and made public that way. it cracks me up these last two years as the term racism gets thrown around , that people are so eager to point out terms like “his own people” to indicate racism. White people are seeing about 1/1000th of the kind of ugly racism black Americans experienced and whining, “that’s racism” Sherrod’s own father was murdered and in that day a white man wouldn’t even be charged with murdering a black man. Expecting people to be completely free of all feelings of racism is not realistic. That’s not how humans operate. Dealing with racism is a long term multi generational process that is better but not over. There are still plenty of people alive that experienced severe and violent racism.

Speak for yourself. I don’t give a flying crap about what skin color somebody is even though I’m told I do every time I disagree with Obama. I think we’ve largely gotten past racism, don’t you? Obama got elected, didn’t he?
Yeah, that bothers me, if it happened. It’d be nice if you gave a link. Racism doesn’t only occur in specific groups. Every group has racists. Like the NAACP (the Sherrod audience)

No I sure don’t think we’ve gotten past racism. It’s a lot better than it was 50 years ago but we’re not past it.
I think pointing out the audience chuckling at her comment is pretty mild. The USDA was successfully sued for discrimination against black farmers. It seems unrealistic to me to not expect African Americans to be human and have some lingering resentment. It’s not something to applaud, but it seems ridiculous to point at stuff that minor and say, “They’re racist” considering the reality of our recent past.
The candidate with racist emails is Carl Paladino. He doesn’t even deny it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqfAaA6-h8o
Let’s not forget the watermelons on the White House lawn from a California Mayor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/white-house-watermelon-em_n_169933.html
The Tea Party has done a good job of getting rid of the racist fringe that had attached itself to them. Kudos for their effort, but we are not past racism.

I agree that every group has it’s bigots. IMO irrational hatred is the same poison no matter what label we give it. We’re seeing some of that now just from politics as liberals falsely paint “righties” and conservatives bash anything that even suggests a liberal.

FearMonger said:
First, many thanks for being diplomatic.

You’re welcome. Folks like you and others who are willing to have a decent respectful discussion is what makes this site worthwhile. I’m often exspoused to things I wasn’t aware of and it helps me have a more realistic view of things.

I’m no expert on Olberman but I have seen his ‘Worst List’ a number of times and I have NEVER seen a (D) on it. Matthews, Maddow, Olby, Schultz are all First Degree Partisans and they would be the first to admit it. I put Hannity in the same category of partisanship but….. and this is THE BIG BUT…..

Beck and O’Reilly both attack (R) all the time.

I hate Olberman’s worst person shtick. It’s way over the top. No better than calling someone an idiot or any of the other insults we see on this site way to often. Let me repeat, I have no problem with honest partisans who support their views intelligently with facts. We need that diversity of vision in policy making. I just wish we had less distortion of the facts and faulty reasoning.

IMO that’s all that needs to be said about which network is MORE biased. Which means The Prez is a HUGE hypocrite for attacking FOX for being biased when MSNBC is AT LEAST as biased as FOX. Like I said, (R) don’t get a free pass on FOX like (D)’s do on MSNBC plus…. FOX has liberals on ALL DAY… INCLUDING Hannity’s show.

I think it was a mistake for the Prez to single them out. I’ll try to watch a little more MSNBC objectively.

Here’s the thing CD… and I really don’t give a shit if you agree or disagree cuz it’s so friggin’ obvious that no concensus is needed to confirm the hypocrisy and shilling for this Prez and his administration. I posted a link earlier in this thread about Coates and Adams and their testimony about selective enforcement of voting rights law in the “DOJ”….(lmao…. ‘justice’…. ).

I went to Cspan and watched quite a bit of Coates testimony and I find him completely believable. His division was originally set up to specifically address the oppression of voting rights of minorities. It seems some people in that division thought it ought to stay that way even as times changed and they had legitimate complaints about black suppression of white votes in certain counties where blacks were the majority. This happened in the Bush admin before Obama became Prez. The problem was made worse when the Obama admin promoted some folks who believed that cases against people of color should not be pursued. I see it as a real problem that needs to be addressed and I’m glad Coates came forward. I don’t see it as an attempt to actively promote racism, but more of a bad judgment call by some, and bad priorities. It’s about justice, and doing your job right in today’s society.

Two whistleblowers… lots of perjury… witnesses who don’t qualify as ‘intimidated voters’ SIMPY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TI BE INTIMIDATED. One of the witnesses a liberal civil rights attorney who marched with King. NOBODY making the slightest attempt to ask the voters in that precinct if they were indeed intimidated by two armed thugs in military uniform standing by the front door shouting racial slurs.

I looked at that case fairly closely when it was in the news before. The civil rights lawyer was not a voter. The video was shot by GOP poll watchers of which he was one, and the racial slurs were directed at him, not a voter. Those are details that matter in pursuing a case. There was no evidence I saw of voter intimidation and no voters came forward to lodge a complaint. You need evidence to pursue a case. One of the two men lived in that neighborhood and was a registered poll watcher. There really isn’t a law that prohibits people from wearing something that looks like a military uniform, regardless of how it looks on video.

hmmmm. Think there is a ’story’ there? Who is covering it? If this was the KKK on the video and McCain was the Prez and his administration had dismissed the case that they had already won, then two whistleblowers had come out and testified under oath that the DOJ policies were NOT race-neutral…. do ya’ think the alphabet networks would ‘report’ on it (or stick with their ‘reporting’ on Stephen Colbert’s faux COTUS ‘testimony’)?

The answer is obvious…. but HERE’S the real question as it relates to bias…. DO YOU THINK FOX WOULD IGNORE IT?

I think the other networks did cover the story some time back. I wish they had gone into more details. I saw the civil rights lawyer on Fox several times and he did have impressive credentials. In one interview he floated the idea that the Black Panthers weer there to help the bogus ACORN voters cast bad ballots.That was a little too much black conspiring against whitey for me. Especially with zero evidence. You don’t responsibly throw unsubstantiated accusations like that out there.

Acivilcase was filed by the Bush admin. The Obama admin won by default when the accused didn’t show. It’s important to understand that a civil case is not a criminal case. Jail time was never even considered.
They decided the evidence wasn’t there except for the one guy who carried the baton and was asked to leave by the police so the filed an injunction against him. Considering the evidence in this particular case I think the response was reasonable. There was no huge miscarriage of justice as it was painted. I think these two guys imagined themselves as protecting the voting rights of other blacks by being there.
OTOH, the Coates testimony seemed more serious to me. Making a judgment call on a particular case is one thing. Telling people that legitimate cases against people of color won’t be pursued is unacceptable. That needs to be followed and addressed. The right to vote, and equal protection against anyone trying to subvert that right, must be addressed.

It’s true that the civil rights attorney was a poll watcher but he wasnt’ the only one that got racial slurs hurled at them. This guy is one of the one’s I referred to that REFUSED TO BE INTIMIDATED …. but it wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the NBPP…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOztJiMpJek

btw… he also testified in front of the COCR with Bartle Bull, who said they Black Panthers were continuing their intimidation tactics right there in the hearing room. If you really wanna get a good snoot-full of BS that will make your stomach turn go here….

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm

read the transcripts and depositions. watch the videos. I’m not really in the mood to nit-pick with you about the details but to say this…. the alphabet networks completely ignored J. Christian Adam’s resignation and whistleblower testimony and they continue to do so (which is really what I’m ‘outraged’ about much more than the details of this particular silly case of racist idiots showing their asses).

The FACT is that this is a story that should be investigated but but but….. ‘political correspondents’ in the LSM are totally out to lunch on it. What about Mediaite? It’s juicy and delicious so what’s the problem?

I’ll tell you what the problem is…. the current Prez has a (D) after his name. Period.

This Eric Holder ‘justice’ department is selectively enforcing federal law along racial lines. It’s a fact and it is documented. Nobody is asking questions of the people who have been implicated by sworn testimony from respected attorneys who worked there. Coates got railroaded out of town because he refused to step and fetch. This shit stinks to high heaven.

You agree that it must be addressed so… I ask you …. why is FOX the only one who is reporting it? It’s not ‘newsworthy’ to the rest? And what does that say about them?

I submit to you that is the shoe was on the other foot MSNBC would be calling for COTUS investigations but… more importantly in the context of this topic…. FOX would at least be reporting it as NEWS, even if the POTUS had an (R) after his name.

Thanks again CD for your diplomacy. If you really want to dig into the truth of the NBPP case you can start here …

CosmosDan said:
The Obama admin won by default when the accused didn’t show.

That statement does no justice whatsoever to what went on. It was pathetic (and a travesty). Jerry Jackson was a credentialed poll watcher that day. From the WSJ…..

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that’s already illegal under existing law.

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.
________________________

the ‘injunction’ is a joke…. it only runs till 2012…. it only applies to Philly… only within 100 feet of a polling place… and only if he’s carrying a weapon. In other words, the asshole would have to try REAL HARD to break it.

Anyway, like I said, it’s not really about the NBPP. It’s about the DOJ. Ike Brown and many other cases have been dealt this same treatment.

Check this out….

http://electionlawcenter.com/

No administration is above rreproach in these matters but but but…. the perjury and manipulation in this case is blatant and shameless,

FearMonger said:
the ‘injunction’ is a joke…. it only runs till 2012…. it only applies to Philly… only within 100 feet of a polling place… and only if he’s carrying a weapon. In other words, the asshole would have to try REAL HARD to break it.

Speak of the devil…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weo3864s5vU&feature=player_embedded

CosmosDan said:
I think these two guys imagined themselves as protecting the voting rights of other blacks by being there.

…. just as long as they weren’t like these……

http://www.blackjews.org/Essays/WhoAreWe.html

CosmosDan said:
Again, not the point. The video was edited in a way to make her look bad, and made public that way.

Breitbart didn’t edit it. The video was sent that way to him. Also, the accompanying article was about the audience reaction to her story, not Shirley Sherrod, who is still a racist, even though nobody on the left will admit. After all, “it is about black and white”, which is why she “took him to one of his own”.

CosmosDan said:
I think pointing out the audience chuckling at her comment is pretty mild.

Why did the NAACP say this, then?

“The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.”

Ben Jealous was all over TV talking about the racist tea parrty, then all of a sudden he dropped off the face of the earth. Strange, huh?

CosmosDan said:
. it cracks me up these last two years as the term racism gets thrown around , that people are so eager to point out terms like “his own people” to indicate racism. White people are seeing about 1/1000th of the kind of ugly racism black Americans experienced and whining, “that’s racism” Sherrod’s own father was murdered and in that day a white man wouldn’t even be charged with murdering a black man. Expecting people to be completely free of all feelings of racism is not realistic. That’s not how humans operate. Dealing with racism is a long term multi generational process that is better but not over. There are still plenty of people alive that experienced severe and violent racism.

Bullcrap. If I said I took a black person to “one of his own”, I would be called a racist. If my dad was killed simply for the color of his skin, I would not blame the race of the murderer.
I’d blame the murdering scumbag and those who let it happen.

CosmosDan said:
The candidate with racist emails is Carl Paladino. He doesn’t even deny it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqfAaA6-h8o
Let’s not forget the watermelons on the White House lawn from a California Mayor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/white-house-watermelon-em_n_169933.html

CosmosDan said:
No I sure don’t think we’ve gotten past racism. It’s a lot better than it was 50 years ago but we’re not past it.

Dan, I said “largely past it.” Do you think the majority of people are racists, or do you think racists are in the minority?

CosmosDan said:
The candidate with racist emails is Carl Paladino. He doesn’t even deny it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqfAaA6-h8o
Let’s not forget the watermelons on the White House lawn from a California Mayor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/white-house-watermelon-em_n_169933.html

Yeah, that’s pretty stupid. Like I said (and you agree), there are racists in all groups.

CosmosDan said:
The USDA was successfully sued for discrimination against black farmers.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/09/29/the-hill-reps-bachmann-king-allege-fraud-in-black-farmers-settlement/

FearMonger said:

This Eric Holder ‘justice’ department is selectively enforcing federal law along racial lines. It’s a fact and it is documented. Nobody is asking questions of the people who have been implicated by sworn testimony from respected attorneys who worked there. Coates got railroaded out of town because he refused to step and fetch. This shit stinks to high heaven.

You agree that it must be addressed so… I ask you …. why is FOX the only one who is reporting it? It’s not ‘newsworthy’ to the rest? And what does that say about them?

Just to be clear, The problem existed before Obama and Eric Holder. The Ike Brown case was entirely before them. It is something that needs to be addressed but it isn’t something that started with Obama and Holder. I think it is something that needs to be covered, just as the DOJ scandal under Bush was covered. It’s a major concern when the judicial system is politically influenced.

You mentioned perjury. Who perjured themselves and how do you know? I found Coates to be believable but we do need more evidence than just conflicting testimony don’t we?
…

That statement does no justice whatsoever to what went on. It was pathetic (and a travesty). Jerry Jackson was a credentialed poll watcher that day. From the WSJ…..

Why a travesty? What do you think could or should have happened? Because it was a civil case an injunction was the only possible outcome. There was no evidence that the BPP sanctioned it at all so the case against them was dropped. No evidence that Jackson did anything other than stand outside a polling place in his neighborhood. His charges were dropped. The guy that actually did something wrong did get an injunction. You may not think it was long enough or severe enough but IMO it’s within reasonable limits considering the evidence. Him getting mouthy with poll watchers is not voter intimidation.
Justice , and basic fairness requires that we consider both sides of the story. The first whistle blower that came forward months ago had a background in GOP politics and was part of the Bush DOJ scandal. Rather than believe every word we need to consider the possibility that part of his testimony was politically influenced. It’s sad but true that in the political arena honesty is often sacrificed for the sake of party loyalty, That’s true for both sides, but let’s not be too eager to believe the worst.

the ‘injunction’ is a joke…. it only runs till 2012…. it only applies to Philly… only within 100 feet of a polling place… and only if he’s carrying a weapon. In other words, the asshole would have to try REAL HARD to break it.

Anyway, like I said, it’s not really about the NBPP. It’s about the DOJ. Ike Brown and many other cases have been dealt this same treatment.

Well he lives in Philly so that kinda makes sense and it covers the next two elections. It may not be what you think should happen but it’s not a joke. You have to have some frame of reference to know what kind of cases they get and how they normally handle them to judge this case. The Ike Brown case was much more severe and that involved injunctions as well. The fact that Shabazz is a racist ass has nothing to do with the case itself.

Check this out….

http://electionlawcenter.com/

No administration is above rreproach in these matters but but but…. the perjury and manipulation in this case is blatant and shameless,

Yeah, I see a lot of outrage now about the sanctity of voters rights. I didn’t see the same outrage and coverage when Democrats were bringing complaints in the Bush years. remember complaints of voters being barred from voting in black neighborhoods , fewer machines being sent to certain districts to create long lines and discourage voters, the AG of FL promising to deliver the state to Bush? Being realistic, there have always been attempts to screw with election results and we have to decide which cases need to be addressed.

Again, I’d ask what perjury and how do you know? We have to be aware of our own bias when we find ourselves assuming the worst. I don’t mean that as a slam. I have my bias and I think as humans we all do. We just need to try to be aware of it to be sure we’re trying to judge fairly with on standard

Here’s something from the Perez statement in the link you provided.
In threats cases, where the subject does not actually use force, we must carefully decide whether the subject’s threats are legally actionable “true threats” or protected speech.

In some cases, because voter intimidation cases are difficult to prove, the Department has declined even to bring a case. In 2005, the Civil Rights Division received a complaint that armed Mississippi state investigators had allegedly intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible vote fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their homes and asking for whom they voted, in spite of state law protections for the secrecy of the ballot. The Division did not bring a voter intimidation case in this instance.

You should read Perez’s statement , it adds perspective. IMO the BPP case was blown out of proportion. If people in the DOJ are declining to take cases based on race that needs to be addressed but we do need some hard evidence.

Calvin said:
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/09/29/the-hill-reps-bachmann-king-allege-fraud-in-black-farmers-settlement/

You’ll need something a lot more convincing than BAchman who has a history of casual political lies.

Calvin said:
Breitbart didn’t edit it. The video was sent that way to him. Also, the accompanying article was about the audience reaction to her story, not Shirley Sherrod, who is still a racist, even though nobody on the left will admit. After all, “it is about black and white”, which is why she “took him to one of his own”

It doesn’t matter if he edited it or not. In an age where video editing can be done on any home computer it’s pretty irresponsible to throw something out there as true without checking it out. He also applauded the heavily edited ACORN tapes from James OKeefe. 2 things
1. In the rush to be first and break a story people too often act irresponsibly and put false information out there.
2. IN the political arean dishonesty is too readily accepted as a legitimate tactic by both sides. You create the negative by hammering a false story over and over, then when it’s shown to be false it’s hardly mentioned. The negative impression remains and the damage is done. It’s up top us , the general public to not accept political and journalistic dishonesty.

Why did the NAACP say this, then?

“The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.”

Ben Jealous was all over TV talking about the racist tea parrty, then all of a sudden he dropped off the face of the earth. Strange, huh?

The Tea Party did have a racist fringe in the beginning and the media focused on that. The TP did a good job of getting rid of that element as they grew.

Bullcrap. If I said I took a black person to “one of his own”, I would be called a racist. If my dad was killed simply for the color of his skin, I would not blame the race of the murderer.
I’d blame the murdering scumbag and those who let it happen.

Do you think that was the only thing that happened. People really need to understand perspective. Blacks who grew up in the 40s threw the 60s and 70s saw vicious cruel consistent racism for decades including murder, not just words. Do you seriously think it’s realistic to think Obama got elected so just get over it? There seems to be a real lack of perspective on the right about racism.

Dan, I said “largely past it.” Do you think the majority of people are racists, or do you think racists are in the minority?

I think we’ve made great progress and another generation will make a big difference. I do think there’s enough out there for it to be a factor. What surprises me now is that we have our first black president and the right seems so eager to point out racism by people of color at every opportunity. Look up the GOPs southern strategy. It was built on not getting the black vote and using racism to get votes.
Because Obama is our first black president the question of racism was a hot topic for the media. I think now we can push to focus on policy.

Yeah, that’s pretty stupid. Like I said (and you agree), there are racists in all groups.

I agree. I think both sides need to back off being quick to cry racism.

CosmosDan said:
What surprises me now is that we have our first black president and the right seems so eager to point out racism by people of color at every opportunity.

Doesn’t the left do that every time somebody doesn’t agree with him? I I wouldn’t say eager. I’d say they’re pissed off because they’re being called racist when they’re not and they’re (the right) calling out people who are actually racist. I’m not saying there’s not racists on the right, because there is, just as there’s racists on the left. Racism is racism, doesn’t matter who’s doing it. I can understand why some are racist, but that doesn’t make it right.

CosmosDan said:
The Tea Party did have a racist fringe in the beginning and the media focused on that. The TP did a good job of getting rid of that element as they grew.

You just said the NAACP audience approving the sticking it to the white farmer was not an indication of racism. I just gave you a quote from the NAACP calling it “disturbing.” You just said that “the TP did a good job of getting rid of that element as they grew.” I’m assuming you are giving that as the reason Ben Jealous left the airwaves. So Ben Jealous’ group admitting that the audience reaction was “disturbing” had nothing to do with him getting off TV. Right.

CosmosDan said:
It doesn’t matter if he edited it or not. In an age where video editing can be done on any home computer it’s pretty irresponsible to throw something out there as true without checking it out. He also applauded the heavily edited ACORN tapes from James OKeefe. 2 things
1. In the rush to be first and break a story people too often act irresponsibly and put false information out there.
2. IN the political arean dishonesty is too readily accepted as a legitimate tactic by both sides. You create the negative by hammering a false story over and over, then when it’s shown to be false it’s hardly mentioned. The negative impression remains and the damage is done. It’s up top us , the general public to not accept political and journalistic dishonesty.

Again, the article that went with the video was about the audience reaction. It wasn’t about Shirley Sherrod.
Even though people thought that this was recent, watching the video it seems like people would pick up that this was a past experience. Either way it appears to be,the damning words are still there. “It is about white and black” “I took him to one of his own” There is a racist undertone throughout the whole video. How can they not call her out on this? Simple. She’s black. Double standard. It’s alright.

Sherrod was offered a better job, talked to the President, and I’m sure she’s got some great speaking offers. She got an apology from everybody, but she never apologized for calling Obamacare opponents racist, or for saying that Breitbart would “like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.”

Did Breitbart force her out, or was it the White House? If you ask me, somebody set up Breitbart. Most of the time they hardly acknlowedge anything he does. But this they acknowledged in a day? And Fox news was not a behind it either. http://www.mediaite.com/online/examining-the-myth-that-fox-news-drove-shirley-sherrod-to-resign/

CosmosDan said:
Look up the GOPs southern strategy. It was built on not getting the black vote and using racism to get votes.

Didn’t Obama do something similar recently?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/26/obama-jumps-race-appeal-latinos-african-americans-women-youth/

The post-racial President, indeed.

Of course, both of these are wrong. In fact, I think some democrats have made use of the southern strategy as well.

CosmosDan said:
Do you think that was the only thing that happened. People really need to understand perspective. Blacks who grew up in the 40s threw the 60s and 70s saw vicious cruel consistent racism for decades including murder, not just words. Do you seriously think it’s realistic to think Obama got elected so just get over it? There seems to be a real lack of perspective on the right about racism.

I think they shouldn’t blame white people for holding them down still. I can understand where some of them (blacks) are coming from, but that does not excuse their racism or make it better than racism against them. Today, anybody can make it. If you believe that your skin color is holding you back, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If anybody is holding them back, it’s the white progressives handing out money making them dependent on the government. Handing out money does not work.

CosmosDan said:
I agree. I think both sides need to back off being quick to cry racism.</blockquote

But if it's plain to see that there is racism going on, it should be acknowledged. White or black. I think the NAACP used to be respectable, today, not so much.

CosmosDan said:
The guy that actually did something wrong did get an injunction.

Dude… I can’t believe you are seriously making the case that Jackson didn’t break the law. What part of ‘default judgement’ don’t you understand? That means he was found guilty. The fact that the charges were dismissed is what this whole fucking thing is about. Apparently YOU think it was a just dismissal. What that tells me is that you didn’t read the information I linked you to. I have read all of it (and watched the video) and not only did Jackson break the law but Malik Shabazz and the NBPP did as well. The only thing that was lacking was the punishment which is why we find ourselves here.

A ‘default judgement’ means (in the eyes of the law) they pled guilty to the charges by failing to appear. It is well documented the games they played with the process (stonewaling and playing ignorant..couldn’t reach their lawyer etc…) but it is absolutely clear that they knew they were pleading guilty to all charges. Now it’s obvious why they did it the way they did…. so it’s easy to dismiss by those who would prefer the law not be enforced in this case.

The witness who testified was NOT a poll worker (as I already stated) and he said that BOTH of them were using racial slurs and being hostile RIGHT BY THE DOOR TO THE PLACE. The fact that he refused to be intimidated is a credit to him… but it certainly wasn’t for lack of effort on the part of those two assholes.

It’s truly unbelievable to me how you try to make light of such tactics. There were other witnesses but they would not go on the record. I wonder why? Like you said, King Shabazz lives right there in the neighborhood. I’m sure he encourages everyone there to cooperate fully and tell the truth even if it makes him look bad.

Right.

I’m not going to jump through these hoops with you. The truth will find it’s way out even with so many heads buried in the sand. If you want to inform yourself read the info i linked and watch the videos. Otherwise consider me withdrawing from this discussion.

One last thing though… about Perez….

“Mr. Perez swore under oath before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that there was no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was” and that it was only “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/black-panther-case-roars-back-to-life/
___________________

“Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proof-new-records-show-doj-lied-about-new-black-panther-dismissal/
__________________

Coates testimony completely blew Perez bullshit right out of the water….

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/american-hero-coates-negates-a-year-of-justice-department-spin-on-new-black-panther-case/
__________________

CosmosDan said:
We have to be aware of our own bias when we find ourselves assuming the worst. I don’t mean that as a slam. I have my bias and I think as humans we all do. We just need to try to be aware of it to be sure we’re trying to judge fairly with on standard

Read your words again CD. We’ll see how ‘fair’ you are willing to be.

Calvin said:
Doesn’t the left do that every time somebody doesn’t agree with him?

I think that’s getting to be an untrue exaggeration.

I wouldn’t say eager. I’d say they’re pissed off because they’re being called racist when they’re not and they’re (the right) calling out people who are actually racist. I’m not saying there’s not racists on the right, because there is, just as there’s racists on the left. Racism is racism, doesn’t matter who’s doing it. I can understand why some are racist, but that doesn’t make it right.

I agree it’s wrong from anyone. Human’s being what they are I expect we;ll continue to see some here and there. I hope the press doesn’t blow it all out of proportion.

You just said the NAACP audience approving the sticking it to the white farmer was not an indication of racism.

Not exactly. I said it was mild. People are human so the idea that black Americans having experienced racism, tend to favor other black Americans over white’s or feel the urge for a little “payback” doesn’t shock me or need condemnation. It’s just a less attractive part of humanity that we can deal with as time goes on. I see it as the fallout from our more severe racist past. It took generations to get this far. We can’t expect it to all disappear because Obama got elected.

I just gave you a quote from the NAACP calling it “disturbing.” You just said that “the TP did a good job of getting rid of that element as they grew.” I’m assuming you are giving that as the reason Ben Jealous left the airwaves. So Ben Jealous’ group admitting that the audience reaction was “disturbing” had nothing to do with him getting off TV. Right.

can’t really comment on that because I don’t know who Ben Jealous is.

Again, the article that went with the video was about the audience reaction. It wasn’t about Shirley Sherrod.

Sure seemed that way to me. Probably some of both.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-confesses-her-racism-to-naacp/

Even though people thought that this was recent, watching the video it seems like people would pick up that this was a past experience. Either way it appears to be,the damning words are still there. “It is about white and black” “I took him to one of his own” There is a racist undertone throughout the whole video. How can they not call her out on this? Simple. She’s black. Double standard. It’s alright.
She’s talking openly about her own struggle to overcome her feelings of racism. She begins the speech with some pretty horrible stories of her experiences growing up. I think it’s fair to remind the NAACP that they have some racism to watch out for but let’s put it in perspective.

Sherrod was offered a better job, talked to the President, and I’m sure she’s got some great speaking offers. She got an apology from everybody, but she never apologized for calling Obamacare opponents racist, or for saying that Breitbart would “like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.”

really did Brietbart apologize?

Did Breitbart force her out, or was it the White House?

The WH. I think they were incredible pussies to force her to resign over some story on the web.

Didn’t Obama do something similar recently?

NO. Recognizing which groups voted for you and encouraging them to vote for you again is not the same. The Tea Party is by far predominantly white. You wouldn’t say that makes them racist would you?

Of course, both of these are wrong. In fact, I think some democrats have made use of the southern strategy as well.

I really don’t see working toward equality for minorities the same as encouraging feelings of racism in whites to gain their votes.

I think they shouldn’t blame white people for holding them down still. I can understand where some of them (blacks) are coming from, but that does not excuse their racism or make it better than racism against them. Today, anybody can make it. If you believe that your skin color is holding you back, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If anybody is holding them back, it’s the white progressives handing out money making them dependent on the government. Handing out money does not work.

I’d agree to that to a certain extent. I think the Dems to often judge social programs on the basis of votes rather than what good they do or don’t do. That doesn’t help minorities or the country. After watching some specials on education on MSNBC it seems clear we need to do more to make sure good educations are available to much more of our children, especially in poorer urban schools. It’s not just a money issue but in the long run, money for education seems money well invested in the country as a whole. I’d rather pay for education than welfare for adults.

This is a good read.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-why-the-left-shouldn%e2%80%99t-defend-the-new-black-panther-dismissal/?singlepage=true

Click on ‘by J. Christian Adams’ and read the rest of his articles if you wanna know what he’s about. He’s not a racist or a partisan activist. He’s a good lawyer with a noble cause and he stuck his neck out and walked the walk when push came to shove. Holders DOJ demanded that they NOT comply with the subpoenas and he knew it was shake legally but… more importantly.. he knew that it was WRONG. He knew he would be attacked and demonized but he told the truth anyway.

I’ve been reading everything he’s written since the interview with Megyn Kelly and I find him 100% credible. In truth, everyone should be concerned about the issues he raises about military voting and purging of voter rolls. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE is being corrupted and ALL our votes get diluted when that happens.

And CD…

CosmosDan said:
Yeah, I see a lot of outrage now about the sanctity of voters rights. I didn’t see the same outrage and coverage when Democrats were bringing complaints in the Bush years.

I’m not sure what ‘coverage’ you are talking about as this has been SO NOT covered but…. I get your point. The difference IMO is the video… the military uniforms…. the nightstick…. the confrontation of the guy with the camera (did you listen?)…. but MOST OF ALL… the unjustified dismissal of a judgement.

I mean, the USA filed the suit for a reason, right? They were successful in their efffort. KnowudImean? All that was left was for the punishment ot be announced. If you can find me another example of a similar (WON) case being dismissed before the judge even imposes the punishment I’m all ears.

Coates was stripped of his power and sent to Siberia because he refused to partake in selective enforcement. He was ordered not to testify but he did it anyway. He should be commended just as Adams should be.

Read what he said at his farewell dinner. The shit ain’t cool, bro. And this story ain’t over by a long shot. The LSM can try to ignore it but their ignorance will just make them look even MORE stupid (and irrelevant) when they finally have no choice but to acknowledge it.

Probably right after Holder resigns…. lmfao!

CosmosDan said:
You’ll need something a lot more convincing than BAchman who has a history of casual political lies.

Dan, this is a mighty serious allegation. It’s fraud they’re allegating. They held a press conference. Not something you’d want to casually lie about in front of the press.

Calvin said:
Dan, this is a mighty serious allegation. It’s fraud they’re allegating. They held a press conference. Not something you’d want to casually lie about in front of the press.

You’d think so wouldn’t you, but Bachman has been caught in casual lies repeatedly.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/21/bachmann-and-truth-o-meter-collected-works/

CosmosDan said:
can’t really comment on that because I don’t know who Ben Jealous is.

Wow Dan. I had a whole post typed up and had to delete it. I’m trying to be patient. I like you. You are one of a few who attempt to be reasonable but this is very disappointing. In the time it took you to plead ignorance you could have googled Ben Jealous and you would have found out how he recently paralleled the Tea Party with the nazi’s.

But that’s not what upset me. Ben Jealous played a sunstantial role in the St. Shirley Scandal. He’s one of the big reasons Breitbart was compelled to release that tape. To not know about Ben Jealous as it relates to that whole episode is to be uninformed to the point where you really should not comment on it.

Kinda like this….

CosmosDan said:
The USDA was successfully sued for discrimination against black farmers.

Did you even click the link Calvin provided? I must say I seriously doubt it or else you would have had more to say than just a snarky comment about Bachman. The Pigford Case stinks to high heaven but I’m not gonna waste my keystrokes discussing it as the information is readily available to those who want to know the truth.

I’m getting the distinct impression that you either don’t have the time or the inclination to find out the WHY’s behind these issues. All I get is a lot of old manufactured talking points… which is OK if that’s your thing. I’m gonna give you another example from earlier in the thread….

CosmosDan said:
The point of the original story , same with ACORN, was how tapes were edited to purposely create a false impression.

That wasn’t the point… and that wasn’t the original story. The NAACP via President Ben Jealous issued a condemnation of the Tea Party for condoning racism and announced their intention to pass a resolution saying as much.

HUGE BACKLASH.

The NAACP via President Ben Jealous issued a condemnation of the Tea Party for failing to purge the racists from their ranks and announced their intention to pass a resolution saying as much.

Andrew Breitbart said (paraphrasing) HYPOCRITE, KNOW THYSELF. IF YOU CONTINUE WITH THIS “RESOLUTION” NONSENSE I WILL POST VIDEO EVIDENCE OF RACISM WITHIN THE NAACP.

The NAACP passed the resolution.

Breitbart posted the video (unedited).

The NAACP reacted the way they did even though they had the whole speech on tape.

Sherrod got fired even though the redemptive moment was included (and captioned) in the original video posted by Breitbart.

The video didn’t ‘purposely create a false impression’. The ‘impression’ it created was that the NAACP cheered racism which is exactly what it did.

Which is WHY Breitbart posted the tape in the first place…

Which is WHY the NAACP had the knee-jerk reaction they did…

Which is WHY Breitbart warned them that he was gonna post it…

Which is WHY the NAACP via Ben Jealous should have never called the kettle black.

The Tea Party is not racist because it is ‘mostly white’. America is ‘mostly white’ too but nobody accuses the whole Country of being racist (just the conservatives ;o) In fact the minority representation in the TP largely mirrors the population as a whole.

Anyway… Ben Jealous got ‘bamboozled’ by Ben Jealous and nobody else. The fact that you don’t know who he is, Dan, shows that you only know one side of the story, and guess who’s side that is?

I toned this down and tried to be much more patient in trying to explain why you have to ask WHY and get to the bottom of these things. Here’s another WHY that deserves an answer…

WHY did St. Shirley disappear so fast? She certainly seemed comfortable in front of the camera/ microphone…WHY the vanishing act?

Here’s a hint… the info is ‘readily available’.

FearMonger said:
This is a good read.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-why-the-left-shouldn%e2%80%99t-defend-the-new-black-panther-dismissal/?singlepage=true

Click on ‘by J. Christian Adams’ and read the rest of his articles if you wanna know what he’s about. He’s not a racist or a partisan activist. He’s a good lawyer with a noble cause and he stuck his neck out and walked the walk when push came to shove. Holders DOJ demanded that they NOT comply with the subpoenas and he knew it was shake legally but… more importantly.. he knew that it was WRONG. He knew he would be attacked and demonized but he told the truth anyway.

I’m somewhat familiar with Adams ad read a different take on him when I first looked into the case months ago.
Here’s an article from NOR that includes an interview with Adams.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/tellmemore/2010/07/13/128489128/justice-or-politics
I thought this was relevant
I think we would all agree with that. The bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, which was co-chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, said that there really isn’t a broad pattern of either of the complaints that are brought by both Republicans and Democrats. So I wanted to ask, do you think that that’s legitimate?

Mr. ADAMS: Yeah. This is important. There does not need to be a widespread activity in other areas for this particular instance in Philadelphia to violate federal law. And so whoever’s right or wrong about those larger issues was never my concern. It was does this violate the law, what’s happening with men with weapons in front of polls? And that’s all that mattered to me was the law and the facts.

I’ve been reading everything he’s written since the interview with Megyn Kelly and I find him 100% credible. In truth, everyone should be concerned about the issues he raises about military voting and purging of voter rolls. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE is being corrupted and ALL our votes get diluted when that happens.

I’d agree with that. The sad truth is IMO that as much as we don’t want to hear it there are people on every election from both parties that want to win badly enough to bend or break the rules. I first started hearing about it during the Bush years and the more I read the more disturbed I became. I finally had to accept that it was a political reality. Not that it doesn’t need to be addressed, it does. I just think in comparison that this case is pretty minor. People get physically attacked at the polls. Armed men in AZ were approaching Latinos going into the polls, and not prosecuted. Other issues,

http://washingtonindependent.com/9136/democrats-gop-challenge-voter-laws
In Florida, for example, where the Brennan Center sued the state on behalf of the state’s NAACP, studies showed that black voters made up 13 percent of all registration applicants, but were 26 percent of all matching problems. Similarly, Latinos were 15 percent of the total voting population, and 39 percent of those blocked; while white voters were 66 percent of the voter applicant pool, but only 17 percent of those whose applications didn’t match.

“The law inevitably leads to higher and heavier burdens being placed on less affluent voters and voters of color,” said Adam Skaggs, counsel for the Brennan Center. “So more of those voters will have their votes not counted in November. And as we saw in 2000, it can take only a couple hundred voters to make the difference in the election.”

One problem is that the people in charge of running the elections from state to state are party members with their own goals and agenda and probably varying moral codes. How far will they go to help their party? Like you, I’d be royally pissed to think that people would subvert the process. I’d give a ride to the polls to someone voting against my candidate just because I think the process needs to be respected. But lots of people in both parties don’t feel that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
Did it ever seem wrong to you that we would rely on paperless computer voting and the guy making the machines supported a certain candidate?
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

On January 5, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. The report was the result of a five-week investigation by the committee’s Democrats, who reviewed thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance, or incompetence surrounding the election in Ohio, and further thousands of complaints that poured in by phone and email as word of the inquiry spread.
The report cites “massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies” throughout the state—wrongs, moreover, that were hardly random accidents. “In many cases,” the report says, “these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.”

My point being , if we’re worried about truly protecting fair elections I believe there are much bigger fish to fry than two guys playing dress up in Philly. And I don’t just mean republicans.

I’m not sure what ‘coverage’ you are talking about as this has been SO NOT covered but…. I get your point. The difference IMO is the video… the military uniforms…. the nightstick…. the confrontation of the guy with the camera (did you listen?)…. but MOST OF ALL… the unjustified dismissal of a judgement.

I mean, the USA filed the suit for a reason, right? They were successful in their efffort. KnowudImean? All that was left was for the punishment ot be announced. If you can find me another example of a similar (WON) case being dismissed before the judge even imposes the punishment I’m all ears.

There are cases much worse that were never even prosecuted at all. Think of the money spent investigating this one case. At some point we have to realistically ask if we’re spending our time and money wisely. We can’t right every wrong or perceived wrong. I honestly don’t see the NPP case as a huge deal, except for political gains.

Coates was stripped of his power and sent to Siberia because he refused to partake in selective enforcement. He was ordered not to testify but he did it anyway. He should be commended just as Adams should be.

Read what he said at his farewell dinner. The shit ain’t cool, bro. And this story ain’t over by a long shot. The LSM can try to ignore it but their ignorance will just make them look even MORE stupid (and irrelevant) when they finally have no choice but to acknowledge it.

Probably right after Holder resigns…. lmfao!

It looks like they reacted politically in part and now that reaction will be used to make it look far worse. One problem is that while we’re focusing attention and money on this a lot of other shit is going on. Our time and resources are not limitless. I know you like Adams but don’t dismiss the possibility that it is political

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/an-open-letter-to-j-chris_b_647032.html
The other thing that I you and I can agree on is that you are a committed, partisan conservative who does not come to this “whistle blower” attack on President Obama with clean hands. As a founder of the Univ. of South Carolina Law School’s Federalist Society (the most important legal group for conservative judicial activism) and as a committed supporter of Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns, it makes complete sense that you have a bone to pick with the Democratic majority in Washington.

FearMonger said:
This is a good read.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-why-the-left-shouldn%e2%80%99t-defend-the-new-black-panther-dismissal/?singlepage=true

Click on ‘by J. Christian Adams’ and read the rest of his articles if you wanna know what he’s about. He’s not a racist or a partisan activist. He’s a good lawyer with a noble cause and he stuck his neck out and walked the walk when push came to shove. Holders DOJ demanded that they NOT comply with the subpoenas and he knew it was shake legally but… more importantly.. he knew that it was WRONG. He knew he would be attacked and demonized but he told the truth anyway.

I’m somewhat familiar with Adams ad read a different take on him when I first looked into the case months ago.
Here’s an article from NOR that includes an interview with Adams.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/tellmemore/2010/07/13/128489128/justice-or-politics
I thought this was relevant
I think we would all agree with that. The bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, which was co-chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, said that there really isn’t a broad pattern of either of the complaints that are brought by both Republicans and Democrats. So I wanted to ask, do you think that that’s legitimate?

Mr. ADAMS: Yeah. This is important. There does not need to be a widespread activity in other areas for this particular instance in Philadelphia to violate federal law. And so whoever’s right or wrong about those larger issues was never my concern. It was does this violate the law, what’s happening with men with weapons in front of polls? And that’s all that mattered to me was the law and the facts.

I’ve been reading everything he’s written since the interview with Megyn Kelly and I find him 100% credible. In truth, everyone should be concerned about the issues he raises about military voting and purging of voter rolls. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE is being corrupted and ALL our votes get diluted when that happens.

I’d agree with that. The sad truth is IMO that as much as we don’t want to hear it there are people on every election from both parties that want to win badly enough to bend or break the rules. I first started hearing about it during the Bush years and the more I read the more disturbed I became. I finally had to accept that it was a political reality. Not that it doesn’t need to be addressed, it does. I just think in comparison that this case is pretty minor. People get physically attacked at the polls. Armed men in AZ were approaching Latinos going into the polls, and not prosecuted. Other issues,

http://washingtonindependent.com/9136/democrats-gop-challenge-voter-laws
In Florida, for example, where the Brennan Center sued the state on behalf of the state’s NAACP, studies showed that black voters made up 13 percent of all registration applicants, but were 26 percent of all matching problems. Similarly, Latinos were 15 percent of the total voting population, and 39 percent of those blocked; while white voters were 66 percent of the voter applicant pool, but only 17 percent of those whose applications didn’t match.

“The law inevitably leads to higher and heavier burdens being placed on less affluent voters and voters of color,” said Adam Skaggs, counsel for the Brennan Center. “So more of those voters will have their votes not counted in November. And as we saw in 2000, it can take only a couple hundred voters to make the difference in the election.”

One problem is that the people in charge of running the elections from state to state are party members with their own goals and agenda and probably varying moral codes. How far will they go to help their party? Like you, I’d be royally pissed to think that people would subvert the process. I’d give a ride to the polls to someone voting against my candidate just because I think the process needs to be respected. But lots of people in both parties don’t feel that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
Did it ever seem wrong to you that we would rely on paperless computer voting and the guy making the machines supported a certain candidate?
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

On January 5, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. The report was the result of a five-week investigation by the committee’s Democrats, who reviewed thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance, or incompetence surrounding the election in Ohio, and further thousands of complaints that poured in by phone and email as word of the inquiry spread.
The report cites “massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies” throughout the state—wrongs, moreover, that were hardly random accidents. “In many cases,” the report says, “these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.”

My point being , if we’re worried about truly protecting fair elections I believe there are much bigger fish to fry than two guys playing dress up in Philly. And I don’t just mean republicans.

I’m not sure what ‘coverage’ you are talking about as this has been SO NOT covered but…. I get your point. The difference IMO is the video… the military uniforms…. the nightstick…. the confrontation of the guy with the camera (did you listen?)…. but MOST OF ALL… the unjustified dismissal of a judgement.

I mean, the USA filed the suit for a reason, right? They were successful in their efffort. KnowudImean? All that was left was for the punishment ot be announced. If you can find me another example of a similar (WON) case being dismissed before the judge even imposes the punishment I’m all ears.

There are cases much worse that were never even prosecuted at all. Think of the money spent investigating this one case. At some point we have to realistically ask if we’re spending our time and money wisely. We can’t right every wrong or perceived wrong. I honestly don’t see the NBPP case as a huge deal, except for political gains.

Coates was stripped of his power and sent to Siberia because he refused to partake in selective enforcement. He was ordered not to testify but he did it anyway. He should be commended just as Adams should be.

Read what he said at his farewell dinner. The shit ain’t cool, bro. And this story ain’t over by a long shot. The LSM can try to ignore it but their ignorance will just make them look even MORE stupid (and irrelevant) when they finally have no choice but to acknowledge it.

Probably right after Holder resigns…. lmfao!

It looks like they reacted politically in part and now that reaction will be used to make it look far worse. One problem is that while we’re focusing attention and money on this a lot of other shit is going on. Our time and resources are not limitless. I know you like Adams but don’t dismiss the possibility that it is political

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/an-open-letter-to-j-chris_b_647032.html
The other thing that I you and I can agree on is that you are a committed, partisan conservative who does not come to this “whistle blower” attack on President Obama with clean hands. As a founder of the Univ. of South Carolina Law School’s Federalist Society (the most important legal group for conservative judicial activism) and as a committed supporter of Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns, it makes complete sense that you have a bone to pick with the Democratic majority in Washington.

It’s truly unbelievable to me how you try to make light of such tactics

I’m trying to put it in proper perspective based on the voter issues I’ve been reading about for several years that seem way more serious to me. So someone said racist things to a poll watcher and dressed in their pretend military garb. Did they actually verbally or physically threaten voters? Like I said, they were in a district likely to vote their way, so who exactly were they trying to intimidate, people who agreed with them? Is there any evidence that this was a part of some national edict from national NBPP, or is King some over zealous racist who crossed the line. The merits of the case are in the details.
IMO.

FearMonger said:
Wow Dan. I had a whole post typed up and had to delete it. I’m trying to be patient. I like you. You are one of a few who attempt to be reasonable but this is very disappointing. In the time it took you to plead ignorance you could have googled Ben Jealous and you would have found out how he recently paralleled the Tea Party with the nazi’s.

But that’s not what upset me. Ben Jealous played a sunstantial role in the St. Shirley Scandal. He’s one of the big reasons Breitbart was compelled to release that tape. To not know about Ben Jealous as it relates to that whole episode is to be uninformed to the point where you really should not comment on it

The thing is there clearly was racist elements in the Tea party early on. I just read Jealous comments and they are way over over the top. I knew the NAACP had criticized the Tea Party but didn’t know the details. I don’t condone Jealous’ remarks but neither do I condone publishing an edited video. I guess it’s a pet peeve of mine since I’ve seen it done so often.

Did you even click the link Calvin provided? I must say I seriously doubt it or else you would have had more to say than just a snarky comment about Bachman. The Pigford Case stinks to high heaven but I’m not gonna waste my keystrokes discussing it as the information is readily available to those who want to know the truth.

I’m getting the distinct impression that you either don’t have the time or the inclination to find out the WHY’s behind these issues. All I get is a lot of old manufactured talking points… which is OK if that’s your thing. I’m gonna give you another example from earlier in the thread…

You’re right. I don’t have time to research every detail of every issue. I don’t find Bachman to be credible so I ignored it until I see a more reliable source.

That wasn’t the point… and that wasn’t the original story. The NAACP via President Ben Jealous issued a condemnation of the Tea Party for condoning racism and announced their intention to pass a resolution saying as much.

I toned this down and tried to be much more patient in trying to explain why you have to ask WHY and get to the bottom of these things. Here’s another WHY that deserves an answer…
point taken. I guess I overreacted to the edited video. We can agree though that there were racist elements in the Tea Party that did need to be purged right? Although it was nowhere near as bad as Jealous made it out to be , it did exist right? That’s why the Tea Party had to address it to gain more legitimacy as a political movement right?

Sherrod got fired even though the redemptive moment was included (and captioned) in the original video posted by Breitbart

Are you sure about this? In the full video she begins the story by saying she learned it’s about being poor not black or white. I didn’t see that intro in the video. Her redemptive moment is later when she goes with the farmer to the lawyers office to get him the help he wasn’t getting from his white lawyer that she sent him to. Then 7 days before he lost his land he calls her again to tell her the lawyer still isn’t doing anything and she funds him a new lawyer who will get things done. None of that was in the original video was it?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/

WHY did St. Shirley disappear so fast? She certainly seemed comfortable in front of the camera/ microphone…WHY the vanishing act?

Here’s a hint… the info is ‘readily available’.

Well I know about her comments to Cooper and I just read this
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/08/27/the-pigford-in-the-middle-of-the-room-fox-news-special-report/

but I’m not going to guess. Make your point.

Kitsune said:
I’d agree with this more if you used the term Progressive exclusively. “Liberal” lets the “perpetual power at any cost” Progressives off the hook. Unfortunately, I think more and more Liberals (who could have been conversed with) are becoming full-on Van Jones/Cass Sunstein Progressives (who just want to smack you in the face with a metal baseball bat and call you an evil racist) due to the current political climate.

I don’t disagree… Find the time to watch the video “How Modern Liberals Think” by Evan Sayet. Evan used to be a writer for Maher. The talk is VERY good. You’ll need some quiet time and try to watch the whole thing.

As for as I’m concerned, Evan is a genius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

CosmosDan said:
The thing is there clearly was racist elements in the Tea party early on. I just read Jealous comments and they are way over over the top. I knew the NAACP had criticized the Tea Party but didn’t know the details. I don’t condone Jealous’ remarks but neither do I condone publishing an edited video. I guess it’s a pet peeve of mine since I’ve seen it done so often.

The Tea Party is not racist. Focusing on the Constitution is not racist. The Tea Party roots go back to Ross Perot’s time.

If Hillary or Edwards were President and pulled what Obama has, the Tea Party would be just as strong.

As for Sherrod’s video, It was NOT edited. Rather, it was an excerpt. Big difference. What we saw and heard is what she said.

Alz said:
The Tea Party is not racist. Focusing on the Constitution is not racist. The Tea Party roots go back to Ross Perot’s time.

And I didn’t say they were. When they first started getting media attention there were obvious racist elements among them. That’s undeniable. They’ve addressed it and that;s to their credit. If it didn’t exist it would not have had to be addressed.

If Hillary or Edwards were President and pulled what Obama has, the Tea Party would be just as strong.

This is a meaningless assertion.

As for Sherrod’s video, It was NOT edited. Rather, it was an excerpt. Big difference. What we saw and heard is what she said.

It was an excerpt that was selected for a specific effect to make her and the NAACP look more racist. It left out her introduction to the story which stated “It not about color” and the full story of her continued efforts to save that man’s farm. I don’t give a crap if you call it editing or excerpt. It was intentionally dishonest and it happens all the time.

I suppose by your standards Dick Grayson’s “Taliban Dan” add uses just an excerpt, since they actually are his opponents words. That kind of dishonesty is ugly and unacceptable from anyone.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
I see Obama has found his spine. Now he should help his fellow democrats to locate their spine.

Sorry, jellyfish don’t have spines, neither do community organizers, socialists, marxists, communists, and the so-called “progressives.” They’re merely bullies who will only come at you if they’ve got the upper hand.

Dave Noland said:
So we resort to personal attacks when we have NOTHING to say. Douche bag says what?

When is it a personal attack to point out someone’s…difficulties with the language. When is it a personal attack to point out an individual who is only articulate when reading from a teleprompter? When is it a personal attack to point out the fact that we have a narccisstic individual currently occupying the White House who is a tool of those who would destroy this country and trample the Constitution? When is it a personal attack to note this useful tool has appointed people to his staff who are busily working to do the will of this country’s enemies?

-0bama: ” Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press.”

And you LIED Mr. -0bama.

Andy Lamb said:
King, “so few viewers” is a blanket assessment that has no real meaning. “So few viewers” compared to what? As I said on another thread – FOX destroys it’s cable news/commentary competition. That fact cannot be debated or argued. Further, The O’Reilly Factor (and the other evening news commentary programs he competes against/destroys) is on at 8pm EST. His show also competes in prime time against the old Big Three broadcast networks prime time shows, reality TV programs, sitcoms, etc. that many Americans live their evenings glued to. Despite that fact, rough averages of nightly viewers of his show (combining the 8pm and 11pm shows) compared to the Big Three evening news shows that viewers have been sitting down to dinner with for years are – Brian Williams 8.5 million, Diane Sawyer 7 million, Katie Couric 5 million, O’Reilly close to 5 million. That as many people watch his show as watch CBS Evening News is actually quite amazing. It’s no wonder all of these people piss their pants on a daily basis fretting over FOX. Now even Obama is whining about it. It’s quite laughable, really.

just because someone agrees with you does not make it right… lots and lots of people agreed with hitler… speaking of … seems alot of similarity of propoganda between that network and his statments like ohh.. i duno:

I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few

As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

Hate is more lasting than dislike.

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future

If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution.

this one is really important to understand where are country is really at:

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

ohh.. while your at it why don’t all of you think about brown vs. board of education

pyrope said:
-0bama: ” Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press.” And you LIED Mr. -0bama.

tell me the exact infraction of the constitution and why you would conclude as such?

if indeed this is the case why is it that the minority calls for impeachment?

Corvax said:
Unless he also points his finger at MSNBC for similar criticisms he is making on Fox thanhe is being a complete hypocrite. He has every other news channel in his back pocket, why does he care if one doesnt? Oh yeah because the one that isnt in his pocket is the one that people watch, why would that be?

Because Murdoch’s empire is the most powerful in the western world, and Fox in particular is run by people who are incredibly smart and know how to manipulate people into watching them.

crazywater said:
What an f-ing cry baby! I cannot recall Bush whining about the media ever!

This a joke, right?

The biggest lie that Fox News tells is that the mainstream media unabashedly liberal. They can get away with this because the real American left is as invisible in the mainstream media as it is on Fox. It’s easy to think Obama is an extreme leftist if you’ve never heard of Noam Chomsky.

There is a real American left, though it has been marginalized. There was a poll a few years ago, and the difference between Americans who think the media is two liberal and those who think that the mainstream media is two conservative was about five per cent. JUST FIVE PER CENT! Considering how relentless the “liberal media” narrative is pushed, that’s kind of amazing. There are a huge number of Americans who are as marginalized by the media as the right like to think they are.

The danger of the ” liberal media” lie is that it allows people to just ignore whatever they want to, and they do start to filter out facts. And they do start filtering out facts. I’ve seen it. They have a license to just ignore whatever they like. Stephen Colbert said it like this “Reality has a proven liberal bias.”

Americans no longer live in the same reality. If you’re old enough to remember Clinton, you know that the right doesn’t necessarily hate Obama so much because of racism. After all, Cliton wasn’t black, but no one’s ever really tried to explain why they hate him so much. It doesn’t correspond to the news, or any discernable reality. He’s a socialist, I guess. Sort of like Harry Truman.

Anyway, bashing Fox News is a good strategy for him. Fox news is as deeply distrusted by those who don’t watch it as it’s trusted by those who do.

I’m
impressed, I must say. Really rarely do I encounter a blog that’s both
educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the
head. Your idea is outstanding; the issue is something that not enough people
are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled across this
in my search for something relating to this.
kia soul