Michelle Obama’s Position On Facebook And Her Children Stirs Inane Controversy

video

by Colby Hall | 1:38 pm, February 9th, 2011

» 104 comments

Earlier today, First Lady Michelle Obama sat down with NBC’s Matt Lauer for a wide ranging discussion about many topics . And while much of the discussion focused on Ms. Obama’s campaign to end child obesity in America, it seems that her revelation that “first daughters” Sasha and Malia aren’t on Facebook has sparked some sort of media to-do, exemplified by The Blaze’s headline Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook? Turns out that Facebook’s privacy restrictions do not allow children under 13 to participate, so the Obama’s are just following Facebook’s own standards.

To be fair to The Blaze, the text of their post is a pretty basic AP report of the interview at hand, and they weren’t the only outlet to seemingly make hay of from the Obama’s restrictive policy towards their kids and social media. CNET’s Chris Matyszczyk also highlighted the Facebook portion of the interview (he does write for CNET after all) but neglected to mention Facebook’s age requirements. A cursory search on Google News reveals 35 articles about the Obama’s and Facebook. (Yes, it is a slow news day, perhaps evidenced by this very post!)

Kudos to Sunlen Miller, who points out the age restrictions on Jake Tapper‘s Political Punch blog:

“I’m not a big fan of young kids having Facebook,” Mrs. Obama said on The Today Show this morning, “So, you know, it’s not something they need. It’s not necessary right now.”

But in addition to motherly constraints, nonetheless are the constraints of the Secret Service and the age requirement on Face book.

“I think we’re lucky that there are a lot of real constraints, things like Secret Service and stuff like that,” she said.

Facebook also has a requirement that a child must be at least 13 to join making Sasha at nine-years-old and Malia at twelve-years old too young to join. But Mrs. Obama did not rule out them making their own decision to join the social networking site in the future, when the family is no longer living in the White House.

Maybe the reason that the Obama’s position on social media is so newsworthy is that modern parents are now faced with decisions and rules that no generation before them have ever faced. And regardless of the age restriction policy of Facebook, many parents are flying by the seat of their pants when it comes to the new digital age and how its impacting their kids. (No? Then YOU try telling your six year-old son why he can’t hear that song on the car radio again, when the iPod can allow as many replays as one desires.)

Watch the brief clip of the end of the Today Show interview, courtesy of NBC, below:

Facebook, Matt Lauer, Michelle Obama, The Blaze, Today

The Real Royal King

Why are they banned?

Good parenting.
Pablo

There’s no way in hell I’d let those kids on Facebook. Good call.
skyfet

I’m worried bout the poster of this article, am worried that you might loose your credibility. Why the hell would you quote from a Mad man’s website? it makes no sense to me, his own people are calling him a conspiracy theorist, and you find it convenient to quote from his site. That’s embarrassing.
The Real Royal King

Pablo said:
There’s no way in hell I’d let those kids on Facebook. Good call.

I assume your biggest concerns are safety-related, as are mine?
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

To be fair to The Blaze, the text of their post is a pretty basic AP report of the interview at hand, and they weren’t the only outlet to seemingly jump on the Obama’s for their restrictive policy towards their kids and social media

Um, they didn’t JUMP on her, they just reported it. Enough editorializing!

ps, I agree with MO on this one.
sarainitaly

“Michelle Obama’s Position On Facebook And Her Children Stirs Inane Controversy…has sparked some sort of media to-do, perhaps best exemplified by The Blaze’ breathless headline Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?”

I’m sorry Colby but the only thing inane about this is what you wrote above. There is no controversy or to-do about it.
WCinWI

It’s just like that article where parents were complaining about their kids overcharging for things bought within an application to an iphone, ipod, etc.. In this case, the parent was complaining about an 8 yr old. Uhhh hello, your 8 yr old doesn’t need electronics other than a gameboy for in the car. Just because you’re a dumb parent, don’t blame the creator of the game.

I agree with Michelle on this. I miss the days when Facebook was just for college kids.
skyfet

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
To be fair to The Blaze, the text of their post is a pretty basic AP report of the interview at hand, and they weren’t the only outlet to seemingly jump on the Obama’s for their restrictive policy towards their kids and social media

Um, they didn’t JUMP on her, they just reported it. Enough editorializing!

ps, I agree with MO on this one.

Off course you are going to defend the site of Brother Beck. Has nothing to do with reality, make excuse for them, it is what is expected of you. Promote Beck’s view and make excuses for his blatant stupidity/madness. Not new, we know what is expected from you.
writer

King, the attendants said your Depends are industrial strength. Your safety concerns are unwarranted.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

Hey sky, the ONLY thing the Blaze did was post what the AP wrote. Unlike Mediaite, they didn’t editorialize at all, so if you have a beef, it’s with the AP. Unless of course, you’re just going with your standard knee-jerk reactiion to hate anything and everything Beck touches.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

Writer, stop, you’re killing me!!
hgovernick

The Real Royal King said:
Why are they banned?

Good parenting.

Ditto. Facebook is bad enough for adults, worse for children.
notsofast

skyfet said:
Off course you are going to defend the site of Brother Beck. Has nothing to do with reality,

Translation:” I didn’t bother to read the article on the Blaze because I’m a lib who talks first before finding out what the facts are.”
Harry Flashman

Its called “parenting”.
SilentSam

LOL! Have you guys seen the comments on that “why are the Obama kids banned from facebook?” link? Oh America, what has happened to you?
Colby Hall

Sara in Italy – you don’t think the headline “Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?” is a little over the top and breathless? I did.
notsofast

Colby Hall said:
Sara in Italy – you don’t think the headline “Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?” is a little over the top and breathless? I did.

Are you high? After all the hyperbolic headlines on Mediaite and you’re talking about over the top headlines?

LOL
skyfet

notsofast said:
Translation:” I didn’t bother to read the article on the Blaze because I’m a lib who talks first before finding out what the facts are.”

Unlike you notsosmart, I can read, went to the sire and confirmed it. If I ask a question like why is notsofast so stupid? does that or doesn’t that make a statement by itself?

I’m tired of pointing out basic stuff to you, you should read and analyse before typing and posting same ignorant crap day in day out.
notsofast

skyfet said:
skyfet says:
February 9, 2011 at 2:04 pm skyfet(Quote)

Son, you are a truly worthless lib about as useful as rubber lips on a woodpecker and about as stupid.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

Colby Hall says:
Sara in Italy – you don’t think the headline “Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?” is a little over the top and breathless? I did.

Of course you did, you hate Beck. I see it as them posing a question that will be answered in their story.
WCinWI

skyfet said:
Unlike you notsosmart, I can read, went to the sire and confirmed it. If I ask a question like why is notsofast so stupid? does that or doesn’t that make a statement by itself?

I’m tired of pointing out basic stuff to you, you should read and analyse before typing and posting same ignorant crap day in day out.

Apparently you can read, but can’t type. Odd conundrum.
Pablo

The Real Royal King said:
I assume your biggest concerns are safety-related, as are mine?

That, and people who do crap like this. Those kids don’t need that kind of exposure.
notsofast

Colby Hall said:
Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?” is a little over the top and breathless? I did.

“I’m not a big fan of young kids having Facebook,” Mrs. Obama said on The Today Show this morning, “So, you know, it’s not something they need. It’s not necessary right now.”

Who said the Colby? Take a guess who said that.
Pablo

notsofast said:
Are you high? After all the hyperbolic headlines on Mediaite and you’re talking about over the top headlines?

LOL

“Tommy Christopher” is all I have to say about that.
stoogedudes

I’m just glad to see liberals and conservatives agreeing on something, even if it is rather unnewsworthy.
The_Reasonable_Lib

A few comments from The Blaze (leave the children out of it):
I‘m sure they couldn’t handle the truth they are being shielded from.

Doesnt your father have to have a birth certificate before Facebook will let you join?

They are worried the kids could become filthy, nasty socialist…..

UGLY comes to mind……………………

Allah does not approve of facebook.

Truth be told, Michelle & Barack just don’t want their children knowing the real feelings of the American people towards the two of them.

Because Michelle Obama is a control freak

The kids know where daddy O was born

BigMo wants her kids to be sheltered from the outside world……does not want her kids learning how CORRUPT their parents are…….and a disgrace as flag-burning guerillas…..still needed the vote rigging schemes of ACORN and SEIU to hi-jack the White House.
When the kids are older, and can “indoctrinate” them – bigmo will pimp her own kids – for the cause -like a big dog.
right now, bigmo is busy……looting the US Treasury – “NUTRITION Program” that subsidizes unions – with kickbacks.

Personal fav:
to many ugly faces on there as it is

Gotta love the class of them all.
Dem4Ever

Colby Hall said:
Sara in Italy – you don’t think the headline “Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?” is a little over the top and breathless? I did.

“Michelle Obama’s Position On Facebook”. Hilarious! Doggy style?
Mr.Papshmer

skyfet said:
Why the hell would you quote from a Mad man’s website? it makes no sense to me, his own people are calling him a conspiracy theorist, and you find it convenient to quote from his site. That’s embarrassing.

If you read the piece, you’d see that he’s trying to paint Beck as a kook, as all good little puppets do, but the funny part, is that to retain credibility, he had to admit below that that the piece at Beck’s site was simply a rehash of an AP piece. You progtards are such predictable little puppets! :)
bealzebubba

one thing I know I can count on when visiting the comments section: high-school level humor wrapped up in one line.

I’ve never visited the blaze so I won’t make a judgement call. As a parent, MO is right in decision to not allow her kids to be a part of Facebook. I like how the excerpt mentioned that she said when her eldest is of the correct age to join, she’ll make that decision weather to allow it or not. Either way, they’re HER kids…it’s HER call. Who cares what general public thinks? More parents should follow that example.
notsofast

And Colby? This from the Oakland Press:

Michelle Obama bans her kids from using Facebook

Published: Wednesday, February 09, 2011

By staff reports

The Obama daughters aren’t on Facebook, and if it’s up to the First Lady, they won’t be signing up anytime soon.

Michelle Obama said she’s “not a big fan of young kids having Facebook,” during Wednesday’s interview on the Today show.

She added that while Sasha, 9, and Malia, 12, have certain restrictions other children don’t have because of security issues, it’s also “not something they need. It’s not necessary right now.”
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

UNreasonable lib, please don’t make me extract quotes from the Daily Kos and Dem Underground to show you who is worse. I always feel like I need a shower after I’ve been there.
Mr.Papshmer

Colby Hall said:
.. you don’t think the headline “Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?” is a little over the top and breathless? I did.

That’s because you hate Beck and look for reasons to justify how you feel. I’ve seen some doozy headlines on Mediaite. The Blaze headline is pretty benign… Why are those kids banned? And then the article explains why they are, in fact, banned.
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

I’m under the impression that the rules preventing children under 13 from having a Facebook, Yahoo!, Hulu or any other social networking site is rooted in the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Of course, I’m sure there are workarounds that the sites could employ, but because federal law puts such tight restrictions on what personal information can be gathered and distributed about their underage users, it’s easier to just forbid them in the TOS outright.

As for myself and my own children, I’ve made an informed decision, but I don’t have to worry as much about security, diligently living within the guidelines of every contract and there’s little danger that some unscrupulous reporter will try to get family secrets from my kids.
The_Reasonable_Lib

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
UNreasonable lib, please don’t make me extract quotes from the Daily Kos and Dem Underground to show you who is worse. I always feel like I need a shower after I’ve been there.

I simply thought that only liberals did all the mudslinging that’s all. These guys must be liberals. Last I checked sin was sin.
notsofast

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Personal fav:

to many ugly faces on there as it is

Mine too! Thanks for sharing, son.
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

PS) I know that Facebook, Hulu and Yahoo! all outlaw kid’s accounts. I believe Google may not place the same restriction or they may have a special tickbox for young users.

I’m not really sure because it’s been about a year since I faced the question.
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

I’m going to add (because I can’t shut-up)…

The social networking and gaming sites that cater exclusively to children under age 13 don’t gather any identifiable information about the kids, rather it’s the parents who actually register.
TeaPartyPatriot

To replace the despised “You Lie!” hussein in campaigning for d-crat socialists, some on the lunatic-left are actually thinking that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” michelle would be a good substitute. Here are her top 6 campaign events:

1. She can show slides of her taxpayer-funded (only half a million dollars) vacation to the Spanish Riviera
2. She can show slides of her previous taxpayer-funded vacations (more than can be counted)
3. Unlike her role model, Marie Antoinette, she will not say “let them eat cake”, but she will actually pass out taxpayer-funded pieces of cake to her adoring audience.
4. After the cake, she will tell her audience to purge themselves since cake is NOT A LUNATIC-LEFT D-CRAT SOCIALIST APPROVED food – and therefore must be removed from their systems.
5. She will tell her audience that, like her, they should be ultimate ELITISTS and put their kids in the most expense ($30,000 per year) and exclusive PRIVATE schools; avoid those failed “public” schools in which NEA union goons and thugs (supported by taxpayer money provided by the lunatic-left d-crat socialist party for their votes and payback campaign contributions) mis-teach children.
6. And last, but not least, she’ll show housewives who are struggling to put food on the table thanks to the failed economic policies of “You Lie!” hussein (unemployment benefits only go so far) that she struggles every bit as much as they do when it comes to dinner. For example, she’ll tell them how every day she and her staff (the biggest and most expensive FLOTUS staff in American history) work very hard at finding an elitist, expensive, world-famous gourmet chef to cook their dinner. They then have to make arrangements to fly the chef to the White House (at taxpayer expense) and provide him with every expensive, luxurious food item in existence (Kobe beef, beluga caviar, foie gras, truffles, imported wine and champagne, etc, etc. – again, at taxpayer expense) so the chef can produce a five-star gourmet meal for her golfing-tired husband and her spoiled-rotten brats. This should convince those housewives that michelle-marie has an EVEN HARDER time than they in providing her family a decent meal, and further establish the impression that “she is really just like them – an average American housewife”.
WCinWI

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
UNreasonable lib, please don’t make me extract quotes from the Daily Kos and Dem Underground to show you who is worse. I always feel like I need a shower after I’ve been there.

I did your dirty work…those posted above were from Huff Po and Kos. I figure that if DU feels the need to use curse words in their titles, the commenters can’t be too kind.
gottosay

from GOTTOSAY–I love me and those that look like me and those that are a created from the creator of all things
I am so proud of the First Lady standing up for herself and others just like her and yes facebook is too old for grade school and junior high and yes FRENCH FRIES OR BELGIUM FRIES are delicious
WCinWI

WCinWI said:
I did your dirty work…those posted above were from Huff Po and Kos. I figure that if DU feels the need to use curse words in their titles, the commenters can’t be too kind.

Whoops. Looks like it’s being moderated before being allowed to post. Apparently all the swear words were too much. That’s when you know it’s bad.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

Yeah WCinWI, I think that tells us all we need to know!
WCinWI

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Yeah WCinWI, I think that tells us all we need to know!

I just keep repeating to myself, liberals only make up 20% of the electorate……and then I breathe easier. :)
Dem4Ever

Ms. Obama is a second rate first lady.
gottosay

yes, THIS NATION FIRST FAMILY SHOULD REPRESENTER AMERICA AS WEALTHY…I don’t like the idea of America being represented as something of a hobo nation…if America is represented as a hobo nation why would any nation care what we Americans have to say…people think and have fun writing high level for that is average human…and the black faced white person remember this thrice back what you threw out –
gottosay

yes, THIS NATION FIRST FAMILY SHOULD be REPRESENTERof AMERICAthe WEALTHY…I don’t like the idea of America being represented as something of a hobo nation…if America is represented as a hobo nation why would any nation care what we Americans have to say…people think and have fun writing high level for that is average human…and the black faced white person remember this thrice back what you threw out –
TeaPartyPatriot

MICHELLE: OBAMA DOES NOT DYE HIS HAIR…

AND…

He is NOT black
He is NOT a socialist extremist
He is NOT a radical islamic muslim
He is NOT foreign born
He is NOT a puppet for the unions
He is NOT a racist
….and on, and on, and on……

The WHOPPER is always best when served up by a lunatic-left d-crat socialist.
bealzebubba

Dem4Ever said:
Ms. Obama is a second rate first lady.

you say this based on what, exactly? aside from the standard complaints of the superficial, that is.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

WCinWI says:

I just keep repeating to myself, liberals only make up 20% of the electorate……and then I breathe easier. :)

Recent studies also say that 20% of American’s have mental problems. Coincidence?
justanotherconservative

i don’t like either obama. however, i am totally in agreement with mrs. obama’s stand on the facebook thing. i don’t think children have a place on internet social networks.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

TeaPartyPatriot, I found it odd that she would lie about him dying his hair. Hopefully there isn’t any shame in that since I do it all the time! Sadly, I started going gray at the age of 24!
A man without a Country

Did everyone take an extra strength dose of stupid today?

My word, this is non-story, reported on no-news-website, further re-posted by this website.
Please for the love journalism, leave Beck alone, his ship is already sinking, but don’t worry.
I’m sure Fox will find a new demagogue to tell all what to think and say.
BatBoy

The Blaze’ breathless headline Why Are the Obama Kids Banned From Facebook?

Colby please…please tell me you are not poking fun at someone elses headlines???????

Have you ever taken a few minutes to read the headlines in Mediaite? Good Grief!
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

A man without a country says:

Please for the love journalism, leave Beck alone, his ship is already sinking,

Wake up, you’re dreaming!
Yoda002

Must be a slow news day!
redleaf

This could be the most important story in American history.
ndanielson

Slow news day??? The Washington Post has a story on how Bush’s economy led to an accelerated growth in black-owned businesses: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805063.html
ndanielson

Slow news day??? House dems accuse Clarence Thomas of a conflict of interest for some phony conflict of interest on 0bamacare.

Meanwhile, a real conflict of interest exists because of 0bama’s Elena Kagen has a REAL conflict of interest, as she was consulting with 0bama on how to defeat the SCOTUS should 0bamacare pass: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/house-dems-demand-thomas-recusal-on-obamacare/
ndanielson

Slow news day???

Kermit Gosnell made nearly $2 million a year with tax funded abortions while killing fetuses, as the government inspections of his practices turned a blind eye to fraud, and illegal activities for YEARS: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/philly-da-state-agencies-responsible-for-gosnells-atrocities/
ndanielson

THEIR media. All the news that’s fit to hide, Norbit.
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window)

ndanielson, If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were suggesting that the liberal media is intentionally trying to divert attention from those important issues.
Greg

ndanielson said:
Slow news day??? House dems accuse Clarence Thomas of a conflict of interest for some phony conflict of interest on 0bamacare.

Meanwhile, a real conflict of interest exists because of 0bama’s Elena Kagen has a REAL conflict of interest, as she was consulting with 0bama on how to defeat the SCOTUS should 0bamacare pass: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/house-dems-demand-thomas-recusal-on-obamacare/

“As for some of the big controversies involving Obama administration initiatives, such as health care, she would not have to disqualify herself, because she was not involved in a particular case.

“The fact that she talked with the administration, hypothetically, about health care or detainees or campaign finance wouldn’t really trigger an obligation for her not to decide the case,” Goldstein says. “The recusal line is probably, ‘Did I get involved in this lawsuit as a lawyer?’ as opposed to, ‘Did I get involved in the issue?’”

What’s more, the Code of Judicial Conduct allows a justice to participate in a case that presents an identical issue to one the judge participated in as a lawyer or lower court judge.

Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, had to recuse himself from a major detainee case in his first year on the court because he had ruled on that very case as a lower court judge. But when similar issues came up later in other cases, he remained on the bench.

Bottom line? For Kagan, as it was for Roberts, the recusals go away after a year or two.

The other bottom line? In the last analysis, it is the individual justice who makes the decision on whether he or she will recuse. There is no appeal from that decision.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127036286
Grammie

notsofast said:
Son, you are a truly worthless lib about as useful as rubber lips on a woodpecker and about as stupid.

.
I never heard that one.

Too funny and in the case of the “fetless” Skyfet too true! :)
WCinWI

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
A man without a country says:

Please for the love journalism, leave Beck alone, his ship is already sinking,

Wake up, you’re dreaming!

Paul just tried to tell me that the SPLC is not a wingnut organization. While I’m sure he doesn’t have a mental disorder, oy.
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

@ndanielson: Is there a media angle to any of your suggestions? I haven’t read all of your links, but this post appears to be about what the First Lady said in a television interview about a social networking site and how it’s being reported in the blogosphere. There’s a couple of media angles to this post.
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
Slow news day??? House dems accuse Clarence Thomas of a conflict of interest for some phony conflict of interest on 0bamacare.

Meanwhile, a real conflict of interest exists because of 0bama’s Elena Kagen has a REAL conflict of interest, as she was consulting with 0bama on how to defeat the SCOTUS should 0bamacare pass: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/house-dems-demand-thomas-recusal-on-obamacare/

Can we say copy and paste. Well I think I remember that Scalia didn’t recuse himself when he went hunting with Cheney and then had to rule on Cheney’s secret energy meeting.
ndanielson

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I simply thought that only liberals did all the mudslinging that’s all. These guys must be liberals. Last I checked sin was sin.

That depends entirely on who is defining sin in the liberal world. Drone surveillance in Pakistan under Bush? Sin. Drone killing of Pakistanis under 0bama? Not sin. Amazing, huh?

Patriot act under Bush? Sin. Patriot act under 0bama? Not sin.

Filibustering judges under 0bama? Sin. Filibustering under Bush? Not sin.

Constitutional mandates for campaigning 0bama? Sin. Under president 0bama? Not sin.

Or did you mean sin, sin?

Adultery under BJ Clinton’s watch? Not sin. Under any republicans watch? Sin.

Adultery punishment for republicans? Ran from office. For Democrats? Promotion and re-election.

Being a tax cheat for citizens? Sin and jail. For 0bama appointees? Reward, and power to tax even!
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
Can we say copy and paste. Well I think I remember that Scalia didn’t recuse himself when he went hunting with Cheney and then had to rule on Cheney’s secret energy meeting.

So Scalia was connected to some energy suppliers??? Who knew?
Greg

ndanielson said:
Slow news day??? The Washington Post has a story on how Bush’s economy led to an accelerated growth in black-owned businesses: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805063.html

“…a high volume of government contracts kept business flowing to these companies.

Clinch said the government also maintains a program that tries to send more contracts to minority-owned small businesses, an effort that should have acted as a buffer during the downturn.”

Not sure the article proves the point that you were attempting to make.
The Real Royal King

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
WCinWI says:

I just keep repeating to myself, liberals only make up 20% of the electorate……and then I breathe easier. :)

Recent studies also say that 20% of American’s have mental problems. Coincidence?

Yes, we know you’re vile and nasty, Bitter and Tormented Michelle-in-Utah. No need for additional confirmation.
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
Slow news day???

Kermit Gosnell made nearly $2 million a year with tax funded abortions while killing fetuses, as the government inspections of his practices turned a blind eye to fraud, and illegal activities for YEARS: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/philly-da-state-agencies-responsible-for-gosnells-atrocities/

Republicans want to cut Food Safety inspection services – $ 53 million Drinking water Fund -$250 million
Maternal Health Block Grants – $210 miliion Poison control centers $ 27 million

Republicans only care for people before their born.

Republicans should cut all the subsidies from the oil companies get and what corporations get for shipping jobs overseas.
ndanielson

Magister said:
Gossip Cop

And the author of this story said that it was such a silly story because it was a slow news day. There is plenty of news out there for anyone that wants to bring it.

Did you hear about the double dipping former police chief that went to the funerals of black cop killers, but nixed the funerals of the white cops killed??? Guess what color he was? Guess what his position is in his $157,000 a year position as he brings a $60,000 dollar pension home as a retired police chief? He is a Senior Administrator of Community Enrichment. Rich, huh. His name is Goliath Davis of Tampa FL.

How about the rediculous tax cuts that 0bama has proposed? Do you want to see them on a Pie chart? Bring a magnifying glass, as the sheep hail his hard work at cost cutting: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/02/obamas-tough-budget-cuts-in-pictures.html
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
Republicans want to cut Food Safety inspection services – $ 53 million Drinking water Fund -$250 million
Maternal Health Block Grants – $210 miliion Poison control centers $ 27 million

Republicans only care for people before their born.

Republicans should cut all the subsidies from the oil companies get and what corporations get for shipping jobs overseas.

Republicans may want to cut many things, cupcake. Most things can be cut and run by the private sector better and more efficiently than any government agency.

When you come up with pixie dust for energy, then you should bad mouth the oil industry. You know who ships jobs oversees??? Massive over regulation and tax burdens.
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
So Scalia was connected to some energy suppliers??? Who knew?

Its called separation of branches of government and its viewed as not being impartial.
ndanielson

Greg said:
“…a high volume of government contracts kept business flowing to these companies.

Clinch said the government also maintains a program that tries to send more contracts to minority-owned small businesses, an effort that should have acted as a buffer during the downturn.”

Not sure the article proves the point that you were attempting to make.

The point I am trying to make is that there is news out there, it just doesn’t fit the liberal agenda too well. And it is news worth discussing, much more than FB for teenies.
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
Its called separation of branches of government and its viewed as not being impartial.

And the high court threw it out.

You were concerned about Scalia? Certainly you must be concerned about Kagen then?
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
Must be a slow news day!

Magister said:
@ndanielson: Is there a media angle to any of your suggestions? I haven’t read all of your links, but this post appears to be about what the First Lady said in a television interview about a social networking site and how it’s being reported in the blogosphere. There’s a couple of media angles to this post.

There, he even answered it for you.
ndanielson

ndanielson said:
Slow news day??? House dems accuse Clarence Thomas of a conflict of interest for some phony conflict of interest on 0bamacare.

Meanwhile, a real conflict of interest exists because of 0bama’s Elena Kagen has a REAL conflict of interest, as she was consulting with 0bama on how to defeat the SCOTUS should 0bamacare pass: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/house-dems-demand-thomas-recusal-on-obamacare/

Hey Yoda, she was consulting with 0bama on how to defeat 0bamacare in SCOTUS, should it pass, and THEN she became one. See any reason for her to recuse herself???
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
Republicans may want to cut many things, cupcake. Most things can be cut and run by the private sector better and more efficiently than any government agency.

When you come up with pixie dust for energy, then you should bad mouth the oil industry. You know who ships jobs oversees??? Massive over regulation and tax burdens.

These cuts are not going to hurt the very rich and powerful fruitcake, but will hurt people who need it the most The private sector is about profit and when your about profit its about making more and more money so where does that leave most people, out of luck We don’t need a Blackwater or Haliburton running these projects.

The corporations are doing very well 2 trillion in the black, less regulation is just a sound bite so they can pollute without paying for it. Lowering tax won’t help; most don’t pay taxes. Can we say Caymen Islands? The stock market is booming under Obama. You live in this fantasy world of trickle down economics or voodoo economics.
The Real Royal King

A man without a Country said:
Please for the love journalism, leave Beck alone, his ship is already sinking, but don’t worry.
I’m sure Fox will find a new demagogue to tell all what to think and say.

That is the wisest post I have seen in many a day.
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
These cuts are not going to hurt the very rich and powerful fruitcake, but will hurt people who need it the most The private sector is about profit and when your about profit its about making more and more money so where does that leave most people, out of luck We don’t need a Blackwater or Haliburton running these projects.

The corporations are doing very well 2 trillion in the black, less regulation is just a sound bite so they can pollute without paying for it. Lowering tax won’t help; most don’t pay taxes. Can we say Caymen Islands? The stock market is booming under Obama. You live in this fantasy world of trickle down economics or voodoo economics.

There is powerful fruitcake? Wow. Hey you’re not trying class warfare crap are you? I mean profits are nasty things, huh? Is that why government is the answer? Did you know that government makes no profits at all? They actually confiscate them at will. Did you know that government produces nothing? Nothing at all?

Hey speaking of Halliburton, no one has come up with the answer yet, but how many businesses in the world do what Halliburton does???
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
Hey Yoda, she was consulting with 0bama on how to defeat 0bamacare in SCOTUS, should it pass, and THEN she became one. See any reason for her to recuse herself???

I do see your point. Well then she needs to recluse herself. I think if the Affordable Health Care Act goes down it won’t look good for the Republicans because more and more people will not be able to get health insurance and or can’t afford it. Obama will say we tried. Maybe it will make it easier to pass single payer
skyfet

notsofast said:
Son, you are a truly worthless lib about as useful as rubber lips on a woodpecker and about as stupid.

I think I may have touch a nerve. id I hurt your feeling?
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
These cuts are not going to hurt the very rich and powerful fruitcake, but will hurt people who need it the most The private sector is about profit and when your ab…blah blah blah

Is there anything that CAN hurt the very rich and powerful fruitcake?
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
I do see your point. Well then she needs to recluse herself. I think if the Affordable Health Care Act goes down it won’t look good for the Republicans because more and more people will not be able to get health insurance and or can’t afford it. Obama will say we tried. Maybe it will make it easier to pass single payer

Maybe leveling the playing field, instead of stacking it should be government’s role in society? More and more that is not the case. We need 50 states, not one big one.

Tort reform would be a real good place to start with skyrocketing health care. But nothing in the bill even remotely touched on it.
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
There is powerful fruitcake? Wow. Hey you’re not trying class warfare crap are you? I mean profits are nasty things, huh? Is that why government is the answer? Did you know that government makes no profits at all? They actually confiscate them at will. Did you know that government produces nothing? Nothing at all?

Hey speaking of Halliburton, no one has come up with the answer yet, but how many businesses in the world do what Halliburton does???

Somethings is better left for the government but other things is best left for the private sector. Here is an example: The Private sector took over Heathrow Airport. They created a mall at the airport, building huge retail businesses so it can make more and more money. But, didn’t spend money on things like deicing fluid and stuff that waste money. So lots of travelers got stuck. Well London learned a valuable lesson. As Warren Buffet said there has been class warfare and his class won and continues to win. Can we say Mexico.
The Real Royal King

ndanielson said:
Tort reform would be a real good place to start with skyrocketing health care. But nothing in the bill even remotely touched on it.

Probably because the bill’s authors were looking for solutions, and tort reform, while not objectionable, hasn’t accomplished anything in any of the states in which it has been enacted.
The Real Royal King

Yoda002 said:
Somethings is better left for the government but other things is best left for the private sector. Here is an example: The Private sector took over Heathrow Airport. They created a mall at the airport, building huge retail businesses so it can make more and more money. But, didn’t spend money on things like deicing fluid and stuff that waste money. So lots of travelers got stuck. Well London learned a valuable lesson. As Warren Buffet said there has been class warfare and his class won and continues to win. Can we say Mexico.

What a very good, compelling example. Thank you.
Yoda002

ndanielson said:
Maybe leveling the playing field, instead of stacking it should be government’s role in society? More and more that is not the case. We need 50 states, not one big one.

Tort reform would be a real good place to start with skyrocketing health care. But nothing in the bill even remotely touched on it.

Tort reform is very good sound bite but in reality wouldn’t help too much. When you have a for profit system you make money denying coverage or you would lose money. Thats why basically most industrialized countries don’t have it and we end up paying over twice as much as other countries for health services.
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
Somethings is better left for the government but other things is best left for the private sector. Here is an example: The Private sector took over Heathrow Airport. They created a mall at the airport, building huge retail businesses so it can make more and more money. But, didn’t spend money on things like deicing fluid and stuff that waste money. So lots of travelers got stuck. Well London learned a valuable lesson. As Warren Buffet said there has been class warfare and his class won and continues to win. Can we say Mexico.

Yoda002 said:
Somethings is better left for the government but other things is best left for the private sector. Here is an example: The Private sector took over Heathrow Airport. They created a mall at the airport, building huge retail businesses so it can make more and more money. But, didn’t spend money on things like deicing fluid and stuff that waste money. So lots of travelers got stuck. Well London learned a valuable lesson. As Warren Buffet said there has been class warfare and his class won and continues to win. Can we say Mexico.

You are catching on. Why do we have the USDA? If companies sell tainted products, how long before they are out of business??? And companies HAVE sold tainted meat with the USDA standing right there. No system is perfect, but an hones media will keep business honest.

Now, with the case of the USDA, sure government can impose laws for when a company is dishonest. One mistake, can be a fine, two can be a huge fine, and three can be prison time for the responsible PERSONS.

We have such bloated bureaucracy that no one is held accountable anymore. Look at Fannie and Freddie. Private gain, backed by government risk??? How the hell did that happen?

Liberals always say that republicans don’t want clean air and water, if the EPA is abolished. That is ridiculous on its face, isn’t it? We do not need the ED to run our schools, STATES should run our schools, in fact, STATES SHOULD RUN STATES, not the federal government.

The feds should run very little, THAT is how we were set up to run. 50 individual experiments in freedom. Pick your state and your neighbors. Some will flourish, some will flounder based on their laws of governance. Then they will correct accordingly, NO?

The government should exist for enforcement, not implementation. We the people are to implement our state governments, not the Feds.
david r

The Real Royal King said:
A man without a Country said:
Please for the love journalism, leave Beck alone, his ship is already sinking, but don’t worry.
I’m sure Fox will find a new demagogue to tell all what to think and say.

That is the wisest post I have seen in many a day.

I wonder what the guy who played Eddie Haskell is up to? I’ll bet you could get him cheap.
ndanielson

Yoda002 said:
Tort reform is very good sound bite but in reality wouldn’t help too much. When you have a for profit system you make money denying coverage or you would lose money. Thats why basically most industrialized countries don’t have it and we end up paying over twice as much as other countries for health services.

When was the last time you bought a Big Mac in Canada? A gallon of Gas? A car? A six pack of beer. Do you know the cost of those items? Do they even have a military to speak of? My point? Do you think health care is free?

England is the same for most commodities. A gallon of petrol in the UK several years ago was approaching $5.00 a gallon. And they are heavy into Diesel. Nothing is free, but government is inefficient and corrupt. There is no one to hold them to account. It is the natural progression, sorry.
ndanielson

What is the incentive for government workers to remain honest? It is so hard to fire them, and cover ups are the game, Yoda. Ever wonder why incompetence is rewarded in government? There is no incentive to run efficiently, because profits are not important, spending is. It is a losing way to run a country.
ndanielson

The Real Royal King said:
Probably because the bill’s authors were looking for solutions, and tort reform, while not objectionable, hasn’t accomplished anything in any of the states in which it has been enacted.

Then why do doctors flock to your beloved Texas? Just for giggles, google: doctors flock to Texas over tort reform. Blatant lies are just part of your character, aren’t they?
Dem4Ever

bealzebubba said:
you say this based on what, exactly? aside from the standard complaints of the superficial, that is.

Figure it out for yourself.
Dem4Ever

Michelle is a big fat hypocrit. She orders everyone to eat what she tells them to or face maximum health care premiums while she stuffs her face with cheeseburgers, deep dish pizza and hot wings while guzzling 5 different kinds of beer. You go girl.
Sean68

NOT on Facebook! Is Michelle a “Tiger Mom!” I agree 1000% with her anti-obesity campaign. Who the hell could be against that?! And I know many right-wingers who agree with her on this.

While public school kids are at school–and we can take them out of, in many cases, their miserable undisciplined home lives–they should no more be allowed to chug sugar water any more than they should be allowed to smoke cigarettes or play with guns.
Pokerdude777

another great story about nothing…what’s going on here at mediaite???
bealzebubba

Dem4Ever said:
Michelle is a big fat hypocrit. She orders everyone to eat what she tells them to or face maximum health care premiums while she stuffs her face with cheeseburgers, deep dish pizza and hot wings while guzzling 5 different kinds of beer. You go girl.</blockquote

You people with your false outrage are almost as entertaining as Family Guy
skyfet

Grammie said:
.
I never heard that one.

Too funny and in the case of the “fetless” Skyfet too true! :)

I think you have an axe to grind.
sarainitaly

Colby – i don’t think there is anything over the top or breathless about the Blaze headline. The kids are banned, the tell why, in her own words. Asked, and answered, without editorializing, or spinning.

your headline that there is some inane controversy however, i consider a bit over the top – but worse then that, it is misleading. over the top headlines serve the purpose of drawing the reader in – we get that – but headlines that misrepresent are uncool.
Nachi

Fat slobs of the nation, unite!! Oh – you already have.
X-3

Idiots of the nation UNITE under Aunt Esther. Oh, you already have. You dumassed morons!
Chris_WW

Instead of avoiding social media why not teach kids to be responsible digital citizens? There are organizations out there doing great work keeping kids safe on the internet. The Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) cites that 99% of children ages 8-17 access the internet and that kids are spending 25% of their internet time social networking. The answer isn’t keeping kids off the internet, because kids will find a way to get on social networks regardless if their parents know or not.

Let’s teach kids how to be safe on the internet instead of hiding them from it. There is an age appropriate, safe and secure social networking site for kids, check out WhatsWhat.Me and its Parent Resource Center.

While Facebook is definitely not appropriate for kids under 13 that doesn’t mean these “tweens” should be banned from social networks altogether. WhatsWhat.Me is a safe, secure, “kids-only” social network for “tweens” ages 7-13 – launches today using patent-pending facial recognition technology, moderation and kid-friendly features to teach kids positive online behavior, Internet safety and related life skills. Compliant with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), WhatsWhat.me (Beta) provides an age-appropriate, “no-bullying allowed” community that requires parental permission to join. For parents, WhatsWhat.me offers its online Parent Resource Center providing expert advice, news, Internet safety tips and information on cybersafety for children.